Class Narratives in Video Games

[TheGodlessUtopian]

My new article for Kasama; it explores the role, or lack of, a role of video games in the class struggle as well as the narratives found within such games. It is lengthy so I'll just post a link (also, if you wish to comment on the Kasama site than you may do so as a guest). That being said I look forward to hearing the thoughtful opinions of all the participants.

Link: http://kasamaproject.org/threads/entry/class-narratives-in-video-games

[TheRedAnarchist23]

This sounds interesting.
I will read it, and then edit this post to tell you what I think of it.


it is not terribly controversial to say that the working class of yesteryear was more active than our current brothers are.

I do not agree. I think the workers of today are as politicaly active as the workers of the older days. Just a month ago in my coutry, 1.5 million people went outside to protest agianst the government, and the population of the entire country is 10 million! It was a left demonstration.

About COD:WaW:
The way I see it, the russians were portrayed as a brave people, who would sacrifice their lives for their country. I think the russians are more important in that game than the americans. There is no denying that there was propaganda in that game, as the american flag appears several times, but so do soviet symbols, like the hammer and sickle (for artistic purposes, of course). In that game, going to war is seen as your duty to your country.


Yeah, that’s what you get for messing with the Americans… the U.S has very good troops you know.

That is funny. I always thought the same about the russians...
It must be consequence of the imperialist brainwash teenagers get there. Here I was taught by everyone to hate the USA.


Yet while he played as the Soviets not only did he skip the opening cut-scenesWHAT!? Those were the best! They were way more beautiful than the american ones!
We can conclude from this that the game can only complement what is already there, not actualy change your views.


As one could imagine the conclusion is flag waving pro-Americana nonsense. Indeed I could go through each and every Call of Duty game and list out all the instances of reactionary garbage. This wouldn’t prove much, however, as by now we have seen that the narrative of Call of Duty is, and always has been, one of pro-war, pro-military, pro-solider, and pro-American exceptionalism. Indeed. It only works in the USA though. That propaganda has absolutely no effect on people of other countries. I know that for a fact, since some of my friends also play CoD.


In the wake of the tragedies of the Sandy Hook school massacre an unexpected result emerged from the bloodshed. Two young men, 12 year old Max Goldstein and 11 year old Jackson Mittleman, residents of Newtown, began a grassroots movement dubbed “Played Out”. The goal of their project is to convince kids to dump their violent video games[3] (http://www.kasamaproject.org/threads/entry/class-narratives-in-video-games#_ftn3).No doubt this project was either started, or encouraged by thier parents.
You never hear of violent school shootings in Portugal, yet we play the same violent games. The has to be something else.


Revolutionaries might launch their own version of this project only instead of attacking the “violence” in video games they attack the military promotion, the war glorification, and the trillions of dollars wasted on Imperialist wars of aggression; they might do so while raising awareness about U.S actions across the globe thus informing on Imperialism in general. This way the focus is not on largely powerless scapegoats but on actual entities which foster violent behavior.You could do that, but a ban of violent videogames is just going to turn people against you. My advice is making violent games, but with revolutionary ideology in the middle.


Not all cross-overs are cultural in nature, however. Some are political. This is seen most clearly in the conflict between the Quarians and the Geth. Greatly resembling the modern conflict with Palestine and Israel, the war in this universe saw the fascistic Quarians expelled from their home worlds after they attempted to murder all the Geth; robotic servants, who gained self-consciousness.I loved that part in the Mass Effect series. I love the comparison you make.
The geth gained (class) consciousness and ended their opression through violent revolution, and they now live in anarchy.
The only problem with this is that you are pushed into siding with the quarians by the linear story of the game, and because of Tali. You know more about the Quarians than you do about the Geth.


The message here is one of degrees, where there is no truly victorious conclusion. It is a narrative of either supporting the status quo (Imperial rule=capitalist rule) or allowing fascism to triumph (Stormcloaks).That game is full of fascism. You have the Empire who are now a puppet of the Thalmor. The Thalmor are obvious nazis, since they believe elves should rule over all other races. The Stormcloaks are nazis, white-pride style. I always go for the stormcloaks though.

Funny how I know all the games you spoke of.

