FFVII & Terrorism

[fat_moogle]

I'm sure the media are going to jump on this topic when the remake hits due to the nature of the beginning section of the game. Do you think SE will end up toning it down to avoid criticism?

[Sephiroth]

Then they have to tone down everything because Final Fantasy VII is heavily controversial from all sides.

[Wolf Kanno]

Probably not since most times the media ignores RPGs and also because VII's terrorism is pretty much on the lighter softer side of things. Whatever societal damage AVALANCHE does is usually done off screen and never known to the player or heroes. They're more resistance fighters than terrorist.

[Jinx]

I dunno, man. The terrorism in this game rides a fine line. We know these guys are the good guys. We know they're doing it for the right reasons (the planet actually IS dying). They're our friends.

BUT, their actions also get people killed. What about the people in the reactors they destroyed? The innocent people of sector 7 who were killed in rebellion to their terrorist attacks?

The idea is intriguing because terrorists are bad, regardless of their motives. But we get to know the terrorists and why they do what they do. It's a dangerous idea, especially in today's world, because it paints terrorists in a more lenient light. Maybe they actually AREN'T so bad after all. Maybe they're just doing what they're doing for important reasons we don't understand!

I think if the remake touches on, "hey, they might be doing this for a good reason, but it's still bad and ends up hurting and killing people as well as causing them to live in fear", I think it will be okay. I don't really remember the original saying like, "yeah, what they're doing is important but that ends don't justify the means". I think it can be okay.

[charliepanayi]

It's kind of hard to change without changing the entire opening section. Also, later on in the game Barret says they were wrong to try and blow up reactors etc, so it's not like the game says 'blowing stuff up rules!' anyway.

[Jinx]

It's kind of hard to change without changing the entire opening section. Also, later on in the game Barret says they were wrong to try and blow up reactors etc anyway, so it's not like the game says 'blowing stuff up rules!' anyway.

That's fair, I just said that I don't personally remember the game taking a stance either way. Not that it actually did or didn't.

[KleinerKiller]

It's environmental / anti-dystopian terrorism committed by people who, Barrett notwithstanding, are of generally lighter skin tone. Ergo, it's no more "real" terrorism in the eyes of the media than any of the endless YA books and movies about rebelling against the cartoonish dictatorship through violence.

So I don't foresee much controversy about that springing up. There will no doubt be many clickbait articles about other things in the game, but I'll bet imaginary money that the terrorist angle doesn't come up often.

[Jinx]

It's environmental / anti-dystopian terrorism committed by people who, Barrett notwithstanding, are of generally lighter skin tone. Ergo, it's no more "real" terrorism in the eyes of the media than any of the endless YA books and movies about rebelling against the cartoonish dictatorship through violence.

So I don't foresee much controversy about that springing up. There will no doubt be many clickbait articles about other things in the game, but I'll bet imaginary money that the terrorist angle doesn't come up often.

way to drop the fucking mic, son

[fat_moogle]

Jinx summed it up well in her first post, I couldn't have put it in better words myself.


It's environmental / anti-dystopian terrorism committed by people who, Barrett notwithstanding, are of generally lighter skin tone. Ergo, it's no more "real" terrorism in the eyes of the media than any of the endless YA books and movies about rebelling against the cartoonish dictatorship through violence.

So I don't foresee much controversy about that springing up. There will no doubt be many clickbait articles about other things in the game, but I'll bet imaginary money that the terrorist angle doesn't come up often.
You're probably right, but I guess we'll wait and see. Terrorism is more widespread these days; whereas before the word was used to generalise the actions of a specific group there have been recent events where that has changed.

[Peter1986]

This game doesn't try to motivate people to become terrorists --- which would have been a good reason to censor it or ban it --- it just tells a story that happens to involve terrorism.

It would be a different matter if the game repeatedly was like "yo, do this in the name of Insert Random God here, player!" - but I have never seen a game that actually breaks the fourth wall and tries to brainwash the players like that.

And by the way, terrorism is never glorified in any way in this game - in fact, it's strongly pointed out several times that terrorist acts kinda suck.
Even Barret admits this at one point in the original version of the game:

"It sounds cool sayin' it's to save the planet.
But I was the one who blew up that Mako reactor......
Lookin' back on it now, I can see that wasn't the right way to do things.
I made a lot of friends and innocent bystanders suffer..."

This game even teaches the very important lesson that we should take care of our world without letting greed get the better of us.

Everyone already knows that there are lots of wars and terrorism in our own world, so trying to ignore it or "tone it down" in video games and pretending that it doesn't exist or something is pointless.

[Skyblade]

I dunno, man. The terrorism in this game rides a fine line. We know these guys are the good guys. We know they're doing it for the right reasons (the planet actually IS dying). They're our friends.

BUT, their actions also get people killed. What about the people in the reactors they destroyed? The innocent people of sector 7 who were killed in rebellion to their terrorist attacks?

The idea is intriguing because terrorists are bad, regardless of their motives. But we get to know the terrorists and why they do what they do. It's a dangerous idea, especially in today's world, because it paints terrorists in a more lenient light. Maybe they actually AREN'T so bad after all. Maybe they're just doing what they're doing for important reasons we don't understand!

I think if the remake touches on, "hey, they might be doing this for a good reason, but it's still bad and ends up hurting and killing people as well as causing them to live in fear", I think it will be okay. I don't really remember the original saying like, "yeah, what they're doing is important but that ends don't justify the means". I think it can be okay.

That actually does happen. Cait Sith calls Barret out on it pretty heavily. I think it's at the part where they're all breaking up and deciding whether or not they want to go through with the fight, when Cloud and Tifa spend the night together beneath the Highwind.