Ubisoft games are political, says CEO - just not the way you think

CEO of publisher behind Far Cry 5 and The Division 2 says the games are impartial "to make people think"

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
InKnight7s267d ago

Well I know Ubisoft games about downgrade and towers until AC:Origin

Swiftfox267d ago

Whether you intend it or not, your art says something. It's your job as a creator to be open to the possibility your idea isn't what you intended and comes across as a statement.

Take the first Division: You play government agent ordered to kill US citizens in US city without due process while the game constantly reinforces those actions as heroic. It's glorified totalitarianism. Your targets are US citizens who have survived a catastrophe, and you are ordered time and again to gun them down for simply acting out of line to what you and your group deem acceptable. The game pushes you to gun down people who are standing around, minding their own business. People you have not seen commit a crime while you go off only the words of your superiors who said "yeah they need to die". Let's not forget they dressed most of the baddies in the game with hoodies as visual short hand for "bad guy" reinforcing and mirroring actual political and social issues. Especially in the USA where we have rioted over the police gunning down unarmed citizens.over misunderstandings or pure racially charged malice. Ubisoft didn't give us an "impartial" view. They flat out created something which celebrated a pure totalitarian dictatorship taking place in the USA.

Did they plan for or even intend for the game to be read this way? Probably not, but that's the statement they made regardless of intent. You can't just wave your hands and say "Oh it's just a game stop reading into it." That doesn't work for any other art form, why would it fly for games? Sad thing is, it would only take a small amount of tweaking to the game to actually deliver an impartial statement through gameplay--Ubisoft just lacks the introspection due to being a profit driven corporate entity.

Omnisonne267d ago

Nah, in a scenario where an entire city has gone to hell and "citizens'' are robbing and murdering eachother (i.e torching people alive) for a new pair of shoes, the gang with the biggest guns rules, and in The Division's case that is the government who have trained agents specifically for such situations.

Also by your own logic, a statement could be different for any individual, depending on their interpretation. Just like how it works with art. If you're reading into it as a ''celebration of a pure totalitarian dictatorship", then perhaps that says more about you than the game in question.

Swiftfox267d ago

Sorry mate, we art historians know how to read art and filter the evidence through transcription methods such as formalism, iconography, bibliographical etc. in order to understand what the piece might say intended and unintended by the artist. The difference is most skilled artists of were intelligent enough and skilled enough to weave a narrative, idea, emotion, or statement into a piece with absolute clarity. Ubisoft seems to want to capitalize on social issues and comment but don't want to sufficiently explore all avenues of the questions created by their own context and gameplay narrative.

The questions the Division poses are interesting and valid such as "how many freedoms are we willing to give up to maintain order?" "What lengths of force are necessary?" "What's the morality of your agents actions when America is her principles--her Bill of Rights, and what is really left to save if you sacrifice them to achieve a goal?" Ubisoft ignores these questions, the responsibility associated with them, and the validity of the critique in order to sell more product and DLC--which makes them crap game makers.

BeardedPriest267d ago

If you think The Division was bad... you should look at Watchdogs. I have heard there was some sick shit that could only come from a prejudicial mind in there.

Gh05t267d ago (Edited 267d ago )

Wow, that is one messed up way to view the Division. So here is a question, do those people just standing around minding there own business open fire on you if they see you? You bring up killing people who have committed no crime but time and time again walking down the road you see them attacking innocent civilians. Also all the members of these groups are dressed the same, you can call it what you want but it can also be called a "uniform" which is used to identify people. That is important because a uniform can identify people who belong to IDK maybe a terrorist organization which every "bad guy" group in the division essentially was.

You notice how you didn't go around murdering people that asked you for supplies, or how those people essentially ran from you if they felt threatened. But yeah, I'm sorry if thwe world comes to that and I see a bunch of people walking around in fire retardant suits who are part of a group who burns other people alive, I am not shedding any tears if someone takes them out.

pinkystinkinc267d ago

they never made a sequel to XIII

TheColbertinator267d ago

They should have called it XIII-2 Jason Returns

AK91267d ago

Oh pleas Yves don’t go the political route it will only lead to financial ruin.

Show all comments (12)