For something like 20 years now the (mostly American) far left has been pushing their ideology and agenda into society at full force, using all kinds of tactics and strategies (starting with the invasion of all universities, which is actually a brilliant move, credit where credit is due. Although that most probably was not their idea originally, as it was an idea originally pushed by Soviet propagandists.)
One of the strongest and most successful tactics, which they have been pushing more and more strongly over the decades, is the idea that all pieces of media, especially video games, absolutely require "representation" (of minorities, etc.) They were talking about this 15 years ago, and they are still talking about it today, more strongly than ever.
And that's how they have been successful in injecting their politics and social engineering into more and more big-budget games. (The latest victim of this agenda is the currently infamous Dragon Age: Veil Guard, with all their pronouns, "trans" characters etc, but that's by far not the only example.)
Rather obviously whenever such a game is published, all the far-leftist activists praise it for being so "inclusive", and how they adore the "representation" of minorities in the game. Random far-leftist youtube reviewers praise how, as a "non-binary person", they feel "included" and "represented" in the game.
Of course this is just activism, propaganda and social engineering, and one of the biggest lies ever concocted.
The driving idea behind "representation" in video games, which was already pushed over 15 years ago, is that the player somehow identifies himself or herself with the playable character. Most particularly, that if there's any kind of character creation in the game, people would prefer to create a character that resembles as much as possible themselves or, at least, a person that they would want to be.
This is complete bullshit, of course. Pretty much nobody thinks of a playable character in a video game as representing themselves. Nobody thinks "this character is me, I'm this character, it is me, personally, who is inside the world of this game, doing all these things" and, consequently, "the fact that this character is completely different from who I actually am, what I look like, bothers me immensely. I feel excluded and discriminated against."
When I'm playing, let's say, a Mario game, I do not think that I am Mario. I control the Mario character, but that character doesn't represent me. It's not a representation of me in the game. It's the fictional character of "Mario", who in the fictional world of the game is his own person, his own individual, and I'm just controlling him, playing as him. He is no more me than eg. the protagonist of a movie or book. I may be controlling the protagonist, but I am not him.
If I'm playing a Tomb Raider game, I'm controlling the character of Lara Croft. She's a woman, and that's completely fine. The character of Lara Croft is not me, nor does she represent me. She is her own (fictional) individual, her own person, her own personality; I'm merely controlling her actions in this fictitious scenario. And even then, it's implied that these are her own actions in-universe, even though I'm making the decisions completely out of the in-universe setting.
In games that support detailed character creation, I am not creating a representation of myself. I am creating a fictional character, just like Mario, or Lara Croft, or Link, or Samus. It's essentially no different. The only difference is that instead of controlling a predetermined character that the game developers designed, I'm designing my own. Even though I'm customizing what the character looks like, it's still just that: A fictional character that's not me. I may control that character, but it's not me, nor does it represent me.
In fact, when I play a game where the playable character is highly customizable, I almost always create a female character, even though I'm a man. That's not because I would want to be a woman. It's more because of the humorous quip "if I'm going to have to stare at an ass for hours on end, it better be a nice ass." Yes, I like the sight of beautiful women more than men. Sue me. I'm a bit heterosexual in that way.
There's no more meaning to it than that. It does not reveal some kind of repressed wish fulfillment of my mind. I do not see myself as the character I create, secretly hoping I was that. That's because I do not see the playable character as a representation of myself. Even if fully configurable, she is still her own person in the universe of the game, and I'm simply controlling her actions. And I do prefer the sight of women more than men, if I have the option, so there.
(In fact, if we delve deeper into the psychology behind this, it's probably more than just the sight of what the character looks like. Female characters are easier to empathize with, to feel empathy for. If in the game a non-playable character makes a slight towards my playable character, insults her, is disrespectful to her or in other ways abuses her, it strikes emotionally harder than with a male character. I become more emotionally invested in kicking that perp's sorry ass. I become more of a "knight in white armor" at some level. It's much easier to get emotionally attached to a female character than a male one.)
I like games where you can customize your playable character in great detail. What I don't like is when a political agenda is forcefully inserted into my entertainment, in an attempt to spoon-feed it to me and trying to social-engineer me.
Comments
Post a Comment