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."
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
"You mean Pking will become a Political Stance?"
Considering what happened 10 years ago in Rwanda and what may be happening right now in Sudan...
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.
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 used to think that /.ers were on the whole pretty libertarian.. I think /. might have been the first place I'd heard of the Libertarian movement.. but recently it seems that everyone on /. (or at least the vocal ones) are just plain left-liberal.
Allergic reaction to Bush? Who knows.
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
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
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.
Well, they say that a conservative is a liberal who's been mugged. Maybe a liberal is a libertarian whose job has been off-shored.