Politics in games - are some subjects too controversial?

[CrazyCrab]

Hi everyone,
First of all Im sorry for all the possible typos Im likely going to make -Im typing this on a smartphone and I really hate doing that.
Anyway, Im currently working on a strategy survival game set in a postapocalyptic world where you, as an owerpowered being get to make all the decisions, until you win or are overthrown.

At the same time Im really curious if Im doing the right thing including subjects such as gay rights (and one of your options is even "declare them monstrous and kill them all"), racism (embrace another races, enslave them or just kill them among other things) as well as other touchy subjects such as communism, fascism, medical experiments, secret police and others.

That is not to say that you'll only be making controversial choices. Natually normal things such as choosing the buildings that you want to buils, organizing events etc will also come into play.

I always thought that giving the players such choices will make the game more enjoyable, as it will allow for the creation of some really intresting civilizations. The more I think about it the more Im tempted to cut those bits out as Im sure that more than few people will be pissed off about them.

What do you think? Are some subjects ok while others shouldnt be touched with a 10 foot pole?
Thanks!

 

[nesbitto]

I'm interested about the effects that these choices will have on the game. Ultimately, this will decide it for me as to whether or not they should be included.

Spoiler: Quick Racism Example

I very quickly came up with this, it probably won't be balanced.

Binary choice; will your civilization be racist? Yes or no. If no, you continue on as normal. If yes...

Any minorities in your civ are enslaved. You can work them harder than normal workers, feed them less etc... But to balance that, you have a constant threat of a slave uprising. Your armies might fight with more zeal against other races, but other races will refuse to trade with you. You may even have other civs attack you for being so racist.

If they make a meaningful difference to game play, I'd love to see them included. They would make the game much more unique. You may or may not get flak from people for including them, but equally likely I think is people congratulating you for dealing with "touchy" subjects. There only touchy because we refuse to acknowledge them, by talking about them you reduce their taboo-ness.

 

[Joey Banana]

I don't think there is any subject that shouldn't be touched with a 10 foot pole. Just make sure you treat every subject matter sensibly and intelligently. For example, the topic of war crimes. Spec Ops: The Line did it extremely well and made you question some things about shooters and video games in general. On the other hand, Homefront just forced it upon you to make you care about the story. That's obviously not the way to do it.

It could attract some questionable customers if you include options for genocide or extreme homophobia, though.

 

[CloudAtlas]

I always thought that giving the players such choices will make the game more enjoyable, as it will allow for the creation of some really intresting civilizations. The more I think about it the more Im tempted to cut those bits out as Im sure that more than few people will be pissed off about them.

If you already have an uneasy feeling about certain contents, it might indeed be better to cut said contents. Or perhaps don't try to do everything at once, but focus on a few select issues that you feel are the most central to your game, and make sure you get them "right"?
I think the general rule for including controversial content should be that this content should matter, should be in some way relevant for the experience... and not just include stuff like genocide for the lulz.

 

[StriderShinryu]

I can't think of any topics off hand that absolutely should not be touched upon. That said, I think within the context of a videogame it would be very hard to give certain topics the mature approach that they deserve, particularly given the sort of approaches that are commonplace in the industry. Take Kojima and the MGS series for example. Some real meaty topics there that actually deserve exploration in gaming, but Kojima just doesn't have the ability to do them any justice at all. In fact, his bungling of certain topics is one of the reasons why this sort of question even has to be asked in the first place.

 

[Sigmund Av Volsung]

Gaming as a whole?

Yes, there is no topic that shouldn't be explored if we want the medium to be taken seriously.

Gaming as it is now?

Perhaps not. We're still in a similar phase that movies in the 50s were(ie, "lookatdeeswomen and ermagherdgiantmonstrosities" movies), so unless there are some incredibly budding indie devs who feel like diving right into really controversial topics, chances are it won't be done well.

 

[Maximum Bert]

Just make the game you want to make and include what you want in it dont worry about it being controversial or safe just do whats best for the game in your opinion. Thats what I would do anyway.

 

[MeChaNiZ3D]

Assuming you're putting these in the game in a way that isn't completely arbitrary and clearly there for the controversy (and it doesn't sound like you are), there's no controversy in giving the player a choice. Let the player do what the player wants to do, and include whatever you think is relevant and makes the game better.

 

[Rozalia1]

No I'd say nothing is too controversial. I wish more games allowed me to commit genocide, and other such war crimes...I mean you set out to do an evil play-through and you can only do the usual stuff, come on now.

