Support NeoGAF

[Victor Omega]

Where do you stand in a game's narrative which seeks to.... convey (this word seems appropriate at the time) a message or belief?

Should games just be a "run and gun" action hero/heroine experience or .....
can it be thought-provoking to its audience to give them a different perspective, bringing up social issues, or...
are we prepared for video games that push for political or religious narratives (which is very unlikely)?

Is it fair to say that we would feel "threaten" if a game series began one way (i.e saving the world as an alpha male) only to lead us to a different?

(Forgive me if the thought is a bit scattered)

 

[DeltaPolarBear]

You can try to convey a message. Some of the best games, do.

But your message would be lost if the game sucks. You BETTER make your game good, because the message you are trying to send does not offer any gameplay value on its own. And you are trying to make a game here.
If your "message" is separate to the game itself, or make the gameplay worse, then you should not have done that.

 

[Eimran]

Most people like to game to escape reality and not to be lectured how sexist some character designs are or how uneducated we are because we doubt a disabled samurai wielding woman battled on the front line during the second world war.

I'd be okay with a subtle message if it actually contributed to the story. However some developers are now just using games as a Trojan horse to sell their political agenda. What infuriates people even more is that they use already existing good franchise and ruin them for woke points to please Reeeesetera snowflakes who probably haven't played a single game except animal crossing.

 

[Razvedka]

Heavy handed exposition and injection of politics is certainly a choice developers can make. They just shouldn't act surprised if what they're selling to their audience doesnt' always stick a landing, and in turn hurts their bottom line. At the end of the day, gamers are people and they want to exchange money for the enjoyment of a product. If these people do not have beliefs in line with the creators of the content, then they might not give them their money.

This doesn't always make those gamers 'evil' or 'bigoted'. Hell, maybe they agree with whatever is on screen but they're not there for 'the message', but the entertainment the game should bring and so they get weary. And its pretty easy to get weary when people say asinine stuff like 'all art is political'.

Developers shouldn't insult gamers for not buying their 'political art', but treat it as a learning experience.

 

[Whitesnake]

Games don’t need to have messages, or narratives at all. There’s an idea going around that “all games are political” but I don’t agree with that either. Games can in some cases be devoid of all meaning.

But if they do have a message, it should not be a blunt “this opinion is good, other opinions are dumb” propaganda-type messaging used by certain types of people.

In all of art, my favorite narratives are the ones that essentially ask you questions through their settings, situations, and characters. It should present ideas (and multiple facets of those ideas) rather than just telling you what to think.

One of my favorite video games series of all time, Metal Gear, touches upon a great many topics including war, politics, family, genetics, society, death, sacrifice, trauma, technology, the human condition, etc. But the closest it ever gets to actually telling you a message, rather than just presenting ideas and themes, is the messages of “war leads to a lot of human suffering” and “today’s technology and media could potentially be used to manipulate us, especially by over-centralized powers”, ideas which are fairly broad and ones that not many would argue with. And even then it doesn’t claim to have an absolute answer to these problems, it never says “violence is never the answer” or ”fuck the government”, it just presents to you how these situations can be ugly and how they could become far worse.

 

[GobbledeeGoo]

Games can do whatever they wish.

 

[DeltaPolarBear]

Games can do whatever they wish.

But gamers can choose to not buy a game. And if a game is not purchased then the message is dead anyway.

 

[Papa]

Make a new IP and hamfist in whatever ideology you want.

Appropriate an existing IP and turn it into propaganda and I'll call you a cocksucking commie cunt and won't buy your game.

 

[GobbledeeGoo]

But gamers can choose to not buy a game. And if a game is not purchased then the message is dead anyway.

Gamers typically will buy games that they find fun. If the mechanics are enjoyable and people enjoy playing it, they'll buy it. The average gamer will take game play over story anyways.

 

[Teslerum]

As long as its not hamfisted sure.

The problem is nearly everything is hamfisted nowadays, because we went from *be subtle and don’t insult your audience* to *Everything is political anyway, so fuck the audience and storytelling. It is my DUTY to do X*

 

[DeltaPolarBear]

Gamers typically will buy games that they find fun. If the mechanics are enjoyable and people enjoy playing it, they'll buy it. The average gamer will take game play over story anyways.

