6: Siege and the Ethics of Media

I’ve always been interested in moral philosophy. I once wrote an article about the ethics of semi-cooperative play. I’ve expressed anguish and confusion regarding police violence. I also shared regret in asking a group of friends to pretend to be German scientists researching the atomic bomb.

My latest quandary is the ethical culpability of discussing games produced by unscrupulous parties. More transparently, I’ve struggled with whether I should write about 6: Siege. It’s a game I’ve become engrossed in over the past few months, and I’ve gone back and forth whether to discuss it. But I don’t think giving it a spotlight is the right thing to do. Even praising it here feels vulgar. This is because the charlatans who published the thing, Mythic Games, deserve to be forgotten.

Mythic Games is a terrible company. They’ve sold off their intellectual property for unfulfilled campaigns (Anastyr, Hel: the Last Saga), requested backers for existing projects to kick in an additional round of funding (Darkest Dungeon, 6:Siege), and they’ve left thousands of people in limbo with both promised product and refunds that have not materialized. Now, they’re selling 6: Siege on their own webstore. These are copies of the game originally paid for by supporters that have not received their rewards. At best, they’re horrendous at business. At worst, they’re unscrupulous swindlers. I believe their actions make one more likely than the other.

Covering this game, with promotion being a byproduct, is a dilemma.

I’m not delusional. I don’t have some magnificent influence nor the wide reach of popular media. But there’s a certain amount of responsibility in selecting games to present to an audience, no matter its size. In this instance, everyone loses.

This discussion is tangentially related to the concept of separating the art from the artist, but it’s distinct from that notion. I’m specifically talking about the burden of the reviewer, of board game media. The idea of art being a separate entity than the person who crafted it is a consumer-facing topic. That is somewhat irrelevant here, as I’m not arguing anyone should forego playing 6: Siege or feel remorseful for enjoying it. Rather, the crux of the issue is whether we should be promoting it.

While this is a wider issue that could apply to a number of games, it’s really best to illustrate it with 6: Siege. A review that was effuse with praise would lead to bad outcomes. First, the game’s availability is restricted. You can only purchase it direct from the company at an extremely inflated price. This is terrible. Beyond the fact it’s claiming a limb, this large bundle of currency is going straight to the sharks. They should not be rewarded for what they’ve done.

Secondly, it will likely be unavailable in the near future. Boosting this game is layering FOMO atop FOMO. It’s too much. Like pounding cake after guzzling a milkshake. Like chasing espresso with Red Bull.

This concern of highlighting an unavailable game is something larger that must be grappled with. It can spark great frustration in a reader that really latches onto the concept and then finds nothing but disappointment when trying to track it down. I’ve tossed this one around in my head, going back-and-forth on whether I should be writing about and evaluating games like Space Hulk: Death Angel and Ambush. Much of this really depends on the work you are doing and its purpose.

The third area of apprehension lies with re-opening the wound for those aggrieved. This is less a worry for a small-timer like me but imagine an outlet like Shut Up & Sit Down lifting 6: Siege to the top of the Board Game Geek hotness. Oof. Those in limbo would be gutted to find a wave of new buyers clamoring to scoop up the original backers’ owed copies of the game. Then they would have to endure a rush of players spouting off about how it’s fantastic and worth every penny. The knife begs to be twisted.

I like to point out that my goal in games writing is not to promote or recommend. Rather, I seek to critique and evaluate. To interpret. And to hopefully inspire others to approach games in a new way. But I’m not ignorant of the fact that many people use my reviews as a consumer tool. It’s just the cost of doing business.

That function is what spurred this article and has caused my consternation. I do not want to contribute to the impropriety.

Every human being should reflect and question their practices. We should seek to be better, to do what we want to be done. Yet, I wouldn’t condemn anyone for covering 6: Siege. There is certainly some value in doing so. We could all learn from such an endeavor, both for the company’s practices as well as how the game has uniquely leveraged its source material to produce an altogether magnificent skirmish experience full of resplendent ideas.

Now let’s imagine that we appeal to our ethical code and don’t amplify this indecency. Is anything really lost?

It could be argued that the designers and artists of a game should not suffer for the publisher’s blunder. Or the reverse in a situation where a designer was responsible for some terrible misstep outside of the publisher’s control. This is difficult.

When 2024 comes to a close, will 6: Siege be on my top games of the year list? Must it wear the burden of its producer’s malfeasance?

 

If you enjoy what I’m doing and want to support my work, please consider dropping off a tip at my Ko-Fi or supporting me on Patreon.