Resist Jam

Well all these events and so on so far have failed to actually create action. I mean, everyone knows the problems. Everyone can see the problems. But nerds making entertainment with keyboards aren't actively solving any problems other than creating marketing for itch.io and so forth.

You could say awareness, but again, everyone knows. It's not solving. Just marketing. Worse, everyone's buying it.

What are people really solving? they're going to jam, have fun, and believe they contributed when they didn't. All they did was feel good about not doing anything really about the worlds problems. Another #feelysolve

 

That's a limited view @hippocoder ...
Writers aren't actively solving problems either, but yet one book can have an impact that last several generations.
I am not comparing this jam to Animal Farm, I don't think we are there yet with video games.
But, it's a start.. or at least, we got to start some where.

 

Well lets play it like this. You come to me with evidence it did anything at all, and I'll say "I'm wrong". What does this do, really?

The target demographic already knows the problems.

 

Not only that, but I think it's a huge misconception to think that people don't know about pressing world problems and social justice issues. The problem is more to do with giving people a useful way of solving the issues, which games just don't do.

I don't want my games really to have anything to do with actual morality anyway. If there's any deep theme there, it's going to be self-actualization or something, like most RPGs are about. It's all about the player and how much fun they have exploring and conquering the game universe.

I doubt many people would play a 'morality simulator' anyway. I think most people play games to escape from reality to begin with.

 

Yeah I mean if there's a substantial kitty involved and government pressure involved in these things, ie action, you can probably see a friendly hippo supporting it. As it is, I've lived long enough to know when sweet FA comes out of things. I want to help and support but it need to be thought through. It needs to actually result in something.

Currently I just donate to various charities, make it easier for me to do more. This merely is advertising piggybacking off the world's problems. It might not have been the intention, but that's the main result, yeah.

This isn't bad. It's not bad to have marketing and advertising exposure. Money talks. My problem is in this case, I do not think the people who should benefit from this will find benefit from this.

 

Yeah, I've been known to do that, when I'm not living on a diet of pasta and instant coffee.

 

Think about it there would have been guards, signalmen, train drivers, lorry drivers, support staff who all worked together to get trains full of people to move to their destinations.

As people we can have two conflicting ideas in our minds at the same time, e.g. doing a good job, loading a train with refugees.

The term used to described this is Cognitive Dissonance, it's often used with regard to climate change e.g. driving to or for work, polluting the atmosphere.

It's even easier if we don't know what happens to the passengers at their destination or that my tiny little bit of pollution in a big atmosphere is a drop in the ocean.

 

I remember this 'Gas Chamber' The Final Solution, game from LD it was LD 14, the game has you as a square moving around a room then gas starts seeping in. As you bump into other characters you ask them if they have seen your relatives/loved ones...

http://ludumdare.com/compo/author/fidaner/



Amazing bit of minimalist work, and maybe it works better with less detail because then the players provide the games canvas projecting onto the game and becoming more involved.

Just like Romero's the Train uses simple board game pegs for people.

 

Fascinating psychological experiment in America the Stanford Prison Experiment

Or how giving people perceived power or superiority over others can change their behaviour.

Could you setup a multiplayer game where all players start equal but then one half are elevated into positions of power and the other lowered.

There was also a great experiment using Monopoly where the games rules were rigged so one player would become much richer than the other. The fascinating thing is the rigged 'richer' player started acting as thought it was through their own merit and started behaving in a more entitled way and the 'poor' players started acting more submissive.

 

What would that achieve though? Players are used to being demigods in games and lording it over everyone else. To attempt to make them feel guilty about this seems ridiculous to me. And the idea of players acting as if they are responsible for achieving things that the game has handed to them on a silver platter is nothing new. It's like, paragraph 1 of game design theory.

Not to mention that nobody is interested in playing a multiplayer game where they are placed on the bottom end of a power struggle with nothing to do about it. Why would anyone buy your game so they could suffer (or, more likely, just get bored).