Yes, hence my first post in this thread stating that the message needed to match the gameplay. And if the two don't mesh then the whole game suffers.

 

[Kagey K]

I prefer games that have morals I can decide. The jedi/dark side approach, like KOTOR and Mass Effect.

I don’t want to have a game dictate to me how I should feel about something, I’d rather it let’s me make my own decisions and draw my own conclusions about what I do or how I feel in any givin situation.

Any writer that has to hamfist an ideology into the game and beat you over the head with it, isn’t much of a writer.

The world is not black and white, it’s mostly filled with grey areas and games shouldn’t be either.

 

[Iorv3th]

There are a lot of good games like that.

Spec Ops The Line comes to mind.

 

[Nickolaidas]

Let them do what they want.

In the end, sales will be the deciding factor of said messages hitting home or not.

If the public (consumers) will applaud games no longer catering to the alpha male fantasy and prefer to have lesbians, or disabled protagonists, or gays, or left wings or fascists, or transexuals, or atheists or whatever ... they will buy them. If they don't, the market will be forced to change its course to what the consumers want.

In the end, they're businesses, not political movements. They cannot afford to lose money, and they will change their tune once (if) they see that their messages fall to hostile ears.

Personally, I think the majority of people don't give a fuck whether the chick that kills alien mutants is straight or a vegetarian lesbian. They just want to kill aliens.

 

[Mokrawr]

when it comes to games, i think i value the story more, but you are tight, morals are important..

 

[DeltaPolarBear]

Let them do what they want.

In the end, sales will be the deciding factor of said messages hitting home or not.

If the public (consumers) will applaud games no longer catering to the alpha male fantasy and prefer to have lesbians, or disabled protagonists, or gays, or left wings or fascists, or transexuals, or atheists or whatever ... they will buy them. If they don't, the market will be forced to change its course to what the consumers want.

In the end, they're businesses, not political movements. They cannot afford to lose money, and they will change their tune once (if) they see that their messages fall to hostile ears.

Personally, I think the majority of people don't give a fuck whether the chick that kills alien mutants is straight or a vegetarian lesbian. They just want to kill aliens.

Making a game that sells, is hard enough. Many studios failed to do that.

Further, many existing game franchises are, at their core, mass murder simulators. Yoko Taro mentioned that during one of his (literal) sock puppet interviews. This means if you are making a mass murder simulator, for example a game set in WW2, then it limits the kinds of message that you could have in the game without it clashing with the game's theme. Yoko Taro himself made Drakengard protagonist a psychopath, and the Nier 1 protagonist think he is doing the right things. That was how you write your theme around the game.

On the other hand, if you have deeper message that isn't about murder, then you have the Metal Gear Solid series, where you are given the ability to literally kill no one. To offer a pacifist option means murder is no longer a requirement, and then you can have a message that wasn't about killing.

If you want your game to have a message, you better damn well build it into the gameplay.

 

[Stilton Disco]

Creators are allowed to do whatever they like.

Audiences are allowed tto react to that however they see fit.

If you sacrifice good storytelling, believable characters, continuity, realism, relatability and/or suspension of disbelief to proselytize your own personal, highly divisive and hateful beliefs, you should expect a lot of criticism for that choice.

If you're doing it in a AAA big budget blockbuster, meant to have mass appeal, expect even more so.

 

[cm osi]

they can do whatever they want. often they're not very good at it, tho

 

[brian0057]

You BETTER make your game good, because the message you are trying to send does not offer any gameplay value on its own. And you are trying to make a game here.

This.
It's the video-game industry. These are not movies, TV shows or theater plays.
At a base level, all a game has to do is be fun to play regardless of the story, audio or visuals.
Said base can make games that are worth playing even if the story sucks or can make them even better if the story is also solid.

As The Regginator once said: "The game is fun. If it's not fun, why bother?"

 

[Clear]

If you sacrifice good storytelling, believable characters, continuity, realism, relatability and/or suspension of disbelief to proselytize your own personal, highly divisive and hateful beliefs, you should expect a lot of criticism for that choice.

