A notable constituency of the gaming community online has taken issue with Shadow Complex because of the involvement of author Orson Scott Card, publicly an opponent of gay rights. As excited as they are about Shadow Complex, many gamers are hesitant to spend their money in a way that would benefit someone whose political viewpoints offend them -- regardless of your personal stance on such issues, the unwillingness to reward a person who actively opposes something important to you is understandable.
Wanted to point your attention to an excellent, reasoned editorial by my Gamasutra colleague Christian Nutt, analyzing the internet protests. It makes me think -- as someone who believes games have only scratched the surface of their potential for social relevance, I'd surely like to see more creators express themselves on important issues through the art of games.
Of course, there is to my knowledge absolutely no political sentiment, anti-gay or otherwise, within Shadow Complex. But my strong feeling that art should authentically express the artist certainly comes under the microscope when I'm confronted with a situation where I don't much like the creator.
Every time the world of games comes up against real-world social issues, it's always a little tricky to navigate. "It's only a game" didn't work well at all for things like Six Days in Fallujah or the race questions raised by Resident Evil 5, for example. I like the comment on Christian's article which says "'It's Just a Game' is a very intricate logical fallacy used by gamers that don't want to grow up."
Regardless of a game's content, would you support a title if it had the involvement of someone whose views or actions in the real world violated your personal morals? Is it really possible to fully separate a product from its producer, even when there's no agenda in the content?
46 comments:
This is stupid. Not wanting to play a game because of your personal beliefs on the author is fine, but advocating some sort of boycott on this particular author is ridiculous. Card, like pretty much all other Mormons, believes homosexuality is a sin. But if you actually (gasp!) read his material, none of this preachiness comes through (except, maybe, in his explicitly religious stories). I can read and enjoy Card despite his personal beliefs, the same way I can enjoy Eminem's actual music despite his misogyny. It makes me sad that a lot of people would miss out on a great game, and encourage others to do so, based on the beliefs of one of the staff members (News Flash: I'm sure a lot of random game developers don't support gay marriage either).
*Full disclosure: Orson Scott Card is one of my favorite authors, and I am also a vocal supporter of gay rights, gay marriage, etc.
It should be noted that the Chair design leads are Mormon as well. Not that this stopped me from getting the game.
Two very interesting and totally reasonable questions, Leigh.
"Regardless of a game's content, would you support a title if it had the involvement of someone whose views or actions in the real world violated your personal morals?"
I don't think it's easier to give a definitive answer one way or another. For me, I feel I can purchase that product without sacrificing my ethics, because buying the product does not necessarily suggest I support or endorse that person's personal views. What I do support, is the culminative effort that went into making the game itself, and that's what I'm doing when I purchase it.
"Is it really possible to fully separate a product from its producer, even when there's no agenda in the content?"
It's a similar sort of question to, "Can you seperate an artist from his work?" Personally, I think you can go two ways about this: attempt to judge a thing on its own merits; or take it in a braoder context in which it was made. I think your perception changes given what route you take on this, and, in my opinion, I believe it to be right to judge a product on its own and support it on that basis. From the moment a creation is finished and released to the public, it takes on its own identity and it's on that that we should look towards.
If, however, we were talking about a company behaving unethically, then there would be some moral contradiction in buying a product but rejecting the practices that have been used to bring that product to market.
what race issues were raised by re5? the game doesn't really have an agenda or a position, it is just a bit insensitive, right?
although i haven't heard of any boycotts about this, there are also political/environmental issues around game hardware. sony got some bad press back when the ps2 launched due to its extensive use of coltan, a mineral used in a lot of consumer electronics and was mined by african prisoners and children.
it's kind of sad that we seem to spend more time worrying about the feelings of various interest groups and less time on the environmental and economic realities of the massive production of consumer goods.
one of the things i really appreciate about the wii, actually, is how little energy it uses. efficiency is underrated!
anyway, thanks for the post, it is refreshing to have a break from KONSOLE WARRR rage industry stuff :)
I'm a big fan of the idea presented on gaygamer.net, that we should buy the game because it's awesome, but donate a few dollars to a gay rights group to offset whatever money Orson Scott Card is making off of the game. Full article here:
http://gaygamer.net/2009/08/the_shadow_complex_conundrum.html
In will not start off my comment with something in the lines of "this is a tough one, but..."!
