"Games outside of politics!"- quite often lately you can see or hear this phrase. Comments, YouTube videos, discussions in communities and forums. We all understand the scandal associated with her renewed popularity. However, it seems to me that not all people understand that this thesis makes absolutely no sense. Just as any such slogan calling not to mix politics and anything else makes no sense at all.
The fact is that politics is an integral part of the life of any of us. Whether we want it or not, whether we have any specific positions and views or whether we shy away from such things, each of us feels its influence. And it’s not even about some global things like wars, revolutions or sanctions. The influence of politics can manifest itself in the most unexpected little things. For example – prices for games.
An eternal classic for the CIS – the price tags of console versions of games often seem very high to us. Especially compared to the price tags on the PC version, say, in Steam. But the fact is that the price tags for console versions of games in our region are not some exorbitant demands of “greedy Sony». This is the standard 60 dollars. Like all over the world. Just Steam pursues a policy of regional delimitation. Games in poor regions are cheaper to match the purchasing power of the population in those regions. These regions are poor due to the very sad economic situation. I hope there is no need to explain how economics is related to politics.
Another example of the influence of politics is the bans of certain games in certain countries. It also happens that gamers from various countries, at least formally, do not have access to certain projects due to state censorship. Agree, this point does not fit well into the concept of “Games outside of politics”, because, despite all the stereotypes that games are stupid shoot-outs for children that have nothing to do with art at all, it happens that these same “stupid shoot-outs” are banned or tried to be banned at the state level.
In fairness, it is worth noting that there are also cases of self-censorship on the part of people publishing games. The publisher may himself restrict access to the game in a certain territory, trying to resolve a conflict that has not yet occurred, as it were. Sometimes this leads to a completely opposite effect, and a scandal still happens – an example of a new Modern Warfare in the Russian PS Store says hello to us.
But we are talking about censorship by the state or about self-censorship – all this, it seems to me, stems from the fact that people in power or in large corporations have long assessed games as something more serious than just “shooting games for children”.
So. Politics clearly affects games. Moreover, sometimes in the games themselves, the authors touch on political topics. This happens at the request of developers, publishers, or completely unconsciously, but simply because some authors see certain things the way they see them, due to their own ideological and political views.
For example, in the game series Bioshock you may come across criticism of ideas Ayn Rand, and in The Last of Us there is a rather interesting look at a strong and independent little woman (no matter how strange it may sound) placed in a post-apocalyptic environment. Of course, there are also negative examples – for example, in Battlefield 5 the publisher brazenly hid behind the modern left-liberal agenda, while he, in turn, tried to sell people a not-quite-ready game filled with paid cosmetics.
Against the backdrop of the above games, Metal Gear Solid‘a and other similar projects, such comments look especially funny.
Games have politics. Often, as in the case of cinema, literature, music, paintings and other types of art, it is reflected in the plot, characters, main message, etc.d. Usually, this is only good for games. From this, interesting stories are born that push players both to heated discussions and to think about some, albeit sometimes not so obvious, but still important things.
Politics influence games, the games themselves speak about political topics. There is only one aspect left, but the most important aspect is the gaming community, which, in the opinion of a huge number of people from this very community, for some reason should remain silent about politics. This, in my opinion, has absolutely no adequate, objective reasons.
Games, even without any statements from players, are tightly immersed in politics. These games exist only and exclusively due to the money of the players. So why is it absolutely normal for the entire video game industry to touch on politics, except for its, in fact, the most important part – its audience? The question is, of course, rhetorical.
Players have the right to speak out on any topics, interpret works of art in any way they want, and even, horror of horrors, declare their beliefs at any time they deem appropriate for this action. Yes, we are smoothly moving to where the discussion about politics and games began in society today.
Deed Blizzard embodies in the most colorful way an example of that very injustice towards the audience, which supposedly should not drag politics into games and talk about it:
(!) We have a huge corporation that is not shy about declaring that it now adheres to classical Western values, including freedom of speech, tolerance and many other absolutely wonderful things.
(!) This corporation has games that are not shy about representing clear examples of these values - such as images of strong and independent women, or images of LGBT characters.*
(!) This corporation openly supports holidays associated with overtly political phenomena and slogans – for example, Pride Month. That is, the corporation itself is fully integrated into modern political life.
