Post #8 (Bogost and Empathy)

In chapter 2 of Bogost's book "How To Do Things with Video Games," Bogost offers a weak argument for what he calls empathy games. These games feature "feeble characters [who] do not wear shoes anyone wants to wear" (Bogost 23). The idea that such games such as Darfur is Dying causes empathy in players is true.

But my question with Bogost is: who plays these games? Are they really making a big difference, as Bogost seems to believe?

The Darfur is Dying Wikipedia page claims that the game was made in 2006, over 8 years ago. Apparently, only 800,000 people have played this game. Only 800,000 people with access to the internet (which is only about 16% of the Worl's population which is nearing 8 billion) have played this game, and "received" the empathy resulting from game play.

I haven't even heard of the games Bogost lists, united by their objective to create awareness and empathy. Bogost argues that video games can inspire empathy, which I agree with. However, I doubt such games will be able to do well enough in the video game market to spread the empathy around enough for people to make a change.

People who play games and run in circles where they'll have heard about Darfur is Dying may not be willing to download the game in the first place. Honestly, I wouldn't be interested. To me, there are other ways to gain awareness. I don't want to spend time playing a game about a world problem I'd rather just read about; I don't need a game to feel empathy towards the Rwandan genocide. But back to my original concern with access.

Most gamers have internet (leaving out 84% of the world). Gamers play video games they find intriguing. Perhaps it's the game's artwork, characters, plot line, weapons, power-ups, or game world. Perhaps the story resonates with the person and they feel engaged and devoted during game play. These gamers tend to avoid games like Darfur, as Bogost states. He says "critics may argue that frail situations are not fun," and I agree with these critics. They just aren't fun. Gamers like to feel powerful, to live lives rendered impossible by reality. Games allow people to choose to experience challenges, characters, situations, and places that don't exist outside virtual reality.

So there's got to be another reason 800,000 people have played this game.Online, I found a place that lists people who've played this game. On this list is none other than Kanye West. So maybe one of the reasons people have played this game is to enhance their public image. I wouldn't put it past Kanye West.

One teen player of Darfur, John Keenan from Pennsylvania, said, "I'm a gamer, but I don't know how I really feel about making a game out of what's going on. I mean, I don't think you can get a real experience of being a Darfurian refugee by playing a game on the computer" (Vargas).

I completely agree. Such "games for change" may have the purpose to promote empathy for real-world events, but in reality, not many people have played, or are willing to play, them. One website that promotes Darfur is called "5 Fun Games with a Higher Purpose," which just goes to show that gamers mostly just want to have fun.

I think it's actually a little sick to use something as horrific as the Rwandan genocide for a game. One of the reasons it bother me is due to the fact that Games for Change is not just promoting games that promote empathy for current and past events. On the website, I found that they just came out with a game called Uplifted, with the tagline reading, "play and feel happy." Like most game companies, Games for Change is partly in it for the money. It's hard for me to trust the integrity of companies I haven't heard about, and that have top-notch websites which look expensive to maintain.

 I like the idea of creating empathy for issues, but I disagree with Bogost that video games are the way to go about it; at least not until more people gain access to the internet. Yes, Darfuris or the Rwandans "deserve our empathy," but if we have to have fun at the expense of the beneficiaries of our empathy, then we may be going about this all wrong. Are we commercializing the horrific tragedies of people other than ourselves? Are such games respectful of the victims of these events, and have they truly helped?

Games are separate from the "reality" of the events; the best graphics and game play cannot change that. Sadly, such issues such as genocide do not "turn off" with the press of a close-window button. We need to make sure we're fully aware of these situations, not just gaining impressions of them that fade quickly after the game is quit.