The Errant Signal Thread

[Shadenuat]

Huh. I think Errant Signal guy mistakenly mixes together culture and politics. Game narrative elements will obviously follow cultural ideas and values of people who created them. Politics though is more about country's self governance, and while it's not disconnected from values and ideas of people, it's just a part of culture. Culture is second nature (the first one is one we inherited from monkeys) like one of my teachers in university used to say, so saying that games are political because they are cultural is just playing captain obvious and it has nothing to do with the problem.

There is nothing inherently "American" in winning a space race, building a large city or conquering your enemies. These activities are universal for many human cultures and represent human progress. But most importantly, they play well for game mechanics. What's more difficult - building a small town or a large city with highways and millions of people to take care of? What will you do when you've built a small city? Build another one? Running and expanding a megapolis just has more options than running a smaller city. Managing an army is more difficult and has more easy to comprehend consequences than managing food supplies, and it means you can battle other AI's, unlike games like Transport Giant where AI is there just for ranking tables. Not to mention that making your citizens happy, fed and healthy is an important part of the challenge of both Civilization and SimCity games.

The "politics" gamers object to is a here-and-now, routine in the kitchen, first-world, local internet politics which is about issues some country suffers and can't govern properly. It's not something people are interested to sit and think about afterwards, but rather what they can't solve. And games are just not the right media to do that. How do you solve prejudice to something by playing with that? You can write a cool story, or make a movie, to make people see your point, but is it possible to make them see your point by playing with interactive toy? I think it would just feel awkward and wrong to simulate that sort of thing.

Developers can place black people mopping floors in their generic shooters as much as they want, but as long as these are just immortal bots or facade to killing shit with your super armsaw, indeed, games would get nothing from being "political". Although, I don't think games would win much even if they make this stuff more complex. And something can still be "art" even if it's not "political", but then we are going into "what is art?" territory and that shit would quickly get out of hand.

The way he presents gamers in the beginning as pretentious morons who can't tell apples from oranges sets the tone for the whole video anyway. Games can have good gameplay and bad stories, bad gameplay and good stories, sometimes even good gameplay and good stories, but these values will not solve any political issues people experience. And yes, games are expensive and complex products, and they should be judged for that first, instead of being an afterthought to journalist's personal political issues, if even existing in the first place, like in RPS articles or who sucks from drama>hit>dollars tit today the most.

IMO, best stories in games usually revolve around themes we can contemplate after, not themes which are "here and now". I think it's because while playing we learn about them in simulation, while remaining neutral to them, we observe them instead of processing them, and then in the end we can relate to experience we had with them. Because we are not attached to authors idea to "what can change the nature of the man" yet, we kinda let gameplay carry us as we slowly form our opinion on the game and it's themes. Because a game is that little world with it's own rules, if we are neutral to it's themes, it does not hurt our suspension of disbelief when we are acting inside it, and oh shit I am at ludonarrative dissonance territory again am I.

Damn sometimes I wonder who is worse, the feminazis and their other allies or people who try to explain those and politics and narrative and artfags who battle other artfags to learn the true nature of games and art and so on.
Maybe they are all shit and a waste of time. Gonna watch guy with dinosaur head.

 

[Gurkog]

Everything is shit.

Summarized it for ya.

 

[Metro]

I see this guy is still posting pretentious nonsense.

 

[Infinitron]

http://www.errantsignal.com/blog/?p=582

This is… not one of my stronger episodes. The original was less about condemning gamer culture and more about making the argument that any and all actions have some modicum of political value. I started with specific titles like Bioshock Infinite and GTA, then moved to more general games that didn’t necessarily intend to be political, and both of those are still in the video. But then I started referencing McLuhan’s whole The Medium Is The Message thing, arguing that making a game has its own intrinsic values vs. other mediums and means of self-expression. Then I tried to step back even further and look how one’s job, car, hobbies, clothing, eating habits, etc, all have political connotations and that escaping the political is all but impossible.

