• Jomega@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 months ago

        Pac man disrespects the dead by eating ghosts, which is considered highly disrespectful in cultures that practice ancestor worship. What’s more, Pac man has a wife who is explicitly shown to be as capable as he is, to the point where the only real difference between them is that Mrs Pac man has a bow and lipstick. A bold statement on gender roles if I’ve ever seen one. In summary, this game is a feminist masterpiece that pokes fun at superstitious conservative countries. Truly a thought provoking piece that will be remembered in the same vein as other great provocative works, such as A Modest Proposal or the movie Borat.

      • parlaptie@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 months ago

        Pac-man was made specifically to appeal to women, a demographic that was rarely targeted with video games at that time. Its core design came right out of the idea that “women like to eat”.

        Is this feminist-misogynist sandwich political enough for you?

    • paperemail@links.rocksOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

      I’ve always wanted to play it, but I never have. Same for all of the metal gear games, lol.

      If only I could play them on PS5 :(

    • TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

      The Metal Gear franchise is political from the beginning. No one really batted an eye because everyone can get behind the “screw the government”, “fuck Illuminati”, “fuck corporations” and at the first game everyone cheers on killing a duciplitous warlord.

    • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

      And is another fucking case where people who played it rooted for the villain, and missed the point.

      • JusticeForPorygon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        I yearn for the day where I meet someone who tries to justify the actions of possibly the single most cartoonishly evil villain in entertainment history.

        Maybe second only to the original Thanos, who wiped out half of all life in the universe not to bring balance, but because he was horny.

    • DarkMessiah@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      I guarantee you that’s where Turnip’s team got the slogan. Some unpaid internet played the game and mentioned it as Orange was walking by.

      • Yeeah, by the time Trump used it, it was a cliché slogan for cinematic hard-right-wing movements and political parties in America. I think the one in The Purge is Keeping America Great

        So it was a clue during the campaign that Trump was meaning to do a literal fascism.

      • chatokun@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 months ago

        It was a Reagan campaign, and people like Roger Stone and Steve Pieczenick were involved. Listening to him on Knowledge Fight covering Infowars, they aren’t in touch enough to know video game references, unfortunately, since that would have been hilarious.

      • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 months ago

        It originated from Reagan who took it from Thatcher, with Reagan not getting the “Make Britan Great Again” pun works because Great Britain is the name of the English portion of the UK

        • MBM@lemmings.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          8 months ago

          Great Brittain is the big island that England, Scotland and Wales lie on, but yes it’s dumb that Reagan just lost the pun

  • lugal@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 months ago

    It’s not about killing the king. The king can never be killed. It’s about keeping him in check until he can’t move anymore

    • Formesse@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

      It’s also worth noting the term is “capture”. And outside of rare instance - you didn’t really want to kill knights and the like: You captured them, and ransomed them back to their family/liege lord etc.

      And there is a reason the term “Kings Ransom” exists. John the II of France for instance was captured, and Ransomed for something like 300000 gold coins of the day - something like 300 million or up to about 3 billion in today’s dollars (conversion is a little fuzzy but to put it simply: A BLOODY TONNE OF MONEY).

      • wieson@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 months ago

        The term “check mate” literally means “the king is dead”.

        We know the word for king from other known forms like “sheikh” or “Shah”. I don’t think the word for “dead” was loaned to English from Persian or Arab in any phrases or sayings except “check mate”.

        Yeah, but it’s about killing the king. It’s also about protecting your own king, so not a game of republicanism.

        • Pipoca@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          8 months ago

          Apparently that might or might not be a mistranslation?

          https://www.etymonline.com/word/checkmate

          mid-14c., in chess, said of a king when it is in check and cannot escape it, from Old French eschec mat (Modern French échec et mat), which (with Spanish jaque y mate, Italian scacco-matto) is from Arabic shah mat “the king died” (see check (n.1)), which according to Barnhart is a misinterpretation of Persian mat “be astonished” as mata “to die,” mat “he is dead.” Hence Persian shah mat, if it is the ultimate source of the word, would be literally “the king is left helpless, the king is stumped.”

  • CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 months ago

    If chess were a new game released today, I imagine a lot of these “why’d they make it political” types would probably object to the fact that the most powerful character in the game is the only one that’s clearly stated to be a woman.

    • Farid@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

      Well, originally, the piece is Vizier - king’s advisor, the gender of which isn’t specified. (but implied to be male?)

      • grue@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 months ago

        So what you’re saying is that switching it from Vizier to Queen isn’t about progressive feminism, but instead about monogamy and heteronormative gender roles? Way to ruin it for everybody! 😠

        • Farid@startrek.website
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          8 months ago

          Idk if I’m saying that, but it’s definitely woke. They should’ve came up with a new character instead of just gender-swapping an existing one!

