Political Simulation Games - Workshop Response

1. Do you think the political simulation games you examined would have been "effective" in communicating with people via the Internet?

I played Sept 12th and NY Defender, and found both effective in conveying specific messages concerning terrorism.
In NY Defender, I had to shoot down planes before they crashed into the twin towers. This task was increasingly difficult as the kamikaze planes grew in number and speed. Their flight patterns also changed, flying low amidst other buildings, ensuring some form of damage on the city would be caused by the “defender’s” ammunition. Ultimately ending in failure, the player is left feeling hopeless and powerless in the face of terrorism. Such affect really reverberates with fears surrounding Sept 11 and other acts of terrorism that followed.
With Sept 12th, the images of women and children mourning the victims of my bomb blasts were accompanied by their heart-wrenching cries, enough to move any player to feel incredible guilt and remorse at having taken any life, innocent (civilian) or “guilty”(terrorist). The transformation of mourners into terrorists (again coupled with effectively disturbing sound effects) conveys the futility of ‘the War on Terrorism’, which only serves to breed more hatred and further terrorism. The mourning of both civilian and terrorist deaths also puts an important face on war, that every life taken has ties to family and friends. The collatoral damage and devastation of war – loss of innocent civilians and the destruction of buildings and homes – further adds to the game’s message on the senselessness of war.
I personally found Sept 12th more effective in achieving a greater affective response, and encouraged me to think about the war on terror in a very different light from the US propaganda supporting the war.

2. Was the political message underpinning the political simulation games you examined immediately obvious? If not, were you driven or interested to find out what the game was trying to "say" (apart from the fact that you have to as part of the workshop)?

The political messages were not immediately obvious to me. I had to engage with the games for an extended period of time before realizing the full extent of the political message behind each game’s structure. The initial desire to “win the game” takes a while to subside, but I think these political games utilize this desire by subverting the ‘pleasure principle’ traditionally employed in videogames. By ensuring the player is denied any sense of personal achievement (as all gaming attempts end in defeat) both political games use the principle of pain to invite the player to engage with the reality and politics of the issues on which the game is based. In both games, the fact that I could not win made me seriously consider the political message each conveyed.

3. If you had to write a political simulation game similar in size and structure to those you examined, (a) what would be the point you were trying to make and (b) how would the game be structured and operate in order to make that point? (Just give a very brief outline).

Title: Forest Friend
The Point: Eco-political message: earth’s environment being destroyed beyond sustainable rate. Must stop logging and de-forestation.
Aim of game: Save the forest by planting new trees and watering old ones.
Game structure: Top view of forest. Click on each tree to make it grow. A logger in a bulldozer comes tearing through the forest, leaving “tree-less” path in its wake. (Birds and animals escape to safety of nearby trees). Player has to replant trees by clicking over uprooted spots. Bulldozer increases in speed and frequency of destruction, and the game ends when entire forest is destroyed. (Dead animals and birds litter the ground). THE END.