Politics in Games, Games are not for Politics

Bogost’s chapter on ideological frames in reference to politics and video games presents a number of interesting points in the Bogost style of presentation of concept, examples, and then discussion. Within the very first paragraph of the chapter, Bogost cites a powerful statement which resonates throughout the remaining discourse, “…two influenction political theorists have suggested that such superficial strategies will not move the political needle; instead, political success draws less from reality and more from representation.” In one sentence, Bogost sums up the entire political ‘game’ at the time and the way modern politics operate.

From this point, Bogost uses the term ‘frames’ as these representations within specified areas for political figures. After a little discourse on the morality of these ‘frames’ Bogost begins identification and discussion on actual political games, so let’s be honest, the games are bad. I doubt any of us have a played a single one of the games electively with maybe the exception of Sim Earth. If ‘political’ games are to become successful those wishing to present a particular ‘frame’ within the game context must step back and embed their frame within the game, not develop the game around the frame.

The last thing people want is to be told what to do or think. It will be virtually impossible to market a successful video game that that frames peaceful negotiations over military conflict. By embedding these frames within the game system, however, I think politics can be successful in yielding the full potential of games. For instance, Bogost says, “Chris Crawford’s 1985 classic Balance of Power is often cited as the first political game in which diplomacy outweighed brute force.” Taking this concept we can then embed the idea that peaceful resolutions will provide a more favorable game outcome in some form of real-time-strategy game. As a consumer, you would be more tempted to buy and play the game “World Order 2009,” rather than “Diplomacy 2009” because it frames more of pro-war model where in reality Diplomacy 2009 would be a more accurate title.

As mentioned before, and as Bogost does bring up, this can cause quite a large moral upheaval. Interestingly enough, however, I seem to take Lakoff’s stance that “…political discourse is not how politicians respond to the “facts” of the external world, but how they conceptualize or frame that world in their discourse about it.” It may not be pretty, but embedding these frames within does get the job done, otherwise we’ll all be stuck playing Tax Invaders for the rest of our lives.