Author Archives: jholt9

Can Games Change Reality?

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 Frasca’s assumption that videogames are just “games” is no longer valid.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.

Reverence in Video Games

Following Colleen’s comment in class about the nature of the Tuesday blog posts, I also thought it was interesting that the posted subjects were mainly about art and music. In the first five chapters of How to do Things with Videogames, I was struck mostly by the chapter on Reverence. I think that Bogost’s use of the Manchester Cathedral as an example strengthened his argument that videogames can be used in a religious/reverent manner. His description on the use of the cathedral as a hospital and the use of fighting within it particularly emphasize this argument. What creatures could be so foul as to defile the religious sanctuary of a people?

Furthermore, I agree with Bogost in that the Church of England probably overreacted (maybe not the best term, but you get the idea) about the use of the cathedral in the game. While its use was not authorized, the game play applauds the building more than it harms the ideals of the church. The use of the cathedral is both an emotional and an historical device that strengthened Resistance.

How Popular are Casual Games?

http://casualgamesassociation.org/press.php

The idea of hardcore versus casual gaming motivated me to find out just how popular “casual” games are. Of course, I see people waiting in line or sitting in class playing Angry Birds or Temple Runner all the time. However, are there more than just bored college students that play these games? The answer is definitely yes. I stumbled upon an organizational website designed to help casual game developers. The site also lists a few interesting facts: budgets for internet casual games are usually around %100,000 to $500,000, more than 200 million people in the world play “casual” games, and in 2009, casual games made over $3 billion dollars in revenue.

There Hands Build, Our Hands Play

Our discussions and videogames have led to some interesting thoughts. The relationship between operator and machine is an important theme in videogame analysis. Rarely, however, do we (the “first world”), think about where our machines come from. The articles/podcast this week tend to focus on one company, Foxconn (and through them, Apple), and one factory, the Foxconn factory of Shenzhen, China, in particular.

A natural debate arises from these readings: should “we” feel guilty about our consumption of cheap electronic goods? The articles represent a specific incident (or set of incidences: namely, the use of cheap labour by Apple) to call attention to the wider issue of whether or not our consumption harms others. Johnson writes “did my iPhone kill 17 people”? The podcast talks about the child workforce present in factory jobs. Sample writes about the game “Phone Story”, in which people see the harmful effects of factory life first-hand.

Should consumers take the blame for these atrocities? Best Buy does not seem evil for selling iPads, nor do many people walk around, wallowing in guilt, while playing angry birds on their iPhone. Should the companies exposing cheap labour be held accountable? Surely Apple and other companies must have knowledge of the conditions of their workforce.

I would suggest a different thought though: what involvement should the government have in the lives of workers? In particular, for the case of China, if the government can make “blacklists” (as described in the podcast), then shouldn’t that same government protect its workers from foreign manipulation? Should China exclude (either “exile” or heavily tax) companies that expose and harm its workers, as described in the readings and podcast?