But at the same time, this same corporation suddenly decides to shut up one of its players. Shut up for reasons of real political censorship on the part of the company, so as not to spoil relations with China as the second largest market on the planet. Shut up, hiding behind a terribly vague rule that contradicts the above-mentioned principles of this very corporation. Suddenly some ridiculous excuses begin to sound like: “we are apolitical", "politics has nothing to do with it"etc.d.
In short, the real hypocrisy begins to appear, for which Blizzard to this day they are lynching on the Internet (a special case with their banned player, for whom they later commuted the punishment, and the player himself admitted that he was “wrong” – this is the catalyst for what happened, but nothing more, and, at least, in my opinion, is not the main complaint). Lynching, in my opinion, is absolutely deserved.
Trying to eliminate politics from games is absolutely pointless – whether we like it or not, it influences them, it is in them. Therefore, the audience is not at all obliged to remain apolitical. Talking about politics is completely normal. And it doesn’t matter whether game developers, publishers, or the players themselves talk about it.
Politics is an important part of our lives, but trying to give it some kind of super-special, sacred meaning in order to avoid discussing it – this, excuse me, in my opinion, looks more like an escape from responsibility than some kind of sound, balanced and informed decision.
* The activities of the international LGBT social movement are recognized as extremist and prohibited on the territory of the Russian Federation
Best comments
The material you cited talked about bending to leftist trends. About why they are not present in the case under consideration.
Yeah, just like in this case there is no “flexion” for China.
Yes. In short, when a company promotes “leftist trends” – this is normal, don’t pay attention, no one caved in to anyone. And when censorship goes in favor of China – a guard! Encroached on the sacred. Context, such context.
Show me where the "female" option is during character creation.Show me where the "female" option is during character creation.
The game is not out yet. But if you’re talking about the news that talked about the disappearance of the “gender” block in the character editor, then it has long been refuted. Everything from the same developers. Perhaps my problem is that I don’t mention this in the text version of my material. Although there is a link to this article in the description of the video version of the material.
Actually, your current material is a refutation of the statement that developers can only “make changes to their creations at their own request” and do not bend to politics.Actually, your current material is a refutation of the statement that developers can only “make changes to their creations at their own request” and do not bend to politics.
My current material hardly overlaps with the Cyberpunk material for the simple reason that they are two different materials O different things. The material about Cyberpunk tells why the thesis that the Poles caved in with their Cyberpunk to modern leftist trends is not very tenable. There are arguments in defense of the position that Cyberpunk as a genre has always been leftist, had leftist origins. Initially.
There is no deflection there by definition. At worst, if you really want to, you can accuse the founder of the genre of leftism, but blaming CDPR for this is simply pointless.
Regarding my current material, in which I mentioned the Blizz scandal. Trying to ban a player because he expresses a point of view that may not please Chinese censors, which may further prevent the company from making money in the Chinese market, is not the same as making changes to your game under the pressure of modern popular political trends. It’s not the game that’s being changed, it’s the player being banned. And not the developers, but the publisher. This action has an objective, clear, financial motive.
There is no such clear and objective motive for introducing modern “leftist” values into your game. At least in my opinion for sure. We can only speculate as to why some studios act the way they do in this regard.
You’re trying to mix mine different theses and arguments from different materials with different context. Please stop. I’m already tired of writing you the same answers to your same and the same baseless quibbles.
If there was no clear and understandable interest, they would not have banned.If there was no clear and understandable interest, they would not have banned.
Well of course! After all, as we all know, in the gaming industry (as in any other industry where people are involved) there are exclusively intelligent, rational people who are similar to all of us in their thinking patterns (and we are all so similar in these patterns). These are big guys with huge mountains every day. By definition, they cannot make mistakes, act within the framework of their views and think irrationally. (No)
in general, of course, I separate adequate left-liberals from their radical and not always sane layer (from those who are called SJWs).
What other “layer”? I repeat once again – liberalism and SJW-ism are two completely different positions. Things like “sexual objectification”, “cultural appropriation” and “misgendering” (I don’t know if there is any Russian translation of the latter) cannot be in the dictionary of liberals by definition. Not to mention that in the 80s (when the cyberpunk genre was born) such terms did not exist at all.
Therefore, when CDProjekt removes the “gender” tile from a character, for fear of offending someone’s feelings, this is a deflection. When Blizzard removes the victory pose at the request of a female, this is a deflection. It doesn’t matter what the motivation was – a sincere belief in the ideals of “social justice”, or “virtue signaling” with a calculation (whether correct or not) for PR on Twitter. Even if the game got better because of it (it just didn’t).
