Playing Politics

Playing Politics: How Computer Games Frame Political Issues

Joost Raessens Utrecht University

In the context of George Lakoff’s concepts of “metaphor” and “framing”, Raessens examines the potential of political computer games to convince players of the veracity of a certain point of view or the necessity of a behavioral change. His starting point is John Kerry: Tax Invaders (2004), a computer game that was used by the Republican Party in their campaign strategies for the United States Presidential election in 2004. He analyzes in more detail Food Force (2005) and Darfur is Dying (2005), two “games for change” aimed at teaching children about hunger and humanitarian aid work, and persuading players to help stop the crisis in Darfur. The author argues that in comparison to film, press and broadcasting, computer games do not only represent political issues. They also simulate playful experiences that were designed according to ideologically motivated rules. The player has to interact with these rules and master them in order to win the game. At the end of the article, the author discusses whether the players’

participation

in

these

games

can

be

defined

as

the

“re-de-construction” of frames: the reconstruction and deconstruction of existing frames and the construction of new ones.

Politics is a fascinating game Harry S. Truman, thirty-third President of the United States of America1

Introduction It may seem strange to study computer games in the context of political rhetorics, to understand them as ‘a persuasive discourse (…) to persuade others of the veracity and worthwhileness of their beliefs’.2 But if we investigate the phenomenon further it is quite logical to consider them

as rhetorical

tools in

the ongoing “infowar” politics have

increasingly become. Contemporary computer games have become part 1 2

Hillman, Mr. President, p. 198. Sutton-Smith, The Ambiguity of Play, p. 8.

1

of powerful information and communication technologies (ICTs) and are increasingly used not only to entertain people, but also to ‘educate, train, and inform’ them.3 Political computer games belong to these socalled “serious games”: they are computer games which have a political agenda. As the principal medium of contemporary youth culture, computer games do not only have to potential to convince players of the veracity of a certain point of view or the necessity of a behavioral change. They also help non-profit organizations such as the United Nations, and commercial enterprises such as Reebok and the music channel MTV to reinvent activism for the Internet generation. Since the 1980s, computer games have addressed all kinds of political problems. Chris Crawford’s Balance of Power (1985) is often cited as ‘the first political game in which diplomacy outweighed brute force’.4 In recent years, there has been an exponential growth in the production of political computer games. The terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001 inspired September 12th (2003), a pacifist game that criticizes the so-called “war on terror”. The ongoing conflict in the Middle East is depicted in UnderAsh (2002) and PeaceMaker (2004). The United Nations, mtvU and Unicef have launched Food Force (2005), Darfur is Dying (2005), Cool Chain Game (2004) and What Would You Do? (2006) as educational tools teaching people about famine, the genocide in Darfur, vaccination and HIV/AIDS. And in 2004, both the Republican and the Democrat Party used computer games in their campaign strategies for the United States Presidential election, such as The Howard Dean for Iowa Game (2003), Kick Bush Out (2004), Kerry vs. Kerry (2004) and John Kerry: Tax Invaders (2004). In this chapter I will examine how computer games frame political issues in ways that are specific to the medium. My analysis is primarily theoretical: it aims at a conceptual clarification of the relationship between (playing) computer games and political rhetoric. The starting point of my investigation is the conceptual framework of cognitive scientist and linguist George Lakoff who theorizes the cognitive dimensions of politics. Though he provides a productive framework for

3

Michael and Chen, Serious Games. Bogost, ‘Videogames’, p. 167. For the best overview of the genre of political computer games, see: www.watercoolergames.org. Water Cooler Games is ‘a forum for the uses of videogames in advertising, politics, education, and other everyday activities, outside the sphere of entertainment’. Editors are Ian Bogost and Gonzalo Frasca. 4

2

understanding

political

rhetoric,

he

exclusively

focuses

on

non-

computerized and non-playful media. Referring to three different modes of participation (reconstruction, deconstruction and construction),5 I will further develop Lakoff’s framework in order to turn it into an analytical toolkit in the domain of computer game studies. John Kerry: Tax Invaders (2004) serves as my starting point. It is a computer game that was used by the Republican Party in their campaign strategies for the United States Presidential election in 2004. I use this game in order to introduce Lakoff’s concepts of “metaphor” and “framing”. In the second paragraph, I will analyze Food Force (2005) and Darfur is Dying (2005) from “a family-value” perspective in Lakoff’s sense of the term. These two games are single-player “games for change” aimed at teaching children about hunger and humanitarian aid work, and persuading players to help stop the crisis in Darfur. In the third paragraph, I will focus on the medium specificity of these games in comparison to media such as film, press and broadcasting. I will argue that computer games do not only represent political issues but also simulate playful experiences which have been designed according to ideologically motivated rules. The player has to interact with these rules and master them in order to win the game. I will discuss whether the players’

participation

in

these

games

can

be

defined

as

the

“re-de-construction” of frames: the reconstruction and deconstruction of existing frames and the construction of new ones. The last paragraph contains my conclusions.

1. Presidential election computer games One of the most striking Presidential election computer games is John Kerry: Tax Invaders (2004).6 The Republican National Committee produced this game to illustrate the massive tax increase that Kerry’s intended spending would supposedly require. To win this game, players had to defend the country against John Kerry’s plans for a tax increase. In order to understand the game’s impact, it is important to know that it is a remake of the classic arcade game Space Invaders (1978). Space Invaders became a craze, not only in Japan where it was released in 1978, but also in the United States, albeit slightly later. The game’s success was caused by its narrative structure in which players had to 5 6

Raessens, ‘Computer Games’, p. 386, note 27. For a thorough analysis of this game, see Bogost, ‘Videogames’, pp. 169-173.

3

stop a swarm of aliens that set out to conquer the earth. Players had ‘the feeling of being the hero in a great adventure’.7 They accomplished their mission by moving a laser cannon from side to side along the bottom of the screen, and firing at the descending aliens. Their only protection are four shields that are slowly demolished by the aliens’ bombs. According to Judith Herz, these kinds of scenarios are very popular in the United States:

Everything was Good, but then Evil swept in, crawled over the whole goddamned place like swarming army ants, and you are the Orkin man. You, and only you are the hero. No teamwork, no delegation, no profit sharing. Just the Lone Ranger, transplanted to Mars. We in America like this.8

In John Kerry: Tax Invaders players had to defend America in a comparable way, but this time against Kerry’s tax plans. Using the head of George W. Bush as a gun, players had to “shoot down” the descending tax increases that were represented as white colored rectangles bearing the numerical value of the proposed tax. The concept of “framing” will allow me to analyze the game’s political rhetoric. The emerging body of research on framing has signaled ‘the latest paradigm shift in political-communication research’.9 The most recent stage of research into political effects can be situated in the 1980s and early 1990s: ‘The term “framing” refers to modes of presentation that journalists and other communicators use to present information in a way that

resonates

audience’.

10

with

existing

underlying

schemas

among

their

From a framing perspective, the potential attitudinal effects

of John Kerry: Tax Invaders depend upon the preference of players for the Democrats or the Republicans and their experience with computer games in general and Space Invaders in particular. In this chapter I will focus on Lakoff’s concepts of “framing” and “metaphor”. According to Lakoff, metaphors frame our understanding of the world: ‘Our ordinary conceptual system, in terms of which we both think and act, is fundamentally metaphorical in nature (…) The essence

7

Malliet and De Meyer, ‘The History’, p. 28. Herz, Joystick Nation, p. 88. Herz is referring here to the first-person shooter Doom (1993). 9 Scheufele and Tewksbury, ‘Framing’, p. 10. 10 Idem, p. 12.

8

4

of metaphor is understanding and experiencing one kind of thing in terms of another’.11 Applying this idea to politics, Lakoff argues that politicians use political discourses to frame the facts of the world. According to Lakoff:

Frames are mental structures that shape the way we see the world. As a result, they shape the goals we seek, the plans we make, the way we act, and what counts as a good or bad outcome of our actions. In politics our frames shape our social policies and the institutions we form to carry out policies. To change our frames is to change all of this. Reframing is social change.12

Lakoff’s research is based upon the idea that language is a powerful political tool. Through the repetitive use of terms such as “war on terror” and “climate change” by Republicans, or “war in Iraq” and “global warming” by Democrats, voters’ attitudes towards important political issues could actually be strengthened or perhaps even shifted. The Republicans were for example successful in framing tax as an affliction, with the result that ‘the person who takes it away is a hero, and anyone who tries to stop him is a bad guy’.13 This example shows that political success within a media culture not only depends on drawing on reality as such but also, or maybe more, on mediated forms of representation. If Lakoff’s argument is relevant, the success of the Republicans in the 2004

Presidential

Elections

was

caused

by

the

appeal

of

their

conservative frames, such as “taxation is an affliction”, “war on terror” and “climate change” for example. The frames of the Democrats “taxation is an investment”, “war in Iraq” and “global warming” – were less successful. In line with Lakoff’s thesis that conservatives frame taxation as an affliction, John Kerry: Tax Invaders not only verbalizes and visualizes this metaphor, but also turns it into an embodied activity: ‘No matter the player’s political perspective, to play the game at all he or she must step inside the skin of the taxation opponent, viewing taxes as a foreign enemy’.14 And even if a Democrat is still opposing “tax relief” after

11

Lakoff and Johnson, Metaphors, p. 3 and p. 5. Lakoff, Don’t Think of an Elephant!, p. xv. 13 Idem, p. 4. 14 Bogost, ‘Videogames’, pp. 170. 12

5

having played the game, s/he remains trapped in a conservative world view: ‘If you keep their language and their framing and just argue against it, you lose because you are reinforcing their frame’.15 If democrats are convinced that taxation has a high moral value because it contributes to the social common good, they should frame tax in a new way, as ‘investment in the future’ or ‘paying your dues’,16 for example by developing their own computer games on taxation. This does not mean however, that the effects of John Kerry: Tax Invaders were unambiguous or one-way traffic. From a framing perspective, this game – like all media texts – is polysemic and, therefore, open to multiple readings.17 If we take into account Sherry Turkle’s account of the three possible reactions towards ‘the seduction of simulation’18 – that is simulation resignation, simulation denial and simulation understanding – we are able to understand that players do not automatically accept the game’s conservative frame on taxation. On The Water Cooler Games forum, these three types of reactions can be discerned.19 Players who state that ’if John Kerry’s convictions on tax relief are half as firm as his convictions on other important issues, we can assume tax day will be a very bad day for middle class Americans under a Kerry administration’ surrender to the simulation by taking it at interface value (simulation resignation). On the other hand, those players who state that ‘this strikes me as perhaps the creation, not of a strategic campaign decision, but the voluntary contribution of a college age supporter who wants a career in the field. Probably no one in the party has looked seriously at this’, are denying the game’s importance (simulation denial). Players who argue that ‘the game simplifies a complex situation’ are discussing the game’s built-in assumptions (simulation understanding).

2. Games for Change

15

Lakoff, Don’t Think of an Elephant!, p. 33. Idem, p. 25. 17 The way in which the framing model within communication studies disengaged itself from the early hypodermic needle and magic-bullet models of the 1920s and 1930s’ (Scheufele and Tewksbury, ‘Framing’, p. 10) is similar to the way in which cultural studies broke with the work of the Frankfurt School within the humanities, see Raessens, ‘Computer Games’, p. 375. 18 Turkle, Life on the Screen, p. 71. 19 See: www.watercoolergames.org/archives/000119.shtml. 16

6

The establishment of Games for Change (G4C) took place in 2004. It was a sub-group of the Serious Games Initiative.20 Two games that perfectly fit the framework of the G4C-initiative are Darfur is Dying (2005) and Food Force (2005). Food Force is an educational, non-violent computer game that was released by the United Nations World Food Programme (WFP). Its target group were children aged eight to thirteen. WFP released the game in April 2005 claiming in 2006 that:

The adventure [launching the game] turned out well: international media immediately picked up the story and by June one million people were playing the game. Now, 12 months on, Food Force has been downloaded nearly 4 million times, and the www.food-force.com website averages over 18,000 unique visitors per week.21

The game which takes approximately thirty minutes to play, tells the story of a food crisis on the fictitious island of Sheylan. On the Food Force-website, the player can play the game after downloading it for free. The website also provides him/her with information about the reality behind the game: ‘In the world today hundreds of millions of people suffer from chronic hunger and malnutrition’. Furthermore, the player can learn about WPF’s mission to fight hunger worldwide and learn how s/he can actively support the WFP-activities. Darfur is Dying was the winner of the Darfur Digital Activist Contest launched by mtvU in partnership with the Reebok Human Rights Foundation

and

the

International

conference in October 2005. design

of

a

computer

22

Crisis

Group

during

the

G4C-

The goal of the student contest was the

game

that

raises

awareness

about

the

humanitarian crisis in the Darfur region of Sudan where civilians run the risk of being killed or raped by militias backed by the Sudanese government. By playing the game the player becomes involved in this world. The game was released in March 2006 at the Darfur is Dyingwebsite where it can be played for free. In September 2006 Director Susana Ruiz stated in an interview:

20

See: www.gamesforchange.org and www.seriousgames.org. World Food Programme, Annual Report 2005, p. 43. 22 See: www.mtvu.com. The winning student team received $ 50.000 to develop the game. 21

7

According to mtvU's traffic numbers, more than 800,000 people have played the game over 1.7 million times since its launch on April 30th. Of those, tens of thousands have participated in the activist tools woven into the gameplay – such as sending emails to friends in their social networks inviting them to play the game and become informed about Darfur, as well as writing letters to President Bush and petitioning their Representatives in Congress to support legislation that aids the people of Darfur.23

Food Force served as a model for this game that again takes no more than thirty minutes to play. The website describes the game as ‘a narrative based simulation where the user, from the perspective of a displaced Darfurian, negotiates forces that threaten the survival of his or her refugee camp’. On the game’s website the player can play the game (‘Help stop the crisis in Darfur: Start your experience’), and receive background information about the crisis in Darfur (‘In the Darfur region of western Sudan, a genocide is occurring’) and the different ways in which s/he can try to stop the crisis (‘Do something now to stop the crisis in Darfur’). Players can educate themselves on the crisis in Darfur, send a message to President Bush, ask their representative to support funding for African Union peacekeepers, and start a divestment movement on their campus. In order to increase our understanding of how both these games frame political issues, it is productive to approach them from a “family values” perspective. According to Lakoff, ‘we all have a metaphor for the nation as a family (…) because we usually understand large social groups,

like

nations,

in

terms

of

small

ones,

like

families

or

communities’.24 Contemporary American political discourse is divided into ‘two different models of the family: a [Republican, conservative] strict father family and a [Democratic, progressive] nurturant parent family model’.25 According to the metaphor of the nurturant parent, ‘in foreign policy the role of the nation should be to promote cooperation

23

Parkin, ‘Interview’. According to Wikipedia, “As of April 2007, the game has been played more than 2.4 million times by over 1.2 million people worldwide.” See: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darfur_is_dying. 24 Lakoff, Don’t Think of an Elephant!, p. 5. 25 Idem, p. 6. Framing taxation as unfair and immoral, as in John Kerry: Tax Invaders, is also an expression of the strict father model, see: Lakoff, Moral Politics, pp. 189-190.

8

and extend these values to the world’26 and to focus on ‘international institutions and strong defensive and peacekeeping forces’.27 This metaphor goes against the metaphor of the strict father that, in foreign affairs, leads to the following: ‘The government should maintain its sovereignty and impose its moral authority everywhere it can, while seeking its self-interest (the economic self-interest of corporations and military strength)’.28 An example of a political discussion that collides these two models is the attitude of the United States towards the United Nations. According to Lakoff, ‘most of the United Nations consist of developing and underdeveloped countries. That means they are metaphorically children’.29 Having displayed its aversion to the United Nations time and again, the Bush’ administration opted for the strict father worldview. Because in Darfur is Dying and Food Force the United Nations Peace Operations

and

the

United

Nations

World

Food

Programme

are

represented as organizations able to – literally – ‘nurture’ their family members, both games express the values of the nurturant parent family model. The democrat Lakoff favors a foreign policy based upon nurturant parent-values, such as protection from harm, community building, caring and responsibility. His descriptions of these values echo the goals of both games: protection from harm equals ‘an effective military for defense

and

peacekeeping’30.

Building

and

maintaining

a

strong

community equals ‘building and maintaining strong alliances and engaging in effective diplomacy’31. Caring and responsibility equals ‘caring about and acting responsibility for the world’s people; world health, hunger, poverty (…) rights for women, children (…) refugees, and ethnic minorities’32. Before I analyze in more detail how both Food Force and Darfur is Dying involve players in these nurturant parent values in a mediumspecific way, it is important to show that the United Nations strongly adhere to these values. James T. Morris, Executive Director World Food Programme, refers to ‘the United Nations family’ and ‘the whole UN 26

Idem, p. 40. Idem, p. 63. 28 Idem, p. 41. 29 Idem, p. 11. 30 Idem, p. 92. 31 Ibidem. 32 Ibidem. 27

9

family’.33 In The WFP Mission Statement and in their Annual Report 2005, the World Food Programme refers to the responsibility the international community has for primary health care, access to clean water, proper hygiene; to the fact that food aid is essential for social and humanitarian protection; to the importance of helping people survive and rebuild their lives. In their Mission Statement and their New Challenges, New horizons. Year in review 2006, the United Nations Peace Operations also refer to ‘the United Nations family’;34 to the international community’s “duty of care”; to its responsibility to support health care missions; to the protection of community and minority rights; and to the protection of human rights.

3. The medium specificity of computer games In comparison with media such as film, press and broadcasting, computer games rely on rule-based interactions as their core mode of signification:

A game is a rule-based formal system with a variable and quantifiable outcome, where different outcomes are assigned different values, the player exerts effort in order to influence the outcome, the player feels attached to the outcome, and the consequences of the activity are optional and negotiable.35

In order to answer the question how both games frame political issues, we have to focus on the six different game features distinguished by Juul: 1. What are the rules of these games? 2. What are their possible outcomes (related to the goal of the game)? 3. Are their outcomes positive or negative? 4. Does the player influence their outcomes by reconstructing the preprogrammed possibilities of these games while playing according to the rules (reconstruction), by discovering how the software is put together while demystifying the rules (deconstruction), or by modifying these games while playing with the rules themselves (construction)? 5. Is the player happy with a positive outcome (winning the game) and unhappy with a negative outcome (losing the game)? 6. Are there any real-life consequences? Because of the important role of

33

World Food Programme, Annual Report 2005, pp. 5-6. United Nations Peace Operations, New Challenges, p. 24. 35 Juul, ‘The game’, p. 35. 34

10

interactivity, or participation as I prefer to call it, as a factor which distinguishes computer games from most other media forms, I will organize

my

answers

around

three

modes

of

participation:

reconstruction, deconstruction and construction.36

3.1 Reconstruction Reconstruction is the dominant mode of participation in Darfur is Dying and Food Force. Reconstruction consists of ‘the exploration of the unknown, in the computer game represented worlds’ and the selection of ‘objects and actions from a fixed set of system-internal possibilities’.37 At the beginning of Darfur is Dying the player selects one out of eight Darfurian avatars to represent the refugee camp. The game has a simple two-level structure. On the first level, the player has to explore the area outside the refugee camp, foraging for water. The avatar has to provide water for the community, but because the well is five kilometers from the refugee camp, s/he runs the risk of being captured and possibly get killed by the militias. The player can move his or her avatar by using the arrow keys of the keyboard and the spacebar to hide for the militias. After having reached the well and returned to the camp, the player may decide to go foraging again (as long as there are avatars left to do so) or to enter the second level inside the refugee camp. Here the player has a Sim City style top-down view of the camp. The player has to explore the camp and select urgent tasks, such as obtaining food, building shelters, and staying healthy. The basic rule of the game is clearly an ideologically motivated one: players can win the game by supporting Darfuri civilians. The goal of the game is to safeguard the refugee camp, keep it up and running for seven days, and protect as many adults and children from being killed by the Janjaweed militia. At the end of the game players can put their name on a high score list on the game’s website. When the avatar successfully brings water to his/her family and community, a screen with ‘Goal

Accomplished’

pops

up.

The

message

of

the

game

is

communicated most clearly in its rhetoric of failure. If captured by the militia, the avatar faces real-life consequences: ‘You will likely become one of the hundreds of thousands of people already lost to this

36

See: Raessens, ‘Computer Games’, pp. 373-388. In this chapter I use the concept “reconstruction” instead “reconfiguration”. 37 Raessens, ‘Computer Games’, p. 380.

11

humanitarian crisis’. When a girl avatar is captured the consequences are heartbreaking: she faces ‘abuse, rape and kidnapping by the Janjaweed’. The game is programmed in such a way that a player is not only unhappy with a negative outcome, but also with a positive one. When a player succeeds in accomplishing the goal of the game, s/he is informed that this will not end the real conflict: ‘The men, women, and children of Darfur have been living under harrowing conditions since 2003’. Though the game does not have real-life consequences for the player, it does have consequences for the Darfurian avatars of the player. Because the player identifies with the onscreen avatar, s/he becomes engaged in the problematics of the game. In the virtual world of Food Force, the player’s engagement does not come from an identification with an onscreen avatar, but from the personal experience of playing the game. For the player of the game is its protagonist, a young rookie who is briefed on a humanitarian crisis on the fictitious island Sheylan in the Indian Ocean. It is the player’s mission to deliver food as quickly as possible to the Sheylan’s residents. Guided by a team of experts, in a race against the clock, the player has to accomplish six missions or mini-games in a linear order, delivering food to an area in crisis. In the Air Surveillance mission, for example, the player has to explore the crisis area by helicopter and count the number of people who need help by selecting one of the preprogrammed actions: fly to the right, left, up or down. The basic rule of Food Force is also an ideologically motivated one: players win the game by completing the six missions and in doing so, help to fight hunger. The goal of the game is directly conveyed to the player: ‘You can learn to fight hunger (…) Millions of people are now depending on you for help. This is more than just a game. Good luck!’ Players receive positive feedback on their performance from team members if their missions are successful. If the mission’s outcome is less positive, the player is encouraged to try again. After playing the game, a player can summit his or her final score to a world-wide high score list on the game’s website. Though the game does not have reallife consequences for the player, s/he is constantly reminded of the fact that in real life the WFP-missions have huge consequences for these hungry people. Before and after each mission, the player can watch animated video clips providing valuable background information about the importance of the WFP’s work.

12

3.2 Deconstruction According to the Dutch Cultural Council, looking through and exposing the hidden, naturalized, ideologically presupposed rules of a medium is an important aspect of ‘media wisdom’.38 Ted Friedman calls this process “demystification”, I prefer to call it “deconstruction”:39

Learning and winning (…) or “reaching one’s goals at” a computer game is a process of demystification [deconstruction]: One succeeds by discovering how the software is put together. The player molds his or her strategy through trial-and-error experimentation to see “what works” – which actions are rewarded and which are punished.40

According

to

Friedman,

‘computer

games

reveal

their

own

constructedness to a much greater extent than more traditional texts’.

41

Darfur is Dying rests on the premise that the United Nations Security Council has the right and the duty to authorise military intervention to stop serious abuses of human rights in regions all over the world. Food Force rests on the premise that fighting hunger is a responsibility of the international community. The ‘baseline ideological assumptions that determine which strategies will win and which will lose’,42 become apparent through actually playing the game. That is why Friedman claims that ‘to win (…) you have to figure out what will work within the rules of the game’.43 This is because a computer game, as opposed to, for example, a film, is played over and over again until all of the game’s secrets have been discovered. Friedman’s claim is problematic because he overlooks the three interpretative strategies that may be activated in the player as a reaction to what Turkle calls the seduction of simulation: players can either surrender to the seduction of Food Force and Darfur is Dying by interpreting the game more or less according to the encoded UNideological frames (simulation resignation). As Friedman claims they may understand these frames by demystifying or deconstructing the

38

Dutch Cultural Council, Media wisdom. Raessens, ‘Computer Games’, pp. 376-378. 40 Friedman, ‘Making Sense of Software’, p. 82. 41 Ibidem. 42 Friedman, ‘Civilization’, p. 144. 43 Idem, p. 136. 39

13

assumptions or frames that are built into the simulation (simulation understanding). Or they can completely disavow the social and political importance of these kinds of games (simulation denial). These three strategies do, indeed, determine the reactions of players and critics of both games. On the Water Cooler Games forum, for example, game critic and forum editor Gonzalo Frasca writes about Food Force: ‘Finally! An educational game that rocks! Informative, well produced and very enjoyable to play with. Go United Nations! (…) Overall, I am extremely happy for this game, it is an excellent example of the way edutainment should be.’44 Most of the comments on this forum reflect this view: ’This was a wonderful game (…) successful at teaching the player about a few things, such as what foods are important, where investment is more valuable, etc. Great stuff!’ and ‘Very nice game indeed’. This “simulation resignation” is also the dominant reaction towards Darfur is Dying: ‘Fortunately, this game is refreshingly smart about its subject and effective in its delivery’.45 The game ‘is perhaps the first true survival-horror game in which players experience life as a Sudanese living in Darfur in 2006, fighting to stay alive not from the threat of Space Invader aliens but from real world bullets and sun-cracked soil’.46 ‘Having a game about Darfur reaches out to lots of young people out there who are clueless about what’s going on’.47 Simulation understanding and denial are clearly in the minority. On the Water Cooler Games forum, some players deny Food Force’s importance by criticizing the U.N. for spending money on computer game development while thousands starve.48 And the BBC-news cites Ian Bogost: ‘Bogost worries that MTV’s involvement makes the game seem more like a marketing tool’.49 Others criticize the built-in assumptions of Food Force: ‘How much like the real U.N is it? Do players get extra points for accepting bribes and raping the locals?’50 and raise the question whether the difficult work for the WFP lends itself well to 44

See: www.watercoolergames.org/archives/000381.shtml. See: www.gameology.org/node/1013. 46 Parkin, ‘Interview’. 47 Vargas, ‘In Darfur is Dying’. 48 See note 44. 49 Boyd, ‘Darfur activism’. 50 See note 48. In 2005, the U.N. established an Ethics Office with the objective to ‘ensure that all staff members observe and perform their functions consistent with the highest standards of integrity’, see: www.un.org/reform/ethics. There is no reference to forms of misconduct by UN personnel in both games. 45

14

minigames: ‘It seems more like a MMO (ex. Everquest). Or a Sim where you control the WFP’.51 Dafur is Dying is criticised for the same reason: ‘It seems to trivialize the problem’52 and ‘He [Bogost] also wonders whether Darfur is Dying oversimplifies an incredibly complex conflict’.53

3.3 Construction The concept of “construction” may be understood as the modification of an existing game. A game modification is ‘an add-on to an existing game engine that alters the original code or state of a computer game’. Examples are the ‘customization of graphics, sound, game play, architecture or other attributes of the original computer game’.54 In this sense both Food Force and Darfur is Dying lack a constructive mode. The gamers’ activities are better described as modes of reconstruction. However, there are two other definitions of construction. The first one refers to the making of new games as such. What is at stake here is the question who can participate in our culture. Whether we face a topdown culture in which a small number of computer game developers and publishers run the show all by themselves, or whether we face a multitude of bottom-up cultures in which computer gamers can (continue to) participate. We see these bottom-up cultures appear when independent games are developed and distributed. Both Darfur is Dying and Food Force fit into a new genre of critical games:

A new genre of critical games, in which play and reality are significantly linked together, is emerging. People can be informed about economic exploitation or political migration via games (…) Why remain a passive consumer when there is just as much fun to be had in adopting games to our own sets of rules (…) One thing all these games (…) have in common is the notion of empowerment, speaking out, looking critically, taking the initiative ourselves.55

Darfur is Dying and Food Force have a clear political agenda, namely the dissemination of the United Nations nurturant parent frame through

51

Ibidem. MMO or MMORPG stand for Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game. A Sim is a Simulation game, like SimCity. 52 See note 47. 53 Boyd, ‘Darfur activism’. 54 Schleiner, ‘Parasitic Interventions’. 55 Carels, ‘The State of Play’, p. 337.

15

popular culture. In itself this can be considered an emancipating and liberating aspect of the construction of frames. When gamers become game programmers and thus move from game to meta-game, players realize that our reality is “open source”: they have ‘the ability to rethink and redesign our world using entirely new rule sets’.56 Although commercial enterprises such as MTV and Reebok initiated the design of Darfur is Dying, profit or the provision of mere entertainment is not its main motive. As with Food Force, the goal of the game is to provide an engaging

experience,

to

communicate

a

political

message,

and,

ultimately, the realization of a certain change of behaviour on the part of the player. This change of behaviour leads to a third definition of the concept of construction. The Food Force-website asks players to become active outside the game world. Players can help by giving money to the WFP, by teaching others about famine, and by organizing fundraising activities at school or at home. “Joe’s blog” on the Food Force website links the game world with the outside reality in interesting ways. Joe Zake, the Sheylanese nutritionist character of the game, asks website visitors: ‘to spread the word about hunger using this blog: read, comment and link’. As I described earlier in this chapter, the Darfur is Dying-website is organized in a similar way: it offers the player different kinds of possibilities to become active in the reality outside the game.

Conclusion In understanding how the design of Darfur is Dying and Food Force helps to convince players of the veracity of the games’ point of view and the necessity of a behavioral change, we have to realize that a mere presentation of factual information about the situation in Darfur and global hunger is simply not good enough: ‘To be accepted, the truth must fit people’s frames. If the facts do not fit a frame, the frame stays and the facts bounce off’.57 It seems effective to frame these facts in multiple ways: within the context of two successful games; within the context of two accompanying websites; as part of the framework of the United Nations; in the context of the nurturant parent model. According to Lakoff, ‘we all have both models [nurturant parent and strict father] –

56 57

Rushkoff, ‘Renaissance Now!’, p. 421. Lakoff, Don’t Think of an Elephant!’, p. 17.

16

either actively or passively’.58 The goal of both games is to activate the nurturant parent values I described earlier in the minds of young players of computer games, and to frame the issues of hunger and Darfur from their perspective. Darfur is Dying and Food Force frame Darfur and global hunger in ways that are specific to the medium. The players of both games mainly reconstruct the preprogrammed possibilities of these games according to their unambiguously motivated ideological rules. It seems that most of the critics and players surrender to the games’ baseline ideological assumptions that become obvious while they demystify or deconstruct the rules of the game. It is not easy to determine whether the oversimplification of the Darfur conflict turns the game into an United Nations propaganda vehicle. Or whether ‘it is an entryway into the crisis’59 – in the words of game designer Susana Ruiz – which deals with the basic questions young people have. I tend to agree with Scheufele and Tewsbury’s definition of framing as ‘a necessary tool to reduce the complexity of an issue’,60 given the constraints of the media in question. ‘Frames, in other words, become invaluable tools for presenting relatively complex issues (…) efficiently and in a way that makes them accessible to lay audiences because they play to existing cognitive schemas’.61 One of the main constraints of serious games is that the development and distribution of computer games is severely dominated by a few commercial companies who focus on entertainment games. The gaming industry lacks funding and business models for projects such as Darfur is Dying and Food Force. It is a small miracle that both games exist, given that they do not aim for or make high profits while still requiring substantial production budgets.

Acknowledgments Some of my descriptions of Food Force and Darfur is Dying are based on the games’ websites. I wrote this chapter in the context of the Utrecht Media Research program (see: www.let.uu.nl/umr). I would like to thank Jeffrey Goldstein for his helpful comments and Christien Franken for editing this chapter.