-------------

A revolution in an MMO to spread socialist propaganda to other players. This is a very strange idea, but it might work.
When I am teaching anarchism I beleive some people will just become sympathisers because they cannot see how big the movement is, and so assume it is small. If we can show them in any way that the movement is not small, but it has power and numbers, then they will become supporters, if not revolutionaries.
The only problem with this idea is that what happens in a videogame does not affect you in real life. People will only act when they see their way of life is threatened.
In a game you are in that world because you chose to, in real life you are forced to live in a system you did not choose for yourself.
I did not know that there were actualy people who power-leveled for a living. One of my friends does that as a hobby, he power levels, and then sells the character online.


I agree with much of what you said.
One thing bothers me in your conclusion, the "waiting" part. My experience tells me you must be constantly active so that people you know will not forget about your ideals.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

Why did you post this at midnight? You have made me stay awake until 1:40 am to read it.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

I do not agree. I think the workers of today are as politicaly active as the workers of the older days. Just a month ago in my coutry, 1.5 million people went outside to protest agianst the government, and the population of the entire country is 10 million! It was a left demonstration.

The article is meant primarily for an American audience (at least when I speak of the inactivity). This isn't to say that there is no class warfare on the part of the working class but it is to say such conflict has been dramatically reduced in scope.


Indeed. It only works in the USA though. That propaganda has absolutely no effect on people of other countries. I know that for a fact, since some of my friends also play CoD. I wouldn't say it has no effect but in-fact serves to reinforce pre-existing pro-American sentiment among the reactionary strata. I cannot speak in broad terms, however, so such will have to remain my estimate.


No doubt this project was either started, or encouraged by thier parents.
You never hear of violent school shootings in Portugal, yet we play the same violent games. The has to be something else. Of course, video games are merely used as a scapegoat to condemn the violence already inherent in any society. For the differentiation one sees between shootings in American society and Portugal I would say that it perhaps has to do with more resources being spent on mental healthcare (I don't actually know the statistics, that is just my guess).


You could do that, but a ban of violent videogames is just going to turn people against you. My advice is making violent games, but with revolutionary ideology in the middle. I wasn't thinking of a ban (I am not in the tendency of advocating banishment of such mediums) but rather more along the lines of a propaganda campaign.


I loved that part in the Mass Effect series. I love the comparison you make.
The geth gained (class) consciousness and ended their opression through violent revolution, and they now live in anarchy.
The only problem with this is that you are pushed into siding with the quarians by the linear story of the game, and because of Tali. You know more about the Quarians than you do about the Geth. I found that it was easy to side with the Geth if you kept up with the Geth-Quarian developments throughout the trilogy. Yet as this takes a lot of time, and thinking, I think a lot of people inevitabely do get drawn to supporting the reactionary Quarian population as they find an unconscious parallel with with their own national racist-expansionist history.


Funny how I know all the games you spoke of. I tried to use only games which had a life span in the recent years; when compiling the list of games I would go into it was very tempting to use soem older games but ultimately decided against it as I wanted the article to have some degree of relevance among younger readers. Had I decided to use older games I could have gone into detail about TES: Morrowind, Dues Ex, System Shock, FF7, and many more but going along such a route would have reduced the impact of the article in relation to current interest.

In this article there are many other game(s) I wanted to explore: Dues Ex: Human Revolution, Bioshock, Assassin's Creed, Doom 3, (etc) but for the sake of space simply couldn't accommodate them.

-------------


A revolution in an MMO to spread socialist propaganda to other players. This is a very strange idea, but it might work.
When I am teaching anarchism I beleive some people will just become sympathisers because they cannot see how big the movement is, and so assume it is small. If we can show them in any way that the movement is not small, but it has power and numbers, then they will become supporters, if not revolutionaries.
The only problem with this idea is that what happens in a videogame does not affect you in real life. People will only act when they see their way of life is threatened.
In a game you are in that world because you chose to, in real life you are forced to live in a system you did not choose for yourself. Precisely. For this idea to have any rate of success someone who is intimately aware of a game's functions, and has a considerable stake within the world, would have to bring out all the stops to not only get people engaged but expand that initial engagement into other aspects of their lives. I think in terms of a large movement you speak a lot of truth and so I assume that the key to such would be achieving victory in such a campaign.


I did not know that there were actualy people who power-leveled for a living. One of my friends does that as a hobby, he power levels, and then sells the character online. Some people do it for a hobby, yes, but the power-leveling I explore in the article is anything but a hobby; indeed many of the levelers play the game in sweatshop like conditions to meet-ends meet. Far removed from the casual transactions of of Westerners.


