It is a hard question, of course, because this movement is the opposite of escapism. People are discovering that it is more satisfying to get into the street and eat with to strangers than to use facebook. But games are more than a distraction. Games are part of how we live. They can spread the word, warm the blood, and perhaps even spread skills that people need to keep this movement going.
It seems short sighted to say that indie-game designers, already used to making great games outside of and against the monopolistic game corporations, could do nothing.
This thread confuses me. Are you suggesting that the way to get the occupy people off the streets is through indie gaming? Or that indie gaming is an occupy movement in itself? I is confused! :/
I think he's saying that game developers should also help fight against the wall street issue by putting it into video games. Not really sure though...
No, quite the opposite. I don't think games have to be just distractions. Games can spread facts and skills, get people connected, and perhaps even do good directly.
Well, technically, multiplayer games DO get people connected. Facts about the Occupy movements or just in general? The games that are popular today don't spread much good. Ex. Halo, Cod, Left4Dead, various other war games, various other RPG's, ect.
Well...I was going to read the link, but then I clicked that little youtube rabbit video in it...and I zoned out watching it. So...yeah.
Haha I love how he shoots the bird and shrugs it off like it was nothing. I think that getting people more aware about political movements through video games wont work unless there is a specific website for all political indie games, since you can't make people pay for 10 minute games or art games.
I think this looks like spam and I'm surprised it's still here.
It's against the rules to advertise a website to promote one's personal agenda, but it's okay to link a website as a means of informing or to bring a topic to light. This thread falls in a gray area.
I'll look into whether this thread should remain open or not. Until I get further word as to what I should do with this thread, I am going to allow it to stay open. However, I do not want to see the wikia site advertised on other threads, nor do I want anyone asking for others to thumb up the site, dig, favorite, twit, etc.
Okay, now that's out of the way, let me quickly comment on how ridiculous the wikia page is.
The page explains, in brief, that corporations are using video games to advertise products and that these ads push people into serving the top 1%. That's about it when it comes to explaining the problem. I guess the site assumes that the reader is already anti-advertising.
I do wish that the page could go into detail as to why advertising is immoral, or at least why it's immoral when used in video games.
Not only is there a lack of reason behind the hate of ads in video games, but the problem, according to the wikia page, seems to come from "corporations not content with the fact that the gaming industry is already dominated by a tiny cabal of capitalists in terms of production and distribution." So are we blaming corporations behind soft drinks, or are we blaming the actual gaming companies? Or perhaps both of them are the blame? So what about flash game developers? Is it wrong for flash game developers to put ads in their video games?
One of the links on the website brought me to this article. Maybe it's just me, but the article seems to conflict with the wikia page. The wikia page is anti-advertisement in gaming, but the article that was linked to from the site doesn't really point out any flaws that come from advertising (in video games). In fact, the article highlights a few positive things we get because of advertising.
Game publishers need the ad revenue. Activision, Electronic Arts and other companies spend as much as $20 million to develop a blockbuster. They can recover some of the cost from product placers, who do not blanch at the fee. Advertising in videogames, after all, gives marketers a rare opportunity to buy a starring role in a popular entertainment vehicle. (A videogame ad costs $30 per 1,000 people reached, says Michael Dowling, chief of Interpret, a digital-media research firm.)
Lastly, I feel that the OccupyGaming idea is hypocritical.
Since Coca-Cola made "Pepsi Invaders" in 1983, our amusement has been increasingly functionalized to serve the needs of the mind-numbing, world-gouging corporations, by and for the 1%.
Basically, the site is suggesting that it's wrong for corporations to advertise in video games because the advertisements are being used so that the corporations can fulfill their own personal agenda. This is exactly what OccupyGaming is suggesting game developers do! Sure, OccupyGaming is promoting... something... whereas Coke-Cola is trying to sell more soda, but the basic principle is the same, both are trying to promote their own personal agenda.
Excellent criticism! Let me work through your complaints backward:
I am certainly not saying that the problem with advergaming is that it has an agenda. You are absolutely right in saying that I am hoping that people will come together and design games with an agenda. Really, I don't know what a piece of media without an agenda would look like. Even the paintings of Jackson Pollock (to take a splattery example) can be argued to press a certain aesthetic agenda, a specific way of holding art at a distance, and so on. You might also note that I included examples from many different kinds of agendas, like religious games, earlier political games, exercise games, and educational games. My issue is the specific agenda in advergaming.
You are also right that the page I linked does not share my tone. I included it because I thought it would be helpful to give an array of facts on advertising in games, even if I think the conclusion is short-sighted.
And you are right again in saying that I did not explain my hate of advergaming and why I call it "immoral." My project is less to sell people the cause of the 99% movement than to try and concentrate some of its creativity, and this point may not have to be explained to many (so you are right on that too), but let me try. I claim that advertising for corporations in game is immoral because the majority of the corporations advertised in games employ sweatshop labor practices, use manufacturing methods that are damaging to the Earth, and employ aggressive lobbying to protect these practices (Pepsi Invaders, made by Coca-Cola serves as an example for all of these). And yes, the large game companies are also amenable to each of these critiques, and in many cases might also be criticized for unjust prohibition of homebrew gaming creativity and vicious attacks on fan-game designers.
If you would like to claim that all of these practices are necessary to keep games interesting, I respectfully disagree. And do I condemn Flash game designers for including advertisements? Not harshly. I hope small game developers keep doing whatever is necessary to support themselves, though I hope that with time we can find a way to support their creativity in a way that is more just.
And I apologize that the inclusion of that link placed my post in a gray area in terms of moderation. I meant only to invite conversation in this forum. But though my thoughts are rather bare-bones on the wiki (I hope others find it an inviting space to think through this idea, just as I hope people would find this question an open invitation), I thought creating a post here that replicated the philosophy page would be cumbersome and impolite. The substance of my question, really, is the subject line of this thread. I wonder if people would really say that the answer is certainly "No."
