Re: Political Games and Activism

[Javy]

Hey Kaitlin,

Unmanned is actually one of the two games I’ve used in my Rhetoric & Research course this semester (the other is Mattie Brice’s Mainichi). Granted, these are students who seem to have about as much interest in politics as they do the cobwebs in the corners of the classroom, but a lot of them had a strong response to Unmanned because they could see how it was taking Call of Duty to task for trivializing war during the drone sequence and the mock achievements scattered throughout the game. These students had the issue that “it was making a big deal over nothing,” because games are just games. (This is the same group who would go on to say that Mattie’s game fails as an argument because it isn’t fun.)

But both games served as catalysts for lively conversations about violence and entertainment, the transgender experience, and games as rhetorical artifacts in a classroom setting without me having to prod them, so at the very least these political games start necessary conversations. I do think that a lot of the reason that activist games are having trouble is because of this notion that games must be fun, but I hope that starting those conversations over and over again will help tear down that traditional perspective on games—our medium really is hamstrung by the “game” part of “video games” sometimes—and help a larger audience see the variety of experiences games can offer.  

Also, that link leads me to a discount magazine website.

On Sunday, March 24, 2013 9:23:22 AM UTC-4, Kaitlin Tremblay wrote:

So I've been wanting to chat about this topic for awhile,  because I've been working with a lot of Toronto indie game developers who are doing explicitly political things with their hands (like Unmanned).

But I want to start with something that I hope doesn't come across as self-promotion, because it's not. I work for an indie company that does different socially conscious multimedia projects, and we just released or first game called Pipe Trouble. And it is taking a lot of heat from Canadian news sources and it's this heat I want to talk about: particularly, why our video game (compared to the even more left-wing environmental documentary we're partnered with) is receiving the brunt of the anger. I'm not whining, but curious: is it the medium of the "fun" game versus the documentary that has everyone's back up? Or is it that there is an implied complicity in a video game because of the interactive element?

What sparked this idea for me was this: www.escapist magazine.com/forums/read/326.404096-Pipe-Trouble-Or-The-Persuasive-Power-Of-Pipe-Mania
(Let me know of the link doesn't work, I'm on my tablet and things get needed up easily)

Any hoo, I'm just curious what others thoughts are on the idea of indie games as a politically charged medium, versus more traditional forms of awareness-raising (like docs). Do games work in this vein, to start a conversation, or is the implied complicity and fun associated with it backfire entirely? Or is it just that people are used to docs being overly political, but not games, so political or satirical games face a tougher time trying to get their message out?

And with Apple recently removing Sweatshop from the app store and with the creator of I Get This Call Everyday getting fired From his government call center gig, I think there's s something here worth exploring. The idealist in me would like to think all the anger and backlash is a good sign, that the message is being communicated, but my cynicism tends to be the stronger trait in me.

[Kaitlin Tremblay]

Hey, sorry for deleting my earlier posts, I just wanted to be super careful in my wording so that nothing would be misconstrued (because of how much PT has been in the news lately, I just want to play it safe.)

Javy, that is a really good point about what your students said: taking issues "too serious" in video games, because they're supposed to be a "fun" medium. But I think that's part of the beauty of them, that they allow people to engage with issues in a way that lets them participate, rather than just being told and spoken to about something. It makes a lot of sense to me because if video games are becoming the medium that most people engage with, it seems like a natural starting point to get conversations going about important topics.  What I'm wondering then, is there ever a "too far" for serious/political games?  I love the idea behind Mattie's game, and am so sad I haven't had a chance to play it yet.

I'd be interested in hearing more about your course and your use of Unmanned (which I didn't work on it specifically, although Jim Munroe has helped out on PT). I think teaching political games in a rhetoric course is particularly great, because the language of video games and they way we interact with them are becoming so inseparable from our cultural rhetoric and the way we discuss a variety of topics.

[Johannes Köller]

Having no real, direct stake in this debate, I guess I can be a little more carefree with my words.

