Just curious -
Many times I read about gamers that claim games should not consist any form of ideology, critisizm, or preaching. (or at least aspire to not consisting those)
For me it's obvious that if I were to create a game, I could not but have some of my world view influencing this process.
For me - adventures are like books. Well, obviously not exactly like them - since I practice both - but they both share a core of similarity. I seek depth in games, and critisizm towards certain elements in society is definitely welcomed, as long as it's not too offensive of course.
For example, I adored TLJ for showing some of the more terrible faces a 100% capitalistic world has, or at least what it can get to if you don't pay attention. (Cyber-punk genre in general does that)
And yet, I too was a little intimidated with Heaven...

How do you feel about this concept?

Hi, Tomer...

I wish developers would leave <OUT> of AG games any form of Religion,Politics,and Racial type game play.

Its not necessary...

My Opinion

Was your intimidation based on playing Heaven or just thinking about the point of view it represented?

There is an enormous gulf between a preachy polemic and an authors influences (we all have `em). I play Adventures for entertainment and enjoyment and not to have someone elses views rammed down my throat.
Same goes for books as well.

Thinking about the point of view it represented

I like games with deeper themes. I think TLJ, Culpa Innata, The Moment of Silence, Paradise and others addressed some interesting issues. I would even like to see games go farther in this area.

Like you, Tomer, I was not as turned on by Heaven. I like games/stories that make you think, but not stories that tell you what to think. For me, that is the distinction.

As someone who played it, I can understand how someone who didn't might feel intimidated. It is intimidating if you're standing outside the tent. Once you go in, though, you realize it's just another puzzle game. A puzzle game with a lot of baggage, but a puzzle game nonetheless.

"And yet, I too was a little intimidated with Heaven...!

I didn't feel in the least intimidated.
The whole "preaching" thing simply got on my nerves

Do I like my games "sharp and "criticizing" ??

As far as I'm concerned, what goes on in a computer game is just "game content". Once the game is over, whatever the content, it is over !!

And if I wanted to spout some earth shaking revelation, I certainly wouldn't opt for a computer game as my platform

A true artist should be critical about his/her own opinion, in some ways treating the work as a sort of playground to test those views and their complete opposite. If you don't put minimal conflict nor present your audience with some food for thought, then your work will just be crappy propaganda.

If one does not see the need for minimal conflict because no conflict, minimal or otherwise, is possible in the game universe and no food for thought is presented because there is no need to think about the TRUTH (or the only thing to think about the TRUTH is how true it is), then what results cannot claim to be art and does not require the services of a true artist.

BTW, love the new website.

I am quite happy for developers to put as much religion and politics INTO games (not quite sure what you mean by 'Racial') as possible.

Life without those things is a one dimensional affair rather like so many FPS games ... just shoot your way out of an increasingly complex set of boxes, or a bland fluffy-bunny game with no story, no philosophical challenge, no need to invest in character, or think about the choices they make.

If you don't like the content of a particular game, simply don't play it. I can't stomach some of the (in my view) over-evangelical views of the guy who's written Heaven, so I won't play it(*), in just the same way as I don't have any desire to play the ultra-militaristic games like Modern Warfare 2.

You're welcome to disagree, and I have no problem with that whatsoever.

* Becky's review persuaded me it wouldn't be worth it too.

You make a very good point. Allow me to rephrase that: if you want to include your opinions, then you have to be critical about it. If the work happens to be purely entertainment value, fine, it won't be any less good because of that. But one shouldn't try to force-feed opinions to an audience under disguise, because that's downright cheap.

(for instance, we've been seeing plenty of that in Hollywood lately)

Glad you liked the site!

Of course, force-feeding opinions without apologies, as if those opinions were TRUTH, plain and simple, is another matter.

We've seen plenty of that, lately, too.

Nope… Nothing 'preachy', acerbic, critical, nor judgmental for me. There’s way too much of that in real life.

I want the game to be a neutral place --a passive environment-- that I feel comfortable in; and can make my own. I go to a game as an escape from stress. It's easier for me to find this in 1st-person games.

