In These Games, the Points Are All Political 329
bettiwettiwoo writes "A New York Times article (free reg. req.) highlights a new trend in games, and political marketing: openly political games. Both Republicans and Democrats are developing games with political messages, albeit using slightly different strategies. A featured developer, Persuasive Games, is open about their not-so-objective objective: 'We design, build, and distribute electronic games for persuasion, instruction, and activism.' But would that be declared on the games so produced? And would it matter if it did? In such times of artful manipulation, it is actually quite a relief to find that not all politicos are sophisticated high tech geeks: the Long Island Political Network invites you to play... Tic Tac Toe."
Are you trying to tell me (Score:3, Insightful)
Propaganda's greatest victory... (Score:3, Insightful)
nice (Score:3, Insightful)
People are bored (Score:5, Insightful)
I think I've worked at enough failed dot-coms to know why this is happening. Basically, they've got budget X, to maintain the Web site for these political nitwits, and they have to spend it somehow, so that the Corporate Man will keep the greenbacks flowing next time around.
So, they have to piss it away somehow, but really...how can you piss away a great big budget just creating some CMS to handle the candidate's boring "news alerts" and other shit that no one reads? Hence, here comes the "brainstorm", and they all come up with the same bunch of tired old ideas to waste the money and justify their jobs that we've all implemented in the past. You know, polls, "online communities", and Flash games! "Young people like games. We need to lure young voters. Our game will be so kewl that they will all like flock to polling booths and totally elect us!"
And then these stupid little wastes of hard disk space serve to preach to their already converted Beavises and/or Buttheads who are all like "this is so cool...i can like...shoot money with president bush's head...heh heh, heh heh".
Or maybe not. Maybe it's brilliant political strategy.
At least they are upfront about it (Score:5, Insightful)
Nothing new under the sun (Score:5, Insightful)
With tinfoil hat on, it could certainly be argued that every game based on a real-life situation is political, at least subliminally - think about it, how many games have you seen where you play a US Army / Secret Service / CIA / NSA / whatever operative, on a secret mission to stop those evil nasty gooks who are hell-bent on destroying freedom (aka USA) at all costs?
Couldn't it also be argued that every single one of these games contributes on some level to the message "America is great - it's those foreigners you should fear and hate. Stay at home son, and join the US Army!" ?
Just out of interest, how many games have you heard about where you have to stop domestic terrorists?
I'm not trying to claim a deliberate attempt to indoctrinate, just that if you take a step back and view it from the outside (confession:I'm a Brit) then market forces have dictated an unnerving consensus.
OK, OK, I'll take my tinfoil hat off now. Here, I'll even give you a start : -1 Troll
Developing a political game (Score:5, Insightful)
One of the main challenges I came across in developing a political game [alteringtime.com] was that politics aren't inherently very fun. A racing game or hockey game that leans to the simulation side can still be really enjoyable, but an accurate political simulation tends to be slow-paced and not scale well to large numbers of players. Of course the easy way out is to add fun stuff like assassinations, the mafia, etc....
Word of advice to you all (Score:0, Insightful)
Again: I'm not warning you against this game because it attacks GWB, I'm strongly in favor of attacking GWB. I'm warning you against this game because it attacks GWB and *does a bad job of it.*
- Super Ugly Ultraman
Games have always been political. (Score:5, Insightful)
More recently we've had Tomb Raider, which is an ironic campaign against the objectification of Women, (ironically, the irony backfired), and Grand Theft Auto, protesting against the innefectiveness of the criminal justice system.
Political Data Gathering (Score:3, Insightful)
I mean, there is nothing wrong with manipulating the process of aquiring and distributing data. I just think it's funny, that those same people manipulating the data, believe in their own manipulated data and base their decisions on that. And even funnier, are wondering why things are not working the way they want. (Weapons of Mass destruction anyone? Or manipulated corporate accounting?)
Re:Developing a political game (Score:3, Insightful)
The "problem" with politics is that, on a national level, they're more akin to those hardcore war games than anything that's really mainstream fun. Command and Conquer was a lot more popular than whatever the ultra realistic World War 2 battle simulation of its day was. Not that there's anything wrong with that, though. No one wants to need a degree from the Kennedy School of Government in order to do well in a game. The key is just to seek out the parts that ARE fun and discard the rest.
Re:Nothing new under the sun (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent: Games in which you can only follow the glorious patriotic line are just not complete. You've got to have the chance to be the bad guy once in a while.
I think your use of the phrase 'bad guy' serves to reinforce the grandparent's comment, not contradict it.
-Colin [colingregorypalmer.net]
Re:At least they are upfront about it (Score:3, Insightful)
It's the messages weaved into the story lines of games, movies and tv shows, the preaching under the guise of entertainment, that gets my hackles up.
