Starcraft 2's Narrative: A Story of Anti-Communism and Western Hegemony

Robert E. Heinlein's military science fiction novel was noted as inspiration for the original Starcraft. Heinlein's novel was seen as a vehicle of his anti-communist views, and I can't help but notice the similarities in Blizzard's Starcraft franchise.

Starcraft 2's narrative follows the sequel of the original Starcraft, where there are three primary factions at war with one another. The main antagonist in both stories is the alien race the Zerg, who are an insect-like species operating under a collective hive mind. They're somewhat similar to the 'bugs' in Heinlein's novel. And philosophically speaking, their goals are similar to the Borg race in Star Trek: The Next Generation television show, where they seek genetic perfection through assimilation of other species into their greater collective.

Now, this may be a stretch, but the Zerg's philosophy seems pretty close to Karl Marx in his theories against capitalism and his move towards communism and socialism. The Zerg operate under a collective consciousness, where everyone actively works together. There are specific roles that each unit specializes in of course, but it is all for the greater good of their race. This is something similar to the idea of socialism and its stock issue of equality among all. The Chinese Iron Rice Bowl is a good metaphor, in that everyone has their specialized roles in industry, but they all share the same wealth.

Now the Terran's on the other hand are the exact opposite. They are the human faction in the video game. And the interesting note about them is that the developers of the video game had their characteristics come from the American South. Confederate flags decor the milieu of Terran ships and vehicles. The characters all have a Southern drawl. Why did the developers take this aesthetic choice when creating the Terran race? This choice seems to correlate the individualistic nature of the South when they wanted to secede during the Civil War. Furthermore, they seem to emphasize the capitalistic nature of the Terrans. There's a lot of infighting between different human factions in the game. For example, there's Raynor's Raiders, who act as freedom fighters. The United Earth Directorate, Arcturus Mengsk, and Raynor all show the individualistic attributes of the terrans.

So it is interesting, when the game pits you against the zerg in the main storyline, it reinforces the Western ideals of individualism and indicts socialist behavior.

Games Currently Played

What games am I currently playing? Well there's three big ones:

1. World of Warcraft
2. Starcraft 2
3. Mass Effect 2

World of Warcraft is six years old, and there's been a major overhaul in the core content and mechanics of the game through its latest expansion in Cataclysm. Why do I play? Well besides it being the standard bearer and metric for all other MMO (massive multiplayer online) games, my siblings are deeply entrenched in the game. Both my brother and sister have multiple high level characters. I'm actually the casual player of the group.

I have been heavily playing Starcraft 2 since it was released last summer. This game has got me hooked and it's easy to understand why. Starcraft is such a phenomenal game property, that Korea has adopted it as a national sport. Blizzard is well known for their excellent caliber in developing top tier video games, and Starcraft 2 is no exception. I have been struggling for the past few months in learning the multiplayer component of the game and it's competitive ladder matches. I have been hovering around the high platinum league and cannot break into diamond for the life of me. What's also interesting, is the underlying thematic elements present in the campaign and playable racial factions. But that's something I will get into in another post.

Mass Effect 2 is just epic in terms of its scale, ambition, and narrative. It's in contention for best game of 2010 by multiple game review publications. The series has been hailed as the Star Wars of our generation. It's developed by Bioware, which is another high status video game developer known for their excellent catalog of video game titles. I'm slowly going through the story, relishing in the rich backstory and ambience of a well made space opera. It is gripping.

Gamification: Video Gamifying the World

DS Games - E3 2011 - Wii Fit Plus

One of the interesting trends or buzzwords circulating the internet recently is the term 'Gamification'. Wikipedia describes it broadly, as using game play mechanics in non-game applications. It's the future according to all those new edge marketing people. We're seeing this phenomenon in things like World of Chorecraft or the numerous social networking sites that have game play mechanics. Facebook has collection mechanics of friends, Foursquare has badges, and Gowalla has stamps.

As an avid gamer, I have mixed feelings on the subject. There is a definite sense of co-option of the fun and 'innocence' of games by companies out to manipulate and capitalize on their target demographics. It may be an elitist point of view in that I want the purity of my game play mechanics to be in a game and nothing else, but I feel like it will dilute the experience of enjoying a video game. It may be why I don't play Farmville or Mafia Wars on Facebook. It may explain why I don't have 1,000 friends on there. I try to delineate and compartmentalize my enjoyment of video games to the realm of video games.

But at the same time, I realize that the practice of Gamification isn't new. In fact, I'm sure the whole cashback points system thing from credit card companies, as well as those Marlboro points thing from Phillip Morris, were utilizing the same game play mechanics of games such as Pong. The only thing really newfangled about Gamification is the term. Margaret Robinson comes to the same conclusion in her article on Kotaku. It's interesting to see her stance, in that she's against the whole thing.

Is Gamification itself really that bad though? Can it be used for good? Jane McGonigal seems to think so in her Ted Talks discussion on the gamification of world-saving endeavors. She argues that games primary function in society is a method for people to escape from unpleasant things they experience in the world and that energy can be transformed into applications that try to save the real world. It's an interesting concept.

But I'm not sure I'm buying it. With the gamification of the world's problems like the environment and global warming, it tends to monetise or label our world's problems on the same level of a video game. And as much as I love video games, I still think of them as applications for escapism and enjoyment. They're just video games. Which leads to the conclusion that a lot of critics of gamification logically come to, and that is gamification cheapens the experience of whatever it is targeting. It relies on a mechanics methodology that is predominantly rule based and that has basic game play rulesets and ignores the real world which is much more dynamic and complex. Gamification, according to those critics, would disillusion those interactions with people. The facebook collection mentality of friends is an example that they cite.

But maybe we're taking the wrong approach to gamification. Perhaps the gamification of world saving applications is a way to legitimize video games to policymakers and activists. If it truly has the market penetration power of mainstream video games (ie Call of Duty: Black Ops had the biggest entertainment launch ever), what do we have to lose?

I guess it boils down to the intent and implementation. If gamification is used to save the world, I'm all for it. If it's meant to sell me Nike shoes, I think I'll pass.