Settlers of Catan, a game that originated in Germany, clearly has political goals. The whole purpose of this board game is to acquire land. Although it is put in a playful light, it is quite obvious that the explicit goal of the game is to outsmart the other opponents by creating blockades via precisely placed roads. Much like real life, Settlers of Catan simulates the correlation between land and wealth. The many rules of Catan parallels real-life laws. To win, one must be govern the land that he or she already possesses with ambition and anticipation. The difference between Settlers of Catan and real life is the “age in which Settlers is played.” The board game purposefully is set in an older age and in the middle of a very farm-based society. This gives the game an element of play that would otherwise not exist if it was more modern. Also, the simplicity of Settlers of Catan enables the player to still find amusement in a politically driven game. Without the complexity of real life politics, the player is still able to focus on pure power thirst and be a surface-level politician. Even in the midst of explicit politics, Settlers of Catan remains a game due to its ability to be seen from less seasoned eyes. As stated earlier, the concept of Settlers is simple; this simplicity allows it to either be taken seriously, or in a more juvenile manner. The two versions of play, however, intermingle throughout the game, making it a politically playful board game. 

Last week, San Fransisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick decided not to stand during the national anthem. While he did this before actually playing the game, his stand, or rather not standing was broadcasted to the nation. Author Miguel Sicart writes how politics can be explicitly or implicitly in a game or when people are playing. He uses soccer player Maradona as an example of that. While he was not purposefully showing up the English during the 1986 soccer match, it could be interpreted with a political view as the Falklands War was still a touchy subject.

Kaepernick not standing however, was very explicit. He went out with purpose to not stand, because he does not believe he can stand for the flag and the anthem when it does not represent what America is to him. As Sicart says, “play has the capacity to remain play while giving the actions performed political meaning”. When Kaepernick sat down, he did not disrupt the game, it even happened before it started. He just played it off, like it was part of the game.

Kaepernick protesting, had no effect on the game at all. Sicart writes that political play does not have to be out there or noticed, rather it can be done so elusively for everyone to see, but without stopping the game.

Colin is not the only person to do this, many protests have been held on the sport stage. In 2014, players on the St. Louis Rams also explicitly protested. In the aftermath of Ferguson, MO, several players held up their hands as a sign of protest towards police and the shootings that were happening. Using games as a platform of politics is always an effective way to show people’s feelings on a subject. The people of the U.S. and the world watch sports. When they see something like that happen, they do not brush past it. It is on their TV screens. Athletes can also do it while carrying on with their jobs as players of the sport. When Kaepernick and the Rams’ players protested before the game, they were carrying on with their same routines without any interruptions.

Sicart writes in his chapter of politics that games are ways people can be allowed to express their opinions to a whole audience and still be allowed to play as if it were a simple way to have fun.

Throughout the summer, my friends and I spent hours traveling to different parks, restaurants, churches, and admittedly a graveyard in order to catch virtual creatures on the app Pokemon GO. As we journeyed together we saw that the game brought various age demographics together, either through childhood nostalgia or newfound adventures, the purpose was one and the same: play. But in the midst of collecting them all and taking over virtual gyms, the game came along with a set of unstated politics and rules.

At level five, a player has the option to join one of three teams: Mystic (blue), Valor (red), or Instinct (yellow). There is no real advantage or disadvantage to any team and the title is merely there to give the player a sense of belonging and a group to fight for. Despite there being no true difference in the teams, it was obvious from the beginning that the dominant forces were Valor and Mystic, mirroring America’s Republicans and Democrats or more specifically America’s duality when it comes to pretty much anything. There was no room for a triumvirate or broken factions in this game, only two teams and one meme. Instinct became somewhat of a laughingstock amongst the community for no apparent reason. But despite the relatively innocent ribbing on the smaller team online, the mindset of the duality revealed a much uglier side in reality.

Public parks and buildings were vandalized in the name of the teams and the act of dark play became an unfortunate side affect due to this. Many public areas had to erect signs banning Pokemon GO players from religious housing and memorial grounds due to the amount of loitering, loudness, and general disrespect towards the environment. This political party mentality did not only affect others not playing the game, but ruins the game itself. The pursuit of Pokemons and training them no longer mattered as it became a competition. Delete the weak ones and capture the strong in order to see your team’s flag high atop a gym. The PokeStops (areas to restock supply) and PokeGyms were no longer points of communication, celebration, and community but instead quickly became red and blue districts that battled for superiority.

