Slashdot Mirror
On Videogames And Inherent Political Bias
An anonymous reader writes "An article for Reason Magazine, recently posted to their site, argues that games, unlike traditional media, are inherently biased - in favor of individual freedom - and that games might influence real-world political preferences." The author starts by arguing: "Video games are evolving into a grand anti-authoritarian laboratory", and concludes: "Computer games, as a class, do appear to favor civil and economic liberty... because of the same human tendencies that free players from domineering storylines and inflexible rules. Games naturally turn players against contrived limits and inconsistencies."
You mean Pking will become a Political Stance?
Neck_of_the_Woods
#/usr/local/surf/glassy/overhead
Well, isn't it clear enough that /.ers and other nerds are quite libertarian (a word the media hasn't even heard of).
-I am an elective eunuch.
Only in America man...and maybe some other countries.
the Political Inquirer
Games naturally turn players against contrived limits and inconsistencies.
But they reenforce the idea that some limits need to be set and must be enforced. Take the current cheat vs anti-cheat wars, and the limits placed on all MMOGs.
-Adam
"Computer games, as a class, do appear to favor civil and economic liberty... because of the same human tendencies that free players from domineering storylines and inflexible rules. Games naturally turn players against contrived limits and inconsistencies."
Talk about reading into things that aren't there.
Take a good game. Now take out all of the limits and inconsistencies and rules. What do you have? NOTHING. You have nothing. Those limits you overcome are what is FUN. That's the entire goal is to overcome those limits. They're trying to make some great existential point about videogames, but they're failing miserably.
'Standards' in computing only impress those who are impressed by things like 'standards'.
What ever happened to video games being... video games. Since when did they start having some grand meaning or statement?
Video games aren't "evolving" in to anything. I hardly believe that valve was thinking about civil and economic liberty when they started creating Half-Life 2. Now, if we were talking about Kingpin, I guess I could see that. Or maybe that game was just about being as bloody and violent as possible, as to attract more buyers.
This is ridiculous. Let's not turn water in to wine here.
Much like the article, from a political magazine, is inherently biased?
"I only speak the truth"
Karma: null(Mostly affected by an unassigned variable)
because of the same human tendencies that free players from domineering storylines and inflexible rules. Games naturally turn players against contrived limits and inconsistencies.
Of course the same argument could be made that games do not favor political/social liberty... Games like SimCity/warcraft show gamers how an extremely organized, well planned, and well led society can become greater than all others. Seeing how such societies flourish would naturally lead them to desire a similar intelligent overseer running the real world, with extreme authoritarian control to be able to 'do the right thing'.
I was just playing Super Monkey Ball 2, and it occurred to me that deregulation could make a smoother playing field that allows us to reach our goals with fewer obstacles. Super Monkey Ball 2 can be a profound metaphor for life on many levels, actually. I like to think that my time playing Super Monkey Ball 2 is really time spent in deep reflection on the more important truths in life.
Hyperbole is the worst thing ever.
Well, I think we've determined that this article is bunk. Next!
Most of the world does run that way.
One of my buddies loves linear final-fantasy type games because the storyline is highly linear. He hates open ended games. I know he's not the only one. Millions of people don't buy final fantasy, sports games, puzzlers, etc.. in order to experience unlimited control over their environments.
Mind you, there are several genre's that do open the boundaries of control. Games come to mind: GTA-types, PC role players, MMO's.
Others that stand in the middle are games that are emotionally expressive but lack any expansive imagination. FPS's, RTS's, and some adventure-type games fit into this mold. I find the mass-player base resides here simply because it fits in to the comnfortable medium between highly linear and tightly controlled advancement conditions.
Bye!
They mention that Games have an inherent bias towards individualism and individual power. What they fail to point out is that this bias is also present in Movies, television shows, and stories. Movies are almost always about Neo/Luke/Hellboy actualizing their individual power and saving the world. Even more innocuous movies like A Beautiful Mind or Chasing Amy are about exploring the kinds of power people wield on the environment around them. While many other cultures focus upon characters struggling to survive, or the effects of the political or ideological environment upon people, Western stories are primarily focused upon the effects people can have on the world around them.
The idea of individual power is pretty well embedded in our culture at large. "Pull yourself up by your bootstraps" is a distinctly American phrase, as is the idea that whatever may come in life it is due to actions or personal failings on the part of the recipient. If someone is poor, it must be because they are inferior, and vice / versa. We don't say that homeless people are homeless because they had antiquated skills, were laid off, and had no job-training programs available to them. We say that homeless people are homeless because they are lazy bums. We don't tell our kids that if they are lucky and flex their networking connections they have a statistical chance of rising as high as their social caste will allow. We tell them that all they need to do to become anything is "try harder."
