On the Deus Ex: Mankind Divided "Apartheid" Controversy

There was an article by Zach Furnis in Destructoid that introduced me to this whole issue. Let me preface this by saying Zach Furniss makes some good work. He's been fair about the whole Metroid Prime: Blast Ball kerfluffle, and has covered E3 with an enthusiasm and excitement that could match any hardcore gamer.

That was not a bad article. The author isn't biased, he's covering everything in good graces, and showing excitement about a game while reporting on an idiotic internet outrage. He sums up everything perfectly:

There's been a negative reaction online to Eidos Montreal's use of the racially-charged term "mechanical Apartheid" in its promotion of Deus Ex: Mankind Divided.

Yes, this is absolutely correct. Internet idiots have taken a break from their frappuccinos to rally in outrage over the term "mechanical apartheid". Is this an incorrect usage of the term? Not quite. The term is used appropriately, as the augmented in the story are treated as less-than-human and separated from the general population.

So Destructoid spoke with Mary DeMerle about this whole idiotic thing:

Speaking with Destructoid today, we asked the title's Executive Narrative Director Mary DeMerle about the aforementioned term, past blunders like Letitia from Human Revolution, and the need for cultural sensitivity in science fiction.

Yes, okay. If you actually watch the clip that he links to there, Letitia is a pretty horrible stereotype from the forties of black people. But is it played for laughs? Is she portrayed as somehow stupid as a result? I don't think so, but that's not the problem here.

The rest of the article is done well. He basically lets DeMerle get what she wants to say out there, and allows her to defend their right to use the term in its correct context. Any racial discomfort you feel as a result of the usage of the term is with good reason, it's a crappy situation and is one for the player to feel uncomfortable about. Most people understand that it's usage is correct, just like holocaust imagery is used well in X-Men to explain the motivations of Magneto.

But then you have people like Bob Chipman, a gaming YouTuber, who decided to jump the shark and somehow mentally link the Charleston shooting and Deus Ex. Because we all know using the term "apartheid" is bad when in a game.

There are two problems these critics have with the game, so let's talk about them.

The First Problem They Have: Games are Child's Toys

The real problem is that these culture critics see games as a child's toy. The use of the term "apartheid" in a *gasp* video game is horrible to them. It would be like Dr. Seuss creating war propaganda.

*cough cough*

Needless to say, all this outrage is idiotic. Chipman himself backpedaled hard to avoid serious repercussions. With Sarkeesian being thoroughly denounced for her comments bashing violent games during E3 and Chipman being thrown to the wolves over his attempt to be edgy, it's looking like a bad day to be an outrage manufacturer.

All in all, not many articles have been biased in the traditional games journalism outlets. VG247 and Gameranx had some stuff, but it was fairly neutral, as was this Destructoid article.

The only real problem was The Verge's coverage of the controversy by Adi Robertson.

The Second Problem They Have: Games Don't Handle Serious Issues Well

The Verge says this:

It plays with the aesthetics of oppression, but the game is only fun because your character doesn’t actually experience it — in the demo mission, in fact, he’s hunting down an aug rights activist (and alleged bomber) for an anti-terrorist group.

This is a not that bad of an article. Reporting on a game shouldn't be a platform for your politics, but an expression of what other people are saying. Essentially, this person is saying "Aiden looks like he's oppressed, but he never experienced true oppression or the game wouldn't be fun." But it isn't too bad because the author is expressing an opinion that is in line with the comments people have made against using the term.

But then the author continues:

"Apartheid" is a loaded term, and it could easily turn out to be a cheap and simplistic way to lend gravity to the plot. Intentionally or not, though, Mankind Divided seems to get across a clear message: it’s hard to talk about oppression along just one axis.

Which makes sense, given the comments people have made. I mean, that was essentially Chipman's complaint. But ultimately, the argument is that Deus Ex doesn't deal well with the apartheid imagery and terminology because Aiden doesn't feel that oppression.

One problem: the author flat out admits to having only played the demo.

This is broad-brushing an entire game because the demo doesn't let you feel human and character struggles in historically uncomfortable contexts. The game's not out yet, so how can you possibly say anything about what Aiden's going through in the storyline? He could very well feel oppression and prejudice. His augments are very visible, and therefore it's very easy to marginalize him.

So all in all, the critics either think games are too immature for mature themes or can never handle mature themes to begin with. I think they're both wrong. ome games have handles human tragedy very well, others have given in-depth character experiences and stories, and to say that only the lowest common denominator is the entire industry is like saying that film is only Michael Bay movies.