The New York Times on serious games
The New York Times published today an article by Clive Thompson on serious games. It features a lot of games in the scene, including Food Force, Peacemaker, A Force More Powerful, Darfur is Dying, Under Ash and my team's very own September 12 and Madrid. It also quotes a lot of friends from the field. I'm really glad that the field is taking this kind of coverage.
rAs a sidenote, the article got me thinking about a topic that has been on my thoughts recently. Henry Jenkins makes a valid point about the lack of documentation of the effectiveness of these games. I agree with Henry and people who know me know that I'm the first to argue that there's a lot of hype surrounding serious games. However, while studies about effectiveness do not necessarily worry me, I am not that sure that we desperately need them. What got me thinking about this was a disclaimer in the box of 'A Force More Powerful' (a game that I'm looking to play with as soon as a finish this dissertation chapter). It basically tells players that they do not guarantee the effectiveness of the teaching of the game. I assume that you have to read this within the US context, where everybody is afraid of being sued. Still, here's my question: should serious games be simply considered tools of persuasion and measured accordingly? Arent' this games ALSO a cultural genre that is emerging? I wonder if the audience (players in this case) doesn't also learn to be persuaded by new communication genres as these get established.
After all, advertising and propaganda have evolved through history. Advertising generally frames itself as such and people have learnt that it has some rules of its own. This makes me wonder if it is such a big deal to measure serious games effectiveness. Serious games are a statement on their own, besides their content. My own agenda here is not as much making a game that will make you switch from Opinion A to Opinion B. I'd rather make games that encourage players to think. If that contributes to changing their opinions, fine. But as I always say when I talk about campaign videogames: a game is not going to change anybody's vote. That being said, neither will an ad, a jingle or a debate. It's all those things together than can have an influence on a voter. A game can simply provide with an experience and some information. Don't get me wrong: it can be a powerful experience and powerful information. But I wouldn't lose any sleep over figures. Besides, marketing people will end up doing that. I hope they have fun with their rulers.
rrbtw, this probably was a post better suited for Water Cooler Games. Oh, the headaches of having two blogs... :)
rAs a sidenote, the article got me thinking about a topic that has been on my thoughts recently. Henry Jenkins makes a valid point about the lack of documentation of the effectiveness of these games. I agree with Henry and people who know me know that I'm the first to argue that there's a lot of hype surrounding serious games. However, while studies about effectiveness do not necessarily worry me, I am not that sure that we desperately need them. What got me thinking about this was a disclaimer in the box of 'A Force More Powerful' (a game that I'm looking to play with as soon as a finish this dissertation chapter). It basically tells players that they do not guarantee the effectiveness of the teaching of the game. I assume that you have to read this within the US context, where everybody is afraid of being sued. Still, here's my question: should serious games be simply considered tools of persuasion and measured accordingly? Arent' this games ALSO a cultural genre that is emerging? I wonder if the audience (players in this case) doesn't also learn to be persuaded by new communication genres as these get established.
After all, advertising and propaganda have evolved through history. Advertising generally frames itself as such and people have learnt that it has some rules of its own. This makes me wonder if it is such a big deal to measure serious games effectiveness. Serious games are a statement on their own, besides their content. My own agenda here is not as much making a game that will make you switch from Opinion A to Opinion B. I'd rather make games that encourage players to think. If that contributes to changing their opinions, fine. But as I always say when I talk about campaign videogames: a game is not going to change anybody's vote. That being said, neither will an ad, a jingle or a debate. It's all those things together than can have an influence on a voter. A game can simply provide with an experience and some information. Don't get me wrong: it can be a powerful experience and powerful information. But I wouldn't lose any sleep over figures. Besides, marketing people will end up doing that. I hope they have fun with their rulers.
rrbtw, this probably was a post better suited for Water Cooler Games. Oh, the headaches of having two blogs... :)
Comments