58

Idem, p. 41. Boyd, ‘Darfur activism’. 60 Scheufele and Tewksbury, ‘Framing’, p. 12. 61 Ibidem. 59

17

Bibliography Bogost,

I.,

‘Videogames

and

Ideological

Frames’,

Popular

Communication 3 (2006), pp. 165-183. Boyd, C., ‘Darfur activism meets video gaming’, BBC-News (July 6, 2006). See: news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/5153694.stm. Carels, E., ‘The State of Play’, in: Houtenbrink, E., ed., Catalogue 33rd International Film Festival Rotterdam (Amsterdam, 2004), pp. 336-338. Dutch Cultural Council, Media wisdom. The development of new citizenship [Mediawijsheid. De ontwikkeling van nieuw burgerschap] (The Hague, 2005). Friedman, T., ‘Making Sense of Software’, in: Jones, S.G., ed., Cybersociety (London, 1995), pp. 73-89. Friedman, T., ‘Civilization and its discontents’, in: Smith, G., ed., On a silver platter (New York, 1999). Goldstein, J., ‘Violent Video Games’, in: Raessens, J. and Goldstein, J., eds, Handbook of Computer Game Studies (Cambridge MA, 2005), pp. 341-357. Herz, J., Joystick Nation. How Videogames Ate Our Quarters, Won Our Hearts, and Rewired Our Minds (Boston: 1997). Hillman, W., Mr. President. The First Publication From the Personal Diaries, Private Letters, Papers and Revealing Interviews of Harry S. Truman (New York, 1952). Juul, J., ‘The game, the player, the world: looking for a heart of gameness’, in: Copier, M. and Goldstein, J., eds, Level Up. Digital Games Research Conference (Utrecht, 2003), pp. 30-45. Lakoff, G., Moral Politics. How Liberals and Conservatives Think (Chicago, 2002). Lakoff, G., Don’t Think of an Elephant! Know Your Values and Frame the Debate. (White River Junction VT, 2004). Lakoff, G., How Democrats and Progressives Can Win: Solutions from George Lakoff (DVD, 2004). Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M., Metaphors We Live By (Chicago, 2003). Malliet, S. and De Meyer, ‘The History of the Video Game’, in: Raessens, J. and Goldstein, J., eds, Handbook of Computer Game Studies (Cambridge MA, 2005), pp. 23-45. Michael, D. and Chen, S., Serious Games: Games That Educate, Train, and Inform (Boston MA, 2006).

18

Parkin, S., ‘Interview – Darfur is Dying’, Eurogamer (September 4, 2006). See: www.eurogamer.net. Raessens, J., ‘Computer Games as Participatory Media Culture’, in: Raessens, J. and Goldstein, J., eds, Handbook of Computer Game Studies (Cambridge MA, 2005), pp. 373-388. Rushkoff, D., ‘Renaissance Now! The Gamers’ Perspective’, in: Raessens, J. and Goldstein, J., eds, Handbook of Computer Game Studies (Cambridge MA, 2005), pp. 415-421. Scheufele, D. A. and Tewksbury, D., ‘Framing, Agenda Setting, and Priming: The Evolution of Three Media Effects Models’, Journal of Communication 57 (2007), pp. 9-20. Schleiner, A.M., ‘Parasitic Interventions: Game Patches and Hacker Art’ (1999). See: www.opensorcery.net/patchnew.html. Sutton-Smith, B., The Ambiguity of Play (Cambridge MA, 1997). Turkle, S., Life on the Screen. Identity in the Age of the Internet (London, 1997). United Nations Peace Operations, New Challenges, New horizons. Year in Review 2006 (New York, 2007). See: www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/pub/year_review06/YIR2006.pdf. Vargas, J.A., ‘In Darfur Is Dying, The Game That’s Anything But’, Wahingtonpost.com (May 1, 2006). See: www.washingtonpost.com. World Food Programme, Annual Report 2005 (Rome, 2006). See: www.wfp.org/policies/annual_reports/documents/2005_wfp_annual_rep ort.pdf.

Games Balance of Power (ASCII Corporation, 1985). Civilization (Microprose, 1991). Cool Chain Game (Unicef The Netherlands, 2004): www.cool-chaingame.nl. Darfur is Dying (mtvU, 2005): www.darfurisdying.com. Doom (id Software, 1993). EverQuest (1999, Sony Online Entertainment). Food Force (United Nations World Food Programme, 2005): www.foodforce.com. John Kerry: Tax Invaders (Republican National Committee, 2004): www.gop.com/taxinvaders.

19

Kerry vs. Kerry (Republican National Committee, 2004): www.gop.com/kerryvskerry. Kick Bush Out (Democratic National Committee, 2004). PeaceMaker (ImpactGames, 2004): www.peacemakergame.com. September 12th (Newsgaming, 2003): www.newsgaming.com. Sim City (Maxis, 1989). Space Invaders (Taito, 1978): www.neave.com/games/invaders. The Howard Dean for Iowa Game (Persuasive Games, 2003): www.deanforamericagame.com. UnderAsh (Afkar Media, 2002): www.underash.net. What Would You Do? (Unicef, 2006): www.unicef.org/voy.

20