-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Obsidian says it doesn’t want The Outer Worlds to be ‘a politically-charged game’
- Thread starter vestan
- Start date
He's setting expectations about the tone. Don't go in expecting characters reciting Das Kapital in a po faced manner. If anything it's a reaction to a bunch of the previews banging on about it's anti-capitalist milieu. From the videos I've seen it's got it's tongue firmly in it's cheek.
This is a TRULY GARGANTUAN jump in logic here from what you quotedSo it's this in videogame form:
To paraphrase: It is a story about the nature of power and the ways in which those who have it can wield it over those that do not.
Definition of politics (according to Cambridge University): the activities of the government, members of law-making organizations, or people who try to influence the way a country is governed.
Hmmm.... nope, not seeing this being politically charged at all.
I think it is time to stop blaming the "gamers" squarely for what why "politics" has become such a narrowly defined toxic words and look to the developers and publishers who have defined them thusly and continue to perpetuate the narrowness of it by adding exclusionary clauses for situations that would be considered blatantly otherwise if it was not part of this degenerate breeding medium.
There is a reason why publishers/developers like to boast about inclusivity when it comes to their work environment and yet lack the balls or the spine to acknowledge or let alone reflect such realities in many cases when it comes to the products they put out. They have cultivated their success on the backs of toxic fuckery whilst expanding it without taking responsibility or ramification for future. Welp, now look at the definition of politics in "gaming circle" and the lack of any push back from the pubs or devs (for most part).
Perhaps I will still try out Outer Wilds on GP but I don't think I will be buying it outright.
Definition of politics (according to Cambridge University): the activities of the government, members of law-making organizations, or people who try to influence the way a country is governed.
Hmmm.... nope, not seeing this being politically charged at all.
I think it is time to stop blaming the "gamers" squarely for what why "politics" has become such a narrowly defined toxic words and look to the developers and publishers who have defined them thusly and continue to perpetuate the narrowness of it by adding exclusionary clauses for situations that would be considered blatantly otherwise if it was not part of this degenerate breeding medium.
There is a reason why publishers/developers like to boast about inclusivity when it comes to their work environment and yet lack the balls or the spine to acknowledge or let alone reflect such realities in many cases when it comes to the products they put out. They have cultivated their success on the backs of toxic fuckery whilst expanding it without taking responsibility or ramification for future. Welp, now look at the definition of politics in "gaming circle" and the lack of any push back from the pubs or devs (for most part).
Perhaps I will still try out Outer Wilds on GP but I don't think I will be buying it outright.
I never saw the Legion as an evil faction. It wasn't my first choice (independent > House > NCR > Caesar's Legion), but I think that Caesar was a really interesting character and I enjoyed talking with him. He's convinced that he's doing the right thing and this is why I mean by "equally good." I don't want a villain that kills people just because he like that, but who is convinced that his choice is the only good choice (like Thanos).
And it isn't just a good faction against a bad one. NCR has a lot of defaults (for example, it's absolutely not a democracy) and the same is true for House.
Yeah the title doesn't match the text really.
This isn't saying that it's an apolitical game at all.
He's an evil guy by the metrics that count to me, but he and his faction are depicted in such a way that it's possible to rp characters who naturally and organically become aligned with the Legion. New Vegas definitely beats the evils of the Legion over your head, but the Legion is rarely depicted in such a one-sided fashion that it would reduce the character of any Legion-allied playthrough to that of a comically evil person who's gone full inFamous Bad Karma. Not to say that the Legion doesn't give an out for people who would play that character, but there's a number of reasons a person could see their character siding with the Legion beyond just their willingness or desire to conquer or enslave, and it's that sort of unsavory depth that helps give New Vegas the RP potential that it has
Some people have to realize politics isn't about current affairs and stances on Trump. It can certainly include those things but it's often misrepresented as trying to rile up a certain crowd. It can be something as simple as discussing distribution of wealth or the outcome of war or corruption in leadership or even something the player creates within their own agencies. Games that involve politics makes the game design and narrative structure far more interesting and deep if the concept itself demands it. Forbidding any semblance of politics would severely inhibit the creative foundations of the game. However, orally denying the existence of politics is a pointless effort as the creation itself can be interpreted as political by those who consume it.
