Slashdot Mirror
Flash Games as Political Commentary
Clive Thompson writes "All over the net, there are little shockwave games inspired by political events -- from the WTO-style New York Defender to War on Terrorism to even Downing Street Fighter (where British politicians beat each other senseless, Street-Fighter-Style). Sure, like most Shockwave-generated stuff, they may suck as games. But that's missing the point. What's happening here is nothing less than the emergence of the online video game as a form of social comment -- something you dash off in a couple of hours to make a sardonic political point about something. It's a new notepad for communication. Or at least, that's what I argued in this piece in Slate today. In addition to the craven self-promotion of sending it in to Slashdot, I'm interested in hearing what everyone thinks of this issue. After all, courts have recently been arguing that video games cannot be protected speech; these games make it patently obvious that this view is insane." The columnist missed a better example of the genre - the EFF's game of digital restrictions management.
and of our continuing infantilism that our political views are expressed through games?
If your bitterest enemies are people who hack the heads off civilians, then I would say you're doing something right.
I see most flash programming as a big cartoon. If people can make political statements in cartoons, how does making the "cartoon" interactive remove its rights for free speech?
I think that law makers just don't like the fact that we can go around killing them w/lightning and nail guns.
And way to give this moron free advertising, slashdot!
Many would argue that a lot of games have always been a form of social commentary - not just cheap flash ones. Most "art" is.
:)
Fallout, Civilization, Alpha Centauri, GTA, etc...
(Disclaimer: Haven't read the article yet, this may be completely redundant - if it is, mod me to oblivion
Robots are everywhere, and they eat old people's medicine for fuel.
In my humble opinion, it's just another method of providing content to a viewer. Not everything printed in on paper is protected speach, just as not everything found on the internet is protected.
Suppose I make a game where the goal is to go around shooting politicians; its just as poor taste if I decided to print "paper dolls" of the pol's along with text encouraging you to cut them into pieces. What is the point that you are trying to make in either case?
But, suppose I wrote a game called "Fur Fighters" where the object is to throw cans of paint on people wearing furs? Thats much more aligned with a political message...
In short, its not the delivery medium that matters, it all comes down to the value of the content.
This is an example of what I think of as "Wired journalism". Everything is new, exciting, revolutionary. No historical perspective is given - there is no historic continuum, everything is a new. Of course in the real world very few things are a revolution, things change slowly, most ideas have been around for centuries but every new generation thinks it's got all the good ideas.
Where is the wise analysis from journalists with a historical perspective and knowledge outside their tiny specialisms? I'm getting bored of all this sensationalist stuff.
There are games out there that slip a little social thought into the plotline; Deus Ex's prescient consideration of "How much will people tolerate in the name of fighting terrorism?" is the first thing that comes to my mind.
But what is the political commentary of "New York Defender" and "War on Terrorism" supposed to be? "Terrorism bad!"? "We need a system of powerful anti-aircraft lasers mounted outside all major cities!"? "Man, it'll be great to beat the crap out of bin Laden!"?
People are just taking advantage of the medium, as they did with cartoons.
You have a good point.
If games with a message are infantile, then perhaps enjoyable books with a message suffer from the same complaint -- why aren't you reading a bland, straight political pamphlet if you want a "mature" medium?
May we never see th
Using crude artwork to express a political concern or viewpoint has been going on for hundreds of years. They were originally called 'editorial cartoons'. While today's updated version adds sounds and interactivity, the purpose and message are the same.
//e. They were crude, and in retrospect, not very fun, but I was hardly a big corporation, but they were, indeed, games. The difference is, when I finished the only method of distribution I had was swapping floppy disks the next day on the playground with a handful of my nerdy friends.
What we have here is an author that seems to have graduated from the John Katz school of technology journalism; Lets make a big deal about some 'gee wiz' new technology that translates something that's been done for ages into the digital world, but lets forget to mention it's been done for ages.
The revolutionary aspect of politically motivated video games is really a non-issue. The revolutionary aspect is in that anyone who does it can get it distributed easily. The author sort of missed the point on this too. From the article:
This material would have been unheard of a few years back, when only corporations could afford to code video games
Not so. I was coding video games back in the 80s on my old Apple
A crudely produced political video game is just as easily to make by the common man as a crudely drawn etching of a political cartoon was to produce 150 years ago. The types of messages aren't different, but today the common man can get his or her work viewed by thousands, if not millions of people with little or no cost.
And here is where the author misses the boat! It doesn't matter if they are political video games, self published manifestos, communities based on a common interest... These are all nothing new. What's new is the way these publications can be created and distributed by the common man with no corporation behind him or her.
It would be as if somebody wrote an article about websites like Slashdot and said 'Gee wiz! Look, today people can now make critical comments or discuss magazine articles', forgetting to mention that nearly every magazine prior to the Internet had a page for feedback and reader mail, and that the articles were discussed around the dinner table. The only real difference is now I can write this in 5 minutes, post it, and it will be scanned over by thousands, perhaps even read by 50 or 60 people. Now THAT'S the revolution I like and wish were looked at by writers more thoughtful and critical then myself.
The Internet is generally stupid
A direct link to a program that will crash a windows box.
A story about how to illegally make your own cisco box using warez.
Links inside a story that have PORN POP UP ADDS.
The days of my reading slashdot while at work are numbered. Are you intentionally trying to drive away your reader base? Is news just that slow?
Admitted, slashdot is not the greatest news source out there, but occasionally you can find a gem or two amongst the articles... but with crap like this, it's not worth it.