Politics in games

[Baggins]

So I'm playing through Freddy Pharkas and its demo in order to put together a new Freddy Pharkas Omnipedia. I came across some rather amusing referenced to politics (note the story is told as if the narrator/storyteller is speaking to a modern audience of the 90's).

Many of these are not so flattering look at the Democrats. In one instance it compares them to plagues, droughts, dust storms, or tsunamis, that were causing life in Coarsegold to break down, driving businesses away, and the city to decay since they came to power in the area.

In the main game it compares the Democratic politicians to bandits and desperadoes, and that they are corrupt, sneaky and conniving (though this may apply to all politicians in general). There are some allusions that they will lead to the downfall of California/US in '100 years or so' because of taxing and what not.

It also says a Democratic President is useless during a Republican run congress (or visa versa).

There may be somewhat of a double joke (at both parties expense) going on that it may play on the stereotype that Republicans are a bunch of ignorant rednecks and cowboys.

Granted Freddy Pharkas himself admits to likely being Republican (he admits to being a Yankee in Civil War nomenclature), and he is the smartest and university educated person in the town (not counting the ultimate villain in the story, whose politics are unclear).

I remember one of the lSLarry games had quite a few jokes at Clinton's expense, including a Clinton impersonator. But I can't remember if they made fun of the political parties.

Al Lowe was going to make a funny little game lampooning politics in general, during the Bush/Quayle years IIRC.nI think it was cancelled since it would have been out of date rather quickly.

In other Sierra games were the occasional references to Bush and 'Quail' when looking at the random plant on screen, but generally nothing very political.

Can people think of other examples in games (not just Sierra).

[glottal]

The only other example I can think of is when Grace says something along the lines of "Well, I survived Newt Gingrich" in GK3.

[Damar]

Space Quest had a few.  Off the top of my head I can think of two Reagan jokes.

In Space Quest II there's an easter egg if you try to "take condom" from the locker at the beginning of the game.  It references the special "Nancy Reagan 'Just Say No' condom"

In Space Quest IV if you click the taste icon on the bottle of ketchup it says, "sucking on a bottle of ketchup doesn't satisfy your hunger...no matter what the government thinks."  That would reference the "ketchup is a vegetable" school lunch controversy (also the Reagan administration, I believe.)

[Baggins]

Hahah, Grace sure is right... That guy is a d*****.

Hmm ya there are other jokes at presidents expenses in FPFp, including a reference to Lincoln, another to his wife durin his assasination. A joke pointed at George Washington.

And another one poking fun at Mrs. Cleveland, that's also a thinly veiled jab at Nancy Regean, JUst Say No to Ether.

There are a handful poking fun at various modern laws and acts both on state and federal levels, including some poking fun at environmentalists and other activists.

While I don't know Al Lowe's position on politics. He seems willing to poke fun at both parties, but the jokes seem especially critical of Democrats. Apparently even the Al Lowe joke mailing kist is apparently full of stupid/cowardly Democrats vs. heroic/smart Republicans style jokes.

From "political correctness" stand point there are alot of things in LSL and lesser extent FPFp that could be seen chauvinistic (extremely intentional satire), and more questionable are jokes that some may see as homophobic in this day in age. Advocating beating up gays if they try to touch you, or look at you funny kind of things. Blacks are called Negros.

We don't have to get into the racial stereotypes! If people complain about Breakfast at Tiffany's or Tom Sawyer/Huck Finn (calling for censorship even)!

It's been a while but I think the Laura Bow games might had some period specific Political commentary as well in a fee random places.

[Blackthorne]

Keep in mind that at during the time period Freddy Pharkas was set, The Democratic Party was much more like today's Republican Party.


Bt

[Baggins]

It's actually not quite that simple, an some what of a misconception/over simplification. Most republicans never really switched partiers some of the democrats switched parties though. Most that did were the non George Wallace types, more middle of the road types (at least by then standards). Most of the deep south racists remained in the democratic party until their deaths. Most that switched out actually disagreed with the Wallace types, and wanted civil rights changed even under Eisenhower. The Republicans stayed on their side for the most part. They had beliefs more in common with the northern view.

So there wasn't really a physical switch of parties, where all members of one switched to the other, while the members of the other traded places.

There have been a few individuals that switch back and forth between both parties on the whim because it gave them better position of power but have no true political loyalties. These are the largely all for personal gain rather than legitimate convictions. These are centrists at best or opportunists at worse. These are the exceptions and do not represent either party since they have no standards.

