In the bizarre world of Steam, a peculiar addition has raised eyebrows—none other than the controversial InfoWars host, Alex Jones, now making his mark with a questionable creation titled “Alex Jones: NWO Wars.” This is the same Alex Jones who not only fundraised for and attended the infamous January 6 protests that culminated in the storming of the US Capitol but also finds himself entangled in a staggering $1.5 billion defamation lawsuit filed by the grieving families of murdered children.
Unsurprisingly, the game itself, Alex Jones: NWO Wars, doesn’t exactly earn high marks in the gaming community. Despite its lackluster gameplay and questionable content, the title has managed to amass over 400 positive reviews in just a few days on the Steam platform. Delving into these reviews feels akin to navigating through a sea of Reddit commenters all vying for the title of the funniest person in the room, regurgitating warmed-over meme jokes with fervor. Alex Jones: NWO Wars appears to ride the crest of a memetic wave, gaining popularity and amusement, particularly after a more limited release in November of the previous year.
My personal experience with the Alex Jones game was a swift one—it took me a mere 36 minutes to conquer, comfortably within Steam’s two-hour refund window. To be fair, amidst the chaos, the pixel art manages to be surprisingly competent, sporting a peculiar “corporate indie” aesthetic reminiscent of the middling Steam releases from the mid-2010s. However, beyond this redeeming feature, the game stands as a virtual piece of disappointment, a stain on the platform’s reputation. Quality concerns aside, it stands as an embarrassing addition to the diverse array of titles available on Steam.
The central appeal was supposedly the Alex Jones-themed “anti-woke” comedy, but it struck me as a devoted, repetitive routine cycling through the greatest hits of Jones’ internet virality over the past decade—a performance as dated and feeble as the platforms that hosted it. AJ:NWOW heavily relies on Jones’ infamous “they’re turning the frogs gay” rant from 2015, with gay frog enemies exploding in rainbow pride blood and Jones himself chanting the phrase or delivering lukewarm quips every minute, reminiscent of a latter-day, greatly diminished Gex the Gecko.
Jones seems to lack the ability to laugh at himself. Instead of tackling his real adversaries, like alimony payments or the Sandy Hook parents, the game opts for lazy caricatures of Mark Zuckerberg, Tim Cook, George Soros, the Clintons, and the like.
Even when making fun of Bill Clinton, the game falls flat with lines like “I did not have sexual relations with that saxophone,” repeated ad nauseam during Clinton’s boss fight on “Epstein Island” (Little St. James Island in-game). It’s as if the developers lack faith in their audience’s comprehension, delivering jokes reminiscent of Imgur circa 2011—a time-capsule of internet humor.
Discussing offense in the context of a personality like Jones, where provocation is the essence, might seem futile. However, one moment stood out from my general weariness—the level where you mow down homeless people throwing objects at you in San Francisco. Stay classy, man.
Navigating the tumultuous waters of digital platforms and their moderation policies is indeed a hot topic in the gaming realm. The constant influx of low-quality games on Steam, coupled with Valve’s hands-off approach, fuels ongoing debates within the PC gaming community. The question of whether this laissez-faire attitude is sustainable or should be reevaluated remains open-ended.
Comparatively, Valve’s approach is often favored over other tech giants’ continuous adjustments to their moderation policies. Platforms like Twitch and YouTube grapple with the challenge of defining acceptable content, occasionally leading to questionable decisions on implied nudity or sporadic de-monetization of seemingly innocuous videos. The preference for Valve’s system lies in its acceptance of a flood of unconventional games, with hidden gems like Cruelty Squad emerging amid the chaos.
Enter the controversial “Alex Jones:NWOW,” a game that has stirred the pot by demanding a $20 price tag while delivering less value than a free Flash game. Critics argue that it breaches Valve’s guidelines, touching on hate speech, defamatory statements, and content meant to shock or offend. The game’s references to a George Soros effigy as a Nazi raise eyebrows and question its compliance with Steam’s publishing standards.
Despite the uproar, some gamers find themselves puzzled by the positive reviews that dismiss better games with more substance as “scams.” The situation becomes a complex interplay between platform neutrality and the responsibility of curating content. While Alex Jones and InfoWars remain banned on numerous major platforms, including Apple, YouTube, Spotify, and Facebook, the game finds a refuge on Steam.
The 36 minutes spent with Alex Jones:NWOW leave a sour taste, with the recommendation echoing a sentiment of caution. The controversy surrounding Jones, his ideologies, and the game itself becomes a microcosm of the larger debate around platform neutrality. Even as major platforms disallow certain content, the decision to allow it on others speaks volumes, whether intended as a statement or not. As the gaming community grapples with these nuances, the pursuit of a balance between freedom and responsible curation continues.