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

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

[stienman]

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

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.

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

[cgenman]

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.

What are you talking about? All games have a maximum altitude, and it would be grossly unbalancing to allow spells so powerful that you kill half the world in one shot. Who would play on a PvP server like that?

It's called "balancing" the game. Barriers like these are necessary to keep a game fun, and you're far more likely to hear people "bitching" if you don't straighten these problems out. MMPORPG's are full of items getting Nerfed, and while some people complain when their favorite weapon is weakened, it is usually player complaints that lead to the tweak in the first place.

If you have ever played against a Glacier player in Killer Instinct, you'll know that without those so-called barriers against infinite damage, there isn't any gameplay.

Of course, there are rules in multiplayer gaming. Real old-school Street Fighter players will pull their hands back from the controller and let you throw them if they accidentally throw you in a close-quarters fight. Well-behaved MMPORPG players will not steal your loot, despite it falling on the ground. And I've seen circumstances in FPS games where poorly behaved players will be repeatedly assassinated by their own team-mates, ruining their statistics and forcing them off the server. Still, most rules in social situations are not enforced at the end of a gun, and this holds true in gaming as well as life.

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

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.

Why?

[bl4nk]

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.

Sims...

[thefirelane]

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'.

so way totally true

[moof1138]

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.

Re:Gamers are nerds are libertarians

[syrinx]

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.

Not always

[ADRA]

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.

Good article overall, but...

[cgenman]

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.

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.

Not True

[Roto-Rooter Man]

Super Mario Brothers advocates a hardline Stalinist point of view.