The Great Fortnite Dilemma: Should Kim Jong-un’s Skin Be in the Lobby?
Imagine dropping onto the Fortnite island. You grab your trusty shotgun, build a quick ramp, and suddenly find yourself face-to-face with… Kim Jong-un? Not firing missiles, but decked out in a stylish, perhaps slightly ironic, Fortnite outfit, emoting alongside Peely and Master Chief. It sounds like a bizarre fever dream, yet the question “Should Fortnite take Kim’s skin off the game?” forces us to confront the complex intersection of gaming, global politics, satire, and responsibility. While purely hypothetical (Epic Games has never announced such a skin), exploring this thought experiment reveals fascinating tensions within gaming culture.
Why Would This Skin Be So Controversial? Let’s Break It Down.
First, the elephant in the room: Kim Jong-un isn’t just another pop culture figure. He’s the authoritarian leader of North Korea, a nation with a well-documented history of severe human rights abuses, political oppression, nuclear threats, and international isolation. Depicting him in a vibrant, playful game like Fortnite, where players can dance on his virtual “grave” or be eliminated by a llama, inevitably trivializes the very real suffering inflicted by his regime. For victims of that regime, their families, or anyone deeply affected by geopolitical tensions on the Korean peninsula, seeing Kim rendered as just another fun cosmetic item could be profoundly offensive and deeply hurtful. It risks normalizing a figure responsible for immense human tragedy.
There’s also the significant risk of Fortnite becoming an unwilling platform for North Korean propaganda. Even if intended as satire or simple irreverence by Epic, the regime itself might spin the inclusion as international recognition or even endorsement. State media could easily broadcast images of “Supreme Leader” dominating the global gaming stage, twisting the narrative for domestic consumption. Gaming shouldn’t become an inadvertent tool for legitimizing dictatorships.
Furthermore, Fortnite thrives as a space for escapism and fun for a massive, young audience. Introducing such a politically charged, globally divisive figure fundamentally disrupts that. Parents might justifiably question the wisdom of their child virtually embodying a dictator known for brutal purges and nuclear brinkmanship, regardless of the game’s cartoonish context. Does the potential for edgy shock value outweigh the responsibility to maintain a relatively conflict-free, inclusive environment for its diverse player base?
The Case for Keeping It: Satire, Free Expression, and Gaming’s Edge
However, the argument for keeping such a skin (hypothetically) isn’t without merit. Gaming has a long tradition of satire and political commentary. From dystopian narratives critiquing societal flaws to games explicitly lampooning leaders and ideologies, interactivity offers unique avenues for critique. A Kim Jong-un skin could be wielded as a potent satirical tool. Players defeating the digital avatar of a real-world dictator could be interpreted as a symbolic act of defiance, a way to reclaim power through play. The inherent absurdity of Kim emoting or being boogie-bombed could serve to undermine his carefully cultivated image of fearsome authority and control, highlighting the disconnect between his propaganda and reality within the safe confines of a game.
Champions of free expression might argue that removing the skin constitutes censorship. If games are an art form, they should have the freedom to engage with controversial subjects and figures, even if it makes some uncomfortable. Banning representations sets a precedent that could stifle creativity and critical engagement within the medium. Where do we draw the line? If Kim is off-limits, what about other controversial historical or political figures? The slippery slope argument is real.
There’s also the undeniable fact that Fortnite isn’t exactly a stranger to controversy or blurring lines. It features skins based on real-world military operators, characters from violent franchises like God of War and Doom, and has collaborated with figures existing in complex cultural spaces. If the barometer is “controversy,” it’s a crowded field. Proponents of inclusion might ask: Why single out one specific political leader? Is it the nature of his regime, or simply that it’s politically inconvenient right now?
Epic’s Tightrope Walk: Precedents and Practical Realities
While no direct Kim skin exists, Epic Games has navigated similar waters. They’ve generally avoided skins depicting living controversial political figures. Historical figures like Solid Snake or Kratos operate in fictional or mythologized spaces. Collaborations with real-world entities (like NFL teams or musicians) tend to avoid overtly partisan or deeply divisive individuals.
Their approach often seems guided by:
1. Commercial Viability: Will this sell well without causing a massive, brand-damaging backlash?
2. Community Sentiment: How will the incredibly diverse Fortnite community react?
3. Global Market Access: Could this skin get the game banned or restricted in key markets (like South Korea, Japan, or even parts of the EU)? The potential for geopolitical friction impacting their business is significant.
4. Alignment with Brand Values: Does this fit Fortnite’s core identity of fun, collaboration, and relatively lighthearted (though competitive) escapism?
Introducing a Kim skin would likely fail all these tests spectacularly. The backlash would be immediate and intense, potentially alienating large segments of players, sparking diplomatic incidents, and overshadowing the game itself. The commercial and reputational risk would be enormous.
The Verdict: Responsibility Trumps Edginess in This Arena
So, back to the core question: Should Fortnite take Kim’s skin off the game? Hypothetically speaking, the overwhelming weight of ethical, practical, and community-focused arguments leans heavily towards removal, or better yet, never introducing it in the first place.
While the arguments for satire and free expression are intellectually valid within gaming discourse, they feel abstract and potentially naive when weighed against the tangible harm of trivializing a brutal dictatorship and the immense suffering it perpetuates. Fortnite’s core magic lies in its ability to be a shared, vibrant, and surprisingly unifying digital space. Injecting a figure synonymous with real-world oppression, nuclear threats, and severe human rights violations fundamentally poisons that well.
The potential for causing deep offense, inadvertently aiding propaganda, and fracturing the community far outweighs any potential satirical payoff or “edgy” appeal. Epic Games has consistently shown it understands the boundaries of its massive platform. Responsible stewardship, especially for a game enjoyed by millions globally, necessitates recognizing that some lines shouldn’t be crossed, even in the name of provocation or free expression. Some figures exist in a space beyond the reach of a playful emote or victory royale dance. Kim Jong-un, given the gravity of his real-world impact, firmly resides there. Keeping Fortnite an arena for fun, fantasy, and fictional conflict, rather than a stage for the sanitized avatars of active oppressors, is not censorship – it’s simply recognizing the power of the platform and choosing to wield it wisely.
Please indicate: Thinking In Educating » The Great Fortnite Dilemma: Should Kim Jong-un’s Skin Be in the Lobby