For instance, the Civ games are basically Whig History: The Game, presenting liberal capitalism as the ideal end point for all societies. It even includes uncivilized "barbarian tribes" whose sole purpose is to be exterminated so you can take their land for the glory of capitalism.
What I was saying is that it is hard to impossible for a piece of fiction to not have ideological messages. That doesn't mean you can't still enjoy them, but getting overly defensive about the ideology being pointed out arguably shows just how effective that messaging was, since the monarchist defenders are being defended even outside of the game.
Fiction doesn't materialize from nothing. Fire Emblem is at its core a monarchist franchise. Enjoyable or not, the ideology's baked in.
If I made a game about the wonder weapons of the Luftwaffe, I'm already presenting an ideological message that the Luftwaffe had weapons that were wonderous, rather than just crackpot projects. It's built into the game's ideology to show them as impressive.
Same deal with Fire Emblem. The game has monarchist destinies baked right into the plot, shows pretty people as good and ugly people as generally bad, and that's just how it is in the fiction because that's sort of part of monarchist ideology, the idea that goodness and badness are inherited and inheritable.
I'll be sure when I make a TRPG to only set it in the midst of a communist revolution from now on.
Is it really that hard to accept that a game about restoring monarchies has ideology about how monarchies are good? I didn't say you couldn't enjoy the game. I play plenty of games that have ideological messages that are contrary to my personal values, but I accept that and play anyway.
I also run tabletop games with monarchs and dynasties, and sometimes those specific monarchs aren't always shown to be absolutely evil to the core (but still benefit from an unjust system and have massive blinders on for the masses' problems).
deleted by creator