Though there have been racists on both sides. Some writings by Lincoln suggest his beliefs although he wanted to end slavery, also believed black people should have been sent back to Africa in his writings. Which he believed would have prevented future grief in which he didn't think the 'Negros' (the term of the time) and Europeans descent could truly get along leading to future racial division. There were actually quite a few people that were against slavery not because they thought it was evil, but because it caused competition with their own businesses. The slave owners could sell their products for cheaper than northern farmers who had to pay their staff (yes fiscally conservatism and capitalism was a big part of the Republican party even back then). Actually much of this internalized social conservatism still remains in the republican party, because it never left it from Lincoln's time! It's not to say that Lincoln was in his heart a racist (he was anti-slavery after all! But his opinions certainly don't jive with modern day thought.

Beyond that while one could say his views on slavery were radical for the time, Abolitionists were radical to be sure. He was largely fiscal conservative, pro big business, helping out the corporations. If one wants to define 'conservatism' it's important to make distinctions that there are different types, social conservatism, and fiscal conservatism, etc. Bein conservative in one type isn't necessarily conservative in another. Likewise there ate different forms of liberalism. There are no absolutes, and things are not black and white (though politicians and their sycophants want the masses to think they are).

Of course relates to that the south accused the north of undercutting their profits by paying less than se goods in the north, and then going back and charging the southerners more for factory made goods. This largely hurt the non slave owning southern farmers than it did the plantation owners. But it was another grievance that the south had with the north, beyond the hatred of the abolitionist movement.

It would probably be more accurate to describe the Democrat party changing or evolved over time, but Republicans had much less change (by some point of view got left behind). The change that has occurred though is Neoconservatism, which actually began when more modern liberal progressive democrats individuals switched parties, and some beliefs but merged some of their progressive beliefs with a conservative mask. It's more of a form of centrism and opportunism.

In anycase the type of Democratic party described in Freddy Pharkas has more in common with the modern interpretation of Democrats as more tax happy party, than it does the 1800's counterpart. That and the narrators are established to be around in the present days based on certain diologue! Willy for example is said to be about 140 years old when he narrates the story, and the second narrator speaks of the events in the past tense, and speaks of modern day events in the present tense! Like for example when he explains the family history of the Laffer line from Ezekiel to Larry! Or the modern Coarsegold and it's ATM machines.

The view espoused about the Democratic party is similar to same kind of view that appears in LSL games set in present times, well Nineties. That republicans are best and are socially conservatives and Democrats destroy whatever they touch, and tax, tax, tax.

That and the Tax thing is more of a twentieth century thing began under the Progressive era to pay for he social services and such, when they amended the constitution to include taxation, 16th ammendment.

Taxes were much more limited more of a state controlled thing before then. Federal taxation itself was very limited, something like 3% of income flat tax (there was no progressive tax). Neither the democrats nor the republicans were big on taxes in the 1880's at least by today's standards of taxation. Of the two republicans of that time would have pushed for slightly higher taxes the above flat tax to support homestead and farmer supplements (the former was a colonization policy and part of the so-called 'manifest destiny'). So the game making the democrats of that time out to be corrupt, big government, tax happy socialistic banditos  is a modern anachronism inserted into FPFP for the humor sake.

Beyond that what we define as liberal and conservative in present tense had different meaning back then. By todays's standards both parties were conservative. But liberalism back then was closer to 'classic liberalism' (some define that as libertarianism, or at least closer to it by today's standards) than modern liberalism. Much of today's conservatism is what is better defined as neo-conservatism.

Lower 'Flat tax' is more libertarian/classic liberal supported concept, whereas the modem liberals are more into increasing progressive forms of tax.


Besides in no way is FPFP historically accurate! It's not meant to be and it's a bit crazy to assume it is!

(Posted on: July 17, 2011, 03:01:51 AM)

Ok so I read throughout the quizzes in LSL1, several refer to presidents.

This was the most political (it covers all opinions out there! Hahah);

Taxes should be
a. lower.
b. higher.
c. unchanged.
d. eliminated.
All answers are correct.

LSL5 has some jokes related to illegal and legal aliens and Green Cards.

Much of the plot involves stopping the mob from releasing brainwashing CDs that use variation and reverse on Nancy Regan's campaign, 'Just Say Yes' an 'evil' plot to brainwash teenagers into the porn industry. They are funding CANE (Conservatives Against Nearly Everything) to get rid of conpetitionBit of a spy story with white house and secret service.

Michelle Milken is a parody on Malkin.

Here is a quote from LSl5 that pokes dun at the fundamentalist right:

"Where does the Moral Majority turn to promote censorship and creeping Fascism? "Slant," the Holier-Than-Though Newsweekly. No liberal pandering, no pinko editorial cartoons, no objective journalism... just good ol' fashioned Fundamentalism. Printers on 100% recycled environmentalists."