Now, do videogames have this attitude because of a belief inherent in the system, or is it reflecting larger cultural attitudes? I would say the latter, referring specifically to Japanese RPG's. The japanese RPG, unlike most American RPG's, are populated by the "reluctant hero," a figure tragically forced into the savior role, and whose ability to alter the environment around him is directly related to the power that is being wielded through him by another entity or concept. The heroes in Warcraft 3, for example, are heroes because they choose to fight. The hero in many Square games generally doesn't choose to fight until near the end, when he finally realizes that the ultimate goal in life is to become their pre-determined destiny. He is always supported in his quest by the spirits / gods / floating moa heads, and he always wins. Contrast that to GTA 3, where there is no higher moral authority determining your existence.
Hence, western videogames reflect western individualistic beliefs about society. Is it any wonder that a western researcher ends his paper on a note of breaking through the false veneer of individualism in western games to find true individualism?
P.S. I'm glad to see more people taking the medium of videogames seriously as a form of human expression worthy of research. Keep it up. We need about a million more of these papers.
The ______ Agenda
We only need to look to the Mushroom Kingdom for the answer to all our problems...
Um, is it just me, or are all MMORPGs actually centrally administered, with a set of rules that could be arbitrarily changed by the host company?
Gee, sounds like an authoritarian setup to me.
Oh, but within the (possibily labile) boundaries of the rules, you're able to do as you like. Or, as the imprisoned freedom fighters are so often quoted as saying "within the confines of my prison cell, I am absolutely free."
I supposed you could argue that the world is like that too (especially if you believe in a Supreme Being), and that we are free within the constraints of the rules... but the whole idea seems like the author trying to take a phenomenon, and force it to prove a point that he wants to make.
Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachtani?
www.fogbound.net
What do you mean "unlike traditional media"? Traditional media is inherently biased towards anything that benefits traditional media, whether that be freedom of the press or corporate consolidation (of the media companies). Traditional media also tends to be very liberal, because only very liberal values will get them access to information and locations and embarrassing details and the private affairs of any and every entity that they think their consumers will pay for. The inherent bias of the media is the subject of books, journalism classes, and the careers of media researchers.
> unlike traditional media, are inherently biased
"Unlike traditional media." Score:5, Funny!
Believe me, the word "bias" wasn't invented for video games.
I'd tend to agree with the author that games tend to be more "free" than traditional media, but it is much simpler than the author wants to suggest. The free comes from the interaction alone. In a movie we go where the director, through the camera, wants us to go. In a game, the player controls where they go. But there will still always be a wall. There will still always be rules, from gravity to supply and demand. There will still always be motives. The game allows a player to inject their motivation, but that doesn't mean the intended result is possible in the world. The freedom is not political in nature, but merely functional. You still can't get anywhere the games designer does not intend for you to go.
The other bit of the freedom puzzle, and this mostly applies to the MMORPG and similar games, is the limitless resources. The constant creation of an abundance of swords, shields, armor, gold, etc means that society is "free" to function very different than in the physical realm. What some, myself included, often see as ideal for the physical world cannot ever truly be attained as long as man is forced to deal with limited resources. One is "free" to run around PK'ing because there is another life for that character/player just around the bend. We can let the marketplace be truly "free" because there is truly enough for everyone. And if there isn't just hang around the spawn point for a minute and there will be.
Now if this shallow "freedom" were to alter the perception of the player, what does this tell us? It should start to set off alot of alarms, for one thing. We would then be dangerously approaching the notion that (some) individuals are unable to know that this freedom is only possible through fantasy. That PK'ing is not ok. That economies are not boundless. Where do we go with a nation of youth who have had their perceptions altered to believe that the shopkeeper is an NPC and one is "free" to treat them how they wish?
And even better, what do we do to the poor sod who always walks around pushing every brick looking for the ever-present secret room that contains the blue key to open the blue door to get to the green key...?
Wow, Gamers are all libertarian's? Huh, I didn't know that. Watch out before the thought police spiders into this site. You'll be first on thier list.
Seriously, I don't think you can make sweeping generalizations about a minority group of people without expelling a certain amount of common scense. You know that little voice that says, "Technically, there may exist those that do not conform to your model."
On the other hand, I do certain games (Civ, Railroad Tycoon, and other strategy games) allow players to exercise political thoughts. Players can ask questions such as How does Democracy effect my bottom line? You mean I can't attack the annoying puny little country that just attacked my level 25 city without congress's permission? and why does communism suck so much?
Go Gusties
"Maybe a liberal is a libertarian whose job has been off-shored"
Blasted racists whining because there are many jobs that foreigners do better than Americans.
For example, in public games of Counter-Strike players who are selfish and just play as they like (camping, team killing, deathmatching, and so on) are flamed and may be kicked. A certain degree of subservience to collective goals ('altruism', even) is expected. This seems quite the opposite ethic to GTA's ultimate freedom. And the behaviour expected in CS is more than mere politeness. If you're not playing with your team, you're not really playing the game at all.
