cross-posted from: https://feddit.uk/post/10017167

The first edition of Warhammer 40k, Rogue Trader, was written in 1987 largely by Rick Priestley, an up and coming young game designer who had cut his teeth co-writing the original Warhammer Fantasy battles. It was a hodgepodge of ideas from many sources: Frank Herbert’s Dune, 2000AD comic strips like Judge Dredd and Nemesis the Warlock, Michael Moorcock’s fantasy and sci-fi, Philip José Farmer’s The World of Tiers, Bryan Ansell’s Laserburn wargame.

We can add to that Priestley’s lived experience in mid 20th century Britain; the long-tail of the Second World War and the end of British Empire; the ongoing civil discontent of the ‘70s and ‘80s between trade unions and the government; the UK’s ongoing military operations in Northern Ireland; state sanctioned support for the South African Apartheid government; and the Falklands war. All fed into an early 40k corpus that was politically charged and anti-authoritarian.

Since Rogue Trader was published, Warhammer 40k has been developed and expanded with a ridiculous quantity of content. It isn’t one single thing any more – it’s a complex of Warhammer 40k books, Warhammer 40k Codexes, miniatures, Warhammer plus animations, tie-in Warhammer 40k games on PC and console, even marketing materials. There’s more of it than any one person can engage with, and the focus has been split even further.

Warhammer 40k lore has developed in directions that directly undermine its ability to criticize the real-world inspirations of the Imperium. While Rogue Trader presented an Imperium that’s arguably as atrocious as the forces that opposed it, the threats it faces have since escalated wildly, weakening the setting’s satirical base by giving the Imperium more convincing excuses to be awful.

The irony and exaggeration remain, but they’re now the background to a battle for survival, told from the point of view of (usually) relatable, sympathetic and enjoyable Imperial characters – satirical motifs no longer pointed at a satirical target.

While the Imperium is clearly corrupt, inefficient, and ruinous to its citizens, the reality of its situation has changed a critique into a question. Are these acceptable prices for continued survival? Are these inevitable consequences of continued survival? Great fodder for sci-fi debates, but ineffective satire.

  • mindbleach@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    9 months ago

    The short version, via Lindsey Ellis: the targets of satire can’t enjoy it. If it even kinda-sorta works as an example of what it’s satirizing, you missed.

    Oh hey, her video is in the article.

    Tangential quesiton: is Helldivers satire? It’s ridiculing its own text, for sure. I haven’t seen one whiff of people taking the premise seriously. Everyone treats the player characters as disposable propagandized idiots and has a great time being those idiots.

    • squirrel@lemmy.blahaj.zoneOPM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      9 months ago

      My personal opinion: It falls in a similar category as Warhammer. Yes, it is satire, but not particularly effective, because it allows fascists to hide in plain sight and have a good ol’ time with everybody else. No need for them to hide their opinions, everybody thinks what they are spouting is satire anyway.

      If Helldivers were effective as a satire, fascists and other authoritarians would spit fire and brimstone whenever the game got mentioned. At the moment though, they love to claim the game is apolitical and one of theirs.