I agree with much of what you said.
One thing bothers me in your conclusion, the "waiting" part. My experience tells me you must be constantly active so that people you know will not forget about your ideals.In this section I use waiting in a very modern sense where we must wait, or in otherwords, cannot (incapable of) rushing the masses to embracing such ideology. It is not meant as "waiting in a post-victory segment", rather simply that we have no means of forcing others to uphold our worldview; they must come to it themselves after we have done our part.


Why did you post this at midnight? You have made me stay awake until 1:40 am to read it.

I thank you for taking the time and effort to read as well as giving a thoughtful response.

About the time though: Timezones-the enemy of revolution! lol... when I posted this thread it was around seven or so in my country's specific time zone.

[B5C]

The message here is one of degrees, where there is no truly victorious conclusion. It is a narrative of either supporting the status quo (Imperial rule=capitalist rule) or allowing fascism to triumph (Stormcloaks).

Imperial Empire is Capitalist? The Elder Scrolls was run by feudalism and not capitalism. Think of the world of the Elder Scrolls run like in the "A Song of Ice and Fire" series.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Imperial Empire is Capitalist? The Elder Scrolls was run by feudalism and not capitalism. Think of the world of the Elder Scrolls run like in the "A Song of Ice and Fire" series.

Not literal, more exemplary (metaphoric representation). There is a link in the article proper which examines this.

[Yugo45]

Gonna bookmark this and read it later when it's not 1 AM. Quickly skimmed through it and it sounds very interesting.

[bcbm]

read some of the article, skimmed some parts that didn't seem very interesting or i had not played the game.

all in all i think there are some interesting arguments but i think it overstates them in some cases and misses nuances. in call of duty, for one, you mention the terrorist shooting level without mentioning that the character doing some of the shooting is (if i recall correctly) a cia agent, which if you think about it (i didnt until now, i doubt anyone does) is a pretty big statement about the us. i don't recall any mention of the quotations chosen for loading screens or deaths either, many of which are anti-war or anti-nationalist. as for the story generally, i think call of duty and similar games are basically the same as like 'red dawn' or any other action bullshit from the 80s... they certainly appeal to some nationalist mouth breathers but in general it is over the top cuz a mindless action shooting fest is entertaining and what we came to see.

mass effect too i think gets a harsher treatment than it deserves. i mean obviously it isn't 'revolutionary' but i think a lot of the content depends on what you put in in terms of player choices (i played shepherd as a human supremacist militarist) and while the narrative is 'individualistic' in focusing on our hero commander shepherd, i think more than many games involving war it makes a major point about teamwork and needing others- in the second one not doing the sidequests and helping your crew costs you dearly at the end.

as for skyrim, the dudes name is 'ulfric' not 'alfric';)1

ugh i dont feel like analyzing video games anymore

[Yugo45]

As one could imagine the conclusion is flag waving pro-Americana nonsense. Indeed I could go through each and every Call of Duty game and list out all the instances of reactionary garbage. This wouldn’t prove much, however, as by now we have seen that the narrative of Call of Duty is, and always has been, one of pro-war, pro-military, pro-solider, and pro-American exceptionalism.

...

Revolutionaries might launch their own version of this project only instead of attacking the “violence” in video games they attack the military promotion, the war glorification, and the trillions of dollars wasted on Imperialist wars of aggression; they might do so while raising awareness about U.S actions across the globe thus informing on Imperialism in general. This way the focus is not on largely powerless scapegoats but on actual entities which foster violent behavior.

You should play Spec Ops: The Line. It will probably seem like a typical reactionary, American propaganda, shooter, but trust me, it's completely opposite of that (which you will realise as you play it). Definitely a refreshment from "aim at foreigner, shoot the foreigner" war games. Also, one of the best stories in games I recently played.