I mean, if we really want to get mad about milquetoast statements, the phrase:
"It is a story about the nature of power and the ways in which those who have it can wield it over those that do not."
Applies to LITERALLY EVERY STORY involving any conflict.
What is meant is what is said.
They are trying to reassure alt-right dimwits that their game about greedy corporations ruling an entire solar system and oppressing the populace through runaway capitalism ISN'T a political game. The sameway Fallout, a game with the exact same theme which opens with the phrase "War, war never changes," is also totally not political. It's a ludicrous assertion and nothing more than a thin attempt to cower from any potential uproar from manbabies too dimwitted to realize that Fallout is a political game and Caesar's Legion the bad guys.
The notion that they don't want to be "preachy" implies that the simple, obvious finding that oppression and runaway capitalism is bad is somehow a great burden to player's that they need not be lectured upon. That somehow player's feared that every quest would end with a 10 minute slideshow about The Wealth of Nations.
I never expected to find such cravens at Obsidian. Chris Avellone's views of the company just proves ever more apt.
They are trying to reassure alt-right dimwits that their game about greedy corporations ruling an entire solar system and oppressing the populace through runaway capitalism ISN'T a political game. The sameway Fallout, a game with the exact same theme which opens with the phrase "War, war never changes," is also totally not political. It's a ludicrous assertion and nothing more than a thin attempt to cower from any potential uproar from manbabies too dimwitted to realize that Fallout is a political game and Caesar's Legion the bad guys.
The notion that they don't want to be "preachy" implies that the simple, obvious finding that oppression and runaway capitalism is bad is somehow a great burden to player's that they need not be lectured upon. That somehow player's feared that every quest would end with a 10 minute slideshow about The Wealth of Nations.
I never expected to find such cravens at Obsidian. Chris Avellone's views of the company just proves ever more apt.
Yeah, I think it's how every game should be. A game shouldn't tell the player what is good and what isn't (unlike the narrator of the horrible ending of Fallout 3), but shows both sides and let the player chose what he thinks is good or not. The Witcher (1 & 2, it was one of the worst part of The Witcher 3) and Mass Effect 3 did it perfectly.
I mean, a game can. A game that asks "So is fascism and slavery good or bad? You decide!" sounds pretty damn irresponsible. Not everything is in shades of gray lol, some things are just bad.
For the record, Avellone more or less said the same thing:
[note, he clarified later that he meant to type "I don't condemn" rather than "I don't condone"]
Yup lol.
All these people saying "the full quote makes it better, clickbait title!!!!".. nope.
They are not. He didn't say the game was not political.
Also: not being preachy is actually a good thing for narrative storytelling and doesn't equal the game not having a clear view or message about the subject at hand.
It's not "makes it better", it's just that the article title is bullshit, simple as that. You don't have to agree with on him on that, but he's not saying the game is apolitical. It's not that hard.
Save the fact that there is inherent "politics" associated with power as it relates to governance. He could have left it at that. Hell, they would have not have to say anything at all and let people sort out the interpretation post launch. But this is them going out of their way to invalidate inherent strong political nature of the game courtesy of the power and influence mega corporation have over their respective populace that the player is put in a position to make alterations to that could affect the lives of many.
Again, gamer culture has always been mostly trash. But the developers and publishers have helped perpetuate the aforementioned boundaries of what is or is not "politics" and redefine over time to suit their requirements. It has been happening over decades and only someone who is willfully ignorant or truly not in the know about the history of the medium would argue against the notion that the mess we are in pertaining to how "PoLiTicS" is defined is also due to the devs and pubs.
I forgot that Avellone showed his ass back then too.
Tell me what the fuck "preachy" means, go on. Because 99.9% of the time that word being used is by people upset that a thing even exists. For instance:
BioWare puts a gay character in a game.
BAAWAHHWHAWHAW, why is this game being so preachy?!?!?!?!?!
Go to the dictionary and read it yourself. It's not hard. Also: fuck people that said that at Bioware. Those are entirely two different things and lumping them together is quite the false equivalency bullshit.
Does people really think a game "being political" is having presidents talking and terrorist attacks and shit?
Is it that hard to see that Everything-is-political.