          • B1naryB0t@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            8 months ago

            The Vizier also only moved one space at a time, like the king but without significant importance. It wasn’t until the French changed the Queen in the 1600s to move as far as she wants that she was liberated from the shackles of the patriarchy.

      • Malgas@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 months ago

        The wazir only moved a single space horizontally or vertically.

        The name change from wazir to queen started as early as the 10th century, but the current move set dates from the late 15th century.

          • Malgas@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            8 months ago

            But we’re talking about that piece as the most powerful in the game, which happened in Europe, where it had been called a queen for hundreds of years.

    • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      Well, not if chess were created today, the way it was created originally. It took until 997 for The Queen to replace The Chancellor/Minister, and even then she could only move one square diagonally only. It took till the 1400’s for her to gain a flying mount, or whatever the explanation is for her current OP movement status.

      Bishops replaced Elephants in the 1200s, but could only move 2 squares, diagonally, at a time.

  • SrTobi@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 months ago

    Chess does not involve politics, because there is no decision making in groups. The chess in Harry potter where the pieces can talk to you… That has politics

  • mindbleach@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 months ago

    The only apolitical video game is Tetris, and its export history is Cliff’s Notes for cold-war economic shenanigans.

  • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 months ago

    The Fallout community is ludicrous with this. New Vegas is one of the most politically charged games in recent years, and yet chuds think it’s somehow not extremely anticapitalist and pro-leftist.

      • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 months ago

        The NCR is both Capitalist and Imperialist, the fact that the people of the Mojave don’t want the Neoliberal expansionist empire or the fascist gang of slavers is more to the general leftist, almost Anarchist slant.

        It’s only centrist if you consider the NCR as the end of the spectrum, and not just a lesser of two right wing evils.

    • WindowsEnjoyer@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

      “The Finals” has different approach - you, as a real person, play video game, in which you control a character while in inner “virtual reality”.

      Or you know - controlling a virtual character to kill other virtual characters isn’t so bad, isn’t it? 😅

  • Dr. Coomer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 months ago

    You want a game about politics? Play fallout new vegas. Yes, there is no true government, but the whole game is about factions trying to establish themselves like a government.

    • TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

      And a random courier is somehow trusted to be the kingmaker. Which is more strange considering that I roleplayed as a kind of mercenary playing all sides until there comes the fork on the road where I had to choose which faction to give my full support.

      • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 months ago

        The player character isn’t really trusted to play kingmaker, they just do regardless, and because the balance of power is fragile, the Courier is the tipping point for the scales.

        • TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          8 months ago

          I would have liked if Obsidian had put consequences of having helped the enemy in certain quests. Mr House knew I put bug into his building, helped NCR or the Legion, but he did nothing. Had Obsidian gotten more time to polish the game, they probably would have wrote script of Mr House punishing me for being a triple agent.

          • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            8 months ago

            Not quite what you’re asking for, but the mod The Living Desert adds far more consequences and natural encounters for decisions you make.

    • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

      Chuds still think somehow it’s a right wing game, despite being overtly anti-fascist and anti-Capitalist, with several positive portrayals of Socialism, such as the Gun Runners, Westside, and of course the Anarcho-Communist Followers of the Apocalypse.

      It’s wild how many unironic Legion fans there are.

      • Dr. Coomer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 months ago

        And that’s why it’s important. Why do so many people agree with the Legion despite how obviously horrible it is? I think it’s not so much what the Legion does that pushes people away, I mean, there are so many messed up things that happen in fallout, but maybe it’s the way they treat you. Hear me out. The NCR couldn’t give a shit about it’s solders and will actively do everything they can to advertise they’re old world ideals but fail to fix its flaws and this leads to almost every solder contemplating suicide just so they don’t get caught by the Legion or khans. Now how does the Legion treat you? Initially, hostile, but when you actually become a member, your treated as an equal in the horrible system. The only thing that gives any amount of status is your effort and cunning.

        • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          8 months ago

          I think it’s just the usual gamer to fascist pipeline, they see a brutal terrible slave army and think its cool because they long for a strong sense of nationality and belonging to a greater whole.

  • The story I heard (now apocryphal) is the chess was invented (using live actors as pieces) to allow a prince to explain to his mother why it was necessary to kill his brother on the field of battle. A literal lesson in politics.

    Sadly, I can’t find the source and Wikipedia says the origins of Chess are debated by scholarly historians.

  • clearleaf@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 months ago

    When people say this it’s an extension of telling people you’re “not interested in politics” as a more polite alternative to “you’re a windbag and not nearly as smart as you think you are, so I’d rather stick to things it’s fun to talk to you about.” Nobody complains about games like New Vegas and Deus Ex because they’re written by people with enough education and skill to pull it off. That’s why it’s always the same games being used as examples. That level of writing is nowhere close to the norm.