This topic is slightly harder to pin down in each game, as the antagonist is not so clear. While the Reapers still are the overriding threat very little is said about them or their programming. By the end of the trilogy we know that the Reapers periodically destroy all advanced organic life in the Galaxy so as to ensure the continuance of a great cycle, a supposedly illustrious task assigned to them by some unknown higher power. Failure to do so will result in unexplained cataclysms, in “throwing the universe out of order”. This certainly does not tell us much.
Actually, this was explained in a DLC and the Extended Cut. Basically, they were created by an ancient race of aliens (nicknamed The Leviathans) that went around the galaxy enslaving other races and using mind control to make the slave races.. be slaves. So, they noticed that the enslaved races (which they found inferior) were making intelligent synthetic life, but synthetic life almost always rebelled against their creators. So, The Leviathans decide that synthethic life = bad for their slaves. The Leviathans create, ironically (out of arrogance) a synthetic life themselves which they programmed to preserve organic life at all costs. However, the synthetic intelligence they created decided that The Leviathans were a part of the problem, and it also decides that the best way of preserving organic life is cleansing the galaxy of all advanced organic life (because creating dangerous syntetic life is an inevitable consequence of technological advancement, and because it believes that inferior species deserve a chance to evolve without apex race(s) exploiting them), and using the DNA of annihilated species' to make new Reapers that are based on that species. So, out of The Leviathans the first Repear was created. And every 50000 years, when new species advance enough to create advanced syntetic life, Reapers cleanse the galaxy again, preserving immortality of the organics in form of new Reapers.


Not all cross-overs are cultural in nature, however. Some are political. This is seen most clearly in the conflict between the Quarians and the Geth. Greatly resembling the modern conflict with Palestine and Israel, the war in this universe saw the fascistic Quarians expelled from their home worlds after they attempted to murder all the Geth; robotic servants, who gained self-consciousness.I actually made the same parallel when I played the games. I just love the Geth story, it's great. How they go from bad guys to good guys through the series. I almost cried when Legion sacrificed himself :(


The only problem with this is that you are pushed into siding with the quarians by the linear story of the game, and because of Tali. You know more about the Quarians than you do about the Geth.

Huh, what do you mean? You could side with the Geth or Quarians (or you can make peace between them if you got enough reputation with both). Siding with the Quarians ends up in Geth genocide. Siding with Geth ends up in Quarian genocide OR peace between them. I actually believe that the Geth ending was the canon ending, because you were very obviously meant to feel sympathetic and understand the Geth while condemning actions of Quarians. Especially in that quest where you enter the Geth concensus and listen to ancient recordings of how the Quarians treated the Geth like dirt even though they were obviously sentient beings ("Does this unit have a soul?") and how Quarians pretty much had it coming.


The message here is one of degrees, where there is no truly victorious conclusion. It is a narrative of either supporting the status quo (Imperial rule=capitalist rule) or allowing fascism to triumph (Stormcloaks).I think it's important to note that you don't have to support any of them (you can just ignore the whole civil war questline). I do however agree that the questline would be much, much better with a third option (like in Fallout: New Vegas where you can disagree with both warring factions and choose independence for Vegas). The third option could be tied with the Forsworn. What do you think of them? If you didn't notice them (they don't play a very large role in the game), basically they're tribals (sort of primitivist) that were opressed by the Stormcloaks and that want the Reach (far western part of Skyrim) freed from both Imperial and Stormcloak rule.

During The Great War, the Reachmen (Reachmen - ethnicity, Forsworn movement - national liberation movement of the Reachmen) of Markarth rebelled against Nordic landowners, took control of the city and proclaimed their independence. "True, some crimes were committed against former Nord landowners (often those accused of being the harshest towards their native workers), but on the whole the Forsworn ruled their lands fairly" (quote from a book found in game, "The Bear of Markarth"). Then Ulfric and his Stormcloaks came, slaughtered everyone that supported the Forsworn ("Forsworn and Nord alike"). So yeah, the Forsworn were really interesting to me and I wish they played a larger role in the game. Shame.

Also, I don't really think that the Empire is imperialist in the modern sense of that word. Yes, they're an Empire, but not necesserily imperialist. It's also important to note that TES series is a fantasy which (like most fantasy works) mimick the middle ages, where there really wasn't a "working class".


In this article there are many other game(s) I wanted to explore: Dues Ex: Human Revolution, Bioshock, Assassin's Creed, Doom 3, (etc) but for the sake of space simply couldn't accommodate them.I would really like to read your analysis of Bioshock. Any chance of that happening?

-------

Anyway, interesting analysis of video games, was a nice read. I agree that we should embrace this medium to propagate our views, since it really is a powerfull tool.