This would suggest Al Lowe is an equal opportunity comedian willing to lampoon both stereotyped viewpoints!

[Enchantermon]

The only political commentary I can recall at the moment is from Paganitzu: Romancing the Rose in which Omigosh threatens to make Dan Quayle the President of the United States. You can see it here and a bit later at 6:47.

[Baggins]

The first two Bioshock games had some interesting look at both Randian Objectivism and opposing Collectivism.

The upcoming one should have an interesting look at American nationalism/Patriotism and Manifest Destiny (I.E. American Imperialism).

[Sir Perceval of Daventry]

All due respect Baggins but every political post you've made seems to be subtly against Democrats and Liberals and in favor of far right politics.

[glottal]

All due respect Baggins but every political post you've made seems to be subtly against Democrats and Liberals and in favor of far right politics.

And for this crime he should ... burn at the stake 

[Baggins]

Glottal the irony about your statement is you are probably right about how Percival views everyone he disagrees should be dealt with! It's a bit like being jumped on by the Thought Police/Gestapo/KGB.

I don't particularly like republicans either, you get crazy people like Newt Gingrinch and Hermain Caine ("communities should have the right to ban mosques"). On the latter ya bonehead, if that was the case KKK Racists would ban black churches, anti-Semites would ban synagogues, atheists would bam all religions in their communities. Hardline Islamic communities would probably try to ban 'infidels'. etc... What part of the Establishment/ Free Execise clauses does he not understand? Freedom of religion applies to everyone. Not only that segregation would probably return on racial issues as well.

Too many crazy far right fundamentalists... They's enforce their own form of tyranny just as much as the far left is capable of doing. Two sides of the same coin.

My guess you seriously don't understand libertarians and independents...

The problem with the far left is everyone who disagrees with them and the political correctness/social engineering  is considered to the right of them and monsters that should be locked away as potential threats and need to be reeducated (or eliminated) when they are in power. The problem with the far right is  Anyone who doesn't agree with all their moral engineering are monsters and to the left of them and dangerous to their 'Judeo-Christian Nation' (tm) and need to be reeducated (or eliminated). It's called the Overton window. Both extremes are dangerous can lead to forms of totalitarianism. The government needs to be balanced.

Bringing this back on point, actually the bioshock games look at the dangers that can happen under each different political system if they're power isn't checked, and they swing to the extremes of left, right and center!

Both sides lie and cheat, and pass or maintain unconstitutional systems that take away our liberties such as the Patriot act, TSA and put us in wars (though try won't admit they are wars)...

Hmm, I haven't played far but the Deus Ex series also seems to look at politics as well, from conspiracy theory perspectives.

[Blackthorne]

Yeah, I meant to say that Baggins always seemed more moderate/independent to me. 

It's pretty funny; both sides often cling to the "if you're not like us, you're against us" attitude.

There's a lot of gray area in politics.  I myself have both liberal and conservative leanings.  I don't automatically begrudge someone their choice in political party. 


Bt

[Big C from Cauney island]

The system does not work. I encourage people not to vote 

[Baggins]

Raise a black flag? Anarchy rulz?



Note: I myself am not an anarchist, although I know a few in Europe.

[glottal]

The system does not work. I encourage people not to vote 

I agree that the system is currently messed up.  However, I encourage people to vote (at the national level - local politics is a whole 'nother game) for people who aren't Democrats or Republicans.  I don't like third party politics either, but I currently view them as a lesser evil.

In my opinion, it will take fewer votes for third party / independent candidates to shake the system than it will take non-votes to shake the system.  For example, if 20% of the votes in the next presidential election go to people who aren't Democrats or Republicans (an optimistic projection, but it's just an example), that would shake the system.  If 20% fewer people vote, I don't think that will shake the system, or it won't shake it as much as a 20% vote for something other than the Democrat-Republican system.

Anyway, I unfortunately don't know of any games which address this particular political issue.  Of course, new games being made now will probably make some kind of reference to current events.

[Enchantermon]

I think Big C was being facetious. Either way, people should vote, but only if they care enough to educate themselves. If you don't know what you're voting for, I would rather you not vote and let people who know what the candidates stand for do the voting. If you want to see things happen, then you should vote for the candidate whom you think will make those things happen, Republican, Democrat or otherwise.

[Big C from Cauney island]

I think Big C was being facetious.

Indeed. But with a sprinkle of truth. I agree that if you don't know the issues don't vote. The problem is, politicians not following through on what they promise. If they did everything they promised, the voter turnout would really mean something. But, if voters make commitments than politicians have to as well, or the "system" is not effective. 