But it is a tough one. It reminds me of the ethical dilemma concerning veganism I had, where I two different types of chocolates I could chose between; one with absolutely no animal products from a somewhat unknown brand, and one with very little animal products which came from the chocolate machines that also were used to create a chocolate with animal products in it. I wanted to give the small company my money because they made only "ethical chocolate", but the second company, which also made milk chocolate then, had money to advertise the chocolate without milk--if I only bought it so they'd understand that the production should be increased.
Don't know if this applies to shadow complex though.
Those are definitely thought-provoking questions. It's certainly easy for people to have knee-jerk reactions, but if you take the time to really think about it, I agree with bowlbyspeaks that it would be difficult to answer them definitively.
On the one hand, if I really want to play a game, there are very few things that will make me change my mind. On the other hand, I try never to use products whose companies employ testing on animals. The difference between the two sides, though, is that if one lipstick tests on animals, it's easy enough for me to find a similar shade from a company that doesn't. In the realm of video game development, (although I'm often complaining that all the games lately are copies of each other), I can't just pick up a reasonable facsimile from another company. So what would I do? Probably buy the game. I'd certainly say that it's a decision I'd make on a case by case basis, though.
I do believe, however, that this choice is a personal one. The fascinating thing about people is that they really are all different. If someone really feels strongly about something, that's their prerogative. We may or may not think that they are being foolish, missing out on some great thing, but that is their choice, not ours.
In certain circumstances, if the devs were holocaust denyers then i'd probably think twice, but rarely does a person's political views make me want to avoid what they've got to say. If they're contrary to my own I'd probably take a second look. If the Taliban put out an Anti-West shooter or RPG, I can imagine, despite the horrible human rights of their cause, there would be many a curious purchase for just such a reason. Art (if we're willing to call our medium that) often requires us to see the world through the artists eyes and more often than not the best art is often from those with contrary opinions to our own.
It may be a sour taste having your money go fund someone whose beliefs or actions you take issue with but I'd rather that than spend my life refusing to acknowledge someone elses viewpoint.
From what I understand though, Card's personal politics rarely seep through into his work. In the case of Shadow Complex, his universe is all the game takes, and it was actually written by comic book writer Peter David.
Also, I dont remember this controversy surrounding the release of Advant Rising, another game Card had a input in on the story.
"Also, I dont remember this controversy surrounding the release of Advant Rising, another game Card had a input in on the story."
Wasn't Advent Rising a total flop? I imagine the controversy didn't come up because they weren't making any money from it.
I don't know the man. How can I possibly decide whether he ought to have my money or not? The only thing I know that matters is whether the thing I'm buying from him is satisfactory. Someone who refuses to patronize anyone whose political viewpoint differs from their own will, in all likelihood, starve to death, naked, homeless, and illiterate. Separating a person's political life from their personal and commercial lives is one of the cornerstones of a pluralistic society.
To patronize someone who hates you personally is a different matter, but personal hatred and political disagreement are not the same thing and neither has ever been a justification for the other, notwithstanding exhortations that "the personal is the political."
It's a different story if their different opinions become central to the product they're selling me - not because I'd avoid a product advocating opinions I don't share, but because consuming something with a political element is a very different transaction from consuming something apolitical. Sometimes having your viewpoint challenged can be enriching, and sometimes merely tiresome or infuriating. This must be considered, of course.
A person's prior public political statements might suggest the possibility that a work will be politically charged in an unsatisfying way, but it is not a very reliable indicator.
Shadow Complex, incidentally, is super fun. And it's the utterly apolitical sort of work.
I don´t support marriage in any form. Shit man, nearly got clipped by that bullet just recently.
No. You cannot separate a product from its producer, but you can appreciate something without agreeing with it.
Will buying or boycotting Shadow Complex affect gay rights or the opinion of its creators? In the end, it is a choice concerning how the purchase affects you.
It is a personal choice. Trying to stifle the creative pursuits of those whose opinions or work you don't like (Uwe Boll?) encroaches on the territory of unjust censorship and bigotry.
What's next? A Liberal-Conservative rating system?
