Fortress America: When Gaming and Politics Collide

Alzrius · Dec 22, 2011

1Mac said:
But satire needs to be rooted in facts to be effective; that's what satire is for. It takes real-world people and circumstances and jukes up the absurdity to highlight some truth.

The problem is that whether or not satire is "effective" is a matter of opinion, just like "rooted in facts." What is or is not a "fact" tends to be the subject of considerable debate, and so anything based on that - including satire - is going to be subject to considerable disagreement.

So what we're really discussing is whether blurb 1 is effective satire.

With all due respect, I don't think that's what we're discussing; it's not what I'm discussing, certainly.

I believe that the real subject of the discussion here is the appropriateness of changing a statement to be more "acceptable" because some people found the original statement offensive or otherwise unpalatable.

I, personally, don't care for doing so, and take a dim view of those who advocate that something should be changed simply because they don't like it.

Stormonu · Dec 23, 2011

Personally, I like the second blurb simply because it is closer to the game that I played back in the 80's. And I certainly intend to pick it up as soon as I can as it's one of the old MB games we used to have that lost over the years (with the original pic of Saddam on the box cover).

It's not that I don't think the US could ever "fall from grace" - we seem to be very quickly following in the footsteps of Athens without taking stock of where we're heading.

[quote:S'mon]Their argument basically came down to: it didn't matter whether US policy was right or wrong, the UK needed to support it, whatever it was.[/quote]

That feels very wrong to me. Governments should be called out when they make missteps not simply blindly followed; history has shown where that path leads too, and it isn't to democracy. [note: I'm not necessarily pointing at any specific actions, but if you disagree with what a government is doing, and it's supposed to be a democracy, you need to speak up about it).

Gilwen · Dec 23, 2011

I liked the first text better for the intro of the game, found it to be much more interesting than the lengthy and flat newer blurb.
I'm American and found it not inflamatory but then again I can separate reality from fiction.

Gil

Morrus · Dec 23, 2011

Stormonu said:
That feels very wrong to me. Governments should be called out when they make missteps not simply blindly followed; history has shown where that path leads too, and it isn't to democracy. [note: I'm not necessarily pointing at any specific actions, but if you disagree with what a government is doing, and it's supposed to be a democracy, you need to speak up about it).

We did. Labour is no longer in power.

MrFilthyIke · Dec 23, 2011

I won't join the debate on the issue, but I do own the first Fortress America and prefer the first blurb. It is more interesting. And I am American. I won't buy this specifically because of the blurb change. I talk by not spending $$$.

prosfilaes · Dec 23, 2011

Alzrius said:
I believe that the real subject of the discussion here is the appropriateness of changing a statement to be more "acceptable" because some people found the original statement offensive or otherwise unpalatable.

I, personally, don't care for doing so, and take a dim view of those who advocate that something should be changed simply because they don't like it.

I have a hard time making sense of that in a commercial environment. If you're a professor happy with your salary, go ahead and make your art however you want. But these are people making a full-time living off their games.

Are you saying that theme doesn't matter? If you find some themes are so distasteful or uninteresting that you won't buy games using them--a game where you race to fuel the ovens with bodies at your concentration camp, or a game where your pony-unicorns race to deliver the fairy ice cream with sparkles to the children--then game companies who use them will lose out on sales to you. That's the censorship of the dollar. If you have a theme that a lot of people in your target audience don't like, and you want to make money, you should change it.

I have little sympathy for FFG here. What you decry, I suspect FFG hoped for. They sent out a blurb testing the waters; when they got back too much negative response, they toned it down. They tested the theme as wise companies did and got some publicity for their upcoming game in the bargain.

1Mac · Dec 23, 2011

Alzrius said:
The problem is that whether or not satire is "effective" is a matter of opinion, just like "rooted in facts." What is or is not a "fact" tends to be the subject of considerable debate, and so anything based on that - including satire - is going to be subject to considerable disagreement.

Well yes, and my point was that what you think the facts are are "rooted in personal politics," as I put it. I thought the point of subjectivity was covered in that statement.

With all due respect, I don't think that's what we're discussing; it's not what I'm discussing, certainly.

It's what lots of other posters were discussing.

I believe that the real subject of the discussion here is the appropriateness of changing a statement to be more "acceptable" because some people found the original statement offensive or otherwise unpalatable.

I, personally, don't care for doing so, and take a dim view of those who advocate that something should be changed simply because they don't like it.

That's about the only reason to advocate that something be changed!

This wasn't censorship. No one forced FF to retract and reprint a marketing blurb for their game. If a good chunk of FF's fanbase complained about the blurb, they weren't violating FF's right to free speech; they were exercising their own right to free speech. FF could have chose to either heed or ignore these complaints, and they apparently decided they were worth addressing.

Lanefan · Dec 23, 2011

I don't care much about either blurb - they're both just trying to introduce a game that is, at its heart, suppsoed to be about 98% fictional.

What would offend me would be to buy the game and find it to be rigged such that the US always won or always lost. (I've seen this before in other war games, where it's set up such that with equal player skill on both sides one specific side will win most or all of the time)

Lan-"I can has hovertanks"-efan

prosfilaes · Dec 23, 2011

Lanefan said:
What would offend me would be to buy the game and find it to be rigged such that the US always won or always lost. (I've seen this before in other war games, where it's set up such that with equal player skill on both sides one specific side will win most or all of the time)

The original is fairly highly rated. I only played once, where America won and we lost, but I'm sure I could have stomped those capitalist running dogs if there was a chance for a rematch. FFG gets a lot of flack for fixing things that weren't broken in their reprints, but they have a pretty good reputation, so I don't expect them to break it.

thzero · Dec 23, 2011

Bedrockgames said:
I think blaming the marketing department was kind of weak. If a company is going to isse an statement like that it shouldn't feel like they are trying to shift blame to a small part of the organization.

Any product like this is going to run the risk of a backlash. Nothing wrong with taking a risk on that front. I've been there before. You just have to choose your words carefully and trust that your audience will know where you are coming from.

Being an American, I actually don't find the initial wording that inflammatory. FFG is based in the US, so freedom of speech, idea, etc. is all well and good. It is just a game. And frankly there is a lot of sci-fi, especially military stuff, that has been far worse.

However, I do agree pointing your finger at your "marketing department", unless you've tossed them all out the door, is rather lame. But then again, whats the rule in advertising, there ain't no such thing as bad press? Whether this was intended, it may stir up additional "publicity" without FFG needing to do much.

As to the Iraq War and whether such a scenario could lead to what happens in the game. Well we can see it hasn't. However, whether you liked, hated or whatever the war (and while obviously hindsight is 20/20 and there were lots of mistakes made to some degree there has, hopefully, if the Iraqi's don't blow it considering the recent news, been some good to come out of it; and I'm not sure anyone can say it was a bad thing that Hussein was tried in a court of his own people) I think it shows that it probably won't happen. Now I supposed someone could have unleashed Armageddon with nukes on the offending parties in retaliation (US, Russia, etc. does have bigger bombs) which could have led to such a scenario, but I still think the "Cold War" is still in effect some degree with no one wanting to unleash the beast, so to speak. That and obviously it would have been overkill which should in turn provoke a response from American allies, and others in high world regard, over the abuse of power so to speak.