Slashdot Mirror
The Politics of the Video Game
illuminata writes "Can the video game industry keep its mittens out of the political slugfest? According to Kevin Parker's article Free Play, they sure can't. In it, he cites Dreamcatcher's Gore and Sega's Legacy Online and Jet Set Radio Future as main offenders. He even goes on to point out how some people want video games to convey their favorite political message in the future. Are there any particular titles or game companies that you think lay on the politics too thick, or is it all just a bunch of foof?"
> Are there any particular titles or game companies that you think lay on the politics too thick, or is it all just a bunch of foof?
Doom for Columbine is falsely accused of being political, but I think that mods like this may pave the way for better use of balance than more politically engendered titles, with corporate backing and all the politics that goes with that. Keeping it freeware is the key! (Then nobody can mess with it.)
Well, we all know Hollywood sure can't. Game developers don't have quite the level of celebrity or exposure, but they are conveying a message.
It's hard to make something realistic and not weigh in an opinion.
Do you wish video games to have First Ammendment protection, or don't you?
KFG
Politicians are always up the gaming industries butt (too violent, causes kids to be violent, etc...), so why can't the gamining industry get up the politicians butt??
Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
There are some genres where it's hard to avoid a political agenda informing the game in some form or other. A few years back I designed some combat flight sims and had to devise background material for the campaigns. The temptation to editorialize on a subjects such as, say, the drugs war in Colombia was strong. For the most part I resisted and I hope found a middle way between Hollywood druglord fantasies and the political realities of what was going on in the country at the time. (And today: it's shocking how some of the events I built the campaign around later came true.)
So in my game I had FARC narcoguerrillas, right-wing death squads and I penalized the player for causing unnessesary collateral damage. There are some who will no doubt think I went to far, as if games on current events can somehow be cosily insulated from politics. But I reckon I did the right thing.
Then in Ages of Empires and Civilizations, I was a king!
In Starwars Galaxies, I played a mayor for a while. With a bunch of friends, we started a town, it grown big, my friends and some of the folks were reelecting me each week, until someone started to complain about my politics and won the vote against me. :(
Since I had a lot of powerfull artisans still in my camp, we boycotted thier artisans and raised the prices for them... heheheh, we showed those bastards how it was to be Cuban!!! héhéhéh
Politics make some games great!!! But it is not a must, just a good option games can count on.
"I can not bring myself to believe that if knowledge presents danger, the solution is ignorance." Isaac Asimov
There have always been producers that have had biased viewpoints for their titles. For example, Square/Enix seems to love putting their the anti-industrial viewpoints into their Final Fantasy games. Going back even as early as U.S. FFIII (FFVI in the series) it was always the evil, greedy, corrupt, industrialized nations at war with the peaceful, kind, gentle, treehuging fairie creatures who lived in harmony with nature.
Even as far back as Frogger, we were witness to the environmental impacts that industrialization has on nature. The brave but fragile frog's futile attempts to cross a busy highway to get back home only show the producer's bias -- they never show the poor truck driver, driving for 20 hours straight just to earn a living, fighting exhaustion but alert enough to avoid swerving his big white truck into oncoming traffic, just to avoid a frog too stupid to stay off the road, as more of a hero.
In my opinion, it's unavoidable that for the most part, serious issues will always be portrayed in games with some bias. It's up to the player, then, to decide for themselves whether the game reflects a viewpoint that can be carried into the real world. Games such as Deus Ex explored a lot of the political ramifications of conspiracy theory, but let the player decide for themselves which was the best path.
Its funny you mentioned that....
Ive been playing GTA3 again lately as a "noble criminal."
I havnt stolen anyone except other criminals' vehicles.
I havnt shot/run over/killed any innocents. (This is TOUGH!)
I follow the missions word-for-word, and make it a point not to harm the citizens that are not involved.