I've bolded the problem adjective for you.

I don't see devs putting in hateful messaging, but I sure have shit have seen people in the press/on the internet react HATEFULLY when they believe the content is supportive of an ideology that isn't on their side of the aisle.

The shit against ND is a perfect example of this, and shows its just as big a problem on the right as on the left.

The only difference being, that right now, the left are more effective at being suppressive intolerant douchebags than the right, whereas back in the 1980's it was the right enjoying the backing of the media and thus had the most swing.

 

[mortal]

There is a potential audience for anything, so games can be more and should be more than just power fantasies. Other mediums like film, literature, and music aren't limited to certain themes or ideas, video games should be no exception.
Creators should do what they want, and if they find an audience for their game then more power to them.

Thanks to the unique interactive nature of video games, I'd argue there are some concepts or themes that can be explored even deeper than with passive mediums.

 

[DeltaPolarBear]

There is a potential audience for anything, so games can be more and should be more than just power fantasies.
Other mediums like film, literature, and music aren't limited to certain themes or ideas, video games should be no exception.

Thanks to the unique interactive nature of video games, I'd argue there are some concepts or themes that can be explored even deeper than with passive mediums.

Games can be more than power fantasies, but not every genre. As Yoko Taro pointed out, a large number of games revolve around intentional mass murder. You can explore many themes in games, but not every theme can be applied for every game.

You can write your theme around your gameplay, or you can create your gameplay around your theme. But your theme has to meld into the gameplay itself, or you failed to make the game better through its addition.

 

[Self]

Most people like to game to escape reality

That's an absurd theorie I hear very often.

Healthy minded people play games, because they enjoy it.

 

[mortal]

Games can be more than power fantasies, but not every genre. As Yoko Taro pointed out, a large number of games revolve around intentional mass murder. You can explore many themes in games, but not every theme can be applied for every game.

You can write your theme around your gameplay, or you can create your gameplay around your theme. But your theme has to meld into the gameplay itself, or you failed to make the game better through its addition.

That's pretty much my point, not everything needs to be the same. Not every theme needs to be applied to every game, nor should that be the case.
If a developer manages to design a game with an unconventional premise with functioning mechanics and all, I'm all for it. If that developer manages to find an audience for their game, then even better.
What can be considered a game is always evolving as new creators enter the industry and robust tools for game development become more accessible.

 

[Woggleman]

Games should be what they want to be and some great selling games have deep narratives. People act like fans hate this stuff but TLOU and RDR franchises sell very well and are very popular even if some people don't like them. These games deal with complex issues.

 

[Guilty_AI]

I don't have a problem with games conveying messages or being thought provoking.
The problem is when games (as well as movies and other stuff) are purposed as a tool of cultural control. Think things like WW2 anti-germany, anti-japan propaganda in disney cartoons or heroes comic books, or most recently a chinese anime/webcomic about Marx and Engels.

I suppose the issue nowadays is that some game makers in the industry (mainly the ones in big studios working on famous IPs) realize the sort of power their games can have, and decide to use that power to push whatever idea they want, repurposing their games a thought control weapons. One very common thematic nowadays for example, not just in games but also in Netflix series, is that christianity=bad. I've seen a lot of people that immediately make that association, thinking that being christian automatically makes you a bad or stupid person, and its hard to believe that all these cultural products didn't have a hand on it.

 

[alabtrosMyster]

Sure they can, but not all games should, nor do I think that this is great when they do.

Anyway, those who want to moralize us always want to tell us the same story; orange man is bad, minority/women are flawless in their heart and actions, love the fat lady, etc. and sure, being nice is good and all, but this is not like they stopped at accepting people as they are, but now if you're not part of the flawless oppressed group you're evil (because that makes you an oppressor)

Anyway, I play games mainly to entertain myself, if you want to moralize me it better be subtle or it will annoy me to no end.

If this is done right, that's amazing, I love thoughtful movies/games/etc. but most people can't do that type of content in a compelling way.

 

[Clear]

I don't have a problem with games conveying messages or being thought provoking.
The problem is when games (as well as movies and other stuff) are purposed as a tool of cultural control. Think things like WW2 anti-germany, anti-japan propaganda in disney cartoons or heroes comic books, or most recently a chinese anime/webcomic about Marx and Engels.

