It does look like it's going more after Nationalism and the idea of "God's Chosen Nation".Himmelgeher said:I have to ask, where did you get Constitutionalism from that? That's a pretty big leap. Do you have a source? Because I always assumed this game would be tackling Nationalism, and this game being about Constitutionalism makes no goddamn sense. Can you tell me, because I'd really like to know how you made that connection?Not G. Ivingname said:
The main difference is that Objectivists argue that mankind has an inherent inertia, that people want to accomplish something. It is not the reward/lack of punishment that drives an Objectivist, but rather the will to accomplish something.Istvan said:
The game is set in the early 20th century.Ian Caronia said:However, I also think that image is the most grotesque attempt at being irreverent I've seen since Duke Nukem Forever, though at least DNF was just being silly to be silly (and stuck to poking at other franchises, so you could laugh if you wanted and not lose your IQ).Not G. Ivingname said:
_This? This can't be in Bioshock Infinite. It's...
Stupid. Incredibly stupid. Insultingly stupid. This is either a very lame joke that not even Rockstar would put into a GTA game, or it's a sad realization of how the developers will handle the subject matter you're talking about.
Wow. Just...wow. No subtlety at all. Put it this way: That image is EXACTLY the OPPOSITE of how I think games should handle complex subject matter. One sided and absolutely lazy. Don't seem to recall the original being so...so...
Where's that overused "AMERICA! FUCK YEAH!" song to go with that pic?
EDIT: Nevermind. I'm thoroughly disappointed in this game now >_>
With all due respect my greatest criticism of the Tea Party movement is not represented in that image. I would also ask what you mean when you say "Tea Party Constitutionalism."Not G. Ivingname said:I debated with myself if this should go into the gaming or R&P section, but decided on this one since this about how Bioshock Infinite may make a few enemies for it's political view, not the politics themselves.
Video game controversy has always come from one of only a handful of things. The game has either been to violent (GTA), to sexual (Mass Effect), the game is racist (RE5) there is one minor detail in the text that is all but meaningless (Medal of Honor), something specific about the game code that puts a specific party in a frizzy (DRM/Pre-order bonuses that give actual bonuses), or rarely somebody involved in development (Shadow Complex). What a game hasn't been controversial over is the games internal politics.
Up to this point, video games haven't dealt in political matters in a way that has rubbed anybody the wrong way, even the ones that appear to be about nothing but complex politics. Metal Gear manages to please both conservatives and liberals by having an old military hard-case star in an anti-war game. Army of Two, a game about two private military contracts avoids the issues by taking nothing about it self remotely seriously. 4X (Civilization and the like) when the introduce possible political forms into your nation they are equal and only show the more practical effects on your empire.
The only games that have made a big political statement has been Bioshock 1 and 2. However, Bioshock 1 was a counter-argument against Objectivism, the political theory that is libertarism taken to it's largest extreme, has very few practitioners now-a-day's. Bioshock 2's sparse and confusing story made it unclear to most people it was a counter-argument against Communism, not helped that Bioshock 2's communistic cult would make Marx eat his own beard at the idea.
Every single criticism aimed at the Tea Party, true or not, is demostrated in that image. It also is taking a stab at radical liberal thought as well, if the newest bit of Bioshock Infinite's gameplay is to be believed. http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/trailers/3558-Bioshock-Infinite-Factions-at-War
I think this may be a big step for gaming as an accepted medium. Every other medium has dealt with political issues and has never been angry when they made some political enemies. If a game is hated for the point of the game's story and writing, that is the ultimate indecator that we have been taken seriously.
Do you guys agree or am I out of my mind.
