Politics in Video Games

"Opinions are like armpits. Yours stink and mine smell like morning meadows ." -About a million people and Dirty Harry.


Over the last few years, the video game community has been trying to argue that it is a new art form; in fact, they believe that it can be the most powerful thanks the inherent interactivity that makes up the core of video game experience. If we define art (which is nearly impossible so I'll just throw in the one that seems to get the least flak) as "a piece or body of work that is meant to describe, show, or produce an emotional response" then how can video games not be described as art. But that is not the point of this post. No, this post is about politics and why it pisses off so many people when it goes into video games.


Video games are a young form of entertainment. While it does help that films, plays, music, and paintings have influenced it to a large degree, the fact is that video games are in it's childhood years of development. Only in the last decade has the debate as art really have any credence. Yet, in spite of this, people seem to believe that politics should be left out. One of the most hated aspects is in "Burnout Paradise" where a billboard for voting can be seen with a picture of President Obama's face next to it.

Because of this image, and many like it, numerous people have declared that politics should not be in video games. But I ask why? How can video games ignore politics when they are at the core of many political debates right now. Most notably is the "violent video game" legislation that has been going on since "Mortal Kombat" graced us with its decapitations and disembowelments. Some of the most famous works of art are steeped in politics. 1984 by Orwell, "All the President's Men", "The Crucible" by Miller, and so many others all have political theories and critique as a focal point to the storytelling and artistry of the medium. But this can't happen in "BioShock Infinite"? It is wrong when "MGS4" has themes of Cambodia/Cold War proxy wars? Why is it that video games can't have social or political critique? Well, I think I have the answer.


Clean and Friendly Gaming

Politics in any young medium scares people. Early attempts at politics in films like D.W. Griffith's "Intolerance" were met with production companies crushing them. "Metropolis", now consider one of the greatest silent films ever, was met with harsh criticism and some attempts at banning in the US and other nations until extensive edits were made cutting out controversial elements. At this point, narrative films were only thirty years old, about the same age as narrative video games are today. With that in mind, the early narrative film efforts were short, silent endeavors that had little story if any at best, much like the first ten years of narrative video games. It wasn't until filmmakers like Lang, Griffith, and Eisenstein started sprinkling in politics that narrative film became powerful. This is why it is scary. Any piece of art that has power will frighten and anger those that don't agree with its message.


Strong narrative in films began about twenty to thirty years after the invention of the medium. Looking at the history of video games, this is also the case. While there are of course early works that are the exception, generally speaking, video games didn't have strong storytelling with subtle themes until the nineties. Even then, most of these games were stuck in the RPG/adventure mold of good guys vs. bad guys and you need some ultimate weapon to slay a beast. It really wasn't until recently that games stepped outside of this "black and white" viewpoint for more ambiguous stories.Thanks to games like "Metal Gear Solid" (with its critique of Post Cold War ideologies and nuclear proliferation) and "Final Fantasy 7" (Shin-Ra sucking the lifeblood of the planet, duh), politics were finally driving the narrative of games.


Politics in games is finally hitting it's high points. Games like "BioShock", "Portal", "Half-Life" and even the "Assassin's Creed" franchise have politically driven stories. Hell, even "Call of Duty" is sprinkling bits of politics in the mix. But enough with the examples, let's get with the point. Anytime a new medium tries to use social and political critique it gets backlash because the medium starts out as pure entertainment. The medium needs to draw an audience first before it starts making them think.


The beginnings of film, television, and video games all started with mindless entertainment. People are attracted to the idea of turning off their brain, especially in a world where we are already overstimulated. Games like "Super Mario Bros" or "Sonic the Hedgehog" don't have any political point; they're just plain fun. Because of these games, though, millions were drawn into buying video games and eventually, games began to evolve past fun like film and television. Developers began to see that they now had a massive audience to make a point to and just like filmmakers, decided they should do so. Yet, those games that are consider mindless entertainment, are not allowed to grow past that.



"Super Mario Sunshine" is a good example of a game like this. The game is the most controversial of the "Mario" franchise and it tends to get a bad rap. But why? The game has great gameplay, lively graphics and sound, and the audacious plumber himself. I believe because it had not-so-subtle themes of environmentalism in it. If you disagree, please feel free to say so, but for a game that really improved on every aspect of "Mario 64", why is it that so many people hate it? Mario is meant to be mindless entertainment and when it finally thrusts that off, it became controversial. And why not? It was trying something new with the franchise, but it didn't work. Hence "Mario Galaxy" being a game with almost no story and definitely no politics in it whatsoever. It's still an incredibly fun and well put together game, but Nintendo learned to leave the politics alone with its poster boy.


Going back to the ad for Obama in "Burnout Paradise", we can see that this issue is still an issue. It's now evolved past just having themes or story driven by politics. It has the possibility of becoming a political battleground. This is what is so scary now. Someone who disagrees with Obama sees that and may decide the game "sucks" because of it. Not only that, but what's to stop other politicians from paying Activision or Electronic Arts to put more billboards for themselves in games? But why aren't people up in arms about McCain or the local governor having commercials in between "Two and a Half Men" but not in say, "Alan Wake"? What makes video games untouchable? Is it because of the fact that many people who play video games are people under the voting age? Or is it simply because by doing this kind of thing it is taking away the mindless escape that many video games provide?


Maybe it's time for us as a gaming community to accept the fact that it is inevitable. Any chance that a politician has to self promote, they will generally take it. And why not? They're trying to get votes and a key market is young people. My generation is one of the worst at actually showing up to vote so of course politicians are going to try and get our attention. I won't be surprised when publishers start looking at the people who buy their games and try to market that to politicians. "Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4: Red Dawn" having an ad for "Sarah Palin 2012" wouldn't surprise me, nor would say having "Metal Gear Solid 5: Snake's Retirement Home" have "Obama for Reelection" simply by the publishers doing market research. But you know what? It's time to wake up and see that right now, it's going to happen. And at a time when video games need all the help from politicians they can get, I say, let them do it. Who in the gaming community wants another "Manhunt 2" fiasco?


Wrapping up is hard to do, so I'll make it quick. If video games are to become a form of art in most of society's mind, then it must evolve past entertainment. It must clash with held ideals, and produce strong emotions. The best and simplest way to do that is to have political threads in the game. The fact that it causes debate is a testament to its place as art. Of course, ads for politicians are not art, but art does need to be funded. For video games to get the respect they need as an artistic medium, it must go through the phases of other mediums. And one phase is the acceptance of politics in games. Sure, the advert in "Burnout Paradise" may have been in bad taste, and I'm not saying to embrace it. What I am saying is that video games are not untouchable. They can't be, because if they are, if it comes to the point where politics cannot be in video games, how can it be called art? How will it evolve? How will it ever make people who say that it is corrupting our youth shut up? The truth is that it won't, and video games will not become a medium for just product placement. If you disagree, great! That's the point. We need to have debate as a community, and so should video games. True art makes you think, and politics are the forum to express your opinions. It is a sad day when voices are silenced or not allowed to be heard, and when someone says politics need to stay out of video games, that is what they are saying.