Trying to spring a lesson on someone when their minds are primed for hedonistic enjoyment seems like a good way to get your game removed from their hard drive. It's like walking into a nightclub to give everyone a lecture on global warming, it's just the wrong time and place.

 

I don't think so normally there is are basic skills to be mastered or levelling up to be achieved before the player takes on their final mission/boss and win the game. So most games start with players with minimal viable status/equipment.

If you started a game as the 'supreme being' there would be no challenge and little fun in the game.

IMHO I don't think that's why people play games as play is mainly a learning/mastery process that we use to learn about the world/game and survive within it (we are after all jumped up mammals). Fun or Flow is when you have reached an automated skill level where you can almost play the game without conscious thought and play it well.

Also how would you know which players were Supers and which were Lowers, unless it is obvious the game might not show the player stats, you would probably have the Super players calling the Lower players noobs and other forms of disrespect.

 

Well sure, games (rpgs mainly) are about levelling up from a relatively weak player to a very strong one. But note that this is relative, in most games I've played a 'weak' player is still stronger than everyone else, just not as strong as they are about to get.

The whole point though, is that they are fast-tracking their way to success and that's the loop that keeps them playing. If you tried to carry out an experiment on players where they could not do anything about their position of inferiority, i doubt anyone would play it. If your 'Lowers' could not turn into a 'Super' somehow they won't be around for long.

Everything in games is a morbid exaggeration of any kind of reality. That's why they are so fun. As soon as you try to do something 'real' in games, especially as a way to force the player to swallow some bitter pill about the reality that they are precisely trying to escape by playing your game, you'll lose them fast.

 

You forget that no one is forced to play this game or any game. Those that feel uncomfortable probably won't play it at all. That is the difference between a game and reality.....you can always walk away.

I absolutely agree. I think there is an Extra Credit video on this and they use Walking Dead as an example of a moral choice in a game. If a game is immersive enough, you can "walk in the shoes" and feel the impact of a choice you make.

I actually love games that force me to think, make me a little uncomfortable. Those are the moments I remember years later.

 

Is it a 'wrong' choice though? Or is it a way to show the player the consequences of these actions in a sandbox where you aren't affecting real people? Simply reading about a concept or knowing it exists is completely different from seeing the actions unfold and the consequences that come from them.

 

It is called educating, Hippo. Games can be powerful ways to educate people on issues, more so than many media. Movies have been doing this for many years. Books for even longer.

The game Missing that I have mentioned is a very good example and there are others I am sure.

I get that people don't like morality shoved down their throats, but to be so cynical to think that people who care about issues, for whatever reason, are simply doing this to feel good is really sad.

Our team has talked about doing a game that brings attention to issues, such as racism and religious intolerance. We don't talk about it because we want "feel good". It would be easier to just donate money to causes if that is all we want.

We want to do it because we see first hand what intolerance of any kind does to people, families, children, and communities. Will it make a difference? Maybe not. But it just might reach beyond our little group and make others who think the same way feel they are not alone, or those who are victimized to know that others care.

I have seen individuals disown their own children for being gay. But I have also seen homophobic people come to understand once someone they love comes out. My own experience has taught me that an emotional experience can sometimes change views or if not change them, at least open eyes a little. A little is a start.

The power of games is that they can be very immersive, more so than movies. Poo poo if you want. But in this situation, I absolutely disagree with you. Evidence may not be written in articles or scientific studies. It may totally anecdotal, but if one person decides to open their heart, it is worth it.

 

Is this the hypocrisy of games though you can run around all day shooting/murdering people or quite happily discuss how to make a game of this type.

As soon as you mention games that tackle difficult situations/settings/issues and Oh no games are not for that!

Is this a form of Cognitive dissonance, to look at or play games that highlight moral issues we might then have to look anew at the games we play or why we play them.

PS I'm a FPS fan so very Cognitive Dissonant in my development of and playing of violent games.

 

I actually think this is a extremely interesting discussion, one that I have been thinking about for quite some years.

