**TLDR - When crafting the narrative for a video game, the choices made (such as villains, motivations, events) are inherently political in some way. They are an intentional choice that reflect, however minutely, the writer's political bias** The debate over whether video games are political, or simply entertainment products (why can't they be both?) has been reignited after the publisher of the upcoming game *Six Days in Fallujah* stated that they are 'not trying to make a political commentary' [1]. This seems like an odd statement considering the game has you playing as American forces in the battle of Fallujah during the Iraq War. By placing the player in the shoes of an army that used white phosphorus as a weapon and whose enriched uranium munitions led to an increase in cancer and infant mortality rate years after the battle, the developers are suggesting that there was still some good to be found here. This unwillingness to potentially affect a game's sales by admitting political writing is nothing new. We saw Ubisoft claim 2019's *The Division 2* is not political, a game which centres around a civil war in America and features enemies installing themselves in the U.S. Capitol...yeah [2]. We also saw Infinity Ward claim that 2019's *Call of Duty: Modern Warfare* [3], which features revisionist history that attributes a real life war crime committed by American forces to a fictional Russian force [4]. What these examples show, is that it doesn't matter whether or not a developer wants to label their games as political. The narrative they choose to write, and choose to release to an audience, is in itself a political statement. All art is subject to some form of politics, from the things it omits, the things it focuses on, the things its creators choose to spend their time working on. Bowser didn't just happen to be a dictatorial conqueror, the writers at Nintendo chose those traits to signal he is an antagonist. Therefore, they are suggesting being a dictatorial conqueror is a bad thing (it is). It is obvious why the developers don’t want to label their games as political; they don’t want to risk alienating potential buyers. Video games are, after all, quickly becoming the most profitable entertainment media, particularly in the midst of lockdowns around the world. And yet by refusing to acknowledge any politics within their games, these developers (the ones interviewed and making the claims) are devaluing the artistic merit of their work. **References** [1] - https://www.polygon.com/2021/2/15/22279600/six-days-in-fallujah-interview-iraq-war-politics [2] - https://www.polygon.com/e3/2018/6/12/17451688/the-division-2-is-not-making-any-political-statements [3] - https://www.pcgamer.com/uk/infinity-ward-says-modern-warfare-isnt-political/ [4] - https://www.polygon.com/2019/10/30/20938550/call-of-duty-modern-warfare-highway-of-death-controversy

**TL;DR - Video games can be political and you can find political messages in every game, but the intention of the creators wasn't to deliver a political message or might fail at properly delivering their intended message.** I agree with your point. All video games are political, or at the very least can demonstrate a political statement of some sort. It's not hard to see this on games like Bioshock and Assassin's Creed that clearly use historical and philosophical concepts for the purpose of political commentary. However, I don't think that every video game intends to make political statements, and even those who intend to deliver an ideological message don't always succeed at doing so. Perhaps all games deliver a political message but that message might be hidden in layers of a mainstream ideology, or not even be the direct intent of the creator. Take for example Guitar Hero and other musical games where the tracks in the game might have political messages, but those messages are not the opinions of the developers, they just added popular tracks consumers would like. The game itself does promote a simulated lifestyle as a musical performer who performs mostly western music and uses western musical instruments, and that can be considered spreading western ideology. But again, I doubt spreading western culture as a political statement was ever the intent of a Guitar Hero game. Another thing the came to mind is what if there is a political message intended but it's not successfully delivered? For example, the board game Monopoly was created by anti-monopolist Lizzie Magie hoping it would work as an educational tool to illustrate the negative aspects of concentrating land in private monopolies [1]. The game Monopoly now is just a fun game where you can be an oppressive capitalist and win. The game has the opposite message of what it was intended to be. Again I do agree that video games are political, but they might not be intended to be political or might be intending to deliver a political message but it might not be a successful delivery [1] Monopoly (game) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_(game)#Early_history

Some yes. As a whole, no lol.