My reaction to those quotes exactly.
Crossing Eden must be laughing his ass off after doing that sarcastic thread about "apolitical games".
Is it that hard to see that Everything-is-political.
My reaction to those quotes exactly.
Crossing Eden must be laughing his ass off after doing that sarcastic thread about "apolitical games".
Clickbait title.
It's a game from the creators of Fallout and 2/3 of the original Troika-both Arcanum and Bloodlines were rife in political commentary in the stories they told, without directly beating the player over the head with a single message.
Yeah, in Outer Worlds you're gonna wake up to a world where corps own people's livelyhoods and lives. And some people will be okay with that, and others will be fighting against it. And the player character will have the option to do the same.
There'll be commentary on how the system messes people's lives, but there's be also commentary how people mess with people's lives. And no one's gonna go and say "durr, corporations are evil, mkay?" Cause that's not how these creative leads do their games.
There's a difference between portraying politics in your game through people's actions and reasoning that drives those actions and having every character justify all they do with slogans or memes. One way is "politically-charged" ; the other one isn't.
It's a game from the creators of Fallout and 2/3 of the original Troika-both Arcanum and Bloodlines were rife in political commentary in the stories they told, without directly beating the player over the head with a single message.
Yeah, in Outer Worlds you're gonna wake up to a world where corps own people's livelyhoods and lives. And some people will be okay with that, and others will be fighting against it. And the player character will have the option to do the same.
There'll be commentary on how the system messes people's lives, but there's be also commentary how people mess with people's lives. And no one's gonna go and say "durr, corporations are evil, mkay?" Cause that's not how these creative leads do their games.
There's a difference between portraying politics in your game through people's actions and reasoning that drives those actions and having every character justify all they do with slogans or memes. One way is "politically-charged" ; the other one isn't.
Your introduction to Caesar's Legion, in most playthroughs, is a literal crucifixion. The legion murders civilians, practices slavery, and is misogynistic as hell. They couldn't have signposted "these guys are evil" harder if they'd put a swastika on Caesar's armband. (They're even demonstrably worse at establishing order than the supposedly sclerotic NCR).
At the time, I was just confused that so many seemed enamored of the legion. Now I just think I really should have seen the alt right coming, and that people out there were genuine in their inexplicable belief that the legislative corruption of liberal democracy is an atrocity to rival... well, anything Caesar did.
Anyway, as this exchange proves, you can't really make a game like this without making it political. Thankfully, they don't seem inclined to take out any of the themes that made people call their game political in the first place. I'm starting to think we're just talking past each other, when we call a game "political." Clearly there are some people for whom only the most obvious and didactic and heavy-handed writing qualifies as political. If it has any levity, or admits of any ambiguity, or if it can't be condensed into a "Chris Avellone DESTROYS the alt right" youtube video, it's by definition, not political. This seems like a weird definition of political to adopt, but if that's all that they mean by the word here, I don't see an issue.
I think the takeaway comes down to the perspective on what the developer thinks a game being political means. To most people here, it means having anything to do with anything, since everything is political. And to most people here, it's impossible to create something that isn't political.
So asking the question "Is this game political?" is like asking "Does it take electricity to play this game." No matter what the person answers, their answer is irrelevant.
Perhaps a better question would be
"Does this game reflect your idea of the way things should be?"
"Do the rewards for interactions within the game represent how you feel actions should be rewarded?"
"Did you write the game with the intention of teaching the player something?"
"Do you feel that the way the game could be read is applicable to your own viewpoints?"
etc.
We need a better class of question.
Those who you wish to not offend will never respect you for this. They will however, percieve that they own you.
Wow, there are some wildly over the top reactions in this thread. Reading the interview, I think the general point comes across quite well.
It's not a game that focuses on making deep social statements. Don't take it too seriously.
It's not a game that focuses on making deep social statements. Don't take it too seriously.
It sounds more like he wants this game's politics not to be super on the nose so that it isn't labeled as a "political" game, even when it hasn't plenty of political undertones.
The political themes are there, but they aren't necessarily the focus.
The political themes are there, but they aren't necessarily the focus.
OP
OP
I mean this is actually apt for most news nowadays but why single this thread out? It's pretty tame in comparison. Don't think this meme applies here.
