On political gameplay [Part 3]
In the last post, I explained how political gameplay can be applied in multi-player games. So what’s the case in single player-games, which in the so-far called “political games” are the majority.
In my first post, I claimed that in these traditional political games, the players do not experience political gameplay, but rather “play” with politics. For multi-player games I proposed a gameplay that instead of imposing ideology onto the players, it would rather afford for the players reveal hidden ideology that already exists in their subconscious minds. Under this scope, in single player players, political gameplay takes a form of ethical gameplay. Ethical gameplay, as already examined and assessed by Miguel Sicart (see The Ethics of Computer Games, The banality of simulated evil: designing ethical gameplay), addresses ludic interactions that challenge the players’ ethics. In single player games, it can be easily prescribed by allowing the player to make non-systemic ethical decisions.
On political gameplay [Part 2]
So, how is political gameplay implemented in practice then?
Well, there are fundamental differences in single and multi-player games, but before getting there I should draw a definitional line. Policies are ’strategies’ that aim at achieving win-states for those that employ them. Politics is the act of convincing and proving to others the effectiveness of the policies.