Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
United States Entertainment Games

On Videogames And Inherent Political Bias 71

Posted by simoniker from the skew-skew-skew dept.
An anonymous reader writes "An article for Reason Magazine, recently posted to their site, argues that games, unlike traditional media, are inherently biased - in favor of individual freedom - and that games might influence real-world political preferences." The author starts by arguing: "Video games are evolving into a grand anti-authoritarian laboratory", and concludes: "Computer games, as a class, do appear to favor civil and economic liberty... because of the same human tendencies that free players from domineering storylines and inflexible rules. Games naturally turn players against contrived limits and inconsistencies."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

On Videogames And Inherent Political Bias More

On Videogames And Inherent Political Bias

Comments Filter:

  • What?! (Score:3, Funny)

    by Neck_of_the_Woods ( 305788 ) on Thursday April 08, 2004 @06:16PM (#8809382) Journal


    You mean Pking will become a Political Stance?

  • Well, isn't it clear enough that /.ers and other nerds are quite libertarian (a word the media hasn't even heard of).
  • Only in America man...and maybe some other countries.

  • But not so liberal as you'd think... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by stienman ( 51024 ) <adavisNO@SPAMubasics.com> on Thursday April 08, 2004 @06:23PM (#8809482) Homepage Journal
    Games naturally turn players against contrived limits and inconsistencies.

    But they reenforce the idea that some limits need to be set and must be enforced. Take the current cheat vs anti-cheat wars, and the limits placed on all MMOGs.

    -Adam

    • Re:But not so liberal as you'd think... (Score:4, Interesting)

      by MMaestro ( 585010 ) on Thursday April 08, 2004 @06:53PM (#8809779)
      But they reenforce the idea that some limits need to be set and must be enforced. Take the current cheat vs anti-cheat wars, and the limits placed on all MMOGs.

      True, but don't forget that these are GAMES. The moment you start putting even the smallest barrier (like a maximum altitude or a 'no you can't make a spell so powerful you kill half the world in one shot') people start bitching, whether is single-player, multiplayer, or a MMOG game.

      On top of that, theres no real direct method of punishing someone for breaking 'rules' except in MMOGs. Ban him? There are plenty of servers. Mute him? Again, there are other servers. Abuse him? AGAIN, other servers. We're not solving the problem, we're just shoving it under a carpet.

      • Give a person the right to speak, and they'll do it if you like it or not. I agree that not much is being done, but besides giving every person a personality profile before being allowed to play, there's nothing we can do in order to curb the abusers.

        If you think these people in games are any different then what they are in reality then you've probably been playing the games too long. There are always people bitching about what they don't have, don't like, don't stand. Why do you think they escaped the rea
      • True, but don't forget that these are GAMES. The moment you start putting even the smallest barrier (like a maximum altitude or a 'no you can't make a spell so powerful you kill half the world in one shot') people start bitching, whether is single-player, multiplayer, or a MMOG game.

        I think the best games allow you to do just about anything. But then you have to face the consequences. For example in the game Driver, you can speed. Which is fine, unless the cops see you do it; and then they lay chase.

        Now,

      • Re:But not so liberal as you'd think... (Score:4, Insightful)

        by cgenman ( 325138 ) on Thursday April 08, 2004 @07:43PM (#8810293) Homepage
        The moment you start putting even the smallest barrier (like a maximum altitude or a 'no you can't make a spell so powerful you kill half the world in one shot') people start bitching, whether is single-player, multiplayer, or a MMOG game.

        What are you talking about? All games have a maximum altitude, and it would be grossly unbalancing to allow spells so powerful that you kill half the world in one shot. Who would play on a PvP server like that?

        It's called "balancing" the game. Barriers like these are necessary to keep a game fun, and you're far more likely to hear people "bitching" if you don't straighten these problems out. MMPORPG's are full of items getting Nerfed, and while some people complain when their favorite weapon is weakened, it is usually player complaints that lead to the tweak in the first place.

        If you have ever played against a Glacier player in Killer Instinct, you'll know that without those so-called barriers against infinite damage, there isn't any gameplay.

