top of page
Search
Writer's pictureSamantha Xiao

Oh Boy, I Bet What You Really Wanted to Read was Another Argument about the Lecture

I've decided it's time to kick the hornet's nest and continue the conversation we had at the end of class today on Third World Farmer and Spent. There was an interesting discussion over which game pushed a better/more effective representation of poverty. Does Spent's depiction of the neverending stress of poverty preclude a discussion of overcoming poverty, as shown in Third World Farmer? Which is more accurate? Which is more effective? More realistic?


Okay, think about it this way: a direct comparison of these two games is difficult because each represents a different aspect of living with poverty. Spent is about the *day-to-day* decisions that characterize the lives of low-income households and the sacrifices and trade-offs that must be made simply to scrape by each month. Should money go into groceries or a child's field trip? Gas bill or electricity bill? These are all questions related to short-term survival and everyday struggles of living in poverty. The notion that Spent must depict a substantial improvement in the player character's life, or a dramatic 'rise out of poverty' is simply unrealistic when one remembers that the entire game takes place in one month. It is undeniably true that many individuals who grew up in economically disadvantaged households can dramatically improve their economic status and standard of living. But this process does not unfold in a matter of weeks. Rather, it takes place over the course of half a lifetime, or an entire lifetime, or maybe two lifetimes and multiple generations. Spent simply isn't concerned with depicting this long-term struggle; it concerns itself with the *day-to-day* decisions many households have to make. To criticize it for leaving out a discussion of overcoming poverty is to mischaracterize what the game is about. The timeframe just doesn't work out.


Third World Farmer is about the *generational* process of rising out of poverty. It is difficult and incredibly unlikely for the first generation family members from the game's beginning to "win" the game in their lifespans. Improvements in living conditions might happen, but there are simply too many structural difficulties for the family to completely break the cycle of poverty in a single generation. So the game must take place over the long-term. Correspondingly, all of the decisions that the player is asked to make are ones that are in this long-term timeframe. While in Spent the player must ask themselves: "Should my child go to school today even if they're sick?" in Third World Farmer the question instead is: "Is my child going to go to school for *this year* or are they going to work in the fields year-round?" Unlike Spent, this game is concerned with showing the player how long-term the process of overcoming poverty and structural inequalities can be. That's why it continues over the course of several generations. The lives of the first generation children who must work in the fields provide the foundation for future generations to even have the realistic option to attend school. This is a totally different scale and scenario than that of Spent! Simply compare the timeframes—several generations vs. one month. The struggle of an extended family over multiple generations versus the struggle of a household in one month.


There are certainly critiques to be made of both games but neither is strictly "better" than the other in its portrayal of poverty. The underlying arguments of both are not mutually exclusive. It is not contradictory to simultaneously believe that on a short-term timeframe, poverty can seem like one unending stream of difficult decisions and hardship—but on a long-term timeframe, it is possible through luck, work, and sacrifice to rise up.

48 views3 comments

Recent Posts

See All

Competitive Failing

Blizzard's Hearthstone is a virtual cardgame developed by Blizzard interactive. In the game, each player plays as a class of hero from...

3 Comments


Henry Filosa
Henry Filosa
Nov 28, 2018

Upon further reflection my issue with Spent is not that it doesn't depict people leaving poverty, but rather the procedural rhetoric it has about the agency of structural inequality. In Third World Farmer events that set you back are truly random and not influenced by game play decisions. On the other hand, the events of Spent appear tailored to your current situation and are relentless. The former's positions structural inequality as a large, random force while the latter conceives of it as an agency that is actively trying to screw you over. This is not how structural inequality works and is precisely what makes it so difficult to combat. It is the product of many small decisions, often unintentional, not…


Like

Siri Lee
Siri Lee
Nov 28, 2018

Sam, I really appreciate this point! I feel like a strong reason why some people find Spent more off-putting is that it "gets in your face," both in terms of its overtly didactic framing and in terms of its short, "zoomed-in" timespan (as you point out), if that makes sense. And actually from a perspective more oriented towards mentality than storyline, Spent could be said to be a more accurate portrayal of the way poverty shapes individual thinking: it certainly demonstrates the short-sightedness and despair (seeing no resolution or way out) actively imposed by the much-theorized Culture of poverty: http://eds.a.ebscohost.com.proxy.uchicago.edu/eds/detail/detail?vid=2&sid=cbc5f6d6-a67f-468b-a707-3de66b1d9e5a%40sdc-v-sessmgr02&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmUmc2NvcGU9c2l0ZQ%3d%3d#AN=96397267&db=ers). So arguably Spent is the more realistic of the two games here, since obviously actual poor people would have no…


Like

davidmatz
davidmatz
Nov 28, 2018

That's a good point that the timeframe dictates what can or can't happen. There's no way Spent could show, in one moth, the process of escaping poverty that takes years. But, not to be an angry hornet, I don't think that makes the games incomparable. You're right short term sacrifice and long term mobility are different projects. What "best" portrays poverty is admittedly vague. So more precisely, I think the games are comparable in that they both attempt to inspire empathy for challenges of poverty. To do that, the games need you to become invested in them. And 3rd World Farmer does a better job of that because it's a better game in a familiar genre.


Again, it's true Spent…



Like
bottom of page