Playing Politics Workshop Response

After examining the two simulation game ‘September 12th’ and ‘New York Defender’, it is crystal clear that the games are designed to convey political parodies on the U.S. tactics on war against terrorists after the 911 event by means of playing. In the 'September 12th', for example, once you start air strike, you cause collateral damage not only killing the terrorists but also the innocent civilian and destroying their homes, resulting in violence against violence generating endless wars. You will see more and more civilian in the game becomes terrorists after each air strike, and the situation goes uncontrollable. I think the simulation games are effective in some ways to communicate with people about political issues via the Internet. Just like those traditional printed political satire cartoons we always see on newspapers and magazines everyday, the simulation games are alternative expressions of such satire, an ‘onlined’ version with interactive interface and thus seem more entertaining.

However, simulation games as a media to convey political message does not always yield the same effect on players. Since such media effects depend on the people’s predispositions on political issues, as Doris Graber refers, it is always “perceiver determined”, depending on the degree of their political interest and awareness. Therefore, if people have either highest or lowest prior interest or awareness in politics in general, I don’t think they will affect by the political cues hidden in the games, and the simulation games is less likely to arouse them to further look into what the games are trying to “say”. As for me, I’m kind of a moderate type so I have enough interest to play the games and weak enough belief to be affected by the political message the games conveyed, thus will more likely to find out more about the games and its political statements.

On top of that, from the aspect of game-playing, the simulation games are not designed to let players win. They are not as playable as any other video game; they are indeed ‘dead games’[1] (Lee). Unlike the popular fun-quest games, are “entertaining games with non-entertainment goals" (Lee). Thereby, fun-questing players are unlikely to be driven to find out the political statement behind the simulation games since they find them boring. They are less fun to the players (as reflected noted in the comments of 'New York Defender’) as there are not so much ‘pleasure’ (since it’s doomed to lose), no (bodily) rewards, and no sequences.


____________________________________________________________________

[1] Shuen-shing Lee,""I Lose, Therefore I Think": A Search for Contemplation Amid Wars of Push-Button Glare." Game Studies 3.2 (2003). http://gamestudies.org/0302/lee/