Games that offer solid critiques on real-world ideologies

[StaceyPowers]

What games do you think do a good job building a case against real-world ideologies? I think all three BioShock games do well with this, especially the first one (against capitalism and Objectivism taken to extremes) and Infinite (against American exceptionalism and Christian fundamentalism). They take a “show, don’t tell” approach to demonstrate how the ideologies in question could have adverse results.

[Reality vs Adventure]

I think The Walking Dead flirted with humanity itself. Individuals always think they are the righteous ones. But what separates the good and bad in survival mode? Humanity itself is an ideology because who are we to claim to be civilized? We are humans, but are we really humane? The game reminds us that everyone is capable of turning demon. We hold some very dangerous negligence and immorality in our hearts, only to be revealed in a type of situation we aren't wired to handle. And any situation can have a different response from different people. So in that sense, humane/civilized is only an ideology. Just because we have a house, vehicles, job, government, churches, towns, police, etc. doesn't mean we are tame. Far from it. We are just in passing, enjoying the goods, and that demon will show when you don't know how to handle a situation. I think maybe it takes training of the mind like monks or masters of Aikido or something to still the demon. 

[Patrik]

GTA 4, it shows how some people see a particular bunch of people that don't share the same religion or race from some point of view, it surely doesn't represent the majority, but it still shows unpopular opinions

[m76]

This doesn't happen very often, most games use a caricature of the real world ideology then show that as bad, but that's pointless, OK great, you have shown that your strawman of the real world ideology is bad.

They should present ideologies as realistically as possible, and then debunk them, because that's exactly the danger of these bad ideas that they seem convincing on the surface. If you don't think about them deeper. If you just present a highly distorted version that's even counter productive to fighting the ideology.

Edited March 6, 2021 by m76

[Reality vs Adventure]

46 minutes ago, m76 said:

This doesn't happen very often, most games use a caricature of the real world ideology then show that as bad, but that's pointless, OK great, you have shown that your strawman of the real world ideology is bad.

They should present ideologies as realistically as possible, and then debunk them, because that's exactly the danger of these bad ideas that they seem convincing on the surface. If you don't think about them deeper. If you just present a highly distorted version that's even counter productive to fighting the ideology.

If an idea we know is completely wrong, we shouldn’t give it purpose and then try to debunk it. If it’s dirt, let it stay at the level of dirt. Because you can guarantee that if they did set a really bad ideology on equal footing, then some may begin to be persuaded into thinking what is actually wrong. It could have the opposite effect. Some people are walking around just looking for answers. Looking for a reason. Looking for that argument to justify their nonsensical ideology. And if a video game displays it in a way as to put something bad on equal footing, they’ve already lost part of the crowd that was looking for what they needed. Then they shut down after that; instilled in their refortification of their view. Even if the game debunks it later, they will be left asking “what if?”

For example, it’s like saying lizard people are here among us. There are people who actually believe that. Now make a game that puts that belief on equal footing with all plausible arguments. Now those real life people that believe in lizard people have extra arguments to reinforce their beliefs. Because they were only looking for that reason. And if they believe that, what makes us think that others can’t be persuaded who didn’t believe it in the first place? Even if the game debunked it, it still has left the seed of legitimate debate in the minds of idiots.

But you brought up a great debate in itself. To debunk an ideology, should we present it on equal footing? Or is that dangerous? I’ve learned in cultural psychology; in the media over the years, certain types of people have been demonized. And to get their point across in the media, they make their target look like bad guys, and not intelligent. This has been going on for decades. If they wanted to get their hate across to the majority of people, do you think that they would have held the people they demonize up on the same pedestal in all equality and then debunk it? Nope that just doesn’t work as far as persuasion. It has the opposite effect. So I'm not sure whether you are right or not. Im just going by the logic of how media would portray a victim in order to convince the majority. 

