Personalities in the Gaming Industry and Politics

[Steel_Wind]

IMHO, I think artists (and celebs) should realize that no one really cares about their opinions on politics.

That's harsh, but it's pretty much the truth. If I wanted insightful political commentary, it wouldn't be from a supermodel or a lead singer of a band or the editor of a RPG magazine.

There happen to be a lot of insightful blogs written by those with a lot fewer writing credentials than Erik Mona.

It's a BLOG.

It's not intended to be anything other than a BLOG.

There are a lot of them out there. It's quite the scene these days. There are plenty of people - some with credentials - many without who have developed quite a following through their ability to write and use links to illustrate a point.

I really think this come down to the topic simply not interesting you (or in the case of some, people not agreeing with the point of view).

Click "back" or forward or some other url. It goes away from your screen.

 

[Steel_Wind]

The country is very polarized right now, and nerves are raw.

Without putting too fine a point on it - I assume by "The Country" you mean "The USA".

It's the Internet. Seeing as the topic is game designers and political beliefs and the result of clashing perspectives arising from BLOGGED political issues (whatsoever they may be)... it would be helpful to recognize that there are a lot more people out there writing - and reading said Blogs than just Americans.

 

[Vigwyn the Unruly]

Without putting too fine a point on it - I assume by "The Country" you mean "The USA".

Yes, you're right, sorry if there was any confusion. I'll change it straight away.

 

[Del]

I don't mind political forums but it's the owner/admins ball, they can take it away from you if they want.

Granted political discourse as a trained and educated spook is awesome fun. "Look at the confused little gun collecting pot smoking republicans ... just don't go too near the cage!"

 

[twofalls]

On the other hand, shouldn't artists feel free to express their political views in the appropriate venues without doing so completely anonymously? If Erik has a blog where he discusses games, politics, and anything else that happens to be on his mind, wouldn't censoring that be untrue to himself.

"Artists" as a group have a long celebrated tradition of involvement with politics, Ronald Regan and Arnold Schwarzenegger being gross examples. It seems to me that the question itself is much larger than just the gaming industry. Politicians have always sought after well known personalities to ally their campaigns with for good reason, it draws attention and taps into a mania that seems prevalent (at least in our western) culture, idolism. I'd like to think that when it's all boiled down, folks who carry with them a dollop of fame or even just notoriety will recognize that they have a slightly higher than average responsibility to represent themselves as clearly as possible, mindful that they influence the thoughts (and votes) of those who are their fans.

To what extent this is true in the gaming industry I quite frankly just don't know. I find myself without any concerns at all about the political leanings of any of the authors who's products sit upon my shelves. Like others have stated here, I game to have fun, if I want political dialouge its easy enough to find.

Now with regard to Eric censoring himself, that wouldn't be clear concise communication. So if he is going to air his personal political agenda to the public, with or without intent to influence others, I feel Eric has that higher responsibility to be clear and conscious of his message.

Heck, not everyone is going to agree with ANY idea, we all know that. If we held back our own feelings and ideas about the world around us, how could we ever effect positive change in the world?

 

[GMSkarka]

1) Gamers, as a culture, like to find things to bitch about. The political leanings of designers is just another category, like "pretentious games", "my preferred style of play is clearly superior to yours", "pop culture sux/geek culture rox", etc. etc. ad nauseum. Someone once said that geeks, generally, like hobbies where they can demonstrate superiority in some fashion (coding, obscure knowledge, byzantine rules structures, etc.), because it allows them to compensate for years of being made to feel socially inferior. It's a hang-up, like any other.

2) The "artists/celebs should keep their political opinions to themselves" crowd only seem to mind when those opinions don't match their own. Frex: tar, feather and crucify the Dixie Chicks for being critical of Bush, but Toby Keith is some kinda redneck hero for saying that the US will "put a boot up yer ass." Whatever. I'm sorry--but as a celebrity, you've got a lot of people's attention. Why not say something that matters to you, rather than BS about your latest project? Makes sense to me.

3) I'm with Ari 100%. Halfwits who can't separate the art from the artist are welcome to their opinion....but I'm not going to lose any sleep over offending their delicate sensibilities and losing them as customers.

 

[Monte At Home]

My worry is that when game designers talk about their work and represent them and their work on the same place as they vent on politics, it makes me worry about speaking out on my own political beliefs if I would ever want a chance to get something published in that industry if I held opinions counter to those folks.