        Of course, there are rules in multiplayer gaming. Real old-school Street Fighter players will pull their hands back from the controller and let you throw them if they accidentally throw you in a close-quarters fight. Well-behaved MMPORPG players will not steal your loot, despite it falling on the ground. And I've seen circumstances in FPS games where poorly behaved players will be repeatedly assassinated by their own team-mates, ruining their statistics and forcing them off the server. Still, most rules in social situations are not enforced at the end of a gun, and this holds true in gaming as well as life.

        • Re:But not so liberal as you'd think... (Score:4, Interesting)

          by Pluvius ( 734915 ) <pluvius3NO@SPAMgmail.com> on Thursday April 08, 2004 @07:49PM (#8810357) Journal
          It's called "balancing" the game. Barriers like these are necessary to keep a game fun

          Not exactly. A lot of people think that it would be more fun to allow some classes to be harder to play than others. You know, kind of like real life.

          Rob
          • Do you mean 'harder to play' as in 'harder to use, but effective if used well', or as in 'harder to use, and genuinely crap'? There's a big difference.

            The latter is probably more like real life, but the former undoubtedly makes a better game. It's great to be owned by a skilled scout or pyro in team fortress (they've put in the time). But if there's a class no-one uses in normal play, then it seems a waste.

        • It's called "balancing" the game. Barriers like these are necessary to keep a game fun, and you're far more likely to hear people "bitching" if you don't straighten these problems out.

          "Balancing" the game? In order to "balance" things in games, both sides would be restricted to the same type of rules, restriction, and objective. In otherwords, no diversity. For RTS games, that would mean having EVERYONE play only as one side, or in FPS games use only the default gun since it may be unfair to some players

          • holy shit! do you know what a "game" is?

            a game is *supposed* to be some kind of test of your skills as a player/team vs. another player/team -- be it physical skills or mental ability -- and see who's better. it also includes the requirement that the "test" is fair -- meaning it's balanced. every game up until video games has this requirement (chess, checkers, etc...).

            if this doesn't sound "fun" to you because you don't like to lose to superior players on an even playing field, maybe you shouldn't be p
            • if this doesn't sound "fun" to you because you don't like to lose to superior players on an even playing field, maybe you shouldn't be playing games.

              My point is that the playing field isn't fair at all. If I jump into a Quake 3 server with one guy camping the BFG spawn point and constantly spawn killing me from there, how is it fair that I have to use the machinegun (the default gun) against the BFG (the strongest gun in the game)? I go onto a Counter-Strike server and start with a bare $1000 cash. Great,

      • Re:But not so liberal as you'd think... (Score:1)

        by Anonymous Coward
        MMO communities are VERY similar to real communities in respect to individual freedoms. Basically, your freedom ends where anothers freedoms begin, and vice versa. Unfortunately, the dividing line is VERY blurry, and there will always be people who will push the limits of their personal freedoms.

        Players think they should have the freedom to steal people loot, killsteal, etc because it's technically within the limits of the game, but those actions infringe on the rights of other players who are trying to
      • Gaming is one of the few things that I have a great amount of knowledge in. I've been playing since I was ten (started on a vic-20 with cassette drive on Scott Adam's Adventure games). I have amassed a great collection of over 1000 titles on a wide variety of platform systems and of course the majority of my titles are for the PC. In the main MMORPG I play "The Eternal City" www.skotos.net , PKing and other "unacceptable" behaviors are usually handled with a public trial in the coliseum. This normally e
    • Lack of regulation isn't "liberal", it's "libertarian". The rwo mean very different things.

  • geez (Score:5, Interesting)

    by black mariah ( 654971 ) on Thursday April 08, 2004 @06:27PM (#8809514)
    "Computer games, as a class, do appear to favor civil and economic liberty... because of the same human tendencies that free players from domineering storylines and inflexible rules. Games naturally turn players against contrived limits and inconsistencies."

    Talk about reading into things that aren't there.

    Take a good game. Now take out all of the limits and inconsistencies and rules. What do you have? NOTHING. You have nothing. Those limits you overcome are what is FUN. That's the entire goal is to overcome those limits. They're trying to make some great existential point about videogames, but they're failing miserably.
    • "What do you have? NOTHING. You have nothing."

      Phyllis Weaver should have held on to the red snapper.

