2017 has started off with some amazing game releases. Last week I discussed Horizon Zero Dawn, which is, in my opinion, the best contender for game of the year due to its great reception. Despite its success, it did not bring up anything in terms of controversy. The other big title release is the newest Tom Clancy game Ghost Recon: Wildlands. This game continues the same theme as The Division, which was a totally open world game including an online cooperative. Instead of New York City, though, the game is now set in a futuristic Bolivia where a drug cartel has taken over the entire state.

In Ghost Recon: Wildlands, the Santa Blanca cartel was trying to establish its own rule through buying off police, judges, and elected officials. What ends up happening is that the government basically concedes to this cartel, which then turns Bolivia into a total narco-state. A narco-state in this instance refers to a government in which the drug cartel runs the country, and in this case the nation becomes the drug hub of the entire world.

This is where you as the player step in. You play a leader of a covert military operation attempting to take down the Santa Blanca cartel and help Bolivia reestablish its government. Produced by Ubisoft France, Wildlands takes a unique spin on current events to craft a fictional narrative that encompasses a very beautiful landscape, Bolivia. Though they claim to be fictional, Ubisoft is receiving a ton of pressure from the Bolivian government. "We have the standing to take legal action, but at first we prefer to go the route of diplomatic negotiation," said Bolivian interior minister Carlos Romero. In other worlds, Bolivia does not like this game’s plot at all and would like to take some sort of action to correct the portrayal of the nation.

I can certainly see the issue with portraying Bolivia in this way. To my knowledge, I do not think another game company has taken a story like this and mapped out an entire South American country. Additionally, the game operates under this “covert” nature, which I assume means that the United States is operating illegally in this country during the game itself. Similarly, Resident Evil 5 depicted diseased African civilians as evil, which you had to kill to advance in the game. I would argue that portraying foreign people as the enemy in these video games is a bad thing, because it communicates a broader message. It shows that people of color are either evil or helpless and that the white westerners must be the saviors.

In Bolivia's case, they just want a fair representation of their country and not for them to be perceived as a drug state. In terms of the gameplay itself, I don’t particularly like Wildlands. It feels like an exaggerated version of The Division, and simply makes the world too big. When it takes you forever just to reach your destination for a mission, then you should reconsider how large the map is. The Division was neither too small nor too big and created clear guidelines for each zone. Wildlands, on the other hand, blends everything together to formulate a giant open world game that feels frustrating and repetitive. If Bolivia’s objection to the game isn’t enough to prevent you from buying it, then the gameplay definitely should make you think twice. My advice would be to go rent it first and try it out. For me, I think I am going to take it back to the Redbox machine right now.