A fine, but misplaced worry. That is to say, in the 18 years I've been in the industry I can't think of one case where this was even remotely an issue. Every company I've worked at has had creatives of wildly different and fervently held political views, and it's never mattered one whit. I don't think, for example, that Sean (who's been pretty vocal on the topic) has ever wanted for work because of it.

I say "misplaced," because ironically it's not political talk that gets people work (or ensures that they get none), but gaming talk. Either talk about games themselves or companies or people in the industry. I know lots of people who haven't gotten to work with people or companies they wanted to work with because of things they've said to others or written about in magazines or the internet. And really, I'm not talking about legitimate reviews here or anything like that, I'm talking about criticizing people (or sometimes companies) directly, revealing confidential information, and that sort of thing. Does that mean that people don't have the right to say what they want to say? Of course not. Personally, I have respect for people who tell it like it is (although I have far more respect for people who have the wisdom to keep their mouth shut when the time is right). But it is naive to think that what you say publicly can't come back to bite you if you're not careful, depending on the situation. The game industry is small, and word gets back to parties concerned very quickly.

For the designers/authors who are putting up their own political opinions on their own pages, it might be worthy to consider that some people might not agree with you and might not give your apolitical work a decent chance.

I agree wholeheartedly. There are musicians, writers, actors, for etc, who do or say things that I don't care for, but that doesn't mean I can't appreciate their work. Every interview I've seen with Russel Crowe, for example, has made him look like a jerk, but I still like Gladiator and really like Master and Commander.

 

[John Morrow]

Now, I'm going to attempt to talk about politics without talking about politics. Actually what I'm interested in is whether or not people who write games, or are in the eyes of a given community, should associate themselves with politics.

For the most part, my primary concern is whether their politics influence their work to the point where it becomes simplistic political propaganda or (as Bill Moyers called conservative talk radio and many conservatives call the show "The West Wing") political pornography. There is an interesting editorial in Monday's Wall Street Journal Opinion Journal titled "When Drama Becomes Propaganda: Why is so much political art so awful?". It can be found here:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110006781

The end of the article reads:

"All art, political or not, must make everything more beautiful in order to fulfill its most essential function, that of seizing and holding the viewer's attention. Any political artist who aspires to be more than a cheerleader for the converted must first learn this lesson, and learn it well. A boring work of art cannot convince anyone of anything, not even that we should believe what it tells us about the world in which we live. And nothing is more boring--or less believable--than a story with only one side."

I'd argue that the same is true of role-playing settings and adventures. Role-playing settings and adventures are much the same way. Role-playing settings need conflict (one of S. John Ross' five elements of a commercially successful RPG setting) and a setting that consists of one Correct political perspective and a straw man to be knocked down isn't going to have much real conflict.

In many ways, I hold J. Michael Straczynski up as an almost perfect example of how an artist can be political but not let it ruin their work. Straczynski is fairly left-leaning and an atheist (and makes no secret of it) but when he writes right-wing characters (e.g., Mr. Garibaldi) or religious characters (e.g., the Minbari), a right-wing or religious person can look at those characters and see someone that they identify with, not a straw man designed to be knocked over by the writer. In fact, Straczynski was quite stunned to hear that George W. Bush's advisor Karl Rove came into a meeting that Bruce Boxleitner was attending with wife Melissa Gilbert (as president of the Screen Actors Guild) to tell Bruce Boxleitner that he was a big fan of Babylon 5 and so was the President.

 

[Darrin Drader]

In many ways, I hold J. Michael Straczynski up as an almost perfect example of how an artist can be political but not let it ruin their work. Straczynski is fairly left-leaning and an atheist (and makes no secret of it) but when he writes right-wing characters (e.g., Mr. Garibaldi) or religious characters (e.g., the Minbari), a right-wing or religious person can look at those characters and see someone that they identify with, not a straw man designed to be knocked over by the writer. In fact, Straczynski was quite stunned to hear that George W. Bush's advisor Karl Rove came into a meeting that Bruce Boxleitner was attending with wife Melissa Gilbert (as president of the Screen Actors Guild) to tell Bruce Boxleitner that he was a big fan of Babylon 5 and so was the President.

I'm going to have to agree with you on that, though I am shocked the president is a big Babylon 5 fan.

 

[Del]

I agree wholeheartedly. There are musicians, writers, actors, for etc, who do or say things that I don't care for, but that doesn't mean I can't appreciate their work. Every interview I've seen with Russel Crowe, for example, has made him look like a jerk, but I still like Gladiator and really like Master and Commander.

He also has a deadly overhand wit' the cell phone. Which leads back to our point: when is angery artistry too much? Generally speaking he crossed that line.