The Politics of Playing

Donkey John and Kabul Kaboom
Do you think the political simulation games you examined would have been "effective" in communicating with people via the Internet?
The games I examined were internet based games which were created as political comments on current issues. Both the games would have been quite effective in communicating with people on the internet because they are in game form which is both interesting and enticing to the player while at the same time portraying an important message. By participating in the games the player is subjected to the political issues the game addresses in a way that the outcome of the game can either rectify the situation or emphasise the problem. The internet is a good forum on which to play these games as its popularity can increase the more people 'stumble' across it or find it and then post it as a link on other sites.

Was the political message underpinning the political simulation games you examined immediately obvious? If not, were you driven or interested to find out what the game was trying to "say" (apart from the fact that you have to as part of the workshop)?
In the Donkey John game the political message was basically that the Howard government is not recognising East Timor's claim to oil in the surrounding oceans and is pracitcally 'stealing' oil from them. The games aim is to overthrow Howard to restor the ownership of the disputed waters to East Timor. This politcal message was immediatly obvious to me because I am familiar with the issue however, for someone who is not familiar, while probably not immediatly obvious there are plenty of explainations and graphics which make it simple to understand the message.

In the Kabul Kaboom game the politcal message was that the war on terror in Iraq (led by the U.S) is a self perpetuating problem. The more innocent civilians killed in the process of removing the terrorists, the more terrorists are formed as the mourners of the dead retaliate and turn against the U.S. To me the complete message was not instantly clear and it was only after reading the instructions and a bit of background info. that i completly got the message (that is, I understood that the message was that in killing the terrorists one kills innocents aswell). However, the game did drive me to want to know a bit more about it so I was encouraged to read some articles on it.

If you had to write a political simulation game similar in size and structure to those you examined, (a) what would be the point you were trying to make and (b) how would the game be structured and operate in order to make that point? (Just give a very brief outline).
A) The point I would most likely make would be about the literal 'jailing' of innocent children in detention centres as if they are criminals and it was their own choice to come to Australia illegally.
B) I would probably structure the game so that the player took the point of view of a refugee child who is forced to immigrate with his/her family illegally. It would include a very harsh journey to arrive and then upon arrival the player would be placed into a detention centre. The aim of the game is to first escape the country and then the survive the journey. The point would be that even after being successful in surviving such an ordeal you are jailed anyway.