I attended day one of the Games for Social Change conference today. It was an interesting mix of gamers, developers, non-profits reps, and public policy advocates. I personally self-identify in the “gamer” category. There were a lot of highlights that I should tackle in future posts, but there was one presentation that really stood out:

Clive Thompson (New York Times, Wired Magazine, technology features writer) gave a talk entitled, “Grass Roots Gaming: How digital games have become the new graffiti for artists, activists, and teenagers.” Clive argued that Serious Games should include any game that conveys a message, no matter how cheap, low-brow, and offensive that message is. Clive proposed that games coming from the grassroots of developers such as Super Columbine Massacre RPG and Go, Saddam, Go should be considered Serious Games under this definition.

Clive’s proposal was controversial to say the least. I think Clive’s basic point is right: the current definition of Serious Games is too limited and fails to include a lot of grassroots, low-budget content that is often more enjoyable and more effective that high-budget, boring Serious Games. However, Clive’s extreme examples go to far. Go, Saddam, Go was created to appeal to people’s perverse voyeurism: the point of games like Go, Saddam, Go is for people to gawk at just how offensive other people can be. I don’t think there’s a “message” to convey; I think it’s just 14-year-olds seeking attention in the cheapest way possible.

But, I think my stand on these examples makes me look prudeish and “un-gamerlike” compared to the audience for Clive’s talk. That’s kind of a bummer.