This quickly became a vague exercise in pointless philosophizing more than a diatribe about how people reacted to things like Carolyn Petit and Jim Sterling’s GTAV reviews or Feminist Frequency’s efforts. But I had 2.5 pages I really liked, and a page and a half that was kinda lame. So I surgeried the script to target gamers and gamer culture – and while I stand by what I said I can certainly see how the framing comes off as a bit strawman-y. Ah well.

(Also, Sorry about the video quality on this one. I screwed up creating the project in Premiere, finished editing it, realized that this version of Premiere has no way to correct the configuration error. A stupid mistake, but not one I seem to be able to meaningfully correct without re-editing the video which would take several days. Next video should, in theory, not look this horrible in motion.)

 

[Athelas]

Wow, his examples of political games - and his criticism of them - are laughably stupid. Just awful. I imagine next week we'll see an in-depth analysis of the damage Mario games do to the profession of plumber.

Also, I haven't played Civilization V, but aren't a lot of the playablable civilizations in that game civilizations that never stood a chance against the onset of imperialism in the real world? Makes his criticism of it championing imperialism all the more stupid.

 

[DeepOcean]

I don't mind politics discussion on games but most developers aren't qualified for that. They tend to put their personal bias ahead of any serious attempt of understand the issues they are dealing with. They try to discuss politics and and end being propaganda machines for the right or left without critical tought about what they are defending. People don't want serious political discussion on games because they don't trust developers to do it right.

 

[Weierstraß]

5:00 Wow! This pathetic worm should be embarrassed. He's mad that you don't win in Civ5 because of eliminating hunger and poverty. He's just a scummy LIB, out to sabotage fun at every chance.

Also, I haven't played Civilization V, but aren't a lot of the playablable civilizations in that game civilizations that never stood a chance against the onset of imperialism in the real world? Makes his criticism of it championing imperialism all the more stupid.

What he's saying is that in choosing the rules of the game, the designer expresses his opinions about what's valuable in a civilization. He's not "mad" at the game, he's simply saying it shows the opinion of it's creator, regardless of that creators intention to say anything.

 

[Athelas]

5:00 Wow! This pathetic worm should be embarrassed. He's mad that you don't win in Civ5 because of eliminating hunger and poverty. He's just a scummy LIB, out to sabotage fun at every chance.

Also, I haven't played Civilization V, but aren't a lot of the playablable civilizations in that game civilizations that never stood a chance against the onset of imperialism in the real world? Makes his criticism of it championing imperialism all the more stupid.

What he's saying is that in choosing the rules of the game, the designer expresses his opinions about what's valuable in a civilization. He's not "mad" at the game, he's simply saying it shows the opinion of it's creator, regardless of that creators intention to say anything.

He certainly sounds like he's mad, or at least dissatisfied and frustrated. He criticizes the game for supposedly promoting an American world view and attributes that to its creators being American. Even though strategy games made in Europe or Japan are roughly similar in terms of aggression and conquests being rewarding. It's a shallow criticism that overlooks that games are made to be fun first and foremost (although if people like him had his way, that would be different) and that they're therefore an amoral abstraction of the real world. And like I said, even if we were to ignore the game aspect of the game like he's doing (which is stupid, but let's go with it), his argument still holds little merit. Modern civilizations are built on a history of imperialism and colonialism, to such an extent that many colonies were still becoming independent just a few decades ago.

 

[Weierstraß]

He doesn't overlook that games are made for fun first and foremost. That's part of what he's talking about. That's why he's using Civilization in the first place, as an example of a game that expresses opinions even though it's not made with that intent. Even if you make an "amoral abstraction" you're still using your own values in choosing what and how to abstract.

 

[Shadenuat]

That's just trying to mind trick people into believing they are following some agenda when they aren't. It's doubtful any sane person believes that war, starvation or throwing your foes back into stone age by nuclear bombardment are good things. Rather decent and semi-decent developers acknowledge that without such things in their simulation of game world, it would not feel real. Gotta have all things, good or bad, to make your game sound true and deliver promised experience.

ES points are just bad, and he even agreed himself that video isn't good.

