The second part of Dune is out at the moment, and it has resulted in that most filthy of perversions, discourse - a pastime in which only the most unsavoury characters indulge. Is Dune appropriative? Is the appropriation the point? Whatever the case, Funcom want you to know that their upcoming survival game Dune: Awakening has nothing to do with any of that, posting a short Xeet from the official Awakening account that's the written equivalent of sticking your arms straight out, waving your hands, and going "Woahwoahwoah, hang on a minute."
"We agree that religion is an integral part of the Dune universe. This is why in Dune: Awakening you will meet and interact with people of different religions along your journey. However, as opposed to the story presented in the books, the player is not a messiah and will not play a major role in any of them. Leading people on a holy war is not why you arrive on Arrakis," reads the post in full. Personally, I approve of this effort to keep games apolitical. Politics? In my Dune. No thank you. I am of course being facetious. There is still religion and politics in Dune: Awakening, as confirmed by the statement, but you yourself aren't doing much of it.
It seems clear from this statement that what Funcom do what to keep politics out of, is people talking about Funcom's game Dune: Awakening. This is the case with most big games these days. Taking a stance or tackling any difficult subjects in depth risks alienating a percentage point of your audience in either direction. Instead, in Dune: Awakening you will indulge in such survival game delights as living through the extreme heat of Arrakis and drinking blood - but not riding sandworms, which is some bullshit.
Consider, though, if Funcom had gone in entirely the other direction and made everyone a potential messiah, and the point of the game was to get enough political power to become the true messiah? Or all the players have to vote for who gets to be messiah this time? Whoever
Read more on rockpapershotgun.com