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.
Jeez, I wish I could downvote you twice.
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…
Don’t go to the article, it’s click bait garbage
I kinda assumed people understood the messages behind Battlefield 1, Death Stranding, and Helldivers 2, lol. Most of the messages are telegraphed pretty clearly.
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.
No, art is not for thinking. Books are for thinking. Art is for experiencing.
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.
Not to mention that books are often art.
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?
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.
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?
This misses the point of spec ops the line
What, war is bad and glorifying war is bad? The point has been made, no one missed it. Its just wasnt worth mentioning.
Has anyone actually seen anyone actually complain about having politics in games
Yes. Under this post, too.
I even remember people complaining about re-releases that had disclaimers that the game has racially insensitive enemies.
People will complain about anything.
Where under this post? Cuz I dont see it.
Gotta look for the downvoted ones, lol
One example…
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.
Tbh, I can see that. I hop in CS and its political, but I play it for escapism.
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.
A lot of gamers thought it was forced. Its just bad communication with the player.
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.
Gamers are not very smart, and they are the most readily twisted by alt right deception brokers.
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.
I think this person means non partisan, because Metal Gear Solid is filled with political intrigue.
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.
If you liked the guy who murders a load of civilians in like the second episode then I don’t think you can pretend it’s because he’s handsome!
Man… Read the title as “Politicians” at first and was like “I could have been teabagging Trump and not even know it.”
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.
That’s why my favorite book is Moby Dick. No froo-froo symbolism, just a good, simple tale about a man who hates an animal.
I like your style
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 see a Helldiver I up vote.
For Liberty!
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.
I’m pretty sure it would be impossible to play a game like Spec Ops: The Line or Bioshock and miss the political message
People watch star trek and listen to fortunate son and miss the message in both of those pieces of art so I’m pretty sure someone would miss the political message in just about anything.
…and Starship Troopers, and every song by Rage Against the Machine…
Would you like to know more (examples of people missing the point)?
Does anyone really listen to RATM anymore? Tom Morello is a multimillionaire who hordes money instead of giving charity. Hes a hypocrite and a sell-out.
Music and film don’t demand that you engage with them in the same way as video games. There are some games where you literally cannot play them without engaging with their narrative and message. Spec Ops: The Line is a good example of this. It actively pushes back against the player’s natural inclination to play it like a modern military shooter and not absorb the message.
It’s actually very possible to miss the message of Bioshock. Andrew Ryan built the perfect city and Atlas ruined it. Andrew Ryan cast him out, but Atlas brought the player character as his final ultimate weapon. You eventually rebel, saving the capitalist Utopia.
I have seen people who abided by this interpretation. Any art with any level of subtlety can be misinterpreted. It’s inherently subjective and depends on the viewer’s personal biases.
Capitalist utopia? Isn’t the whole point that it’s a Libertarian utopia?
Are you unfamiliar with capitalism as a theory? Or Ayn Rand? Yes, capitalist utopia. That’s the entire libertarian ethos. Libertarianism is a political framework for governance, pure capitalism is its economic policy.
Don’t get me wrong, the only Libertarianism I’ve ever known is intertwined with Capitalism. But they aren’t the same thing, and I always read BioShock as being a take on Libertarianism specifically.
I dunno how you could miss it in Spec Ops, that game is extremely blatant with messaging. I recently patient gamered it and was rather unimpressed. Bioshock still holds up though.
IMO it was a mistake to patient gamer Spec Ops. The whole point was that it was a pushback against the rhetoric of the US military and simultaneously a critique of Call of Duty: Modern Warfare (and knockoffs thereof), which had just exploded in popularity. By not playing it when the things it was critiquing were in the zeitgeist, you don’t really get the same experience. Plus, the marketing for the game deliberately hid the fact that it was intended as a critique; it was marketed as yet another modern military shooter.
I think you can patient gamer it but it only works if you’re heavily familiar with that time.
I was really into COD4 and grew up during the Bush administration so I knew exactly what Spec Ops was critiquing. If you don’t have that experience though I agree it does not land.
I think you’re severely overestimating the average intelligence of the population.
Okay, I’m all for good, complete education, but blaming people not understanding media on “too much STEM” is a bit ridiculous.
I dunno. Math asks me to just accept it’s normal to have 60 watermelons and is trying move bulk orders of melons on a regular car. The goal is to figure out the problem and not accept that the person who is a wholesale watermelon dealer in denial is commiting tax evasion.
Or to discover that the melon seller has a regular job in ag and gets a bunch of melons on the side from the field and sells the harvest at cost to make up the part of their paycheck that was paid in perishable food.
Should we shame the seller for breaking the law or sympathize for being forced into that situation? People don’t have the energy to care; they just came for a maths question.
Sorry, dude, what you said must have been very interesting, but at some point I just stopped reading to optimize a watermelon workflow instead. Weird.
I don’t know how i got here, but I seem to have purchased 7 watermelons.
but… this is not the math you see at STEM, this is the math you see at high school at best. There’s no deeper meaning in actual STEM math problems, they are way too abstract or specific. There’s no watermelons, it’s just some a, b, n1, nk… maybe some physics formulas that apply to velocity, mass… I read 0 problems in my uni math and physics courses where they used real world examples.
I see your point but that’s for high schoolers, not STEM students or alumnus.
It’s weird. I credit my scientific education with waking me up to questioning stuff. Like when you learn about how we know stuff, the limits of proof (e.g. can’t prove empiricism is “true” it just works extremely well for certain things), how hard it is to wrangle stuff into scientific questions and so on the elephant in the room is how fucking impossible most questions are.
Then you get thinking about how untested most of society is, how many different ways there are to interpret things, how unknowable the “goodness” of your preferences is and so on.
Yet, in the same cohort as me there were a lot of people coming out extremely certain of their own worldview and blindly faithful in technocrats and the mystical power of throwing data at stuff to solve enormous problems. Like we are anywhere near being able to calculate out a human society.
So idk, I think it’s less stem vs not stem and education quality and kinds of people/where they’re at in life. You could probably go through a lit crit course and come out blinkered too, being able to do lit crit doesn’t guarantee you’d have good opinions.
I think this explains at least part of the phenomenon…
Guilty as charged. I’ve played hundreds of hours of souls games and all I know about the lore is that souls are money
My friend has told me to watch a bunch of YouTube videos for the lore. It’s apparently very deep.
Now compare that narrative experience the Super Mario Bros.
Im sure it’s been done, but i would love to see interpretations of a First Time User Experience of OG mario if it came out today.
I cant tell you how many games ive just noped out of because i just want to actually play the game and not read or listen to either dialogue or forced tutorial railroading for 20+minutes (even 5 minutes of NOT being in control of what im doing is annoying) when you start a new game.
Even character creation can impede just wanting to get started. Let me come back later, or engage with that as i PLAY the game. Injecting extensive dialogue or forced interactive tutorial should be a reward or a much appreciated rest from the action, not a burden i must bare.
Not every game needs to be story rich to be fun, thank you vampire survivors