And adding to that, I'm currently doing a side "project" (more like testing), for testing out a lot of things I want to possibly use, just in one small isolated project.
One of the things I want to explore is making the player want to do things that the player do not want to do.
I'm using Papers, Please as an inspiration source of gameplay, and where the world does not revolve around the player.

 

That wasn't my point though ... what I'm saying is that the player can just have fun doing whatever they want, undermining whatever moral lessons were supposed to be given. The problem is not that they'd feel uncomfortable, quite the contrary, they could easily feel comfortable and have fun doing exactly whatever it is that you're trying to teach them is wrong. And to try to punish them for that sounds uncomfortably contrary to most of the principles of game design that I've ever heard of. I don't think it would be successful as a game.

Again, the thing is that the game environment removes any real consequences of the action. Have fps games 'taught' people that shooting other people is bad? By the way I don't personally think that they make someone actually more violent, but I certainly don't believe that they are a lesson in the (im)morality of violence. They're just entertainment. And anything presented in the form of a game is ultimately just entertainment.

Imagine for one moment that GTA was developed to 'raise awareness' about the violence and hardship of living in some American cities. Would it have worked? Of course not. Many people just play the game to shoot npcs off motorbikes and haul anyone out of a car that takes their fancy.

Would GTA have succeeded if it had consequences for doing immoral things? Maybe a little bit, if you were careful, but ultimately I think not. And that's the limitation of the platform of games as we know them today.

 

Hey I'm not saying games shouldn't be used for anything! I would actually very much like to see someone try. I just think it will be an (un)spectacular failure.

I'm a fan of stories in games, and stories very often have a moral dilemma. But I'm well aware that most moral dilemmas, even in stories such as in films and books where the audience has no agency, are usually just props for the emotional.

Spoiler: Some splinter cell game spoiler

One of my favourite game moments is what you might call a moral dilemma, where in splinter cell you're ordered to shoot your lady friend who your boss thinks is a spy, and you have about 3 seconds to react as she disappears into a lift. But is this really a lesson? If anything, it made me explore the idea of what it would be like to be someone who could easily do that. In games, especially where the player is used to having a moral high ground by default, what you think is a 'lesson' might actually be taken in reverse.

 

Or it's the limitation of the games you're giving as examples. My first thought was actually towards This War of Mine.

http://store.steampowered.com/app/282070/

I'll agree that traditional FPSes don't teach anything nor does GTA. They're not meant to though.

 

I do agree with you that bluntly forcing a moral upon the player can in worst case lead to the opposite reaction of the intended.

But there is numerous games that have made me want to learn more about a topic (historical events being a main pillar), just by including it in the game. So "raising awareness" do work, at least on me, even if I know some of the facts I might want to learn more about it.

One such example, as you mentioned GTA, the torture scene in GTA 5, was exactly such a scene that you described. Many took it at face value and many players was able to look beyond the satire. In any case, it raised a discussion about it.

 

Thought you might like this Scientific American Article -> Will Democracy Survive Big Data and Automation

 

Why do you try to derail every single thread?

 

That's not a moral dilemma of any kind - from what I can see the player never has to face the question of whether it's good to wage war on someone else or not. But it's a good example of something possibly a bit helpful that games can be in this area.

One thing to be a bit careful of I think, is to avoid turning something like war or oppression into a sort of theatrical stage. My favourite example is the hunger games - I know it's basically just a fun drama, but everyone I discuss it with vehemently tells me that it has all sorts of strong and relevant moral/social themes and so forth - but as I like to say it seems that the only characters who really take the whole thing seriously and to heart, are the main characters themselves - in it they find their own self-actualization, and it's almost as if it would be disappointing for there not to be such a situation in which they could rise to the occasion. I find there's a craving for this underdog status and 'being put to the test' in a lot of leftist organisations who associate with social justice issues, and I think it isn't a great way to do anything useful about an issue.

It's not a bad story as such though, but if the whole point was to make a point about how social oppression is unquestionably bad, it didn't really do a great job.

