I can’t say that “fun” is the first word that comes to mind when playing the computer game called “ICED.” And I wouldn’t dare use the term “entertaining” to describe a rhythm game called “Hush.” And as for “Darfur is Dying,” I wasn’t exactly leaping out of my chair shouting “Wheeee!” as I vigorously tapped keys in an attempt to win this particular game. Then again, how do you make a game about human rights violations fun? And can a game that drops players into the midst of Rwandan genocide squads — even one that’s a distant cousin to “Guitar Hero” — really be expected to create an experience one could call amusing?
Meanwhile, the only thing I shouted as I played “Darfur is Dying” — that is, as I helped a 13-year-old girl named Poni sprint across a scorching desert, past the rotting carcasses of dead cows, desperately seeking water for her malnourished family — was an unprintable curse word. A group of gun-toting militiamen had snatched up the poor girl and the game informed me that she’d likely be raped.
Genocide in Rwanda, torture in Sudan, poverty in Haiti, political shenanigans in the United States — video games are tackling some of the most pressing and depressing issues of our time. They’re called serious games, persuasive games and games for change. But while some developers and activists think these games offer a particularly potent and increasingly important method of getting information out to the world at large, some gamers and game industry folks seem to think sociopolitical messages and games go together like dog poo on a birthday cake.
Read More