Now, if it was a work of explicit hate or abuse, it would change matters.
I feel like there are people at every company who use their money for things I don't agree with. That doesn't stop me form buying their goods.
I buy their product because I enjoy it. They get money. If they choose to use that money to buy rifles and go hunting- well, that's their prerogative. Once I buy their product and hand them my money, it's out of my hands what they do with it. OSC may have gone on record revealing himself as a tremendous twat and he may well use the proceeds of the game in a vain attempt to build a giant twat army, but there are lots of giant twats out there who we do business with every day because we like or need what they're selling.
Hey, it helps if the reason you're not buying the game is because you think Card is an unimaginative hack.
Of course, even if I didn't think that was the case, I'd be skipping this. The idea of being an informed consumer is to [at least attempt] find these sorts of things out, and use that to make your final decision on your purpose. This is a deal breaker, in the same way a female friend of mine refuses to go to Curves, because of where she feels that money might ultimately go.
This makes me think about the recently revived controversy around Michael Jackson. Many people believe or at least suspect that he was a pedophile. Still, his music continues to be wildly popular. This isn't the first time people have had to decide whether they want to financially support someone whose actions or beliefs they might disapprove of. I think most people separate the person from the product. Now, if MJ were writing songs advocating pedophilia, the response would be different. If Orson Scott Card helps create a game that openly espouses homophobic sentiments, I'd be less inclined to buy it as well. Also, it's because they and their beliefs/actions are more well known that we have reason to care. Do you go to the market and inquire if the butcher slaps his wife around or or if the barista at you local coffee place is a neo-Nazi? I'd reckon not and you base your choices more on the quality and cost of the product/service.
Are we allowed to try to control what other people think by buying or not their products?
The idea of being an informed consumer is to [at least attempt] find these sorts of things out, and use that to make your final decision on your purpose.
Uh, really? I don't really consider myself an ill-informed consumer because I don't base my art and entertainment purchases on what every person connected to the project believes about a multitude of political issues.
Also, for what it's worth, you are free to think Card is a poor writer, but I'm not sure the words 'unimaginative' or 'hack' mean what you think they mean.
This is not a tough decision. You either support Orson Scott Card, or you don't.
I think the game looks really fun, but I don't support him. I'll pass.
I'm crazy. I'll buy all sorts of abominations that stand against my beliefs, just for the amusement. The fact that Shadow Complex doesn't include any of Orson's nonsense almost renders this matter boring to me.
From my perspective, the sure bet that a fair number of pro-liberty gamers will purchase and enjoy Shadow Complex is another testament to the wonders of the free market. Goods are sold; the producers are compensated and the consumers enjoy their purchases. This system gets people who might otherwise despise one another to cooperate and voluntarily engage in activities of mutual benefit.
No other force, not religion, government, or even charity, has succeeded anywhere near as well in achieving the same effect.
This is not a tough decision. You either support Orson Scott Card, or you don't.
You either support Donald Mustard, or you don't.
You either support Laura Mustard, or you don't.
You either support Geremy Mustard, or you don't.
You either support Peter David, or you don't.
You either support Orson Scott Card, or you don't.
These people are not identical. Are you seeing the problem here yet? You should be.
By suggesting that Card's viewpoints and actions are the only thing of importance in a purchasing decision you're ignoring the fact that dozens of people poured their heart and soul into this game for months, if not years, in an attempt to build something people would like.
Furthermore, if you suggest that the game should be the subject of a widespread boycott, you are suggesting that the mere association between these individuals and Card - whether or not it has any impact on the actual work - is reason enough for them to earn no revenue as a result of their hard work. This should be an especially difficult decision considering the current economic climate.
It's worthwhile to encourage positive themes in media and discourage negative ones, but in this case, Shadow Complex does not do anything negative, and does not harm the struggle for gay rights. Therefore, you have to consider both sides of a decision to boycott the game: On one hand, a boycott probably deprives Card of some royalty payments, and discourages other companies from working with him. On the other hand, Chair's employees depend on revenues to make games and feed their families.
In this case, I side with Chair without hesitation.