 

[Borelli]

I wonder what would be his opinion on Liberty Crime Squad.

 

[Jarpie]

I wonder what would be his opinion on Liberty Crime Squad.

Or Europa Universalis 4 colonization :D

 

[Destroid]

I wonder what would be his opinion on Liberty Crime Squad.

Or Europa Universalis 4 colonization :D

EU4 actually is a historical game, while Civ applies the same mechanics to past present and future.

 

[Athelas]

He doesn't overlook that games are made for fun first and foremost. That's part of what he's talking about. That's why he's using Civilization in the first place, as an example of a game that expresses opinions even though it's not made with that intent. Even if you make an "amoral abstraction" you're still using your own values in choosing what and how to abstract.

You're choosing abstractions to make the game playable and fun. Civilization V's gameplay is no more politically charged than the fact that most games center around killing things. It's a completely hollow criticism. I can at least understand the argument that military shooters glorify war, because they tend to have terribly written single player campaigns that show a child's understanding of how war works. Even then, the level of writing is so low that the idea of taking offense doesn't even enter in it for me.

 

[Metro]

vague exercise in pointless philosophizing

All of his videos in a nutshell.

 

[Infinitron]

I really like this guy -- refreshing change to the gimmicky douche bags that proliferate YouTube.

 

[Metro]

Feb 12, 2012

 

[Infinitron]

You did say "all his videos".

 

[Metro]

I also said "why don't you go play some of the two dozen games you've begged off the gift thread instead of hyping this faggot?"

 

[felipepepe]

He may not provide the best answers, but he make some good questions, and that's more than 99% of youtube guys...

 

[sea]

Decided to leave Chris a message:

So uh.

1) Don't like the stereotyping of "gamers" at the beginning. I think first and foremost it's unfair to claim that "gamers" as a whole have any consistent opinion on whether games should be taken seriously as an art form, and you present zero evidence for the apparent schizophrenia that gamers possess when it comes to meeting criticism. It's like making a broad claim about "blacks" or "rednecks" or whatever - why is it okay to do this with "gamers"?

2) Civilization's messages inherent in its game systems are not necessarily "American" in nature. Rather, they are messages which are largely beneficial for any world power. Virtually every empire in history, not the United States alone, subscribes to the idea of domination through economics/culture/military/etc. In other words it really isn't a bad example - especially considering the game if nothing else is a respectful celebration of diverse world cultures (just listen to the summary narrations for the individual civs).

3) Furthermore, while you don't really ignore the issue of verisimilitude outright, you also kind of avoid mentioning that gamers often demand a degree of realism or at least believable context for their game mechanics and systems. I don't know whether most games are built from the ground-up with their mechanics and systems, or have those inspired by their themes (probably a bit of both), but gamers demand that if they're going to be doing X and Y that X and Y are presented in a way which is appropriate to the gameplay itself.

Of course, some games - like Grand Theft Auto - really have no connection at all between the overt political meanings and messages, and the game mechanics themselves - in GTA's case I see it as much more of a cheap way of generating laughs than anything else.

4) The "games are apolitical" stance is one which is inherently political in itself, I agree - but your examples come across as obvious straw men. Example: "BioShock Infinite isn't racist" is not a statement anyone is making. When we talk about race in BioShock we aren't saying the game is racist or that the developers are racist, or whatever, because that makes no sense. Anyone who is actually discussing BioShock and race is doing so from your touted perspective - the one which you present as "correct". Please stop putting words in the mouths of "gamers".

I think the real problem is the gaming press as a whole, for jumping on and sensationalizing games' political messages (intended or not) and presenting them in half-hearted ways that are more concerned with click-baiting than anything else. If you start with the statement "BioShock is racist!" then what kind of good discussion do you really expect to result? It's like starting a debate with the supposition that one side's mother is a whore.

Kotaku, Joystiq, IGN, even "respected" and "intellectual" sites like Polygon don't give a crap about good discussion - they care about hits, and they care about ad revenue.