The writeup mentioned earlier was done by a friend of mine, who might weigh in himself a little later if he makes it into the group. I should point out that he's not actually in any way affiliated with The Escapist. You could read the piece on his blog instead of their forums. I'm not sure how it ended up garnering this much attention anyway, and I don't think he is either. I suppose it's a combination of a high ranking on Google and this being a hot-button political issue that I am simply not aware of (living on the exact other end of the planet). Nice to see it being noticed by various people though, especially since it seems to have been penned as a direct response to the one-sided media coverage of Pipe Trouble (which I am also unaware of, meaning both the game and the coverage).

From this outsider's perspective I can quite comfortably claim that the game has every right to explore these issues, but I think debating the matter here of all places is probably an exercise in preaching to the choir. I doubt anybody here will argue for restricting and limiting art, or that anybody sees Apple's decision to remove Sweatshop HD as anything other than regressive and cowardly (or "overly protective", if you like).

[John Brindle]

Kaitlin, could you go into detail about some of the media hostility you've received? Like, where's it coming from, in what form? I ask because in my experience there is at least some appetite for political games. The chief reaction against them seems to come from people who use videogames as spaces of perfect privilege where they can blow off steam and practice 'escapism', and who react angrily to anyone or anything that seems to threaten this unthreatening pastime...

I wrote a big article for the New Statesman about what it means for a videogame to be 'political'. You can read my full interviews for that piece here. Samantha Allen also did this really interesting piece on using games to teach trans experience in the classroom. Together these pieces cover a pretty broad range of videogame engagements with politics: from teaching empathy by subjecting players to an abusive system to a more kind of intellectual education where you help give people a model of how a given system works. I definitely believe that the "complicity" and fun of videogames can be as much a potent weapon in the right hands as a pitfall or drawback in the wrong ones.

[psepho]

The politics/videogame interface is a fascinating topic -- well worth raising. Two thoughts:

1) Activism cuts two ways -- there is a definite angle in a lot of big money games that seems to support a capitalist/consevative worldview. If you were paranoid you could read that as a kind of (re-)activism on the other side. Certainly when you factor in the tie-ups between AAA and various industries. Apple's attitude towards Sweatshop HD seems to make this pretty explicit.

2) The fun/not fun debate seems to cover a deeper issue. I think a videogame, being an interactive medium by definition, does fail if it doesn't make you want to interact with it. (Just as a documentary fails if it doesn't keep you watching.) So political or uncomfortable games do face a potentially higher bar on account of the greater challenge in keeping a player clicking while also challenging and discomfiting.

Self-promotionally, this has been particularly on my mind recently as I am trying to finish a (short and light-hearted) game about the women's suffrage movement in Britain. Maintaining a balance between being thought-provoking and engaging is a particular concern. (I had hoped to get it done during the course of women's history month but it's likely to slip until after Easter hols -too many other demands).

[Kaitlin Tremblay]

John, sure thing. There were charges of advocating eco-terrorism (because there's a pipeline bomber who comes out if you've done too much damage to the environment, but which is effectively a 'game over' reaction, and not rewarded at all in game play). I can't comment too explicitly on it all, but here's out official statement (which also discusses the charges laid against us by traditional news outlets) http://www.pipetrouble.com/Press%20Release%20(Response%20to%20Controversy).pdf

I really liked your article on the New Statesmen, especially the part about how do you prevent people from reading unintended consequences and meanings from your game? It's all well and good when we read into things like BioShock, but what about games that are actively trying to make a difference? Do they become accountable? Thanks for the links, they've definitely given me a lot to think about in this matter.

Is the backlash against games like I Get This Call Everyday and Sweatshop indicative of people being willing to engage with games as political mediums? The complicity is both a strength and a drawback, for sure (which becomes very apparent in games like Sweatshop).

Psepho: you're absolutely right about political games potentially facing a harder time with getting player's attention because it is about finding the right balance: making the game fun, but also engaging with concepts in a way that doesn't belittle the very issue at heart. I personally would love to see your game when it's done, as I know the issues of trying to strike that exact same balance.

What attracted me to working on video games specifically is their capability to reach a different audience and to get players to engage with issues on an interactive level that involves them thinking about the cause-and-effect relationships they are immersed in.