A smackdown it is

So here is a depressing item from the news last month (originally available at: http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/12/13/dc.smackdown.ap/index.html?eref=rss_tech): a “political” video game called “DC Smackdown.” In the game:

A pantsless Bill Clinton chases a herd of Monica Lewinskys, Jesse Jackson hurls Hasidic Jews and Anne Coulter has a special “verbal diarrhea” attack.

The game is meant to be a “fun commentary on what’s going on.”

It seemed more “crude” than “fun”–but more to the point, it is games like these and press like this that does so much to convince the public that games are part of the problem rather than part of the solution.

In How Computer Games Help Children Learn, for example, I write about a very different kind of political game, The Political Machine:

The game uses real demographic data and models contemporary issues, including the War on Terror, current economic conditions, and U.S. policy in Iraq. The game Web site updates the issues to keep the game current. Players do many of the things that a real presidential campaign manager does: take out political ads, decide where and when to make speeches, set policy, raise money, and so on. Players can create their own candidates or use historical candidates. Playing the game well requires understanding quite a lot about American electoral politics, from the electoral college and its impact on campaigning to the constellations of policy issues that matter to voters in different regions. Players quickly learn the language of electoral votes, fundraising, spin, and advertising. They understand why some states get no attention in the general election and others are blanketed with advertisements, and why candidates are forced to equivocate and take centrist positions.

Or, you know, you could just play DC Smackdown, where Barack Obama has a “gleem beam” attack and Hillary Clinton an “intern trample.”