Frasca’s “Videogames of the Oppressed” offers both poor and good predictions on the use of videogames.  For example, in the intro, he states: “it is still far away from becoming a mature communication form that could deal with such things as human relationships, or political and social issues”. As of 2004, this may have been true. However, recent years have seen many political and social issue games (“Stop Disasters!”, “Unmanned”, “Budget Puzzle”, etc.). Frasca’s assumption that videogames are just “games” is no longer valid.

However, he does convey a good argument for the use of videogames as political/social tools (and using pre 2005 games!). One striking example is the potential that SimCity has for teaching urban planning and development. The emphasis in this example is in the “simulation”: the idea that a videogame can portray real life without negative consequences. He goes on to argue that social/political games should “not to find appropriate solutions, but rather serve to trigger discussions”. In this aspect, Frasca is ahead of his time. Take, for example, “Phone Story”. This game does not offer players to some grand solution, but merely enlightens players about the true paths of modern cell phones/devices. Furthermore, Frasca’s argument that videogames should trigger discussions is ultimately proven by our class (we play and read about videogames, and then talk about broader issues connected to them).

One final point that Fresca makes is that “neither art not games can change reality”. This is not wholly true. For example, Bogost’s (2011) chapter “Electioneering” of How to Do Things with Videogames makes a good argument that Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign used videogames as “advertisements” much better than the McCain campaign (election result…). In fact, many of Bogost’s essays suggest that games can indeed “change reality”. In this aspect, Fresca did not make a wise prediction.