Also, I was raised to not talk about politics, religion, and income 'in public' (meaning family, friends, or casual acquaintances), because these topics can anger others & cause friction. If I get the sense that there’s some kind of ‘agenda’ in a game, I’m outta there! An AG is my amusement park, where I go to have fun… or get spooked… or experience something new… on my own terms.

I'm glad to see many here believe that a game can probably aspire to have some sort of conflict in it, even if it a delicate and controversial matter.

I agree that a game without these would probably be forgettable as time passes and would not make a strong impact on me, personally.

These "themes" are sometimes coarse, whereas sometimes they are gentle and not so obvious.
For example, the whole Myst series part, that deals with the "Bahro" being used, is an obvious allegory to... well, you can guess
I find this common ground in all the games I really like (yes, even GK has these in it!)

Games that are pure "local plots" with no further depth usually get forgotten.

However, I do agree a game isn't the obvious platform to start a "revolution"... but it's still a legitimate medium to show your views, as a part of it - like every form of art.

Oh - and as for Heaven: It's not that I think games like this should not exist. It's just that I am personally very unattracted to religion-utopia games, and after reading some reviews (including here) have decided to pass on it. It's not that every game that contains some refference to religion would not be an option... it's just that Heaven itself with it's reviews got me turned off.
And to prove it - I lately played "Shivah" and really liked it! I have no problem opening myself to other ideas and extremes, as long as it is indeed deeper than just pretty colours and utopian world (and Shivah defintiely did not show Judaism on it's strongest sides...)

I have no real problems with a game being sharp & critisizing. Adventure games should tell a story of some sort. The story should make you think, & there's nothing wrong with thinking.

I also think that it's ok for a developer or author to inject some of their personal viewpoints, so long as it's left, in the end, up to me to interpret them how I wish. What I don't care for, is for those viewpoints to be forced on me in any way, shape or form.

Topics such as religion or politics cab be very interesting to have in games, but there is a bit of a fine line to be walked. Example, Dan Brown with his books: DaVinci Code, & Angels & Demons. Some seem very upset with the subjects he touches on, but it makes you think.

Hi, gremlin

There was a game that came out a year ago....I won't mention what game....That game had racial overtones in it...So I decided it was not a game I would like to play...

Games should be fun...when a developer starts including religion , and politics into a game...Some people will get offended, and it tends to start trouble between gamers of different views...

As you can see by another thread that was started here...

Darleen, I still don't think that we should dismiss games with controversial topics just as easily. Keep in mind that some of the greatest movies in history have dealt with complicated issues in a masterful and honest way. Take Contact for instance, a movie that managed to present us wildly different points of view (religion and science) in a convincing way and actually achieving a completely objective outcome.

If we want games to achieve those artistic heights, then we should approach them with an open mind. Then again, if you want to be merely entertained, that's still fine.

I'm not sure I understand what "sharp and criticizing" means.

Games like Moment of Silence and Culpa Innata do have a political aspect -- warning of possible futures if certain trends are taken to extremes. I don't consider them "bad" because of this.

I wouldn't mind a game that incorporated religion as long as it wasn't "preachy" and one-dimensional. Otherwise it just seems silly and tedious.

Agreed!
And - I really liked Contact! (which is novel-based btw)


And Jenny, I think what I had in mind is (trying my best with my rusty English), games that are not afraid to touch controversial subjects, and that are not scared to show different opinions and aspects on these subjects.
Yeesha was a radical comumunist in Myst
April showed the character of the artist trying to survive in a materialistic world, which is an obvious reference to Capitalistic would-be disaster.
Culpa Innata also deals with Communisem & Capitalism well, as it showed the limitless rich yet hypocrite "Free world", where as we merely hear ignorantly enough about "The rouge states" - almost an exact analogy to how many of us today have stereotypes about certain 3'rd world countries, and so on.
These I would call pretty sharp and critisizing.
There are many more examples, some are less obvious. Just wondered how many people here were, for example, reluctant to play Culpa Innata because it deals with these world views (I think it's impossible to play it without thinking a least a little about the cold war, our grasping of the US and the Soviet Union...)

And written no less by one of the greatest human beings that ever lived: Carl Sagan

No news for you then