[bcbm]

The third option could be tied with the Forsworn. What do you think of them? If you didn't notice them (they don't play a very large role in the game), basically they're tribals (sort of primitivist) that were opressed by the Stormcloaks and that want the Reach (far western part of Skyrim) freed from both Imperial and Stormcloak rule.

i thought their quest was one of the most fun, i was bummed out too that there was not more

[Yugo45]

i thought their quest was one of the most fun, i was bummed out too that there was not more

Yeah.. The least they could do was make the Forsworn stop attacking you and maybe have a few additional side quests, if nothing. I mean, you just freed their leader from a prison, it doesn't make much sense that the rest of them keep attacking you unprovoked.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

all in all i think there are some interesting arguments but i think it overstates them in some cases and misses nuances. in call of duty, for one, you mention the terrorist shooting level without mentioning that the character doing some of the shooting is (if i recall correctly) a cia agent, which if you think about it (i didnt until now, i doubt anyone does) is a pretty big statement about the us. i don't recall any mention of the quotations chosen for loading screens or deaths either, many of which are anti-war or anti-nationalist. as for the story generally, i think call of duty and similar games are basically the same as like 'red dawn' or any other action bullshit from the 80s... they certainly appeal to some nationalist mouth breathers but in general it is over the top cuz a mindless action shooting fest is entertaining and what we came to see.

Yeah, generally speaking I can agree. The problem with writing an article is that you only have so much room to speak. I could have easily written twenty pages going into detail about every aspect of the Call of Duty games. However, in terms of what I wanted ot explore with the piece there are moments where I had to focus only on one aspect of a game so as to zero in on the primary focus of what the game was about over all (which in relations to COD I saw as primarily reactionary). There was certainly some redeeming points in the games and if another person saw things a different way I can't argue too much about their opinion. Still, for my brand of analysis, however, even the redeeming aspects do not fully redeem the game in any sense of the world and would fall into what I call a false progressive category.


mass effect too i think gets a harsher treatment than it deserves. i mean obviously it isn't 'revolutionary' but i think a lot of the content depends on what you put in in terms of player choices (i played shepherd as a human supremacist militarist) and while the narrative is 'individualistic' in focusing on our hero commander shepherd, i think more than many games involving war it makes a major point about teamwork and needing others- in the second one not doing the sidequests and helping your crew costs you dearly at the end. All excellent points but I still can't ignore the typical "one man saves the universe" ultra-individualism. I think what would be a much more interesting concept is that if a developer made a game so that the narrative stretched over the course of many protagonists (while the player retained gear and stats or whatever, so as to make it inviting). This way in resolving a grand conflict the gamer was more exposed to collective action.


You should play Spec Ops: The Line. It will probably seem like a typical reactionary, American propaganda, shooter, but trust me, it's completely opposite of that (which you will realise as you play it). Definitely a refreshment from "aim at foreigner, shoot the foreigner" war games. Also, one of the best stories in games I recently played.

Haven't played it and I honestly will not play it. Not because I think it wouldn't be a good game or because its not worth playing to see the narrative you speak of but simply because I am past the point in my life where I am interested in playing first/third person shooters. I try and stick to games which pique my interest and such just doesn't do much for me anymore.


Actually, this was explained in a DLC and the Extended Cut. Basically, they were created by an ancient race of aliens (nicknamed The Leviathans) that went around the galaxy enslaving other races and using mind control to make the slave races.. be slaves. So, they noticed that the enslaved races (which they found inferior) were making intelligent synthetic life, but synthetic life almost always rebelled against their creators. So, The Leviathans decide that synthethic life = bad for their slaves. The Leviathans create, ironically (out of arrogance) a synthetic life themselves which they programmed to preserve organic life at all costs. However, the synthetic intelligence they created decided that The Leviathans were a part of the problem, and it also decides that the best way of preserving organic life is cleansing the galaxy of all advanced organic life (because creating dangerous syntetic life is an inevitable consequence of technological advancement, and because it believes that inferior species deserve a chance to evolve without apex race(s) exploiting them), and using the DNA of annihilated species' to make new Reapers that are based on that species. So, out of The Leviathans the first Repear was created. And every 50000 years, when new species advance enough to create advanced syntetic life, Reapers cleanse the galaxy again, preserving immortality of the organics in form of new Reapers. I did not know that, thank you for sharing.

When I was writing the article I did not have the fortune of playing through the DLC, so the ME section was limited to simply the three main entries as well as the novels (...which didn't break cannon).