And what arguments can there be for a person who does not see the difference between the “left” of the 80s and today?.
Well, we were just talking about arguments for statements about:
Exactly. Within the framework of cyberpunk – has. Within the framework of modern leftist ideology – no. Therefore, your “cyberpunk ideas = social ideology”.justice" is complete nonsense.
You just equated! I wrote https://admiral-casino.uk right here that SZHV are left-liberals and they have always been in the same camp with the ideas of cyberpunk.
WHERE DID I WRITE THIS?? Not only are there some problems with understanding the context, but you also like to think things through, apparently. Here is a quote from my words:
I realize that I’m probably quite stupid, but even for me there is a difference between direct identity and the same basics.
If we talk about cyberpunk and leftists, I just noted that they are from the same camp. If we talk about left-liberals and SJV, there is not a single message of mine where I would put an “=" sign between them. SJW is a tyrnet name for a radical and not the most adequate manifestation of the modern leftist contingent, as far as I know.
MB, not only contemporary to us, but I personally have not heard of a number of radical leftists calling it that way before.
Okay, we have different views on what “deflection” is, on the motivation of developers and publishers, and on leftists.
Let’s stick to our opinions.
if you’re talking about the news that talked about the disappearance of the "gender" block in the character editor, then it has long been refuted. Everything from the same developers.
Nothing in the “refutation” is really clear. It seems like they will determine by voice or something else. The fact remains that in the character editor from the last trailer there is no “female” option.
There are arguments in defense of the position that Cyberpunk as a genre has always been leftist, had leftist origins. Initially.
With the same success, one can argue that the fantasy genre preaches a “right-wing” ideology, because initially the right were monarchists, and in fantasy there is mainly a monarchy.
After all, as we all know, in the gaming industry (as in any other industry where people are involved) there are exclusively intelligent, rational people who are similar to all of us in their thinking patterns (and we are all so similar in these patterns). These are big guys with huge mountains every day. By definition, they cannot make mistakes, act within the framework of their views and think irrationally. (No)
in fact, the huge corporations that develop and publish video games are always ultimately focused on creative success and income.
Nothing in the “refutation” is really clear. It seems like they will determine by voice or something else. The fact remains that in the character editor from the last trailer there is no “female” option.Nothing in the “refutation” is really clear. It seems like they will determine by voice or something else. The fact remains that in the character editor from the last trailer there is no “female” option.
Lord, even if you don’t believe the official information from the developers. It fits perfectly into the genre anyway. In cyberpunk, various kinds of implants and augmentations are the norm. Surprise, surprise, cybernetics allows itself to not only sew hands and embed various scanners in the eyes..
With the same success, one can argue that the fantasy genre preaches a “right-wing” ideology, because initially the right were monarchists, and in fantasy there is mainly a monarchy.With the same success, one can argue that the fantasy genre preaches a “right-wing” ideology, because initially the right were monarchists, and in fantasy there is mainly a monarchy.
I don’t know much about this issue, but I don’t see any problems with the existence of such an interpretation of the origins of the genre.
But in the material on Cyberpunk you wrote something completely different: “… in fact, huge corporations that develop and publish video games are always ultimately aimed at creative success and earnings." But in the material on Cyberpunk you wrote something completely different: "… in fact, huge corporations that develop and publish video games are always ultimately aimed at creative success and earnings."
And you want to say that a generalizing/global statement somehow contradicts my sarcasm in response to your, in my opinion, very superficial and naive idea of the structure of the gaming industry? In what place?
Publishers/developers aim for creative success and money? Yes. Among them there are also far from being the smartest people who do not do the most sensible things? Yes. Does the gaming industry consist exclusively of rational people, whose every action is part of some incredibly well-thought-out multi-move game?? No.
So what’s the problem? Maybe it’s enough to take it out of context and try to compare different theses from different materials that don’t intersect with each other in any way?
SJW is a tyrnet name for a radical and not the most adequate manifestation of the modern leftist contingent, as far as I know.
Exactly. And all today’s corporations bend under this “contingent” with their initiatives against “toxic masculinity”, European “originally racist” culture and traditional family relationships.
In your “proof” you call those to whom corporations bend (SJW activists) “left-liberals”. So either you have some mistakes in the area of definitions, or everything you write does not relate to reality in any way.
Honestly, if you are still unable to understand, I no longer know how else I can explain everything to you.
