Comments on: Video games and democratic participation http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/games/2009/04/21/video-games-and-democratic-participation/ join the quest for morally deep games Sat, 28 Nov 2009 02:14:03 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: giochi http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/games/2009/04/21/video-games-and-democratic-participation/comment-page-1/#comment-2041 giochi Tue, 06 Oct 2009 06:59:52 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/games/?p=111#comment-2041 Obama is a symbol of change and we must have confidence in him. We only hope that the world live in peace and tranquility. Obama is a symbol of change and we must have confidence in him. We only hope that the world live in peace and tranquility.

]]> By: Paolo http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/games/2009/04/21/video-games-and-democratic-participation/comment-page-1/#comment-2038 Paolo Mon, 21 Sep 2009 03:44:25 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/games/?p=111#comment-2038 I agree, Obama did a great job fostering campaign-level participation, but he’s yet to translate that into active engagement. I agree, Obama did a great job fostering campaign-level participation, but he’s yet to translate that into active engagement.

]]> By: video vidi visum : virtual : US Deputy CTO Beth Noveck on gaming and open governance http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/games/2009/04/21/video-games-and-democratic-participation/comment-page-1/#comment-1260 video vidi visum : virtual : US Deputy CTO Beth Noveck on gaming and open governance Thu, 16 Jul 2009 20:50:32 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/games/?p=111#comment-1260 [...] Video Games and Democratic Participation [...] [...] Video Games and Democratic Participation [...]

]]> By: Valuable Games » Blog Archive » US Deputy CTO Beth Noveck on gaming and open governance http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/games/2009/04/21/video-games-and-democratic-participation/comment-page-1/#comment-1259 Valuable Games » Blog Archive » US Deputy CTO Beth Noveck on gaming and open governance Thu, 16 Jul 2009 20:49:49 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/games/?p=111#comment-1259 [...] Video Games and Democratic Participation [...] [...] Video Games and Democratic Participation [...]

]]> By: Guido http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/games/2009/04/21/video-games-and-democratic-participation/comment-page-1/#comment-626 Guido Fri, 26 Jun 2009 19:14:38 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/games/?p=111#comment-626 Nice post, I agree with you. There is a new MMO simulation strategy game that is really close to what the real world is: erepublik. Is built around the idea of a social network, infact the core of the game is the social generated content by the players (eCitizens). They can create newspapers, companies, parties...a lot of players are identifying erepublik as a real simulation of what you can encounter in your real life, if you want to succeed in the game you need to negotiate with real people. Many players have written about the teaching of the game in their real life, I think it is a good example of what you are saying in this post. Nice post, I agree with you. There is a new MMO simulation strategy game that is really close to what the real world is: erepublik. Is built around the idea of a social network, infact the core of the game is the social generated content by the players (eCitizens). They can create newspapers, companies, parties…a lot of players are identifying erepublik as a real simulation of what you can encounter in your real life, if you want to succeed in the game you need to negotiate with real people. Many players have written about the teaching of the game in their real life, I think it is a good example of what you are saying in this post.

]]> By: Armaan http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/games/2009/04/21/video-games-and-democratic-participation/comment-page-1/#comment-395 Armaan Wed, 20 May 2009 17:42:40 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/games/?p=111#comment-395 Thanks Gen. Its a nice post. In fact it video games can become an important media to teach people about humanity if it contains the reality. Thanks Gen. Its a nice post. In fact it video games can become an important media to teach people about humanity if it contains the reality.

]]> By: Jaroslav http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/games/2009/04/21/video-games-and-democratic-participation/comment-page-1/#comment-383 Jaroslav Sun, 10 May 2009 16:47:58 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/games/?p=111#comment-383 Nice post, Gene. I can imagine getting stars and bonuses (and being heard by the peers) might make people voice their opinions. Still, there is a question of what drives performance of people in games - do they really choose responsibly, or just playing around with the system? Nice post, Gene. I can imagine getting stars and bonuses (and being heard by the peers) might make people voice their opinions. Still, there is a question of what drives performance of people in games – do they really choose responsibly, or just playing around with the system?

]]> By: Jaakko http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/games/2009/04/21/video-games-and-democratic-participation/comment-page-1/#comment-368 Jaakko Wed, 29 Apr 2009 06:33:46 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/games/?p=111#comment-368 View from Belarus: http://pervasivegames.wordpress.com/2009/04/29/how-can-larp-change-the-world/ View from Belarus:
http://pervasivegames.wordpress.com/2009/04/29/how-can-larp-change-the-world/

]]> By: Games for Good — The Civic Hacker http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/games/2009/04/21/video-games-and-democratic-participation/comment-page-1/#comment-365 Games for Good — The Civic Hacker Mon, 27 Apr 2009 14:01:45 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/games/?p=111#comment-365 [...] fellow Gene Koo wrote a thought-provoking post last week about how games can be used to bolster civic engagement and democratic participation. He [...] [...] fellow Gene Koo wrote a thought-provoking post last week about how games can be used to bolster civic engagement and democratic participation. He [...]

]]> By: Olivier Mauco http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/games/2009/04/21/video-games-and-democratic-participation/comment-page-1/#comment-364 Olivier Mauco Mon, 27 Apr 2009 12:29:22 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/games/?p=111#comment-364 I am not sure games as they are nowadays would be able to promote democratic logics. Ok, they can try to develop democratic issues. The political games movement can be a good example as how a game can be a message (from September 12th to food force or other topics). But the problem solving proposed by the game creator is often a “scientifization” of the social (i.e. Habermass), as every problem is a matter of organization, in an unhistorical context. Or in other words political videogames or editorial games are promoting short-term approach, communication as the main topic, and denies the complexity of the social. I agree with you on that. Moreover, independent games, as they are not produced by institutions, are focused on denunciation more than proposing alternative politics. Transparency cannot be a way to solve problems, but only a way to expose them. The communication ideology is the main theme in political videogames, transforming political debate (which is construction) into discussion (which is not productive). The decision making in videogames is not present, this is only choice making. So producers must think how to simulate a complex decision-making. The main thing is that videogames are framing public participation: I mean that the code and the rules are very strong norms which cannot allow “democratic” participation. When an individual plays, he must accept the whole games, the norm package and the interactions. From a legal point of view, EULA in MMO forbids political issues, narrow the way a player can create things (there are third parties program available). Only an open-source game should be a way to promote democratic participation. The conflict resolution is not a participative one as laws are regulating these worlds. As far as I can remember, Muds where the last democratic games as they were co-produced by the creators and the players. When they turned into MOO, issues happened (a virtual rape i.e. Jordan Dibbell), the creators refused to resolve the conflict, and the players were not able to solve this dramatic situation. Consequence: game regulation was externalized to legal frames and procedures. From a ludic point of view: rules are the code, breaking the rules is signing your condemnation. Cheaters are banned. From a participative point of view videogames are so structurally determined: the interaction system is defining the field of possibilities. So here is the point, how such a totalitarian dispositive could allow democratic issues? Moreover the videogames rationality and ideology (competition, performance and rational-legal domination) is a stronger rationality than democratic ones. Even when there are social components as in MMO: the guild organization is based on a military discipline. Ok you can do role play, even political role play (for example in Eve On-line), but the game is framing political debates, actions, participation and moreover, the democratic play is a simulacra. So games as digital worlds can be good political playgrounds, if the political participation is correctly framed. Game as an interactionnist structure is interesting too. But games as ludic activities cannot be political, especially because of the rupture between the producers and the public due to the industrialization process. The main difference between traditional games and videogames is that the players are no longer part of the social structure: playing is not a social ritual (as it was in traditional games) it is just leisure and consumption of pre-determined political system. I would argue in my PhD that mainstream games are legitimizing the legal-rational domination, but moreover are libertarian which is not compatible with democratic issues. Best, Some links to my researches on these topics: On political participation in MMO: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1329345 On political games - in French (but I can send an English version): http://www.omnsh.org/spip.php?article148 I am not sure games as they are nowadays would be able to promote democratic logics.
Ok, they can try to develop democratic issues. The political games movement can be a good example as how a game can be a message (from September 12th to food force or other topics). But the problem solving proposed by the game creator is often a “scientifization” of the social (i.e. Habermass), as every problem is a matter of organization, in an unhistorical context. Or in other words political videogames or editorial games are promoting short-term approach, communication as the main topic, and denies the complexity of the social.
I agree with you on that. Moreover, independent games, as they are not produced by institutions, are focused on denunciation more than proposing alternative politics.
Transparency cannot be a way to solve problems, but only a way to expose them. The communication ideology is the main theme in political videogames, transforming political debate (which is construction) into discussion (which is not productive). The decision making in videogames is not present, this is only choice making. So producers must think how to simulate a complex decision-making.
The main thing is that videogames are framing public participation: I mean that the code and the rules are very strong norms which cannot allow “democratic” participation. When an individual plays, he must accept the whole games, the norm package and the interactions. From a legal point of view, EULA in MMO forbids political issues, narrow the way a player can create things (there are third parties program available). Only an open-source game should be a way to promote democratic participation. The conflict resolution is not a participative one as laws are regulating these worlds. As far as I can remember, Muds where the last democratic games as they were co-produced by the creators and the players. When they turned into MOO, issues happened (a virtual rape i.e. Jordan Dibbell), the creators refused to resolve the conflict, and the players were not able to solve this dramatic situation. Consequence: game regulation was externalized to legal frames and procedures.
From a ludic point of view: rules are the code, breaking the rules is signing your condemnation. Cheaters are banned. From a participative point of view videogames are so structurally determined: the interaction system is defining the field of possibilities. So here is the point, how such a totalitarian dispositive could allow democratic issues?
Moreover the videogames rationality and ideology (competition, performance and rational-legal domination) is a stronger rationality than democratic ones. Even when there are social components as in MMO: the guild organization is based on a military discipline. Ok you can do role play, even political role play (for example in Eve On-line), but the game is framing political debates, actions, participation and moreover, the democratic play is a simulacra.
So games as digital worlds can be good political playgrounds, if the political participation is correctly framed. Game as an interactionnist structure is interesting too. But games as ludic activities cannot be political, especially because of the rupture between the producers and the public due to the industrialization process. The main difference between traditional games and videogames is that the players are no longer part of the social structure: playing is not a social ritual (as it was in traditional games) it is just leisure and consumption of pre-determined political system. I would argue in my PhD that mainstream games are legitimizing the legal-rational domination, but moreover are libertarian which is not compatible with democratic issues.
Best,

Some links to my researches on these topics:
On political participation in MMO:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1329345
On political games – in French (but I can send an English version):
http://www.omnsh.org/spip.php?article148

]]>