Confirmed: Andromeda is socialist commentary about current world-events

"enlighted view"? I think that might be your own biases showing. Perhaps you are not as comfortable with your own views has you think.

Most Sci-Fi presents its audience with the message of the writer and it's up to the audience to take that onboard or not.  It is the opinion of the writer or the thought experiment of the writer, they might present their idea as the one that works in their universe but that doesn't mean the audience must accept it.

The Forever War, for example, is an anti-war novel, that has some interesting ideas on how humanity would use technology to deal with over population and how space travel would affect us. Joe Haldeman is presenting his view on war through this novel, you don't have to agree with this view on war to enjoy his work, ultimately his view is that war will become unnecessary and the end of the novel reflects this. I suppose you could call this the "enlighted view" but again I would say that would reflect more on you, Haldeman is simple using a story to present his opinion, like so many writers. 

The opposite side to this would be 'Starship Troopers' which glorifies war, but can also be enjoyed whether or not you agree with that glorification of war. Again Heinlein view is presented within the story and it's up to the reader to decide if they agree with it or which parts they agree with. In fact Starship Troopers is a hotly debated novel because several elements of it can be interpreted in several different ways, highlighting that Heinlein had a good grip on the complexities of war. 

Game writers may also present their opinion within their work or use their work to provide a window into a world not many people understand. In fact games are uniquely positioned to provide some really great experiences. If we wish game writing to evolve and become better then we must allow this to occur without kneejerk reactions. Our criticisms can be provided once we have something to actually criticise.

Again I say that gamers are far to unaccepting of this natural part of writing. this attitude will stifle the medium. 

This is what I'm talking about. The unwillingness of some people to immerse themselves in the story the writers want to tell or the experience they want the player to have because some parts of it might conflict with their views.

Games have the ability to provide a player with an experience they can't get anywhere else. They could show you want it's like to be blind, be a refugee or a soldier who commits a war crime but all of these amazing experiences put players outside of their comfort zone and players can't have that because they because it's 'inflicting' too much on them.  

...

I'm pretty sure that all this nonsense you're talking about is not what Socialism means.

I'm still having trouble picturing what you're actually asking for. Could you give a couple of examples of stuff you'd want changed?

There's nothing to suggest we must play as an invading horde, unless you equate any migration with an invasion. There's also no reason that a socialist society couldn't be an invading horde if it wanted to, unless you equate socialism with pacifism.

(@all: this topic has nothing to do with actual socialism, but it appears to be a part of what the OP was talking about)

The difference is, some games' stories are descriptive and let you act in different ways towards the social problems presented. Take "The Witcher 3", for instance. You have rampant racism against demi-humans and mages are persecuted in Novigrad to the point of being burnt at the stake. As Geralt, you can occasionally help, as when you're called to help the remaining mages escape. You can also ignore the problem. Since you get to experience more interesting content if you do help, I guess most players will involve themselves, but at no time does the game attempt to prescribe some morality. If you react naturally to people's suffering, you'll get there on your own. The story also doesn't cushion the impact of these things, it doesn't attempt to make your game a "safe space" but shows the world how it is. To add to that, this game presents more competent and confident women than, say, DAI, in a world where this is decidedly unusual. So I think TW3 presents certain social issues in a realistically complex, compelling manner, while being being not at all condescending.

Meanwhile, games like DAI tend to be prescriptive. Not only aren't you allowed to be dismissive of the social issues presented, the world itself feels sanitized to be a safe space, and thus decidedly artificial. The most you get to experience racism is if you're playing as an elf and visit the Orlesian court. It's all in the words though, and nothing is actually shown. Which means at the same time you're presented with the fact, you'll likely not take it seriously. Also, there were never African-looking (as opposed to simply dark-skinned) characters in Thedas, but suddenly there are. Isabela in DA2 never came across as artificial - her people were introduced along with Duncan in DAO - but that African-looking templar surely did, at least to me (as opposed to ME2, since this was supposed to be the future of *our* world so naturally there would be people like Jacob in it). DAI comes across as a game where world consistency and a reasonable level of realism is sacrificed on the altar of inclusiveness.

Maybe it's just me, but for me it's way more satisfying to act against social problems in a meaningful way in a world where they exist. I find it immensely satisfying to avenge my raped friends as a female elf in the City Elf origin in DAI, I find it satisfying to help the mages in TW3 and pair up with Yennefer, an impressive woman who's so competent and powerful that she overshadows the protagonist at times. Meanwhile, those players who don't want to be confronted with things like people burned or raped I can call only whiny. If a game gives you the opportunity to act against these issues decisively, that's a more powerful message than presenting an artificial world where they don't have any discernible impact in spite of everyone saying they're a big problem.

You're free, of course, to create a world where these problems do not exist, and maybe that's a message in itself, but such a world has to be created from the start to be that way, and no plot element can realistically deal with the issues since, well, they don't exist. DA wasn't created that way - just play DAO - and to make a world where racism and persecution of minorities are widespread, but then, years later, write a story in the same world where you never feel their impact as a player because of a misguided attempt at being inclusive, that's intellectually dishonest. I would like MEA to follow TW3's example in this rather than DAI's, but I'm afraid it won't be so. 

@alan9:
Perhaps this also answers the question you asked @dropsofcrimzon.

A lot of games have "every day tropes + pushed agenda's" within their worlds. Personally, I play games to escape the realities of real life, especially socialism and in particular feminism. The "hero archetype" may be regurgitated beyond belief but is still the main reason people play games. Socialism just packages that "hero archetype" in a lot of nonsensical words so it sounds cool and not recognized but still has the same function, give a surge in dopamine so you feel good.

How does a random black templar or Vivianne pull you out of the game though? They are introduced in the same way as Ducan and Isabela. They are just there. What is the difference between the inclusion of these different characters? Why is Duncan's dark skin ok and a black templar is not?


This is ultimately what happened but she went to the Crones to get a potion/ritual for an abortion (the beating coincides with her losing the talisman that protects her from the Crones magic) and this was treated as her doing something bad. 


Honestly the fact that you don't seem to be consistent in what you think is heavy handed and what you think isn't,  makes me think that you decide on the fly, based on the social issues at the time. Which is fine, but not a great way of measuring things. 

I'm Irish, we have even more restrictive abortion laws than Poland.  And that is my point the perspective of the player colours their perception of the messages within a game and so devs shouldn't try to create a homogeneous message that everyone will like and players should be more willing to have their opinions or experiences challenged or at least not always catered too. (Not even Europe is as homogeneous has you are suggesting see the Spanish MEP, just laying into the sexist Polish MEP) 

One person's outlook could mean that a message is heavy handed, but another person's outlook could mean they miss the undertone or allegory altogether.

This doesn't actually explain why black people in Inquisition are somehow immersion-breaking, especially since the previous engine couldn't even render them properly.

I agree, but that's not what Bioware is doing most of the time. They treat most topics as black and white. Don't get me wrong there are topics where there is a clear moral choice (racism for example), but those are rare. That's why I think CD Project did a way better job regarding most undertones in the Witcher, like the Abortion thing which is as Grey as it gets. It didn't feel condescending at all to me.

I am german myself and think our laws are pretty solid in that regard. I am pro choice but I can understand the other side to some extent. It all comes down to what you value more, bodily integrity or (not yet fully developed) human life. I can't see a good or evil choice there.