I suppose the issue nowadays is that some game makers in the industry (mainly the ones in big studios working on famous IPs) realize the sort of power their games can have, and decide to use that power to push whatever idea they want, repurposing their games a thought control weapons. One very common thematic nowadays for example, not just in games but also in Netflix series, is that christianity=bad. I've seen a lot of people that immediately make that association, thinking that being christian automatically makes you a bad or stupid person, and its hard to believe that all these cultural products didn't have a hand on it.

It needs to be understood how mired in American party politics a lot of this stuff is.

Here's the thing: Outside of the US I doubt you're going to find that much opposition to the idea of using of a Christian cult as bad guys in a story. It seems to me this is only a hot-button thing due to the historical links between the religious right and the Republican party. Its almost sectarian at this point, and its easy to see if you aren't part of that history and culture.

For instance I doubt you're going to find too many British people concerned over this.

 

[Self]

One very common thematic nowadays for example, not just in games but also in Netflix series, is that christianity=bad. I've seen a lot of people that immediately make that association, thinking that being christian automatically makes you a bad or stupid person, and its hard to believe that all these cultural products didn't have a hand on it.

I don't think that's true. The association is not chisianity=bad, but rather religion=irrational.
That's fine for me.

 

[Silvawuff]

I'm a big fan of games that explore consequences and what they mean to the characters. I think FFVIIR recently executed this brilliantly.

Light spoilers about the opening scenes between both games:

Spoiler

In the original FFVII, in the opening scenes of the game you blow up a reactor that's sucking out the planet's life energy. You escape and that's pretty much it as the narrative moves forward. In the Remake, you escape from that scene, but now you walk through the city on fire with people dying/suffering around you, and the characters question if what they did was okay. They even stop to talk about it. It adds so much to the story to do it like this.

 

[Guilty_AI]

I don't think that's true. The association is not chisianity=bad, but rather religion=irrational.
That's fine for me.

The problem isn't the idea but how its systematically pushed. Even if i misinterpreted it and the actual message is religion=irrational that'd be just as bad, and wrong too considering a lot of philosophical lines of thought and even science have their roots on religion.

It needs to be understood how mired in American party politics a lot of this stuff is.

Here's the thing: Outside of the US I doubt you're going to find that much opposition to the idea of using of a Christian cult as bad guys in a story. It seems to me this is only a hot-button thing due to the historical links between the religious right and the Republican party. Its almost sectarian at this point, and its easy to see if you aren't part of that history and culture.

For instance I doubt you're going to find too many British people concerned over this.

Wouldn't that be even worse though? It'd mean the push against christianity is an attempt to directly discredit a political spectrum. That's blatant thought/cultural control.

 

[Clear]

Wouldn't that be even worse though? It'd mean the push against christianity is an attempt to directly discredit a political spectrum. That's blatant thought/cultural control.

Honestly I think its just reflexive at this point.

Objectively it depends on what you mean about a "push against christianity". Frankly, its not hard to list historical events and situations to legitimate present christianity in a bad light, millions of people have been murdered in the name of Christ despite that it goes against the core teachings of the faith.

Once again I find myself thinking that any sort of belief/morality is a tool, and as such it can be used for both good and evil.

 

[Self]

The problem isn't the idea but how its systematically pushed

Ok, you have a point.

considering a lot of philosophical lines of thought and even science have their roots on religion.

I rather think that science has it's roots in the human intellect/common sense, which is the absence of religion/belief.
Sometimes tainted by religion/belief, but in it's pure form devoid of it.

 

[BigBooper]

It would be okay to have, but most game companies are headquartered in CA and San Francisco specifically, so the messages you get are pretty much all the same.

 

[Damigos]

Videogames are like books abd movies. They can be run and gun or thought provoking. They can be good or shit or they can be anything in between

 

[Airola]

If games aim to be art, then they have to be more than 'run and gun' experience. A political viewpoint doesn't yet make it that either.
If they don't aim to be that, then they don't have to.

