What's so crazy about this interview, too, is that Ubisoft's VP seems to define "being political" as "telling your audience to vote for either Democrats or Republicans". That's something I see SO OFTEN, in comments, too. Do we just need a journalist to explain the baseline definition of what that phrase actually means?
The other thing is how Ubisoft ALWAYS, in every interview, seems so, so, so intent on proclaiming that they don't want to take a stance. That, somehow, every piece of art is worth more if it actually just presents a lot of points of views and then leaves it to the player to actually...you know...engage with any of it. The second part of that is also that they seem to thing that they are ALREADY doing that. Which is why it's so great that Stephen is pushing against that here. Far Cry 5, The Divsion, Ghost Recon aren't presenting a huge array of political opinions without judgement at all. That's not what any of these games are doing. But, somehow, some Marketing Team had do have decided at some point that that's the company line, that Ubisoft is being the ultimate "Both Sides"-Company - which would be worthy of criticism by itself, of course - when they are really not at all doing that.
