I’ve got a few concerns with Chris’ post, particularly the use of logical fallacies that undermine his main argument. Let’s break this down:
Straw Man Fallacy #1:
People who complain about wokeness in new video games don’t actually care about the past, just their imagined version of it.
This statement misrepresents the position of those who critique “wokeness” in media. It assumes that everyone in this group shares a simplistic, uniform, and flawed perspective on history, which is neither fair nor accurate.
Isn’t it ironic to advocate for inclusivity while reducing the opposing view to a stereotype? For example, I personally dislike overt “wokeness” in games, yet I don’t fit the imaginary box you’ve described. My position isn’t rooted in a denial of history but in the belief that games, music, and films are creative, self-contained domains to be enjoyed on their own merits—not as platforms for political messaging.
It’s not about rejecting inclusivity or denying the contributions of diverse creators. Rather, it’s about questioning why politics should take center stage in these art forms. Why must every creative work be a vehicle for ideological statements? Art can reflect politics naturally when it’s intrinsic to the story or setting, but forcing it risks alienating audiences who value the escapism and creativity of the medium.
Straw Man Fallacy #2:
Games we love are created by diverse people […]. Just because you’re unaware of them doesn’t mean they don’t exist.
Who exactly is denying the existence of diverse creators? This statement uses vague, accusatory language aimed at a generalized “you” without specifying who or what is being addressed. This lack of specificity makes it difficult to engage with the argument constructively.
If the intent is to highlight the contributions of diverse creators, that’s absolutely valid and worth celebrating. But framing the point as an assumed rebuttal to an undefined group of people not only creates unnecessary division but also fails to advance the discussion meaningfully.
When addressing criticism, it’s more effective to engage with specific ideas or individuals rather than casting a wide net over an entire group. Otherwise, this risks becoming the very thing being criticized: stereotyping and marginalizing others based on assumptions.
My position isn’t rooted in a denial of history but in the belief that games, music, and films are creative, self-contained domains to be enjoyed on their own merits—not as platforms for political messaging.
The issue here is that every time I see someone complaining that a game is “woke” is when suddenly there are gay people, or people of colour, or women not looking like a hooters waitress in the game. And the reality here is that this isn’t being woke, it’s that the game is being based on reality. Gay people exist, always have, so do people of colour, and women of all types and men too. The people that make it political are the people that don’t want to see the real world and the people in it.
Now, I don’t know what you feel is “woke” and I’m not saying this is directed at you, but just because there are people that don’t fit some preconceived mold, and they are included in a game, doesn’t make it magically political.
A game that’s got well written characters representing minorities or which includes political theming and executes it well (e.g. Bioshock, Fallout 2 or Disco Elysium) is more woke than any other. That kind of game’s core concept is to make a strong point about structural injustice in society.
Games with token representation or the plot is thin but the main character is a woman so you’re sexist of you don’t buy it are generally not woke at all. They’re only pretending to be as a marketing strategy. They’re not doing anything to make anyone think about structural injustice in society, and are instead appealing to the common don’t be horrible to groups that it was normal to be horrible to decades ago that their market research team determined were already agreed with by most of their potential customers. It’s just capitalism noticing that mysogynists etc. are no longer the largest demographic and being very unsubtle when signalling that the product thinks women are people.
There are a small number of very vocal people who complain about both kinds of game. They don’t want people to acknowledge that treating women as people is now the default, but even more than that, they don’t want people to play Bioshock as then if they’re shown anything by Ayn Rand, they’ll be immediately able to spot the flawed logic on her philosophy. They’re careful to make sure to present it as if they’re only complaining about the virtue-signalling-as-marketing kind as everyone recognises that they’re generally crap, so it makes it look like they’re making a reasonable argument. It also means people amplify the argument, but by using phrases like woke instead of badly written it makes it easier to correctly label well-written games containing politics they disagree with as woke, too, and have people make the association with being badly written annoying slop by themselves, without having people who’ve played the game point out that it is well-written and someone saying otherwise is an idiot.
They’re not doing anything to make anyone think about structural injustice in society,
What does this have to do with enjoying games? At their core, games are meant to entertain, engage, and immerse players in experiences that transcend the everyday. The primary goal is enjoyment.
Injecting external debates, especially contentious ones, into this space often detracts from what makes games special. It shifts the focus from the creativity, storytelling, and fun that unite players to divisive topics that many come to games to escape from.
It’s just capitalism noticing that mysogynists etc. are no longer the largest demographic and being very unsubtle when signalling that the product thinks women are people.
Capitalism itself doesn’t “notice” anything; it responds to consumer demand and market trends. The idea of a “misogynist demographic” is flawed because such a group doesn’t actually exist in any meaningful, targeted way.
There are a small number of very vocal people who complain about both kinds of game. They don’t want people to acknowledge that treating women as people is now the default,
Who exactly are the “small number of very vocal people” you’re referring to? Are you speaking about a specific group or just a generalized idea of dissenters? Without evidence or clear examples, this comes across as a vague accusation rather than a meaningful argument.
