Politics in game storyline
polycounter lvl 5
I posted this same question in another forum, and I did get interesting constructive response, but I decided to ask the same question here to see what creative minds think about this subject, (originally I asked in primarily programmer oriented forum since there is a writing sub-forum in it), so here is a copy/paste of that question.
---
I had a sudden flash of inspiration, and I came up with still very loose outline for the story-line of the game I would like to make at some point. Given that there is a crap ton of video games that have you play as some nameless/faceless military type (American mind you) going half across the world to deliver 'justice' (Battlefield 3 I am looking at you, you too Call of duty... :shifty: ).
If there was a game where you are to play a man that goes to a war zone or area where war may have ended recently, as a non-combatant or someone who isn't related to military, to help someone there about something, but with dialog constantly bashing the enemy that could very well be NATO force just so no one in particular gets offended of the bat; would you give that game a benefit of the doubt? Even if political undertones and indication of the past are only hinted at the player?
I was always of the opinion that there shouldn't be any political views imposed at the player that might just want to maw down enemies and not worry about things (kind of like doom style games, good times...
). Also I would like to point out that I am not trying to start a flame war or something like that I am looking for opinions of others at the subject of openly presenting, political views that might not be to the liking of NATO countries, which are almost entire video game market there is.
---
---
I had a sudden flash of inspiration, and I came up with still very loose outline for the story-line of the game I would like to make at some point. Given that there is a crap ton of video games that have you play as some nameless/faceless military type (American mind you) going half across the world to deliver 'justice' (Battlefield 3 I am looking at you, you too Call of duty... :shifty: ).
If there was a game where you are to play a man that goes to a war zone or area where war may have ended recently, as a non-combatant or someone who isn't related to military, to help someone there about something, but with dialog constantly bashing the enemy that could very well be NATO force just so no one in particular gets offended of the bat; would you give that game a benefit of the doubt? Even if political undertones and indication of the past are only hinted at the player?
I was always of the opinion that there shouldn't be any political views imposed at the player that might just want to maw down enemies and not worry about things (kind of like doom style games, good times...
). Also I would like to point out that I am not trying to start a flame war or something like that I am looking for opinions of others at the subject of openly presenting, political views that might not be to the liking of NATO countries, which are almost entire video game market there is.---
Replies
Even FF 12 had some 'star wars-ish' politics in it and made the game very mature.
Not everyone has a stereotypical world view, not even in NATO countries. And the cultural differences between NATO countries are pretty big. NATO is not exclusively USA. Things might be run differently in different countries!
Tbh I'm pretty sick of Hollywood good-vs-bad hero antics where people shout "Go, go, go, you maggots!" and other cliche shit. I find such "jingoistic" games (I think that's the term?) pretty horrible.
It's not all black and white.
So yeah, more games should totally explore a different viewpoint. Maybe it could even serve to increase empathy among Western players, because seeing things from the other guy's POV is a skill sorely lacking in this day and age.
Being a volntary helper who tries to clear mines, being a medical volunteer trying to cope with horrible circumstances, having to deal with corruption and bartering and criminal interests to buy even basic hospital equipment... being an activist who tries to stop bulldozers in the West Bank... the world is full of stories that are more interesting than "OK marines, give 'em hell!" BABABABABAMM! CRASH! EXPLODE!!!
But than again I wouldn't do anything without context so no one could complain about 'unusual' things happening in the game. I feel that other points of view on touchy subjects, usually wars, are avoided so developer doesn't get branded something like 'terrorist sympathizer' and alike, and screwed out of publishing deals on the project and future projects.
So in my mind it's better to be aware of the broader cultural environment that your game is being released into and have the inevitable social and political messages being made by your game be the result of intentional choices, to the extent that you're able.
I say that as a white male who begged Will Smith to please god make more great movies before he gets too old on Twitter, and meant it.
The only message there, one that we all send out every day, is that we are all imperfect and limited by our human programming.
I have no doubt that there will be at least a dozen games having Russians as bad guys (again :shifty:). I would go for some conflict that looks/is very complex, as in, many sides participating and all that. I am not russian, but I have great respect for them regardless of the fact that they or their country didn't do much for my own country (in the last 100 years or so).
Someone reminded me that there was Medal of Honor game that took out 'Taliban' from the multiplayer part of the game due to media frenzy. This is the problem I have when I think of making something that might not be too your average american that might only watch one (heavily biased) side of news. Games like 'This war of mine', is based on siege of Sarajevo which lasted for 4 years and wasn't completed, but the game was based loosely on this and didn't say which is which side, or point any finger at anyone, since the main point of the game was its survival concept and nothing else.
While I agree and encourage games that are not made from the traditional western perspective for an increased cultural awareness, and the fact that even a game not made with any political agenda still will feel "different" because of said developer's differences in social and cultural roots (aka I fucking loved the S.T.A.L.K.E.R. series because even though it was still an fps, it felt so different in the way everything was handled compared to the usual games made in the U.S., which I also love. Fable is another series that while very nato, would of felt different in humor had it been done by U.S. developers)
You do have to remember what your target audience is, and have to basically take a few steps back and look at the game you're developing from other people's perspectives. At the extreme end, would a game where the goal is nothing but to kill American citizens as an act of revenge from a country whose rights have been trampled on by an imposed dictator regime placed there by the U.S. for the sole purpose of them siding more towards Capitalism than Communism? Yes it would offend Americans and probably be blacklisted by the media.
