Politics itself is fine, it's all in the presentation. Hamfisted agenda pushing and quota-filling will be seen for what it is. I'm not sure Baldurs Gate was ever about politics, that's the thing. To me, it asked a very different, more fundamental set of questions.
The recent news posted here is that the scores on Steam vary between those who actually bought the game and those who didn't.
But why should that matter if, as has been pointed out, it's about the politics?
If we're talking about the difference between the ratings of SoD between people who played the game and people who didn't, the reason people find it significant is because the negative ratings came from people who never actually played the game--that is, the people who heard that it had some political message--and then gave a bad score to a game they never even played.
In other words, most of the bad ratings came from people who complained that a transgender character appeared in SoD, but knew absolutely nothing else about the game, because they hadn't played it. The mere existence of the character was offensive to them--that was the only thing they knew about the game.
It wasn't just objecting to the game because of some political issue. It was objecting to the game despite not having even played it.
But I don't think that's been brought up in this thread before you mentioned it. We've actually known for a long time that most of the negative reviews came from people who never played the game; that's not really recent news.
Another reason which I can still remember was that many felt alienated by SoD's take on Safana. Such as her personality switched by 360°, or like a completely different NPC altogether. Which is not surprising, given that all we saw from her in Baldur's Gate was a flirt who liked men as much as having three meals a day.
Just a pettiness; I do not agree that entering politics in a game is inevitable. There are loads upon loads of apolitical games. Angry birds, Tanks, Pac-Man, Super Mario etc etc etc. Then there are loads of while political political in a non-relatable way sort of way. I mean, it is relatable, it's just that it does not relate to like current politics sort of. Like Zelda, Faxanadu, FF6, Chrono Trigger etc etc etc. Then there are like semi-political games, like they are sort of political in a relevant way but still not at all offensive. Like GTA, FF7, Shadowrun, Half-Life 2 etc etc etc.
In fact, political games are a vast minority of all games out there. I have to struggle to think of some. Errr... oh yes of course! In COD: Black Ops you attempt to overthrow the regime in Cuba to install another US marionette, just like they did to Chile and Indonesia and Honduras. All of them brutal police states, existing for the sole purpose of funneling a nations natural resources to the military industrial complex while it's people languish in hunger. And the game is called Call of Duty! What can be more offensive than that? Imperialism is a DUTY!
Politics itself is fine, it's all in the presentation. Hamfisted agenda pushing and quota-filling will be seen for what it is. I'm not sure Baldurs Gate was ever about politics, that's the thing. To me, it asked a very different, more fundamental set of questions.
And this is something completely different and something I agree with.
There shouldn’t be a checkbox mentality of making sure there is a gay, lesbian, bi characters in a game. These are usually included for the romance options and Gaider even admitted on this forum that the romances were always tacked onto characters after the rest of them were written.
A character’s sexuality shouldn’t define the character, it should be a piece of it. A person’s sexuality should also not be brought up IMO unless it advances the story in some way.
Another reason which I can still remember was that many felt alienated by SoD's take on Safana. Such as her personality switched by 360°, or like a completely different NPC altogether. Which is not surprising, given that all we saw from her in Baldur's Gate was a flirt who liked men as much as having three meals a day.
I would argue that whatever "personality" Safana had in the original was entirely in the minds of the players to begin with, since all she had was a few audio files and a mildly-sultry portrait. I don't know how you can change something that barely existed to begin with. Most of the NPCs in the first BG are sketches at best.
Another reason which I can still remember was that many felt alienated by SoD's take on Safana. Such as her personality switched by 360°, or like a completely different NPC altogether. Which is not surprising, given that all we saw from her in Baldur's Gate was a flirt who liked men as much as having three meals a day.
I would argue that whatever "personality" Safana had in the original was entirely in the minds of the players to begin with, since all she had was a few audio files and a mildly-sultry portrait. I don't know how you can change something that barely existed to begin with. Most of the NPCs in the first BG are sketches at best.
Indeed. None of the original companions had any real personality to speak of. There however is a fine line between fleshing an already existing character out and burning what was already there from it to the ground. And this created a dissonance in not just a few people's mind.
Another reason which I can still remember was that many felt alienated by SoD's take on Safana. Such as her personality switched by 360°, or like a completely different NPC altogether. Which is not surprising, given that all we saw from her in Baldur's Gate was a flirt who liked men as much as having three meals a day.
