Today in class we talked thoroughly about “games for change”. It was definitely an interesting topic and I had some strong input on what I thought. I explained how I think “games for change” can easily be misconstrued depending on your definition of “games for change”. If you interpret a “game for change” as something that inspires action related to large political issues such as climate change, voting, or inequality, that is one thing. However, if you are defining a “game for change” as something that simply makes you change the way you think or feel (empathy as we discussed), then I feel that every game regardless of topic or the message behind it does that effectively. Whether you like or dislike the experience you have when playing a game, you effectively come out of that experience with a new opinion of that game specifically or that genre of game.
Also, I felt that topic in general because of this lack of clarity on definition became ambiguous, as do many conversations in class. I do understand the principle surrounding discussion and sparking conversation, however there’s always going to be two sides to an argument and with my experience in these conversations no one ever comes out on “top” in these conversations, it simply goes in circles, especially with the unique characters we have in class. Not that that is an issue, I understand the conversations’ point: making us think about new things and scenarios or questions we may not have asked. I guess it is just an opinion I have with the open-discussion style that comes with the topics we speak about. It has its pros and cons.