Bogost is also breaking new ground in the journalism world by producing games for mainstream news sites like the New York Times and CNN. The use of games and interactivity in journalism is particularly fascinating given the ongoing debate over the future of the field. Many critics wonder whether the awkward shift into the online world might be watering down journalistic principles and integrity.
When it comes to the news value journalistic video games, I think the jury is still out. I played Points of Entry: An Immigration Challenge since I am very interested in immigration issues. I love the idea of any kind of news that engages the audience and gives them a real grasp of the issues. I’m just not sure that that’s what is happening here.
The instructions tell you to “Compete to award Green Cards under the Merit-Based Evaluation System included in legislation recently debated in Congress.” You hand out green cards based on education, work experience, TOEFL scores, etc. The game intends to educate the public on the immigration requirements included in the legislation, and to highlight the arbitrary decisions that determine the futures of people with almost identical backgrounds. At least I think that’s what we were supposed to get out of it. I was getting a little too caught up in the game to really notice what I was supposed to be learning.
This is my main critique, along with the lack of accompanying facts and context. I believe there might be a place for these kinds of games in the future. For the time being though, they are hard to contextualize. I found myself torn between trying to beat the game and trying to learn- not sure which one I was “supposed” to do. The instructions told me to proceed as quickly as possible while the information-acquisition part of my brain wanted to slow down and think about the information I was being presented with. I think this dilemma highlights the deepest irony of such interactive features. Video games may be the least interactive of all forms of news. Yes, they allow us to push buttons and move avatars, but are our minds opening up or closing while we do so?
The easily recognizable video game format triggers an assumption that we will be given a set of rules and our success comes from operating as best we can inside those rules. I would argue that this mental state does not spark the most creative thinking.
The video game mode might have a self-reflexive value for an issue like immigration. The game could work if the point is not to learn about an issue but to simulate an experience- for example the frustration and futility of confronting immigration bureaucracy. It could be possible to connect on an emotional level to the issue without having necessarily internalized the facts. I’m not sure if this is what this game was going for.
Maybe I’ve just played a little too much Tetris in my lifetime and can’t shake the association with video games as mind-numbing kiddy crack. Maybe the kids these days are playing much more creative and interactive video games than I did? Maybe it won’t be as hard for them to make the mental jump to video-game-as-a–source-of-news? I’m not opposed to the idea- in fact I really hope it succeeds. I'm just concerned that media outlets might start providing entertainment at the expense of well-reasoned analysis.
No comments:
Post a Comment