In your “proof” you call those to whom corporations bend (SJW activists) “left-liberals”. So either you have some mistakes in the area of definitions, or everything you write does not relate to reality in any way.
Since I don’t share the opinion that corporations bend to leftists and leftist trends, I often call SJWs leftists. If this is confusing, sorry, my mistake. But in general, of course, I separate adequate left-liberals from their radical and not always sane layer (from those who are called SJWs).
And all today’s corporations bend under this “contingent” with their initiatives against “toxic masculinity”, European “originally racist” culture and traditional family relationships.
The very thesis that all corporations are bending to leftists is dubious. And the generalization is quite harsh. In my opinion, if we talk about the gaming industry, there are no “deflections” as such. Based on her example, we cannot name any negative examples of the influence of leftists and their trends on video games.
We can give examples of screwed-up projects, the developers and publishers of which either hid behind modern leftist excuses, or used leftism for PR purposes in order, as it seems to them, to pull a not-so-successful game out of a completely black ass, to cover up in it additional methods of sometimes very blatant monetization that are not very convenient for the promotion stage, etc.d.
The question of the effectiveness of this approach, in my opinion, still remains open. But such projects themselves often suffer due to very objective problems in development, management, etc.d. That is, “the damned leftists, under whom they bend,” as it turns out, have nothing to do with the quality of the final product.
Based on this, it is generally not very clear what deflection is, and why, even if we assume that there was deflection, it is something bad, something to which complaints are made, if, looking at examples from the gaming industry, we see that this most often does not affect the final product in any way.
To tell the truth, reading this dispute in the comments under the blog was no less interesting than reading the blog itself.
But at the same time, this same corporation suddenly decides to shut up one of its players. Shut up for reasons real political censorship
In cyberpunk, various kinds of implants and augmentations are the norm. Surprise, surprise, cybernetics allows itself to not only sew hands and embed various scanners in the eyes..
Yeah, and in some works of the genre there are modules for flight, so you can identify yourself as a combat helicopter.
I don’t know much about this issue, but I don’t see any problems with the existence of such an interpretation of the origins of the genre.
What are we talking about?. Don’t you talk about "left" and "right".
Publishers/developers aim for creative success and money? Yes. Among them there are also far from being the smartest people who do not do the most sensible things? Yes. Does the gaming industry consist exclusively of rational people, whose every action is part of some incredibly well-thought-out multi-move game?? No.
So what’s the problem?
The problem is that if you admit that not everyone in corporate management adequately assesses what is happening around them and someone may act irrationally, then your argument from the previous material “but there are no rational prerequisites for bending to the leftists” goes to hell.
Heads.ger could be a woman. Cyberpunk as a genre has very leftist origins. It was worth reading more carefully the material from which you pulled pieces out of context in order to try to argue with this material of mine.
That’s it. And banning players who object to the promotion of LGBT* politics is, of course, not political censorship. Yes, I understand – context is important. When those who are against leftists are banned, there is no deflection, when those who are against China are banned, there is deflection.
We have no reason to believe that bans of players for homophobia are dictated by “deflection”, since there is no clear and understandable financial interest on the part of the company behind this action. Unlike the situation with the ban of a Chinese player who expressed a point of view that was objectionable to Chinese censorship.
But, in fairness, yes, I’m also not enthusiastic about even potential ideological censorship, which over time can manifest itself quite harshly in the bans of so-called “toxic” players. But here, firstly, the grounds themselves for making claims about the deflection are not enough, and, secondly, the scale of the “tragedies” is so far incommensurate.
* The activities of the international LGBT social movement are recognized as extremist and prohibited on the territory of the Russian Federation
And someone doesn’t really take the context into account. The material you cited talked about bending to leftist trends. About why they are not present in the case under consideration. About why in the context: “We caved in to the fem. » politics does not affect large companies if we are talking about women, gays, etc.d. again, supposedly, they ruined some game. This is the first thing.
Secondly, even if there was a direct contradiction here, it would be justified by the chronology of what is happening. I wrote a post on Cyberpunk before the Blizz scandal unfolded in full force, after which some facts surfaced that gave reason to believe that Blizz bowed to China (that is, driven, among other things, by political interests).
Thirdly, in this case Blizza is driven by political interests only nominally. They need money from the Chinese market. In pursuit of them, they attempted to water.censorship.
Yeah, and in some works of the genre there are modules for flight, so you can identify yourself as a combat helicopter.Yeah, and in some works of the genre there are modules for flight, so you can identify yourself as a combat helicopter.
