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."

Comments

Gamers are nerds are libertarians

[Thinkit4]

Well, isn't it clear enough that /.ers and other nerds are quite libertarian (a word the media hasn't even heard of).

geez

[black mariah]

"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.

Re:But not so liberal as you'd think...

[MMaestro]

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.

True, but don't forget that these are GAMES. The moment you start putting even the smallest barrier (like a maximum altitude or a 'no you can't make a spell so powerful you kill half the world in one shot') people start bitching, whether is single-player, multiplayer, or a MMOG game.

On top of that, theres no real direct method of punishing someone for breaking 'rules' except in MMOGs. Ban him? There are plenty of servers. Mute him? Again, there are other servers. Abuse him? AGAIN, other servers. We're not solving the problem, we're just shoving it under a carpet.

It's 5:00, time for a sweeping generalization

[CosmicDreams]

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?

Re:But not so liberal as you'd think...

[Pluvius]

It's called "balancing" the game. Barriers like these are necessary to keep a game fun

Not exactly. A lot of people think that it would be more fun to allow some classes to be harder to play than others. You know, kind of like real life.

Rob

Team play = socialism?

[Christ-on-a-bike]

Interesting article, though I only skimmed it. The games that are brought up seem to be largely solo-play ones though (GTA, Sim City, etc.). MMO games are mentioned, but they are often played solo too. Other interesting new computer games are played in teams. Isn't the 'politics' of a team game somewhat less 'individualistic'?

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.

I just don't see it

[Roto-Rooter Man]

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!