Biases in Simulation Video Games

Orsonwarcry writes "Kieron Gillen went to Prague to speak to Bohemia Interactive, known best for Operation Flashpoint. He goes on to discuss the effects of bias on simulation games. 'In other words, a simulation is never just a simulation. Equally, freedom is rarely actually free of designer- imposed desires. Even in games with the most self-expressed mandates of "choice" for the gamer, it doesn't mean that there isn't a message. In Deus Ex, the generally politically liberal Ion Storm Austin created a world where you could choose between violence and pacifistic approaches, but the charismatic characters urged you towards peace while the monsters suggested violence.'" Some interesting stuff in there.

Comments

World View

[stoolpigeon]

It is impossible to do almost anything without betraying some part of ones world view. This is true in every day life, doubly so in things that people create.

Novels, movies, music, painting.... They all reflect some of the creators presuppositions. In a simulation it is the same. A person or group of persons has complete control over what exists, what does not exist and how it interacts. How could it not reflect their view of reality?

interesting

[MuNansen]

I'm not that sure Deus Ex is that great of an example. I thought all sides of the spectrum in that game made compelling arguments. Even the ones considered by the article to be "monsters." They weren't monsters, though, but real people. Far more real than the pure-evil supervillians of most games. It would be interesting, though, to have them portrayed a bit more realistically, though. Usually, it is those pushing for violence that are the most charismatic, and the easiest to follow. Finding the peaceful route is always the hardest, and usually least popular. Think of all the charismatic leaders that have inspired violence: hundreds, thousands. Now how many can you think of that have inspired people towards true peace? Can probably count them on your fingers; Ghandi, MLK Jr., Jesus Christ, Laozi, Buddha, etc. Would really like to see a game where it was harder to find, not just harder to follow, the peaceful path (where as in Deus Ex you just had to not kill people, though it was much harder, gameplay-wise).

Re:Bias in the player too?

[Rei]

You're shocked that one could interpret conservatives as being more pro-war? Would you also be surprised to learn that (in general) they're anti-abortion, anti-separation of church and state, pro-corporate, anti-stem cell research, against environmental regulations, anti-UN, anti-taxes, anti-euthanasia, etc?

Few conservatives share *all* traits of the "general conservative"; however, if you don't share a good portion of them, are you actually conservative?

Corrolary

[aiken_d]

Gillen seems to be suggesting that linking pacifism with good guys and violence with monsters is somehow "liberal." The corrollary, I suppose, is that in a game shop that could be characterized as "conservative," the monsters would be suggesting peace and the good ol' boys would be advocating random and terrible acts of violence.

On the one hand, I'm not convinced that a world view with "violent monsters" is inherently "liberal," and on the other hand I'm a little dismayed that anyone (whichever meaningless dogmatic label they choose) would argue that "conservatives" would make nice cheerful, peaceful monsters.

I think we have a case here of a valid point (developers' opinions and world views inevitably appearing in their work) being stretched to a rather ridiculous degree.

Cheers
-b

Bias in games

[RogueyWon]

Ok, before I begin writing a comment about bias in games, I should put my own cards on the table. I'm a conservative; pro-Iraq war, anti-abortion, deeply suspicious of the UN and even though I'm British, I like George Bush.

However, that said, I actually found a lot to like about Deus Ex, contrary to what the article seems to imply. First of all, it was a great game. That's the most important thing, regardless of any political messages. However, the political messages in Deus Ex could certainly be seen has having a conservative slant. The United Nations were very much the bad-guys. One of the three possible endings, the Illuminati ending, essentially let you choose to embrace 20th-century capitalism. The guys who led you down the path were shady at times, but their heart seemed to be in the right place. Now, the sequel (Invisible War) on the other hand, seemed a bit more didactic in its approach. Then again, the writing in the sequel, much like the gameplay, seemed vastly less intelligent overall.

Looking elsewhere in games, political messages seem to be fairly broadly spread. There are plenty of games out there, such as the original Command & Conquer and Red Alert, which aren't afraid to paint the West as the good guys and terrorists/the Soviets as the baddies. Similarly, you get games like KOTOR and Jade Empire, which tend to present the pacifist, left-wing choices as "good". Of course, I enjoyed KOTOR and Jade Empire immensely, despite their politics, because they're both good games. (KOTOR 2, on the other hand, I can live without, because it was just too enmeshed in the hack-author love-fest that is the Star Wars expanded universe to have a coherent or interesting plot).

More interesting than the issue of political bias, I think, is the issue of cultural assumptions in games. Full Spectrum Warrior is a good example of this. As is pretty widely known, this game is essentially an adapted version of a tactical training simulator used by the US military. What surprised me about the game was how casualty-averse it is. If a single member of your squad dies, you fail a mission. Moreover, the missions essentially resembled a puzzle game. The bad guys could be counted on to react predictably in any given situation, with surprises coming only if they had been specifically included by the people designing the mission. Now, I guess in the context of a story-based game, with continuity of characters, this makes sense. However, it did make me wonder about the assumptions this would impart if the actual military simulator uses the same parameters. Is it only preparing soldiers for success? Would it result in panic or a loss of momentum in a situation where members of a squad were killed by something unexpected? If the AI in the game isn't programmed to make a banzai charge if cornered, is this going to lead to a blind spot in the field if a real, unpredictable, human opponent tries this? To what extent do we pick up assumptions from games (or films, books etc) that influence how we react in real life?

Re:Bias in the player too?

[SatanicPuppy]

You clearly don't know much about WWII if you think the Poles didn't fight. Thye fought with everything they had, on three fronts, against the Germans and the Soviets. There are (possibly apocryphal) stories of Polish cavalry...horse cavalry charging tanks when they had nothing left to fight with. If the Czechs had had one third of the stubborn courage the Poles showed, there wouldn't have even been a world war II.

I find it very typical of the Republican viewpoint you claim not to espouse that you can wave away war deaths like they're nothing, and then start denouncing people for a moral choice you don't agree with.

One of the foundations of Libertariansim is small government, the very opposite of the sort of large paternal government that would ban abaortion/stem cell research.

Re:Biases even in Civilization

[XxtraLarGe]

It is much easier to win a game of Civilization using diplomacy or doing the space race than it is to conquer the world.

Actually, a friend of mine and I figured out a pretty serious flaw in Civilization II that makes it easy to conquer the world. Make discovering Democracy your primary goal. Don't worry about building any Wonders except for the Great Library and Great Wall. After you discover Democracy, build the Statue of Liberty, then revolt and switch over to Fundamentalism. You get zero corruption, zero support costs for units and all citizens are content, so you don't have to worry about cities revolting! Your research is slowed down to nothing, but that's why you built the Great Library. You still get the advances! Now that you're a Funadamentalist regime, just have your cities crank out diplomats and buy your opponents cities by inciting revolt! You can roll over a continent in a few hundred years if you've got decent enough roads.

Does this mean that Sid has been pushing his pacifist ideals on us for the past decade?

No. If anything, he's pushing his secret Fundamentalist agenda!