Now if you were to create a game that instead focused on uncovering the deplorable acts of violence in a country where the United States imposed the said-Dictator, with the player as a detective, while coupling that with gameplay of cat-and-mouse, running and hiding from the militant police while trying to deliver the evidence to a global news station and hopefully stop U.S. support of the corrupt government due to an outcry from their citizens? Possibly that could work, although you'll still have a few people less open to the game. Everyone even in the same country with the same generalized culture will have vastly different tastes and views.
IE see latin america, and why we the United States supported the Batista Regime in Cuba for the sole purpose of him being anti-communist, even though he carried out wide-spread acts of public executions, torture, and "disappearances," during the 1950's when Americans were brought up to hate communists at their very core.
I guess my point is, know who your target audience is and if that even matters to you. Think of how another person with a different culture/gender/race/country/whatever might view your game. Have different people actually play your game while developing it and ask them what they think. Is there a way to do something tastefully to get the message across without sacrificing gameplay, but rather supports it? IE uncovering the horrors that the U.S. supported in a game of cat-and-mouse speaks truer to how there are many Americans who never even heard of the Baptiste regime, versus a first-person shooter where the only act of intelligence is blowing something up.
Just my 2 cents as a capitalist American that likes western games and games developed by other countries anyways. While all people have their own viewpoints socially and politically, there are certain universal truths such as people tending not to like mass-murdering dictators or non-combatant civilians being targeted by armed militant forces.
Also, you said would a game that would constantly have the dialog bashing NATO forces be given the benefit of the doubt? Then my answer would be no. There is a huge difference between constantly bashing and preaching a one-sided point of view versus telling a point of view that while different from the opposing view, has common ground in the truths between both opposing views. No one likes to listen to someone with a different point of view who thinks theirs is the only one in the room and everyone else is false. To bash is to not have a conversation. It would be like someone asking for a critique on a piece of art and not responding to any of the feedback, where as someone who both addresses the feedback while strengthening what they wanted to accomplish with their own personal work is much better to communicate with.
I completely agree with what you said, and its not that I am so narrow minded to hate entire nation because of the governments foreign policy. It really is a fine line on what can be seen as offensive and what could be considered a history lesson in a way of game story-line.
I guess if you can make it believable that the people you're fighting are really a threat to you, or really are morally repulsive, or enemies to everything you hold dear, such as freedom and human rights and your little life, if you can make the player believe that if they don't shoot that SS guy, he will squish them like a bug without a second thought, then it doesn't matter what the nationality is.
It's not like there aren't bad people in every country. They just need to be believably bad. It's not hard to envision a scenario where American players would have no problem with shooting NPCs who are, on paper, American citizens. In fact Grand Theft Auto pretty much does it, at least it's strongly implied that it's set in America.
I remember marching into Berlin as a Red Army soldier, right until we took the Reichstag in the end, in the first Call of Duty. Of course I know that a lot of Red Army soldiers did pretty terrible things (which the game unfortunately did not make clear, it depicted the Allies as heroes exclusively IIRC which is historically incorrect) but I also know that the Nazi regime was horrible, and as such I had zero problem with it although it did feel spooky to assault your own state's parliament. It gave me something to think about. But I just told myself "that guy's probably a nazi, and he's trying to shoot me, so I better shoot first." Knowing that made it tolerable.
Don't underestimate people, if they understand the enemy is an asshole, they would storm the US Capitol without batting an eyelash as long as they thought it was the right thing to do. Just make it believable. Have it infested by zombies or mafia or neo-nazis or the Umbrella Corporation. You get the point. Just make the antagonist believably evil and nationality won't matter.
Colonel Kurtz (Apocalypse Now) is another example where an American is the bad guy, and that worked very well. Probably because the protagonist was also American.
You probably couldn't get a publisher to touch it, but a game that chronicles the Israeli/Palestinian from the side of the Palestinian's, again on a more personal level rather than a generic shooter, would be super interesting.
I think if you seek to simply vilify one side so people are comfortable shooting at them you haven't accomplished much other than the typical shallow brown people = terrorists/nazis = bad cliche games that we've seen so many of.
for example:
a game where you play a suicide bomber
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaboom:_The_Suicide_Bombing_Game
"I'm OK" the game which Jack Thompson proposed as an example of violence in video games
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I%27m_O.K_%E2%80%93_A_Murder_Simulator
papers please - a game about being a border security agent
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papers,_Please
sunset the game - a game about being a maid during a civil war
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunset_(video_game)
Anyway there's probably a lot more. But those are some that might give you a good introduction to the kinds of things you can cover.
BioShock and sequels
Now I want to play games like these
How cool would be to play as an underpowered character trying to survive, bulldozers destroying your shelter, fighting against a tank armed with stones, etc, rather than the usual living assault rifle soldier made out of kevlar.
The game wouldn't necessarily be action oriented, you can make a political game a la SimCity but more in depth, with a manageable parliament, opposition, army and all that stuff.
You can play it as you want, be friend with other nations, play the undeveloped nation while build an arsenal, smuggle weapons to extremists, receive economic sanctions, having protesters aided by foreign nations (Otpor! style Arab Spring), bombing of your oil refinery because you don't want to sell it to a certain price or you tried to sell it using another currency than the world standard, etc.
Doing PsyOps yourself on the other countries, industrial espionage, launching attacks, declaring war and be annihilated or invaded.
what you described sounds a lot like tropico
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropico
From the description yes, I have to give it a try, although I was thinking of a more serious scenario, instead of a satiric way of portraying south american presidents, but I think that this doesn't diminish the challenges this game presents about succeeding at being a dictator ;D