Political Games: What's the Best Strategy?

As shown in Ian Bogost's chapter "Ideological Frames," a video game's focus on sending a political message varies greatly. This message can be a literal statement to the player or an implied message that may or may not come across. Some game titles label their respective games as political games, while others' names have little to do with politics. Which of these two methods is the more effective approach among political games?

The direct approach to politics in games has a political idea as its primary purpose. Titles such as Bushgame: The Anti-Bush Online Adventure and Tax Invaders say to the player, "this is what the game is about." The player understands the position of the game's creators. Some players will appreciate the blunt honesty of such a game. But players who disagree with the game's political viewpoint will be immediately turned off upon reading its name or knowing its premise. Bogost states that "the relative obscurity of these games restricts their influence." Those with weak political opinions might be persuaded by this type of game, but most individuals have established stances on political issues. Taking an honest approach and confronting an issue head-on might even further polarize a player's opinion in the other direction.

Other games take a more subtle approach to politics. A developer may use metaphor or satire to disguise an underlying political opinion. "Commercial" games might have (seemingly) less focus on political goals in order to attract a number of players or to simply make a large profit. Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas surrounds its message on fast-food and obesity with marketable features - action and adventure. This type of video game will reach a much larger audience than a purely political game, while avoiding any reluctance or resistance to a certain political view. As the role of video games in our society expands, I expect popular, big-name titles to be the most effective way to include politics in video games.