Another organization has tarnished its reputation with gamers by engaging in abrupt and excessive pandering to the LGBT community while silencing criticism in the process.
Godot, a widely popular open-source game engine, has long been favored by developers for its flexibility and freedom. Released under the MIT license, Godot allows developers to freely modify, enhance, and redistribute its source code, unlike proprietary engines like Unity and Unreal Engine.
These engines have frustrated solo developers due to issues like Unity’s retroactive enforcement of run-time fees and Unreal Engine 5’s early-stage technical limitations that hinder development. In contrast, open-source engines like Godot are completely free to use, without any licensing fees, making them highly appealing to indie developers and small studios working on limited budgets.
Godot’s popularity surged even more following Unity’s missteps, but as the saying goes, all good things must come to an end. The engine recently found itself in the midst of a public relations disaster caused by its community manager, who sparked significant controversy on Twitter, damaging the goodwill that had been built with its user base.
On September 27th, the official Godot Twitter account posted, “Apparently game engines are woke now? Well then, we won’t complain.
Show us your #Wokot games below.” This tweet sparked significant backlash, as many consumers are increasingly frustrated with the forced diversity and inclusivity initiatives that have become common in corporate advertisements, media, and especially video games.
The Western gaming industry, in particular, prioritizes racial and sexual inclusivity over creating quality, entertaining products.
Godot’s tweet, a clear attempt to provoke controversy, attracted attention but not in the way they intended. Numerous accounts, both large and small, reacted negatively to what many saw as an overt virtue signal targeting the “anti-Gamergate” crowd.
Supporters of the tweet even went so far as to call for “weeding out” dissenters and “cleansing the community” of those who disagreed, further deepening the division within the gaming community.
Facing significant opposition, the official Godot Twitter account began blocking a wide range of users from individuals jumping into the controversy to self-made developers and even financial backers of the Godot Foundation.
Many of these users had simply expressed negative feedback, raised valid questions, or criticized the engine for prioritizing political pandering over continued development and new features.
In some cases, contributors found themselves blocked not only on Twitter but also on Godot’s official GitHub page, further alienating part of the community.
Starkium, the founder of Life Art Studios and a prominent supporter with the “Titanium” donation tier, the second-highest on Godot’s official website, was nonetheless blocked for expressing his opinion that the engine should focus on development rather than politics. Additionally, he was banned by an administrator from the official Discord server.
The entire “Wokot” controversy, along with the ensuing blockings and bans, was orchestrated by Nathalie Galla, Godot Foundation’s community manager, who was appointed in late December 2023. This appointment was announced in a Godot post titled “Prepare to Hear a Lot More From Us.“
Nathalie, who identifies with she/they pronouns and describes itself as “Obnoxiously Queer,” goes by the handle “Murder Veggie.” Based on their appearance, posts, and behavior, it’s obvious to see that such an individual is mentally unfit for any professional role nor should they have any power to speak on behalf of a corporate entity.
The strength of an open-source game engine like Godot, released under the MIT license, is that it allows individuals and companies to freely use, distribute, and commercialize the engine for their own projects.
Given the diverse nature of its community, it’s unrealistic to expect everyone to align with a single ideology, but then again one should not speak of such things at the dinner table.
A community-driven project like Godot should avoid pushing any specific political agenda to maintain inclusivity and focus on development.
This is no longer avoidable, as game development and the entire industry has been increasingly overtaken by progressive activists determined to emasculate the industry and impose their politics and worldview on the medium.
As more consumers recognize that their once niche, escapist hobby is being subverted, gaming has become a key front in broader cultural battles.
One clear example of this is how community managers, often activists themselves, use their positions of influence to reshape a company’s social identity, turning it into a platform for their personal ideologies.
This can damage the reputation of the company, especially when the focus shifts away from product development to political messaging. Godot, for instance, began pushing a revised code of conduct in 2019 aimed at promoting social justice, making it clear how entrenched these ideologies have become within the development space.
For a widespread and diverse project like Godot, it’s understandable that they’d want to support a variety of game projects using their engine. However, maintaining a non-political stance seems impossible for some individuals within the organization.
With a sarcastic and condescending tone, they labeled Godot as “woke” and encouraged the community to share their “woke” games under the hashtag #Wokot.
This approach alienated many and mirrored a similar promotional effort during Pride Month, further entrenching the engine in politically charged discourse especially when any skepticism and criticism to the pandering was met with swift blocks by the main Godot account.