I suppose in the end it comes down to censorship really. Once you break that down then we'll be start to see a lot more "out there" stuff.

 

[DEAD34345]

Nothing is "too controversial". In fact if a topic is controversial at all, that's almost certainly because it's not being discussed enough, and I would applaud anyone who is willing to face those taboos (and the inevitable flak for doing so).

[snip]

Take Kojima and the MGS series for example. Some real meaty topics there that actually deserve exploration in gaming, but Kojima just doesn't have the ability to do them any justice at all. In fact, his bungling of certain topics is one of the reasons why this sort of question even has to be asked in the first place.

See, this is the kind of attitude I don't get at all. You're saying someone "doesn't have the ability to do them any justice at all"? What does that mean? What gives you (or anyone else) the right to decide that someone else's work isn't good enough to discuss a point? Isn't the silencing of discussion the very thing that is halting progress on these sensitive issues in the first place?

I fully understand disagreeing with a particular viewpoint, but to say that certain people shouldn't discuss certain things, or even that they should only discuss those things in a certain correct way is wrong as far as I'm concerned. Wrong and almost always directly harmful to the cause it's intended to champion.

If racism, gay rights, fascism etc weren't such taboo subjects maybe we'd get some more actual discussion and action on them, rather than pointless arguments about whether or not we can talk about them in the first place.

 

[Racecarlock]

Any subject is worth exploring in games as long as the writing teams are up to the task.

However, controversial subjects don't work when they're either shoehorned into a game or explored with all the subtlety of a thriller dance number suddenly happening in the middle of The Godfather. You need to be careful or else you could end up saying something really horrible or get completely the wrong point across by accident.

Throwing in rape scenes at random, child deaths thrown in for shock value, torture references also used for shock value. This is not how to explore these subjects. It's not! You need to put subtlety into it. You need to be careful. Otherwise it comes off as cheap or offensive. Look at call of duty for example. Nobody takes the shock scenes seriously anymore because they do them every 5 minutes. I like the COD series, but not for it's shock value. You can shoot people and not feel bad and that's always nice. Psychotic, but nice.

Also, don't shove them in games where it's not necessary. I don't think mario needs a rape scene. I don't think the next just cause game needs torture references.

If you can take all this into consideration as a video game writer, then go ahead. But don't use shock value for the sake of shock value. That's cheap and pandering.

 

[StriderShinryu]

[snip]

Take Kojima and the MGS series for example. Some real meaty topics there that actually deserve exploration in gaming, but Kojima just doesn't have the ability to do them any justice at all. In fact, his bungling of certain topics is one of the reasons why this sort of question even has to be asked in the first place.

See, this is the kind of attitude I don't get at all. You're saying someone "doesn't have the ability to do them any justice at all"? What does that mean? What gives you (or anyone else) the right to decide that someone else's work isn't good enough to discuss a point? Isn't the silencing of discussion the very thing that is halting progress on these sensitive issues in the first place?

I'm clearly not saying that discussion on topics shouldn't happen. What I'm saying is simply that if you have a topic that is going to be sensitive and requires a mature and steady hand, you shouldn't do it in a series that is well known for being anything but mature, sensitive and guided by a steady hand.

Saying, for example, that child soldiers is a topic that shouldn't be dealt with on The Wiggles TV show doesn't mean that the subject of child soldiers can't/shouldn't be dealt with on a TV show.

 

[Mylinkay Asdara]

Nothing is "too controversial". In fact if a topic is controversial at all, that's almost certainly because it's not being discussed enough, and I would applaud anyone who is willing to face those taboos (and the inevitable flak for doing so).

[snip]

Take Kojima and the MGS series for example. Some real meaty topics there that actually deserve exploration in gaming, but Kojima just doesn't have the ability to do them any justice at all. In fact, his bungling of certain topics is one of the reasons why this sort of question even has to be asked in the first place.

See, this is the kind of attitude I don't get at all. You're saying someone "doesn't have the ability to do them any justice at all"? What does that mean? What gives you (or anyone else) the right to decide that someone else's work isn't good enough to discuss a point? Isn't the silencing of discussion the very thing that is halting progress on these sensitive issues in the first place?

I fully understand disagreeing with a particular viewpoint, but to say that certain people shouldn't discuss certain things, or even that they should only discuss those things in a certain correct way is wrong as far as I'm concerned. Wrong and almost always directly harmful to the cause it's intended to champion.

