Comments on: Review: “Food Import Folly” editorial game http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/vvvv/2007/05/28/review-food-import-folly-editorial-game/ learning, teaching, and virtual technologies Sun, 29 Nov 2009 02:10:23 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5.2 hourly 1 By: game world http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/vvvv/2007/05/28/review-food-import-folly-editorial-game/comment-page-1/#comment-8471 game world Tue, 24 Nov 2009 02:11:01 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/vvvv/2007/05/28/review-food-import-folly-editorial-game/#comment-8471 <strong>game world...</strong> Your topic Nuclear Countries - warp.byu.edu was interesting when I found it on Monday searching for game world... game world…

Your topic Nuclear Countries - warp.byu.edu was interesting when I found it on Monday searching for game world…

]]> By: Valuable Games » Budget games largely lack human engagement http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/vvvv/2007/05/28/review-food-import-folly-editorial-game/comment-page-1/#comment-5501 Valuable Games » Budget games largely lack human engagement Wed, 12 Nov 2008 01:26:35 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/vvvv/2007/05/28/review-food-import-folly-editorial-game/#comment-5501 [...] game was less a simulation and more an exercise in futility, much like the message embedded in Ian Bogost’s “editorial games” for the New York [...] [...] game was less a simulation and more an exercise in futility, much like the message embedded in Ian Bogost’s “editorial games” for the New York [...]

]]> By: video vidi visum : virtual » Games for Change conversation with Zimmerman and Thompson http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/vvvv/2007/05/28/review-food-import-folly-editorial-game/comment-page-1/#comment-848 video vidi visum : virtual » Games for Change conversation with Zimmerman and Thompson Wed, 13 Jun 2007 16:01:02 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/vvvv/2007/05/28/review-food-import-folly-editorial-game/#comment-848 [...] Thompson took the opposite tack by starting with “grassroots” (what some might consider “lowbrow”) games — games he compared with graffiti, raw responses to a raw world. Critiquing designers’ apparent preference for sim games — and specifically taking aim at SimCity for setting the bar for all G4C ever since — Thompson suggested that quick, dirty, to-the-gut games are what’s needed. Rather, he held up WTC Defender (can’t seem to find it, but here’s an article about its removal) as an ideal type of this genre. It’s a provocative point, but I don’t buy that WTC Defender is a game for change, nor that it’s a good model for the G4C movement to build off. It’s readable as a G4C only using Thompson’s interpretation: that, because the player is bound to lose eventually, it’s critiquing the notion that we can defend ourselves through military might. Perhaps that’s true if you can frame the game properly (Food Import Folly uses the manic quality of classic games to make a similar point), but the point is a relatively naive one. [...] [...] Thompson took the opposite tack by starting with “grassroots” (what some might consider “lowbrow”) games — games he compared with graffiti, raw responses to a raw world. Critiquing designers’ apparent preference for sim games — and specifically taking aim at SimCity for setting the bar for all G4C ever since — Thompson suggested that quick, dirty, to-the-gut games are what’s needed. Rather, he held up WTC Defender (can’t seem to find it, but here’s an article about its removal) as an ideal type of this genre. It’s a provocative point, but I don’t buy that WTC Defender is a game for change, nor that it’s a good model for the G4C movement to build off. It’s readable as a G4C only using Thompson’s interpretation: that, because the player is bound to lose eventually, it’s critiquing the notion that we can defend ourselves through military might. Perhaps that’s true if you can frame the game properly (Food Import Folly uses the manic quality of classic games to make a similar point), but the point is a relatively naive one. [...]

]]>