Everything like me is normal. Everything not like me is political!
There are
Two genders: male and political
Two races: white and political
Two orientations: straight and political
Don’t forget the two faiths: Christian and political
This is the single worst take in existence. I see it everywhere and it contributes nothing. There’s a difference between a game having politics in it and a game being political. A game with politics in it typically has a message with complexity and nuance and attempts to get people to ask questions by immersing them in an environment where philosophical ideas can be explored. A game that’s political typically has no message beyond “straight white men are inherently evil and cause all of the world’s problems”, and forgoes subtlety, nuance, and often even basic storytelling in favor of shouting that message in the viewer’s face as often and as loudly as it can, vainly attempting to tell its audience outright what the writer thinks they should believe no matter how much the end product’s quality suffers.
There are always people who will complain about black people, gay people and trans people being in a game at all. But don’t lump those people in with people who are simply sick of their entertainment trying to guilt-trip them into hating themselves for having physical traits they never asked for and can’t control, otherwise your message becomes this:
“There are
Many genders: The good ones, and male
Many races: The good ones, and white
Many orientations: The good ones, and straight”And that’s an opinion only possessed by those narcissistic enough to consider their own prejudices more justified than anyone else’s. I don’t want to hear any of that “prejudice plus power” nonsense. Bigotry is bigotry is bigotry. And we all deserve better.
Name some of those games
I know you aren’t actually interested in hearing any more examples, so I’ll keep this short and name the example that comes right off the top of my head: Timespinner. Every bad guy is a straight white man and none of the characters considered sympathetic are more than one of those three things. And its writing is the worst thing about it.
If you’d care to show me some examples of games which are recent, western-made, high-budget, and have a white male protagonist who isn’t constantly getting put down by the game’s own narrative to prop up someone more politically correct, I’d genuinely love to hear them.
I’ve never heard of that game so I looked it up…do you mean the 8bit game released in 2018 that was made by a single person and got mixed reviews? I believe you that the story may have been obnoxious, but is that the best you’ve got?
I’m not sure why I have to come up with high-budget Western games if that’s your example and I’m struggling to even think of any recent games with a protagonist you couldn’t customize.
I looked through the a bunch of Western games from 2021-2024 and the only ones I saw with a fixed main character were:
GTA V (male)
Far Cry 6 (female)
Alan Wake (male)
Jedi Survivor (male)
Tell you what, I’ll concede that yes, that was an unfair thing to ask. I asked it specifically because those sorts of games are the ones that people complain about the most and I was feeling irritable that day. Instead, I’ll simply ask you to consider that, in the same vein, it’s equally unfair to demand specific examples of games being “political” (which, I will reiterate, is not the same thing as a game being about politics).
I believe this for two reasons. First, because bigoted sentiment doesn’t have to be overt to be noticeable - or, alternatively, game developers at least believe that to be the case, because if they didn’t, they wouldn’t feel the need to make public statements about microaggressions. Second, because when people notice something that they consider prejudiced against them or their way of life, due to the way cognitive dissonance works, their brain will have a tendency to block out that memory unless it’s something so exceptionally angering as to be worth ranting about online. Combined, these cause a situation where a person will eventually feel discriminated against at an institutional level, but will not be able to articulate why, because the only examples they can name are the especially bad ones that get dismissed as outliers (Spider-Man 2’s “no removing the pride flags” controversy, Suicide Squad’s female-on-male sexual harassment, Starfield’s “FUCKIN’ PRONOUNS”, etc.)
By now you’re probably already thinking, “yeah, that happens with racism, sexism, homophobia and transphobia too, what’s the difference?” Which is a fair point. The difference is that when someone says those specific forms of bigotry are happening to them, people on the internet will typically take their word for it. When a straight white cisgender man says he’s being discriminated against, it gets dismissed as whining, or worse, as deserved on the grounds of “white privilege” or something else of that sort. I don’t even need to give examples of it, you can see it in this very thread. But what those people fail to understand is, anyone who bases their opinions on the belief that white people are inherently advantaged in society is, by definition, a white supremacist.