About Nitpick 2? I know that what you say is true. I've even seen ads for her own school of objectivism. Yes Objectivism is still quite politically popular and not just ironically but paradoxically popular with Neo-Conservatives.Gethsemani said:
Forgive me but what "left wind" nutjob is currently an enemy of the "medium"? (Whyowhy can't people just still say the Video Game industry? Everytime somebody bemoans the state of the industry it sounds like someone just beat the crap out of a psychic....)Blatherscythe said:
Your guess is as good as mine, I think. If I am allowed to speculate I assume it is because Conservatism in the USA is quite different from conservatism in Europe. An american conservatist wants to preserve the ideals of the US constitution as interpreted by the conservatist. This means lots of personal freedom, small government and the spirit that one is the master of your own destiny. In those particular areas Objectivism and Neo-Conservatism in the USA ar quite similar.mikev7.0 said:
Ah! But see what I meant was subtly in the fact that it's propaganda. Yes, there was hardly anything subtle about the propaganda and its racism back then, but look closely at the image I was talking about and compare the two.Zhukov said:The game is set in the early 20th century.
Have you ever seen the propaganda images that were used back then?
Yeah... subtlety wasn't exactly their strong point.
The key difference is the clear villain: In the real propaganda, the enemy's race was being demonized. A gorilla. A stereotypical Asain with a bloody dagger. But in the image used in Infinite, who is being demonized? Who is the enemy being shown in their "true colors" to the public?Not G. Ivingname said:
All the best villains don't believe they're being villainous.Ian Caronia said:
What you just typed is exactly why the game's political narrative is stupid. You assume that Objectivism and Constitutionalism are founded on "racist, die-hard, 1920s [nationalist]" ideals.Captain Booyah said:
If you think you are out of your mind because you find the image offencive, then no. It is VERY offencive. It's suppose to be. We're not really talking about politics nowadays, it's the 1920's. Not really the shining example of political correctness. I don't think you can say they have gone too far here because what they are doing is trying to show the people in this place as a bunch of bigots in the sky we get to kill. If you were to look at some real american propaganda from back then (or even later) you could see some that have a very similar message. With these propaganda images they really get the idea to you that this is really not a nice place politically, and socially.Not G. Ivingname said:I debated with myself if this should go into the gaming or R&P section, but decided on this one since this about how Bioshock Infinite may make a few enemies for it's political view, not the politics themselves.
Video game controversy has always come from one of only a handful of things. The game has either been to violent (GTA), to sexual (Mass Effect), the game is racist (RE5) there is one minor detail in the text that is all but meaningless (Medal of Honor), something specific about the game code that puts a specific party in a frizzy (DRM/Pre-order bonuses that give actual bonuses), or rarely somebody involved in development (Shadow Complex). What a game hasn't been controversial over is the games internal politics.
Up to this point, video games haven't dealt in political matters in a way that has rubbed anybody the wrong way, even the ones that appear to be about nothing but complex politics. Metal Gear manages to please both conservatives and liberals by having an old military hard-case star in an anti-war game. Army of Two, a game about two private military contracts avoids the issues by taking nothing about it self remotely seriously. 4X (Civilization and the like) when the introduce possible political forms into your nation they are equal and only show the more practical effects on your empire.
The only games that have made a big political statement has been Bioshock 1 and 2. However, Bioshock 1 was a counter-argument against Objectivism, the political theory that is libertarism taken to it's largest extreme, has very few practitioners now-a-day's. Bioshock 2's sparse and confusing story made it unclear to most people it was a counter-argument against Communism, not helped that Bioshock 2's communistic cult would make Marx eat his own beard at the idea.
Every single criticism aimed at the Tea Party, true or not, is demostrated in that image. It also is taking a stab at radical liberal thought as well, if the newest bit of Bioshock Infinite's gameplay is to be believed. http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/trailers/3558-Bioshock-Infinite-Factions-at-War
I think this may be a big step for gaming as an accepted medium. Every other medium has dealt with political issues and has never been angry when they made some political enemies. If a game is hated for the point of the game's story and writing, that is the ultimate indecator that we have been taken seriously.
Do you guys agree or am I out of my mind.