  • Why? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by bl4nk ( 607569 ) on Thursday April 08, 2004 @06:30PM (#8809542)
    What ever happened to video games being... video games. Since when did they start having some grand meaning or statement?
    Video games aren't "evolving" in to anything. I hardly believe that valve was thinking about civil and economic liberty when they started creating Half-Life 2. Now, if we were talking about Kingpin, I guess I could see that. Or maybe that game was just about being as bloody and violent as possible, as to attract more buyers.

    This is ridiculous. Let's not turn water in to wine here.

    • Re:Why? (Score:3)

      by ADRA ( 37398 )
      Get me flamed for this,

      I concider Video games in the same general field of entertainment value. You have your movies that are pure tripe for the masses, neither innovative nor educational. Then you have your 'mature' movies that cater to those who really enjoy the art of film making etc.. Not to say they don't overlap, but they don't really overlap as much as one would hope.

      Apply the same for video games, but then realize that the niche video game industry doesn't materialize. Instead of young video gamer

    • I hardly believe that valve was thinking about civil and economic liberty when they started creating Half-Life 2.

      Hmm, normally, I'd agree. But Half-Life has a very strong libertarian of the black helicopter, tin-foil hat variety type of story. (Incidentally, that is the libertarian point of view I'm normally accused of subscribing to. Truthfully, that pretty much is, except that I would add, "getting there, not there yet.") They didn't have to do the story that way, but they did.

      I think that it i

  • Much like the article, from a political magazine, is inherently biased?

  • Sims... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by thefirelane ( 586885 ) on Thursday April 08, 2004 @06:34PM (#8809594)
    because of the same human tendencies that free players from domineering storylines and inflexible rules. Games naturally turn players against contrived limits and inconsistencies.


    Of course the same argument could be made that games do not favor political/social liberty... Games like SimCity/warcraft show gamers how an extremely organized, well planned, and well led society can become greater than all others. Seeing how such societies flourish would naturally lead them to desire a similar intelligent overseer running the real world, with extreme authoritarian control to be able to 'do the right thing'.
    • Games like SimCity/warcraft show gamers how an extremely organized, well planned, and well led society can become greater than all others. Seeing how such societies flourish would naturally lead them to desire a similar intelligent overseer running the real world, with extreme authoritarian control to be able to 'do the right thing'.
      I'd be wary of an intelligent overseer who had the itch to press the tornado button every now and then.

      You can't reload real life...

  • so way totally true (Score:5, Funny)

    by moof1138 ( 215921 ) on Thursday April 08, 2004 @06:40PM (#8809666)
    I was just playing Super Monkey Ball 2, and it occurred to me that deregulation could make a smoother playing field that allows us to reach our goals with fewer obstacles. Super Monkey Ball 2 can be a profound metaphor for life on many levels, actually. I like to think that my time playing Super Monkey Ball 2 is really time spent in deep reflection on the more important truths in life.

  • Not always (Score:4, Insightful)

    by ADRA ( 37398 ) on Thursday April 08, 2004 @07:07PM (#8809930)
    One of my buddies loves linear final-fantasy type games because the storyline is highly linear. He hates open ended games. I know he's not the only one. Millions of people don't buy final fantasy, sports games, puzzlers, etc.. in order to experience unlimited control over their environments.

    Mind you, there are several genre's that do open the boundaries of control. Games come to mind: GTA-types, PC role players, MMO's.

    Others that stand in the middle are games that are emotionally expressive but lack any expansive imagination. FPS's, RTS's, and some adventure-type games fit into this mold. I find the mass-player base resides here simply because it fits in to the comnfortable medium between highly linear and tightly controlled advancement conditions.

  • Good article overall, but... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by cgenman ( 325138 ) on Thursday April 08, 2004 @07:08PM (#8809934) Homepage
    They mention that Games have an inherent bias towards individualism and individual power. What they fail to point out is that this bias is also present in Movies, television shows, and stories. Movies are almost always about Neo/Luke/Hellboy actualizing their individual power and saving the world. Even more innocuous movies like A Beautiful Mind or Chasing Amy are about exploring the kinds of power people wield on the environment around them. While many other cultures focus upon characters struggling to survive, or the effects of the political or ideological environment upon people, Western stories are primarily focused upon the effects people can have on the world around them.

