Saturday, December 30, 2006
Polemic Games
Video games, more than any other medium of expression we have ever created, simulate the world around us. As we become better and better at making these not quite real, not quite imaginary worlds we give rise to deeper and deeper simulations. The effect of information in these worlds is assimilated into the human brain in a unique manner, and people are learning to use this to get their message across.
Armies tell children how just their cause is, tell them stories of brotherhood and camaraderie in the face of battle. Christians tell us of rapture and ascension. Concerned citizens talk about the daily struggle of refugees, stories of persecution and survival at all costs.
I don’t trust anyone who sends me messages in video games. The messages may be worthy or not, but no one sending them is unbiased in their reporting. I trust, for a given value of trust admittedly, what is said in the papers because it is accountable. Stories may be written by a two-bit hack, but there has to be a grain of truth to the story for it to be printed and there are regulations and checks on the information printed. Not so with America’s Army or Left Behind. This is a medium totally un-policed in its use of political content, even though it may potentially be one of the most persuasive methods of information distribution that exists.
Why is there no option for discussion in these games? Why can’t we stop and ask the enemy “Why are you fighting me? Do you believe I am culpable for the actions of my government? What is your experience of my country’s army?” Why are we not treated to a tour of Abhu-Graibe so that we can see the ugly side of the Military. Why can’t we have all the information?
It’s because the people to make an experience deep enough to change a mind needs a lot of money to do it, and people with lots of money do not often like open debate. Christians, charities, military forces, all these groups tend to stick to their own personal truth like glue. I am someone who avoids one-side-story arguments; they make me feel like I need a shower.
In time perhaps these opposing groups will give rise to a broad medium from which we will be able to pick out different games for each side of a story. But at the moment then I will get my news and form my opinions from sources that remain unbiased, and play games that stay out of these kinds of polarised cultural spaces.
Video games, more than any other medium of expression we have ever created, simulate the world around us. As we become better and better at making these not quite real, not quite imaginary worlds we give rise to deeper and deeper simulations. The effect of information in these worlds is assimilated into the human brain in a unique manner, and people are learning to use this to get their message across.
Armies tell children how just their cause is, tell them stories of brotherhood and camaraderie in the face of battle. Christians tell us of rapture and ascension. Concerned citizens talk about the daily struggle of refugees, stories of persecution and survival at all costs.
I don’t trust anyone who sends me messages in video games. The messages may be worthy or not, but no one sending them is unbiased in their reporting. I trust, for a given value of trust admittedly, what is said in the papers because it is accountable. Stories may be written by a two-bit hack, but there has to be a grain of truth to the story for it to be printed and there are regulations and checks on the information printed. Not so with America’s Army or Left Behind. This is a medium totally un-policed in its use of political content, even though it may potentially be one of the most persuasive methods of information distribution that exists.
Why is there no option for discussion in these games? Why can’t we stop and ask the enemy “Why are you fighting me? Do you believe I am culpable for the actions of my government? What is your experience of my country’s army?” Why are we not treated to a tour of Abhu-Graibe so that we can see the ugly side of the Military. Why can’t we have all the information?
It’s because the people to make an experience deep enough to change a mind needs a lot of money to do it, and people with lots of money do not often like open debate. Christians, charities, military forces, all these groups tend to stick to their own personal truth like glue. I am someone who avoids one-side-story arguments; they make me feel like I need a shower.
In time perhaps these opposing groups will give rise to a broad medium from which we will be able to pick out different games for each side of a story. But at the moment then I will get my news and form my opinions from sources that remain unbiased, and play games that stay out of these kinds of polarised cultural spaces.
# posted by Matt @ 11:12 AM 
