So all those political muckety-mucks might have shipped off to Annapolis for negotiations, but just because I don't get free flights off public coffers doesn't mean I can't help make peace, too. Thanks to Pennsylvania-based Impact Games, I can "Play the News. Solve the Puzzle" with its interactive CD release, PeaceMaker. In conjunction with the summit, the company and the Peres Center for Peace sent 100,000 free copies to subscribers of the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz. Unfortunately, I didn't get one, probably because I subscribe to the English-language edition, and there's already been enough worthless American and British intervention in many people's eyes. Luckily, one of my students brought the video game to school. This, my friends, is what educators call a teachable moment, otherwise known as "I'd rather not do my actual lesson plan," so I spent the first half of my first class installing and testing out the simulation.
Here's the setup: You can pick to be the Palestinian President or the Israeli Prime Minister (or let the game choose for you) in a calm, tense, or violent scenario level. You enter into a virtual Israel, where real incidents from the past reoccur, as shown through newspaper articles and television footage, but you get the option to try a different reaction. The main responses are political or security. One option under security was assassinating an opposition leader; one under political was giving a speech to the international media. As you react, you get input from public opinion polls, both in and out of the country, and from advisers, called The Hawk and The Dove. You win the game if you respond appropriately to achieve a "two-state solution."
It's this "solution" that I take issue with, not the typical criticism that this is oversimplifying a complicated issue. Indeed, a simplification could just be the ticket to a solution. But how does one come up with the way to win the game when the simulated outcome has never occurred in reality? In truth, you win the game if you figure out how the makers presume that peace could be established. Their presumption rests on a few assumptions about human nature, all listed on the game's Web site, www.peacemakergame.com: 1) "You can make a difference," 2) "Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the possible," and 3) "The other side wants peace too." The real humans involved might be contrary to these assumptions: 1) They do not care to make a difference, 2) They are unable or unwilling to compromise, and 3) They do not want a solution. These variables, I think, would be more apt as level choices instead of those based on external conflict factors; they could be labeled apathetic, resolute, and antagonistic.
As a teacher, I do see this as a great conversation starter, a way to reveal some assumptions we ourselves make about the peace process. In fact, researchers at Carnegie Mellon are examining how prior vs. deeper knowledge impacts players' decisions. But until these human influences are taken into account, this game should never be examined as a way to solve the actual Mideast peace puzzle. The good news is, Impact Games says one of its next ventures will be to take the game online, so people from all over the world -- and from all perspectives, apathetic, resolute, antagonistic and beyond -- can play the fantasy football version of foreign relations. Now that's the kind of negotiations I can see President Bush getting into, even after office.
Until then, if you have access to this game in any way, please tell me if and how you manage to "beat" it. And I don't mean with any of those silly codes you find in gaming magazines. If there were a secret passage to ultimate peace, like getting three levels ahead in Mario Brothers, I would hope we would have found -- and taken -- it already. I don't believe this is a game where there is any pride or accomplishment in taking the longest path to rack up the most points.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I actually think that the 1.2.3. presumptions given by the game are quite realistic, as far as the public at large goes. The game's makers ignore the extremists and this is exactly what the politicians should do.
Unfortunately, the politicians give too much credit and weight to the extremeists and thus a "two state solution" is never reached. Once me and my moderate Palestinian neighbor's views are finally considered more seriously than those of fanatic, murderous messianic lunatics, there's going to be hope. Well done to the Pacman people for having come to that conclusion.
Indeed, one of my students won the game, and he did so by gaining equal support from the Israelis and Palestinians, thereby ignoring the extremists. Although I agree that's what SHOULD happen, it's hard to see how that COULD happen in reality, considering extremists do exist, and they are a pretty vocal -- and sometimes violent -- force. In other words, they are hard to just ignore. Maybe somebody should come up with a game that tests the ability to hold off the extremists so real efforts toward peace can be made.
Post a Comment