Now, in terms of a video game, I have no idea how I would make a political video game. The closest thing I could think of would be simcity, cause you run everything. Either way, enjoy your lives regardless of politics! It's not worth anybody's time to worry about it. Politicians are people. They do good and bad things.   

[Baggins]

I'm concerned that voting has become more of a popularity contest (cult of personality), as opposed to based on informed decisions based on actual issues. Nearly every president has been raised to superhuman status by their supporters, with little objectivity. Often their human flaws are ignored, or white washed, as they are put on a pedestal.

However, I do think abstaining from voting is a reasonable choice even for those who are informed if they do not hold either candidates viewpoints (this is the true anarchist option generally). As is voting for a third party if that is who they think is the right person ('not an evil'). It may not get the person elected but people have a right to stick to their convictions. There is no reason to 'vote for lesser of two evils' if evil and corruption will happen anyways. Many people are fed up with the 'lesser of two evils' system. That alone could make a third party become viable in the future.

But historically when a third party overtook the other two parties one of the previous two parties died! Federalists, Whigs, etc. That's not necessarily the case and it could go another direction. But in America it's the general case, other countries it often leads to some kind of coalition.

[Sir Perceval of Daventry]

Personally I hate what Libertarians are trying to do to America: Gutting regulatory bodies such as the FDA and EPA, wanting to undo the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, and course their crusade against Unions and our social safety net. Personally, I'm not for Laissez-Faire capitalism and I feel like Libertarians are trying to pull this country back 100 years. And no one seems to scare.

[Baggins]

Are you sure those are true 'libertarians' and not just Republicans in 'sheep's clothing'? I.E. want tax exemptions for everything?

True, many libertarians want to lower, flat taxes, closer to the system put in by Lincoln i.e. 3% flat tax out of $800 minumum living, but modified to represent current inflation), but also get rid of tax exemptions (with the exception of those below the poverty line). So everyone will be taxed and treated equally. So single people won't be discriminated against, neither would the same sex, or the poly-amorous. Churches wouldn't be able to get out of paying taxes either!

http://www.forbes.com/2007/08/21/talbot-singles-discrimination-forbeslife-singles07_cx_lt_0821talbot.html

Libertartians like most viewpoints can be co-opted or corrupted. It's not black and white. its certainly not an homogenous entity. Libertarians come in many flavors. Bill Maher considers himself a Libertarian but falls more towards a left or democrat viewpoint, and is known for his anti-religion stance (sometimes going as far to say it would be better if all religion was banned). Glenn Beck considers himself a Libertarian but he falls more towards right conservative viewpoint! You'd think he was far right Republican! His fundamentilism and call to bring all churches together to control the government is dangerous.

Joe Lieberman is an Independent, and has voted on both sides of the field, but generally more democrat on social issues. But he is well liked and supported among many libertarians.

There are those like Penn Jillette and Teller who probably more towards the middle, but more fiscally conservative. But socially liberal. Both are active and voiceful Athiests. But they are also anti-Marxism and Socialism, but want freedoms for all types of people! As well as laxing the drug laws, making Marijuana open. They essential want true liberty and freedom, and less government intrusion on many issues.

Also remember 'libertarianism' has at least two different meantings. There is small 'l' and big 'L' libertarianism. One of which is 'classic liberal', more along the lines of the founding fathers. The other is an almost Anarcho-Capitalistic viewpoint, no government, free market money making (with zero regulations). It also means something different depending on which part of the world you belong to!

On a side note, did you know that right and left in some parts of the world have opposite meanings than in the US? The right party is more liberal, and left more consevative? Interesting trivia.

By the way this might be hard for you to believe but many Unions have become as corrupt as the corporations they used to fight against, or still fight against. Many have become ponzi schemes where only the top 1% in the union get benefits at the expense of those paying into the union. I don't think they need to be shut down, but some need to be reformed. Even Rohm Emmanual was forced to get hard with one of the unions in Illinois, and he is no right winger! Corruption needs to be rooted out of any organization be it a corporation or union. It's not a black and white issue.

As for people with disabilities, I believe they deserve to have anything that would make their life easier and closer to life without disabilities. However, in some places there has been corruption and healthy people are taking advantage of the system using placards they shouldn't have. So there needs to be more oversight, making sure only those who diserve the services receive the services and higher fines for those braking the law!

As for the social security net? I assume you mean Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid? From what I've seen officials on both sides have been their own worst enemy doing alot to destroy them from within! Many politicians both sides viewed it as an extra money source, and have funneled money from the systems to other projects! They have been depleting it for years. It's a broken system, and needs to be reformed, not eliminated. But I already suspect there will be no money in the system when I'm old enough to start using it. My generation, and your generation will probably have nothing. It's nearly bankrupt.