Navigator

Non, ça n'est pas ce que j'ai dit : on peut tomber d'accord sur le fait que la colonisation c'est le fait essentiellement des occidentaux (qui ne sont pas tous blanc d'ailleurs), puis depuis les superpuissances internationales sont occidentales (Russie, USA, Europe), jusqu'aux années 1980. Donc quelque part on peu pas dire que les autres peuples aient particulièrement été en position de force vis-à-vis de l'Occident depuis des siècles. = il y a une forme d'impérialisme et donc d'oppression.

Du coup est-ce que tu demandes a ces populations et gouvernements d'être moralement supérieur au occidentaux ?

Je pense pour ma part qu'on peut comprendre que ça soit à la fois facile en tant qu'occidentaux de demander aux autres d'être moralement supérieur envers nous, et a la fois un peu injuste considérant que les occidentaux ont été hyper avantager notamment dans leur développement sociale en conséquence de leur domination.

Les occidentaux ont été des oppresseurs oui, et les conséquences de cette oppression continuent de provoquer des remous dans la société. Ça fait chier, mais c'est comme ça.

D'une certaine manière c'est un peu la même chose entre les genres.

Dans ton exemple avec le latino : tu demandes a l'oppressé d'être moralement supérieur a l'oppresseur, c'est bien ça ?

Poppy Linux should do.

Was gonna say that!

Tennis again?

Joke aside, pure competitive games are indeed just pure competitive games with no context at all. But competition in itself is ideological and political (the need to make the opponent lose) so Pong is too.

It's a point of view on multiplayer gaming. In Pong there is always a loser and a winner, never two winners, never two losers (can we even make a draw in original Pong? I don't know).

Pong is also a game that opposed human versus computer, it can be view as pure skill exercise to be a 'better' human or it can be literally a fight against the machine like playing chess against a computer. Both makes me want to ask what is the point to do this ? I think answers at this questions are political indeed.

Super Mario make a twist on the trope of the knight saving the princess. The knight is just a plumber and it is said to him that the 'princess is an another castle'. But at the end the right order of the world is restaured when Mario finally frees the princess from the evil Bowser.

So from a political standpoint Super Mario is a product believing strongly in individualism and in the self made man ideology. The twist shows only that even a plumber can save the princess if he works enough = liberal capitalism making us believed that we'll be all rock stars and billionaires when we're definitively not (and yes I'm quoting fight club here). All this is the consequence of the game focussing more on gameplay than it's narration, therefore it leans towards what was the common thinking of the time.

Polygamy (relationship between Peach, Mario and Luigi, if that's what you are referring to) is much to me a side effect of the 2 players gameplay possibility, but it is still indeed pretty interesting in itself yeah.

You probably meant it as a joke, but too bad you get a real answer :)

Indeed, I still get someone giving me names of nonpolitical games.

Oh you didn't perceive the irony, didn't you?

The Council, The Wreck, Haven, Orwell, Life Is Strange, Journey of course, The Stanley Parable, The Beginner's Guide, Everything by Christine Love, Everything by Jonathan Blow, Inside and Limbo, Get Even, Betrayal, Kentucky Route Zero, Never Alone, Tell Me Why, A Plague Tale (both), Deathtrap Dungeon (interactive video adventure), Kholat, Asemblance, Firewatch, Her Story, The Vanishing Of Ethan Carter.

I include a bit of everything...

I think someone at ubi played Astrobot and thought "wait a minute"...