Yes, its more challenging, and you dont get any rewards for doing it, but its a unique perspective in playing the GTA games.
no
Here is a story about the group Hezbollah using a game based on the open source genesis3d game engine. It is called special forces, link HERE
He makes a good point about the prevelance of the Market economy in video games, but this is probably more of a prgmatic than political decision. Could you imagine trying to program a game with a functional Command driven economy? It would be an interesting experiment in Economic modeling. Does anybody know of a game that makes a good run at this (ie. not a fixed per turn income or anything like that, but something relatively sophistocated)?
most of the slant seems to be definitely doomsday, environmental, and decidely anti-government..
It's portrayed as something new, as well - but I remember one of the games included with my Atari ST back in 1988 had a similar plot synopsis. Overlander was a pretty standard driving game, but the box described a post-apocalypic world where the ozone layer had been destroyed. Lone drivers in fast cars would deliver packages across ultraviolet-irradiated freeways abandoned by everyone except armed bandits, between the few remaining fortress settlements in which the rest of mankind survives.
1988, eh?
Political? Not really - it's just a standard post-apocalyptic science fiction world. The problem seems to be more people reading non-existent politics into computer games than game designers subtly filling their games with political rhetoric.
When i was younger, nobody seemed to care much that i was slashing away in Ninja Gaiden on my trusty NES, or spraypainting via some simpsons NES title.
Has technology really changed so much to make this difference, or has the view just been given a shady light in the events of the past 5 years?
I guess what im trying to say....in the words of David Cross, "What were the video games that hitler played?"
I'm sure a corrupt Republican senator from a southern state named Alex Shrub in GTA-VC has no resemblence to any living persons. The fact that his wife is called Laura is also coincidental. From the game:
I've ensured important tax breaks for gun retailers, real estate developers, and I've cut the cost of policing, saving the city 2%, or 25 cents per household, over a six year period.
Most game plots are very linear, and the worlds aren't detailed to any appreciable degree if you go 'off the beaten track'. The is only natural because programmer, artist and developer time are expensive. This leads to a lot of assumptions being made during development about both the world and the perspective of the characters in it. It also has to work in terms of game mechanics. You also want to create a worldview that the majority of the people playing the game can connect to, without either boring the crap out of them or pissing off too many PTA types or yokel politicians. Most important of all: SOMETHING HAS TO BE HAPPENING. There has to be drama-- something to make the main character decide to ACT. It helps if it's something that looks good in a screen shot, too.
Taken through all these filters, it doesn't really surprise me that most games have simplistic and heavy handed "messages". It seems to me that has a lot to do with the limits of the medium as currently understood. MMPORPGs have the possibility of changing this, due to their open-ended nature and the way they can evolve over time.
Also, the author mentions simulacra as if it were a purely postmodern marxist concept, but the sort of simulacra he describes is what J.G. Ballard called a 'Baudrillardian Simulacra' which is the term he used for a sort of copy without an orginal. That may sound like a silly concept, but they can be powerful social forces. The most common sort of this is a yearning for the 'good old days' that never existed.
I have absolutely no problem with these sorts of images used in commercials for two reasons.
1) My generation (the 30 and under crowd) has never, until very recently, had any concept of the notion of "Fighting for Liberty." We were all raised by the Children of the 60's dreams of Peace and Love, but never in 3000 years of human history has that *ever* been a successful method of international politics. Teaching our children that our freedoms are worth fighting for and dying for is an important lesson for our post-911 society. Teaching them that there are Heros that make the ultimate sacrifice so we can speak our minds and worship any way we choose is perhaps the most important thing video games may do. I'd rather they spoke with their elderly loved ones who have actually served our country, like my Grandfather, but many don't have that option.
2) As poorly as this commercial may advertise it, the fact is many pre-adults still have no direction or ambition for life past school. With the amount of popularity spec-ops types games have gotten, it might inspire more of them to become more diciplined and maybe even enlist to serve our country. While many people fear the military, the honest truth is that a strong shield is the only way to ensure our way of life continues past all threats, foreign or domestic. I'd trust an army of intelligent, inspired, and dedicated defenders over a group of disgrunted, uninspired draftees left holding the fort.
