So… those were weird.
I played Lim first and found it really straight forward. Because of the nature of our course, however, I was asking myself “why is this relevant?” It wasn’t until I read the synopsis of the game that I was able to understand it as a form of digital writing. I had that moment of “oh! that’s clever!” but I think it’s significant that it didn’t happen until I’d read the information provided. If I had just been asked to play the game I would never have come up (unless it was an exam and I was whipping out those epic “I can make up significance at any time” English Major skills) with “it’s a representation of being other and isolated as seen in our exclusion of different races in society.” Is it successful, then? Sort of. As I played the game I thought the word “blend” was really interesting as it was my only tool – it’s kind of sad. I understood that I was having to camouflage the succeed, which I can understand. But I feel that this sort of digital writing is really imprecise.
Next I played Tampon Run. It was adorable! And It was created out of the Girls Who Code movement, which is awesome. Go ladies! (I just realized that our class is majority female – is that because it’s an English credit and not a computer science one?) I thought this game was far more effective in working as a form of digital “writing” because of the intro cards – it played out what it was aiming to achieve. Afterwards I didn’t play the game for as long, though, because I felt like I knew what it was trying to achieve, the game was cute but not riveting, so I stopped. In Lim I played for longer trying to figure out what the “message” was. I think it’s a fine line, especially in video games, to explain their purpose and to intertwine that with gameplay.