It would be interesting to see a game that attracted everyone to play, not just gamers, or only certain types of people. With a diverse audience playing, you will be able to learn more about different settings across the world, different beliefs and opinions. With people with different backgrounds, comes a plethora of various ideas and perspectives that could be beneficial to improving society. If the game was just comprised of one type of audience who felt the same, had the same opinions, then it would just be boring.
I agree that "all citizens" should be allowed to participate in this game for similar reasons - the game will only reach its full potential if limitless voices are heard and diverse participants recognized. However, I wonder if, in starting the game, a player should state his or her 'title' in today's society - whether a 'video game player,' an 'activist,' a 'student,' or an 'artist' - because then we could understand that person's beliefs and behavior in context. The audience should be limitless in order to allow people with very different experiences to interact, but should they also be anonymous?
There should be no limit to the main audience for this game to take hold. I think a pluralistic model is needed in order to encompass the full capacities of political relations to build. This means taking in all forms of different fields of expertise, whether it be those adroit in the digital media, students with different educational backgrounds, activists with various agendas, and artists with their own aesthetic preferences. Only then can there be a perplexing and informative illustration of how this digital world works.
It would be interesting to see a game that attracted everyone to play, not just gamers, or only certain types of people. With a diverse audience playing, you will be able to learn more about different settings across the world, different beliefs and opinions. With people with different backgrounds, comes a plethora of various ideas and perspectives that could be beneficial to improving society. If the game was just comprised of one type of audience who felt the same, had the same opinions, then it would just be boring.
I agree that "all citizens" should be allowed to participate in this game for similar reasons - the game will only reach its full potential if limitless voices are heard and diverse participants recognized. However, I wonder if, in starting the game, a player should state his or her 'title' in today's society - whether a 'video game player,' an 'activist,' a 'student,' or an 'artist' - because then we could understand that person's beliefs and behavior in context. The audience should be limitless in order to allow people with very different experiences to interact, but should they also be anonymous?
There should be no limit to the main audience for this game to take hold. I think a pluralistic model is needed in order to encompass the full capacities of political relations to build. This means taking in all forms of different fields of expertise, whether it be those adroit in the digital media, students with different educational backgrounds, activists with various agendas, and artists with their own aesthetic preferences. Only then can there be a perplexing and informative illustration of how this digital world works.