 

[NahaNago]

It is completely okay to make a game about feminimism, lgbtq, toxic masculinity , and the green new deal, just don't use an existing franchise to do it with. But everyone knows if you don't use things like star wars, dc, marvel, or any franchise with a male following nobody will pay attention to it.

 

[Torrent of Pork]

Games can have whatever narrative the devs wish, but I'm not spending $60 on the videogame equivalent of woke Oscar-bait trash.

Take FF15 for example, while the execution of the plot was unforgiveable, the plot itself was quite good. It also had one of the best villains I've ever seen in the medium. Compare that to the game I'm sure this topic is focused on.

 

[Saruhashi]

Where do you stand in a game's narrative which seeks to.... convey (this word seems appropriate at the time) a message or belief?

Should games just be a "run and gun" action hero/heroine experience or .....
can it be thought-provoking to its audience to give them a different perspective, bringing up social issues, or...
are we prepared for video games that push for political or religious narratives (which is very unlikely)?

Is it fair to say that we would feel "threaten" if a game series began one way (i.e saving the world as an alpha male) only to lead us to a different?

(Forgive me if the thought is a bit scattered)

Depends on the game. Depends on the narrative. Depends on the quality of the delivery of both.

I think the gaming industry, and the communities surrounding it, are plagued by an insecurity that the medium is still seen as basically "toys for kids".
Some people deal with this by only considering violent, photo-realistic and "serious" AAA offerings as valid games.
Others deal with it by pushing games with an "artsy" or overly political approach to the medium.

Everyone is trying to defend their idea of what gaming should be while also attacking those who want something else.

Nobody is really "right" and nobody is really "wrong". The medium of videogames or interactive entertainment or whatever you would like to call it has so much space for all kinds of content. No need to screech that game X has a woman with massive boobies strutting about in a bikini. No need to moan because Game Y is pushing an obvious political agenda.

Personally, I don't really want to play Christian videogames, I don't really want to play Feminist videogames, I don't really want to fuck about with games that think they are being clever when actually a high school kid could deliver the message more effectively in a rushed deadline day essay.

More than that, I don't want a developer who KNOWS that many people aren't interested in that shit trying to slip it in under the radar. I don't want to drop 60 bucks on something marketed as a lovely slice of action adventure escapism only for the game to say "have you heard the good work of Jesus Christ, my son?" Fuck that. See also SJW bullpucky.

So I don't want to start playing an action game that starts out fine but then actually it turns out the whole game was just a vehicle for the developers half-baked political views and the gaming aspect was just a front to get people in the door. It's shitty.

I wouldn't feel threatened but I would feel deceived to be honest and a bit disappointed. Is that so wrong?

 

[GreyHorace]

Games are primarily entertainment and escapism. Whatever morals or message the developers want to convey should not take precedent over the overall design and gameplay elements that make or break a videogame. IMO developers who place the importance of their 'message' over the quality of their game are fucking Hollywood wannabe hacks. *cough* Naughty Dog *cough*

But games can convey a message provided it enhances the overall gameplay experience and doesn't become the sole focus. I can think of a few examples that come to mind.

Spoiler: Star Wars: Jedi Fallen Order

Underneath it's well designed combination of exploration, platforming and Soulsbourne like lightsaber combat, Jedi Fallen Order tells a tale of tragedy and loss and what must one do in order to overcome and accept it. That central theme is ingrained into the game's design as protagonist Cal Kestis slowly regains his lost Jedi abilities after his perceived failure over his master's death during the events of Order 66. It's a great example of a story in service to the medium rather than the other way around. I'm still shocked that Respawn managed to make such a great Star Wars game under EA's inept handling of the IP.

Spoiler: Red Dead Redemption 2

Okay okay. I get that some people will call RDR2 a bad game because of some frustrating controls. But I didn't really have a problem with it so the game is good enough for me to enjoy the tragic story of Arthur Morgan and his redemption from a lifetime of wrongdoing. Through the open world gameplay you can perpetuate in dishonorable acts as per Arthur's life as an outlaw, but later on once he feels guilt and regret for his actions (especially when he finds out he's dying) you can do good deeds as a way to make up for it. It culminates with Arthur's last stand in order to get John Marston (RDR 1's protagonist) out of the outlaw life. These are reasons I find this sequel to be better than the first game.