Not sure if he actually bothers to respond to comments, though.

And yes, I sort of know he already touched on the "gamers" thing but then why is he even talking that way if he objects to "gamers" as a group? It's literally central to his entire argument. So how can he stand by this video and what he said in it if his "true" beliefs are completely at odds with it?

 

[Infinitron]

I'm pretty sure he reads them, but he rarely responds, unless a comment is really good. This one is, so let's see what happens.

 

[Lorica]

You could suggest him some reading:
http://futurismic.com/2011/03/02/se...-us-think-and-behave-like-brutal-psychopaths/
http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2007/10/james-scott-and.html

 

[Jarpie]

Decided to leave Chris a message:

So uh.

1) Don't like the stereotyping of "gamers" at the beginning. I think first and foremost it's unfair to claim that "gamers" as a whole have any consistent opinion on whether games should be taken seriously as an art form, and you present zero evidence for the apparent schizophrenia that gamers possess when it comes to meeting criticism. It's like making a broad claim about "blacks" or "rednecks" or whatever - why is it okay to do this with "gamers"?

2) Civilization's messages inherent in its game systems are not necessarily "American" in nature. Rather, they are messages which are largely beneficial for any world power. Virtually every empire in history, not the United States alone, subscribes to the idea of domination through economics/culture/military/etc. In other words it really isn't a bad example - especially considering the game if nothing else is a respectful celebration of diverse world cultures (just listen to the summary narrations for the individual civs).

3) Furthermore, while you don't really ignore the issue of verisimilitude outright, you also kind of avoid mentioning that gamers often demand a degree of realism or at least believable context for their game mechanics and systems. I don't know whether most games are built from the ground-up with their mechanics and systems, or have those inspired by their themes (probably a bit of both), but gamers demand that if they're going to be doing X and Y that X and Y are presented in a way which is appropriate to the gameplay itself.

Of course, some games - like Grand Theft Auto - really have no connection at all between the overt political meanings and messages, and the game mechanics themselves - in GTA's case I see it as much more of a cheap way of generating laughs than anything else.

4) The "games are apolitical" stance is one which is inherently political in itself, I agree - but your examples come across as obvious straw men. Example: "BioShock Infinite isn't racist" is not a statement anyone is making. When we talk about race in BioShock we aren't saying the game is racist or that the developers are racist, or whatever, because that makes no sense. Anyone who is actually discussing BioShock and race is doing so from your touted perspective - the one which you present as "correct". Please stop putting words in the mouths of "gamers".

I think the real problem is the gaming press as a whole, for jumping on and sensationalizing games' political messages (intended or not) and presenting them in half-hearted ways that are more concerned with click-baiting than anything else. If you start with the statement "BioShock is racist!" then what kind of good discussion do you really expect to result? It's like starting a debate with the supposition that one side's mother is a whore.

Kotaku, Joystiq, IGN, even "respected" and "intellectual" sites like Polygon don't give a crap about good discussion - they care about hits, and they care about ad revenue.

Not sure if he actually bothers to respond to comments, though.

And yes, I sort of know he already touched on the "gamers" thing but then why is he even talking that way if he objects to "gamers" as a group? It's literally central to his entire argument. So how can he stand by this video and what he said in it if his "true" beliefs are completely at odds with it?

Some very good points in that too but I would've added that his viewpoint is very much from the viewpoint of (liberal) american and at least seems to put out that is always the viewpoint where to look at things. This is actually very annoying in many people, especially people who makes youtube videos.

When he looks at the victory conditions of Civilization, he spouts that it puts out very american view of getting victory...someone else might correct me but didn't Soviet Union also take part in the space race and was actually first one who had man in space? Great works of art...American?...again correct me if I'm wrong but how many great works of classical art are american, especially pre-1800s?

 

[DeepOcean]

Chris is a cool guy, the very fact of him making mistakes and being rational enough to admit that, put him on a way better position than the typical youtube manchild who thinks he is a popstar. He defends liberal views more as someone who was educated on american schools than someone who is fanatical and has emotional issues.