A lot of people are just... not so bright. I remember seeing the video of all those trump supporters rocking out to "killing in the name of" by rage against the machine. Waving a thin blue line and american flag around with the lyrics blasting in the background.
Its the same with that new game Helldivers 2. Zero awareness.
Do we always want to play as the good guys? Are all actors to be prohibited from portraying bad guys? Is all media going to end up like Barney the Purple Dinosaur episodes? Games, movies, books, songs are supposed to be entertaining.
It's more that when the writing is bad something is perceived as "political", as the insert of whatever political messaging is being used comes out of nowhere and smacks the player like a cudgel. That's what most gamers have a problem with, obviously there's a loud minority that rage about stupid shit like Jesse Faden being too masculine. But that's not what most people are talking about.
Games need to tackle these issues head on and fully integrate them into the world, not just tack on preachy dialog that doesn't make sense within the wider game world.
FF16 is blatantly about slavery and no one really complained, it's not exactly peak fiction, but they at least had everything contained within the world. FF7 is the same but with fossil fuels and much better writing.
New Vegas is the best example, it's simply written well and gives the player agency.
Death Stranding did a great job of both integrating it's themes directly into the world, and also tackling them head on without any remorse.
Helldivers is so ludicrously full on and absolutely dripping with it's pro fascist ideology that everyone knows what they're getting into from the intro video, and then the game starts adding texture and "are we the baddies" energy straight away.
Fucking Disco Elysium is near universally praised by the wider gaming audience, and I don't even think I need to explain how that one is political.
It's the same reason why most ideologically driven media is cringe as fuck. Christian media being a prime example, it's contrived slop that doesn't make sense within its own story. Like God's Not Dead and it's illogical legal system built on feels and Shapiro logic.
Who remembers the weird pro-life Doctor Who episode? That was bizarre and out of place. The characters stopped acting like themselves for the sake of whatever message it wanted to get across. It just felt really out of place.
The Last of Us Part 2, to label the most controversial example, had periods of good and bad writing, but focusing in on the "violence bad" part of it's messaging, it completely missed the mark. Giving the characters names that they shout was just hilarious, and having Ellie repeatedly kill dogs whilst Abbie pets them was just so hamfisted. Then making the gameplay violent and fun which just divorced it further.
TLDR: Gamers People love politics in video games media, they hate hamfisted preaching in video games media. Especially when it doesn't make sense in the crafted world
The drama with helldivers was because fascists saw the over the top campy depiction of fascism and unironically agreed with it. They had no idea they were the ones being lampooned. You should look at the reactions when they found out the devs were actually not fascists. They were distraught.
Please could you provide some examples? I've legitimately never seen someone upset at the devs for not literally being fascists.
If I have to go out of my way to find this, I'm assuming it falls under the "loud" minority group. I'm sure these people exist, but it'd surprise me if they made up a significant amount of the over 12 million players.
Edit: Had a further look, there seems to be more people complaining about people taking it literally than people actually taking it literally. I did find like 3 Reddit posts, but all had 0 upvotes and like 30 comments telling them they're wrong and stupid
Specifically starship troopers, but you know what kickstarted that discussion again. Also a bunch of Twitter discourse. Reddit is generally left adjacent. You won't find too much fash shit there.
Sorry man, but that's a relatively milk toast YouTube video with 81k views. Definitely very right leaning, but outright fascist is a bit much. She clearly has no media literacy or is deliberately misleading people.
Her latest video got only 11k views, and most of her titles look like some right wing grifter shit like "Ben Shapiro SILENCES
Candace Owens, CANCELS Debate?".
And I'm sure that right wing grifters will use this for content, that's what they do.
I wouldn't say that shows anything more than a loud minority. Honestly 81k views is lower than I expected and more proves my point
I kinda assumed people understood the messages behind Battlefield 1, Death Stranding, and Helldivers 2, lol. Most of the messages are telegraphed pretty clearly.
what is your art if it’s not engaging with the issues of the time? What is your art if you’re claiming that it’s not political? Because the point of art is to tell the truth, and you’re lying.
Say what? Are they referring to just a specific type of art, like political art?
But on a serious note, something as obvious as "Managed Democracy" and quitting your job by signing up for "Early Biovat Reprocessing" and the characters literally saying things like "HELLDIVERS NEVER DIE!" Before being obliterated by a 380? It's satire. Satire is funny. Like hahaha look at stupid Facist regime, I'll role play along to get into the mood of the game because the idea is so fucking dumb it's funny with amazing gameplay.
It's willful ignorance at some point. I don't think media literacy has much to do with it. It's simply listening for what they want to hear, then ignoring the rest, just as real facists desire.
People play games for escapism, not to be reminded of politics. Not every story needs deep political roots, people just want to have fun and forget about real world bullshit.
It's not a very popular opinion it seems but I agree, I rather like a bit of mindless escapism sometimes, not everything has to teach me a lesson, sometimes things can be just fun. Not that we can't have both, of course.
And that also doesn’t mean you can discredit the message of a game just because you don’t like it or want to engage in it. But so many people play a game with a strong political message, and then complain constantly how it’s ruined by it. Okay so don’t play it play something else.
I feel like it also has to do with lots of games featuring elements of (or full-blown) violence as part of their regular gameplay loop.
Yeah, in Helldivers 2, you're committing genocide for insidious political reasons. But in Pokémon, you're committing genocide, because you're a ten year old and your neighbor gifted you a pet.
