What is the myth of the apolitical game, and why is it a myth?

The claim that video games are pure entertainment and should stay away from politics. It is a myth because the same games strive for realism with real political themes and symbols, and denying they are political mainly serves to free developers from responsibility for the messages players take away.

Why developers claim neutrality: they want to sell an entertainment product to the largest possible audience without annoying any buyer, whatever their politics.

Why it doesn't hold:

• The same games try hard to look realistic and depict the real world closely, including real themes and symbols that borrow their weight from reality. Examples: terrorists releasing a bioweapon on banknotes on Black Friday ("the central holiday of American capitalism"), or civil war in Washington DC after a corrupt regime has seized the White House.
• Developers define "political" very narrowly: only part of a campaign promoting a candidate, an election result or a party. These linguistic manoeuvres aim to absolve developers of any responsibility for the meanings players interpret.
• Games overlap with politics in many other ways: violence and weapons, militarisation and war, environment and climate change, capitalism and property.
• Instead of "political", developers prefer words like "theme" or "concept", and call colonialism and occupation "timeless questions".

Go deeper:

• Rainer Sigl: Der Mythos vom unpolitischen Spiel (Grimme Game, 2019) — the essay behind the argument, with examples.