“Urban Crime 2” came out on App Store a few years ago and immediately occupied the front page of the App Store. It became the most popular action game during that period. It is a game filled with violence and protests. There are no specific rules that guide the players to perform certain tasks. As long as the players can survive under attacks from other gangs and policemen, they are considered the winners of the game. This game is set on the appropriative and disruptive nature of play. First of all, the game appropriates the real world and emphasizes on the crimes happened everyday on the streets. In this fabricated world, the victims are innocent citizens. They could be attacked or even killed within seconds just because the player wants to do so. This form of play suggests the insecurity experienced by ordinary people nowadays. The government is unable to stop the crimes before they happen. Second of all, this game is created on the basis of the players’ freewill. The players are capable of stealing and killing without any severe consequences. For example, you can shoot anyone you see on the streets and beat them to death. Or you can steel cars from their owners and then gallop on the highways. Overall, there are no presumed restrictions on the players. The only essential question is how you want to play the game? Eventually, the free play will lead to the disruptive nature of play. The underlying message of the game suggests violate approaches. It affects the teenagers in a detrimental way because some players who entirely immersed into this game are highly likely to have a difficult time distinguish between what is real and what is only real in the game.

Then, what are the political implications of this game? The main character is usually from a lower class who conducts these crimes to express his anger toward the government and the society. This setting mirrors the issues existed in the real world. There are always innocent lives being killed during violate protests. The policemen in the game are incapable of preventing the tragedies from happening, which implies the inefficiency of the government officials. Similarly, the government is more like a bystander during the catastrophes because the terrorists or the murderers are always a few steps ahead then the government. Therefore, this game serves as a counterpart of the world we live in. The players conceive the world in a different perspective as they are now the criminals instead of the victims.

While Barthes was discussing wrestling, albeit sixties french wrestling, I couldn’t help but immediately agree with Barthes and his analysis of the “sport” called wrestling. Now everyone knows the running joke is that wrestling is fake, and pretty much everyone knows that professional wrestling (WWE at the very least) is not so much a sport with winners and losers but more akin to a theater production. That’s not to say it isn’t worthwhile or entertaining, professional wrestling is a spectacle that can easily wow and enrapture people’s attention – and it’s that way by design. Barthes managed to bring up a point that I instantly and wholeheartedly agreed with, that wrestling is a show not a sport. And with such glamorous and ridiculous events such as Wrestlemania, it’s not hard to see how.

Professional wrestling was always something I enjoyed joking about with my friends, after all it is quite ridiculous. The costumes, the venues, the moves, the characters, the commentary, all of it creates this image of ridiculousness that I always enjoyed chuckling at. It’s not just fake, it’s quite obviously staged and overly dramatic. Just looking at the logos and the names of wrestling events it’s very clear that a grand and silly show is about to take place. I find it surreal and humorous, just out of sheer goofiness. Characters like Macho Man Randy Savage and The Ultimate Warrior are so quirky and ridiculous that I think they are really comedic. However as much as I enjoyed laughing at it, I never had a conflict or vendetta against it. Wrestling was not something I laughed at cruelly, it was something I found funny and therefore entertaining. Wrestling has accomplished its goals of capturing my attention, and although I and many other know it to be fake, we don’t care as the spectacle itself is still enjoyable and present.

With football season swiftly approaching, teams are in high operation to perform at competitive excellence every game day. Although winning is the common goal when facing all opponents, the value of winning each game differs. Just think about how the water just boils a little differently when you are squared off against your siblings, the cross-town high school, or in this case in-state rivals. Just view rivalry football games through the lens of politics. All year the two teams boast their program to be seen as the better option for fans and in turn increase the number of top tier recruits that have a desire to commit to the program. This is a direct correlation to the campaign race in which each party works to persuade voters that the proposed ideas will lead to a better, more sufficient country. Once the week of Nov 20th comes, which is known as rivalry week, we will finally see who will achieve power of the state and have control over the fans and recruits. Having control over the region is very important for football programs because the loss of even one recruit can hurt their chances of winning in the future. Once a party has a majority control of the government, winning becomes easier and the party now has powers such as appointing a supreme court justice that will keep the winning going. The world of politics may be seen as more serious than a 60-minute game but the basics of working hard, competing, and “getting what’s yours” can be found both at conventional parties and on the gridiron.

Welcome to WordPress. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start blogging!