Tales of good vs. evil are more relevant than ever
www.polygon.com
Archive link for those who don't want Polygon to profit off your clicks...
http://archive.vn/L0OV2
There are a number of things that really boil my piss here and I am going to get into them.
If that's OK with you
SF Kosmo
?
Straight off the bat I wish these fuckheads would stop referring to "Games" as if it's some kind of monolith and every game on every console is somehow subjected to the same standards. You are talking about STORYTELLING. Many games are not intended to be a deep story experience and some games really just use story as window dressing for their mechanics and gameplay. If you're too lazy to even set this out to begin with then what's the point in even proceeding with the rest?
Next is this "games NEED to blah blah blah".
What an unbelievably self-important arrogant stance to take from the beginning.
No. "Games" do not "need" to do anything.
There is so much scope in this medium that literally anyone can now come up with an idea for a game and create it.
Small teams have made some of the best games of recent times.
Shit, there are top tier experiences that were made by one or two people.
You could say "I wish that Game A had done X, Y or Z instead of what they did do" and that's fine but to just proclaim that "games need to do X" is just so fucking preachy and arrogant and I goddamn hate that they present this as if they are some kind of authority.
Sick of seeing BioShock Infinite constantly wheeled out for a thorough lashing because it committed the awful crime of pointing out that sometimes people who are fighting for a good cause on the surface are behaving in horrendous and unethical ways. Interesting as BioShock Infinite was an average 94/100 from critics on release. Seems like it has become a target since then because the game holds a mirror up to people who maybe don't want to see their own refelction. So let's smash the mirror? No! Self-reflect. If games need to be open to criticism then maybe people need to be open to criticism themselves. No deciding "I'm right no matter what and my critics are just evil."
The whole thing against "civility" is just pitiful.
Listen, it's good to be against Racism etc. Don't be Racist. It hurts people and dehumanizes people and they are probably really good people with feelings etc so show some damn empathy and don't be Racist. OK? OK. Now, here is the mind bender. If you are hurting innocent people yourself in order to somehow prove you are super not Racist then you are not a good person. So like if you burned down some old guys family business and destroyed his livelihood because you were protesting Racism then unfortunately the cost of being "not Racist" was becoming a terrible fucking person.
Maybe if that's happening, or if groups you associate with are being accused of such, then maybe it's time to stop and reflect.
In fact, this is probably why "gray" stories are better because they remind us of a shared humanity and don't allow us to say "yeah you burned a city to the ground but it was for a good cause so we are all good".
The more we, people, have access to information and history and the more we interact with different cultures the less useful "black and white" stories become as it's seldom a straight forward case of "we are right and they are wrong" and even when it is you do not get a free pass to do anything you want when you hold the "I am right" card. There has to be some accountability. There has to be some application of morality to the actions performed in service of the greater good.
Why would games that put forward the idea that "in the process of doing good you need to be careful that you don't become evil yourself or lose your humanity" bother these folks so much?
I really, really, wonder why?
Why would they want to push the idea that there needs to be more games with objectively "right" and "wrong" with no room for, oh, let's call them "centrists"?
Why do we need to hit the gamers over the head with the idea that there is no room for the "both sides" argument?
"Consider the media’s fixation on telling inspiring rags-to-riches tales of billionaires and triple-A studios, even in the face of discomforting details about profiting from underpaid and oppressive labor practices."
Ah...
"Defense of the police and their violence appeals to our familiarity with the paradigms of gray in many stories about moral ambiguity, as well."
Ok...
"What’s also perfidious is the implication in gray stories that “goodness” is just a hair’s difference away from “badness,” when it’s a perspective steeped in privilege: The oppressor is as multifaceted as the oppressed, and the hero as capable of evil-doings as the villain."
I think I'm getting it...
"Video games love to blend the good and the bad themselves until they become a gray goo, eventually and sometimes relentlessly symbolically arguing that all lives matter."
Uh-huh. Now drive the message home...
"We see this in modern politics all the time. Politicians who take away healthcare are just doing their jobs, while those protesting against them for making medication unaffordable are framed as uncivil and dangerous. It’s disingenuous to claim that both sides are equally at fault; one group is championing civil rights or access to healthcare while the other is looking out for their own interests."
There it is. There it fucking is.
So basically this is a political essay dressed up as "commentary" on the state of videogames.
The writer doesn't understand games. Doesn't mind mistaking "games" for "storytelling" and doesn't mind using a few cherry-picked examples out of the thousands of games out there to make the point.
That's OK though because this isn't about games at all.
It's about these little twerps being unable to handle nuanced discussion, disagreement, and the possibility that they might need to face up to the fact that while trying to do the right thing they were actually acting like complete arseholes.
Would have been better to just title the article "I Hate The Both Sides Argument And Media Needs To Stop Encouraging People To See That Sometimes Both Sides Of A Conflict Can Be Bad People".
Not as catchy but much more accurate.
Oh, just one more thing.
Videogames are accused of "
sometimes relentlessly symbolically arguing that all lives matter".
Now, I can agree that SOME people responding to "black lives matter" with "all lives matter" are being rather silly and not understanding the basic concept that social movements tend to focus on a specific social issue or they become unfocused and ineffective. So if a group of people are concerned about the treatment of black people in the USA and specifically with regards to policing then they should go ahead and do their best to express that. "Black Lives Matter" as a statement is perfectly fine and does not need to be responded to with "All Lives Matter".
HOWEVER. This does not change the fact that all lives matter. This does not mean that some lives do not matter.
We should be careful to not say "well it's OK to kill some people" even if it is necessary is some very extreme circumstances.
If my neighbor decides they hate non-binary people I don't automatically go to "his life is forfeit".
Yet we come dangerously close to it here. "Games are symbolically arguing that all lives matter". Well, yes. I mean. Yes.
I think this is a nice thing for games to argue. Symbolically or otherwise.
You'd think Polygon would land more on that side of things actually.
With so many violent games allowing us to kill multiple enemies in photo-realistic ways you'd think a game that says "hey maybe all lives matter" would be most welcome.
Apparently not. Just gotta be sure you are killing the right people, I guess.
Rant Over.
