Why Political Games have a Bad Reputation

From personal experience, there seems to be a great deal of doubt about the idea that politics can be meaningfully represented in a game. In spite of this, I would argue that it is possible to create an interesting and entertaining game that embodies a political point or perspective. One such game is PeaceMaker, which places the player in charge of a simulated version of the conflict between Israel and Palestine. The events that occur in the game create tension and invoke emotion, thus providing a valid form of entertainment while still giving the player some perspective on the issues behind the conflict. Bogost also mentions Tax Invaders, which, though not exhibiting nearly the same level of gameplay, still succeeds as a form of procedural rhetoric because, by embodying a powerful metaphor, it leads the player to consider and possibly even adopt the conservative mindset in regard to opposing taxes.

Despite the existence of good games that center on politics, political games in general still seem to carry a somewhat poor reputation. I believe that this is because of the fact that for every well designed and implemented game like PeaceMaker, countless other political games exist that prove mediocre or just plain bad. A quick Google search provides plenty of examples for discussion, such as Obama: Race for the White House, which centers on the 2008 presidential election.

In Race for the White House, the player takes on the role of Barack Obama as he campaigns against Hillary Clinton for position as the Democratic presidential candidate. Because the game forces the player to play from the specific perspective of Obama without presenting any apparent criticism or satire, it seems likely that the game was intended as a means of raising support for his campaign. However, at no point does the game even mention any of the ideas associated with Obama’s platform. Instead of controlling a campaign simulation and making relevant decisions, the player simply chooses a region of the map in which to campaign, and then wins votes through a simple puzzle game that is virtually identical to the classic game Bust-a-Move.

The result is a bad political game. The creators have simply taken an existing game and re-skinned it in order to associate it with a political figure, without providing any sense of the actual issues involved in the campaign. Unlike in PeaceMaker, the player does not undergo any form of decision-making that makes sense in the context of the political issue. As procedural rhetoric the game even fails to measure up to the quality of Tax Invaders, in that its gameplay and aesthetic cannot be considered a useful metaphor for a relevant ideological frame. Instead it seems as though it were designed simply to be a quick time-waster that might by some chance leave the player with the name “Barack Obama” in mind.

The Internet is flooded with games similar to Race for the White House, and certainly this abundance is a factor that degrades from the overall notion that games are a legitimate means of making political statements. However, I believe that as the idea of “serious games” becomes more widely accepted, developers will begin making political statements through games of a higher caliber.

Obama: Race for the White House.