Post # 6, Bogost Chapters 2-4

Bogost opens chapter 2 by referencing a game, BioChemFX, that is a first-responder simulation for various bioterror attacks conducted in an urban environment. The simulation is supposed to train someone the proper procedures for containing and/or mitigating the effects of a bioterrorist attack, and the responder then has decide whom to save based on a bird's eye view of the University of California, Berkeley landscape that shows a cloud of sarin gas spreading through the streets and campus. While the simulation may be good at giving the responder a working knowledge of HAZMAT protocols and an idea of how to handle a bioterrorist attack, that's really all the simulation can offer--an idea of how to react. Knowing the proper procedure to handle a disaster is no guarantee that the procedure will be carried out properly when the time is needed. Furthermore, even if the procedure is carried out exactly as planned there is still no guarantee of success. Deciding whom to save in such scenarios involves politics, and those politics can often lead to greater catastrophe. Bogost points to the failed evacuation of New Orleans during hurricane Katrina. There were safe guards and procedures in place for a sufficient evacuation of New Orleans and the surrounding area, but thousands of people died, nonetheless. In order for a simulation like BioChemFX to be more effective it needs to take into consideration politics and ideology. Bogost defines ideology as "hidden procedural systems that drive social, political, or cultural behavior..." (72). A videogame can provide greater insight and understanding of political systems and situations by exposing their procedural rhetorics.

Two HAMAT responders handling anthrax.

In chapter 3, Bogost continues his focus on ideology and politics by looking at ideological frames. Framing something that is real and factual in a particular way can yield results that may not have been the logical outcome. In other words, ideology and rhetoric can trump what is real. Speaking on the 2004 U.S. presidential election, Bogost mentions the political maps on websites and news stations that showed an apparent division in how different areas of the country voted, with the west coast, northeast, and Great Lakes sections of the country voting Democrat (blue), and the mid-west and south voting Republican (red). After the election was over and Bush emerged victorious, the two political parties attempted to frame the outcome of the election, with the Democrats coming to a realization that their rhetoric failed. As such, Democrats wanted to change their strategy by avoiding candidates from the northeast and having a stronger focus on domestic issues. However, while those things might have helped, the bigger change would come from effective ideological framing of reality. As Bogost says, "political success draws less from reality and more from representation." (99).

Videogames are not only good at exposing ideological process, they are also an effective tool to utilize if you want to recruit people to your cause or belief, or even if you just want to make a political statement just like many other forms of media. Both Democrats and Republicans have appropriated the various forms of media in our world--news channels and programs on TV, columns and stories in newspapers and magazines, documentaries (a common liberal outlet), internet sites like The Huffington Post, and talk radio (which is largely dominated by Republicans). Videogames, unlike documentaries and talk radio are not yet strongly aligned with one political ideology or the other. As such, videogames--like TV, printed media, and the internet--can reach people of either political inclination.

When CJ eats too much he becomes a Tubby-Thuggy

A political game need not deal with government politics, either. As an example, Bogost references Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas. In this game, which is set in a world meant to be a metaphor for Los Angeles, you play a gangbanger named CJ. In order to carry out his various missions, crimes, ho-beatings, etc., CJ must eat food. However, the only food available to him is fast food; if he eats too much, he becomes obese and less effective in his endeavors. Conversely, if he works out and exercises he becomes stronger and fitter. Someone who plays this game, then, could take from it many political meanings, from the dangers of high-fat diets, to the benefits of exercise, to the disparities in America between race and class. In chapter 4, Bogost mentions a number of games that move towards political ideologies. These games are effective because they allow the player to talk part in the procedural rhetoric of politics. But, as Bogost says, "political opinion itself is rarely black and white" (143). Political issues are often very complex and affected by various other political issues. Because of their ability to both express and allow players to experience those procedures, videogames can be an invaluable new addition to what Bogost calls a Digital Democracy.

Questions:
1) Bogost mentions the game September 12 as a game that effectively uses the rhetoric of failure because the game has no winning condition and even says so when you first start it up. While the game does employ rhetoric to show that USA's response to 9-11 is counterproductive, it doesn't offer a better solution. So, is the rhetoric of failure in this case an effective method of initiating change?

 2) Personally, I'm glad that videogames are mostly free of political rhetoric (the kind that involves our government) and think it would be a step back for the media if it did become highly politicized. Do you agree or disagree?

3) Politicians are fond of taking swipes at the gaming industry, blaming it for (among other things) high crime rates and children who go out and commit heinous acts. The few political games that Bogost cited notwithstanding, how likely do you think politicians are to try and tap into a genre that they've spent so long bashing?