My post kind of trailed off, but my point is, I believe that the reason the “gamers are all a bunch of racist white boys” angle being spread online by the likes of Sweet Baby is offensive is not because it’s racist against white people (which it is, but that’s beside the point), but because, the longer you think about it, the more apparent it becomes that it’s even more racist against everyone else. It actively works to tear people apart instead of bringing them together, and actively works to undermine the agency of marginalized groups by encouraging them to think of themselves as outcasts or victims of society instead of members of it. No matter how you slice it, the so-called DEI agenda is anti-diversity, anti-equity, and anti-inclusion.
I want to start by saying that I get where you’re coming from and I don’t mean anything I say here in a rude way. I had similar thoughts (as a white male) during the years surrounding the Me Too movement. My friend’s now-wife was one of those annoying people online who routinely misattributed the wrongdoings of some men to ALL men and it really fucked with my self esteem.
But I do think you are, like I was, being a bit oversensitive about it. In the same way that she was extrapolating a data point incorrectly, I think you are, too. (It seems like) You are hearing the vocal minority and assuming it’s the prevailing opinion but it is not.
There is absolutely pandering happening in the film/game insustries and some of it is undoubted forced (Blizzard releasing a pansexual then a non-binary character and …in a pvp game where sexuality/gender are not relevant as a recent example) but the majority of “controversies” I’ve seen aren’t that - simply having a gay/black/female character is enough to rile up the neck beards.
It would be hypocritical of me to assume you fall into that category for the same reason I called out earlier - it’s a vocal minority. Not wanting to be associated with that side of the debate is what led me to reconsider my views.
However, I do wholly disagree with one of your points and I will clarify it’s not an opinion:
anyone who bases their opinion on the belief that white people are inherently advantaged in society is, by definition, a white supremacist.
That is not the definition at all. Using similar words, a white supremacist is someone who believes white people should have an advantage in society.
I have always hated the term “white privilege” because it implies that we are getting more. In reality, white people get the baseline and minorities get less. It should be called Minority Disadvantage because in much of the country, they receive less than the baseline.
But the concept is not a myth and it unfortunately applies to many different things…getting loans, proper medical care, government positions…even social acceptance in a mixed race environment. There is an endless amount of examples both historically and recently. This doesn’t mean that white people have it “easy” as I’m no stranger to hardships myself.
To me, it was the framing of “privilege” that affected my outlook because I was not personally zooming ahead in life. It made me bitter and jaded.
DEI and the like are not inherently bad when you consider that many people in power DO have racist/sexist bias. We have decades of data showing that white job/school candidates routinely get accepted over more-qualified candidates…and framing it as an “agenda” is a very Fox way of looking at things. Using governments as an example, the ratio of white to non-white political officials is staggering compared to the constituents they’re supposed to represent. Institutional racism is absolutely real but to be clear, it doesn’t mean that everyone is a bigot. There’s just an inherit bias that a not-insignificant amount of people carry. DEI is about shaking that bias and to help the less-intelligent people among us see that we’re all human.
So to wrap it up, we are both bystanders expected to pick a side between two small groups of vocal whiners accusing the other of being bigoted when the reality lies somewhere in the middle. I believe that there was a lack of diversity in games/films and that big steps have been made in the right direction. I also believe that some developers/producers are awkwardly inserting diversity as a means to make more money but the “woke” is a bad descriptor for the vast majority of media with non-white male characters. I believe that women and minorities suffer from our white male-centric society and that it’s important to change that without hurting the white men who aren’t actively keeping people down. BUT I don’t believe that having a female, black, gay, or whatever protagonist in a game hurts anyone at all.
Everyone who wants non-political anything is a closet racist.
If that’s what you took away from this you’re an idiot.
If I’m an idiot, then why don’t you show me an example of wanting a non-political game for non-racist reasons?
Because I just want a simple game of solitaire while I take a shit.
But solitaire comments on the politics of unfairness in life and arbitrary rule systems…
…I tried.
Why does the king have higher value than the queen?
And why do they, half the time, have higher value than the ace?
And the strictly hierarchal segregated nature of all of it is… Less than appealing
(You’re welcome)
Many people play games to escape reality. I dont feel like having current political bullshit in my games as i’m confronted with that day to day. Let me just fly around in spaceships or race cars or whatever.
I’ll play games with politics when I’m up for it.
I don’t understand this whole thing, is this something American?
Politics doesn’t have anything to do with the amount of effort it takes to play a game. You’re confusing two vastly different concepts. Ultimately what you are saying is that you want a game devoid of meaning, which you feel no obligation to understand or judge. That’s not politics, but it is interesting, because I have typically only heard the assertion that art should not have meaning from gamers and nazis.
