I was thinking of Spreadable Media as I explored Games For Change‘s website, mostly because I was surprised at how effectively they package the games to their audiences. I’ll admit that I was expecting something vaguely preachy, which aimed to make learning “fun” in the same way as the computer game Mavis Beacon Teaches Typing–which my mother forced me to play, and which tried to make typing exercises cute with animated penguins. They were still typing exercises. I think even as a kid, I resented the game trying to trick me.
My point being: Games For Change isn’t trying to trick anyone. I’m sad that it costs money to play “Neocolonialism,” because I loved the trailer and promotion around it. The game designers are very blunt about the fact that they want you to explore how “exploit[ing] the working class” destroys the world, but they communicate this with humor rather than preach (I love the directive in the trailer: “Neocolonialism: ruin everything”), which draws the audience into the joke and compels us to see if we can, in fact “ruin everything.” We know exactly what the game wants us to learn, and this contributes to the draw.
As I consider the projects we’ve explored over the course of the past ten weeks, I also think that this transparency is a trait of the successful ones. Particularly with political topics, I think it’s tempting to offer a vague introduction so as to draw in people of all opinions; however, as Spreadable Media attests, audiences are much sharper than large media conglomerates would give them credit for, and in order to attract participation, media producers must acknowledge and interact with this intelligence. I think there is nothing more off-putting than the feeling that a game or a story is trying to sugar-coat something for you, so as a rule, unless your story plot requires some sort of reveal, I think it is smart to offer a clear mission statement up front.
I too was drawn initially to no-colonialism for the same reason; I know exactly what the game is about, and that’s why I wanted to play it! I think as media creators it is very important for us to remember not to try and “trick” our audience, as they are often smarter than writers (and in my opinion, especially advertisers) give them credit for.
I totally remember Mavis Beacon! If you didn’t type the letters fast enough, the penguin couldn’t jump to the next iceberg! In 7th grade we were all made to play the game, but in terms of using games to educate the public and the next generation of children in school, is there a way to do it right? Maybe when given the choice between text, audio, or engaging in a game, audiences (or kids in school) will at least feel better about being given a choice? It’s an interesting topic as I’m sure big brand companies are already trying to develop the hottest new “game” advertisements – maybe a “Mountain Dew” game where participants snowboard down an endless mountain of sugar jumping over “lame” healthy snack choices on the way down. Obviously I’m being facetious, I just hope the fun world of games doesn’t get completely hijacked for the wrong reasons too quickly.
Allyson: I agree with your statement that sugarcoating, or not providing an honest statement about the multimedia experience upfront, was an off-putting element of certain projects viewed in this course. That said, what do you think that means for actually cross-pollinating different viewpoints? Even though we were both uncomfortable with projects that masked their true intents/leanings, people probably wouldn’t interact with something they overtly didn’t agree with. Doesn’t this just create isolated pockets of people reinforcing their own beliefs? How can we cross-pollinate ideas without being disingenuous? I think that’s the real challenge.
I do think it’s a challenge to engage in productive conversations with people who disagree, and that the fragmentation of the Internet might be exacerbating this issue–in general you don’t even have to read the same news sites. But I do think people will engage respectfully with a message only if they themselves feel respected, and media producers pretending to not have an opinion is a good way to undermine this from the get-go. Of course there are always exceptions, but as with any interpersonal relationship I think transparency, humor, and compassion are good rules of thumb.
I remember reading an article in Wired magazine about how kids are smarter today despite our country’s low achieving schools. The writer discusses how playing video games probably contributed to the higher IQ scores. I see many educational uses for the games that we all played this week. Computer games are often times new for kids from certain socio-economic backgrounds that have limited access to technology in their homes.
I remember Mavis Beacon too, although I was about 22 when I first played it, and it was of my own choice. I knew that it had an overreaching goal of teaching me how to type and I appreciated that they at least tried to make it fun. But I could imagine the experience being much different if someone had tried to trick me into it when I was a rebellious youth. My point is, I agree with the comments about transparency being important, and that kids are a lot smarter than they’re given credit for.
Hopefully you won’t stop the flow of such magical material! ταχυδακτυλουργός για παιδικά πάρτυ
μάγος για πάρτυ
Thanks for sharing Lauren!