This is absolutely ridiculous. I don't see why people are in such an uproar? I hate to be that guy who says "Its america lolz do wut you want." but he really can do what he wants. If he wants to actively fight against gays/lesbian rights, then he can. If he wants to make a smash hit Xbox live arcade game so that people can enjoy hours of fun and entertainment, then he can.
I don't think we should let our "holier than thou" complex get in the way of playing a great game and deny ourselves a good time just because of someone else's viewpoints.
On The one hand i want every artist to share their viewpoint with us in their art even if its contraversial, I have many contraversial views i think but I still want to share them in my heart.
But if people do not want to pay for that art piece then I have no qualms about that, they should have every right to not buy anything that would go against their views, I don't buy Heavy Christian games for this very reason but i don't petition against them for there to be no heavy christian games.
Basically we should have free speech and free speech in art, otherwise we get to censoring and that goes down a very dangerous road.
Apologies if this has already been said, as I haven't time to read through, but there's a distinction between judging art based on the artist and not wanting to financially and socially benefit someone who's a public supporter of views you consider dangerous and objectionable.
For example, I'll happily listen to Wagner - judging his music on his anti-semitism seems wrongheaded, though reasonably understandable. In a very fundamental sense, once he had written that music, its meaning and content no longer belonged to him - there's no obligation to associate it with his character and views. However, if he were alive, I'd feel deeply uncomfortable about doing things that supported him financially - say, attending productions of his work - or that contributed to his fame and social standing.
Before Shadow Complex and the controversy around it came out, I had no idea about the opinions of Orson Scott Card. I've loved his books, and the game looks fantastic.
Trying to claim some kind of moral high ground by not buying the game is moronic. All that would accomplish would be to punish the developers who made, by all accounts, a superb game. If you want to organize a boycott, organize one that doesn't affect people who may not even share Card's beliefs.
There are two issues here: one is sanction, the other taste. Taste is easy; I won't watch a Woody Allen movie, because my disgust at his private behavior colors my experience of any of his works, destroying my enjoyment of them. Similarly, I wouldn't eat a hamburger if I know the raw patty had been sneezed on, even though I know cooking destroys the germs. I also wouldn't buy or play a video game I knew had been made by fascists; my revulsion for their beliefs would make it impossible for me to enjoy their product.
Sanction is tougher, and an issue Objectivists such as myself have to deal with continually. I have to judge whether what I'm buying enriches my life more than doing so impoverishes it. All else being equal, I will buy a product made in Taiwan over something made in The People's Republic of China, because it's in my long-term interest to support societies that are more individualist over those that are more collectivist. Does buying Shadow Complex enrich my life more than doing so impoverishes it by harming something I care about, such as justice? If buying the game does violence to justice by helping the unjust promote their agenda, then to some degree I'm acting against my own self-interest. That's a tough call, and one that you must decide for yourself. No-one can make that choice for you.
I'd just like to point out that art most definitely should not define its author. One of the challenges of being an artist, and an human being as well, is facing yourself with different values and different solutions than those you define yourself by. How would we progress ourselves if this wasn't the norm?
Art is art itself, not anything else, the author has no obligation to express himself in it (and in my opinion, he should avoid doing it).
My opinion on the rest of the subject stands in line with Peter David's opinion, which is found on the commentaries section of the linked article.
Boycotting is not a political statement, and if it is used as so, then those who do it are wrong. It's saying "I don't like you, so I'm not supporting your art", like if the artist had no ability to separate the two entities.
If i only had a 360, I'd buy the game. It brings forth a genre that is laking in titles, strangely enough, being it the reason of being of the Metroid series, which no one doubts it's greatness and importance.
John, you might want to take some grammar classes.
Anyway, I'll say that I bought Shadow Complex, despite my lack of professional and personal respect for Card. I have a deep respect for the creative minds at Chair, however, and that made the decision to buy Shadow Complex an easy one. The game isn't without flaws, but it is very well-made.
I can certainly relate to not wanting to support an artist whose opinions conflict with your own beliefs. I initially refused to go see The Golden Compass because the author of the original novels is hugely anti-Catholic. However, the fact that the movie ended up being pretty mediocre-to-bad (according to those I've spoken to who've seen it) means that my resolve was never really tested. If the movie ended up being a LotR caliber epic, I might have decided to swallow my pride and see what it was all about.
