A notable constituency of the gaming community online has taken issue with Shadow Complex because of the involvement of author Orson Scott Card, publicly an opponent of gay rights. As excited as they are about Shadow Complex, many gamers are hesitant to spend their money in a way that would benefit someone whose political viewpoints offend them -- regardless of your personal stance on such issues, the unwillingness to reward a person who actively opposes something important to you is understandable.
Wanted to point your attention to an excellent, reasoned editorial by my Gamasutra colleague Christian Nutt, analyzing the internet protests. It makes me think -- as someone who believes games have only scratched the surface of their potential for social relevance, I'd surely like to see more creators express themselves on important issues through the art of games.
Of course, there is to my knowledge absolutely no political sentiment, anti-gay or otherwise, within Shadow Complex. But my strong feeling that art should authentically express the artist certainly comes under the microscope when I'm confronted with a situation where I don't much like the creator.
Every time the world of games comes up against real-world social issues, it's always a little tricky to navigate. "It's only a game" didn't work well at all for things like Six Days in Fallujah or the race questions raised by Resident Evil 5, for example. I like the comment on Christian's article which says "'It's Just a Game' is a very intricate logical fallacy used by gamers that don't want to grow up."
Regardless of a game's content, would you support a title if it had the involvement of someone whose views or actions in the real world violated your personal morals? Is it really possible to fully separate a product from its producer, even when there's no agenda in the content?