I think it's important to note that you don't have to support any of them (you can just ignore the whole civil war questline). I do however agree that the questline would be much, much better with a third option (like in Fallout: New Vegas where you can disagree with both warring factions and choose independence for Vegas). The third option could be tied with the Forsworn. What do you think of them? If you didn't notice them (they don't play a very large role in the game), basically they're tribals (sort of primitivist) that were opressed by the Stormcloaks and that want the Reach (far western part of Skyrim) freed from both Imperial and Stormcloak rule. I never played through enough of Skyrim on my own to reach that part of the story. While at the time of writing I did have some knowledge of the Foresworn, and indeed as the time to play through if I wanted to add such a section, decided that I would focus solely on the civil war campaign because to me that seemed where the most heavy political narrative was. Yet, at the same time, this is just my opinion. And again I only have so much room in a single article; Skyrim is another one of those game which I could dedicate a whole article to yet due to constraints can only narrow in on a single area.


Also, I don't really think that the Empire is imperialist in the modern sense of that word. Yes, they're an Empire, but not necesserily imperialist. It's also important to note that TES series is a fantasy which (like most fantasy works) mimick the middle ages, where there really wasn't a "working class". Certainly not in the modern sense. I was using the terms in a metaphoric representation that the Empire represented imperialism (and Stormcloaks represented White Nationalism) in a very indirect manner, one of narrative representation, not literal.


I would really like to read your analysis of Bioshock. Any chance of that happening? When I originally pitched the article to Kasama I actually did inform them that in addition to this article I wanted to do a separate one which delved into the Bioshock universe; this was because "Infinite" was going to release relatively soon and I felt that in terms of political narratives Infinite was going to be this year's "Avatar". They did not reject the Bioshock idea yet my personal financial resources made it so that I will not be able to purchase Infinite when it releases. This means that when I am able to buy it the hype surrounding it will probably already dissipate.So with that being said I may still write the article in the future but if I do it will not be for a while. This is mostly because I am focusing on other writing pieces right now (a piece about Protracted Peoples' War, youth rights, and Mao are all on the table; in addition to my schooling and daily stimulation I probably will not find the money to buy Infinite until months later, if not next year).

(P.S: I would normally just "download" the game but I am incompetent at figuring out on how to make the downloaded game actually play, so that option is out of the question)

[Red Commissar]

The Forsworn were an interesting area in the game. They don't talk about them much in the dialog but the in-game lore and texts expands on them more. You get a pretty interesting perspective here of the Forsworn being Reachmen resisting against dominance by Nords, since the book(s) explicitly mention the wealthy Nords functioning as landowners on plots and mines, a feudal relation with the native reachmen.

Even in the game this is underscored by most of the well-off citizens being of Nord or Nordic extraction with the people working in the mines and in the warrens as largely Reachmen (in the game as Bretons). I wish they had delved more into it, though I think the exclusion is more out of convenience by the developers trying to finish the game.

http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Lore:The_%22Madmen%22_of_the_Reach



Ulfric Stormcloak is considered a hero by many for his part in quelling the Forsworn Uprising. It is said that when the Empire abandoned Skyrim, and the natives of the Reach rebelled (undoubtedly due to the Nords [sic] poor treatment of them), Ulfric Stormcloak and his militia was there to retake "their" land from the Forsworn. In all the bravado and epic yarns the skalds compose of his exploits, you would think Ulfric to be a giant of a man, equal to that of Tiber Septim in his cunning, leadership, and decisive actions.

But the truth is far more revealing. Yes, from 4E 174-176, the Forsworn did in fact rule over the Reach as an independent kingdom from Skyrim. Yes, this was accomplished while the Empire was beset by Aldmeri Dominion forces and could not send the Legion to re-establish order. And yes, Ulfric Stormcloak did quell the rebellion without Imperial assistance. That much is true, but what the bards often fail to tell in their stories is that the Forsworn Kingdom was quite peaceful for those 2 years they were in power.

True, some crimes were committed against former Nord landowners (often those accused of being the harshest towards their native workers), but on the whole the Forsworn ruled their lands fairly, and were making overtures to be recognized by the Empire as a legitimate kingdom.

In the wake of the aftermath of the Great War, you can imagine the backlog on stately matters the Empire had. Before a peace treaty could be resolved with the Forsworn, a militia led by Ulfric Stormcloak sieged [sic] the gates of their capital, Markarth. What happened during that battle was war, but what happened after the battle was over is nothing short of war crimes.