If racism, gay rights, fascism etc weren't such taboo subjects maybe we'd get some more actual discussion and action on them, rather than pointless arguments about whether or not we can talk about them in the first place.

Deciding someone's effort wasn't good enough - for you and in your opinion good enough in general - is a completely normal part of any Art or Entertainment consumption. Same with deciding someone's effort was exceptional or excellent.

That's part of being an artist, producer, actor, writer, game developers - whatever. You make work, you put it out there, and people form judgements - good or bad - about that work.

Where did this idea that opinions of the consumer shouldn't exist come from and why has it become so prevalent is what I would ask, rather than what gives a consumer the right to say someone did something well or poorly in the media they are consuming.

 

[gargantual]

I'll say the same thing Trey Parker and Matt Stone said to CBS interview about choosing subject matter. Its paraphrasing but close enough.

"Nope. What's so high and mighty about that it can't be discussed or talked about ever?"

We've had Super Columbine RPG, and some involved in that tragedy have come to an understanding as to why that RPG maker game was made. Not out of shameless devaluing of real tragedy, but an attempt to artistically grasp with what happened.

At that point you have to say it's just a medium. No bars or shackles. Besides news has proven to handle discussion of real world issues with far less objectivity and risk at times, than fictional media that might poorly allude to real world politics for plot and shock value but you can see the disconnect a mile away.

 

[Ihateregistering1]

Hi everyone,
First of all Im sorry for all the possible typos Im likely going to make -Im typing this on a smartphone and I really hate doing that.
Anyway, Im currently working on a strategy survival game set in a postapocalyptic world where you, as an owerpowered being get to make all the decisions, until you win or are overthrown.

At the same time Im really curious if Im doing the right thing including subjects such as gay rights (and one of your options is even "declare them monstrous and kill them all"), racism (embrace another races, enslave them or just kill them among other things) as well as other touchy subjects such as communism, fascism, medical experiments, secret police and others.

That is not to say that you'll only be making controversial choices. Natually normal things such as choosing the buildings that you want to buils, organizing events etc will also come into play.

I always thought that giving the players such choices will make the game more enjoyable, as it will allow for the creation of some really intresting civilizations. The more I think about it the more Im tempted to cut those bits out as Im sure that more than few people will be pissed off about them.

What do you think? Are some subjects ok while others shouldnt be touched with a 10 foot pole?
Thanks!

Personally, I think the idea of having a game in which you can make decisions of extreme moral dubiousness but that can actually benefit you in the game world is a phenomenal idea.

For example, as you mentioned you could maybe have a choice in the game where your town (or village or whatever) is a "whites only" place. You could have the benefit that this causes less tension and unites your people behind a single unifying idea (so less chance of rebellion, more dedicated townspeople, etc.), with the negative of that you cut out large amounts of people who could potentially come to your town (I assume population growth is ultra important in a post-apocalyptic game).

You could also go in the opposite direction, have it so you can create a town that is some sort of politically correct utopia, but if you ally yourself with any "less progressive' towns the people will turn on you. The possibilities are really interesting here.

 

[Bashfluff]

Games are all about choice. In a game about providing as much meaningful choice as possible, you should aim to provide as much meaningful choices as you can. There's no reason not to, and every reason to do it. I'm with Yahtzee on this one. If you make an "evil" choice something that is easier, but less moral, then that's when you see the morality of the person reflected in the game to an extent.

But what you do have to keep in mind is tone. A random game that gives you the option to kill black people when it's otherwise, say, a SimCity type of game, might creep out a player. If your game has continuing themes of morality and choice, like The Walking Dead, it won't be seen as out of place. The problem to me seems to be that they're only options that you can choose in a game, and you're not going to call attention to them at all. I'd be a little worried about that, because those options invariably change the tone because of the subject matter and how few games incorporate it in that way.

If you can find a solution for that, then go for it.

 

[Therumancer]

Hi everyone,
First of all Im sorry for all the possible typos Im likely going to make -Im typing this on a smartphone and I really hate doing that.
Anyway, Im currently working on a strategy survival game set in a postapocalyptic world where you, as an owerpowered being get to make all the decisions, until you win or are overthrown.

At the same time Im really curious if Im doing the right thing including subjects such as gay rights (and one of your options is even "declare them monstrous and kill them all"), racism (embrace another races, enslave them or just kill them among other things) as well as other touchy subjects such as communism, fascism, medical experiments, secret police and others.

That is not to say that you'll only be making controversial choices. Natually normal things such as choosing the buildings that you want to buils, organizing events etc will also come into play.