I feel like we should treat Shadow Complex the same way. I may not agree with OSC's politics, but we have to remember that games (as well as movies) require lots of people to produce, and to punish all of these other people because you disagree with one, tangentially-related person seems wrong to me. After all, it sounds like they've created a really good product. Shouldn't that be rewarded?
If you don't want to buy any OSC novels, go right ahead. I will personally never buy or read any of the novels in the "His Dark Materials" series. But boycotting Shadow Complex is a completely different matter.
This debate wouldn't be so ridiculous if Card made the game entirely by himself.
But video games are made by *teams* of humans. Among them could be democrats, republicans, fascists, communists, socialists, christians, muslims, atheists, flying spaghetti monster-ists, gays, lesbians, bigots, racists, hippies, vegans, vegetarians, carnivores, people who listen to shitty music and just plain assholes.
With the size of teams these days, it's basically guaranteed that most games you play (as well as every other product you buy) has someone involved that you would not like or agree with on all things.
So save your righteous indignation for *works* that are hateful and intolerant. Or at least don't buy the products that are made *entirely by a single person or organization* who you really don't like. Anything more then that is an incredibly naive world view and is the kind of armchair activism that thinks bumper stickers are going to free Tibet.
Ryan, normally I'd agree, but "juv3nal" raises an excellent point. A quick glance at the Chair design team reveals a group of privileged upper-middle-class white dudes with unsympathetic views towards the rest of the world. It's as if someone decided to create a parodically stereotypical design studio and re-release a reverently classic game.
I hate to say it, but despite its merits Shadow Complex is, essentially, a product made by a group of people with social and political views I find immensely offensive. I'd love to take the moral high ground and say that I'm not picking up their work because I think that they're wrong and they need to briefly live as someone who hasn't been born in to privilege in order to comprehend how "wrong" their worldview is, but the fact is that I just don't think their offering to video games is terribly interesting.
Contra was awesome. If someone's remade Contra with current generation graphics, that's pretty great. If someone wants to sell it for $10 or $20, that's...well, it's like charging for a fan mod. I certainly wouldn't say that these people haven't worked hard to make their game. But I will say that their worldview is aggressively offensive and that a game that I might've tried is now something I won't consider because of their steadfast, intolerant stance. Anyone who's had to deal with Mormon canvassers can likely agree. There's nothing quite so profoundly offensive as listening to a Mormon practitioner informing your Muslim neighbor about why he should convert in order to pray less frequently. This is the sort of shit these people donate a tenth of their paychecks to support. This is the sort of wacky shit you're indirectly supporting, albeit in a very odd and specialized case, by buying this game.
So what I'm saying is sort of twofold here, and steps outside of the topic of discussion. The first point is that even the conservative elements of the American government disagree with the anti-gay sentiment touted not just by the Mormon church in general, but by Card specifically. You need look no further than Scalia and Thomas' dissent in Lawrence v. Texas to see that, wherein Thomas and Scalia, even as they critique sexual behavior as being outside of the protection of constitutional provisions, still condemn Texas sodomy law as absurdly silly. When Clarence Thomas explicitly states that your views are too conservative, you should probably take a close look at how you live.
The second point is that these devs have made a great game which is slavishly traditional, and which we'd normally see released in a viral fashion. It's tough to contend that the developers of Shadow Complex have taken more time than say, the developers of Beyond the Red Line to make a game which is slavishly reverent to older concepts. And it's harder to contend that we should give them money for remaking a game over a decade old so that they can quite literally put a percentage of it towards opposing a cause we believe in.
What I'm struggling to say is that a group of established developers making a game which would, under different circumstances, be an unrecognized indie, deserve to be scrutinized for their political views and that we, as a community, need to start doing this sort of thing if we want to be taken seriously.
Chair is a specialized case. It's a case where a small group of already incredibly successful, offensive people have gathered together to make an entirely inoffensive game. But it's still a game I'd gladly pirate if only to offer a middle finger to the people who've made it, because if you're going to publicly tout intolerance and work in a creative medium you probably shouldn't be there in the first place.
