Fantastical Supreme Court Conspiracy Exposed By A Video Game

Sure, video games let us shoot at Fidel Castro and play as former Presidents, but where's the game that attacks our favourite conservative Supreme Court Justices? If you don't mind spoilers or hate the Citizens United decision, keep reading.

One more warning... we're talking about Assassin's Creed Brotherhood, though we're not talking about the main events of the game, just some amusingly conspiratorial side stuff.

Still here? Ready to know more about how a video game actually goes after modern political figures, something they almost never do?

OK.

Assassin's Creed Brotherhood is part of a series of games that are set in in different periods of history, weaving their own story with real events. Most of the action takes place during the Crusades or the Italian Renaissance, and your enjoyment of the game is dependent on how much you want to feel like you are a ruthless and possibly heroic assassin who can scale buildings and stab nobles with graceful ease.

The backdrop for the games adventures is that many of history's greatest conflicts and most notorious assassinations were the product of a longtime war between the player's side, the brotherhood of Assassins and the enemy, the Templars, those former Knights who are, in the game's modern times (2012! End of the world!), an evil corporation. This is not original. It's Bilderberg Group stuff; it's Illuminati hysteria. It is also perfectly fine to take it as fiction, unless you'd like to believe most major political events were orchestrated by a sinister invisible hand.

Many hours into Assassin's Creed Brotherhood, the game reveals how the US Supreme Court fits into this. Specifically the game establishes that the early 2010 version of the Court led by Chief Justice John Roberts that decided the Citizens United case early this year - a decision notoriously condemned by President Obama during his State of The Union address - was in cahoots with the Templars. Roberts, I guess, is in with the bad guys.

The Supreme Court's decision in the Citizens United found that it was a violation of the first amendment to restrict corporate contributions to campaign advertising. Critics of the decision, the President included, complained that the decision would allow big companies to use their treasuries to imbalance elections by drowning out voices that dissented with whichever perspectives they advertised and supported. But proponents, including the five justices who voted in the majority, said that corporations deserved speech rights.

How do they work this into a game that is mostly set in the Renaissance? The same way the game's creative team at publisher Ubisoft introduces many of the twists to its international conspiracy: through a series of hidden brain-teaser puzzles that are said to unlock a video file called "The Truth". I captured video of my play through part of the Supreme Court one, which you'll see has many hidden messages skewering the corporate ties of some of the United States' most successful right-wing members of the government.

Get the message in the video? Roberts is a Templar. It all makes so much sense now.

While the message here might be blunt, lacking in balance and semi-preposterous, it's also striking to see in a video game. Major games that are expected to sell millions of copies, which Assassin's Creed is, seldom even mention modern political figures, let alone attack them.

Assassin's Creed Brotherhood, however, is no ordinary game. It's one that tucks a crack about Obama's unpopular health care plan into a description of an old Roman building.

For what it's worth, Ubisoft is based in France, while this game's development was directed from the company's massive studio in Montreal. Why, to think such people would have a chuckle at our health care system or our Supreme Court! I haven't seen an American video game company make cracks like this.


Comments

    Citizens United may have lifted restrictions off of Corporations, but it ALSO lifted these same restrictions off of Labor Unions.

    Also, advertising is not mind control. Political advocacy, no matter how much money it is actually backed with, only works if it can make a case which is persuasive to voters. No matter how many billions of dollars one can spend on an ad saying "two plus two is five," you won't be able to convince other people that two plus two actually does equal five (except possibly some pre-schoolers below the age of voting).

    I know this game is simply a work of fiction, but honestly this so-called "plot" shows not only very little understanding of American Jurisprudence but a cringe-worthy level of politicization and, ultimately, utter contempt for the First Ammendment.

    McCain-Feingold was an absolute spit-in-the-face of Free Speech. It also conveniently exempted media corporations from its own provisions, so if anyone things that the McCain-Feingold act protected them from "teh Corporations" they should think again.

    The First Ammendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

    It does not make any qualifications about who "deserves" the right to free speech. Rights are not "earned" or "deserved" and they are not "granted" by the State. The First Ammendment says that the Congress shall make NO LAW that abridges freedom of speech. McCain-Feingold was clearly an example of a violation of the First Ammendment.

    Of course, what else would we expect from a French-Canadian studio but unending confidence in the ability of the State to protect people from "the bad guys"? You'd think that after the Bush Administration they'd realize how dangerous the State actually is...

    Apparently, its only dangerous when "their side" isn't in control of it.

      You are being somewhat naive/simplistic. All politicians lie to get into office, your ability to get elected boils down to your connections and having the funds to get your lies repeated enough times until they become 'true' to the tired masses. Repetition is a powerful force, and you seem to be missing the real point/danger that huge campaign contributions not only give unfair advantage but also act as bribes to influence the policy of elected candidates. "Your vote doesn't count, we've already bought both the candidates". Campaign contributions do not fall under free speech, they fall under commerce.

      Also, is the court not a section of the state? You say French/Canadians have some blind belief in the benevolence of the state, as a Canadian i take that as an insult and find it to be contrary to the norm. Obviously the game makers perceive Obama as more benevolent then the Bush admin, and while that may be so as far as i can tell he is little more then the velvet glove around the iron fist.

Join the discussion!

Trending Stories Right Now