I would argue that whatever "personality" Safana had in the original was entirely in the minds of the players to begin with, since all she had was a few audio files and a mildly-sultry portrait. I don't know how you can change something that barely existed to begin with. Most of the NPCs in the first BG are sketches at best.
Indeed. None of the original companions had any real personality to speak of. There however is a fine line between fleshing an already existing character out and burning what was already there from it to the ground. And this created a dissonance in not just a few people's mind.
How does one dteremine what interpretation is the true one though? SoD's characterization of Safana was spot on with what I always pictured her to be.
Another reason which I can still remember was that many felt alienated by SoD's take on Safana. Such as her personality switched by 360°, or like a completely different NPC altogether. Which is not surprising, given that all we saw from her in Baldur's Gate was a flirt who liked men as much as having three meals a day.
I would argue that whatever "personality" Safana had in the original was entirely in the minds of the players to begin with, since all she had was a few audio files and a mildly-sultry portrait. I don't know how you can change something that barely existed to begin with. Most of the NPCs in the first BG are sketches at best.
Indeed. None of the original companions had any real personality to speak of. There however is a fine line between fleshing an already existing character out and burning what was already there from it to the ground. And this created a dissonance in not just a few people's mind.
How does one dteremine what interpretation is the true one though? SoD's characterization of Safana was spot on with what I always pictured her to be.
I was just shocked enough people cared about what would be (let's be honest) MAYBE the 3rd most popular Thief option in the game to raise it as an issue. Most people at a bare minimum have already had the choice of Imoen or Montaron long before they reach her. The whole Safana argument seemed like it was tacked on after the fact when all the other arguments started falling apart. Whose childhood gaming experience was honestly defined by frickin' Safana??
Her personality is spot on but I just wish she didn't have so many voiced lines. Her voice just doesn't match what few lines Safana had in the original and makes her feel like a different character.
But I almost always dual class her to Mage in BG and take her along with me into SOD.
How does one dteremine what interpretation is the true one though? SoD's characterization of Safana was spot on with what I always pictured her to be.
Easy. The already existing dialoge from Baldur's Gate is a good start. She has been flirted with pretty much every single male companion, save for Xzar, Montaron and Tiax. Beamdog's writer at that time also had mentioned in an SoD interview (or was it the Beamblog?) that she was too "easy" for their taste and thus actively changed her character to her current state.
Honestly, the original Baldur's Gate is, to me, Political, or at least somewhat. Stirring up trouble between states/countries with the goal of making a profit from the war they are going to wage? Yeah, that has a political bent right there. I mean, it's political between the countries involved. Sarevok is playing Politics with the countries involved, putting them on a path to war. For his Dad, it's to sell weapons from the Iron Throne. For Sarevok, it's to cause enough death to become the next Lord of Murder. I can't see how this *isn't* Political. You might even tie it to stuff in the real world, like how mercenary companies make profits off of wars in our world (Like Blackwater/Xe industries). Admittedly, the game came out before 9/11, but it's still a political plot.
The second game is far *less* political. (BG2), which eschews politics in favor of the more personal aspects of CHARNAME's fight to avoid being murderized by Bhaalspawn inimical to him and retain agency and free will. In the end s/he ends up having to make a choice s/he may have never wanted to make-be a God/dess or give it up to live life as a human/elf/whatever.
But saying BG isn't political? I'm not buying it. There's more to political than some character's sexuality. If you want to play a game where, as my friends say, you are nothing but a 'murder hobo', that's fine. But some people want a deeper story.
Her personality is spot on but I just wish she didn't have so many voiced lines. Her voice just doesn't match what few lines Safana had in the original and makes her feel like a different character.
But I almost always dual class her to Mage in BG and take her along with me into SOD.
Her voice acting is atrocious. It completely ruined the character imo, not the writing.
Another reason which I can still remember was that many felt alienated by SoD's take on Safana. Such as her personality switched by 360°, or like a completely different NPC altogether. Which is not surprising, given that all we saw from her in Baldur's Gate was a flirt who liked men as much as having three meals a day.
I would argue that whatever "personality" Safana had in the original was entirely in the minds of the players to begin with, since all she had was a few audio files and a mildly-sultry portrait. I don't know how you can change something that barely existed to begin with. Most of the NPCs in the first BG are sketches at best.
