The McDonald’s Interactive Hoax
I read about this yesterday and didn’t blog it; the story wasn’t fully done yet. But for those of you who don’t hang out in serious games circles, all the talk today is about the presentation allegedly by McDonald’s Interactive.
The text of the speech is here. Short form: a group pretended to be from the games division of McD’s, claimed they had built a serious game to teach management to managers in the company, and then revealed that the simulations showed that McD’s itself is destroying the world via its ecological and economic impact. So the alleged games division split off to speak out publicly as a matter of conscience.
It’s all faked, of course. But it’s also an act of information activism, a use of games to make a political point that is more sophisticated than actually releasing the supposed game (which actually sort of exists — perhaps one was inspired by the other).
Lots of folks got taken in by this one, which leads me to believe that (given a suitable cooling off period) we’ll see it tried again.
Funny. McDonaldsInteractive.com is registered to Marc Cohen.
He filed a class-action lawsuit against mcD’s in 2002.
http://www.state.il.us/court/opinions/appellatecourt/2004/1stDistrict/February/Html/1022110.htm
I don’t know how they manage to attribute the fall of feudalism to abrupt social change, though. In purely economic terms, one would tend to suppose that the effect of the Black Death on labour supply was a/the contributing factor.
Fantastic, poetic terrorism in action, and what better bomb than an algorithm.
It seems more like a case of Information TERRORISM than information activism, given that they lied about who they were, why they were there, the existance of their simulation, etc. In fact, I don’t know if they actually presented any objective information at all. It’s really disinformation, and its damage was directed primarily at innocent consumers of that information, not McDonalds itself. Now, their anti-capitalist opinion may have a sound basis, but if they’re going to pull stunts like this, it doesn’t make me want to engage in a serious dialogue with them on the issue.
I actually originally used the word “terrorism” and then backed away from it thinking it might be too inflammatory.
I don’t think "information terrorism" is accurate since the group, in fact, intended good, despite their approach being unwise and malicious toward McDonald’s.
End justifies the means? I don’t think so. These people are liars, and in doing so paint people that might agree with the statements presented as liars.
Definitionally, terrorism is conducted with malicious intentions. You can hardly compare the Oklahoma bomber and the hijackers of 9/11 with these people, especially since these people conducted their activistic efforts nonviolently. Yet, some people might argue that Gandhi was a terrorist. If Gandhi was not a terrorist, then what if he deceived and lied to accomplish his goals? Would he be a terrorist then? In the end, the truth of the matter relies on where you are in relation to the fence. I try to stay in the middle with regards to philosophical, political, and religious issues. After all, my clan motto is ora et labora… either translated to "play and work" or "pray and work".
So, would I become a terrorist by presenting you as a liar? That’s silly logic. Their actions may not be optimal to deliver their message; nonetheless, their intended message — that McDonald’s should investigate and remedy practices that adversely affect "the world" — cannot be rationally argued as inherently terroristic.
It’s not the idea that’s terroristic, it’s the method. Of course, we’re talking “information” terrorism, so that’s stretching the notion of terrorism in the first place. But if we are able to put our minds in such a context, what would it look like? A “normal” information or disinformation attack would be directed at a presumably guilty target; in this case, McDonald’s itself. In this case, the attack was perpetrated against innocent third parties, and it wasn’t truthful, but disinformation, designed to evoke an emotional response to cause change rather than a rational one. If anything qualifies as “information terrorism”, then this would. Their ultimate goal may be noble and their adversary deserving (I’m not saying they are; just speaking theoretically), but their method leaves a lot to be desired. Still, I agree that injecting the word terrorism into the debate is like pouring lighter fluid on a fire, but I’m not someone known for his verbal restraint…
Its ridiculous to call it “terrorism” since neither their intended purpose nor their actual effect was to INSPIRE TERROR in their targets. People who blow up buildings or kidnap buses of schoolchildren or hijack aircraft, those guys are “terrorists”. They use violence and the threat of violence to inspire terror.
I’d prefer to call this McDonalds thing either “fraud” or “a good laughing gag”, depending on whether any financial harm was done.
Propaganda? Would this term fit?
I think Trademark infringement would apply also 🙂
Actually, the debate over semantics isn’t what should be interesting about this story. As people are starting to wake up to the fact that games are a valid social medium, this sort of “attack of disinformation” (or whatever it is called) lends legitimacy to the game medium as an artform conveying a message while adds ammunition into the clip of anti-game advocate’s gun.
