Politics and procedural rhetoric

The control interface choices a developer makes in producing a politically-minded game often says more about the issue he is addressing than the graphics or other aspects. By allowing some control types while limiting or eliminating others, the developer forces the player to interact with the issue on different levels. Bogost explains that these choices of procedure are integral in building a successful argument.

The best way for me to explain how I see this is through example. In September 12, the player is given command of a remote targeting device and no clear explanation of how to fight terror. If the player chooses to shoot a terrorist, the game displays a cruise missile flying into the terrorist and destroying the surrounding area. Upon impact, anything within the blast zone of the missile is destroyed, including civilians and civilian structures. Civilians wandering around the map see the devastation and become terrorists, and the cycle repeats. This game, Bogost explains, limits the player's interaction to either shoot with a cruise missile to kill tiny terrorists... or not. It says something about the US doctrine of surgical precision strikes against individuals. I think the game would have been even more engaging if there were a counter that measured the cost of the strikes to both the US and to the village, in both lives lost and dollar value.

I found Darfur is Dying to be a much more engaging and innovative approach to political gaming. Again, the interface is simple, but the gameplay dynamics are much more complex. In order to stave off attacks by the militia against your village, you have to actively contact members of Congress or the President to stop the conflict in Darfur. The actions of your avatar are so limited that you, the player, have to break the fourth wall and engage in real-world political activities to help your virtual village survive. This game presented a very interesting, if overly simplified, example of macropolitics effecting smaller scale environments. Also, by not addressing the underlying causes of the conflict, the creators have developed more childish interface. Since your avatars are children, they most likely do not understand why the militia is trying to kill them; only that the bad guys in trucks are actively hunting, and to be caught by them is very bad. When the village is attacked, the player's avatar, usually a small child, has to rebuild the village and try to get crops growing again. Outside support becomes the most important aspect of the game, since the "Take Action Now" button reinforces all village stats and helps the player reach a more successful conclusion.

Consequences of action, such as those found in September 12 and Darfur is Dying allow the player to understand that certain actions provide certain results, and that those actions should be reinforced both in the game world and the real world. These kinds of controls are procedural rhetorics at their core. I wonder, then, how much of this can be translated to non-political or non-persuasive games?