Okay but everything is politics, its only a matter of how controversial those politics are (‘monarchy bad’ and ‘Nazis evil’ used to be pretty safe, but are edgelord shit now) and for some of us our fucking existence is controversial enough that basically anything is either ‘political’ or a direct assault.
Like, if I want a ‘non political’ escape from reality, that’s by your definition to a world where I don’t exist. Where nobody like me exists. Where nobody like me can exist. That’s cool. Worlds where I’m not allowed to exist are totally apolitical; nothing to read into there.
There’s a certain portion of the chronically online population that has taken the “us versus them” mentality to a whole new level. By their estimation their political beliefs are morally right and they therefore have a moral obligation to spread those beliefs at every opportunity.
This has two major effects. The first is that because their viewpoints are morally correct, everyone who does not agree with every aspect of their political beliefs is not only wrong, but evil. Ambivalence, skepticism, and doubt are similarly evil.
The second is that because their viewpoints are morally correct every piece of media, great and small, must advocate for their ideology. To simply make no ideological or political statements is a wasted opportunity, and is therefore sinful.
While these zealots make up a tiny, tiny fraction of the population they spend a lot of their time validating and shoring up their beliefs. This has the unfortunate side effect of making the internet shittier for the rest of us who just want to hang out.
Okay but what if I’m hearing people around me actively talk about exterminating me and rounding people like me up into camps?
There’s a pretty clear line between calling out extremism and making partisan politics a lifestyle.
You knew that, which is why you chose that example.
If the line’s that clear, show me where it is.
To me the real problem with political games is that a political game, to be enjoyable, has to be more good than political.
Disco Elysium is extremely political. It is also a very well written game. So I enjoyed playing it.
AAA studios tend to make a game with an LGBT character or a minority character and when people don’t like it, they blame representation. While people are actually mad at a game being a bad game.
Well you gave us an example of an “acceptably political” game so why didn’t you include an example of one that you think missed the mark? Surely, that was an innocent, if embarrassing, oversight… Right? “Gee wiz, I forgot to support half my argument! Shucks!”
Hold your horses, the point they were trying to make is “don’t have some fleshed out straight white characters in your game and then add diverse ones as a two dimensional afterthought”
If everyone is a 2D caricature, that’s fine. If the main cast is diverse, that’s great!
gay and minority people are not any more or less political than straight white men. representing them in games is not inherently politically motivated. there are plenty of people complaining about good games in these terms, so you’re not really addressing what they’re mocking here.
if you want to talk about rainbow capitalism and diversity marketing bullshit we can go there, but that doesn’t seem to be the point you’re making here.
I think that actually might be where they’re going, it’s just quite difficult to differentiate rainbow capitalism from bad writing.
I know I had a hard time realising why I hated a lot of representation in modern media, despite loving the old Bioware games, Fallout New Vegas and Life is Strange. And newer titles like BG3 and Disco Elysium.
They’re all well written and take time to establish real characters, and all the minority characters would still have a lot of depth to them.
Whereas in these poorly made modern AAA games a diverse cast seems to be used in two ways:
-
As marketing material
-
As a crutch for bad writing
Point 1 draws attention to said characters race/gender/sexuality. And the poor writing is likely to draw more.
Then when a company is bragging about it’s black lesbian lead, then writes an unambiguous pro-diversity storyline that doesn’t explore anything in much depth or provide any nuance, while making heavy use of tell don’t show. Maybe with only evil or incompetent portrayals of white men. You end up with people associating a diverse cast with preachy and ill thought out media. It almost comes across as propaganda. Which is why it gets called political.
But I think it takes a lot of effort to realise that and undo the pattern recognition, so it’s really difficult to explain why you hate “politics in video games”.
Obviously, there are some people who are legitimate bigots and go above and beyond with their hate. But the average person that isn’t passionately hateful seems to fall into what I described above
-
The fact that people are downvoting you for speaking an objective fact is a travesty. Diversity is only as political as the writer chooses to make it, and having characters of different races, genders and orientations without putting in the effort to make them feel three-dimensional will not magically make a badly-written game into a good one.
Why do minority characters have to justify their existence in a AAA game? Diversity is not political, it’s a fact of life.