Hmm, isn't that called 'theme'? Isn't it, like, let's see, a requirement? Otherwise what's the point of the entertainment? I'd be interested if you could dig up a few books/movies/whatever that completely lack a theme of some sort.
Maybe I've just been reading too many classics lately, but I'm happy to finally be reading 20k Leagues under the sea! ;)
Re:At least they are upfront about it (Score:2, Insightful)
Deus Ex (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:bushgame (Score:1, Insightful)
this administration has completely abused our faith and apathy.
ours? who is ours? you and people who agree with you? sure. But many people disagree with you completely. I believe that he is doing things because he thinks they are the right thing to do. I haven't seen any lies that bush has used. I've seen plenty of people claim he's lied, but haven't backed up those claims at all, or atleast with evidence that was relavent and not easily disproved.
Re:Turnabout is fair play (Score:3, Insightful)
But do you really want to produce value? (Score:4, Insightful)
> you could also put into becoming a creator of value for society
But would you really want to create value for society which only consumes and gives you nothing in return?
> And even politicians have learned that you don't bite the hand that feeds you.
You shouldn't count on this. Politicians do not necessarily know which hand feeds them, and they certainly do not know how it does it.
Re:But do you really want to produce value? (Score:3, Insightful)
Some people have already done something like that. They call their contribution Open Source Software.
Re:You can beat THEIR politics every time (Score:2, Insightful)
Top right, lower left, lower right, middle right.
and
Middle, bottom right, bottom left, bottom center.
So it's a real politician: Simple ideas about how to things work (based on a cursory examination of what the experts have to say), but no deep understanding... which leads to the floundering failure of the incompetent.
Re:At least they are upfront about it (Score:3, Insightful)
Why? Are you worried that it will make people think and change their opinions? Some philosophers would state that the whole purpose of entertainment is to make people think.
Ever since the first story telling all froms entertainment has been coloured by the creator's (or performer's) opinions and politics. An obvious example is the best selling book of all time: The Bible. Likewise the Written Torah, and the Holy Qur'an. The Roman games were designed to placate the masses so that they would forget about the struggles of daily life. In Hamlet a play is performed to draw out Hamlet's Uncle the userper. Entertainment is a form of art. All art is basically a representation of the artist's world view. It is only recently that media executives have tried in vain to remove all messages from entertainment to "apeal to a broader market."
Re:Are you trying to tell me (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:At least they are upfront about it (Score:3, Insightful)
You can have a theme while mostly avoiding politics.
E.g., probably the most obvious example is SimCity. Even though you're playing a political figure (a mayor), the game is actually not about politics, and doesn't try to convince you that one political side is better than the other. You're not playing a Republican mayor, nor a Democrat mayor, you're just playing A mayor trying to plan your city.
E.g., take the games "Capitalism" and "Capitalism 2". Regardless of what you might infer from the title, the game actually refrains from any political comment. It doesn't tell you stuff like "bleedin' heart liberals are costing the economy a fortune", nor "greedy right-wing powermongers are pushing everyone into poverty." It doesn't even try to show you any long term effects and lessons from your paying bigger salaries, or raising the prices, or whatever.
Heck, it doesn't even try to convince you that that capitalism is the best thing. It just is the premise of the game. You're an ideal capitalist, in an ideal capitalist market. (Something as inexistant IRL as ideal communism.) The game doesn't even try to model the RL or its events, but sticks to a theoretical capitalistic world, where there everything is a commodity, there are plenty of suppliers directly competing with each other, and entry barriers in any industry are low. (E.g., quite literally in the game it costs exactly as much to research and produce CPUs or TFT displays as to research and produce roller skates or biscuits.) The world just _is_ that way, there is no greater ideological enlightenment in it, now go make some money in it.
E.g., Steel Panthers. It's probably the most detailed WW2 strategy/tactics game. The theme is WW2. Yes, we all know what happened back then, we all know who were the evil guys, etc. But the game refrains from making any comment outside the scope of military combat. Whether you want to lead a battallion of German Tigers, or one of Soviet JS-2 tanks, or American Shermans, is up to you. The game keeps track of their armour slope, not of their ideology.
And so on.
Basically, again, it _is_ possible to have a theme without turning it into a lame lecture in "my ideology is better than yours." And I wish more people refrained from preaching when they design a game.
No, I don't want games to lecture me in global warming. No, I don't really need a lecture in whether corporations are good or bad, and which kind of party would best defend me from them. Etc.
Re:Turnabout is fair play (Score:2, Insightful)
You mean like W? "Don't pay any attention that I basically got handed Harken Oil and the Texas Rangers 'cause of my daddy. Look! I've got a ranch! I'm a regular guy!"
