• Blackmist@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    27 days ago

    I think it’s only really the show that highlighted how fucked capitalism is, which is ironic given who made it and who now owns the games.

  • geekwithsoul@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    27 days ago

    I think what a lot of people missed from the original video is that while it wasn’t the point, the first games did critique capitalism even if that wasn’t the main point. Would highly recommend people check out Tim’s videos directly - each one is usually about only 15 minutes long, but taken together is a masterclass on game dev and story telling.

  • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    26 days ago

    FWIW, Ray Bradbury used to argue that Fahrenheit 451 wasn’t about censorship at all, but the dumbing down of society.

    Once work leaves the hands of an author, the author no longer controls the narrative, or how the narrative is interpreted.

    • Summzashi@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      26 days ago

      Kinda curious where this energy is when an incel calls a video game woke propaganda for having a female main protagonist.

        • Summzashi@lemmy.one
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          25 days ago

          Ok, then replace propaganda with a different word. My point still stands.

          • Cyberspark@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            25 days ago

            Still no, because woke is something specific to the ideal of making people aware of real injustices.

            Your original statement equates to “this is a deliberate attempt to push an agenda”

            Even with replacing propaganda you still end up with “this promotes making people aware of real issues”. Which implies 1 - an acknowledgement of the fact that they’re real issues depicted (which such people usually contest) and 2 - that the author was aware of such issues in their effort to depict these things realistically.

            In the end we all know that what they’re saying is “this shows me something that I don’t like because it doesn’t fit with my vision of the world”

            People can be wrong about intent and about content, but people can’t be wrong about how it affects them and what messages they receive.