Gaming, gaming theory, and Narrative structures available to PJs

jon,i thouroughly agree with you.it is not only didactic but simplistic,patronising and little more than propaganda.the situation in darfur is complex to say the least,not black and white as portrayed in this game.i also take issue with their presumption that the situation will be sorted out by involving the american army.ultimately its just holidays in other peoples misery,a big thumbs down i am afraid.africa needs real help,not hypocritical marketing ploys by reebok and mtv

I’m not a game myself but current mainstream videogames contain incredibly sophisticated interactive narratives – which granted, mostly involve shooting flesh eatin’ zombies or something, but that doesn’t mean they cant be crafted for another purpose.

Already, gaming, in terms of audience and income, now exceeds the Hollywood movie industry, and some mainstream directors, for example Peter Jackson (director of Lord of the Rings etc) have signed deals with games companies to develop videogames as stand alone narrative titles, as opposed to movie tie-ins.

In terms of gravitas and learning, I’d be curious to know if a comparison can be drawn between say, watching the movie ‘Saving Private Ryan’ (which is after all a passive experience) and using the role playing video game ‘Company of Heroes’, in which I assume (not having played it), you get to ‘virtually’ drag your scared arse up Utah beach yourself…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_of_Heroes

Apparently theres a game in the offing which plans to cover the entire Battle of Normandy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1944_D-Day_Operation_Overlord_%28videogame%29

which judging by the description, looks mindbogglingy interactive and complex.

But on a more contemporary note, check this forthcoming interactive video game about Palestine, produced by a Danish game company.

http://www.seriousgames.dk/gc.html

The potential for photojournalism I think in this context, is pretty intriguing, and I dont think we’ve even begun to explore it.

After doing a little surfing, it seems this interactive ‘reality’ videogame stuff is bigger than I thought.

There’s already a game in production, “9-11 Survivor” in which you get to be a worker in the Twin Towers trying to escape after the planes hit.

One of the options is to chose to burn to death, or jump out the window…gulp.

Theres all kindsa weird and wonderful stuff:

http://www.socialimpactgames.com

I am a bit of a gamer, in fact I have to restrain myself from playing or I lose days in an addictive frenzy of hunting and killing—though my favorite game of all time is Caesar with its emphasis on building cities. But I can tell you from experience that all the games you have instanced basically depend on simple narratives and killing, which as a virtual activity has a very very visceral and important role to play in our psyches. There is narrative interactivity or participation, sure, but the goals are always simple and in my view therein lies the problem when you desire to adapt these things to the purpose of photojournalistic instruction. Other games that are based more on the idea of solving puzzles, like the classic Myst, are probably the most promising model for us. The problem with the admittedly more exciting games like D Day is that they are not at all trying to develop a multilayered narrative, but simply trying to induce an adrenalin-fueled thrill-ride based on simple equations like hunt/kill or survive/seek. One of the best of these is the notorious Grand Theft Auto which got all the US senators all hot under the collar (I dont blame them either: nine year olds were becoming really good at robbing cars, killing citizens, selling drugs and picking up prostitutes in a virtual Miami). This game sucked you in and kept you thrall to its scenario because the scenario was just so well done, so complete. In Geertz’s classic terminology, it was full of “thick description.” The game succeeded not just because, like the war games you mention, it gave you lots of sensational kicks, but also, and perhaps mainly, because it provided a complete detailed world in which you could wander about and get lost in. I think that all great works of art succeed in doing this, creating a virtual world in which you lose yourself. That, it seems to me, is one of the keys to adapting these ideas or forms to our own uses: creating a virtual world. The Darfur game fails because its “world” is too rigid, too simple, not absorbing (though the moment it moves to the camp scenario it begins to develop a more interesting level of engagement). And that is also how it ends up belittling what is a very complex humanitarian crisis.