Every official who worked for the Forsworn was put to the sword, even after they had surrendered. Native women were tortured to give up names of Forsworn fighters who had fled the city or were in the hills of the Reach. Anyone who lived in the city, Forsworn and Nord alike, were executed if they had not fought with Ulfric and his men when they breached the gates. "You are with us, or you are against Skyrim" was the message on Ulfric's lips as he ordered the deaths of shopkeepers, farmers, the elderly, and any child old enough to lift a sword that had failed in the call to fight with him.

So when a "grateful" Empire accepted Ulfric's victory and sent soldiers to re-establish the rule of law in the Reach, it was no surprise that he would demand to be allowed to worship Talos freely before the Legion could enter. With chaos running through the streets of Markarth and the reports of deaths rising every day, the Empire had no choice but to grant Ulfric and his men their worship.

We allowed them to worship Talos, in full violation of the White-Gold Concordat with the Aldmeri Dominion (which recognizes the elven belief that Talos, as a human, cannot be one of the Divines). In jeopardizing the treaty that so many sacrificed for during the Great War, the Empire was wrong. But what choice did they have, I ask you? Against the Bear of Markarth, Ulfric Stormcloak, "no" is not an answer.



http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Lore:The_%22Madmen%22_of_the_Reach

Since the legendary victory of Tiber Septim over the "barbarian natives" in the Battle of Old Hroldan, Imperial and Nord scholarship has cast the people of the Reach as little more than savages, prone to irrational fits of violence, worshipping old, heretical gods, and fetishizing beasts and nature spirits that any civilized person would best well avoid. In truth, these accounts are little more than "victor's essays," a perspective narrowed by the Empire's constant strife with the ancient, proud people that lived in this land far before Tiber Septim walked the soil of Tamriel. In light of this, I hope to create a more complete, accurate, and fair assessment of a group that has long suffered under the role of "enemy," "troublemakers," and "them."

Let us begin with the Forsworn, the so-called "madmen" of the Reach. The Imperial Legion classifies them as little more than brigands, noting their constant raids and ambushes within the Hold. But none of their military reports asks the question of "why?" If they were merely a group of bandits, surely they would be focused on acquiring gold and minimizing deaths among their own. But the opposite is true in Forsworn attacks. Large sums of coin are often left behind, and their fighters easily throw away their lives rather than risk capture by Imperial soldiers.

It is this incongruity that led me to Markarth, the capital city of the Reach, in search of answers. There, I met one of the native peoples, an old woman who preferred to not be named in my writings. She told me of her family's long history. How she believes they originally came from High Rock, home of the Bretons (which would explain the similar faces and stature of the two peoples). How the Nords came and took their lands, their gods, and their culture from them. When asked about the Forsworn, the old woman would say that they are the "real" men and women of the Reach: those that refused to give in to the Nords. Those that still practiced the ancient traditions that the rest of their people had abandoned in exchange for peace.

In time, I was able to create trust with many more natives in my search that corroborated the old woman's story. By chance, one of them arranged a meeting between myself and what I thought was an elder member of his village. I was shocked to find that I was led to a camp, filled with the animal skulls, severed heads, and still beating hearts that I had read about from the military reports back in the Imperial City. There, I met Cortoran, a Forsworn, who seemed amused at the prospect of me writing down his story. Which I quote in full below:

"You want to know who the Forsworn are? We are the people who must pillage our own land. Burn our own ground. We are the scourge of the Nords. The axe that falls in the dark. The scream before the gods claim your soul. We are the true sons and daughters of the Reach. The spirits and hags have lived here from the beginning, and they are on our side. Go back. Go back and tell your Empire that we will have our own kingdom again. And on that day, we will be the ones burying your dead in a land that is no longer yours."


There can be a parallel made with the Forsworn with colonial practices, or even further back to Boudica and the Iceni uprising against Rome. This is an illustration of a conflict between haves and have-nots that doesn't come up too frequently in fantasy works which fall back on easily definable villains and heroes (and yes, I know stuff like a Song of Ice and Fire have been a break from that).

But yeah the deal between the stormcloaks and the empire definitely smacks of lesser evilism.

