The UK government funded a game that depicted people who are against mass-migration as terrorists. They, however, committed the classic mistake of making one of the supposed "terrorists" hot (and an art hoe at that), so the release of this game had the exact opposite impact as intended.
nonamethanks said: so the release of this game had the exact opposite impact as intended.
You say this as if a corposlop artstyle game that calls you a terrorist for asking questions being used to terrorize literal children in school could ever have been taken seriously in the first place. Why the fuck are we reporting grade schoolers to an anti-terrorist organization???
I recall D.A.R.E. statistics not being so great for preventing drug abuse, either. It's almost like preaching at children and treating them like idiots or criminals doesn't resonate with them any more than it does with adults. Weird how that works, huh?
You say this as if a corposlop artstyle game that calls you a terrorist for asking questions being used to terrorize literal children in school could ever have been taken seriously in the first place. Why the fuck are we reporting grade schoolers to an anti-terrorist organization???
I recall D.A.R.E. statistics not being so great for preventing drug abuse, either. It's almost like preaching at children and treating them like idiots or criminals doesn't resonate with them any more than it does with adults. Weird how that works, huh?
They weren't grade schoolers, they were college students. And I don't know how it is in the UK, but in my country college and university students are above 18 years old, that is to say they are already young adults. That's what made the choice "Tell a trusted adult" even more baffling to me. Isn't the main character already an adult?! It felt like they were treating adults as if they were children.
They weren't grade schoolers, they were college students. And I don't know how it is in the UK, but in my country college and university students are above 18 years old, that is to say they are already young adults. That's what made the choice "Tell a trusted adult" even more baffling to me. Isn't the main character already an adult?! It felt like they were treating adults as if they were children.
Because they are. They don't call it a "Nanny state" for nothing. A weak-minded, infantalized society is easy to control.
They weren't grade schoolers, they were college students. And I don't know how it is in the UK, but in my country college and university students are above 18 years old, that is to say they are already young adults. That's what made the choice "Tell a trusted adult" even more baffling to me. Isn't the main character already an adult?! It felt like they were treating adults as if they were children.
College in the UK is ages 16-18 and is attended after finishing highschool, so it's equivalent to highschool age grade school for places like the US. For the UK, university is the equivalent of college in other regions.
If you bothered to read the article, you would also have seen that the game is intended for use in "educating" children 11-18 on the "dangers" of "extremism."
So no, Charlie is not an adult, he is a teenager. Pathways is propaganda aimed at children who already don't have the freedom to question authority, intended to scare them into believing that if they ask questions anyone they know could report them to a counterterrorism organization.
So you support propaganda aimed at making children fear that friends, family, and neighbors might report them to authorities for disagreeing with the government?
No, not even disagreeing, for literally doing anything other than unilaterally rejecting educating themselves on topics if the government doesn't like those topics.
I heard that UK even attempting to ban the used of VPNs, as someone who had been in a country that where the government controls and prohibits websites you visit, that's definitely going to suck.
The article is from GB News, which has been accused of having a right-wing slant. The tone of the article certainly sounds a bit biased to me, at least. It also gets some things wrong. For example, the options are not color-coded. They are, however, extremely predictable. Want a walkthrough of the game? Here you go:
A: Good B: Neutral C: Bad
The color-coded bar mentioned in the article does appear after you confirm your choice, but the article makes it sound like the answers are color-coded before you actually pick one.
But guess what? None of that actually matters, because there's only one ending. Basically, Charlie is dispirited by the decisions they made. A teacher talks about it with them and says they'll get support for "some of the difficult thoughts they were having." You're then prompted to click to find out what would happen if Charlie "chose to engage with harmful ideologies." Charlie will then accept they "may need support" and the teacher will give them a Prevent referral. Charlie then engages in workshops, counseling, mentorship, etc. All of this happens even if you pick the correct answers; there is no lose condition like the article claims.
I found all of this information from a longplay of the game on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9Wq6s6QIy8. I also verified all of this by playing the game myself.
I'm not going to go into whether it's propaganda or not, but assuming they had good intentions, the execution kinda sucked. The single choice per scenario does not lend itself well to choices with a lot of nuance. If, for example, they let you choose which websites Charlie researches, or even just included some resources for how to find reliable sources and interpret statistics, it wouldn't come across as badly. They also don't really show any positive examples of engaging in politics. All of the good choices are basically just avoiding it altogether. This is despite the game's description of Prevent including workshops for covering this kind of thing. I can definitely see how a kid might be afraid of doing anything political after playing this game.
Bonus: Apparently, the game wasn't working for some people and rumors spread of it being due to Amelia's sudden popularity, as some were reporting being unable to load the second scenario. However, I was able to play through the whole game without any issues and Amelia was still there. I didn't notice any differences between the longplay and my own play session.
College in the UK is ages 16-18 and is attended after finishing highschool, so it's equivalent to highschool age grade school for places like the US. For the UK, university is the equivalent of college in other regions.
I was guessing it might be something like that.
If you bothered to read the article, you would also have seen that the game is intended for use in "educating" children 11-18 on the "dangers" of "extremism."
I didn't read the article, I only played the game and I didn't see it mentioned on their website what ages they are targeting.
So no, Charlie is not an adult, he is a teenager. Pathways is propaganda aimed at children who already don't have the freedom to question authority, intended to scare them into believing that if they ask questions anyone they know could report them to a counterterrorism organization.
Caring for your country and not allowing immigrants to do whatever they want is not a xenophobia, it's basic common sense what this game paint as extremism
Leave a comment