Sorry, I've shortened the quotes in order to avoid a big clusterfuck of text. And yeah, I didn't take proper time to read the initial panel statement. I guess that being leftie and shit, I wasn't triggered by its buzzwords like an honest codexer would.
Kreia is making an interesting argument against Jedi altruism, which is always taken for granted in Star Wars stories. MCA didn't want to push an anti-charity agenda. He considered it an interesting theme to explore, so even though Kreia herself has a very strong opinion, the game as a whole doesn't take a side. The player is supposed to answer the questions, not the game.
You're stretching it a little by comparing one of Kotor 2's most famous cutscenes to some PR talk given as example to journalists. To be honest, it feels like a cheap potshot. I didn't follow much of NTWTF development until then - even if I'm interested with it - but from what I understood, the "facist" alignement system is not necessarily chastizing the player for making such conversation choices. It is simply that : an alignment system, and as such, we can assume that content - text, quests, etc. - will be created to insure players will have the proper consequences to their choice of alignment. I don't see how this system is inherently bad, biased or even preachy.
As for the panel statements - which sounds a bit forced to be honest - I suggest we wait and see what the game is about before we can tell if any political bias are forced upon the players. Even though making assumptions on a game before its out is a valid and interesting codexian exercice (not a sarcasm), I usually wait for the game to be out to pass any kind of judgement on it.
What really matters here, as you said, is not that every point of view is forced upon the player, that no political ideas are hamfistedly telegraphed into his brain. On that, of course I agree with you.
(As for the main theme of PST, I can find political inferences from the answers you can give to Ravel, for example. But in this case, I admit I'm the one who's stretching it.)
I suspect that the only difference between our views is that I don't think that taking a political stance and expanding upon it in a work of fiction is a bad thing in itself - though there are plenty of ways of doing it *wrong*.
But that's the problem, they are not statements. That translation is invalid.
Game mecanics? They're even more than statements : they are rules the player must observe. As such, they are necessarily internalized by the players. To which degree, that's an open question.
The fact that any world-representation can involve some sort of political assumption is trivial. The real question is whether from the fact that fiction cannot be completely neutral it follows that it should be completely biased. The answer is no, because if your game is just a means to propaganda, the writing will come across as form of psychological-conditioning dogma that treats different points of views as caricatures.
From my point of view, the game with an upfront political stance is far less insidious than the one proclaiming to be closer to any kind of universal truth : a half-truth claiming to be objective is far more harmful.
Despite what the fanatics from the left says, we should always strive to achieve objectivity.
Sorry, couldn't resist.
Hypocritical is thinking that the lack of perfect impartially justifies everything goes mentality. Not even physical instruments are 100% accurate, but you don’t see physicists arguing that this lack of perfect objectivity implies that anyone can make their your own calculus.
Exactly, you don't necessarily learn any truth by playing a video game. You turn to science and studies for that kind of enlightement (but that's another debate). What you can expect from a game, or a book, or a movie carrying worldviews is to be challenged by it. You might learn something from it if it drives you to a corner or maybe ask you a question you haven't considered before... And if the game - or book - is upfront with its stance - generally, you can't miss the cues - you can't tax it with dishonesty : you're confronted with a postulate you're free to criticize, answer to, or dismiss.
Bottom line is : I agree with Fairfax, players should be the ones coming up with their own answers, and I don't think it's incompatible with the dev/writer taking a stance - on the contrary. If it's done right, it's either a whetstone to further your views, or in the best case, a good story that will bring you new perspectives.