 

[spandexmonkey]

Games can have morals and messages all they want. I'll buy them if I like it. Developers, press and industry should not evangelize that this is what ALL games should do. "As a community we need to do better" thinking is the problem in my mind.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

It's an entertainment medium. Pondering what can or cannot be included in these products is the wrong question to ask, kind of like asking 'Are Games Art?"

Ultimately, videogames can include whatever content they think will appeal to a niche, and maybe that niche will be large enough to fund the game and future games like it. Doesn't have to be any more or less complicated than that. I don't need games to include meta-morals that are aimed at me, the player, but a lot of fiction includes moral quandaries within the context of the fiction to help push the story.

i.e. Sir Arthur's quest to pursue the princess and fights Satan's armies is fundamentally a moral position that asserts it is 'Right' and 'Noble' to overcome the odds and save a helpless person. This isn't aimed at the player but is merely a plot-device to help explain Arthur's dogged pursuit.

However, if the game steps outside of these confines and uses Arthur's quest as some kind of meta-commentary about how the Knight Saving The Princess Narrative is a flawed aspect of Western Civilization and should no longer be a part of our social compass, like the narrative does in Braid (slightly exaggerating), I would probably roll my eyes.

That said, I don't generally praise a game or drop a game based on its narrative alone, unless it is somehow getting in the way of my enjoyment.

 

[Moogle11]

Games can be whatever their creators want them to be. If they want or to have morals, a message, make a political statement etc. there’s nothing wrong with that. I can get people being annoyed when it’s something that changes and/or doesn’t fit with an existing IP. Beyond that let creators make what they want and skip or of you don’t like it. Not every game needs to be for everyone.

There’s not need for people to complain about sexualized character designs, white male protagonist, female protagonists, straight protagonists, gay protagonists Or a plot being too woke or not woke enough. Play what you like and skip things thst don’t appeal to you.

There’s more variety in gaming than ever and all the “SJW” vs anti-SJW stuff is nonsense as has made discussing games online a lot less enjoyable. Its a hobby that above all else is about having fun. Forums are better when it’s mostly people discussing games they’re having fun playing and less of the political/social issue BS and the console warrior fanboy nonsense.

 

[Fbh]

Ultimately I support the right of creators to make the games they want. Doesn't mean I have to like them or support them financially, but they should be able to do whatever they want with their games.

With that said, I personally think that if some creator wants to get political with a game they should do so from the beginning. I think it's annoying and kinda unfair to the existing fanbase when someone suddenly wants to get all political with the sequel of a game or franchise that wasn't like that until now.

 

[Vawn]

Games can do whatever they want. But if I hear a game is concerned about changing my political or moral beliefs, I'll be very unlikely to play it.

I remember when the indie developer for Read Only Memories said if you voted for Donald Trump you aren't "allowed" to play his game. I see it on massive sales on the eShop, but I refuse to give that asshole a penny.

 

[Hayabusabruh]

If the story some how revolves around the political statement, ok, but if it's about a zombie apocalypse or something, let's save trans rights for another time.

 

[Teslerum]

More than that, I don't want a developer who KNOWS that many people aren't interested in that shit trying to slip it in under the radar. I don't want to drop 60 bucks on something marketed as a lovely slice of action adventure escapism only for the game to say "have you heard the good work of Jesus Christ, my son?" Fuck that. See also SJW bullpucky.

Games can do whatever they want. But if I hear a game is concerned about changing my political or moral beliefs, I'll be very unlikely to play it.

Just to reiterate my previous point. Because both of those statements speak to me.

Yes and no. As in there's inherently nothing wrong with a game with a game or any story including religious, political and moral beliefs. However, there's absolutly something wrong with throwing that shit directly in your face.

Let the charachters, storyline and setting carry the message in a subtle manner. In a halfway decent story you should be able to go through a story and enjoy it without initially realizing what lesson/thought was in there. Or if you did, at best just in a non-jarring way. Then upon reflection the story should get you to think about it.

