Review: "Deus Ex dev doesn't take kindly to criticism of 'Mechanical Apartheid' marketing term" by Andrew Eisen, Gamepolitics.com

Original article found here.

This may be the worst article on the entire "apartheid" idiocy I've seen so far. Read my previous analysis of the articles, if you want, it's not required reading to understand this post.

Let's begin with the opening statements:

"Apartheid," like "holocaust," is a noun with a specific meaning.  It is also, like "holocaust," very heavily tied to a specific part of our world's history.  Holocaust may mean "loss of life through fire" but when we hear the word we can't help but think of the millions of Jews exterminated by Nazis during World War II.  Likewise, "apartheid" directs our brains to the legally enforced political and economic inequality non-whites suffered in South Africa from the late 40s to early 90s.

People use both terms all the time when referring to things other than the historical holocaust and South African apartheid. I don't see where you're coming from. You haven't made an argument against the usage of the term "mechanical apartheid" to describe the game Deus Ex: Mankind Divided. In fact, you've only said that a general "we" and "our brains" thinks of bad things when those bad words are used. So obviously we shouldn't ever use those words to refer to bad things?

So let's look at the next section:

Both events those words inevitably make us think of are some of the most horrible parts of our recent history so perhaps it's not too surprising that a few would find "Mechanical Apartheid," the marketing term Square Enix is using for its upcoming game Deus Ex: Mankind Divided, to be eyebrow raising enough to tweet about the appropriateness of its use.

Okay. I see what you're doing. By saying it's a "marketing term" you're conflating the ideas of profit or business with the use of mature terms to explain mature themes. Because it's a "marketing term" it's not okay to use. However, that's not all this is. This is the theme of the game. The game is about this subject of mechanical apartheid, in which the augmented humans are treated as second-class citizens and herded into ghettos. It's a horrible situation, and Deus Ex is exploring it. Aren't you always complaining that games aren't being taken seriously? Here's a serious issue for games to tackle, and you're complaining about it.

A couple days ago, Gilles Matouba, who identifies himself as the former game director of Mankind Divided at Eidos Montreal, took to the Kotaku in Action subreddit to explain the genesis and intent behind the term which he (a black and French man) and Deus Ex brand director Andre Vu (an Asian and French man) created a few years ago and Square Enix subsequently trademarked.  It's an interesting read but that's not the part that seems to have captured most's attention.

So the game developer comes forward and explains that he's not a white guy like people on Twitter were saying and complaining about, but apparently it's not okay. Do you still think he shouldn't have used the term "apartheid"?

And that's not even the problem here. The problem is that the author then goes through and paints it as if the developer was being petty in responding to those complaints. See for yourself:

I honestly couldn't figure out who these "bloggers and tweeters" were.  My Google fu came up with no articles opining on the appropriateness of the "Mechanical Apartheid" marketing term and my search of Matouba, Edios and Square Enix's Twitter mentions came up with nothing that struck me as meriting such an indignant response.

This is insanity. He then posts a long list of tweets that the developer could have been replying to. Going through and saying you can't figure out who he's replying to, then posting a bunch of tweets that could be what he was replying to is self-contradictory. But worse, as I mentioned above, it paints the developer as being petty for replying to these complaints. And then after all the examples the author lays out, he makes himself seem petty by complaining about

And that's it.  So far as I've been able to determine, these are the messages that Matouba felt were "beyond mere insults" that "degraded" and "erased" his "identity as a black developer."

I feel it's worth noting that none of the above tweets copied Matouba, Eidos or Square Enix (although one tweet did use a #SquareEnix hashtag) and so far as I've seen, no one has felt strongly enough about "Mechanical Apartheid" as a marketing term to do anything more than tweet about it.

I'm sure these tweets aren't the sum total of everything said criticizing the term but I don't think it's unfair to assume that these are the most inflammatory examples.

And there you have it. Because the author couldn't find any bloggers who said anything, clearly the developer was wrong to reply to the tweeters and mention bloggers. Forget the argument he made, forget that he's black, there's no bloggers so he's wrong.

I just... I can't believe this. Sure, the term "apartheid" has some baggage with it, but to argue a point like this one is complete madness. I like Gamepolitics.com, and I expect better from them.

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.