Indeed. None of the original companions had any real personality to speak of. There however is a fine line between fleshing an already existing character out and burning what was already there from it to the ground. And this created a dissonance in not just a few people's mind.
How does one dteremine what interpretation is the true one though? SoD's characterization of Safana was spot on with what I always pictured her to be.
I was just shocked enough people cared about what would be (let's be honest) MAYBE the 3rd most popular Thief option in the game to raise it as an issue. Most people at a bare minimum have already had the choice of Imoen or Montaron long before they reach her. The whole Safana argument seemed like it was tacked on after the fact when all the other arguments started falling apart. Whose childhood gaming experience was honestly defined by frickin' Safana??
She became the third, to the only option (besides Glint) and that was also a problem. It felt like she was forced on the party.
How does one dteremine what interpretation is the true one though? SoD's characterization of Safana was spot on with what I always pictured her to be.
Easy. The already existing dialoge from Baldur's Gate is a good start. She has been flirted with pretty much every single male companion, save for Xzar, Montaron and Tiax. Beamdog's writer at that time also had mentioned in an SoD interview (or was it the Beamblog?) that she was too "easy" for their taste and thus actively changed her character to her current state.
Um, how exactly did they change this aspect of her? She is still a huge flirt and the ONLY female romance option that cheats on you.
@deltago I'm pretty sure they got the original voice actress back. Also, how is she forced on you? You have Glint to choose from (who is an AMAZING character). You could also just not use a thief. You have her in the intro, but I'm pretty sure you can still dismiss her. You never have to use her.
@LadyRhian Heck BG2 is still pretty political. The entire crisis of the first act is brought about by group sanctioned by the government to lock up citizens without a trial and ZERO overhead. It comes up a few times that the council of Amn is in the pocket of slavers. The Sahuagin city has you leading a coup or supporting the legitimate monarch. Even the entire Underdark is based around navigating Drow politics. Heck, the ENTIRE GAME'S PLOT only exists because of elven politics and how they chose to punish a crime.
I mean, if you want to play a game completely devoid of politics, I can think of maybe a couple. The original Doom 1 & 2 probably. Maybe Myst and other world/puzzle games?? But hell, even Duke Nukem was making SOME kind of political statement with it's over-the-top satire of violence. Same thing with Grand Theft Auto. I have no problem with any of those games. As long as they are done right. Duke Nukem 3D is a great game. Duke Nukem Forever is worthless trash. They are both tasteless, but the spirit of the tastelessness is completely different.
There is a huge difference between the rape scene of Jodie Foster's character in "The Accused" and the one in the re-make of "The Hills Have Eyes". The former can be defended, the later made me want to shut off the movie.
Pushing the envelope or being "anti-PC" is fine depending on the context of how it is delivered. In the examples I'm giving, the first Duke Nukem game is just over-the-top fun, it's hard to be truly offended by something so tongue in cheek. Duke Nukem Forever is just flat-out mean spirited. As for the movies, the scene in "The Accused" is brutally tough to watch, but at least it can be argued it contributes positively to a serious movie about rape. The scene in "The Hills Have Eyes" is pointless and disgusting.
Um, how exactly did they change this aspect of her? She is still a huge flirt and the ONLY female romance option that cheats on you.
You have to ask Beamdog directly for that, I'm afraid. I only roughly remember this bit of information was a major part in one of Amber Scott's interviews/blog posts/ect... it's been a couple of years since then. So all I can remember is that Beamdog didn't want to re-establish Safana as a nymphomaniac and thus made her more to their liking by toning down her appetite for men. Or something along those lines. *shrugs*
Either way, all I'm saying is that this was one of the complains about SoD back then.
Um, how exactly did they change this aspect of her? She is still a huge flirt and the ONLY female romance option that cheats on you.
You have to ask Beamdog directly for that, I'm afraid. I only roughly remember this bit of information was a major part in one of Amber Scott's interviews/blog posts/ect... it's been a couple of years since then. So all I can remember is that Beamdog didn't want to re-establish Safana as a nymphomaniac and thus made her more to their liking by toning down her appetite for men. Or something along those lines. *shrugs*
Either way, all I'm saying is that this was one of the complains about SoD back then.
So, if no one can even tell how she was changed, what's the point of complaining about it?