And yes, this isn't fucking hard. Most movies, books and even games managed that just fine for decades and having things shoved in your face was considered a cardinal sin of storytelling. Now, its become acceptable for some fucked up reason. Which sometimes irks me even more than even the messages.

And if you think I'm overrecating.., Well I'll just say that I've played straight up advertisment-adventures from the 90's that were more subtle than some of the stuff thats currently out there.

 

[Guilty_AI]

Honestly I think its just reflexive at this point.

Objectively it depends on what you mean about a "push against christianity". Frankly, its not hard to list historical events and situations to legitimate present christianity in a bad light, millions of people have been murdered in the name of Christ despite that it goes against the core teachings of the faith.

Once again I find myself thinking that any sort of belief/morality is a tool, and as such it can be used for both good and evil.

Well, if we're gonna list violent historical events i think i could do the same for about every big organization or nation out there, as well as plenty of other religions. No one is free from sin in that light.
And while the notion of bloody chirstian history isn't wrong, that notion is used to paint certain stereotypes of christians themselves (someone irrational that has no critical thinking, that just blindly follow teachings, that will do horrible things in the name of god without thinking twice, etc).
These stereotypes are often how they are represented in these mainstream cultural products.... and unfortunately there are people who seriously believe these stereotypes are acurate. Those representations at large are the "push against" i'm refering to.

I rather think that science has it's roots in the human intellect/common sense, which is the absence of religion/belief.
Sometimes tainted by religion/belief, but in it's pure form devoid of it.

I'm from a family that's heavily tied to scientific knowledge. My sister for example is a physics graduate with a master degree in mathematics.
I'm telling you this because i want you to know that what i'm saying is heavily influenced by what she herself, a bonafide scientist, says and the materials she usually shows me.

There's no such thing as pure science, there's no perfect method for making science, even things like the scientific method are already considered obsolete (at least in terms of how 'truthful' it can be, its not like it can't still be used) by a lot of researchers. The exact origins of science is also muddled, and it can be considered it had its roots on religion because religion, like science, are also people trying to explain things around them.
Also, its important to note that the church funded a lot of scientific research from the past, as well as universities. Objectively speaking, we wouldn't have the kind of knowledge we have today if it weren't for religion and the church.

 

[joe_zazen]

It is fine as long as it is marketed that way. e.g. Disco Elysium was marketed as pro-stalin or mao or something. So you are free to laugh and ignore, or partake if you want to get a political education from game developers.

But when games bait-and -switch, especially in a corporate franchise...well fuck that with 3-iron.

 

[joe_zazen]

Well, if we're gonna list violent historical events i think i could do the same for about every big organization or nation out there, as well as plenty of other religions. No one is free from sin in that light.
And while the notion of bloody chirstian history isn't wrong, that notion is used to paint certain stereotypes of christians themselves (someone irrational that has no critical thinking, that just blindly follow teachings, that will do horrible things in the name of god without thinking twice, etc).
These stereotypes are often how they are represented in these mainstream cultural products.... and unfortunately there are people who seriously believe these stereotypes are acurate. Those representations at large are the "push against" i'm refering to.


I'm from a family that's heavily tied to scientific knowledge. My sister for example is a physics graduate with a master degree in mathematics.
I'm telling you this because i want you to know that what i'm saying is heavily influenced by what she herself, a bonafide scientist, says and the materials she usually shows me.

There's no such thing as pure science, there's no perfect method for making science, even things like the scientific method are already considered obsolete (at least in terms of how 'truthful' it can be, its not like it can't still be used) by a lot of researchers. The exact origins of science is also muddled, and it can be considered it had its roots on religion because religion, like science, are also people trying to explain things around them.
Also, its important to note that the church funded a lot of scientific research from the past, as well as universities. Objectively speaking, we wouldn't have the kind of knowledge we have today if it weren't for religion and the church.

Science is our religion. And it has produced a lot of death and unhappiness. People say, well look at all the wonderful things we have. And I think to myself, why is 50% of everyone I know on antidepressants and why do countries like Bangladesh score near the top in happiness studies whereas high tech rich nordic countries, UK etc score near bottom? And science has given us so many ways to kill and tortures other humans...

Science is overrated, lol.