As for ME I agree with what you said though I don't think the game is explicitly encouraging ultra-individualism. Especially in ME2 it was essential to build up your team to ensure success, your Shepard could've been over-leveled and crazy strong, but it wouldn't have mattered in the final mission if you didn't actually develop your team. The problem with the military essentially being the thrust of the game's action in the first and third though is problematic though- even in series like Star Trek which had progressive notions they still had an idea of a military force being the thrust of the plot.

The Geth-Quarian deal was interesting to see, I think it also owes a lot to the fairly common trope of machines rising against their creators, which originally served to create a modern parallel to slavery, racism, oppression etc. in sci-fi circles.

I agree with what you said about the shooters, I think by nature military themed ones are going to encourage the gungho mentality you were describing. I think though most people don't take away much from those games beyond getting their fix or w/e, anyway they may react to those games is less from the game itself and more from what is apparently seen as acceptable in society. One game that came out recently was Spec Ops: The Line, which had a rather interesting way of subverting common themes in military shooters.

I must say though I didn't think of FFXIII in the same way you described it, so it was new to me seeing how that game's theme was a break from others owing to its heroes being one of "rejection and desperation". Gives me a different view on the game now.

I can't comment much on MMOs, I've never played them. I have heard of them of course, in EVE I recall reading about some groups who create groups with a more equal, if not outright equal, distribution of resources to make their groups more effective. It would be ideal to try and demonstrate workers' control but as far as I can tell this is the only workable way some of them have arrived at. Still, it is interesting (if not sad) how many people can get lost in these MMOs even if they don't really have an income to sustain it. Seeing how some are willing to buy in-game currency with real money is a weird development- I was reminded after seeing your bit about gold farmers reading an article about how this has become a lucrative business of sorts in China, which has now taken to "outsourcing" the gold farming to other countries like Vietnam for people who have the disposable income to sustain this industry.

[Yugo45]

Haven't played it and I honestly will not play it. Not because I think it wouldn't be a good game or because its not worth playing to see the narrative you speak of but simply because I am past the point in my life where I am interested in playing first/third person shooters. I try and stick to games which pique my interest and such just doesn't do much for me anymore.

:( well if it means anything to you it's really short (8 hours max).




When I originally pitched the article to Kasama I actually did inform them that in addition to this article I wanted to do a separate one which delved into the Bioshock universe; this was because "Infinite" was going to release relatively soon and I felt that in terms of political narratives Infinite was going to be this year's "Avatar". They did not reject the Bioshock idea yet my personal financial resources made it so that I will not be able to purchase Infinite when it releases. This means that when I am able to buy it the hype surrounding it will probably already dissipate.So with that being said I may still write the article in the future but if I do it will not be for a while. This is mostly because I am focusing on other writing pieces right now (a piece about Protracted Peoples' War, youth rights, and Mao are all on the table; in addition to my schooling and daily stimulation I probably will not find the money to buy Infinite until months later, if not next year).

(P.S: I would normally just "download" the game but I am incompetent at figuring out on how to make the downloaded game actually play, so that option is out of the question)


Yeah.. I just checked and it's 60$ on Steam.. That IS indeed a lot of money for a game. Well, good luck with those pieces and hopefully you write one about Bioshock's universe because I think it is one of the biggest "political" games with a lot of elements for a good analysis.


I wish they had delved more into it, though I think the exclusion is more out of convenience by the developers trying to finish the game.

I too kind of felt that it was an unfinished part of the game that meant to played a bigger role, but was never finished.

[bcbm]

The problem with the military essentially being the thrust of the game's action in the first and third though is problematic though- even in series like Star Trek which had progressive notions they still had an idea of a military force being the thrust of the plot.

well at least in me the plot starts around the discovery of a potentially dangerous technology, which quickly escalates into assaults/invasions which would obviously bring the military into the fore. beyond that, since their doesn't appear to be a major change in human governance/economics from our present, i think it makes sense that space colonization would look similar to earth colonization where the military took a leading role. though once you become a spectre, until the third game at least, i think the function is more like that of an intelligence organization like the cia, where they are involved with the military but operating with a different role. the number of situations where talking your way through makes more sense than going in guns blazing differentiates it from a purely 'military' game i think.

but i mean they are destroying/kidnapping entire human colonies, they aren't going to send the diplomats in ya know

[Red Commissar]

Yeah, that's a good point. I didn't mean it in a bad way though, I think the way ME handles it is more nuanced and level-headed than CoD.