“If there was something for the original Baldur’s Gate that just doesn’t mesh for modern day gamers like the sexism, [we tried to address that],” said writer Amber Scott. “In the original there’s a lot of jokes at women’s expense. Or if not a lot, there’s a couple, like Safana was just a sex object in BG 1, and Jaheira was the nagging wife and that was played for comedy. We were able to say, ‘No, that’s not really the kind of story we want to make.’ In Siege of Dragonspear, Safana gets her own little storyline, she got a way better personality upgrade. If people don’t like that, then too bad.”
“I got to write a little tender, romance-y side quest for Khalid and Jaheira where you could learn a little bit about how their marriage works and how they really feel about each other.”
As I've said before (and I won't say much more on this subject other than to get my perspective out there):
I'm the writer and creator. I get to make decisions about who I write about and why.
I don't like writing about straight/white/cis people all the time. It's not reflective of the real world, it sets up s/w/c as the "normal" baseline from which "other" characters must be added, and it's boring.
I consciously add as much diversity as I can to my writing and I don't care if people think that's "forced" or fake. I find choosing to write from a straight default just as artificial. I'm happy to be an SJW and I hope to write many Social Justice Games in the future that reach as many different types of people as possible. Everyone should get a chance to see themselves reflected in pop culture.
Um, how exactly did they change this aspect of her? She is still a huge flirt and the ONLY female romance option that cheats on you.
You have to ask Beamdog directly for that, I'm afraid. I only roughly remember this bit of information was a major part in one of Amber Scott's interviews/blog posts/ect... it's been a couple of years since then. So all I can remember is that Beamdog didn't want to re-establish Safana as a nymphomaniac and thus made her more to their liking by toning down her appetite for men. Or something along those lines. *shrugs*
Either way, all I'm saying is that this was one of the complains about SoD back then.
So, if no one can even tell how she was changed, what's the point of complaining about it?
Because humans always must have something to complain over? Especially if there is no point to it?
Politics itself is fine, it's all in the presentation. Hamfisted agenda pushing and quota-filling will be seen for what it is. I'm not sure Baldurs Gate was ever about politics, that's the thing. To me, it asked a very different, more fundamental set of questions.
I have no dog in this race, but Baldur's Gate 1's central plot is about geopolitical war for profit and personal gain, if you want to be specific
Depending on how you look at it, politics are everywhere in fiction. George Lucas has said that the first Star Wars movie was inspired by his views on the Vietnam war. While Revenge of the Sith was influenced by the "with us or against us" perspective of the Bush administration.
Medieval 2 Total War had a lot of satire of the catholic church. Skyrim has themes of oppression, nationalism and imperialism. And BG2 has themes like prejudice and racism with characters like Mazzy, Keldorn and Viconia. Not to mention comments on prostitution and sex trafficking. As well as all the things @ThacoBell mentioned. Considering how people react to new games these days, you could even say it's a political thing that you can choose to play a female character and choose your own skin color, sigh (just to be clear: I wouldn't consider that a political thing, just like being gay is not political. But women in games, and especially poc women, do make the internet boil, unfortunately).
So I don't think SoD stands out that much in that regard. Except it came out in an era where the "with us or against us" thing has come back in full force.
Honestly, I wish more creators/writers/authors of fictional entertainment mediums would take the stance Amber Scott did. Purchasing a game or being a fan of a series does not make you Annie Wilkes in "Misery", able to dictate the direction and tone of the story retroactively. For instance, I used to think "The Walking Dead" was a good show. I now think it has devolved into one of the worst and most boring things on television. I will express my opinion, which is that it has gone on way too long and is now almost unwatchable, and make my bigger point that the best TV dramas should have an ending in mind so they know where the story needs to go. And.........that's it. I'm not going to organize an internet troll mob to tank it's review scores or start some uprising on a forum. I'm not going to call for the jobs of the people involved in making it.
I think the "Warcraft" movie was one of the worst I have seen in the last decade. I don't think the people at Blizzard who gave it the greenlight should be burned at the stake. Duncan Jones should definitely make more movies. I mean hell, Spielberg made "War of the Worlds" and Scorsese made "Shutter Island", which are both terrible. And they are probably two of the greatest directors to ever live. No one gets a hit every time they come to the plate (well, maybe the Velvet Underground, but they only had 4 at-bats). Even the Beatles and the Rolling Stones in the realm of popular music, who both had 4-6 year win streaks where they could do no wrong eventually slipped up and released a dud.
