|
Unofficial political games also made few innovations this year.
The largest crop of them are game-like gags about Sarah Palin, from the
almost-topical Polar Palin
to the toy-like Palin as President to the
wildlife sendup Hunting with Palin
to a series of Palin chatterbots
to the inevitable whack-a-mole clone Puck Palin.
The few non-Palin titles included a retooling of 2004's derivative White House
Joust;
Truth
Invaders, another Space Invaders derivative in which the
player shoots down lies; Debate Night,
a Zuma-style casual game in support
of Obama, and Campaign Rush, a click-management election office game my
studio developed for CNN International.
Of these, only Truth Invaders cites actual candidate claims and attempts to refute
them, although in a fairly rudimentary way; the others do not engage policy
issues at all, but only electioneering.
Three decades after its coin-op
release, it's disillusioning to realize that Space Invaders has become the gold standard for political game
design.
The turnout for commercial games with political themes also
thinned this cycle.
In 2004, no less than four different election simulation
games were released; this year, Stardock retooled and updated Political Machine for PC and released a
free web version of the game.
Beyond that, the strongest example of a
mainstream game coupled to the election season is the "political brawler"
Hail to the Chimp.

Stardock's The Political Machine 2008
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. At the same time, the
massive growth in social network subscriptions made social connectivity a
secondary focus for campaign innovation, especially since Facebook opened its
pages beyond the campus in 2006.
In many cases, politicking on social networks
was a process driven entirely by voters rather than campaigns, efforts that
reached far larger numbers than might have been possible previously, even with
blogs.
For once, video games did not lose an election by sticking their
collective necks out as a sacrifice for values politics, the kind that Senators
Hillary Clinton and Joe Lieberman, among others, have used to shift their base
toward the center.
For better or worse, the world is too legitimately messed up
for such politics to prove useful. Instead, video games lost the election by
not participating in it. Precedent aside, reskinning classic arcade games and
placing billboards in virtual racetracks doesn't take advantage of the
potential games have to offer to political speech.
|
incidently you never mentioned Democracy and Democracy 2!
That said, one major issue involved in election games that you didn't really address is timing. For Truth Invaders, it took about two and a half weeks from inception to release. That's compared to over a year for the Redistricting Game.
I found that the speed of election cycles and the daily changing news narratives just didn't leave a lot of time for development of novel gameplay or in-depth exploration of issues; heck, even in the two and a half weeks Truth Invaders took, the landscape changed pretty drastically underneath us.
I think one big reason all we see are sound-byte election games is because, under most circumstances, that's all there's time to develop on the fly.
I agree that timing is a major consideration, but I disagree that it's a limiting factor. When we made the Howard Dean game in 2003, we did it in 3 weeks, back to back, and while it's not "political" in the way I've described here (and written about more extensively in my book Persuasive Games), it did offer a usefully sophisticated look into a then-newish concept, grassroots outreach. Many of the non-political games I've been involved in (e.g. newsgames) have likewise been produced in under a month, and they feel more engaged with issues via simulation than the soundbite games. There are myriad examples of experimental development with very limited time constraints (game jams, the experimental gameplay project), some of which produce interesting work (even if not politically interesting work).
A political campaign actually offers a fairly lengthy time horizon, well over a year in most cases, although the time from primary to general election is admittedly shorter. Still, if the consequence of massively reduced relevance is a side-effect of rapid development, then maybe the answer is to leave such matters to blog posts and web video, and focus our political game development efforts on issues with longer time-horizons. Thus my suspicion about the wisdom of pursuing future election games.
It's not as nice to look at, no, but as a game playing through the mechanics of a political campaign it's vastly superior to the Political Machine.
Great article, as always. While making games to pose a question or get people thinking about an issue related to an election (or not), how realistic is it from the perspective of getting people to engage in general? Not everyone goes out on the Web looking for a political game. Sure, they could stumble upon it or get directed there by a friend, ad, whatever, but the obvious motivation for finding and playing a game is entertainment.
To me the challenge is how do you create a game/interaction that feels like a game but ultimately engages the player in the issue at hand? And, at what point do you, the game designer, decide to build the game (so people will play it) versus the teaching/informative tool (so people will come away more informed or at least more engaged with the topic at hand)?
http://www.whirled.com/#games-d_991
You're right that there are many more contemporary election sims, including President Forever. In fact, there were even more (I think four?) on the market in 2004.
@Ken
Nice to see you here. Sure, there's a literacy issue at work, but we might have said the same thing of short video four or five years ago. One way of advancing that literacy is just to have more artifacts out there people can interact with. As for the design question, one answer (an incomplete one, admittedly) is that these games would want to frame themselves differently from commercial entertainment games. I don't think "tricking" people into political participation is what I have in mind.
@D A
Interesting, if slightly bizarre, example, thanks for sharing it.
@Anthony
I was really just advocating an idea, or approach. This idea is not the same as trying to simulate how people will behave under certain policies, but how it would feel to live in a world run by certain policies. The bias doesn't bother me at all, because the games would clearly be constructed from specific perspectives. I tried to do this in 2004, a bit: games that characterize policy positions rather than political personalities.
I would much rather see simulations of a candidate's position than his campaign.
On a side note, those Palin games were getting really annoying.
Run a tight budget or take out loans? Is that clean air policy worth the monthly monetary outlay?
Perhaps Will Wright would take this idea on?
I think not converting that into a political game was a lost opportunity. On that note episodic content seems ideal for these types of events.
Maxis actually created a little-known health policy simulation game called SimHealth, released in 1994. Back in the early 90s Maxis dabbled in what we now call "serious games," including a SimRefinery game for the oil industry.
@Richard
I love text adventures/interactive fiction, and many of the best are very political (A Mind Forever Voyaging comes to mind). I lament the fact that the text game has fallen so far out of favor among the general public.
http://mypakragames.com/games/we-the-decided
the problem is complex social policy and politics don't really translate to game mechanics. simplifying game mechanics to give rewards and punishments for advancement which would be required in games would require that political bias dictate what the gamer is "supposed" to do. in effect you would be making interactive propaganda, not gaming.
game play comes from complex game play evolving from within a simplified environment with simplified rules. you just cannot do this with politics.
I was gonna say... "Any game that has real world politcis in it, I will not buy"
However... Because of this statement:
What would it feel like to live under the constraints of a particular fiscal policy? How might an unorthodox energy policy balance environmental and security concerns? Why will federal investment in private banking positively impact business and ordinary citizens?
I would be interested in. But... It can't be skewed. One glitch in the system could ruin the world... Are you ready for that? Can you live with it?