I always thought that giving the players such choices will make the game more enjoyable, as it will allow for the creation of some really intresting civilizations. The more I think about it the more Im tempted to cut those bits out as Im sure that more than few people will be pissed off about them.

What do you think? Are some subjects ok while others shouldnt be touched with a 10 foot pole?
Thanks!

It's less that the subjects are touchy, than the politics and certain perspectives on them are. Pretty much every issue you mentioned has been covered, and as long as the conclusion pretty much goes in the direction of modern liberalism being the right and "best" choice it's okay, but if you decide to start defending the other point of view or presenting it as equally viable, you run into trouble. The odd thing is that when you look at both sides of most major issues from a broad enough perspective (like developing your own world) your conclusions tend to not always wind up being "politically correct", so it's something a lot of people tend to avoid doing. It's how I arrived at some of my less popular positions.

To take one of the least controversial aspects of this entire thing, let's look at medical experiments. The whole moral issue there is of course the undeniable benefits as opposed to the moral issues in torturing prisoners to death. This is the whole area discussions about people like Mengele and Japan's "Unit 731" get into. It's even been thrown around on TV shows like "Voyager" before. Whether this is right or wrong, and if it's wrong is it equally wrong to save millions of lives using technology and techniques developed through such methods. I say it's the least controversial, because while it's quite a "bomb" it's something players of games like the "UFO" and "X-com" series are used to dealing with, where in order to win you need to basically torture/interrogate aliens and then do all kinds of sick experiments on them to find better ways to kill them (with the end goal of saving humanity). When laid down as an issue it can lead to all kinds of nasty discussions, but it's something video games have already shown people can handle when presented in the right context. For other issues... not so much.

There is a reason why most "empire" games tend to be fairly abstract in terms of what your doing, painting policy choices and such in broad strokes.

Of course I "Evil Therumancer" would argue that most empire games probably need a "social morality" meter that needs to be balanced, if it gets too high you wind up being unable to do much of anything in pursuit of your own needs or interests for moral reasons, and if it gets too low you wind up with the central social structures falling apart and things get even worse. In the big picture you need to be the biggest bastard on the planet to really succeed, but have enough internal morality to feel good about yourself as you do it.

I'll also say that a lot of the things mentioned here don't matter that much in terms of this kind of game. Things like slavery aren't generally handled as it all comes up in terms of morale and how many workers you happen to have assigned in each place. Likewise when you conquer things you take direct control of them. You don't generally have to worry about "how do I keep this city/planet I captured passive?" or say weigh the benefits of slavery vs. freedom based on the overall principle of whether you want to see a lot of your basic workers slowly get turned into techs and such over a few turns/generations. The exceptions have been things like developing women's sufferage in say "Civilization" or a cloning technology in "Alpha Centurai" (which famously could wreck your civilization by causing sudden, explosive, overpopulation).

As a general rule though, make the game you want to make, and don't worry too much about the details. If your sincere about wanting to put the options out there, as opposed to just shock and offend people, just stick to your guns and defend it that way. If people play it, ignore the critics who claim your an "ist" or promoting an "ism".

 

[Evonisia]

I don't see any topic as too controversial to at least take a stab at it. Homefront's been brought up enough so I won't bring this into it.

So MW2 has you shoot up a bunch of civilians but it's done for three reasons: To make the story move forward because apparently a dead American terrorist in Russia can't already provide this. To justify it because you are a secret agent under orders. And to demonise the main villain. I don't think it works because it was obviously put in to capitalise on how amazingly done the nuke scene from CoD 4 was, and also it's pulled down by a significant plot hole which kinda undermines the entire thing. They also don't bring up this shooting at any point afterwards. It has no effect on the characters or how they're arcs progress beyond causing the war which is indirect at best. It doesn't further the plot other than for a contrived reason. At the same time I don't think they shouldn't have been allowed to make that mission, because no topic should out of bounds as then you say x is more offensive than y, and x is only more offensive than y through subjective opinion, and opinions can't be wrong.

The same I will say for anything to do with sex and gender issues. Homophobia, rape (of any kind), sexism, misogyny, objectification and so on are all fine so long as the developer had them on their mind during production and it contributes in some positive manner to the game. Of course that's mostly because I am not even going to try and dig deep into any of those issues because that's a can of worms not worth getting drenched in.

I guess it's the politics that are holding many developers from doing controversial subjects, though. I remember that civilian shooting mission from MW2 and the 'sex' scenes from Mass Effect got coverage on the news back when they were new.