The moment a creator starts writing for other people is usually the point where things stop becoming interesting and the work just starts to look like it came off the assembly line. See Call of Duty. Who the hell can even distinguish which of those games is which anymore aside from slight graphical upgrades?? There is a reason second-hand sports titles sell for basically pocket change at game shops. Because they have nothing in mind but meeting the lowest common denominator expectations of fans.
The way I see it, is that it wasn't so much her writings that caused problems for Beamdog back then. But the way how she worded the publicity of SoD. That being said, it's entirely understandable to have a personal stance about ones own work. I even wholeheartly approve of it. But that doesn't mean it's a smart idea to openly disregard customer opinions... even if their opinions are contradicting to ones own. Such things will always end up with backlashes in the world of business marketing. Sad, but true.
Whatever the cause, no one likes to have their own opinion denounced by another. Which is also the reason as to why corporations world wide plan their marketing strategy very carefully. Given that riled up customers mean lots and lots of trouble. And this is something every corporation wants to avoid at all cost.
For what it's worth to this topic, I first encountered the term "SJW" about four years ago, when someone else on this forum called me one in response to a post I made. I had no idea what it meant.
What happened was that someone from Australia posted links to a series of Let's Play multiplayer videos where one of them was doing a caricature of an Asian, with a very insulting exaggerated accent that has been used for a long time to insult and belittle anyone of Asian descent. I posted that I thought it was wrong for him to make fun of Asians like that, and he argued back at first that I should get over myself, but then he started trying to explain Australian culture and to basically defend that it was harmless for him to make fun of Asians struggling with their English because Australians like to exchange insults of all kinds. "Taking the p*ss" he called it.
Things became really heated when a female Asian forum member came in and said she had been sexually assaulted by a group of men who spoke to her with that same mocking Asian accent while they were doing it. I tried to be on her side and show support and sympathy, although she was a strong, mature, woman who didn't need any protecting from me.
While all this was going on, a third forum member dropped in and called me an SJW. He said nothing more, just that. The entire post was "SJW? ^"
When I looked up what it meant, I found the Wikipedia definition of the pejorative use of the term, and it was obvious that that's what was meant in the context I was dealing with.
So, I defended myself against the accusation in the thread, saying I resented the implication that I was being a hypocrite or that I was just trying to get attention by speaking out against what I saw as racial bigotry.
The forum member who called me an SJW apologized and deleted his post, which surprised me.
Then Dee banned the Australian guy with the Let's Plays insulting Asians from the forum, which surprised me even more. I said I had never intended to get the Australian guy banned, as he was being fairly reasonable, and showed signs of being willing to learn to be a better person. But the decision stood.
That was my first experience with what the "SJW" movement is all about and what it means. I see problems on both sides. That is, racial injustice and sexual assault are important issues, and bigotry should be challenged wherever good people see or hear it, but "SJW's" do tend to rush to harsh judgment without giving the offending person a chance to change, and will label someone an evil bigot at the drop of a hat, without ample cause or evidence, often ironically leading to social injustice being committed against more conservative or less experienced, educated, or enlightened people. You win hearts and minds with kind words and calm reasoning, not angry attacks, insults, and confrontations.
I mean, it is relatable, it's just that it does not relate to like current politics sort of. Like Zelda, Faxanadu, FF6, Chrono Trigger etc etc etc. Then there are like semi-political games, like they are sort of political in a relevant way but still not at all offensive. Like GTA, FF7, Shadowrun, Half-Life 2 etc etc etc.
Strictly speaking, I dont think this is correct. Politics in a video game isnt reduced only to overt discussion of current (or former) political topics within the world. For example - FF6's two "main" characters are women. In an industry (and societies) in which women are far less frequently the main character of any particular media narrative. There's also attempted suicide, betrayal, etc.
You may not evaluate those things as being necessarily "political" at first glance, but then - there are people who are angry that you can choose to be a woman as the main protagonist in Assassins Creed Odyssey. They see that as political, because in a fashion - it is (I dont think it makes the develops "SJW" though). Edit: To clarify, I mean the opportunity of equality is.
Since politics invariably informs our personal bias, and because politicians (as well as people in general) have injected morality in politics, any game with significant morality systems or with morality decisions like Mass Effect, as inherently somewhat political.
I'd say your best bet for non political gaming is to look at sports games in general, or games that somewhat lack a strong centralized narrative so they arent pulled into political thinking (Tetris, etc).