I'm a neo-liberal for saying so, but I'd suggest going to great lengths to both pirate the game and pay a guilt tax to a group advocating gay rights. It'll be tough, but try to fit your entire reason in the memo field of the check so they get the message.
I really don't understand what the fuss is about. It's Card's choice to engage in homophobic rants. It was the game developers' choice to collaborate with him. It is my choice whether I want to buy the game. Or buy a used copy. Or rent it. Or ignore it. Or even start up a boycott if I choose to do so. None of the above choices is illegal and you're free to form your opinion and decision based on whatever criteria you want to - personal, moral, idealistic, biased... whatever.
For the record: I am appalled by some of Card's opinions, but I still spent money on his books because I enjoyed (most of) them. I purchased a copy of 'Empire', read it and promptly sold it. I will not be buying any more of Orson Scott Card's books sight unseen. Partly because I disagree with the politics but more because the book was dire.
This is a subject that's hardly ever breached in any industry. For starters, let me just say that I'm gay and the Card thing seems a little goofy to me; straight people up in arms over "my kind", whatever, but I'm gonna be playing Shadow Complex.
The thing to think about, though, is that this happens everywhere on a huge scale. How many of the protestors drive cars by Ford or GM? Henry Ford was a gigantic anti-Semite and a major contributor to Hitler. (Yes, even while we were fighting Germany, many cars used by Hitler's army were supplied by Ford and GM). People still drive around in their trashy Mustangs and Hummers! If you're going to get a bleeding heart over a single video game written by someone who disagrees with you that's all well and good, but what about giving $30 thousand to a Nazi's grandson?
Seriously, at this rate there is going to be a boycott for every games this year. SC2, L4D2 and now Shadow Complex.
Look, I support gay rights and all, I have gay friends and gay marriage isn't a issue in my country (yeah Canada!). I didn't even know about Card and is views but after beating the game twice (woops, too late for a boycott now) I can assure you all that there is not a single political view passed in this game. If it was an obliviously anti-gay game, sure I would be pissed I spent 15$ on it but since it is not I stand by my purchase. It's not like the 15$ I spent are all gonna go in Card's pocket so he can use it to go on an anti-gay campaign.
This whole thing is a personal choice. If you want to boycott it, do it. But it's not like the gaming community needs to join forces against one game because we mostly disagree with the view of one member of the team.
At least, better to debate the boycott of a game based on human rights than on LAN support or DLC.
Michael Grove;
You are assuming they are privileged because they are Mormon but the article makes no mention of privilege beyond being born in the Western world. There is no reason to assume they haven't worked hard to get where they are.
Also, the article proves my point; it says these THREE are Mormon. Not the entire development team. Even at a small company like Chair, you probably have the same breakdown of conservatives vs liberals at any game studio in the American midwest or south.
I hope you don't take that the wrong way and suddenly feel justified stealing any game made in a red state.
If you want to spite the Mormons who worked on this game, do what's been suggested; donate to gay and lesbian organizations (hell, do it in the name of Orson Scott Card if you prefer a high horse to a tax deduction) and drink caffeinated beverages while you enjoy a quality game.
Also, remember that most of the major western religions aren't terribly gay friendly yet most religious people aren't actively protesting gay rights. So assuming every Mormon is personally as extreme as Card would be making blanket assumptions about an entire group of people. Starting to sound familiar?
Micheal Grove: "What I'm struggling to say is that a group of established developers making a game which would, under different circumstances, be an unrecognized indie, deserve to be scrutinized for their political views and that we, as a community, need to start doing this sort of thing if we want to be taken seriously."
Wait a second here. To be taken seriously as a community we need to start looking into the political views of the devs and boycott a game if a certain percentage of the team disagrees with a certain view/ has a different political alignment. So it's wrong to censor left-wing ideas but it's right to do the same to right-wing ideas ? Should we start looking into the opinion on abortion of other devs too. Maybe I just don't get your point then please correct me.
I've read some of Card's books, but that was before I knew about his homophobia, so I never had to face up to it. It's a tricky call to be honest, I mean, I'm sure there have been plenty of people working on games I loved with views I disagree with, isn't it a little half arsed only to bother with Card because he's a more public figure? Am I required to research each and every person who worked on a game now? Or is it okay only to react when the information falls into my lap? Which seems a little armchair activist to me.
