Spent is a game that allows the player to experience choices of someone living in extreme poverty for 30 days. They have to confront choices that challenge people living in extreme poverty every day like when they should dodge bills, when they should not report car accidents to the police and when they should not help their kid, all based on their finances.
In class, I, as well as others brought up the fact that the game in many ways trivializes the experiences of poor people by having people play as a person in this position for just one month. The player also has the ability to learn from mistakes and get a clean slate, something that is all-but-impossible for people living in the situations that SPENT explains. These factors very easily lead into gamification and make many people crave to simply “beat” the game with as much money as possible, instead of trying to understand what the developers of the game were trying to teach.
Others in class responded that it might make people more knowledgeable about the experiences of those living in poverty and that the point of the game is to stir up donations and conversation. Although this game does have the potential for gamification, it also has the ability to open a window into a meaningful conversation about poverty.
However, I don’t know if that is doing enough to change people’s perceptions. Although the game does allow people to donate, and indeed makes the link to donate very visible once the game is over, it still does not mean that people will donate. One question I have is how many people in our class actually donated. I worry that SPENT acts a lot like Phone Story in that it presents a compelling narrative that teaches people about an injustice in the world, of which they may be partially unaware, or at least ignorant. However, both games quickly fade away from the player's mind once they stop playing. The player has the luxury to move on with their life, and sink back into blissful complacency, unlike the people being portrayed in SPENT. Therefore, the game is only able to create a long-lasting impact if the player is primed and wants to learn.
SPENT is a game where the player has to reflect on what it means to live in poverty. This aspect of the game is good in the light that it does not force a behavior onto the player besides subjecting them to the money struggles. However, I think this method is a lot more effective in more trivial topics such as doing well in school. With more realistic struggles comes the responsibility to list ways in which the newly sympathetic player can contribute to improving the condition that the game poses. For example, there could be links to volunteering or donating to certain organizations near the player. Or perhaps a list of things the player can do to alleviate the…
I think I had the same issue that you and some other people in class had when it came to Spent. I felt that Spent was trying to do something good by having us virtually "walk a mile" in the shoes of someone that is faced with poverty, but I kept asking myself where the line was when it came to bringing attention to an issue and making fun out of it. I wonder if when impoverished people play this game if they would feel like this is an appropriate depiction of the struggles they may go through on a monthly basis or a mockery of a life that is very real and very strenuous.
You make a good point. The game seems to be trying to get players to "walk a mile in someone else's shoes," but the effectiveness of this strategy is dependent on the players ability to empathize. And of course, this only lasts as long as the game is being played. But I do think that the game combats the "play to win" mentality and encourages empathy with the morally charged choices that it presents. If you try to play the maximization game, you end up feeling like a shitty person as you break into your kid's money bank or take their birthday money. Even if you end up "winning," you have to face the choices that got you to the…