Comments
In other words, most of the bad ratings came from people who complained that a transgender character appeared in SoD, but knew absolutely nothing else about the game, because they hadn't played it. The mere existence of the character was offensive to them--that was the only thing they knew about the game.
It wasn't just objecting to the game because of some political issue. It was objecting to the game despite not having even played it.
But I don't think that's been brought up in this thread before you mentioned it. We've actually known for a long time that most of the negative reviews came from people who never played the game; that's not really recent news.
In fact, political games are a vast minority of all games out there. I have to struggle to think of some. Errr... oh yes of course! In COD: Black Ops you attempt to overthrow the regime in Cuba to install another US marionette, just like they did to Chile and Indonesia and Honduras. All of them brutal police states, existing for the sole purpose of funneling a nations natural resources to the military industrial complex while it's people languish in hunger. And the game is called Call of Duty! What can be more offensive than that? Imperialism is a DUTY!
There shouldn’t be a checkbox mentality of making sure there is a gay, lesbian, bi characters in a game. These are usually included for the romance options and Gaider even admitted on this forum that the romances were always tacked onto characters after the rest of them were written.
A character’s sexuality shouldn’t define the character, it should be a piece of it. A person’s sexuality should also not be brought up IMO unless it advances the story in some way.
@deltago
I agree, being gay is not political.
Equality is.
But I almost always dual class her to Mage in BG and take her along with me into SOD.
The second game is far *less* political. (BG2), which eschews politics in favor of the more personal aspects of CHARNAME's fight to avoid being murderized by Bhaalspawn inimical to him and retain agency and free will. In the end s/he ends up having to make a choice s/he may have never wanted to make-be a God/dess or give it up to live life as a human/elf/whatever.
But saying BG isn't political? I'm not buying it. There's more to political than some character's sexuality. If you want to play a game where, as my friends say, you are nothing but a 'murder hobo', that's fine. But some people want a deeper story.
@deltago I'm pretty sure they got the original voice actress back. Also, how is she forced on you? You have Glint to choose from (who is an AMAZING character). You could also just not use a thief. You have her in the intro, but I'm pretty sure you can still dismiss her. You never have to use her.
@LadyRhian Heck BG2 is still pretty political. The entire crisis of the first act is brought about by group sanctioned by the government to lock up citizens without a trial and ZERO overhead. It comes up a few times that the council of Amn is in the pocket of slavers. The Sahuagin city has you leading a coup or supporting the legitimate monarch. Even the entire Underdark is based around navigating Drow politics. Heck, the ENTIRE GAME'S PLOT only exists because of elven politics and how they chose to punish a crime.
There is a huge difference between the rape scene of Jodie Foster's character in "The Accused" and the one in the re-make of "The Hills Have Eyes". The former can be defended, the later made me want to shut off the movie.
Pushing the envelope or being "anti-PC" is fine depending on the context of how it is delivered. In the examples I'm giving, the first Duke Nukem game is just over-the-top fun, it's hard to be truly offended by something so tongue in cheek. Duke Nukem Forever is just flat-out mean spirited. As for the movies, the scene in "The Accused" is brutally tough to watch, but at least it can be argued it contributes positively to a serious movie about rape. The scene in "The Hills Have Eyes" is pointless and disgusting.
Either way, all I'm saying is that this was one of the complains about SoD back then.
win buttonwand of fire, you mean.“I got to write a little tender, romance-y side quest for Khalid and Jaheira where you could learn a little bit about how their marriage works and how they really feel about each other.”
From: https://kotaku.com/the-struggle-to-bring-back-baldur-s-gate-after-17-years-1768303595
That was the trigger and the rally call.
Then there was this: From: https://forums.beamdog.com/discussion/42770/debate-something-for-the-gaymers
Those were the two the riled up people the most. “What do you mean you don’t care what our opinion is?”
Because humans always must have something to complain over? Especially if there is no point to it?
Medieval 2 Total War had a lot of satire of the catholic church. Skyrim has themes of oppression, nationalism and imperialism. And BG2 has themes like prejudice and racism with characters like Mazzy, Keldorn and Viconia. Not to mention comments on prostitution and sex trafficking. As well as all the things @ThacoBell mentioned. Considering how people react to new games these days, you could even say it's a political thing that you can choose to play a female character and choose your own skin color, sigh (just to be clear: I wouldn't consider that a political thing, just like being gay is not political. But women in games, and especially poc women, do make the internet boil, unfortunately).
