When gamers hear the phrase “Prince of Persia”, they will most likely think a platforming game where a prince runs on walls and does acrobatic stunts. To non-gamers they’ll think literally a prince from Persia. At least that’s the meaning I’m getting from this article from the New York Times today.
Seth Schiesel is afraid that the newest rendition of Prince of Persia by Ubisoft isn’t being culturally responsible:
In fairness, the new Prince of Persia does not claim any historical or cultural authenticity; the game is set in a fantastic magical realm rather than in a rendition of any real place. But does that absolve the game of any responsibility? I think not.
With the Prince this time around who “talks and behaves like a 17-year-old American mall rat” and has a “fully Anglicized facial features and what looks like a tan he picked up on spring break” Schiesel fears that the game isn’t faithful to the Persian culture.
That’s all understandable but his closing paragraph raised some concerns in my mind:
Prince of Persia is a great game, but simply being a video game is no longer sufficient to earn a pass from being held to account for shaping the perceptions and attitudes of its players. Not anymore.
Schiesel brings up the point of Orientalism where the West has a certain depiction of the Eastern cultures. I’m quite surprised Schiesel said nothing about movies and television doing the same thing but within the same culture. What about old western movies or television dramas like “The OC”? Certainly there are people with a specific vision of Orange County because of the television show.
Besides, the concept of East and West can be really confusing sometimes.
Sound like a complete non-issue in this case.
Doubtless a more relevant version of this problem will arise some time.
I still feel like this has something to do with Ubi’s bawwing about PoP not being received well.