I concur.
Because of the entwined nature of power to rule and politics pertaining to governance, the simplest question to ask which the developers can skirt around without sounding unintentionally or intentionally vague or deceitful is: "Does this game have a message?"
I am not a fan of devs or pubs revising the definition of a word in allay fears that over a period of time they themselves have defined, redefined, generated profits off of, all the while influencing people whose views and/or stance have become what we define as, "toxic".
The toll has come due and devs are playing a game of hot potato.
The "apolitical" disclaimer is just more and more starting to sound like a dog whistle to lure in the shittier side of the gaming community.
Imagine being as much of a disingenuous coward as these fucking guys.
Set up for this game is it's a universe where capitalism has run so rampant corporations bought some planets and people are basically raised by corporate nation-states.
It's the most political game ever made
You can't just say your product is apolitical and make it so. Politics are part of almost everything. In a game about how megacorps affect society, claiming an apolitical goal is either stupid or disingenuous, especially for an American studio.
Shades of Detroit: Become Human.
Edit: And I hate this narrative that games need to, for some reason, be less political than movies or tv shows or visual art. NO. This is an artistic medium, and if developers want to say something, they should fucking say it.
Shades of Detroit: Become Human.
Edit: And I hate this narrative that games need to, for some reason, be less political than movies or tv shows or visual art. NO. This is an artistic medium, and if developers want to say something, they should fucking say it.
Exactly, but what he's saying is that the intention is to organically weave that into the story and not beat the player over the head with the "HEY X THING IS BAD" flag.
This isn't the same as when someone like Ubisoft says The Division is an apolitical game.
The game is political whether they like it or not; these are the topics they chose to delve into.
I get what they're saying, though. I wish people would stop using the word "political" when they mean "bloviating" or "moralizing".
Someone like Kojima is prone to moralizing at length. He will have full on 30 minute cutscenes driving home a political point.
This is an RPG with many characters, none of whom are intended to be stand-ins for the creators. The political "stance" is about abuse of power being a bad thing and they are not anti-capitalists so that will color their portrayal. That's fine. RPG settings work best with competing ideologies fleshed out appropriately.
I don't know what it's going to take for professional artists/writers to figure this stuff out and communicate it properly. It really makes me question just what is going on in universities that they churn out creative people who can't parse politics/ethics/philosophy in art.
I get what they're saying, though. I wish people would stop using the word "political" when they mean "bloviating" or "moralizing".
Someone like Kojima is prone to moralizing at length. He will have full on 30 minute cutscenes driving home a political point.
This is an RPG with many characters, none of whom are intended to be stand-ins for the creators. The political "stance" is about abuse of power being a bad thing and they are not anti-capitalists so that will color their portrayal. That's fine. RPG settings work best with competing ideologies fleshed out appropriately.
I don't know what it's going to take for professional artists/writers to figure this stuff out and communicate it properly. It really makes me question just what is going on in universities that they churn out creative people who can't parse politics/ethics/philosophy in art.
I mean reading the whole thing it sounds like he just doesn't think the political themes in the game are very deep or interesting not that it doesn't have politics. Honestly if the the anti capitalist message is basically just "corporation bad" then I get where he's coming from that's some played out shit.
This would be faulty too, as anyone with the definition of "political" meaning anything having to do with anything, the question "Does this game have a message?" is functionally identical to "Is this game political?" because regardless of what the author intends, the work will say something.
So it's irrelevant whether the author intends the story to have a message, as to those that believe it does, it implicitly will and those that don't, it won't, so it's irrelevant to ask the author.
I was about to say that they should ask what the intended message is, but that's irrelevant too, as most don't intend to have a message, and intention is irrelevant to most people. A better question would be if they think the implicit messages that may be construed by the game mechanics/narrative reflect their personal ideals and follow up from there.
Aye, even escaped criminals with access to explosives are terrified of them.
I am sorry but this thread is utter bull shit I've seen on the poor misscommunication, and I am seeing what some people are trying to twist the knife on the narrative here. I welcome the warning or whatever, but no way I could keep my mouth shut after seeing the past few pages and how this is going...
Jesus christ.
Jesus christ.
Avellone put his foot in his mouth on this very topic like a month ago