Hi everyone,
This week we had a discussion around Bogost’s concept of persuasive games, and his reflection on the term he coined. It’s interesting to see how honest he is about the failings of persuasive games, in that people prefer to talk about the concept rather than play the actual games he developed. We thought that this was because the games were insistent on the moralizing they were engaging in, and were always a bit too up front about what they were trying to persuade. The systems behind the games were both too complex and the message too simple. We played an actual persuasive game that Bogost referenced, Molleindustry’s McDonald’s Game, and observed that phenomenon in action. We thought that the game caricatures McDonald’s and in doing so perhaps trivializes their evil, and makes it all too easy to enact.
The idea that video games cannot be persuasive unless they are explicitly made for that purpose is, we agreed, reductionist and hurts the cause of taking video games seriously. A game designer is already on the backfoot if they say that their game is important because it is serious. I suggest expanding the net of persuasive games and procedural rhetoric to include games that are non-serious, as it is in analyzing such games that a lot can be discovered.
We then played some of The Deed: Dynasty, where we must commit a murder and get away with it. While laughing at the strange dialogue was a lot of fun, it’s also worth considering how the game situates violence and murder within the context of other video games. Whereas most games make violence a short, sharp act, The Deed ensures that the player is involved with the planning of the murder at every step, which, even if the game falls short of its aims, at least provokes some reflection.
We also played a bit of an old favourite of mine, NO THING, a corner-turning simulator (or pseudo-rhythm game), set in a dystopic 1990s dreamscape, made up of floating faces and disembodied arms in the midst of a sea of meaningless two dimensional architecture. The way that it delivers its story is bizarre – via imagery and also nigh-incomprehensible lines read by a robot voice – but slowly, the longer you play, the more you piece together. We will likely play some more next week.
I’ve attached the next chapter of the Persuasive Games book, which involves a reflection on the growing gamification of things in general, everyday life. Miguel Sicart questions our need to make things abstract while also gamifying them. How has this affected us, or our perception of games (or life) in general? Do the multifarious reward systems present in gamified day-to-day have a strong impact on us? More than we might be aware of, perhaps? I’d love to hear what people think next Thursday, when we meet again from 2 til 4pm in the Digital Humanities Hub.
Have a great weekend, lovely to see everybody!