We live a different era in gaming now in 2021 compared to the culture around it ten and twenty years ago. Much of what’s presented in Flanagan and Nissenbaun’s paper on activism is still relevant while other points seem to be outdated. First and foremost I think there’s a lack of depth when it comes actual playable structures for games as it covers more on topics needed to be covered and how to incorporate them. What I would like to see from a modern interpretation of a paper that approach such a topic is the intent message, the audience it targets, and how to make it a playable experience.
Diversity in gaming has grown since, conscious design choices for demographics has diversified as female, queer, and non-binary is taken in account. Is the frat culture of gaming disappeared, no but the headway to include a non-binary character in a game like Apex Legends or making a game about queer identity Under Tale. Long are the days of licensed Barbie and Bratz games are the only games people think women should play the authors mention “Games targeted at girls are particularly challenging because they can embody larger assumptions about what girls like and how to market to them as a group” (184). The education I see that’s more needed on these days is how to create a game based on activism and have it be a playable experience for an audience outside of education. Spent is the “game” I chose but it’s more of an interactive education tool but it’s not that game driven.
Sources
Sentoso, Andrew, director. YouTube, 9 Mar. 2021, youtu.be/gMWU0xwRCVQ.
Flanagan, Mary, and Helen Nissenbaum. “A Game Design Methodology to Incorporate Social Activist Themes.” Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems — CHI ’07, 2007, doi:10.1145/1240624.1240654
