Political Simulation: Anna's response

Question 1.
I think that this style of communication is extremely interesting. As to whether it would be effective that would depend largely on where it is accessible from. I felt thought the Donkey John game was pretty clever, the instructions especially encoded lots of subtle jokes, such as “vote him out.” I felt that the New York Defender was a bit less effective. I did not think that this effectively conveyed any real political message other than attempting to exact and impossible revenge. I think though that these games are going to be linked to sites of similar viewpoints – these sites only attract certain people, usually who also have these viewpoints. Why they may be some satirical fun I highly doubt that they would change peoples opinions or prompt them to look at something differently.


Question 2.
Donkey John was extremely obvious in making its comment. It was assisted greatly by the instructions on how to play. The message I think was easily identifiable for me, as I was already familiar with the situation over East Timor’s oil. I felt however that the New York Defender did not really have a clear message. I played a few times but could not win (maybe my heart wasn’t in it!) but I think that was actually impossible to win – which may have been the point of the game. I guess at the time of the attacks this type of thing may have attracted more people but I can’t really see it making anyone feel better.


Question 3.
If I were designing a game I would focus it on the ongoing leadership debate between Howard and Costello, which came to a head earlier this year. I would name it “The Leadership Grab-Stab.” The game would feature two figures, overtly comical, each smiling at each other. The player could nominate to be Howard or Costello and the object would be who could stab the other figure in the back the fastest. Obviously the first one to ‘get the knife in’ would win the game (and leadership). Ridiculous? Just like the pathetic media focus on the debate.