Every major video game outlet is Left-wing. Anyone who visits any major gaming site knows this. They’re all in support of subverting video games using Anita Sarkeesian’s anti-fun model of game design. They’re all in support of the Leftist agenda whenever it rears its head in indie or AAA games. And now they’ve come to a point where they’re literally coming out and claiming that video games simply need to become Leftist propaganda.
In an article written by Alfie Bown and published on The Guardian on August 13th, 2018, Bown makes no qualms about coming out and saying that game publishers (and by proxy, developers) need to start making games that are simply Leftist propaganda. No, there is no subtext beneath the intention, or some ulterior facade put up to hide the intention… the article literally comes out and says what many anti-SJWs have been warning people about for the last six years (and some even longer).
After starting the article with criticisms against Ubisoft for not being more Left-wing oriented with the politics in The Division 2, Bown goes on to say that games simply need to become even more political, writing…
“[…] video games can and should be put to work for leftwing politics at this moment of cultural and political uncertainty. Many games communicate progressive values in their narrative and content – but if they are to go further, we must reimagine what a game could look like.”
Bown goes through a couple of examples of literary works that proposed Leftist ideology, but still held on to some convention of centrism, but then later provides examples of works that were full-on Leftist propaganda; the idea being to subvert any expectations of centrism, neutrality, or interactivity and conflict resolution, which hilariously enough Bown attributes to Right-wing philosophy.
Bown even admits that the current landscape in gaming that has seen the erasure of straight, white males as the frequent leads in blockbuster AAA games is, in itself, “Liberal influence”, with Bown writing…
“Liberal themes in video games, from Detroit’s 4,000-page script assessing the dangers of AI to Assassin’s Creed’s narratives in support of ethnic minorities and oppressed groups, are not new. While some cultural critics point out that games tend to support militarist or conservative values, on the vocal rightwing of the gamer community, the claim is that games extol leftwing ideology by featuring marginalised characters: in short, any character that is not white, straight and male. But this liberal influence has failed to turn video games into a force for progressive politics.”
In essence, Bown is saying that the current trend of agitprop in the AAA space has not worked. That “Progressive” politics is still being rejected, and developers are still trying to ease into the landscape of subverting gaming for the aim of inculcating gamers with the Leftist agenda (as evident with this past year’s E3) because the current attempts have not worked.
In fact, Bown even goes as far as to say that the current propaganda in gaming hasn’t been effective enough and hasn’t been forceful enough in extruding Leftism into gaming, writing…
“In short, progressive content is not enough. Wolfenstein might be about killing Nazis, but it gave birth to the first-person shooter genre, in which players often spray bullets in the service of American foreign policy. Civilization and Tropico might allow identification as a socialist state or egalitarian democracy, but they require adherence to the principles of western capitalist empire-building to succeed on gameplay level. Video games communicate ideology at the level of form, and laying a progressive storyline over the top does not necessarily prevent a game from serving rightwing ideas.”
Bown is essentially saying that even having the choice or variance of political or apolitical content goes against what developers should be doing.
This is evident in the games currently on the market right now. You can see where developers have gone over and beyond to strip away the femininity and the sex appeal of almost every major female character in gaming, turning them into husks of violence and masculinity to appease Leftists. A perfect example of that is Lara Croft, who has been flayed of her feminine wiles and reduced to a bipolar, psychotic, killing machine. Heck, unlike Solid Snake or Sam Fisher, Croft doesn’t even have the option of incapacitating foes in non-lethal ways. She has to kill men, and always violently.
A growing trend in a lot of games is to have players introduced to transgender characters. Players aren’t even given the choice to dislike these characters, but are rather forced to acknowledge them on a pedestal of respect, as depicted in games like Dragon Age, Mass Effect: Andromeda, and even Beamdog’s Baldur’s Gate before backlash forced the developer to reduce the agitprop for their identitarianism, as reported by Mandatory.
What’s even more telling, however, is that even with mainstream AAA games having Leftist bents, even Bown doesn’t know what a fully “Progressive” game would look like, writing…
“It’s perhaps impossible to predict what a formally progressive video game might look like, just as we could not have second-guessed the radical modernist novel before the works of James Joyce and Virginia Woolf. What we can see already, however, is a number of emergent games which experiment with form in potentially game-changing ways. Perhaps we will soon see video gaming’s Ulysses.”
Except, games – at the end of the day – are supposed to be entertainment derived from interactivity. If the interactive elements are no longer fun, then it’s no longer entertainment that gamers believe is worth their money, as evident with games like Sunset, Lawbreakers and Dishonored: Death of the Outsider failing to court an audience.
In fact, Where The Water Tastes Like Wine is the perfect example of a “Progressive” dream game; no conflict resolution through violence, no capitalistic options to resolve plight, and no patriotic or heroic deeds exhibited by the main character. This would be the game put on the pedestal of Progressivism, and yet it failed miserably on the market.
Brown points to games like Dreams and Beyond Good and Evil 2 as truly Progressive games to change the landscape of interactive entertainment, but Dreams has very limited marketing appeal, and the verdict is still out on who will actually pay $60 upfront for Beyond Good and Evil 2.
Bown rounds out the piece calling for a “cultural revolution” on the way gaming is played and embraced, writing…
“ While telling stories about marginalised characters and from liberal perspectives might do some of the work, and commenting on the limitations of existing forms might do some more, gaming is at the kind of crisis point that literature was at in the early 20th century: it needs a structural renovation. Without this, video games might sometimes look leftwing, but they cannot be revolutionary.”
We’ve seen this kind of psuedo-intellectual jargon before. It always ends the same: with the sales of said “Progressive” game flat-lining.
Video games work on the very basic structure of gamers wanting to be entertained, and as soon as that structure is disrupted or subverted, then you’re going to lose the largest part of the impetus for gamers to play said game.
This hasn’t stopped developers like Naughty Dog from pursuing the kind of “Progressive” content that Bown talks about even going so far as to say that they aren’t making violent games that are “fun”. Even still, it’s a road that leads to the pit of financial hell if they choose to keep pursuing it.
Gamers are savvy enough to know when the game they’re playing is little more than a vehicle for propaganda (like Wolfenstein 2), and if Bown’s summation is that the current agitprop isn’t agitprop enough, then it’s going to be a rude awakening for the anti-gaming Leftists when more of these agenda-driven games keep plopping onto the marketplace floor like a giant, soggy, sordid turd. Or more succinctly, companies will learn the hard way when they…
(Thanks for the news tip S.)