That was a pretty cool video. It’s nice to know some people took (and still do) children’s entertainment seriously, and didn’t use it just as a rhetorical shield against the critisism of their work. Apart from delivering a good message, the games also seem extremely well made in general.
Oh this I gotta watch
It’s pretty solid, and reveals things I never could’ve imagined the devs would put into the game. Loved it as a kid growing up, but I have a whole new appreciation for it now.
Could you share what points you liked? I’m ten minutes in and he’s just yapping about nothing so far. Curious to know but so far it’s been tedious
The first part seems to be for people who are unfamiliar with the games. The political analysis begins at 19 minutes.
The games go into:
- Discussion of monopolies, how they are used to exploit, and how they use state force to maintain their position to prevent competition
- The Carrot character is an anarchist in the first game, who infiltrates the weather factory of the second game to document the exploitation of its workers. He then gives the player a quiz about US economics so that you can infiltrate a board of directors, but when he becomes a member of the board himself, becomes a liberal reformist.
- In the third game, the devs put an easter egg only accessible by editing a config file with an obscure code, which adds police branded riot gear to the marching fascist candy soldiers, in a reference to the 1999 Seattle WTO Protests, which occurred 3 months before the release of the game.
Thanks for writing that out. That’s very interesting! Have been meaning to replay these games :)
That’s funny about the carrot turning
Loved this!.. Keep it up!
Above all things, the way leftists feel the need to inject and advertise their political views into everything angers me the most. “EvErYtHiNg iS PoLitiCaL” > no, it isn’t. Why can’t we just play video games to get away from real world stupidity? I just don’t get it. I don’t need to know your political views. Let’s just chat about video games and escapism.
The left isn’t putting “I did that stickers” into all the stupid shit that’s more expensive now after a few months of a new presidency or wearing Biden/Kamala shirts as their identity.
You can bet your life that they would, had they won in November.
They did in 2020, no Biden or Kamala cult shit compared to what we see from the other party in 2016 and 2024 (and leading up to and between really).
That’s laughable. It was nothing BUT a cult back then.
In another comment below, I briefly describe the sort of political content the game has in it. It’s not something a random leftist is projecting onto it, it’s explicitly political content in the game itself, which is what is being discussed.
It’s not really any different from discussing the themes or political content of Metal Gear Solid, Disco Elysium, or Planescape: Torment.
If that’s not something you’re interested, fair enough my friend! But surely it’s not an inconvenience for others to discuss it? The title makes it clear what this is, which makes it pretty easy to avoid and scroll on to the next post.
Discussing a game’s themes isn’t the problem. The problem is the context. “How this game made me a leftist”. Instead of “let’s discuss the themes of this game”, it’s pushing identity politics. That’s the part I take issue with.
Could you elaborate on that? If I’m understanding you correctly, you’re suggesting it’s identity politics to say publicly that a piece of media influenced your political views?
Are there cases where that doesn’t apply? for example: “There Will Be Blood made me Anti-oil” or “How Nausica Valley of the Winds made me an Environmentalist”, or “Grave of the Fireflys made me Anti-war”. Are all of those conceptual titles equally verboten?
Yes, because there’s literally no reason to make it about political views. And yes, those titles would be just as ridiculous in my book.
Again, discussing themes in a game isn’t the issue. The issue is that the title was very specifically written that way to catch clicks. Clicks from similar culture warriors and from those who disagree. It’s disingenuous and completely unnecessary.
Interesting, by your guidelines, there’s quite some limits on expressing oneself to appease people who can easily avoid and skip over a clearly labeled piece of content.
From my perspective, it’s as though someone came into a tavern and, fresh ale in hand, overheard a political discussion happening in a corner booth. Perhaps the subject was particularly distasteful to this theoretical tavern goer, and instead of ignoring it or moving to a seat where they can’t hear it, they instead march up to said booth and demand these booth talkers cease their discussion immediately, explaining that they come to the tavern to relax, not have these political ideas pop up everywhere they go.
I suspect the people in the booth would be quite bewildered as to why this theoretical person is going to such trouble to involve themselves in ceasing an activity they could so easily avoid.
