Why Gaming Companies are Afraid of Politics
Games are increasingly addressing specific political and social issues in their plots and settings. However, major publishers seem embarrassed to admit this and constantly insist that their titles are not a political statement. The Polygon publication discussed with industry workers and experts why this is happening.
Recently, this discrepancy between the content of the game and what the employees of gaming companies say is becoming more common, especially in the case of AAA-class titles. Here are just a few examples:
- In the world of Deus Ex: Mankind Divided, a situation of “mechanical apartheid” is described, when the rights of augmented people are infringed in every possible way. But representatives of Square Enix categorically deny that this has anything to do with racial discrimination in the real world.
- In Far Cry 5, a cult of aggressive fanatics is shown, which very much resembles the groups of radical nationalists in modern America. But Ubisoft opposes such analogies.
- Detroit: Become Human obviously addresses issues of social justice and domestic violence. But the author of the game, David Cage, assures us: this is a game about androids that has nothing to do with reality.
- At the recent Ubisoft E3, Tom Clancy’s The Division 2 was shown. The action of the new part takes place in Washington, in the near future. Players need to confront a government mired in corruption and save the United States from tyranny. Again, the parallels with today’s States are obvious, but Ubisoft representatives desperately deny this.
All coincidences are, as they say, random (Tom Clancy’s The Division 2)
Take a look at this snippet of an interview about The Division 2:
Reporter: Wait a minute, it’s happening in Washington.
Ubisoft representative: Yes.
Here is the hero of your promo art game with a bandana with an American flag tied on a backpack.
It’s true.
And this is not a political statement?
By no means.
A game about an armed uprising against a government mired in corruption is not a political statement?
No, this is not a political statement. No, we just want to explore a new game city.
Even if we believe that the developers of these games just wanted to make an entertainment product, they cannot avoid political connotations, explains Soraya Murray, professor of the Department of Cinema and Digital Media at the University of California. According to her, developers are forced to touch on serious topics if they want to be relevant and interesting to modern players.
Professor at the University of California
Sources interviewed by Polygon on condition of anonymity in the companies themselves explain the behavior of publishers and developers in a simpler way — they do everything to guarantee themselves maximum profit and stable demand for their product. Any political statements will entail backlashes, and these reactions can be costly.
It is not only about the possible loss of investment, but also about the reactions of the audience. Marketing departments in large companies are constantly concerned that the excessive boldness of developers does not provoke some new Gamergate. Suffice it to recall how gamers harassed a Nintendo employee for removing a slider from the Xenoblade Chronicles X localization to increase the breast size of female characters.
The decision of the localizers to remove the notorious slider caused a wave of accusations of censorship and an entire online campaign against Nintendo employee Alison Rapp, who eventually lost her job
But sooner or later, such caution will lead to disastrous results, says Erik Bernstein, an expert in crisis management.
Perhaps the most common cause of crises is a conflict between expectations and reality, or a conflict between two messages coming from the same source. The game is a statement in itself. Companies need to choose which message the game carries, and the performances of specific people should correspond to this choice.
Crisis Manager
Such a strategy should be built from the top. But try to imagine a top manager of a giant corporation who orders his subordinates to conduct an acute social PR campaign of a new title. Usually everything happens exactly the opposite: top management is not concerned about this issue at all, and marketing departments are afraid to substitute their superiors.
“We talk a lot about this,” admits a source in one of the companies. — Some of us are in favor of openly admitting that our game touches on certain serious topics. They want to say: “Yes, there is such an important problem, and here is our view on it.” But they have to keep quiet because it all sounds too risky.”
“In my experience, I can say that lower—level employees, developers and marketers, hate it all,” says another source. — They’re not fools. They perfectly understand what their games are about. And they don’t want to repeat the prepared phrases once again. But they also don’t want to be seen as people who are difficult to work with. They don’t want to lose their jobs.”
Therefore, the safest strategy is usually chosen: to claim that the game is made simply for the entertainment of the audience and has nothing to do with reality. Therefore, although games have undoubtedly become a very influential media, the public behavior of representatives of gaming companies looks outdated against the background of how publishers behave in the book business or cinema. There, it is customary to almost boast about the relevance of the topic and sharp social comments, and in the gaming industry, on the contrary, they are often embarrassed about it.
Also on the topic:
