In class, there was contention over the effectiveness of SPENT. I wanted to talk a little bit about why the game was effective to me and my view on some of the points posed in class.
SPENT reminded me of how fortunate I am. I don't have to make too many hard choices and none of the hard choices I have to make are about what I'm going to eat or how I'm going to pay for shelter. However, people have these problems, and nobody would doubt this. However, we do forget about it. Living in the bubble of Hyde Park, it's easy to forget. Additionally, reading articles and statistics don't make me aware of my fortunate in the same way that being aware of some of the intimate details of being not as fortunate entails.
However, SPENT isn't just a game meant to convey this feeling. SPENT prompts action. After completing or losing the game, the player is urged to donate and to help those in need. It goes one step further, reminding me not only of my fortune but that I can use this to improve other people's fortune. Although obvious, sometimes a little urging and reminder is necessary.
Now, I'd like to tackle two specific complaints about the game I heard and tackle them:
1) The game should allow the player to make it out of poverty because in real life there are some who make it out.
In my view, the game's point isn't to be a perfect simulation of reality. It's meant to convey a feeling and make you aware of something you might not otherwise be aware of. It's meant to make you feel what it's like to be a person who has no chance of making it out, who has bad luck and doesn't have the opportunity to rise out of poverty.
Additionally, I don't think the game when it says "now imagine you are one of them" is not to make you a random sample. The idea to me is to put yourself in the shoes of one person, the chosen person from the game. Obviously not everybody has a family and not everybody has a dog so it wouldn't be an accurate representation of everybody. Additionally, I don't think it's trying to represent the "average" person but rather just a certain person to accomplish the desired rhetorical goals.
2) The game should take place over a week with random events instead of a month.
I think the decision of a month wsa very intentional and is better than a week. Every month, Rent is a big payment that needs to be paid. When Rent is paid, it's like pressing the reset button to some extent, like buying more time. However, paying Rent is hard and it's something that needs to be kept in mind the whole month to make sure that a person will be able to pay rent. For this reason, I think the decision of Rent, a major consistent payment kind of like passing Go in Monopoly, was chosen.
Thanks for reading and I'd love to hear some of your opinions on SPENT and what I've written.