Moreover, how is it that you’re aware of their intentions? What concrete actions have they taken to actively prevent people from acknowledging that treating women as people is now the default? Are there examples of deliberate efforts to suppress this acknowledgment, or is this an assumption about their motives?
Ironically, the statement itself mirrors the behaviors it criticizes: it paints a reductive, hostile caricature of the opposing view while claiming moral high ground.
I’ve got a few concerns with Chris’ post, particularly the use of logical fallacies that undermine his main argument. Let’s break this down:
Straw Man Fallacy #1:
This statement misrepresents the position of those who critique “wokeness” in media. It assumes that everyone in this group shares a simplistic, uniform, and flawed perspective on history, which is neither fair nor accurate.
Isn’t it ironic to advocate for inclusivity while reducing the opposing view to a stereotype? For example, I personally dislike overt “wokeness” in games, yet I don’t fit the imaginary box you’ve described. My position isn’t rooted in a denial of history but in the belief that games, music, and films are creative, self-contained domains to be enjoyed on their own merits—not as platforms for political messaging.
It’s not about rejecting inclusivity or denying the contributions of diverse creators. Rather, it’s about questioning why politics should take center stage in these art forms. Why must every creative work be a vehicle for ideological statements? Art can reflect politics naturally when it’s intrinsic to the story or setting, but forcing it risks alienating audiences who value the escapism and creativity of the medium.
Straw Man Fallacy #2:
Who exactly is denying the existence of diverse creators? This statement uses vague, accusatory language aimed at a generalized “you” without specifying who or what is being addressed. This lack of specificity makes it difficult to engage with the argument constructively.
If the intent is to highlight the contributions of diverse creators, that’s absolutely valid and worth celebrating. But framing the point as an assumed rebuttal to an undefined group of people not only creates unnecessary division but also fails to advance the discussion meaningfully.
When addressing criticism, it’s more effective to engage with specific ideas or individuals rather than casting a wide net over an entire group. Otherwise, this risks becoming the very thing being criticized: stereotyping and marginalizing others based on assumptions.
The issue here is that every time I see someone complaining that a game is “woke” is when suddenly there are gay people, or people of colour, or women not looking like a hooters waitress in the game. And the reality here is that this isn’t being woke, it’s that the game is being based on reality. Gay people exist, always have, so do people of colour, and women of all types and men too. The people that make it political are the people that don’t want to see the real world and the people in it.
Now, I don’t know what you feel is “woke” and I’m not saying this is directed at you, but just because there are people that don’t fit some preconceived mold, and they are included in a game, doesn’t make it magically political.
A game that’s got well written characters representing minorities or which includes political theming and executes it well (e.g. Bioshock, Fallout 2 or Disco Elysium) is more woke than any other. That kind of game’s core concept is to make a strong point about structural injustice in society.
Games with token representation or the plot is thin but the main character is a woman so you’re sexist of you don’t buy it are generally not woke at all. They’re only pretending to be as a marketing strategy. They’re not doing anything to make anyone think about structural injustice in society, and are instead appealing to the common don’t be horrible to groups that it was normal to be horrible to decades ago that their market research team determined were already agreed with by most of their potential customers. It’s just capitalism noticing that mysogynists etc. are no longer the largest demographic and being very unsubtle when signalling that the product thinks women are people.
There are a small number of very vocal people who complain about both kinds of game. They don’t want people to acknowledge that treating women as people is now the default, but even more than that, they don’t want people to play Bioshock as then if they’re shown anything by Ayn Rand, they’ll be immediately able to spot the flawed logic on her philosophy. They’re careful to make sure to present it as if they’re only complaining about the virtue-signalling-as-marketing kind as everyone recognises that they’re generally crap, so it makes it look like they’re making a reasonable argument. It also means people amplify the argument, but by using phrases like woke instead of badly written it makes it easier to correctly label well-written games containing politics they disagree with as woke, too, and have people make the association with being badly written annoying slop by themselves, without having people who’ve played the game point out that it is well-written and someone saying otherwise is an idiot.
What does this have to do with enjoying games? At their core, games are meant to entertain, engage, and immerse players in experiences that transcend the everyday. The primary goal is enjoyment.
Injecting external debates, especially contentious ones, into this space often detracts from what makes games special. It shifts the focus from the creativity, storytelling, and fun that unite players to divisive topics that many come to games to escape from.
False dilemma #1:
Capitalism itself doesn’t “notice” anything; it responds to consumer demand and market trends. The idea of a “misogynist demographic” is flawed because such a group doesn’t actually exist in any meaningful, targeted way.
Textbook Straw man:
Who exactly are the “small number of very vocal people” you’re referring to? Are you speaking about a specific group or just a generalized idea of dissenters? Without evidence or clear examples, this comes across as a vague accusation rather than a meaningful argument.
Moreover, how is it that you’re aware of their intentions? What concrete actions have they taken to actively prevent people from acknowledging that treating women as people is now the default? Are there examples of deliberate efforts to suppress this acknowledgment, or is this an assumption about their motives?
Ironically, the statement itself mirrors the behaviors it criticizes: it paints a reductive, hostile caricature of the opposing view while claiming moral high ground.