You may be aware that earlier today TheGamer publisheda review of Atomic Heart(we did not care for it). You might also be aware that TheGamerdid not cover Hogwarts Legacywith a review or guides, and thatAtomic Hearthas had a problematic development cycle which includes allegations of Kremlin funding andblocking people on Twitter for asking them their views on Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. So, if we didn’t cover one Problematic Game, why did we cover another Problematic Game? Upon publication of our review, I received a thoughtful email asking me that question, and while I replied to that person individually, for any other readers wondering, here’s the thought process behind those decisions.
First off,Hogwarts Legacy. Deciding to skip a game entirely is a major decision, not only from a revenue point of view, but as a critic, I don’t think you should make a habit of skipping out on problematic art. The decision to skip Hogwarts Legacy was less of a personal one for me, but one which considered our writers who expressed discomfort at the thought of having to guide all the collectibles in a game their trans friends were asking them not to play, and for trans gamers in general who - correctly, unfortunately - fear lots of gaming circles do not care about them.
Related:So You Bought Hogwarts Legacy But Want To Support Trans People - What’s Next?
Hogwarts Legacy is indelibly tied to JK Rowling. Her agency was involved in producing the game, andshe retains the rights to the world. It was less a question of cash in her pockets as it was all those pennies spent on the gamebeing slid under her soapbox, helping her rise ever-higher in her public prominence. Rowling is one of the most influential voices in the world, with her words having been quoted by right-wing politicians when pushing through discriminatory laws, we did not want to participate in furthering her platform.
There are many people who played Hogwarts Legacy but, by their own admission, believe JK Rowling to be transphobic. If you believe this, buying Hogwarts Legacy tells corporations (not just Warner Bros., but everywhere) that transphobia is not a line in the sand for you. It is for us, and that is why we did not review it.
I wrote that I feltgames media had failed the Hogwarts Legacy test, but that was not a binary situation where playing the game at all equates to failure. We opted to boycott guiding and reviewing it completely, but other sites such as Kotaku, Polygon, Games Hub, and GameSpot all played the game and produced important and insightful coverage that went beyond whether this game was a dream come true for anyone with Gryffindor pyjamas, or how much it kinda sucks that Quidditch isn’t there. I do not feel, and never felt, that engaging with the game in any way was a failure of your moral compass. However, treating it as ‘just a video game’ and refusing to confront the context of the world’s creator was unfortunately too common.
Now, onto Atomic Heart. Here, the issues around the game stem not from an individual, and more from the studio’s funding. While Mundfish has beenaccused of taking Kremlin money, these remain accusations, and it is not clear that the studio is a tool of the state any more than any Russian business which has taken out a loan. Our critic, in playing the game, found Atomic Heart to be anti-USSR in its tones, and a criticism of Russian isolationism. However, the devs have not helped themselves by creating a game of this nature and thenenacting a ‘no politics’ rule in discussion of the game, or inputting out a weak statement clarifying the team’s stance (which did not clarify anything)beforeonly answering follow up questions about graphics performance.
Ultimately we do not feel any single person involved with Atomic Heart has the influence of JK Rowling, nor do we feel crossing any line in the sand with regards to purchasing or playing Atomic Heart sends as worrying a message to corporations as overlooking Rowling’s views on trans people does. If it were conclusively proven that Atomic Heart took Kremlin cash to create pro-Russian propaganda or that they supported the invasion of Ukraine, we would feel differently.
So, does that mean you should definitely not play Hogwarts Legacy and should all rush out, guilt-free, to buy Atomic Heart? No, because none of this has ever been about that. We took the extremely rare step to avoid a game entirely because of one particular figure involved in the game and her influence. We then chose to cover Atomic Heart and to meet its criticism head-on as a central part of our analysis. If you feel, having read up on Mundfish, that you are uncomfortable with supporting Atomic Heart and will be avoiding it, you have our full support. This has never been about our side and their side.
It has been about standing up for the right to say, ‘this is over the line for me’, and begging both journalists and players to critically engage with the context around a game and treating it as a piece of art rather than a neat little toy. I hope this one-two punch, however sites and players react to it, can be a watershed moment. I hope there are similar conversations around the likes of Call of Duty. I support the right for anyone to avoid a game for reasons surrounding its politics, and to speak up about that fact. Hogwarts Legacy was a total shutout for us, but that was an incredibly rare step taken for specific reasons. If you’re wondering why we’re on Atomic Heart, whether you’re asking in good faith or bad, here’s your answer.
Next:Black History Month: Celebrating Jerry Lawson, The Man Who Invented Video Games