I agree but it doesn’t change the fact that they are very often poorly written or poorly represented in these games. It’s not that diversity in games itself is bad it’s the way it’s done.
As an example, I really like how it was seamlessly integrated in games like the ones by NomNomNami. Obviously those are more cosy slice of life type games but I’ve seen other games that seamlessly integrate it well too. The trick is the characters need to be well written as real people who happen to be a minority, not simply characters who’s whole purpose is that they are a minority.
I mean, one of those is a reasonable ask.
I never played a non political game and I never will. They don’t exist. They’re a made up fiction designed to manipulate you.
I think it can just mean “no overt political themes”. The implied politics of medieval setting in a fantasy game for example might not be enough to register as “political” for most people. If that game was about the horrors of migrating orcs and how we need to stop them from ruining Fantasyland, I think that might be a bit more of a political game.
Oh well in that case I prefer overtly political games. Like Mario, which is about rescuing the mushroom kingdom’s head of state and driving Bowser’s soldiers out of the territory they’ve occupied. You even lower Bowser’s flag at the end of each level.
While I know you’re joking, it does show how complex the thing is. The intention counts for a lot too. Someone inferring a political message from it would be different than intentionally trying to make one.
I’m not joking, I’m being 100% serious while using a totally incongruous example to make my point that tons of stuff people refuse to believe is political, is deeply political. My point further reinforced by the fact that you found it difficult to accept that I think Mario is political. People are LLMs, they don’t understand the words they’re using, they just regurgitate according to probabilistic association models. The word politics is associated probabilistically with seriousness, so people assume silly fun things like Mario can’t be political. They don’t understand the words they use, they just use heuristics. People aren’t sapient creatures, they literally have the same intelligence as chatgpt.
Then you’ve just deeply misunderstood what people mean by those terms. I’m not sure if that’s what people think has no politics at all, rather it’s not what people mean when they use the terms non-political or political video game. It’s not Super Mario they mean when they talk about political video games, but rather stuff with a lot more overt, direct and intentional message and topics.
Words are made up, what they mean depends on the context and shared understanding of them. When people talk about politics in video games, I think it’s alright to get the inferred meaning and go with that. Pointing out that everything is political doesn’t really do much.
If you’re going to make Wittgenstein’s argument that language exists only to fulfill a social purpose, then I am happy to engage you on that deeper level, but in doing so we must confront the purpose of the vernacular usage of the word “politics”. If it’s not a word based on representing some idea of truth, what is it for? As the Hard Drive has correctly pointed out, it’s for complaining about minorities in video games. It’s for racism. Personally, I think we should call out the use of racist tools, including social tools such as words. If someone complains about politics, we should call them a racist and move on with our lives.
It’s not a reasonable ask because it implies that non-political games don’t exist. It also kind of implies that games didn’t used to be politic. And finally, it implies that having non-white male protagonists is somehow political.
I think you’re reading more into “I want non-political games” than is actually there.
I don’t think youre reading into it enough because every time I see people complain about politics in games it’s because it doesn’t have a white male main character. People were praising Helldivers 2 for not being political when it has a satirical fascist government running the planet in it but it’s okay because there’s no black or gay people in it since they wear helmets.
I think you two are thinking differently about what non-political means. The other person probably just meant a game without overt politics and not what some others mean by it that you talked about.
The satirical government in helldivers 2 is overt af. It is extremely on the nose and they hammer away at it with the spoken lines and propaganda. That game is fucking dripping with politics. That’s the point.
Did @FaceDeer@fedia.io use Helldivers 2 as an example of a non-political game or wdym
I most certainly didn’t, I’ve never played it and know nothing about it other than recognizing it as the name of a game that’s quite popular right now.
It’s kind of funny in a meta way how what I thought was an amusing little comment has blown up into an intense argument about the politicization of games (in an explicitly satire-related community no less). Thank goodness nobody jumped on the ambiguity I put into it as my attempt at humour and thought I was implying that wanting a white ethnostate was the reasonable one instead. Though I suppose seeing the thread fly off the handle in that direction instead would have been even more amusing in an appalling sort of way.
if the entire punchline wasn’t in the title and the first paragraph this could have been really clever.
I miss the days when satire was subtle and non-political. but when the time is right we will make satire great again.
Relatable
