Simple, everyday gamer Davin Andersen reportedly wishes video games would stop pushing unneeded political agendas and instead focus on just being fun. He’d also support…
It’s not a reasonable ask because it implies that non-political games don’t exist. It also kind of implies that games didn’t used to be politic. And finally, it implies that having non-white male protagonists is somehow political.
I don’t think youre reading into it enough because every time I see people complain about politics in games it’s because it doesn’t have a white male main character. People were praising Helldivers 2 for not being political when it has a satirical fascist government running the planet in it but it’s okay because there’s no black or gay people in it since they wear helmets.
I think you two are thinking differently about what non-political means. The other person probably just meant a game without overt politics and not what some others mean by it that you talked about.
The satirical government in helldivers 2 is overt af. It is extremely on the nose and they hammer away at it with the spoken lines and propaganda. That game is fucking dripping with politics. That’s the point.
I most certainly didn’t, I’ve never played it and know nothing about it other than recognizing it as the name of a game that’s quite popular right now.
It’s kind of funny in a meta way how what I thought was an amusing little comment has blown up into an intense argument about the politicization of games (in an explicitly satire-related community no less). Thank goodness nobody jumped on the ambiguity I put into it as my attempt at humour and thought I was implying that wanting a white ethnostate was the reasonable one instead. Though I suppose seeing the thread fly off the handle in that direction instead would have been even more amusing in an appalling sort of way.
I think on Lemmy it’s pretty common to go really into the weeds with political discussion on every comment.
“I like boats”
“Wow, uhm, let’s unpack the problematic bourgeoisie mindset behind your statement and how that reveals you are a racist, hate free software and probably kick dogs.”
“I just said I like boats…?”
“Oh you’re backpedaling now are you?!?”
It’s pretty funny tbh. I’ve had some interesting conversation because of that.
Yeah, fair enough. When I read about them I realized the reasoning could go in two opposite directions: hating having to deal with religious zealots in a game or hating the way the game is portraying the religious. Tongue in cheek didn’t occur to me lol.
It would be a reasonable ask in a world where no or only few non-political games exist. However, in our world, there are plenty of non-political games, and this criticism is usually directed at specific games that contain elements that don’t fit the critic’s political leanings. “I don’t want games featuring diverse characters or progressive messages” would in most cases be the more honest statement.
I think it can just mean “no overt political themes”. The implied politics of medieval setting in a fantasy game for example might not be enough to register as “political” for most people. If that game was about the horrors of migrating orcs and how we need to stop them from ruining Fantasyland, I think that might be a bit more of a political game.
Oh well in that case I prefer overtly political games. Like Mario, which is about rescuing the mushroom kingdom’s head of state and driving Bowser’s soldiers out of the territory they’ve occupied. You even lower Bowser’s flag at the end of each level.
While I know you’re joking, it does show how complex the thing is. The intention counts for a lot too. Someone inferring a political message from it would be different than intentionally trying to make one.
I’m not joking, I’m being 100% serious while using a totally incongruous example to make my point that tons of stuff people refuse to believe is political, is deeply political. My point further reinforced by the fact that you found it difficult to accept that I think Mario is political. People are LLMs, they don’t understand the words they’re using, they just regurgitate according to probabilistic association models. The word politics is associated probabilistically with seriousness, so people assume silly fun things like Mario can’t be political. They don’t understand the words they use, they just use heuristics. People aren’t sapient creatures, they literally have the same intelligence as chatgpt.
Then you’ve just deeply misunderstood what people mean by those terms. I’m not sure if that’s what people think has no politics at all, rather it’s not what people mean when they use the terms non-political or political video game. It’s not Super Mario they mean when they talk about political video games, but rather stuff with a lot more overt, direct and intentional message and topics.
Words are made up, what they mean depends on the context and shared understanding of them. When people talk about politics in video games, I think it’s alright to get the inferred meaning and go with that. Pointing out that everything is political doesn’t really do much.
If you’re going to make Wittgenstein’s argument that language exists only to fulfill a social purpose, then I am happy to engage you on that deeper level, but in doing so we must confront the purpose of the vernacular usage of the word “politics”. If it’s not a word based on representing some idea of truth, what is it for? As the Hard Drive has correctly pointed out, it’s for complaining about minorities in video games. It’s for racism. Personally, I think we should call out the use of racist tools, including social tools such as words. If someone complains about politics, we should call them a racist and move on with our lives.
Like I said early on, I think it can just mean “no overt political themes”. It’s not Super Mario they mean when they talk about political video games, but rather stuff with a lot more overt, direct and intentional message and topics.
Treating everyone not into overt political messages in a game as racist seems a bit, jeez. Should at least ask first what they mean.
Pac-Man or Pong requires at least working electricity and some practice at the game to reach higher levels, which requires leisure time - therefore it’s a political statement that the poorest in the world can’t afford the equipment, the infrastructure and the culture to play and therefore its very existence is a political statement
I mean, one of those is a reasonable ask.
It’s not a reasonable ask because it implies that non-political games don’t exist. It also kind of implies that games didn’t used to be politic. And finally, it implies that having non-white male protagonists is somehow political.
I think you’re reading more into “I want non-political games” than is actually there.