[m76]

1 hour ago, Reality vs Adventure said:

If an idea we know is completely wrong, we shouldn’t give it purpose and then try to debunk it. If it’s dirt, let it stay at the level of dirt. Because you can guarantee that if they did set a really bad ideology on equal footing, then some may begin to be persuaded into thinking what is actually wrong. It could have the opposite effect. Some people are walking around just looking for answers. Looking for a reason. Looking for that argument to justify their nonsensical ideology. And if a video game displays it in a way as to put something bad on equal footing, they’ve already lost part of the crowd that was looking for what they needed. Then they shut down after that; instilled in their refortification of their view. Even if the game debunks it later, they will be left asking “what if?”

You are being an elitist. Which is the fault of most devs as well. Assuming you are better than the rest of the people and only you can tell that something is not right but they cannot. If you treat other people as lesser than yourself you already lost the argument and you are not winning anyone over. Counter to what many like to believe that people holding different beliefs are either stupid or evil the reality is that most are neither. They are misguided and misinformed at worst. But they are not stupid, so they can see through your strawman arguments and distortions of reality very easily. All you achieve is reinforcing them in the beliefs you are supposed to fight against.

Quote

For example, it’s like saying lizard people are here among us. There are people who actually believe that. Now make a game that puts that belief on equal footing with all plausible arguments.

 

Quote

Now those real life people that believe in lizard people have extra arguments to reinforce their beliefs. Because they were only looking for that reason. And if they believe that, what makes us think that others can’t be persuaded who didn’t believe it in the first place? Even if the game debunked it, it still has left the seed of legitimate debate in the minds of idiots.

Lizard people are very far beyond the normal arguments that should take place. There is a long distance between "women should be in the kitchen and don't seek careers" and "lizard people actually run the world"

Quote

But you brought up a great debate in itself. To debunk an ideology, should we present it on equal footing? Or is that dangerous? I’ve learned in cultural psychology; in the media over the years, certain types of people have been demonized. And to get their point across in the media, they make their target look like bad guys, and not intelligent. This has been going on for decades. If they wanted to get their hate across to the majority of people, do you think that they would have held the people they demonize up on the same pedestal in all equality and then debunk it? Nope that just doesn’t work as far as persuasion. It has the opposite effect. So I'm not sure whether you are right or not. Im just going by the logic of how media would portray a victim in order to convince the majority. 

I did not say equal footing, but realistic and honest representation instead of distortions and straw man arguments.

Edited March 6, 2021 by m76

[The Blackangel]

@Reality vs Adventure is spot on with his arguments. You can't expect everything to be on the same table and one to not be disliked by the majority. What are people going to prefer most of the time: a piece of fruit, or a sardine? Now of course, that piece of fruit may be spoiled making the person eating it sick. That kind of thing happens constantly. It poisons the mind as well as the body. Just look at January 6th. Adolf poisoned those people and got them to commit a terrorist attack on the nations capitol building. We had a perfect mixture of Adolf Hitler, Jim Jones, and Charles Manson in tRump. His bigoted ideologies were what caused families to be detained and split up at the border, simply because they were Hispanic. Many of which simply lived near the border, with no intentions of crossing it. Others were simply tourists that were on their way home.

Now compare that to the Civil Rights Movement. The tearing down of the Berlin Wall. The defeat of the Confederacy in the American Civil War. Which one was the better ideology?

 

It plays as much of a role in games as it does in real life. RDR2 shows that. The terminology and attitudes shown in the game are spot on for 1899. At that time there were many that were virtually identical to the republiKKKlan party today. They refused to admit they lost the war then, they refuse to admit they lost the election today. And the racist terminology is as strongly coming out of their mouths now as it was then.

Realistic games take from real life. Bully, GTA, RDR2, the list goes on. No ideology is perfect. There will be those that argue it from their own. There will be those who will support it from their own. Every ideology is both right and wrong. It's on the individual to see and understand the difference. Yet still there are some of us who simply don't care. "Keep yours to yourself, and fuck off." is all we really have to say. If yours gets you killed, you should have had a different one. If yours makes you a billionaire and all your dreams come true, then good for you but who the fuck cares? I personally have always said "Good for you or fuck you, whichever you prefer". It sums things up pretty well in my opinion.

