I really dug that Ian Bogost reading about persuasive games. Probably mainly because I love the idea that a game that my mum banned me from playing as a tween is now being critically assessed by academics - but it also had some interesting stuff to say on the underlying political and social ideologies of games.
We all talked in tutorials about how food factors into San Andreas. How it draws attention to the real life issues of eating and health in low socio-economic communities, of obesity and bad nutrition. But what I really loved in the reading was how Bogost then brings in George Lakoff's theories of moral politics. We all read the reading (right?) so I won't rehash it in too much detail, but basically Lakoff theorizes how a conservative mode of thought is that an individual is responsible for him or herself, and that their ability to look after oneself and achieve things in life depends on their "moral strength". On the ability to exercise self-discipline and self-denial. In this mode of thought, the fat, poor person has no one to blame but him/herself.
The exclusive presence of fast food outlets in San Andreas, the comparatively high cost of healthy food options both point to the view that social forces have a huge impact on the individual, to an extent that is somewhat out of the individual's control. But Bogost argues that because of the structure of the game and its procedural rhetoric, where "the game seems to allow the player to overcome the social conditions of poverty through hard work" (116), overall San Andreas actually prescribes to that very conservative ideology of "moral strength" and individual responsibility. You don't want to be a chubby thug? Well that's all on you!
Whether San Andreas really does prescribe to a conservative framework is debatable, but it got me on the entertaining train of thought of figuring out what the "conservative" game is, and what the "socialist" game is. I know that San Andreas is argued as being conservative because the themes of personal responsibility are specifically juxtaposed with such obvious examples of social influence. However let's say that individual responsibility, the achieving of goals, and moral strength with its ability to "stand up to both internal and external evils" (114) are all inherently conservative ideologies. Then a lot of games are right wing! Tomb Raider! Left 4 Dead! Half Life! In the face of adversity, it's all on you.
So then what does a socialist game look like? Maybe Bioshock? Your personal responsibility is less secure than it would seem (won't go into detail, spoilers etc.). What about SimCity? That could work. It's the inverse. You are society, everything you do affects those little dudes running around beneath you. It teaches you how important societal structures are to the well being of its people.
Of course this is all rather fanciful, but it's a lot of fun categorizing video games into these two categories.
We all talked in tutorials about how food factors into San Andreas. How it draws attention to the real life issues of eating and health in low socio-economic communities, of obesity and bad nutrition. But what I really loved in the reading was how Bogost then brings in George Lakoff's theories of moral politics. We all read the reading (right?) so I won't rehash it in too much detail, but basically Lakoff theorizes how a conservative mode of thought is that an individual is responsible for him or herself, and that their ability to look after oneself and achieve things in life depends on their "moral strength". On the ability to exercise self-discipline and self-denial. In this mode of thought, the fat, poor person has no one to blame but him/herself.
George Lakoff and Ian Bogost; a lot of great hand gestures
(it is really weird finding out what academics look like)
The exclusive presence of fast food outlets in San Andreas, the comparatively high cost of healthy food options both point to the view that social forces have a huge impact on the individual, to an extent that is somewhat out of the individual's control. But Bogost argues that because of the structure of the game and its procedural rhetoric, where "the game seems to allow the player to overcome the social conditions of poverty through hard work" (116), overall San Andreas actually prescribes to that very conservative ideology of "moral strength" and individual responsibility. You don't want to be a chubby thug? Well that's all on you!
Poor CJ
Whether San Andreas really does prescribe to a conservative framework is debatable, but it got me on the entertaining train of thought of figuring out what the "conservative" game is, and what the "socialist" game is. I know that San Andreas is argued as being conservative because the themes of personal responsibility are specifically juxtaposed with such obvious examples of social influence. However let's say that individual responsibility, the achieving of goals, and moral strength with its ability to "stand up to both internal and external evils" (114) are all inherently conservative ideologies. Then a lot of games are right wing! Tomb Raider! Left 4 Dead! Half Life! In the face of adversity, it's all on you.
So then what does a socialist game look like? Maybe Bioshock? Your personal responsibility is less secure than it would seem (won't go into detail, spoilers etc.). What about SimCity? That could work. It's the inverse. You are society, everything you do affects those little dudes running around beneath you. It teaches you how important societal structures are to the well being of its people.
SimCity creating budding socialists. Check out the fast food joint!
Of course this is all rather fanciful, but it's a lot of fun categorizing video games into these two categories.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.