There are lots of games where you are expected to follow orders. PlanetSide is like this, if you take it seriously. There is a military command structure, not a democratic one. (cf. America's Army.)
My take on team play is that people enjoy it because gameplay 'altruism' is natural part of socialising. Multiplayer gaming is social, team gaming more so. You get a kick out of seeing your team succeed, even if your avatar is killed. Some people take this further with clans and suchlike. The 'political' point is clear: by collaborating you can achieve more.
Super Mario Brothers advocates a hardline Stalinist point of view.
The goatse guy for president. Win one for the gaper!
British games have a long history of political bias-Monty Mole was about a scab in the miner's strike, Hostile Waters presents a vision of a nanotech communist paradise, Startopia used the alien setting to make analogous social commentary
First this is a load, not all games are structured this way. And games don't influence anything but games, this has been shown time and time again and yet people keep coming back trying to claim games are brainwashing people this way or that way. The truth is that people who ALREADY have certain mindsets and ideas are drawn to certain types of games. Games do not make people murderers or encourage them to shoot people. Rather people who are inclined to shoot other people are likely to be playing shooters and graphic killing style games if they play video games.
Second. Let's pretend for a moment that this were true. How exactly is this a bad thing? Games are brainwashing people to have individual thought as opposed to joining in groups of hot out of the mold idiots who follow the crowd and are therefore easier to herd?
That's US foreign policy.
But there is another kind of evil that we must fear most... and that is the indifference of good men.
I think it's a well-written article, but I'm not all that impressed with people who keep crying for a cinematic gaming experience. As Chris Crawford put it, the "word 'cinematic' seems to be more common in game design discussions than 'interactivity,' even though the latter is central to game design and the former is peripheral.
Considering the number of games where your character is fighting against an evil corporation -- or a future dystopia full of evil corporations -- I don't exactly see a bias toward lower government regulation.
I have seen environmental alarmism in a number of games, as well as some over-the-top examples of pushing multiculturalism, animal liberation, and a few other social causes. Nothing too extreme or preachy though, and certainly less than the biases you can find in movies and typical entertainment TV. More the kind of thing that unintentionally comes from the story creator's own worldview rather than an overt attempt to infuse a political message into the game.
On the other side, it sure seems like most games aren't in favor of gun control!
The goatse guy for president. Win one for the gaper!
ahh yes, the indefatigable influence and political power of a chap sitting behind his computer all day playing games... this osunds more like the matrix trying to cover itself. "Liberate yourself through games!" LOL.
Gaming is one of the few things that I have a great amount of knowledge in. I've been playing since I was ten (started on a vic-20 with cassette drive on Scott Adam's Adventure games). I have amassed a great collection of over 1000 titles on a wide variety of platform systems and of course the majority of my titles are for the PC. In the main MMORPG I play "The Eternal City" www.skotos.net , PKing and other "unacceptable" behaviors are usually handled with a public trial in the coliseum. This normally ends up finishing with the guilty party having a "fair" shot at freedom by fighting for the crowds against a raging bull, a couple of giant brown bears and a swordcat. This normally ends up with the guilty party being removed in pieces from the coliseum floor. This might sound like it's not much of an answer but if you consider that I have five years invested in my current character on the game you'd understand that having your character die isn't a "small thing". As I was reading the article one of the first games that came to mind other than the MMORPG's (massive multiplayer online role playing games) was Freelancer, which was mentioned later in the article. This game allows you the freedom after the main quest is finished to become a freelancing pirate or to buy a freightor and become a smuggler of illegal goods or a legit trading company. This is one of the few non multi-player games I've ever played that allows you that much freedom. Also in Morrowind when I first started I ignored the main plot and built my character up , in the process I not only joined the warriors guild but ended up killing the guildmaster (at the rest of the guilds prompting) and beomcing the new guildmaster for the entire gameworld. Games like Freelancer and Morrowind can bring some semblance of "freedom" to do what you choose, but the level of character interaction, political freedoms and carreer choices in an online game like "The Eternal City" is impossible to achieve in a stand alone single player game. The reason it's impossible is that games like TEC "evolve" over time, forming themselves about the "players" that support the production of such games. "however I suppose if they could make an incredible AI to change the gameworld around choices and actions made by your character it could happen". I'm new to /. and hope I can make a worthy contribution in the future to some of the great discussions that take place here.
Jay Dale "If you're not living on the edge then you're taking up too much space!"
Aren't game players just escapists who can't cope with reality? They must exist in artificial limitations in order to overcome contingencies beyond their control inherent in a completely open and "democratic" environment.
If anything, people who play games would be happy shovelling shit for The Man of an autocratic government so long as there was a high score list for who shovelled the most.
Western movies arent all from Hollywood. French Spanish, English and Latin American cinema is quite different from Hollywood.
Even so, its a great comment