Remarkable exaggeration. You defeated everyone and out-argued (no). The funny thing is that even your exaggerated example has no problems existing within the framework of cyberpunk.
What are we talking about?. Don’t you talk about "left" and "right". What are we talking about?. Don’t you talk about "left" and "right".
Interesting conclusion. I answered about the origins of the fantasy genre, and your ironic interpretation of them. And you made a conclusion about my knowledge of “left” and “right”. Cool. No comments here, sorry.
The problem is that if you admit that not everyone in corporate management adequately assesses what is happening around them and someone may act irrationally, then your argument from the previous material “but there are no rational prerequisites for bending to the leftists” goes to hell.
It’s a pity that these theses do not contradict each other, since each of them was put forward, again, in a certain context, which you, as usual, omit.
My statements that not all geniuses work in the industry were in response to your statement that if something happens in the industry, then in 100 percent of cases there is a rational reason for it. My statement that there are no rational reasons for CDPR to bend to the leftists is connected precisely with the situation around Cyberpunk and with its developers/publishers. The Poles, it seems, have not yet given a reason to record them in studios that create irrational nonsense.
You take them out of context. You compare different theses related to initially different topics. What’s next? Analogy as an argument? Appeal to age? Please stop taking away my faith in humanity!
In the case of Cyberpunk there is no deflection. The genre itself provides for a number of extremely ideological aspects (strong and independent women, transgender people, transhumanism. But there is no reason to say that someone has bowed to someone else, that someone is promoting and instilling something.
In the case of Blizz and China, there is a nominal deflection. Bend under Chinese censorship for the sake of access to the Chinese market. The deflection is expressed in a censorship scandal associated with the ban of a player on the grounds of political censorship (the desire to please China, to improve relations with its elite).
In my opinion, these are very different situations. I would even say, fundamentally. Nobody blames Blizzard for this, for example. Because here, again, there is no reason to talk about deflections and propaganda.
This corporation has games that are not shy about representing clear examples of these values - such as images of strong and independent women, or images of LGBT characters.*
But banning a player who spoke out on a political topic in order not to spoil relations with China (for the sake of his own financial gain) is a clear deflection. It is very difficult to find motivation in the form of maximizing one’s own profit behind supposedly indulging leftist trends.
* The activities of the international LGBT social movement are recognized as extremist and prohibited on the territory of the Russian Federation
The funny thing is that even your exaggerated example has no problems existing within the framework of cyberpunk
Exactly. Within the framework of cyberpunk – has. Within the framework of modern leftist ideology – no. Therefore, your “cyberpunk ideas = social ideology”.justice" is complete nonsense.
An interpretation that is actually nonsense. Because the "right" were monarchists during the French Revolution. And today’s “rightists” have nothing to do with the monarchy.
In the same way, the “leftists” in the 80s were liberals, but today they are authoritarian socialists. Therefore, your equating today’s “SS fighters” with the origins of the cyberpunk genre is the same nonsense.
In general, in a good way, I should have written all this in the comments to that material, but I just didn’t like it.
As I said – the only "context" is that in this particular case Blizz censored something that you agreed with. That’s why you shout – “Guard, political censorship.“When Projects announced that they would recruit an entire focus group to meet the requirements of political correctness, and Blizz cooperated with other companies to identify dissidents – you did not see any censorship in this, since it was aimed at others.
Well, where is the woman among the protagonists of Cyberpunk 2077??
banning a player who spoke out on a political topic in order not to spoil relations with China (for the sake of his own financial gain) is a clear deflection.
That’s it. And banning players who object to the promotion of LGBT* politics is, of course, not political censorship. Yes, I understand – context is important. When those who are against leftists are banned, there is no deflection, when those who are against China are banned, there is deflection.
* The activities of the international LGBT social movement are recognized as extremist and prohibited on the territory of the Russian Federation
Show me where the "female" option is during character creation.
Cyberpunk as a genre has very leftist origins. It was worth reading more carefully the material from which you pulled pieces out of context in order to try to argue with this material of mine.
I didn’t try to argue. Your material about the “leftist nature” of cyberpunk is nonsense, from beginning to end. If you analyze it, you will have to write a refutation for almost every phrase.
Actually, your current material is a refutation of the statement that developers can only “make changes to their creations at their own request” and do not bend to politics.
We have no reason to believe that bans of players for homophobia are dictated by “deflection”, since there is no clear and understandable financial interest on the part of the company behind this action.