Opinion Piece - Politics In Gaming

In a recent article of GameInformer magazine written by Associate Editor, Elise Favis, readers are exposed to the often controversial topic of placing political elements in video games. According to her assessment, a majority of the gaming community would be opposed to this invasive practice of placing these often not-too-subtle points of contention in their titles. This might be in part due to the ideal of most gamers having a medium of escapism from the world's harsh realities of life. There is an expectation of entertainment value without pondering too much.

There are radical movements such as GamerGate that passionately oppose such realism. However, I share the sentiment that Favis has in that "Politics not only matter, but they also make for better games and better stories." That's not to say that every game should apply such politically motivated components to them.

What are politics anyway? For those of you that are unaware (or those that have tried to repress any form of such discussion), politics essentially boils down to the theories and practices of governing or influencing other people in society. This often means curbing people's actions either for the benefit or detriment of the public. Ideally, the former is more desireable than the latter, but there are those that often use their power and dominion to persuade others to be corruptible.

There have been some games that fall completely flat when trying to spur feelings of activism or social awareness. None come to my mind at this moment, but it's fair to say that a political approach does not always enhance the entertainment value of a video game.

The gaming industry is ever changing though and preconceived notions of fantasy and science fiction have constantly been reshaped to fit the times. Indie developers are always trying to push the envelope digitally with enhanced graphics and storylines. It is thus to be expected that future narratives will mimic and reflect the values and concerns of the decade. As Elise Favis puts it, "The most memorable games are the ones that leave you to ponder their meanings, and politics are just one of the many methods to facilitate discussion."

Furthermore, video games (at least in my own personal opinion) are indeed a form of art, akin to the works of contemporary novelists and abstract artisans. There are numerous stories that can be told with players offered ultimatums that effect the worlds they inhabit, however briefly. Favis uses examples of games such as Mafia III, Deus Ex: Mankind Divided, and The Last of Us Part II, but one example that immediately comes to my mind is that of Ubisoft's Watch Dogs 2.

The microaggressive actions of Brody Goodale, senior programmer for the fictional tech company Nudle, upon Horatio Carlin for one instance, brought light to a daily problem in the real world felt by minorities. Harassment and general glares of suspicion are not uncommon from white, privileged individuals towards persons of color, even if they are law abiding citizens.

One scene that stood out for me involved a high tech automobile with an artificial intelligence (AI) that tells Marcus Holloway that facial recognition can’t identify him because his skin is too dark. This was an example in-game of a real-world incident where cameras by HP could not recognize dark-skinned individuals. Watch Dogs 2 is one of my most enjoyed games.

I can't say I didn't laugh when the AI had trouble profiling Marcus, but sometimes humor is the only option we have in order to keep calm in those moments of high tension. Often, comedy and satire increase the awareness of such issues. We're all human. We all make mistakes. No one is perfect. However, that doesn't mean we can't try to be better people. As with all things, we should use a modicum of moderation when applying political undertones.

Works Cited

Favis, E. (2017, June). Get Your Politics Into My Games. GameInformer, (290), 32-32.

Widening the Divide - Ubisoft Punishing Players Who Exploit a Glitch During The Division’s First Boss Battle

On April 12, 2016, Tom Clancy's: The Division received a free content update, the game's first Incursion, titled "Falcon Lost" in which players confronted the Last Man Battalion in a water-treatment facility.

The "Falcon Lost" storyline has two difficulties: Hard mode, which is recommended for players who have a gear score that is equivalent to level 31 or higher; and challenge mode, which is far more difficult. In addition, there are no checkpoints in Falcon Lost; if your team goes down, you'll have to restart from the beginning. This is reminiscent of Destiny's initial Nightfall activities where players were expelled back into Orbit upon a total party wipe (before certain updates were put into effect). Gamers can replay Falcon Lost and other upcoming Incursions as many times as you want and still be rewarded with new loot each playthrough.

Clever participants have discovered a rather unique method of defeating the boss and avoiding several waves of enemies. The process involves using the mobile cover skill to clip through a wall. Doing so prevents the game from registering that players are in the room, meaning a group can fire upon the boss without it retaliating in kind.

Ubisoft's community manager, Natchai Stappers responded to this issue on the game's forums claiming that it's working on a fix for this particular glitch. However, he also mentions that those that took part in the exploit violated Ubisoft's code of conduct. Thus, the developer is "looking into what can be done in terms of punishment" which is, in my mind, not the proper course of action.

When Destiny had an exploit known as the "loot cave" they fixed the issue promptly, and then acknowledged the error by making a tribute to the players for bringing the lack of loot to light. They did this by providing a tribute to Rahool, the Cryptarch of the Tower and official engram decoder. Bungie honored (by the transitive property) the players by creating a special Easter egg. They placed the remains of the countless Hive creatures in the caves and permitted players to "disturb them" with a cryptic message bellowing "A million deaths are not enough for Master Rahool." It was a nice nod to guardians who were shooting at a rock formation for several hours instead of partaking in other, less rewarding activities. What Ubisoft plans on doing is placing unnecessary sanctions upon players for their own negligence.