Well yes. To answer my own question, Card is different. Why? Because he has made himself a political animal. While I am capable of dealing with a person having differing views, I am distinctly uneasy with supporting an active political proponent of those views. He's on the board of directors for an anti gay marriage lobby, and yes, that makes things different.
Also, someone mentioned his being a Mormon, and while they didn't say it was, I feel the need to state that his faith is not a get out clause, he is still answerable for his views and, even more so, his actions in support of those views.
Lastly, can I just say how insane it is that Card is so capable of ignoring the fact that one of his own bloody novels, Speaker for the Dead, is about accepting people with different, often totally alien, ways of living>
Can't we all just get along?
If I start boycotting this game because someone involved in it doesn't support gay marriage, where do I stop? Maybe one of the artists eats meat that wasn't killed in a humane manner! That guy tells children Santa isn't real!
If I find the content offensive, I'll not buy it. I'll let people believe what they like aside from that.
As a little spouting, I would have thought that the people who support gay marriage would be more tolerant of people's right to their own opinion. Falling into the trap of boycotting something because of the creator, not the product, sounds more like something hardcore religious fanatics would do, rather than the open-minded.
(As background, I grew up in Northern Ireland, where opinions, religion and everyday life clash like titans all the time.)
When I first saw the headline about the controversy, I actually thought it would be about the game content itself. "Finally," I thought, "someone from within the game community has taken a stand against a game they find morally repugnant!". Unfortunately, that wasn't the case.
In a few of the previous comments, and in Leigh's original post, the point was made that the game itself has no offensive political content. Well, unless you count fascism. The protagonist has no qualms in killing hundreds of ideologically motivated opponents. Sure, they're terrorists, but you can almost feel the developers' glee at blowing an army of liberals to kingdom come.
The point is, most of the games we enjoy are fascist (hello, Gears of War - another Epic game, BTW): the only option at conflict resolution they offer is violence. Now, it doesn't make me stop playing them, but I find it slightly silly that we're talking about a boycott of a game based on the views of someone tangentially involved in the creative process, and not putting the actual games under the same scrutiny.
Ryan, that's a valid point, and I was making some assumptions about the team as a whole (although I stand by Mormons being a largely homogenous sociopolitical group - the church, by nature, works towards that end) which may or may not be entirely fair. I was also halfway through a bottle of whiskey at the time I wrote that post, so mea-culpa on some of the more ranty-tangenty stuff. I'll agree that this is a strange line to walk, but it's tough to deny that the belief system and organizational structure of the Mormon church demand conformity to a set of beliefs, and that their belief system also demands that they actively try to impose those views on others, with or without the consent of those individuals.
That said, in response to Bruno's very valid comments, I don't believe that any sort of blanket discrimination is viable and I don't believe that protesting a cause is only valid when it stems from a political view similar to my own. For example, to use an example of Leftist discrimination from the early 20th century, I think it was very much valid to protest court mandated sterilization of people with mental disabilities, something which conservative politicians did with great success. But I think that when the creative core of a team vocally support the suspension of certain rights and protections for citizens whose behavior runs counter to their belief system the people engaged in this sort of blanket criticism deserve scrutiny. While I know the Mormon church is not a massive, homogenous entity consisting of mindless drones membership in it is tied to wage-tithing which indirectly supports their protest of civil rights and liberties for homosexual Americans. As I said, it's an incredibly specific example, and an odd one at that, and I'm not suggesting that we somehow ban their viewpoint, but I am suggesting that as a consumer group we seriously consider the motives of the people we support financially and think about just where our money is going after we purchase a game. If it's trickling into the coffers of someone who touts a viewpoint you oppose, it's something that merits consideration. I think it's all the more serious when it trickles into the coffers of someone who wants to render a section of the population with whom they disagree voiceless.
I'm not positing that these people be censured by law or lose rights granted to normal citizens. I'm simply saying that their views on how certain citizens should be treated under the law are offensive to me, and that our purchasing power as gamers can be used as a means of expressing our thoughts and feelings on this view. If you choose not to purchase a game based on someone's support of abortion rights I can't say I agree with you, but I think you're engaging in a valid form of political discourse and I encourage you to do so.