While you are playing MGS, amidst the "love upon a battlefield", there is a definite tone of nuclear disarmament, and you get the sense that the Hideo Kojima didn't much care for defense companies who get big-budget contracts. Any radio calls to Nastasha were always about "We cannot allow nuclear deterrance to be our policy" and "Landmines must be banned throughout the world". A huge portion of the game revolves around gene therapy and cloning.
Was Kojima trying to get a political message out? I think so. Did it affect the game in a negative way? Not really.
SmashTech - No smashing of tech involved
I play video games to (temporarily) escape from the real world, and here polical brainwashing dogma follows you right into your virtual world. Its sickening. Its happened in TV, movies, comics, novels, its everywhere! Where does a guy/gurl have to go to just play and have a good time? Why does there ALWAYS have to be a political message?
WE want ENTERTAINMENT, not PREECHING! If I wanted preeching I would go to church or a college.
Most of the posts are missing the games that REALLY have politics in them:
The Civilization (including Alpha Centauri) series. These games make certain political ideologies inherent in the game, as well as allowing players to make their own political choices. Alpha Centauri makes (implicitly) the point that a Fundamentalist religious government is a viable form of government, while on the other hand, implying that certain losses of liberty would take place. This is a very political statement. It lets you choose between horribly oppressing your citizens and letting them run free and happy -- (and lets you win either way) a VERY political choice.
The SimCity series is a perfect example of implicit rules -- it assumes that unless you, the Mayor (the government), do it, nothing will happen in your city. While fun for gameplay, does this send the right message? You can agree or disagree.
Does anyone remember Privateer 2? The finale of the game was you taking over your dead brother's interstellar crime ring that you'd been fighting the whole game. There's definitely some serious debate here, or with Jedi Knight, where if you make the "bad" choices, you become the Evil Emperor yourself. But if you look at the "choice" you make, it's certainly up to debate about whether it was right or wrong.
Someone above mentioned Splinter Cell:Pandora Tomorrow. The makers of the game have very specific political beliefs, but they're pretty subtle in the game.
At any rate, I found this article to be very interesting, and expanded on some of the points it mentioned.
http://reason.com/0404/fe.kp.free.shtml
Muslims portrayed as terrorist, while performing vile and evil actions without regard for human life. They did refer to themselves as freedom fighters, which makes the entire game just a smear campaign in my eyes. Innocent as it seams, redefing words is half the game of politics these days in my opinion.
Regardless of what you Americans think about muslim fundamentalists, many of them consider themselves freedom fighters, and in my not so humble opinion, not totally without merit either (Israeli oppresion (justified or not), several invasions (panama / iraq / afghanistan / iraq), US troops in Saudi Arabia etc).
I mean.. would it have hurt so much to just cite one example during the GLA campaign of 'evil' acts (or atleast acts percieved as evil by the GLA) done by the other sides?
(flame away)
"" How about taking the safety labels off everything, and let the stupidity-problem solve itself? """
Yes it looks like all the "bad" worlds have a liberal slant. However it is also true that liberal distopias (sp?) make for a more interesting background for a game. The evil powers were overcome with greed, resulting in fantastic effects that even they did not plan on, possibly resulting in a world where everybody including the evil is in bad shape, where there is no way to fix it so the game play is limited to a controllable microcosm.
A conservative distopia would be a Communist dictatorship, or a world like 1984. In that the individual cannot do anything, so there is no game. If they could then it is not a conservative distopia, as there is possibility of overthrowing the evil government. Perhaps you could play a nasty enforcer, locating those who dare to speak out against the government and getting rid of them, but it seems people don't want to identify so closely with an evil character.
I would say conversely that all the "good world" games, especially those space-trading ones, present an Ayn Rand fantasy world where everybody seems quite happy despite the absolute freedom to even shoot your competitors.
In 1987, Ronald Reagan's message appeared at the start of arcade games.
Along with the words of wisdom from FBI director William Sessions.
Today, the only place you still see the "Just Say No" campaign is on the
plastic urinal cheese holders in public restrooms.
Oregon Trail.
taken! (by Davidleeroth) Thanks Bingo Foo!
