It's a 2016 dialog choice and QTE driven game along the same gameplay lines as Telltale games like The Walking Dead. Of the writer-director, wikipedia describes him:
Khonsari was raised in his homeland Iran until 10. He fled Iran as a political refugee to Canada after the 1979 Revolution with his family.
My assumption is that there are two possibilities for this game. It's either just another run-of-the-mill both-sides-bad centrist-brained libfest that paints the revolutionaries as being "well intentioned" but all revolutions (except for bourgeois ones of course) inevitably lead to "authoritarian" dictatorships that are even worse than what existed before and any good-guy revolutionaries presented at the start of the game either turn out bad or are shown to have been naive fools for ever hoping things could be better. That's what the game is painting itself to be, regardless of whatever it is. The other possibility, made more likely given the writer-director's background, is that it's flat out unabashedly pro-imperialist, anti-Iranian unmitigated western propaganda.
I guess those two aren't mutually exclusive, but I think you know what I mean, where they kind of represent two ends of a shitty spectrum. (There's also the exceedingly slim possibility its politics are halfway decent, but I'm not really entertaining that thought because the chances are too close to null.) I'm curious enough about where this game lands on that spectrum that I think I'll go ahead and play it. I'm not one to rage quit in the traditional sense, but if it gets bad enough, I probably won't subject myself to it any further. So before going in, has anybody here already experienced whatever this game is pushing? Any thoughts about it one way or another?
Some quotes from the "Political and institutional responses" section of the Natopedia article on it:
When the game started gaining popularity in June 2012, Iranian conservative newspaper Kayhan published pieces naming it "pro-Western propaganda" and accusing Khonsari of espionage; he subsequently felt afraid to reenter the country. Some developers used aliases to protect themselves, and the concept artist fled Iran due to his involvement. Khonsari said that "anytime Iran has something written about them in the west, they feel as if it is propaganda against them." Following the game's release in 2016, the National Foundation for Computer Games (NFCG) blocked all websites distributing it in Iran and began gathering all illegally distributed copies in the country.
featured in a November 2016 UNESCO report by Paul Darvasi about the impact of games on learning about conflict resolution; Darvasi noted the game "might be studied to determine if [it] can be used to support the production of historical empathy, global empathy, and ethnocultural empathy, all which contribute to the acquisition and development of intercultural understanding". In 2022, a branch of Germany's Federal Agency for Civic Education critiqued the game; teacher Alexander Zart found it affected by subjective depictions due to Khonsari's significant personal background, despite its framing as an "interactive documentary".
- "tell me about it."
, but really you should know better by now. Hell, you should know better simply by virtue of the fact you're posting your ignorance on a communist website. So apparently I'll be the first to inform you that both liberalism and conservatism are very similar rightwing ideologies, with conservatism being essentially another branch of liberalism. This is recognized by most of the rest of the world, even many other "LiBeRaL dEmOcRaCiEs." As communists, anarchists, leftists in general, we wholly reject liberalism and that includes conservatism (conservatism itself still subscribes to almost all liberal doctrine such as worship of private property). See, learn something new every day. :new 
How dare you?!
for the one you already know is committing a genocide to reduce harm. That's just facts and logic. 
That's really interesting and not a perspective I see voiced around here much. It's always the TrueAnon/Hasan rules: have nukes and if you're ever accused of having nukes get them immediately. Which tbh always made good sense to me. But I realize podcasters and streamers aren't necessisarily the most geopolitically astute.
All of the reasons listed above for not having them, despite everything that has happened, seem like really good points though. Then again, if Iran had developed nukes and demonstrated them a decade ago or more, it would be a completely different situation now that (I would imagine) would probably not bear much resemblance to how things panned out in this timeline.