I’ve played the games where statements are made: bombing terrorists creates more terrorists and killing pregnant Mexican’s gives you double points. I don’t mean to be incendiary; either one is attackable from your point of view. My position on this story is that games have embedded themselves deeper into the social fabric because games are now being used by secondary medium as propaganda. It wasn’t a game that made the news (even if it only goes so far as Gamasutra), it was a VIDEO about a game group (more or less, a studio).
That’s my 2 cents.
1. I think the whole "games are art" argument is a bunch of hooey, but I’ll leave the elaboration for my article.
2. For a message to be conveyed, that which conveys a message is not necessarily art.
Really? Their intent wasn’t to instill fear (OMG McDonalds is destroying the planet!) in innocent people (the rest of us) in order to motivate us to apply pressure on their real target (McDonalds)?
If they wanted to simply communicate their idea rationally, they could have done so. Instead, they went for lies and sensationalism.
Bruce
you are missing the point that they must have known that their bluff would be uncovered. this makes the whole event similar to Candid Camera, or why not call it an art performance?
I agree with ml. It’s easy to say that courts shouldn’t even try to detect and make allowances for irony because such judgements are hard, but if you go down that route, you’re essentially outlawing sarcasm and satire. I suppose it’s conceivable that satire taken literally could do actual harm (of the illegitimate kind–not just the swaying-of-public-opinion kind), but I don’t see that here. Sure they outright lied about having a connection to McDonald’s, but those lies weren’t slanderous or libelous, nor is there any reason they expected these lies to be taken straight.
The point being missed here is not if this was terrorism/disinformation but rather if thier intended point was to start a dialouge. This is the 18th post on this thread, other sites are discussing this.
Game as Art?
Social Consequences?
Basis of a Games Morals and Values?
And whos now doing the discussing? Those who make the games, those who sell the games and those who buy the games. Because the end result is that there may end up being a change down the road for those who play the games.
Thus they achieved thier goal. To generate discussion, propaganda is for persuasian, and its hard to persuade people. Look at the brief post history on this thread and the debate and choosing of sides that has occured.
I think the only terrorsim to be had from this is the terror a corporation might feel when people start linking that game on the net because of discussions this has generated. The end result: whos going to play a McDonalds game without first thinking of the one that came before it.
A better point, whos going to sign on to make a McDonalds game now?
Games are a medium for change. Social and otherwise. Change starts first with discussion.
What about this:http://sithsense.com/flash.htm
A game? Fun? No Message, but marketing surely.
Wasn’t trying to agrue about the word “terrorist”, Morgan, just that they aren’t “good”.
As Morgan correctly pointed out, games are not art directly. Video Games are purely a medium in which anyone with a team of programmers and a few hundred artists can produce a product. Does that define the product as art? I hope not, otherwise I have a lot of explaining to do to my wife (with her MFA) concerning the differences between “Dude, Where’s my Car” and “Schindler’s List”.
Medium, done correctly and in a certain way, is art. Some games, but surely not a majority of games, are approaching art. Personally, I consider Chess to be art.
Again, I have to state that the perpetrators of this action didn’t use games directly as their medium of attack; they used another medium (video) about our medium (games). This is what I find most interesting.
Who’s going to sign up to make the next video game for McD’s? Someone who need the cash.
Oh. Okay. 🙂
Media that is art is not media. Media consists of forms of communication. Communication is not a monodirectional process. A lecture is not communicative if the professor cannot at least see the audience or if the audience cannot at least respond in some way. For "communication" to be communication, there must be feedback provided from the message recipient to the message sender. Since art neither sends messages nor receives message, art is not accurately described as a medium and thus incorrectly (although popularly) described as a form of communication.
Games are not art because games are naturally equipped with I/O thus enabling sending and receiving of messages and feedback; therefore, games are media, and games can communicate messages. The interactivity attribute of games is what makes the medium so damn powerful for communication. That’s also why games can be used as effective learning tools, which is not to say that art can’t be used to educate. The education is simply different.
Anyway, that’s the basic idea. I’m posting from the hotel computer in Idaho, so I’m clearly not going to elaborate further until I complete my article at home. See ya.
I don’t want to argue this point on someone else’s blog (Thanks Raph!). However, I feel compelled to point out that there is a difference between “media” and “medium”. Email me, Morgan, to continue this conversation.
The term media is the plural form of medium. There are other definitions; however, that is, at least, the usage in this context.