    The idea of individual power is pretty well embedded in our culture at large. "Pull yourself up by your bootstraps" is a distinctly American phrase, as is the idea that whatever may come in life it is due to actions or personal failings on the part of the recipient. If someone is poor, it must be because they are inferior, and vice / versa. We don't say that homeless people are homeless because they had antiquated skills, were laid off, and had no job-training programs available to them. We say that homeless people are homeless because they are lazy bums. We don't tell our kids that if they are lucky and flex their networking connections they have a statistical chance of rising as high as their social caste will allow. We tell them that all they need to do to become anything is "try harder."

    Now, do videogames have this attitude because of a belief inherent in the system, or is it reflecting larger cultural attitudes? I would say the latter, referring specifically to Japanese RPG's. The japanese RPG, unlike most American RPG's, are populated by the "reluctant hero," a figure tragically forced into the savior role, and whose ability to alter the environment around him is directly related to the power that is being wielded through him by another entity or concept. The heroes in Warcraft 3, for example, are heroes because they choose to fight. The hero in many Square games generally doesn't choose to fight until near the end, when he finally realizes that the ultimate goal in life is to become their pre-determined destiny. He is always supported in his quest by the spirits / gods / floating moa heads, and he always wins. Contrast that to GTA 3, where there is no higher moral authority determining your existence.

    Hence, western videogames reflect western individualistic beliefs about society. Is it any wonder that a western researcher ends his paper on a note of breaking through the false veneer of individualism in western games to find true individualism?

    P.S. I'm glad to see more people taking the medium of videogames seriously as a form of human expression worthy of research. Keep it up. We need about a million more of these papers.

    • The beauty of video games is the choices given to the player of a game. This is completely different from any other media. No matter the theme of a movie, it is delivered in an authoritarian fashion. Movies are always the same experience which the viewer has no control over.

      While the American culture has a bias towards individualism, not all cultures do. Video games let the people of those cultures make choices they otherwise could not. It lets them experiment with true freedom of choice, morality, fo
    • Western movies arent all from Hollywood. French Spanish, English and Latin American cinema is quite different from Hollywood.
      Even so, its a great comment
  • We only need to look to the Mushroom Kingdom for the answer to all our problems...

  • MMORPGs? (Score:3)

    by angst_ridden_hipster ( 23104 ) on Thursday April 08, 2004 @07:15PM (#8810026) Homepage Journal
    Um, is it just me, or are all MMORPGs actually centrally administered, with a set of rules that could be arbitrarily changed by the host company?

    Gee, sounds like an authoritarian setup to me.

    Oh, but within the (possibily labile) boundaries of the rules, you're able to do as you like. Or, as the imprisoned freedom fighters are so often quoted as saying "within the confines of my prison cell, I am absolutely free."

    I supposed you could argue that the world is like that too (especially if you believe in a Supreme Being), and that we are free within the constraints of the rules... but the whole idea seems like the author trying to take a phenomenon, and force it to prove a point that he wants to make.

  • Unbiased? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by aliya ( 57118 )
    What do you mean "unlike traditional media"? Traditional media is inherently biased towards anything that benefits traditional media, whether that be freedom of the press or corporate consolidation (of the media companies). Traditional media also tends to be very liberal, because only very liberal values will get them access to information and locations and embarrassing details and the private affairs of any and every entity that they think their consumers will pay for. The inherent bias of the media is
  • > unlike traditional media, are inherently biased

    "Unlike traditional media." Score:5, Funny!

    Believe me, the word "bias" wasn't invented for video games.
  • I'd tend to agree with the author that games tend to be more "free" than traditional media, but it is much simpler than the author wants to suggest. The free comes from the interaction alone. In a movie we go where the director, through the camera, wants us to go. In a game, the player controls where they go. But there will still always be a wall. There will still always be rules, from gravity to supply and demand. There will still always be motives. The game allows a player to inject their motivatio
  • Wow, Gamers are all libertarian's? Huh, I didn't know that. Watch out before the thought police spiders into this site. You'll be first on thier list.

    Seriously, I don't think you can make sweeping generalizations about a minority group of people without expelling a certain amount of common scense. You know that little voice that says, "Technically, there may exist those that do not conform to your model."

