"Games are Political"

I don't usually dip into controversial topics, but this has been on my mind, so... feel free to skip this one if you're not in the mood for this particular discussion. The topic of today is the entire debate surrounding videogames and whether or not they are political. Not so much the subject in and of itself, although I'll address it briefly, but the discussion around it. There are going to be a lot of anecdotes and tangents, but bear with me if you've come this far already.

For an industry revolving around entertainment, the games industry seems to ignite a lot of controversies and what I hesitate to call 'discussions.' One of the more frustrating topics to me is the idea that games either are or aren't political.

One thing that immediately jumped out to me in this discussion is that the sides aren't exactly mirrored. Rather than having one side proclaim the negatives of political messages in games and the other proclaiming the positives, one side of the debate exists mostly to invalidate the other by default. Rather than arguing why games can be a useful tool to make you think about certain political perspectives, people will dismiss the topic altogether by saying (all) games are political, or all art, or everything period.
_

If you don't care about my opinion, you can skip this bit, but I'll take a moment to explain my own views before I move on. Taken by its dictionary definition, political is defined as:

1. Of or relating to government, a government, or the conduct of government.
2. Of, relating to, involving, or involved in politics and especially party politics

Based on its definition, the answer is apparent to me: Games can be political, but are not inherently so. There are a lot of games - the majority, I would say - that have no message or intent relating to the government or its conduct. Once the fact that most games do not have such a message is presented, the goalpost usually shifts - I've received counterarguments along the lines of:

"People are political and their lives are always influenced by politics in some way, so politics will always be reflected in their art."

This is debatable, but let's assume in good faith that this is true; that no matter our agency as individuals, our political beliefs will always be reflected in our every action and expression in some way. The simple question that follows is 'so what?' The claim is that games are political, period. The quite possibly true notion that 'politics will always have some kind of impact on what we do' does not make our every action political in and of itself. If a religious person paints a still life without any religious content, is that painting of itself still religious? Plenty of great artists over the years had their eccentricities and even bigotries. Can a painting of a flower made by an artist who held some form of bigotry be labeled as being bigoted as well? I may be wrong about this, but I think that's a very reductionist way of thinking about art and even people in general.

Adrian Chmielarz, developer of The Vanishing of Ethan Carter, argues that it's not a simple yes or no question, but rather, that we should think about it in degrees - think of the phrase 'the dose makes the poison.' He wrote an excellent article a few years ago that you can read by clicking here. 

Anyway, those are my two cents on the topic, but I'm willing to hear arguments to the contrary. Feel free to post a comment or send me a message.
_

What frustrates me is that the 'games are political' perspective is often presented as a foregone conclusion, requiring little to no argument. Even though the discussion isn't that old, people with the view that games are political seem tired of arguing for it, even though most people have probably never heard their arguments. They are so convinced of the obvious nature of this belief that they often end up presenting it in an angry or smug way.

The way this debate is going, I genuinely wonder if either side even really understands the other. When someone says 'I don't want politics in my games,' the phrase will often be countered with the correct statement that a beloved game or franchise (like Bioshock) has strong political themes or content. In this regard, I think both sides of the debate aren't quite thinking about 'politics' by its dictionary definition. This is my personal interpretation, but when people say they don't want 'politics' in their entertainment, I believe they are mainly talking about contemporary politics. They don't want to see the same talking points people repeat on social media right now in their entertainment media. I've come to this conclusion because a lot of people who hold this view express that they play games for escapism, among other things. It only makes sense that you don't want to be faced with the fears and frustrations of real life in your entertainment media if you specifically consume said media to escape those fears and frustrations.

But instead of reaching out with empathy and understanding that there may be very good reasons why a person wouldn't want recent political topics to come up in their entertainment media, the 'games are political' side tends to resort to a frustrating kind of Bulverism. C.S. Lewis' words are especially relevant here, particularly how he reflects on the way we don't address whether a person is right or wrong, but rather, how their supposed secret wishes or thought processes led them to this wrong conclusion. In the context of this subject, you'll often see people proclaim the following:

"When people say they don't want politics in their games, they only mean politics they don't agree with."

I think this statement does hold a grain of truth. Considering the sheer size of the industry and its audience, it's statistically likely that there are people who are frustrated with the politics present in certain games not because they are politics, but because they themselves hold opposing political views. But it isn't logical to attribute this 'secret wish' to all people who have expressed a distaste for politics appearing in their entertainment media. Until you've found a significant amount of people who specifically dislike the notion of politics in games for that reason, you're just making up a reason for why these people are wrong without even addressing their concerns. The best course of action to take when a perspective seems confusing or contradictory to us, is to ask questions, not make sweeping assumptions about the speaker's intentions.

I've mostly addressed the attitudes and behaviors I find frustrating on one side of the debate, namely the side that argues that all games are political. If you've read my personal view on the topic as well, you've probably noticed that I lean further the other way. My view remains that games can be political but aren't political, but I find myself sympathizing more with people who want to avoid politics than those who claim they are universal. It's mainly because expressing a distaste for politics is simply expressing a preference, a desire, an opinion. On the other side, proclaiming that games are political by nature is a statement intended to be factual, and in many cases, obvious. It is my personal view that there is a lot of arrogance to proclaiming games are political. It's perfectly fine if that is what you believe, but it is just that - a belief. An opinion.