 

Punish? So you think a consequence in a game is punishment?

So..if a game had a system where if you go around killing innocent npcs and/or players in a multiplayer game, and npcs started hating your character, guards chased you out of town, and you eventually became banished from certain lands, that is punishment?

Games do this, you know. Archeage banishes pirates. Yeah, people do this because it is fun to be banished, but so what?

If one plays a game, and they enjoy being bad, and they have consequences for being bad, but they still do it because they think the consequences are fun, then so what?

If they think the consequences are punishment, so what?

Geesh, do we hold the hand of the player and wipe their tears because the game is too immersive and they don't want to be killed by the Dark Brotherhood after they killed a guard or someone? Does it stop anyone from playing Oblivion?

Consequences for actions in game are not punishments. They are part of the game. If we make games where your actions are meaningless, do you think that is a good game?

Game design principals about punishment basically mean you don't punish players for things they cannot control. So don't make players drown for swimming across a river that is too fast unless there is another obvious option where they will not drown, such as a bridge. It does not say that a player's action should not have consequences. I think you are confusing punishment with natural consequences of a behavior. Most games allow player to have choices and those choices determine what happens. Does the companion die? Do they lose their armor? Does the bad guy rise again because you forgot to seal the door? Does the zombie steal your backpack?

A game without consequences for actions is a very dull game indeed.

 

During a portion of the day you have to go out and scavenge. It's entirely possible to run into other survivors (NPCs) and the actions you take against them can have consequences both in the short term and long term. Same holds true to a lesser degree for how you approach managing your resources, having NPCs show up outside the door to your ruined home, etc.

Someone did a review of the game (I believe it was Jim Sterling) that gave a good explanation of the overall game.

 

It's an interesting view on the potential future for our digital systems to end up controlling us or for a future of digital autocracy.

Or if digital systems can erode our democratic freedoms surely digital games should be used to help empower/strengthen them by highlighting the problems we face.

 

Well how do you plan to drive home the moral point? If there's no substantial consequence, there's no point.

I'll see if I find out more about it, sounds interesting. But I still think that it's hardly going to make someone jump up off the sofa and start sending money to charities. It's a drama, it's fun. If you equated the game with reality, it's not hard to imagine you would feel immoral for trying to prevent the situation, since you wouldn't want the character to be deprived of such an exciting experience or the opportunity to prove themselves

Anyway, the thing is that I really like some of the ideas, like more sophisticated social consequences between players and npcs, long term consequences for actions - I even made a thread recently about it. But I just find it hard to see how you could pass it off as a lesson in morality. It's ultimately a question of the player's struggle to dominate their environment and the enjoyment they get from doing so.

 

Right, but it might be an alternative way to teach someone about a subject that isn't simply sitting down with a book and copying portions of it onto a sheet of paper. I know my own memories of history in school are almost entirely related to interesting or unique assignments. Like building a fort out of wooden crafting materials.

 

What would be the best theme?

Would a Sci-Fi theme be a good setting, as Star Trek and similar Sci-Fi TV/movies/books are often used as a safe way to highlight the dangers of current trends.

e.g. Hunger Games, Divergent etc.

 

Agreed! I had my own reasons for attending my ancient history class, and it didn't have much to do with ancient history, but I did end up learning a lot more about it than I otherwise would

 

Here's one thing I'm not getting: why is there such a divide among us game devs as to weather or not we should be making deeper games in the first place?

Haveing some devs branch out doesn't mean we're going to stop seeing GTA and Call of Duty or whatever. It just means that there will be more types of games.

To me this is like saying there should only be action movies, and documenteries are pointless, or all books should be stories and there's no place for text books.

If you don't want to play games that stray from what's traditionally expected from them, then don't; there are plenty of games out there for you. But we shouldn't be ham stringing attempts to broaden the medium.

We can't say games are art, then at the same time say "it's just a game" to deligitimize attempts to create interactive experiences that are going for something other than mindless joy.