I don't know how the republicans can claim this sort of populist mantle in this way. Seriously, saying "John Kerry pretends to understand the working class, but is loaded with Cash Money. Who is the real John Kerry?" implies that John Kerry is pretending to be blue-collar so that he can implement some sort of nefarious scheme to dick the working class over. Meanwhile, W, who's just as loaded (on the same order of, at any rate) and is actively implementing nefarious schemes to dick over the working class gets to pretend that he is fighting for the little guy. Ridiculous.
Re:Postal 2 (Score:3, Insightful)
Politics of SimCity (Score:3, Insightful)
[...]
Everyone notices the obvious built-in political bias, whatever that is. But everyone sees it from a different perspective, so nobody agrees what its real political agenda actually is. I don't think it's all that important, since SimCity's political agenda pales in comparison to the political agenda in the eye of the beholder.
Some muckety-muck architecture magazine was interviewing Will Wright about SimCity, and they asked him a question something like "which ontological urban paridigm most influenced your design of the simulator, the Exo-Hamiltonian Pattern Language Movement, or the Intra-Urban Deconstructionist Sub-Culture Hypothesis?" He replied, "I just kind of optimized for game play."
Then there was the oil company who wanted "Sim Refinery", so you could use it to lay out oil tanker ports and petrolium storage and piping systems, because they thought that it would give their employees useful experience in toxic waste disaster management, in the same way SimCity gives kids useful experience in being the mayor of a city. They didn't realize that the real lessons of SimCity are much more subtle than teaching people how to be good mayors. But the oil company hoped they could use it to teach any other lessons on their agenda just by plugging in a new set of graphics, a few rules, and a bunch of disasters.
And there was the X-Terminal vendor who wanted to adapt the simulator in SimCity into a game called "Sim MIS", that they would distribute for free to Managers of Information Systems, whose job it is to decide what hardware to buy! The idea was that the poor overworked MIS would have fun playing this game in which they could build networks with PCs, X-Terminals, and servers (instead of roads with residential, commercial, and industrial buildings), that had disasters like "viruses" infecting the network of PC's, and "upgrades" forcing you to reinstall Windows on every PC, and business charts that would graphically highlight the high maintanence cost of PCs versus X-Terminals. Their idea was to use a fun game to subtly influence people into buying their product, by making them lose if they didn't. Unlike the oil company, they certainly realized the potential to exploit the indirect ways in which a game like SimCity can influence the user's mind, but they had no grip on the concept of subtlety or game design.
[...]
-Don
Re:Propaganda's greatest victory... (Score:2, Insightful)
First, there's speech. Any kind of communication is speech. It can be phone sex, it can be trading recipes, it can be the State of the Union address. Speech is the base class, if you prefer.
Then there's persuasive speech. The purpose of persuasive speech is, as the name implies, to persuade people of something. Maybe it's to persuade people to vote for that guy, or to persuade your boss to give you a raise. Whatever. Persuasive speech is a subclass of speech.
Propaganda is a subclass of persuasive speech. It's distinguished from other kinds of persuasive speech by one major characteristic: it's unconcerned with truth.
(There are other defining characteristics of propaganda, like its reliance on mass communication, but these are tangential to my point.)
Not all persuasive speech is propaganda. For example, let's imagine there's a proposition on the ballot in a local election, proposition 251. Proposition 251 will put a big tax on people who drive cars that get less than 30 miles per gallon.
If I take out a billboard that says, "Vote yes on prop. 251 because it's good to use less gas," that's not propaganda. Likewise, if I take out a billboard that says, "Vote no on 251 because the tax will hurt local trucking businesses," that's not propaganda either. Both of those arguments are based on valid premises, you see. Both of those arguments are true. And furthermore, it's clear from the message that the intent was to be truthful. So those aren't propaganda.
Contrariwise, if I posted a billboard that says, "Vote yes on 251 to beat the terrorists," that could be considered propaganda. Because it's an argument that's completely unconcerned with truth, you see. Will a tax on gas-guzzling vehicles really have an impact on terrorism? Probably not, or at least not a significant one. So that argument could be considered propaganda.
(It could also not be propaganda; it could also simply be wrong. When you see a message that's untrue, it's usually pretty clear from the context whether the intent was to deceive or whether the intent was to be truthful and the messenger simply got it wrong.)
BUT, and here's the important thing, if proposition 252 was an authorization for war against Terrorism-Supporting Country X, and I took out a billboard that said, "Vote yes on 252 to beat the terrorists," that would not be propaganda. You see, the same message can be propaganda or not depending on the context. It depends on whether the intent of the deliverer was to create a truthful message or not.
The bottom line here is this: you can't slap the label "propaganda" on any message that you don't like, or any message on a subject that you don't like. Calling something "propaganda" when it really isn't is... well, it's propaganda.