So I don't think SoD stands out that much in that regard. Except it came out in an era where the "with us or against us" thing has come back in full force.
I think the "Warcraft" movie was one of the worst I have seen in the last decade. I don't think the people at Blizzard who gave it the greenlight should be burned at the stake. Duncan Jones should definitely make more movies. I mean hell, Spielberg made "War of the Worlds" and Scorsese made "Shutter Island", which are both terrible. And they are probably two of the greatest directors to ever live. No one gets a hit every time they come to the plate (well, maybe the Velvet Underground, but they only had 4 at-bats). Even the Beatles and the Rolling Stones in the realm of popular music, who both had 4-6 year win streaks where they could do no wrong eventually slipped up and released a dud.
The moment a creator starts writing for other people is usually the point where things stop becoming interesting and the work just starts to look like it came off the assembly line. See Call of Duty. Who the hell can even distinguish which of those games is which anymore aside from slight graphical upgrades?? There is a reason second-hand sports titles sell for basically pocket change at game shops. Because they have nothing in mind but meeting the lowest common denominator expectations of fans.
Whatever the cause, no one likes to have their own opinion denounced by another. Which is also the reason as to why corporations world wide plan their marketing strategy very carefully. Given that riled up customers mean lots and lots of trouble. And this is something every corporation wants to avoid at all cost.
What happened was that someone from Australia posted links to a series of Let's Play multiplayer videos where one of them was doing a caricature of an Asian, with a very insulting exaggerated accent that has been used for a long time to insult and belittle anyone of Asian descent. I posted that I thought it was wrong for him to make fun of Asians like that, and he argued back at first that I should get over myself, but then he started trying to explain Australian culture and to basically defend that it was harmless for him to make fun of Asians struggling with their English because Australians like to exchange insults of all kinds. "Taking the p*ss" he called it.
Things became really heated when a female Asian forum member came in and said she had been sexually assaulted by a group of men who spoke to her with that same mocking Asian accent while they were doing it. I tried to be on her side and show support and sympathy, although she was a strong, mature, woman who didn't need any protecting from me.
While all this was going on, a third forum member dropped in and called me an SJW. He said nothing more, just that. The entire post was "SJW? ^"
When I looked up what it meant, I found the Wikipedia definition of the pejorative use of the term, and it was obvious that that's what was meant in the context I was dealing with.
So, I defended myself against the accusation in the thread, saying I resented the implication that I was being a hypocrite or that I was just trying to get attention by speaking out against what I saw as racial bigotry.
The forum member who called me an SJW apologized and deleted his post, which surprised me.
Then Dee banned the Australian guy with the Let's Plays insulting Asians from the forum, which surprised me even more. I said I had never intended to get the Australian guy banned, as he was being fairly reasonable, and showed signs of being willing to learn to be a better person. But the decision stood.
That was my first experience with what the "SJW" movement is all about and what it means. I see problems on both sides. That is, racial injustice and sexual assault are important issues, and bigotry should be challenged wherever good people see or hear it, but "SJW's" do tend to rush to harsh judgment without giving the offending person a chance to change, and will label someone an evil bigot at the drop of a hat, without ample cause or evidence, often ironically leading to social injustice being committed against more conservative or less experienced, educated, or enlightened people. You win hearts and minds with kind words and calm reasoning, not angry attacks, insults, and confrontations.
Strictly speaking, I dont think this is correct. Politics in a video game isnt reduced only to overt discussion of current (or former) political topics within the world. For example - FF6's two "main" characters are women. In an industry (and societies) in which women are far less frequently the main character of any particular media narrative. There's also attempted suicide, betrayal, etc.
You may not evaluate those things as being necessarily "political" at first glance, but then - there are people who are angry that you can choose to be a woman as the main protagonist in Assassins Creed Odyssey. They see that as political, because in a fashion - it is (I dont think it makes the develops "SJW" though). Edit: To clarify, I mean the opportunity of equality is.
Since politics invariably informs our personal bias, and because politicians (as well as people in general) have injected morality in politics, any game with significant morality systems or with morality decisions like Mass Effect, as inherently somewhat political.
I'd say your best bet for non political gaming is to look at sports games in general, or games that somewhat lack a strong centralized narrative so they arent pulled into political thinking (Tetris, etc).