I always looked upon all works of art like this article states. Not necessarily as the be-all-and-end-all of knowledge on the subject matter (which is why I have no problems with movies like King Arthur or Braveheart being historically innacurate - that is not the point of a movie. The point of it is to get you invested in the story and hopefully looking in that direction, something both of them ultimately succeeded), but they are most definitely the starting point - the thing that gets you thinking. If a movie about a subject matter *feels* good (doesn't matter if it's factual or not), chances are you'll do research on your own on the matter afterwards. Same goes with videogames, books or paintings. As Extra Credits named it - tangential learning.
Only a handful of artistic works exist which even go further than just tangential learning by also providing a credible answer with the right context *within* the work of art and I notice that the tendency for these specific works is that they are usually created by people, who are not professional bloggers or such, but who had become artists only after a long career within their subject matter (journalists, aid workers, murderers, slaves...you name it). The more art I've sampled, the more I feel as if people like myself who like to wax philosophical ultimately miss the actual context that truly matters, mainly because of our biases for the abstract and for a delusional need to make sense out of everything rather than just accept the bare facts, how they interact with one another and most importantly how we can improve this for the future.
Still...even though most works of art will always, indeed, pander to the market's expectations...yeah. It doesn't mean they can't get you thinking about stuff. They provide you with the start though, far better than dry textbooks indeed. But, having said that, it's the textbooks (written online with a measure of authority or on paper) that *then* provide you with the bulk of the information you may be interested in. And inevitably I guess you conclude it with your own viewpoint on the whole context, where hopefully you can stay aware of and limit your biases that will inevitably come up.
Of videogames...I think there was one pivotal game series called Crusader (No Remorse and No Regret later were the only two), which was a little unusual gameplay-wise I guess, but what really got me immersed into it all was the sheer amount of fictional material that came with the two boxsets (there were Top Secret resistance manuals, there were the WEC - the corporate global government against which you fought - handbook, that had rap sheets on your in-game acquaintances and hell, even a fictional newspaper!) And then there were the in-game movies, of which Origin loved to do a ton of at that time and which I am 100% certain everyone must be going 'Booo! Games are art on their own, they shouldn't imitate cinema that much!' Yeah...you know what? I don't care - it got me invested MORESO than other stuff could've in the mid 90s when the game came out and it made this fictional world feel valid and relevant.
All of that...just got me so immersed into this fictional, dystopian future and I suppose it's fuelled what would become my own brand of fascination with the world - how it could all become worse than it already is?
So yep. Videogames certainly can inspire to such things - for great justice and all that jazz.
