I actually somewhat disagree. If the author believes in some idea and puts this idea in a game (or any other work), that means this idea is still spread by that game. Regardless if that was counsious intent or no. Basically any work of art "propagates" ideas of its author.

However, there IS a difference between games that are called propaganda and games that were able to avoid that label (despite "propagating" ideas). And the difference is how well the game ideas are integrated into its gameplay and narrative.

For example, if you have medieval setting and all characters are against homosexuality - it's normal. Because medieval society was against homosexualty. If you have modern US setting, then character who is overtly against homosexuality would stand out - thus existence of such character will inevitably be percieved as a statement.

The answer is obvious. Breeders must be sterilized!

That would mean the creators of Half-Life propagate silence - since the hero never talks...

It's not that easy. The actual spreading of ideas is an interaction between creator and recipient. And that can sometimes be a game of Chinese Whispers. What the creator intended is one thing, how it's reveived is up to the individual recipient.
Paul Verhoeven's Starship Troopers is a good example - the movie is a sarcastic look on fascism and militarism - and IMO fantastic in this way. However many people didn't get the irony - and either accused Verhoeven of "glorifying" his Troopers and the militaristic society - or even going along with it and agreeing with it.

Another example would be: Some guy walks in inner city, and screams at the top of his lung "All faggots in concentration camps!". Some nutjob who actually believes in this? Some activist for free speech probing for reactions with the most enraging paroles? Some actually anti-homophobic performance artist who wants to expose the "lingering resentments of the silent majority"? (I've actually experienced scenes like that in Berlin - and yes - it was supposed to be street art).

That means they propagate idea of silent hero, not silence in general. And yes, they do. Creators of Half-life made Gordon Freeman silent exactly because they believed that silent hero will be popular. After all many FPS protagonists were silent and they were popular.

On the other hand, for example, creators of Duke Nukem 3D had idea that a hero should be a wisecracker, commenting own actions with witty jokes. Duke is complete opposite of Freeman in this (and many other) regard.

The thing is, however, people don't care (at least now) how much a hero should talk. If someone, who liked Duke Nukem start to talk like him, or try to make similar jokes, that won't be something people are generally conserned about (for now at least). And in my opinion this is how it should be.

Problem is that some people decided that some ideas ARE bad and shouldn't be in games. Like, you know, sexy women, strong white men, etc. And the reason, why they decided that is that they FEEL bad about thos ideas. Not some logical reasoning, or research, but just their own feelings.

I personally never understood why Starship Troopers is considered to have connection to fascism. Militarism - yes, in the movie army is shown extencively. But fascism?

What I'm tryng to say - it's ok for a game (or any other work of art) to convey ideas. I'm ok with Not Tonight being a leftwing bogeyman story. However, it's author should admit that people whom he uses as bogeyman (pro-Brexit voters) have every right to be angry at him.

Doing that can be quite risky, as some people will treat it at face value and not see the intended sarcasm.

In fact, I dislike sarcasm, as I consider it to be a form of lying. If somebody sarcastically tells me that they're glad I didn't do them a favor, I may reply with something like "You're welcome. I will continue not doing that." (in other words, treat the sarcastic statement at face value).

Also, if I see sarcasm on a GOG forum post, I might downvote the post just because of it. (That's not the only rule I have of this sort; posts that use a certain 3-letter abbreviation (no, it's not "FPS" or "RPG") also get downvoted by me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5QmvEbphF8c

https://www.wissen-digital.de/images/c/c3/HITL0029.jpg

I was dead serious, I was!

Can someone please write a script to translate Fair's posts into English? :-)

Risky isn't a reason not to. No intelligent work would ever be produced or released in public if the fear of what idiots would make of it was that prohibitive.

Yeah, there are people who take Tony Montana or Gordon Gekko as models. If you want to burn the movies for that, you have a lot of work ahead.

What if your work is literally "fool-proof", like Dick and Jane, and they *still* misinterpret it? lol

1st thing: A) Good doesn't imply without flaws (in context of D&D, it means respect for life and altruism). B) Viconia is priestess of Shar, a malevolent deity. C) Viconia acts like a bitch.
No racism against drow involved

2nd thing: BioWare knew the market situation when they published the game. Other romances for the female characters where planned, but they lacked time and/or resources to realize it. So they went with lowest common denominator. Blame capitalism, not sexism if you want to blame something.

Speaking about pandering to straight male through history is pointless, different values system.

You mean the tarzan porn ?

I'd still like to know why she encrypts her posts into this weird, non-existent language, anyway.
She's not 3 years old, after all.