Face the consequences

I’ve issued a lot of praise for the game Peace Maker. If anything, it’s different to the usual in gaming and to see a political simulator – let alone that actually works – is indeed a rarity. I really can’t emphasis just how tense it becomes with making decisions and waiting to see IF they’d deliver the desired result.

That being said, how come no one has tried to replicate this method of gaming? I don’t know about you but a political simulator – with making decisions, dealing with consequence and trying to keep so many parties placated - is a gaming genre that should be put to work – given the right scenario of course.

So let me say this up front: I want to see a political simulator based on Game of Thrones.

Think about it: That scenario would be perfect for a political simulator and making decisions that may have drastic consequences. I mean, what other game could give you the option of dispatching prostitutes to your nephew to curry favor?

After all, it’s not like the Game of Thrones games currently available could do any worse…

We don't need no education

Some thought about the thorny issue of educational games:

To begin with: Do educational games have any purpose? Yes I can understand the value of presenting an learning activity in a new and exciting way that connect with the kids – but at the same time there is the idea of an educational game come across as an intrusion into something that the kids love. Indeed, take away the escapism that’s leagues away from school lessons and the kids will start smelling bullshit.
And that pretty much sums up the notion of educational games. I can imagine many kids retreating to their game devices at the end of a school day to forget everything they learned (I know I did) so to force them to think may result in resentment.

During my primary school years (1987-1993) I did play some computer games of educational value. I didn’t mind at the time because micro-computers were a ‘new thing’ at the time and it was fun learning how to use one. In addition, the games I used were simple BBC programs. One program I used was one that tested me on naming the locations of Tasmania. I enjoyed it, got a lot out of it, and never once did I feel like I was being preached to – indeed that was the only game that really succeeded in its goal but some of the other games at the time were either rubbish or of questionable educational value.

If anything, for an educational game to work it must present the educational value in a decent matter and be fun to play – a balancing act that is nothing short of tricky to pull off. But can it work? Well as long as the educational values aren’t shoved down the children’s throat, it challenges them to think and is fun to play it can.
Are there any games I can think of that achieve this balancing act?
Well the Civilization series is a prime example of presenting material in a manner that never feels patronizing. Indeed, reading up on the Civilopedia on the Wonders of the World and the scientific advancements was fascinating and never once was dull. It also helped that the game itself was heaps of fun to play, insanely addictive and encouraged my mind to work on a strategic level.
Peacemaker is another game worthy of mention. Through playing this game I learned more about the conflicts between Israel and Palestine than any news program and just how difficult making decisions for a nation can be. Okay sure there isn’t much of a game to speak of but when you’re waiting for an outcome with a mixture of anticipation and dread, you know you’ve done something right.
And continuing with the strategic theme, through playing Pharaoh I learned a lot about the history of ancient Egypt and made me keen to explore some more beyond what I already knew – a sign of success if ever there was one.

If anything for an educational game to work it would first need to come across as something fun and not as a pure educational exercise. And, based on what I‘ve written above, it would seem that strategic games are the best approach with making a game of educational value: It encourages the player to think and offers an opportunity to get one’s message across in a subtle manner.
I mean you wouldn’t use Gears of War as a basis for a game to convey mathematics….

Mud slinging

This headline has been generating a lot of attention recently: US politician Colleen Lachowicz is in the running for Democrat candidate for the State Senate of Maine. But her election campaign has hit a snag with some dirt being dug up by some Republican rivals. What kind of dirt? Apparently Lachowicz is a big fan of World of Warcraft so her political rivals have fashioned site displaying images of her Orc charatcer and the posts she made on the Blizzard forums.

For the full story click here.

Whilst mud-slinging is nothing new in a political campaign, I find this hilarious. I will admit that yes this could result in some people seeing doubt in Lachowicz's ability to make crucial decisions (part and parcel of being leader - playing Peace Maker would do that to you) the rest of the smear campaign is just absurd: It's scare-mongering by people who don't know what they're talking about. Worse still, it's big step backwards when I thought we were all moving away from the incorrect notion of 'games are evil things played by psychotically damaged misanthropes'. Hate to back this to you losers but computer and console games are enjoyed all kinds of people from all walks of life - including politicians.

Still, whilst it may be far too early to call, I can see this backfiring in spectacular fashion - for now that a politician is a keen user of WoW, no doubt this will work in Lachowicz's favor as many people will be getting behind her. 
And it doesn't sound far-fetched that people will back someone who's a step away from the straight-laced politicians that keep running for government. After all, this story takes place in the US - where it's president, Barack Obama, is a fan of Spiderman comics.

Blessed are the Peace Makers

Last week I heard about a game called Peace Maker - a project done by a bunch of univeristy students that made it's way into a fully-fledged game. But what got my attention was it was billed as a strategy game where peace solutions were the only way to win. Now I like my strategy games having played both Starcraft and Civilization to death so hearing someone propose a new entrant to the genre where actual conflict is the quickest way to lose? That sound downright awful on paper but hey, if someone has the balls (or stupidity) to go against the grain than that's fine by me.
Another selling point is the fact this is a 'serious' game and working to convey a genuine point: The game itself is set in the Gaza Strip and aimed at bringing the Israelis and the Palestinians to a peaceful resolution. 'Inspired by real events' the game blurb proclaims. Well I'm all for games actually working to say something worthwhile (not to mention looking for ammunition to use against the anti-gaming crusaders) so my curiosity was piqued: I went to the Peace maker homepage and downloaded the game for myself.

Needless to say, I was not sure what to expect out of the final product.
To begin with, unlike other strategy games, the player does not assume the role of an army commander - no, instead the player's role is more akin to that of a politician. There are no armies to build up - instead it's a simple matter of making decisions and seeing how they play out. Again, it sure sounds like a concept that shouldn't work - but somehow it does. With each player turn, a decision needs to be made in order to progress - decisions such as construction projects and negotiations with the other factions. But what is interesting is just how these decisions work: The outcome of each decision is indeed unpredictable and there's no guarantee they will yield the desired result. More often than not, good new (e.g educational programs being implemented) walks hand in hand with bad news (e.g. people being killed by a suicide bomber). And if that isn't enough, each decision results in a reaction from the opposition and the world so maintaining a balance is trickier than it sounds.
 
I played the Palestinian campaign for my first play-through and achieved victory within the space of an evening. And I was impressed by how such a simple game can have such an effect on me as the player: Often I found myself bearing witness to some setbacks and thinking 'What Do I Do now?'. And the unpredictable nature of the decision outcomes often left me in a state of nervous anticipation/dread in seeing how they'd play out. And such was this effect that each small step of progression felt like a victory and winning was an ultimate triumph.
The game is billed as being inspired by real-life events and it shows with use of real-life footage and images. Indeed, I felt like I had learned a lot about the Middle East conflicts from the exeprience - perhaps more than any news program could ever hope to. And having played Peace Maker, it really seems that a peaceful resolution between the Israelis and the Palestinians can be possible - now if only the right people will listen....
Mind you, one thing Peace Maker makes clear is just how difficult being a Politician is when you have to please everyone and the rest of the world is watching. And for a gem to do that is indeed something.

So to wrap this up, I enjoyed Peace Maker and for a game to reach me to some degree of an emotional level is indeed an impressive feat. I have wondered in the past if peaceful solutions could work in a strategy genre, where guns and blood dominate, and it would now seem possible.
Needless to say, I've always wanted games to be able to convey ideas and possibilities beyond shooting people in the head so Peace Maker is indeed a step in the right direction.
Now if only more people would put down that  sniper rifle long enough to play it....