After comparing our class discussion with Frasca’s article I agree that games can help us gain a better understanding of social and political issues. The major differences discussed in class were between how games and books raised social and political awareness. Whereas books tell a narrative to identify with a character, games use experiential simulation to give the same effect.
I disagree that story traits and game traits are separate. Rather games use a blend of story traits and game traits to help raise awareness. Because of games ability to tell a story experientially they are capable of teaching history. But as Joseph wrote, “one must be careful with such an approach when it comes to learning about history.” That is because although games are capable of teaching history, fallacious games would do more harm than good. As we saw from the JFK game, the FBI reports score sheet rated no shots higher than missed shots. If altering the past in a video game is acceptable then it does not accurately portray historical events.
If players could kill or save a historical figure in a video game, similar to the JFK game, then it would change the alternate reality based on the player’s performance. I agree that this would “trivialize the value of human life”. From reading historical events we can learn particular sets of values that would be lost in an experiential video game. This sums up the idea that videogames have the potential to raise global awareness for social and political issues but has not come to the point of creating social change.