Think about it - Max Payne = the problems w/ drugs.
NARC, same thing.
Deus Ex - politicians.
EVO (back on the SNES) and Ecco the Dolphin = environmental nutjob propaganda.
Most of the Japanese titles have the same stuff going on as well, only they're really big into post-apocalyptic stuff after Hiroshima/Nagasaki took place; lacking an evil-stereotypical-bad-guy for their culture (you know, the one who is merely "Out to Rule the World) they go for the "I'm gonna blow everything up haha I'm insane" bad guy instead. (see: Sephiroth)
Or did there seem to be WAY too many political (very liberal) statements made in the loading screens of Battlefield: Vietnam? I'm not sure that slashdot's the place to comment about things being too liberal though ;).
This space for rent, inquire within.
Also, the editorializing about Reganomics being bad is even worse in Sim City 3000. I remember there was a quotation from the 'tax advisor' saying that it wouldn't be fair to the city to not tax the ---- out of everything to fund the budget.
Wh47 d1d j00 541, 31337 15n't t3h r0xor5 ne m0r3???
"Are the big white giant people in EQ considered an elite class, while the big troll people have a harder time joining clans? Somehow, I don't think so. And I think the reason that is, is because there is no economic incentive to be racist. In fact, mixing skills is a good thing and helps clans or parties advance faster. Ultimately, this is probably a good lesson to teach young people, to mix classes to gain fortune."
In EQ the world is divided between good and evil races. If you were really role playing to the hilt a character from a good race should in fact have strong racial bias against players from the evil races. In practice I've rarely seen a strong racial bias among players, its usually confined to good natured joking since some races are known to eat other races. Trolls and ogres tend to get the worst of it because they are big, ugly, smelly creatures and there is an unavoidable tendency to stand up wind of them.
There are some classes like Necromancer that are biased to be played by evil races but for many classes you can choose whether whether you are in the good or evil faction based on the race you choose or the deity you worship.
If your forming a group you don't normally go out of your way to include or exclude someone based on race. You are usually only looking for skills, a warrior for melee, a caster, a buffer and a healer usually. The exception being if you are traveling in a zone, especially a city where some races are kill on sight so having someone of a particular race, or actually the wrong faction would be a nuisance.
When your player encounters NPC(Non Player Characters), on the other hand, there is massive racism. You have faction relative to every ethnic group, order, band, etc. If you have bad faction the NPC will try to kill you on sight, with middling faction they may just not talk to you or not help you if they do, with really good faction they give you good deals and help you a lot.
Your faction starts out based on your race, class and diety but it goes up or down everytime you kill something that has faction or you complete quests that raise or lower your faction. You can have someone from a good race that can move around in an evil city if they've raised their faction enough by killing the right creatures.
I've often wondered if a game like EQ is good or bad for kids to play a lot. I imagine it could be both. If I'd played it when I was a kid 20 years ago I think it would have strengthened my bartering and business skills a lot faster than the real world did, the bazaar in EQ is an extraordinarily good place to learn how markets and supply and demand work and how to make and lose money, without really doing so. Computers have dramatically accelerated the pace at which you can learn some things versus meat space.
It also reinforces the value of learning skills, and in the persistence necessary to complete quests.
On the other hands it tends to create obsession and it probably encourages obsessive players to detach from the real world in favor of the fantasy world. In the fantasy world they can be handsome or pretty, strong or rich while in the real world they have a whole lot less control over their situation.
I recall a while ago someone posted that games had really plateaued and weren't really going anyplace. I think that is B.S. The fact is there is no limit where online multiplayer games can go. The realism will continue to expand until the point the experience will probably dramatically surpass reality and I wouldn't be surprised if economies, politics, socializing and many aspects of life move in to virtual worlds as was envisioned in Snow Crash or Diamond Age. They gave you so much more latitude for self change and realization, along with the ability to interact with people from anyplace in the world. They probably will eclipse going to the local bar and having to deal with the same local people.
The only hurdle to clear is for virtual sex to surpass real sex.