RolStoppable said:
I wouldn't call the gameplay of a game political messaging (barring very few exceptions), because video games are supposed to have objectives, otherwise there's no real point to the medium. Your FF VII example also makes it look like you are trying too hard. You confuse lack of pro-homosexual with pro-heterosexual when there's actually no particular agenda in regards to sexuality being pushed. That's why video games are largely free of political messaging because they usually don't take any particular side. Maybe you remember the discussion about theism and atheism, and how anyone who isn't a theist has to be an atheist by default when it's actually the case that atheism is an active stance where someone is convinced that no gods exist as opposed to the large space between theism and atheism where people are either indifferent or ignorant of what theism and atheism entail. Don't overlook the broad middle on the spectrum. We don't disagree that there are people who complain under a disguise. |
In that particular game though the designer chose to make the gameplay that way for a particular reason. He particular designed the gameplay that way because he didn't want to portray aggression in a positive light, and instead wanted to portray defensive action as a virtue. Isn't that a political statement that the designer was making?
Likewise, I think there is a statement (not necessarily an agenda) being made whenever a heterosexual couple is portrayed. When heterosexuals are portrayed in a positive light, that reflects what how the developers feel about heterosexual romance. I'm not saying Square went into this with a purpose of WE MUST CONVERT THE HETEROPHOBIC or anything else, but the way they design the story is reflective of their views. Just happens to be a view that basically nobody disagrees with.
To use another example, a commercial in the US was deemed "controversial" because it featured two dads. It doesn't make a big deal out of it, just two dads getting their kids to eat Cheerios. Is this a "pro-homosexual" agenda? If so, why wouldn't a commercial with a heterosexual couple, be "pro-heterosexual" agenda?
There's a joke that I'm probably not telling right. Two fish are in the water. One of them says "how's the water today"? The other says, "What the fuck is water?"
In the same way, we are surrounded by political messages in pretty much any story telling medium. What is portrayed as positive or negative reflects the developer's positions. But when the message is one that is universally accepted and not questioned, we tend not to question it. It's only when the particular political message is one people disagree with that it gets noticed.
sales2099 said:
Well now you have to think about degrees. Some political messages aren’t subjects of controversy in video games. A simple game about firing missiles isn’t cause for outrage. Just protest the real thing. Military interventionism is not up there on the list of outrage as other things like say race and religion. Your FF7 message is simply demographics. It’s not pushing hetero agendas it’s a game made by Japanese developers who recognize certain realities. That the vast majority of the human population is straight. There would be an issue if it made being gay problematic by comparison...but we all know that’s not the case. I wouldn’t call Japanese people an overly sexist and racist bunch....remember the Resident Evil 5 controversy? Since when do Japanese people exhibit white supremacy? Chris Redfield is a fan favourite and the game took place in Africa. People look for problems that aren’t there. Just like western society is mostly comprised of Christians. Not just white people but Hispanics who are just as devout. A big chunk of western society is also conservative. Again not just Christians but the millions of the growing Muslim population. So when you make anti religious messages and overly left leaning messages in western catered games of course you will get blowback....know your demographics. Or in LOU2s case one may argue Joel was killed off because ND politics dictate that gaming needs less straight white males. That’s real ramifications of injecting a political bias into video games...causing a fan favourite to die because of the color of his skin. And having you play as his killer...how does ND expect people to get on board with this? Final point and I want to make perfectly clear I’m talking about stats. There is little fruit in making a political statement that appeals to a statistical minority while potentially pissing off the majority of the fanbase. It ignores the stats in favour of personal virtue signalling. ND literally put their agenda ahead of fans and profits. Sony won’t be happy about this. You said there were other factors at play then gamers merely wanting to keep their fan favourites, hope this answers the question. |
Well... have you played Resident Evil 5? Cause when I played through the game at first I was thinking "why would people have a problem with this? Of course zombies will be black in Africa." And then when I got to the part where I'm fighting literal spear chuckers, living in huts, dressed in tribal garb I'm like... "Oh... ok. I kind of get it."
This...
Is quite different than this...
And... I don't think those kind of pre-contact tribes are very common in Africa anymore. I'm not going to assume intentions, but it was a poor choice.
As for FF7, I'm not saying anything about homosexuality. I'm not saying they're putting it down by focusing on heterosexual relationships, just that portraying heterosexual relations positively, is a pro-heterosexual relationship message.
To think of it another way, let's turn to FF8. In the beginning we have Squall who is a withdrawn sullen lad. His relationship with Rinoa makes him open up and is portrayed as a very positive thing.
The message is basically that love is great and desirable. Find your manic pixie dreamgirl. That's a position that the developers are espousing.
Alternatively, they could have had Rinoa completely fuck Squall's live up, they could have had them wind up in an incredibly abusive relationship, they could have had Squall reject her and instead use his solitude to become an even better SEED person.
FF8 could have had an anti-relationship message. Instead they have a pro-relationship message. That's as much of the developers expressing their opinion about how the world should be as it is when two gay characters are portrayed positively in a game. So, I'd call that a political message.
As for the rest, you're kind of just making assumptions on what Naughty Dog's motivations are. You are assuming that they killed of Joel specifically to include a non-white character, and I think that's incredibly unlikely. If they wanted you to play as a non-white character, they could have accomplished that easily without killing anyone. And that would probably make more sense, cause I would imagine they don't expect everyone to love this new character.
Basically correlation does not imply causation. You're saying the conversation went like this: "Well our main priority is to include a "diverse character". Therefore, let's kill Joel." How do you know that the conversation didn't go like... "We want to make this story about someone taking revenge on Joel for the horrible things he did. Oh, and why not make this new character "diverse"? Couldn't the desire to include more "diverse" characters and the decision to kill Joel have been completely independent?