Being able to distinguish propaganda from other types of persuasive speech is an important part of critical thinking. Simply being skeptical of everything, simply putting the propaganda label on everything, doesn't cut it.
Re:Propaganda's greatest victory... (Score:1, Insightful)
BUT, and here's the important thing, if proposition 252 was an authorization for war against Terrorism-Supporting Country X, and I took out a billboard that said, "Vote yes on 252 to beat the terrorists," that would not be propaganda. You see, the same message can be propaganda or not depending on the context. It depends on whether the intent of the deliverer was to create a truthful message or not.
Not true. It's only not propaganda if going to war with country X is guaranteed to reduce the incinence of terrorism. If the effect of the war is to kill a large number of citizens of X, and induce more of their compatriots to blow themselves up in your bars and restaurants, you just lost.
"Kill all the Iraqis, they eat babies" would be propaganda, but so would "Invade Iraq to reduce terrorism".
"Invade Iraq because they have an evil sadistic dictator that we don't like" isn't propaganda, but, frankly, the effect of the Iraq invasion on world terrorism could still go either way. We may have killed a load of bad guys, but we might have succeded in turning a load more confused and angry guys into bad guys.
Re:Propaganda's greatest victory... (Score:3, Insightful)
Too bad you're wrong. Propaganda has nothing to do with trueness or falseness. Really. Propaganda can be "good", "bad", "true", "false", or anything else. You don't get to make up definitions to words. Linguists and dictionary publishers do.
Propaganda (n): The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause.
Re:Propaganda's greatest victory... (Score:2, Insightful)
From dictionary.com (or use your favorite if you
don't trust that site):
Propaganda:
1. The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause.
2. Material disseminated by the advocates or opponents of a doctrine or cause: wartime propaganda.
3. Propaganda Roman Catholic Church. A division of the Roman Curia that has authority in the matter of preaching the gospel, of establishing the Church in non-Christian countries, and of administering Church missions in territories where there is no properly organized hierarchy.
So, while propaganda need not be truthful (as you
say, it is unconcerned with truth, it need not be untrue either.
Re:Propaganda's greatest victory... (Score:3, Insightful)
"At some point you just have to stop for a minute and think that maybe the problem here isn't US foreign policy, but rather terrorism itself."
Maybe you should stop trying to paint everything in black and white Twirp. The world is shades of grey. Maybe the problem is US foreign policy and Islamic extremists. Its pretty likely Al Qaeda danced a jig when Bush invaded Iraq, and when the U.S. soldiers humiliated and tortured Arabs. He knew he won a huge victory for his cause. He knew he won a whole bunch more recruits around the world, because he could say, see the U.S. is waging a war against Arabs and Islam, and humiliating us.
You refuse to admit it I know but the place to fight Al Qaeda was Afghanistan, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia first, and Iraq was near the tail end of the list. If the U.S. had stayed focused and fought harder in Afghanistan, where the world was behind the U.S. and pressured Pakistan to clean up the tribal regions, and pressured Saudi Arabia in to really fighting Al Qaeda three years ago then it would have been winning the war on Al Qaeda. As the original poster said the jury is still out but there is a great chance that Iraq was the worst thing the U.S. could have done if it was really trying to beat Al Qaeda.
Re:Propaganda's greatest victory... (Score:3, Insightful)
I know it's a bad idea to feed the trolls, but I don't think you understand the situation at all. There are many thousands, if not millions, of sane, normal people who believe themselves justified in either sacrificing their lives to kill Americans, or in contributing to such actions. Sane, normal people don't normally do such things. Stark raving mad people don't normally do these things. Maybe if we figure out why these people are so angry and change the root cause behind that anger, we can put an end to this terrorist mennace? Merely attacking the terrorists after they've become terrorists (and committed acts allowing some "justification" in applying the US's violent antiterror methods)is not a tennable solution. Swatting the mosquito that just gave you malaria might make you feel better, and might prevent someone else from getting malaria from THAT mosquito, but it does little for you and doesn't prevent future mosquitos from giving you malaria again, once you've recovered...
Anyway, terrorism is, above all, speech. Some view it as a weapon intended to inflict psychological damage which should be shunned along with weapons meant to inflict biological or radiological damage beyond the scope of conventional weapons, but I feel this is the wrong approach. Terrorists generally fall into two groups:
The 9/11 terrorists, and most of the victims of our war on terror, are terrorists falling within the first class. While they may be extremists in the literal sense, they never had a voice, and they didn't have that voice because of the United States (and, historically, Europe). Because the U.S. props up despotic, dictatorial regimes in the middle east, supplying them with weapons, training, and aide, it is the target of these terrorists. These terrorists are fighting to have a hand in their own government, something that the U.S. theoretically views as an inalienable r