I think the discussion would move forward a lot quicker if either side dropped the snappy sounding but ultimately divisive statements they so often use. Instead of 'keep politics out of videogames,' why not say that you 'prefer that videogames not be used to present a stance on contemporary political issues in a hamfisted way.' It takes more effort to say, but it's also a lot more reasonable and closer to the truth. Similarly, instead of 'games are political,' why not explain that you 'believe our political beliefs always have some impact on our self expression.' That's just what I think, but the Twitter character limits have probably pushed people to simplify their statements - and perhaps even their views - more and more.

In any case, that's where I'll leave it for now. It's hard to summarize the raving rant I just wrote, but I'll try: The discussion surrounding games being political is stagnant, mainly because neither side really understands the other. I personally find the side that argues games are inherently political to be the more arrogant side, as it proclaims to know an objective truth rather than expressing a subjective preference (like not wanting politics in your entertainment media). I don't condemn any specific individual, but those are the general trends I've observed, perhaps through my own biased lens. 

If you have any thoughts, feel free to share them!

A Million Points of Damage, Part 1: RPGs, Math & RNG

While some games hide the variables under their hood to preserve immersion or avoid confusion, some like to show off their numbers. I'd like to look at how different games handle the way they present these numbers to the player and why, starting with a few older RPGs. 

Some games wear their numbers on their sleeves, and RPGs are a common example. After all, strategy is an important part of any RPG.

Take classic Square-Enix RPGs, for example.  The damage dealt, the damage received and various stats are visible to the player in battle. Have a look at Chrono Trigger:

source: Xygor on YouTube

It's quite common for turn-based RPGs like this to boast rather high numbers. Characters may hit other characters for hundreds, thousands or tens of thousands points of damage. But then there are RPGs that are incredibly modest with their variables - take Paper Mario, for example.

source: Destiny Entertainment on YouTube

It's easy to dismiss this difference in design because Paper Mario was designed for a younger audience, as demonstrated by its visual style emulating a children's book. But I would argue there's a little bit more to it than that.

Consider one of turn-based RPGs common criticisms - repetition. Fighting the exact same enemy with the exact same moves using the exact same party; that gets old after a while. Of course, game designers have known this from the start, and this is how RPGs and RNG became bedfellows. Now, RNG simply stands for 'random number generator.' This may sound weird at first, but think about how often RPGs rely on a roll of the dice. From random encounters to critical hits, there's a lot of chance involved. To get back to the point, random numbers eliminate repetition to some degree. You're never quite sure which enemy or enemies you'll run into, never quite sure how much damage you'll deal or receive and so on.

So, why the big numbers? I believe one reason is because they allow for more flexible RNG. Note that the aforementioned Paper Mario, which uses tiny numbers, also employs no random numbers for the damage dealt and received. How could it? Were you to attack an enemy with 3 HP, using a base attack of 2, a random element would make a huge difference, because a single point of damage would. The game would rely far too much on luck. But allowing a few dozen points of variation against an enemy with thousands of HP adds a level of surprise that doesn't undermine strategy or skill, while still allowing you to just barely make or miss that last hit on the boss.

Of course, RNG is really just one facet of complex mathematics. I've claimed that RPGs are forthcoming with their numbers, but in reality, they only show you the end result of a few numbers that went through a dozen formulae. RPGs need to consider a character's attack power, the type of attack, the enemy's defense and many more things, and calculate a number based on that. Using only small numbers, those results would be robbed of all elegance; that 10 % buff a piece of armour gave, for example, will mean a lot more for a 1000 damage equip than a 1 damage equip, even if they have equal strengh within the context of their own game. As such, having big numbers behind the scenes has its advantages. A great example of an RPG franchise that is amazingly complex, yet pretends to be simple, is Pokémon. Take, for example, how the game calculates whether or not you catch a Pokémon.

source: Bulbapedia

But all of this only shows the advantage of using big numbers behind the scenes, not why some RPGs present these numbers to the player. That still boils down to a level of unpredictability, as I mentioned before.

However, is that all? Using numbers in the hundreds or thousands should provide plenty of variance if it was just about the RNG and maths. Why is it, then, that some turn-based RPGs use numbers that are much, much higher? 

To answer that question,we have to cover two things: Progression and spectacle. If you start the game dealing 1 damage, and you knock the final boss down with a 100 000 damage hit, you're going to feel incredibly empowered. You could've built from 1 to 10 damage, and if the game scaled at the same rate, it would've worked much the same as if the numbers would be higher. But it wouldn't feel the same, because the jump from 10 to 100 000 is so much greater than the jump from 1 to 10. Mechanically, it's completely arbitrary, but larger numbers allow for this greater sense of progress and have a way of looking spectacular. If your character spends a whole minute on a cutscene preparing the greatest attack you've ever seen, doesn't it feel like a dud if they deal 10 damage, even if that is a lot in the context of the game? Especially if there are spectators observing you playing, who have no way to contextualize the numbers, although that's a topic in and of itself.

So there you have it! The reason why turn-based RPGs have a fondness for large numbers is that they're flexible enough to use with RNG and complex mathematics, as well as the fact that they allow for a great sense of progress and spectacle.

That's my 2,458,948 cents, but it's entirely possible I'm wrong. Please feel free to respond! I'm planning to make 'A Million Points of Damage' into a series where I explore the transparency of variables in other genres and games as well, and your feedback is going to be an important part of how it develops. Have a great day, and I'll see you in the next one!