I don’t think youre reading into it enough because every time I see people complain about politics in games it’s because it doesn’t have a white male main character. People were praising Helldivers 2 for not being political when it has a satirical fascist government running the planet in it but it’s okay because there’s no black or gay people in it since they wear helmets.
I think you two are thinking differently about what non-political means. The other person probably just meant a game without overt politics and not what some others mean by it that you talked about.
The satirical government in helldivers 2 is overt af. It is extremely on the nose and they hammer away at it with the spoken lines and propaganda. That game is fucking dripping with politics. That’s the point.
Did @FaceDeer@fedia.io use Helldivers 2 as an example of a non-political game or wdym
deleted by creator
I most certainly didn’t, I’ve never played it and know nothing about it other than recognizing it as the name of a game that’s quite popular right now.
It’s kind of funny in a meta way how what I thought was an amusing little comment has blown up into an intense argument about the politicization of games (in an explicitly satire-related community no less). Thank goodness nobody jumped on the ambiguity I put into it as my attempt at humour and thought I was implying that wanting a white ethnostate was the reasonable one instead. Though I suppose seeing the thread fly off the handle in that direction instead would have been even more amusing in an appalling sort of way.
I think on Lemmy it’s pretty common to go really into the weeds with political discussion on every comment.
“I like boats”
“Wow, uhm, let’s unpack the problematic bourgeoisie mindset behind your statement and how that reveals you are a racist, hate free software and probably kick dogs.”
“I just said I like boats…?”
“Oh you’re backpedaling now are you?!?”
It’s pretty funny tbh. I’ve had some interesting conversation because of that.
deleted by creator
Could you elaborate or give an example of unwanted politics in a video game?
Have you heard of the Amarr empire? That’s an unwanted politic in a videogame.
I understand it’s a faction from Eve online but haven’t played the game. Can you give more details about what makes you not want it in a video game?
I’m just meming. Amarr stuff is plenty good. They just happen to be religious zealots and the perfect thing to rail on here.
Yeah, fair enough. When I read about them I realized the reasoning could go in two opposite directions: hating having to deal with religious zealots in a game or hating the way the game is portraying the religious. Tongue in cheek didn’t occur to me lol.
It would be a reasonable ask in a world where no or only few non-political games exist. However, in our world, there are plenty of non-political games, and this criticism is usually directed at specific games that contain elements that don’t fit the critic’s political leanings. “I don’t want games featuring diverse characters or progressive messages” would in most cases be the more honest statement.
I never played a non political game and I never will. They don’t exist. They’re a made up fiction designed to manipulate you.
I think it can just mean “no overt political themes”. The implied politics of medieval setting in a fantasy game for example might not be enough to register as “political” for most people. If that game was about the horrors of migrating orcs and how we need to stop them from ruining Fantasyland, I think that might be a bit more of a political game.
Oh well in that case I prefer overtly political games. Like Mario, which is about rescuing the mushroom kingdom’s head of state and driving Bowser’s soldiers out of the territory they’ve occupied. You even lower Bowser’s flag at the end of each level.
While I know you’re joking, it does show how complex the thing is. The intention counts for a lot too. Someone inferring a political message from it would be different than intentionally trying to make one.
I’m not joking, I’m being 100% serious while using a totally incongruous example to make my point that tons of stuff people refuse to believe is political, is deeply political. My point further reinforced by the fact that you found it difficult to accept that I think Mario is political. People are LLMs, they don’t understand the words they’re using, they just regurgitate according to probabilistic association models. The word politics is associated probabilistically with seriousness, so people assume silly fun things like Mario can’t be political. They don’t understand the words they use, they just use heuristics. People aren’t sapient creatures, they literally have the same intelligence as chatgpt.
Then you’ve just deeply misunderstood what people mean by those terms. I’m not sure if that’s what people think has no politics at all, rather it’s not what people mean when they use the terms non-political or political video game. It’s not Super Mario they mean when they talk about political video games, but rather stuff with a lot more overt, direct and intentional message and topics.
Words are made up, what they mean depends on the context and shared understanding of them. When people talk about politics in video games, I think it’s alright to get the inferred meaning and go with that. Pointing out that everything is political doesn’t really do much.
If you’re going to make Wittgenstein’s argument that language exists only to fulfill a social purpose, then I am happy to engage you on that deeper level, but in doing so we must confront the purpose of the vernacular usage of the word “politics”. If it’s not a word based on representing some idea of truth, what is it for? As the Hard Drive has correctly pointed out, it’s for complaining about minorities in video games. It’s for racism. Personally, I think we should call out the use of racist tools, including social tools such as words. If someone complains about politics, we should call them a racist and move on with our lives.
Like I said early on, I think it can just mean “no overt political themes”. It’s not Super Mario they mean when they talk about political video games, but rather stuff with a lot more overt, direct and intentional message and topics.
Treating everyone not into overt political messages in a game as racist seems a bit, jeez. Should at least ask first what they mean.
Pac-Man or Pong requires at least working electricity and some practice at the game to reach higher levels, which requires leisure time - therefore it’s a political statement that the poorest in the world can’t afford the equipment, the infrastructure and the culture to play and therefore its very existence is a political statement
That’s the main theme of the original warcraft games. No one called them political.
The intention counts for a lot too. Someone inferring a political message from it would be different than intentionally trying to make one.