PLAYING POLITICS

From triple-A to two-person teams, the developers refusing to shy away from politics in their games

- Jon Bailes

Politics is a dirty word. By now we’re used to publishers distancing their games from any suggestion that they contain political commentary. We’re also used to a vocal sect of players that uses ‘politics’ as a slur, thrown at games that dare to feature diverse characters or touch on the struggles of women and marginalised people. There are, of course, plenty of games that have us oppose dictatorships, fight in real-world conflicts or navigate a future where the extremes of consumer capitalism have been pushed to satirical heights. But few actually use the ‘p’ word. Fewer still take committed stances against social ills.

With politics as it is today, not least in Britain, this feels inadequate. Alongside perennial issues such as environmental decline and growing inequality, we’re approaching the sharp end of nationalist populism, the surveillance state, racist policing and a manufactured culture war. Indeed, the toxic conception of politics in games is a victim of this war, a means of repressing dissenting voices. These don’t feel like times for placatory denials or oblique metaphors, so when it’s claimed that games with real-world parallels don’t make political statements, it seems fair to ask: why not?

Clint Hocking, now at Ubisoft Toronto, is a rare triple-A exception among developers. Simply by owning its real-world relevance and naming modern fascism, Watch Dogs: Legion, which he directed, is explicitly political in a way that stands in stark contrast to its peers, including Ubisoft contemporaries Far Cry 5 and