To be fair, a Nationalist would most likely say that his/her nation was God's chosen.DustyDrB said:It does look like it's going more after Nationalism and the idea of "God's Chosen Nation".Himmelgeher said:I have to ask, where did you get Constitutionalism from that? That's a pretty big leap. Do you have a source? Because I always assumed this game would be tackling Nationalism, and this game being about Constitutionalism makes no goddamn sense. Can you tell me, because I'd really like to know how you made that connection?Not G. Ivingname said:
You're right. It's kind of a case of "All squares are rectangles but not all rectangles are squares"Imp Emissary said:To be fair, a Nationalist would most likely say that his/her nation was God's chosen.DustyDrB said:It does look like it's going more after Nationalism and the idea of "God's Chosen Nation".Himmelgeher said:I have to ask, where did you get Constitutionalism from that? That's a pretty big leap. Do you have a source? Because I always assumed this game would be tackling Nationalism, and this game being about Constitutionalism makes no goddamn sense. Can you tell me, because I'd really like to know how you made that connection?Not G. Ivingname said:
Simple answer. Conservatives can love Ms. Rand because they just "ignore" the parts of what she said that they don't like. (example: She hated them.) They don't ever talk about how she was atheist, what she thought about sex, or that she actually was a bit of an anarchist and almost helped to assassinate one of the US presidents. They do this so they can try and use someone who was in life an enemy, and use her as an icon to mean whatever they want.mikev7.0 said:
I don't think the point of the propaganda here is to show the "foreign" people as a threat, but rather as an undisable nuisance that we must get rid of. The people begging is suppose to represent that even if some of the people come to asking for help, you must still turn them away. Like that one jerk in the demo said; "Put the needs of America above all foreign nations, be they freind or foe."Ian Caronia said:Ah! But see what I meant was subtly in the fact that it's propaganda. Yes, there was hardly anything subtle about the propaganda and its racism back then, but look closely at the image I was talking about and compare the two.Zhukov said:The game is set in the early 20th century.
Have you ever seen the propaganda images that were used back then?
Yeah... subtlety wasn't exactly their strong point.
The key difference is the clear villain: In the real propaganda, the enemy's race was being demonized. A gorilla. A stereotypical Asain with a bloody dagger. But in the image used in Infinite, who is being demonized? Who is the enemy being shown in their "true colors" to the public?Not G. Ivingname said:
No one.
The immigrants, who the government is meant to be against, are drawn as stereotypes but they aren't being demonized, being shown as "the enemies they are". They don't seem villainous at all! In fact, the way they're reaching out, standing below the glowing figure, they seem more pitiable than villainous. They look like they want help, or maybe even a share of what Washington is holding (though it really looks more like they want to touch the glowing man but whatever). And yes you can argue that not all of them are reaching out, but that's only if you look closely. Propaganda should tell it's message clearly from any distance, and this doesn't.
_So, without a villainous figure (and there isn't one), who is the clear villain? Well, you notice how Washington refuses to look at the pitiable masses below him? See how he's glowing and literally standing below the arms of an angel? A lot of emphasis is put into Washington, the figurehead of the government, looking like a second Christ, or rather a second Moses what with the stupidly obvious ten commandments in his arms....ugh.
_Without showing any generosity or care to the more than not pitiable characters below him (the color difference also adds to the idea they are stuck in the dark while he withholds light from them), his holy stature comes off as pompous and arrogant. Hell, you can even see it in his face!
Now look at what's written and the tone of the picture. "Guard against the foreign hordes"? He's not guarding anything! He's holding it above them, out of their reach! If "guarding" was meant to be shown it would've been portrayed as something much different. Example:
_A number of ravenous foreigners attacking from the left as proud American soldiers shoot them down from the right, keeping them from the women and children they're guarding behind them.
There. THAT'S propaganda. THAT'S demonizing your enemy and not making yourself look like an arrogant gift from God.
In the end, the lack of a real menace or threat being posed in the picture, coupled with the inconsistency between the text and the image as well as the grossly blatant way of making Washington look like a self-righteous dick blessed by angels, eventually serves to promote only one thing: The government is the clear villain
That's what I meant by subtly. Propaganda, even from an evil government, doesn't turn on the government making the propaganda. This does, and therefore it's a horrible image.
Thanks for the visual aids, though, mate!