I'll still be on the other side, fighting tooth and nail, but this sort of discourse and display is key to any sort of informed democracy.
Interesting article in the NYT about loving a piece of art ("On The Waterfront") created by a deeply flawed human being (Budd Schulberg)
http://ethicist.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/10/can-you-hate-the-artist-but-love-the-art/
I posted a bit of a rant on a friends face book page in response:
Oh, how self-centered we in the modern world are! Everything has to exist within a "context," we cannot simply look at a painting and appreciate it on its merits, instead we have to think, "oh, Pablo, you were such a misogynist, I simply cannot see the women of avignon (http://tenerife-training.net/Tenerife-News-Cycling-Blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/chicks-from-avignon.jpg) without thinking how you must have hated them!"
The fact is, we will be gone from this earth soon enough and what we have done with our lives will likely be lost to the winds, while the works of art remain, free to be judged on their own merits.
One example should hopefully set this to rest: http://www.historywiz.com/galleries/charioteerdelphi.html... Read More
I happened to see this stunning statue at Delphi, Greece. It's from 470 BC and, as far as I know, it's unknown who sculpted it. Thus, I have no idea if the artist was good to his grandma or killed little kitties for fun. The work itself is simply enough.
With regards to this particular game, I have no particular interest in playing it (mostly due to time issues and not liking side-scollers in general), but from the sound of it, it sounds like a good game with no political axe to grind WITHIN THE CONTENT OF THE GAME! Thus, use your head, if you want to play it, by all means do, if your conscience bugs you, don't pirate it (2 wrongs don't make a right), but donate money to a progressive cause. There! Problem solved. Next!
Errol
Michael;
"although I stand by Mormons being a largely homogenous sociopolitical group"
There are a lot of bigoted statements you could slip in there by replacing "Mormons" with other religions or ethnicities. Even sexual preferences.
I know as many Mormons who aren't actively repressing gays as I know Catholics who use condoms.
To not buy a good quality game because of the political beliefs of one of it's staff members is unfair to all the other staffers of unknown political preference who worked hard to put out a quality gaming experience.
Ryan,
I'm not discussing them as a faceless group who adhere to a single mindset. But I want to point out that because of the practice of tithing unique to the Mormon church means that financially supporting the artistic pursuits of a member of the Mormon church does, if somewhat obtusely, fund the church and its operations. It's a unique case, certainly, generated by the unique structure of the faith, and it complicates this discussion greatly. It's not a great leap to say that if you're purchasing this game, ten percent of the payment that Card receives for your purchase is going to the Mormon church. Where it's spent from there is inscrutible, but it does end up in their coffers and they do fund activism against gay marriage. I personally have an issue with anyone who attempts to put in place legislation with the intent of relegating a particular group of people to a lower social standing, regardless of their beliefs. I'd no more propose curtailing the rights of Mormons to practice than I would stymieing the provision of equal rights to all American citizens regardless of sexual orientation, and as such I couldn't, in good conscience, knowingly fund an enterprise which will offer a notable percentage of its profits towards a cause I actively disagree with.
As for the quoted text, you'll be hard pressed to provide evidence that the Mormon church demonstrates a level of diversity on par with most Western religions. I'm not denigrating their values or beliefs by saying that, I'm just saying that there are probably a good deal many more black Catholics hanging around than black Mormons.
Michael,
Most western churches collect money from their believers. That's how they build more churches. Many of them also use that money to pursue political agendas, directly or indirectly.
And of course Catholicism has more diversity; it was forced upon all kind of indigenous people for a thousand years before Mormonism was even conceived.
I am not here to defend Mormons but to point out that singling them out like you're doing is extremely short-sighted. Trying to keep gays from getting married is bad but it's far from the worst thing that any Western religion is funding.
The guy's a fantastic author - but none of my hard earned cash is going to support him as long as he's championing this issue.
I know it's not going to change anything - much less his viewpoint; I know he's still going to do just fine - but I'll be damned if my $$ is going to support someone who endorses bigotry and hate.
Period. I wouldn't buy games from apartheid south Africa either. I'll read his books when I borrow them from my library.
Support someone who fails to recognize basic rights is a NO.
Post a Comment