Very much enjoyed this post - esp the sentiment "Not everything is about everything". Wise words for our time.
Puerto Rico is an interesting one. In the game - the workers (discs) that you place on facilities are listed as colonists. The word "slave" is never ever used. However, there's been so much discourse about it - starting with the *assumption* that some of these people must be slaves if its realistic that it has become assumed that the game has you do this directly: which it does not (It also suggests the critics haven't played it! Surprise surprise...).
Of course, historically, a lot of the people working on the plantations would be slaves. But in the game's world the same colonists also run prestigious businesses in town so... they're clearly not?
There is some better more nuanced point in the idea that the game sweeps the issue under the carpet. But then the debate is about the duty of art of re-create history and in what ways: which is way more nuanced and thorny. It can't just be that the game is problematic on a simple level for making you profit from slavery.
"There is some better more nuanced point in the idea that the game sweeps the issue under the carpet. But then the debate is about the duty of art of re-create history and in what ways: which is way more nuanced and thorny."
Interesting point. I remember hearing a similar point from the right-leaning culture war crowd a few years back. There'd be some show in a middle aged fantasy setting with Chinese actors and female knights and the critics would say THAT'S NOT REALISTIC HISTORY. I always thought "who cares?" There were no wizards or dragons in middle ages either, but it's a lot cooler when they're around.
There's also a game called Black Orchestra where the players work together to assassinate Hitler. Does that "erase" real history? Or are we just using art/media to imagine a better world? What if a game featured a peaceful coexistence between the Spanish and Aztecs? Would that be problematic?
I don't see any universal morality here, which is why I think it makes more sense to consider it a matter of personal taste.
Definitely! Even if there is some debate to be had about depictions of events - this has to be such small fry in any moral framework in which we believe that actual outcomes matter. Puerto Rico doesn't claim to be a historically accurate depiction and its not a school set text on the history of South America. How could it really be significantly shaping narratives in a 'harmful' way? Difficult to see this is about anything other than taste really.
I fear though that this is really true of so much of this and related discourse: these are all pure taste responses. The socio-political frameworks just act as post hoc justification for taste. I think that's why they're so glaringly inconsistent.
I also worry about the net effect of this social-oriented critique. If a designer can't decipher the "right" way to depict minority cultures, that just means more games set in Europe or present day US/Canada. A lot of social advocates fail to consider the incentives of their actions.
I think this is very, very important. Lack of consideration of incentives is a classic blunder of all activists and reformers. I suspect the more utopian-minded people are ("it can all be made better and the answers are simple!") the worse this problem is. Considering incentives requires perspective taking and what flawed humans (which we all are) would do. That's poison for a nice simple view of the world.
It’s really interesting to me how we humans find so much importance in symbolism. I agree I wouldn’t want to play a game where I had to be the Nazi, but it’s all pretend so why do I care?
When my child was in To Kill a Mockingbird many years ago, I remember feeling relief that his character didn’t say the n-word so I wouldn’t have to hear that word come out of his mouth. But then, he had to (in addition) say some words off stage as another character and he had to say it anyway.
I found it really jarring, even though he never used that word toward a person in real life.
It really is interesting to me, how we can have have such strong reactions to pretend things.
Having strong reactions to pretend things isn't a problem itself, its the conflation of that with material political issues (like colonialism) that I find a bit jarring.
Very much enjoyed this post - esp the sentiment "Not everything is about everything". Wise words for our time.
Puerto Rico is an interesting one. In the game - the workers (discs) that you place on facilities are listed as colonists. The word "slave" is never ever used. However, there's been so much discourse about it - starting with the *assumption* that some of these people must be slaves if its realistic that it has become assumed that the game has you do this directly: which it does not (It also suggests the critics haven't played it! Surprise surprise...).
Of course, historically, a lot of the people working on the plantations would be slaves. But in the game's world the same colonists also run prestigious businesses in town so... they're clearly not?
There is some better more nuanced point in the idea that the game sweeps the issue under the carpet. But then the debate is about the duty of art of re-create history and in what ways: which is way more nuanced and thorny. It can't just be that the game is problematic on a simple level for making you profit from slavery.
"There is some better more nuanced point in the idea that the game sweeps the issue under the carpet. But then the debate is about the duty of art of re-create history and in what ways: which is way more nuanced and thorny."
Interesting point. I remember hearing a similar point from the right-leaning culture war crowd a few years back. There'd be some show in a middle aged fantasy setting with Chinese actors and female knights and the critics would say THAT'S NOT REALISTIC HISTORY. I always thought "who cares?" There were no wizards or dragons in middle ages either, but it's a lot cooler when they're around.
There's also a game called Black Orchestra where the players work together to assassinate Hitler. Does that "erase" real history? Or are we just using art/media to imagine a better world? What if a game featured a peaceful coexistence between the Spanish and Aztecs? Would that be problematic?
I don't see any universal morality here, which is why I think it makes more sense to consider it a matter of personal taste.
Definitely! Even if there is some debate to be had about depictions of events - this has to be such small fry in any moral framework in which we believe that actual outcomes matter. Puerto Rico doesn't claim to be a historically accurate depiction and its not a school set text on the history of South America. How could it really be significantly shaping narratives in a 'harmful' way? Difficult to see this is about anything other than taste really.
I fear though that this is really true of so much of this and related discourse: these are all pure taste responses. The socio-political frameworks just act as post hoc justification for taste. I think that's why they're so glaringly inconsistent.
I also worry about the net effect of this social-oriented critique. If a designer can't decipher the "right" way to depict minority cultures, that just means more games set in Europe or present day US/Canada. A lot of social advocates fail to consider the incentives of their actions.
I think this is very, very important. Lack of consideration of incentives is a classic blunder of all activists and reformers. I suspect the more utopian-minded people are ("it can all be made better and the answers are simple!") the worse this problem is. Considering incentives requires perspective taking and what flawed humans (which we all are) would do. That's poison for a nice simple view of the world.
did you see the recent blowup over this topic?
Oh I certainly did! I am a subscriber to Thinker/Themer and saw the video within minutes of it going live.
It’s really interesting to me how we humans find so much importance in symbolism. I agree I wouldn’t want to play a game where I had to be the Nazi, but it’s all pretend so why do I care?
When my child was in To Kill a Mockingbird many years ago, I remember feeling relief that his character didn’t say the n-word so I wouldn’t have to hear that word come out of his mouth. But then, he had to (in addition) say some words off stage as another character and he had to say it anyway.
I found it really jarring, even though he never used that word toward a person in real life.
It really is interesting to me, how we can have have such strong reactions to pretend things.
Having strong reactions to pretend things isn't a problem itself, its the conflation of that with material political issues (like colonialism) that I find a bit jarring.
I think it could definitely annoying affect a person’s behavior though. I know that wasn’t your main point. Just riffin’ over here.