[Reality vs Adventure]

6 hours ago, m76 said:

I did not say equal footing, but realistic and honest representation instead of distortions and straw man arguments.

 

6 hours ago, m76 said:

You are being an elitist. Which is the fault of most devs as well. Assuming you are better than the rest of the people and only you can tell that something is not right but they cannot. If you treat other people as lesser than yourself you already lost the argument and you are not winning anyone over. Counter to what many like to believe that people holding different beliefs are either stupid or evil the reality is that most are neither. They are misguided and misinformed at worst. But they are not stupid, so they can see through your strawman arguments and distortions of reality very easily. All you achieve is reinforcing them in the beliefs you are supposed to fight against.

Some ideologies simply don’t deserve the platform. You have a lot more faith in humanity than I do. Stupid and evil vs misguided and misinformed; it is all mixed together. Come stay in the USA for a week and then try to say that. Cause we surely are witnessing the stupid, the evil, the misguided, and the misinformed. In extreme cases of immoral ideology then I am probably right. In moderate ideologies then you are probably right.

[killamch89]

Deus Ex kind of took a whack at it. In human revolution and Mankind divided, people with robotic implants were constantly discriminated against, even had assigned sections of the restaurants depending on if they had them or not. However, most of the rogue implant users were being manipulated by regular politicians without implants which shows that it doesn't matter the background of the person, it's their morals that matter. I alluded to this because most immigrants in foreign countries face the same kinds of discrimination but most of them aren't really the source of the problem. It's the leaders that incite a lot of this finger-pointing to deflect away from their actions which Deus Ex makes a very valid point.

[The Blackangel]

That sounds a lot like the politics of the US before the civil rights movement. But that was blacks and whites. They even had separate water fountains in public schools. The black students only got textbooks when they were all but destroyed and unusable. If this is what Deus Ex is tackling, it sounds like the writers are trying to show people that racial injustice is still maxed out to the extreme. Even in the most "civilized" parts of the world. I'm going to have to look into this game more, and possibly buy it and try it out.

What systems is it available on? Does it have sequels? If so, what is the best one that displays such a world?

[killamch89]

26 minutes ago, The Blackangel said:

That sounds a lot like the politics of the US before the civil rights movement. But that was blacks and whites. They even had separate water fountains in public schools. The black students only got textbooks when they were all but destroyed and unusable. If this is what Deus Ex is tackling, it sounds like the writers are trying to show people that racial injustice is still maxed out to the extreme. Even in the most "civilized" parts of the world. I'm going to have to look into this game more, and possibly buy it and try it out.

What systems is it available on? Does it have sequels? If so, what is the best one that displays such a world?

Deus Ex has 4 games: the original, Invisible War, Human Revolution, and Mankind Divided. I don't remember what consoles they were on but all of these games are available for the PC. Human Revolution is when the bionic implants were somewhat of an experimental technology and was stigmatized by regular citizens so people who possessed them were discriminated against. Mankind Divided is when the people with bionic implants started to fight back and there was a literal civil war.

[The Blackangel]

What's the difference between the directors cut, augmented edition, and the regular edition?

[killamch89]

3 minutes ago, The Blackangel said:

What's the difference between the directors cut, augmented edition, and the regular edition?

In terms of human revolution the regular edition is the original game which had a few hiccups. The augmented edition was basically a few new weapons and a bit of extra content and the director's cut was the game rebuilt from the ground up to be more polished in every way as well as include every dlc.

[The Blackangel]

Which would you recommend getting? Because I see all 3 on eBay, and I can get them for like $5.

Edited March 7, 2021 by The Blackangel

[killamch89]

41 minutes ago, The Blackangel said:

Which would you recommend getting? Because I see all 3 on eBay, and I can get them for like $5.

Go for the director's cut because it has everything - all the extra content and it's more polished.