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.