This is a little aside from weather or not you think any good will come from the jam though. I think there are interesting points being made about essentially preaching to the choir in this particular jam. It would be cool to find ways to get the best games made out in front of wider audiences.

 

I have the same question, Sarfaraaz. I have no idea why there are always people out there who need to come to a thread and tell everyone why they personally don't like the idea.

I get sharing thoughts and opinions and even constructive criticism. But to come and say "it won't work" or "bad idea" just is beyond me.

Most of the time when I see behavior like this it is fear. Some folks are afraid the game industry will change or that diversity in games will make their games less, or that diversity in hiring will mean they will be passed over for a job.

I cannot see what the fear is here. There are already games out there that tackle slavery, depression, gender and sexuality issues, etc. They will be there if this thread or Jam existed or not.

Of course there are some who go to every thread and stir up controversy, maybe for attention, who knows. lol Just ignore them. I think most of the people who care about making more than just entertain games are and will be supportive. The tech industry as a whole has been amazing when it comes to these sorts of issues. I think the naysayers are few and Unity seems to have a unique group of naysayers. lol

I bet among those that have successful studios or jobs in the tech industry you will find a lot of support. From what I see, there are a lot of people involved in the Jam already. I won't post a link because I don't want to send people who just want to cause trouble there.

Even this stuns me. Do you really think the idea is to get people to send money? Money is helpful of course, but the best way to make changes is to educate people.

Do not fear education. It allows people to make their own choices about how they tackle an issue or even if it is an issue worth tackling.

 

Substantial is very subjective, first of all.

One person may find that the death of another character (NPC) is very upsetting to them, as in Walking Dead. Others might find that losing the ability to interact with a character due to something you did is substantial.

A game is not going to beat someone who is obtuse and refuses to care on the head until they feel bad. It is simply going to make them aware of something maybe they have not thought about before.

Each "touch" we can make can add to a multitude of sources. Let's say my daughter reads an article about an attack on a Muslim woman in a mall. Then weeks later, she talks to a friend who tells her that she is afraid her mother will be deported. Each time, she is thinking about what is happening, what she reads, what she hears.

Then she plays a game, and in the game she has a choice to help someone who is different from her or to walk away and let that character get hurt.

Maybe she will make the choice to walk away, it is a game after all. Or maybe not. But if the game actually makes that choice affect what happens later in the game, maybe she will again think about it.

All we can do is make people think. We can't make them change their minds.

If you think that there has to be some huge impact to make all this worth it then you are missing the point. It is a drop in the bucket. But...who knows when someone comes along to only need one more drop to pay attention.

 

It's worth noting that educating a player about an issue doesn't have to be as blunt as saying 'this is bad, here are your consequences for being a bad person'.

Have a look at some of the literature from history that had done the same thing. Animal Farm doesn't come out and say 'communism cannot be achieved, you are an idiot for trying'. Instead it offers a story of how a bunch of animals try to acheive communism, and fail. The farm animals make the story ridiculous enough that readers can divorce it from their own personal politics. The reader is left on their own to judge the results. Should we strive for communism anyway, and try and avoid the pitfalls the pigs encountered? Should we put down efforts at communism as they will inevitably fail? Should we be like the donkey and just be above it all?

You can see the same sort of approach in the literature of Austen or Dickens or any other number of influential writers. The goal isn't simply to force a particular view point on readers. That's the role taken by religions. The point is often simply to have the audience seriously consider the issues. And by making them consider the issues, society as a whole can come up with better answers.

Games can do this too. Mass Effect doesn't tell you that saving humans is better or worse then saving aliens. It just asks you which you would choose. There are not even any serious consequences for the choices. But it does get you thinking about a serious topic, 'Is taking care of ones own more important then taking care of everybody?' 'Is the individual more important then the society?' And so on.

TL;DR: Don't make games that simply bash the player over the head with 'this is the only true viewpoint'. Instead let players examine multiple viewpoints in game. Players can then create their own ideas outside of the game.

 

EXCELLENT examples, BoredMormon! You said it so well with examples that back up what you said. Love it. Wish I could like your post 10 times!

