Examining the Role of Video Games In the US Election

Gamasutra is running an article discussing the influence of games and gamers on the 2004 and 2008 presidential elections. The connection, while minor, is continuing to strengthen, from allowing people to register to vote through their consoles, to in-game advertising, to games about and involving the candidates. However, it may still be an uphill climb as media-sharing becomes easier. From Gamasutra: "There are reasons games have grown slowly compared to other technologies for political outreach. The most important one is also the most obvious: since 2004, online video and social networks have become the big thing, as blogs were four years ago. Instead of urging voters to 'play my game,' as Loftus and I surmised, candidates urged their constituents to 'watch my video.' Online video became the political totem of 2008, from James Kotecki's dorm room interviews to CNN's YouTube debates."

Comments

Oh no, not again

[Anonymous Coward]

Why oh why must the online media trot out these "gamers change the world" stories. Gamers are not special. The games they play are not special. Some gamers are geeky recluses, but they would still be geeky recluses without their games. Some gamers are not geeky. The games don't have any magic special effect on people, and gamers certainly don't have any effect on society as a whole. This stuff is all just hype.

When you play a game, you play a game. THAT'S ALL. You don't suddenly develop special "cultural zeitgeist" powers. You remain what you always were: an insignificant converter of oxygen and food into energy and poo poo. Gaming does not rock society. Society plods along, wars still happen, booms and busts, new bosses that are the same as the old boss, never ending one-hit-wonder girl bands etc etc

Just because we can game on the internet nowardays doesnt mean gamers are plugged into national or international current affairs and just because you can save your game doesn't mean any gamer ever made history. Gamers, get your right hands out of your pants, and get over yourselves. If you cannot enjoy your "duke blastem" or whatever without contriving megalomaniac/oninistic fantasies and spilling them all over the web, perhaps you should try another hobby. How about doing some charity work - that might help you regain some persepctive.

Speaking of politics and videogames...

[Sibko]

http://kotaku.com/5071682/sarah-palin-to-shoot-moose-obama-in-mercs-2

Pretty clever advertising, I must admit.

Why games?

[Xtense]

Doesn't seem to me like games are a good medium to spread your political messages - after all, games are... well, games. You play them to have fun, not to be fed loads of political horsecrap. Those so inclined may as well analyze, event after event, the ideological backgrounds of each turn taken by the game's story, but seriously, that's not where the "entertainment" bit is at. And gamers are there for entertainment.

Looks to me like a non-story.

Re:Why games?

[utnapistim]

You play them to have fun, not to be fed loads of political horsecrap.

... which is why this is efficient.

The problem you have here is that while games are indeed entertainment, while a player is focused on the game play, the messages (billboards or whatever else) go easier into the subconscious.

This is much more efficient than making the image the focus of the player's attention, as it doesn't engage the player's prejudices/opinions/critical thinking and goes directly into the subconscious. It is the same principle of subliminal suggestions and some hypnosis therapy techniques (using multiple voices speaking over each other, with the actual message not being the loudest of the voices).

That said, I'm not sure how many of the electorate are gamers or how many need that message: if the candidate advertising himself is technology-savvy he probably already has more appeal to gamers (they being closer to technology anyway) so in a way it sounds like preaching to the choir.

Re:Do as I say, not as I do

[joss]

So, your argument is that it's hypocritical of Obama to use the donations people have sent to his election campaign to try and get himself elected as opposed to giving it to other candidates ?

Is this really an argument that you think will impress anyone ? If you really want to prevent Obama being elected, I recommend you argue on his behalf.. you're about as helpful as an Al Qaeda endorsement. Things are stacked sufficiently against McCain without your help.