Comments on: War. Huh, what *is* it good for? http://www.plushapocalypse.com/borut/?p=68 Sun, 27 Jun 2010 07:45:21 -0400 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Borut http://www.plushapocalypse.com/borut/?p=68&cpage=1#comment-108 Borut Mon, 24 Sep 2007 15:23:51 +0000 http://www.plushapocalypse.com/borut/?p=68#comment-108 Well, yeah, the less expensive part almost goes without saying - lighting huge piles of money of fire is a less expensive way to make a political statement than making a big bidget console action game. (The huge piles of burning money would be a statement of how the war & the administration's policies have has affected our economic strength I suppose). And there's certainly a lot more room for procedural rhetoric (although, silliness I know, I have a shred of hope for Haze in that regard, we'll see). But there's not many more *visceral* ways of exploring those issues interactively - there's something to be said for that, too. Take an example from the seemingly less political Far Cry 2 - when wounded you have to look at & dress the wound in first person (dig out the bullet, pull out a shard of wood, etc.) - surely there's value in showing the effects of war that our news outlets won't? Of course, you run a fine line of trivializing that level of violence at the same time. But if exploring rhetoric using games was easy, more people would be doing it. What varies between forms is the type of political statement (visceral and emotional vs. more thoughtful & aimed at increasing understanding of systemic factors involved) - each have their usefulness at various times, depending on your goals. Plus, aside from some 30-second flash games here and there, there's not a whole lot of games from the indie scene really pursuing these trains of thought either - I'm just happy to see it explored anywhere in games, in any form. Well, yeah, the less expensive part almost goes without saying – lighting huge piles of money of fire is a less expensive way to make a political statement than making a big bidget console action game. (The huge piles of burning money would be a statement of how the war & the administration’s policies have has affected our economic strength I suppose).

And there’s certainly a lot more room for procedural rhetoric (although, silliness I know, I have a shred of hope for Haze in that regard, we’ll see). But there’s not many more *visceral* ways of exploring those issues interactively – there’s something to be said for that, too.
Take an example from the seemingly less political Far Cry 2 – when wounded you have to look at & dress the wound in first person (dig out the bullet, pull out a shard of wood, etc.) – surely there’s value in showing the effects of war that our news outlets won’t? Of course, you run a fine line of trivializing that level of violence at the same time. But if exploring rhetoric using games was easy, more people would be doing it.

What varies between forms is the type of political statement (visceral and emotional vs. more thoughtful & aimed at increasing understanding of systemic factors involved) – each have their usefulness at various times, depending on your goals.

Plus, aside from some 30-second flash games here and there, there’s not a whole lot of games from the indie scene really pursuing these trains of thought either – I’m just happy to see it explored anywhere in games, in any form.

]]> By: Patrick http://www.plushapocalypse.com/borut/?p=68&cpage=1#comment-106 Patrick Mon, 24 Sep 2007 04:12:48 +0000 http://www.plushapocalypse.com/borut/?p=68#comment-106 It seems like there are much less expensive, less expansive, and more procedurally rhetorical ways to make political statements using interactivity. It seems like there are much less expensive, less expansive, and more procedurally rhetorical ways to make political statements using interactivity.

]]>