I believe that players should only be reprimanded if they're utilizing an external device (such as "lag switching") or outside software to give themselves an unfair advantage in competitive play (this includes hacking). I believe also that if they're using profanity or sexually explicit imagery in customizable settings there should be some form of repercussion in place. When the game itself is flawed, players should have free reign until the developer patches it accordingly. Ubisoft is forgetting their role. They set the parameters for the game. If they miss something crucial to the stability of the rules of the game, the blame should lie upon them, not that of the players.If this were Dungeons & Dragons for example, Ubisoft would be the Dungeon Master (DM) setting up the campaign, with the setting and scenarios in place. The players, if they outwit the DM should be praised and rewarded, not chastised. The DM would merely adjust encounters for the next playthrough if the party managed to do something out of the realm of his or her intended guidelines.

This may have a detrimental impact on the Division's fanbase, especially for those that have moved on from Bungie's monumental success. Previously, violators had been handed out a 3-day ban and the matter wasn’t pursued any further. However, Ubisoft can also wipe a player’s stats completely if they so desire, rendering a player's time and effort, worthless.

Works Cited


Ayres, S. (2016, April 16). Ubisoft Will Punish People Who Exploited a Glitch During The Division’s First Boss Battle. Retrieved April 16, 2016, from http://www.gamnesia.com/news/ubisoft-will-punish-people-who-exploited-a-glitch-during-the-divisions-firs

Makedonski, B. (201, April 15). Ubisoft's looking into how to punish people who glitch The Division's toughest new boss. Retrieved April 16, 2016, from http://www.destructoid.com/ubisoft-s-looking-into-how-to-punish-people-who-glitch-the-division-s-toughest-new-boss-355632.phtml

Tom Clancy's: The Division - Together We Rise! or Divided We Fall?

Title: Tom Clancy’s The Division™
Genre: Action, Adventure, Third Person Shooter
Developer: Massive Entertainment
Publisher: Ubisoft
Release Date: Mar 8, 2016

My Rating: 7.0/10.0 Average C


The BETA Test for Tom Clancy’s The Division™ took place on January 28, 2016 - January 31, 2016. I happened to participate in the closed BETA and unfortunately, it was not up to par with my expectations. Although the brief story mission regarding the Memorial Field Hospital drew me in, I was rather uninterested in anything else. I only enjoyed speaking to Kandel after she was rescued about who might be responsible for the weaponized virus.

After you've completed the ONLY available story mission for the first time, you can opt to replay it again on a higher difficulty (which, to me, seems extremely repetitive, monotonous, and reminiscent of Destiny's Raids). Even though this is just the BETA, which doesn't provide enough to really give us a glimpse at how good the rest of the campaign will be, I felt that it was quite "cut-and-dry" in that there was little else to do except wander the Dark-Zones and streets of New York aimlessly. I did manage to complete a virus scan time trial, as well as a side mission for Faye Lau, which is to locate her lost sister, Heather Lau using an "echo" or security surveillance camera information from the cloud, but it felt commonplace and rather dull.

The Dark Zone plays almost exactly like the regular game environment. You are still exploring the area, still looking for additional items and gear to add to your inventory. Occasionally, players run into AI opposition that respawns in certain areas periodically. These enemies are tougher to take down, and thus, their drops are of a higher quality. The only noticeable difference is that these zones become highly contested areas of player versus player combat.

In order to actually use these rarer pieces of gear and weapons, players must make their way to extraction points within the Dark Zone to have these items “decontaminated”. These items are stored in a yellow haz-mat bag on the player once obtained. Once a flare has be shot, the helicopter transport is signaled to arrive. In the meantime, enemy AI is being drawn to the flare and the player(s) defending that position until the chopper comes. Once it arrives, the players put all of their gear onto a rope and send it up. At any point, players can "go rogue" and attack one another to steal loot. Those that do can gain much more experience and "Dark-Zone Dollars" by doing so, but for every kill the rogue agent gets, the higher the bounty rises on that player's head.

"The Seven Deadly Wins" From Left to Right: Delgryn, Valcrith (Me), and TheLoanSurvivor

Often, while patrolling the streets, players can encounter civilians in need of aid. If they happen to have what they're asking for on hand (medkits, water, food, etc), they can offer to give it to them. Not only will the player earn some easy experience points, but these non-player characters (NPCs) will usually drop some sort of reward, often in the form of a new customization item.

I felt that at times, the PvP was a tad one sided, so I tried to avoid engaging with other players and while I myself didn't shoot anyone, one of my teammates made judgement calls that I did not particularly agree with (as you have a lot to lose by going rogue). Irritably enough, I lost quite a bit of experience as I was gunned down after my friend decided haphazardly to shoot up some other Division agents in order to steal their stuff. So, needless to say I wasn't thrilled with the notion that the group leader or any member of the group shooting others causes the whole team to go rogue.


While my playthrough was fairly short (upwards of two to four hours), I got a pretty decent feel for what this game will be like long term. I was rather disappointed in that for such an expansive open world environment, it's not well-stocked with enemies, and the enemies that you do encounter don’t have all that much variety. On the positive side, there are almost no loading screens, no lobbies, and the game looks appealing on a graphical scale.

Regrettably, I no longer have any profound interest in this product. If anything (and perhaps most ironically), Ubisoft has somehow managed to make me more invested in getting my friends involved with Destiny: The Taken King.