 

this is a forum, I just came here to have a good debate. I'm not fearing anything or trying to tell you that it shouldn't be done. I'm sorry that you feel I'm just trying to cause trouble, but that's just not the case - I didn't know it was possible to cause trouble simply by giving a contrary opinion in a pretty civil way. I thought we could all just have a fun discussion about the topic.

If someone made a game that had a measurable positive impact on world problems, that would be great

 

Well...I can't see how an announcement of a Game Jam was something that should be a debate, honestly.

It is about making games, there is a theme, if you want to argue it is not a good idea, you should go to the forums for the game jam. Here, it was just an announcement. I never thought I would end up having to defend it.

 

Why not though?

I just wanted to add, I'm not saying it's a bad idea per se, or that devs shouldn't try, I just don't think it would work. I'd like games to become much more than what they are in terms of having a message and so on, and they may do so at some point when they take on a different form or role - but I just think that when life in a society is fairly comfortable, it's hard to do any sort of subversive action through entertainment, and even in a society where life is difficult, entertainment in the form of games can potentially stay at the level of a pseudo-activity.

Anyway, I hope what I'm saying turns out to be totally off the mark

 

Life is comfortable? For everyone? In the world?

Thank you for your concern. Let the games began. Looking forward to the games that come out of the jam!

 

I hope you're totally off the mark too

I can appreciate your stance, but I must say, it's a little strange to me that you hope for a brighter future for games in the long run, but don't think it'll work in the now. You might be right of course, but we have to try and fail if we ever plan to grow and see that future

So, even if this jam 'fails' at its intention, it will still be a stepping stone that we can look to in the future and pick apart what was effective in the games produced from what was trash.

 

Not sure how you got to that conclusion from reading my post. I get the sense you haven't really understood where I'm coming from.

Presumably 'raising awareness' is not something that needs to be carried out amongst people actually living in a bad situation? So I assume the main target audience of these themes are people who, due to their comfortable life and surroundings are apparently not aware of what goes on in other parts of the world.

I agree. I usually start thinking about something by trying to find reasons why it won't work, it's not an attempt to shoot anything down, but just to provoke a realistic discussion that might actually give someone some practically useful ideas.

Game development itself, let alone social justice movements, seem to have a lot of difficulty in dealing with self-criticism and practicality which is something I don't think is particularly helpful.

In fact the reason I started game development (and why I'm still doing it) is because I hope to somehow make a game that is inspiring about space exploration and colonizing the solar system. That's something you might say takes on a moral significance to me. But even when dealing with this theme, which is almost purely a positive one, I'm well aware that it's easy to fall into the trap of dumping some theme on gamers laps and expecting them to be interested just because it's 'important'.

 

Billy, going into discussion with the express plan to tell everyone that it won't work just to create conversation is very defeating.

I like you, always have. Please don't become one of those forum posters. Lol

You have a lot to share but when you realize that the conversation has become circular with you saying can't and others saying can rather than about the topic, it is time to give up.

The Jam is quite popular so we will see what cool stuff comes out of it from the can folks. I will meet you in another thread sometime rather than ruin this one further.

Only way to know if one can or if they did is to wait and see.

 

Absolutely! Failure is when you never try.

 

Nooo never!

 

I think GTA teaches people that if you misbehave, the cops will kill you.

Erm... it kinda already does that. GTA is a satire through and through. A very blunt satire with a subtlety of jackhammer and absolutely no subtlety. I played GTA 5, hated it, but the game is centered around taking everything remotely american and violently mocking it.
--

Morality is relative, though. So it is really about "sometimes things happen that are beyond your countrol and there's very little you can do about them". Speaking of auschwitz train, it could be a good idea to flip the coin and show that the train driver has a family and would rather prefer them not to be shot.

When you want to "drive home" moral point, you're essentially preaching to the player, and trying to do that tends to leave bad impression, because it oversimplifies too many things at once.