    On the other hand, I do certain games (Civ, Railroad Tycoon, and other strategy games) allow playe
    • sorry for the typos, I meant to say:

      On the other hand, I do think certain games (Civ, Railroad Tycoon, and other strategy games) allow players to exercise political thoughts. Players can ask questions such as How does Democracy effect my bottom line?; You mean I can't attack the annoying puny little country that just attacked my level 25 city without congress's permission?; and why does communism suck so much?

    • On the other hand, I do certain games (Civ, Railroad Tycoon, and other strategy games) allow players to exercise political thoughts.

      They also let the player relax in the event a nuclear war should occurr - those nuclear missiles only have a range of 16 tiles, which is less than a quarter of the globe. :)

      You mean I can't attack the annoying puny little country that just attacked my level 25 city without congress's permission?

      I would consider that to be a bug with the game rather than a political issu

  • Team play = socialism? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Christ-on-a-bike ( 447560 ) on Thursday April 08, 2004 @08:59PM (#8810909)
    Interesting article, though I only skimmed it. The games that are brought up seem to be largely solo-play ones though (GTA, Sim City, etc.). MMO games are mentioned, but they are often played solo too. Other interesting new computer games are played in teams. Isn't the 'politics' of a team game somewhat less 'individualistic'?

    For example, in public games of Counter-Strike players who are selfish and just play as they like (camping, team killing, deathmatching, and so on) are flamed and may be kicked. A certain degree of subservience to collective goals ('altruism', even) is expected. This seems quite the opposite ethic to GTA's ultimate freedom. And the behaviour expected in CS is more than mere politeness. If you're not playing with your team, you're not really playing the game at all.

    There are lots of games where you are expected to follow orders. PlanetSide is like this, if you take it seriously. There is a military command structure, not a democratic one. (cf. America's Army.)

    My take on team play is that people enjoy it because gameplay 'altruism' is natural part of socialising. Multiplayer gaming is social, team gaming more so. You get a kick out of seeing your team succeed, even if your avatar is killed. Some people take this further with clans and suchlike. The 'political' point is clear: by collaborating you can achieve more.

    • Do not confuse altruism with team play.

      Altruism is giving of yourself while expecting nothing in return.

      When you act as a good team player in CS, or even a military in RL, you expect something in return. Victory, awards, recognition, pride, etc. Team play happens to be the best way to achieve a selfish result.
      • Clearly, team play != 'pure altruism' (if altruism is ever pure). In team play the 'something you expect' is, in the first instance, collective success ( a 'win'). This is still altruism in a broad sense. For instance, dying in CS means you are less likely to be able to afford a good weapon in the next round; your stats will suffer. But as a good player you are prepared to die anyway, because otherwise the team may lose (yes - damaging your stats even more).

        The point is that such games are deliberately

      • That's a fallacy, because altruism is it's own reward. Or, in some cases, lack of altrusim is it's own punishment.

  • British games have a long history of political bias-Monty Mole was about a scab in the miner's strike, Hostile Waters presents a vision of a nanotech communist paradise, Startopia used the alien setting to make analogous social commentary
  • First this is a load, not all games are structured this way. And games don't influence anything but games, this has been shown time and time again and yet people keep coming back trying to claim games are brainwashing people this way or that way. The truth is that people who ALREADY have certain mindsets and ideas are drawn to certain types of games. Games do not make people murderers or encourage them to shoot people. Rather people who are inclined to shoot other people are likely to be playing shooter
  • I think it's a well-written article, but I'm not all that impressed with people who keep crying for a cinematic gaming experience. As Chris Crawford put it, the "word 'cinematic' seems to be more common in game design discussions than 'interactivity,' even though the latter is central to game design and the former is peripheral.
  • Considering the number of games where your character is fighting against an evil corporation -- or a future dystopia full of evil corporations -- I don't exactly see a bias toward lower government regulation.

    I have seen environmental alarmism in a number of games, as well as some over-the-top examples of pushing multiculturalism, animal liberation, and a few other social causes. Nothing too extreme or preachy though, and certainly less than the biases you can find in movies and typical entertainment TV. Mo
  • ahh yes, the indefatigable influence and political power of a chap sitting behind his computer all day playing games... this osunds more like the matrix trying to cover itself. "Liberate yourself through games!" LOL.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Sometimes insanity is the only alternative" -- button at a Science Fiction convention.

Close