Playing Politics Workshop Response

No doubt, there are more and more political simulation games coming out in the internet, which aim to inspire players’ critical thinking towards current political issues. However, as games used to provide entertainment for players, what if political issues are involved? Will the players still enjoy the games and have fun? After examining the game September 12 and New York Defender, the answer is quite sure, at least to me. Ostensibly, both games do entertain the players, as the traditional aesthetic is adopted. However, I wonder if anyone will be interested in a game that you can’t win? Although the messages of both games are clear that players understand it is about 911 attacks at the first glance, since it is obviously talking about the incident. The message is more explicit in September 12, while “This is not a game. You can’t win, and you can’t lose. This is a simulation. It has no ending. It has already begun. The rules are deadly simple. You can shoot. Or not” is indicated at the beginning. When you shot to the terrorists, it will destroy the building and innocence will die, which causes more terrorists. Thus, it is clear to indicate the message the violence makes more violence. But, if players tend to avoid shooting, the situation that a few terrorists will still appears in the town. Interestingly, it is found that if you’ve shot certain times, then stop generating further violence, the number of terrorists will decrease automatically. But, it seems no really no way to make terrorists disappear. On the other hand, New York Defender is a simple game, compared to the September 12. You shot the flight to prevent it collapse, or you don’t shot just let the flights make it collapse. Both options will lead to the collapse anyway. Thus, the messages of both games are clear that violence is not an intelligent way, as it can’t make terrorism disappear.

However, I will claim that the games fail to communicate with players in an effective way, even the message is clear. As a player, usually we have no patient to keep playing a game which cannot win. If I can’t win, what do you expecting me to do? Evidences have shown that players lose interest to play these games, as the goal of the game is implicit. The terrorists will still exist in September 12. And the tower will collapse. If the result is unchangeable, it gives players no reason to explore the game.

If I had to write a political simulation game, I intend to talk about the demonstration of WTO. While the media portrayed the demonstration as riot, I will like to invite players to think about the issue in a critical way. Since the anger of demonstrators is due to the exploitation. They are the victims who try to speak out and stand for their right. However, mainstream media tend to neglect the fact, but view them as mob.

Reflective Post

Indeed, I am appreciated with the outcomes of the blogging exercise, as we all have a chance to actively participant in the online discussion. Sometimes, we do not have enough time to discuss all the issues during the tutorial class, the blog provides a platform for us to discuss. Besides, it allows us to learn more about blog since some of us have never keep their own blog before. And it allows us to practice what we've learn from the course.

Throughout the course, the topic I found most interesting is cyborg, which means a hybrid of machine and organism. In this era, I think most of us are cyborg as we rely so much on the technologies on a daily basis. And Donna Haraway points out that the boundaries between human and animal, organism and machine, physical and non-physical will breakdown. And people can freely construct themselves. According to the definition, it seems that I have to admit myself as a cyborg.

However, I want to point out some questions here. How can a poor spend so much on technologies? Do you think the women in developing countries have equal opportunity to access the new technologies as us? Moreover, it seems that the new technologies is kind of male’s patent. How often do you see a female holding a PDA on the street? (I do not mean there are none, but male seems to be more enthusiastic with the new technologies) Thus, I wonder if it is too idealistic to say cyborg allows us to create ourselves.

Overall, I am satisfied with the course.

Blogged Response to Gattaca clip

With current technology, I don't believe the genetic selection technology in the movie Gattaca is advanced enough to extract all the genetic defectiveness in a non-born child. Of course each parent would want to give their offspring the best start into society as possible. But its not realistic. As mentioned in the movie children born through natural mean (human copulation) is shunned upon, and when the birth of Vincent played by Ethan Hawke, is born, the movie portrays him as a defective child and one that will not last long in life.

Perhaps in the future, science could advance to a point where the genetic screening is possible. And would people take this choice or will they shy away from it as it is a counter-religious action where in our society, birth is ingrain into her life as it is suppose to be a natural process with minimal science intervention as possible.

The movie definitely evokes a sense of security for married couples to have children if they can screen out the bad genes to ensure there is minimal sufferings for their children as it grows up.

Over time, people might come to accept this eugenics because the pros outweighs the cons to having a better, healthier, more intelligent child.

I find it somewhat true to what the movie reference as to class, race, and gender. In our current society, class is something that is determined by your family wealth or once monetary value. Race is definitely one issue in our present society that is segregating who has access to what. Its a Caucasian-English speaking society that evoke in the education and sociological psyche that prioritized this world as a 'White Man' society.
Gender is also a touchy subject, as in our society, at least the urban society, Men are seen as the bread-winner and women are the one who is submissive to the men.

Gattaca shows with genetic screen, those issues of class, race, and gender are wiped out, and the DNA is the only factor that remains that determines your class in society. It will not matter if you are White/Black/Asian/Hispanic, or Man or Woman, if you have the right genes, the superior genes you can do what ever you chose. Your DNA will be your identity card, and its ultimate factor in determining your access to the world. And how the world might accept you or deny you.

Let's talk about the film I, Robot (2004)

It is obvious that the technophobia exist in the film, as it is about the revolution of robots who want to control the world. Regardless of the entire film, The Three Laws of Robotics show the fear of human towards new technologies in the clips, for example, robots have to protect the human, and should not hurt them. They are allowed to protect themselves on the condition that not hurting any humankind. This kind of regulation shows the potential threat of the robot.

Interestingly, the robots are somehow radicalized as the third world people in the reality. The robots take the jobs that are inferior, such as dustmen and couriers. In certain extent, they seem to be the slaves in ancient period, for example, people can win a robot from buying lottery, which is about getting a slave by consumption. Apart from the inferior portrayal, the robots are stereotype as something evil. The scene that the detective thinks the robot is a criminal, and chases the robot on the street. The only evidence he gives is the robot is running with a purse. Obviously, the image of robot is being stereotyped here. It somehow reflects the reality of how the white think about the blacks.