this post was submitted on 07 Apr 2024
421 points (96.7% liked)

The Onion

4690 readers
1518 users here now

The Onion

A place to share and discuss stories from The Onion, Clickhole, and other satire.

Great Satire Writing:

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] stevestevesteve 9 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

Carrying a definite political message is not the same as being a relatively message less environment that has politics as a mechanic.

"Political" games as mentioned by OP carry a message - e.g. who the "good guys" are (the rebels in Star wars are considered the good guys, and authoritarianism is shown as bad). In Civilization games, does it have a storyline that has an equivalent political statement? Or does it serve to let you make whatever statement you want as a sort of sandbox?

I honestly don't know the story of Civ, but hopefully that demonstrates the difference between something that could be "Politics: the game" (a "politics simulator") and something that carries a political statement

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

The argument ive been trying to make here (probably badly because I'm tired and not a great persuader even when at full power) is that all games have political messages, then if they're not literally about government.

Civ is kind of a sandbox, but to reuse an example I already posted, saying "if you kill everyone else, you win!" is a political statement.

[–] stevestevesteve 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

There are many win conditions in Civ, so it having "killing everyone else is winning" as a political statement would be a very weak argument imho

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago

"genocide is good and a valid way to win" is pretty fucked up, if you think about it. So is "obliterate their culture".

You could also have a civ game where you lose if things get to the point of genocide, or the world devolves into a monoculture.