Normally, the genocide part would be the very obvious red flag for something political going on. Instead, you need to be aware of why precisely you're doing the genocide this time around.
Such genocide elements are usually also paired with fun gameplay (because violence is easy to translate into gameplay), and with a terrible story, so it's understandable that people would skip all the story elements.
Conflating Pokemon and genocide really reduces the value of genocide. That it might be a tongue in cheek accusation towards our livestock and animal treatments .. but genocide.
Like calling everyone Hitler and a nazi. Or groomer or..
aesthetics. people will perceive the aesthetics more than anything else.
startship troopers is a good example: it satirizes fascism but has the aesthetics of fascism, so thats what people perceive.
the boys was the same when conservatives liked homelander. he is the good looking blue eyed aryan with an epic powerful portrayal and those are usually the heroes.
the 'good guys' go in murderous rampages all the time in movies. its just usually framed as a good thing. 'oh those they killed were evil!', 'oh the city they destroyed was for the greater good!'
real life isnt so black and white but they do that same framing irl with varying levels of success.
Has anyone actually seen anyone actually complain about having politics in games, and not just obnoxious politics, like Specs Ops where they force you to kill civilians and then act like your the bad guy because you wanted to see the content you paid for? If you dont give us a choice to be good, and if you're super preachy about it, then its just bad writing.
Look at New Vegas, plenty of politics, but you get to make choices, and its not preachy at all. Then look at the Last of Us 2, where they force you to kill a dog the other character petted, and it comes off as blatant emotional manipulation. Which game is widely considered a masterpeice?
Spec Ops actually did have choices where you could be good (or at least less bad), but ironically people missed them because they didn't think being good would work.
For example, at one point you're being harassed by an angry mob of locals. A lot of players simply shot them because a lifetime of experience with shooters told them that no other input would be recognized. But in actuality, if you fired warning shots at the ground or over their heads the civilians would flee without incident.
I didnt know that. After the forced willie pete bit, I thought all the other bits were forced too. Specs op unintentionally set a rule "if theres a choice, youll be forced to take the evil one" which made the entire thing feel obnoxious.
I think you're actually engaging with it a bit shallowly. You are the one who invented the rule and a different framing is exploring how, if games seem to put us in situations where we must do horrible things to advance even a couple of times, we take that as a rule instead of risking losing to find other ways.
Which is a fairly glaring indictment of the whole military shooter genre which is all about "hard men and hard choices" that completely dehumanise the factions you're in opposition to.
Military shooter games glorify war and shallowly reward horrible behaviour. Spec ops does it differently.
Majority of people: do horrible thing
Some people: experimental and find heroic thing is rewarded.
Discussion possible, why did the majority do that? could we talk about horrible and uncreative design patterns in the genre of military shooters? How media portrayals of war train us not to look for peaceful solutions? Whether this feeds into how we view American imperial wars?
you: no spec ops bad video game because I didn't do the good option.
People did experiment, in the first scene with the wp. That experiment told them that the game would force you to make evil decisions to continue playing. I saw that narratively there was a good option, but the game told me that that option wasnt available in the WP scene.
you get that this wouldn't work as a critique if it was obvious you could make different choices right? Then it wouldn't make the player complicit. If you're not complicit it's just a game saying "military shooters could be different" which is a nothing statement.
Like how games with a "get the information (evil)" and "get the information (good)" button aren't offering real moral choices. Or how deus ex would lose all impact if the "here's a gun, go kill these people" starting mission tempting you with a rocket launcher popped up a "you might change sides in the future" warning.
By involving you, leading you just like any other military shooter for a bit then cutting you loose is what creates the critique. You compare notes after playing and someone points out something and you go "huh, why didn't I try that?". It's not condemning you for not trying that, it's asking you if you're happy with a genre which trains you to never to try it.
If the player doesnt know the choice exists, and has reason to think the choice doesnt exist, then the choice is kinda moot, isnt it? In any case, my original point was a lot of complaints were really about bad writing.
People play games for escapism, not to be reminded of politics. Not every story needs deep political roots, people just want to have fun and forget about real world bullshit.
Maybe because most people experience the art? and don't feel the need to inflate their ego by thinking their interpretation or experience is the best way to interpret something?
this feels like a bunch of nerds sitting around complaining that gamers miss stuff, while not understanding that most gamers don't miss it. they just experience it and don't feel the need to externalize it.
Imo its the other way around.
If you experience art, you think about it and try to get a meaning out of it (even if there is none, as in some modern art pieces).
But if you just play a game you are not getting the art-aspect of it, you just enjoy it for the gameplay or maybe even the story but not for the deeper meaning.
Absolutely. If the value of art were just "experiencing" it without processing it, there's an argument to be made that soulless blockbuster movies are as significant a piece of art as something with actual substance because so many people like the "experience."
People who do more than just "consume" the art in front of them are not just self righteous nerds (though many are, sure)... it's also a prerequisite to, you know, actually creating something of artistic value.
how do you know I'm not appreciative of the art as I'm playing?
I've seen quite a lot of symbolism, meaning, and expressions through video games. but not every video game is made for artistic expression. they can be, to great effect IMHO.
either way, how the art is experienced is entirely up to the individual player. and there's no definitive way to experience art. that... kind of defeats the purpose of art, ya know?
Art might not be about thinking while you are experiencing it, but it most definitely is about thinking about the experience afterwards, as much as experiencing it in the first place.
