Going political ...

Usually, when a musician goes political the death knell of their career isn't far behind. Pearl Jam and Eminem are just a couple of recent musicians who made this turn for the worse (musically) and then fell off the map. Other forms of media and arts do quite well in the political arena. Obviously comedians have great success if The Colbert Report and and Jon Stewart's Daily Show are any indication. Movies and TV also seem to fair well. This begs the question, how will games handle the political transition?

Typically, gamers seek a trance or Zen-like state when they play. That aspect or expectation of a good game is very much like what we desire from good music. Now typically, thinking about politics breaks that Zen-like state when you're listening to a song. Once someone goes political in music it's no longer relaxing. You might find yourself wanting to get up and take action in a hurry if the politics aren't going your way. Movies and comedy don't really suffer from this problem because we don't expect to go into a trance or zone-out. Instead we expect to pay attention and be cerebrally stimulated no Zen required.

OK, so how do games fare. Well, I'm not sure yet. Other than some pretty insubstantial flash games and a host of more serious but merely metaphorical games there isn't much in the way of games gone political. It's my intention to change that and find out if they work or not.

I think games will work politically if they are executed properly. Which is to say they should still play like games. So long as people can play for $#!^$ and giggles it's still a game. The question is, how can it still be a game and also be real?

My solution is to use real locales (albeit some of the greatest most imaginative ones in history a la National Treasure), real political candidates, real issues, and stat tracking that adds up into real polls. At the base off all of this is pure gameplay.

If you didn't know anything about the United States or the Presidential election you wouldn't know this game has any basis in reality. It doesn't attempt to wow people with some sort of new mind-boggling debate mechanic or take itself too seriously. Instead it let's players do what they do best ... shoot'n smash each other online while talking smack. The only difference is now instead of fighting for some pseudo cause in some imaginary universe they can represent a real cause with their in game actions.

While games share the trance aspect of music I think they are radically different because games are interactive. Other than the fact that often times musicians take sides I can't think of anything else that would relegate political music to failed status. Cinema usually takes the observer route with politics, just peeking in and not saying right or wrong and comedians just make fun of everyone. Music on the other hand usually attempts to sway people one way or the other. Games of course are different from all of the above because players can take on all of those roles at their own will and are never asked to just sit idle.

Games will potentially be the most powerful political tool in the future because they connect us on that Zen-like level but they don't require us to sit there and listen. Conversely, they beg us to stand up and do something immediately. In that regard games are a lot like politics actually and I feel the combination of intrinsic connection, act now immediacy, and social aspects creates the best vehicle ever witnessed for political activism.

The gamble of course is that perhaps gamers are truly apathetic creatures. Maybe it's not, that they like playing games so much ... maybe it's just that they hate doing all the real stuff. If that's the case then Full Contact Debate is doomed to failure.

FullContactDebate.com, register today and invite your friends! It's free and goes open beta 2/20/2008

Some sweet wallpaper \/ :