After the blocks and bans, the Godot Foundation stepped in, claiming that a tweet from their staff had triggered a “wave of harassment” and condemning the alleged abuse. However, the creator of Godot had previously stated that bans should only be issued for harassment or discrimination, regardless of political views.
Despite this, many users were blocked simply for expressing opinions that the Godot Engine should prioritize development over virtue signaling.
One developer was even blocked after suggesting the engine focus on adding support for bitmap fonts, a basic feature expected in a 2D game engine.
The Godot Foundation’s response comes off as condescending, refusing to take appropriate responsibility for their community manager’s actions. Their message suggests that anyone who feels they were blocked or banned in error, without violating the code of conduct which emphasizes inclusivity and acceptance can submit a block appeal.
This process requires users to provide their Twitter account details, the specific tweet they made in response to Godot, and an explanation for why they should be unbanned. The tone implies that Godot is placing the blame on the user for needing to appeal, treating it like an unban request for a Minecraft server.
Additionally, the Godot Foundation addressed the harmful language used by one of their Discord moderators, Xananax (ironically named after the drug), who, in the wake of the “Wokot” controversy, aggressively defended the actions taken
Xananax went as far as stating that those who disagreed with the political stance had no right to voice their opinions on the server, dismissing their words as “toxic vomit.” He further escalated his comments by labeling dissenters as “evil human beings” and the “filth of humanity,” showing little tolerance for differing views.
In typical fashion, the words that Godot condemned weren’t the ones you’d expect. Rather, the “morally righteous” political activist in question, Xananax (he/him), was swiftly exposed for a darker past. It turns out that Xananax, who fervently defended Godot’s political stance, had a history of using the slur “Sand Nigger,” a derogatory insult aimed at people from the Middle East.
Xananax issued a vague apology for their past racism but failed to address or apologize for labeling critics of Godot’s political activism as “evil” and “the filth of humanity.”
Only time will tell if Godot can survive the “culture war” they’ve entangled themselves in by siding with unhinged political activists who have a stranglehold on much of the gaming industry. For now, though, this has dealt a severe blow to their reputation among gamers and developers alike, with several forks of the Godot engine emerging as a result of the controversy.
A “fork” happens when a developer or group takes the source code of a project and starts a separate development path, resulting in a variant that evolves independently. Forks are common when certain features or customizations are needed that the main engine doesn’t support.
For example, a company might require a specialized rendering pipeline or physics system that they choose to develop independently, rather than rely on the main project’s updates. Forks are often used to test experimental features, allowing developers to try new ideas or frameworks without risking the stability of the main engine. If successful, these features might later be merged back into the original project through pull requests.
However, forks also have downsides. They can fragment community efforts, splitting developers and resources between different branches instead of consolidating improvements within a single codebase.
While it’s easy to create a fork of Godot, attracting skilled developers and securing funding to maintain and advance it as a stable alternative is much more difficult, especially for projects distancing themselves from the Godot Foundation.
In response to the backlash over censorship and political bias from Godot’s community management, several forks have emerged. Notably, “Lolidot” and the more popular “Redot” were created, signaling a divide within the community over the direction of the Godot project.
The purpose of the Redot fork is straightforward: “Just Games. No Bullshit.” This reflects the ideal approach for an open-source, community-driven game engine. Developers and projects shouldn’t be celebrated simply for their sexual orientation or racial background such pandering has become increasingly tiresome for gamers, who have faced this trend for years.
Instead, recognition should be based on the quality and creativity of the games themselves, not because the titles push “woke” ideologies, as the Godot Foundation seems to be promoting.
Indie games should represent a developer’s vision and passion, not be platforms for political allegiances. Great games, developed with good intentions, should be the ones that receive attention and praise.
Unfortunately, the Godot Foundation appears to have been hijacked by activists, while the founder remains indifferent, failing to address the issues properly.
Whether community-driven forks like Redot will succeed with fewer resources and developers remains to be seen, but there is hope they do. The Godot Foundation can no longer be trusted, and the fact that Redot is steering Godot away from identity-driven politics is a promising and humorous twist.
Companies and individuals often underestimate the growing influence of “anti-woke” consumers in today’s market. For now, Redot may be just a reskin, but only time will tell how it evolves, especially since some contributors have been blocked from the main Godot repository, leaving these forked versions as their only avenue for participation and development moving forward.