It is better to have player see the consequences and decide what the point was of the whole thing. Witcher 3 tries to do that, but often it results in Geralt turning into some sort of calamity. Everything is fine on the surface, until the witcher arrives, accidentally destroys the fragile local balance, and then everything goes to hell. Then again, it is probably the closest to realistic morality I've seen.

Speaking of oppression, one interesting example that is worth checking out is shadowrun: dragonfall. Shadowrun's high-tech cyberpunk world is controlled by dragons. Now, what do you think would happen if you manage to kill all the dragons?

Because saying "I think it won't work" ultimatley provides almost no useful information. There's a saying "Those who think something is impossible... they shouldn't get in the way of people who try to make it happen". A useful feedback is "I think it will work better if you do X".

 

I'm not so sure. It's not a very efficient way to satirise something.

Moral themes are a staple of any kind of fiction, even michael bay films. The question is really whether these themes are going to effect any kind of change, or just serve as a prop to stimulate the audience or disarm their objections to something.

I've posted a few comments on this thread talking about exactly why I don't think it would work. But anyway I'm not trying to be unconstructive, if someone has a good idea I'd be glad to discuss it. In fact the example Ryiah posted is something that made me stop and think for a bit, although I would like to know how playing this game would translate into effective social change in places where there is a lack of awareness. But at the very least games like these have the potential to give some sort of multi-dimensional identity to those who live in a war zone, and make people change their point of view from a dismissive "ah yes those poor poor people" to "maybe these people are some kind of heroes, and their struggle is something inspiring".

If I have one thing to say in terms of "it would work if you do X" it would that it's a good idea to avoid presenting the victim as such. Games are about heroes and unordinary people who seize control of a situation, they are about winners. Trying to make the player feel pity, especially for their own character or an npc who's situation they have direct control over, is unlikely to succeed imo.

Anyway, like I said, I hope some games come out of the jam that do have some kind of positive social effect, and I don't really have much else to say on the topic until this happens.

 

its about inspiring... , or, creating an Image

All things are of Imagination .. of Image, you wake up, brush your teeth, you had the "Image" of brushing your teeth in your mind in some form..

...Edison had an Imagination of making a light bulb, before he made a light bulb...

but yeah sure, its basically like "Me, the artist, Iam too lameass of a person to go and change the world, so Ill put an Image out there that, maaaaybe soooomeooone miiight see and go 'hey, that image vibes with my images yeah, thats a part of an Image to change the world sorta somehow maaaybe' "

... but thats what art is...

I wouldnt be (...on path of) making video games without listening to some music, and other art influences that I've seen and heard, and they really were totally about entirely different subject matter, but thru the lens of MY MIND, and MY Imagination, their Images created an Image of Mine Own...

...Like "the story of Che Guevara" or "the story of Robin Hood" for example... those stories, really, actually have Very Little to do with my actions, but it plays a LITTLE part in the construction of my Imagination for future action (and the road of actions I take in recent years) .. and therefore have EVERYTHING to do with my actions...

OR like those quotes in my forum signature,
are really totally about something else, but i take them to mean something TO ME
they are Images of someone else, but thru the lens of my mind, create action by me.

 

So Unity made the game. You're just playing it from your perspective.

 

Have you played GTA5? It is a satire. It is hard to see it as anything else.

IMO:
Trying to preach any kind of black/white morality usually makes the creation in question (movie, game, whatever), look very silly. If you want though provoking material, you need gray morality, or just consequences without preaching. I also think that it doesn't even matter if that'll result in any kind of change. If someone feels like bringing some subject in a game, they are free to do so, even if it results in nothign happening.

I think when someone has an idea, it does not mean they're open to discussion or are willing to argue to the death about it.

In my opinion "it won't ever work!" or "I'm against it" is one of the most annoying (and arguably useless) kind of responses people get when proposing something. It is always "fun" trying to suggest some change to service on any forum only to have another user to pop up (who isn't even part of the company) who will start "argument".

Also, opening post is "we're starting a jam with this theme". What, exactly, is there to debate?