Go to the game's main page
Review
I question the description of this game as satire. There's very little irony involved; one gets the sense -- and this is more or less explicitly stated in the game's "about" text -- that the sentiments expressed are accurate representations of the author's beliefs, albeit exaggerated for comic effect. Subtlety, often considered a vital component of effective satire, is entirely absent.
On the occasions when the text does venture into sarcasm, here's a sample of the level of nuance and incisive commentary you can expect: "You are the epitome of evil: a white male. The only way to be lower in the social order would be to be rich or to buy into horrible ideas of equality under the law and other such nonsense created by dead white males." Based on that and other silly descriptions ("Diversity week has taught you that they are Muslims, not some cosplay group."), it may initially be tempting to think that the game is satirizing the immaturity and ignorance of the player character, but this reading doesn't sustain through the end.
The author claims that the game is inspired by "concern for the First Amendment," but it's difficult to see what that has to do with what's presented here. The consequences of burning the Koran consist almost entirely of actions carried out by Islamic individuals; government is involved only to the extent that (Spoiler - click to show)the police respond to violence breaking out. Taking this into consideration, the only real message to take away from the game is "Islam is bad; other religions are neutral to good." Putting aside the question of the validity or insightfulness of that message, there seems to be some disconnect between the point the author claims to be making and what the game's text actually implies.
Normally I wouldn't put so much emphasis on critiquing the themes/politics of a game, but when the game's only purpose is to convey those ideas, there really isn't anything else to talk about. To its credit, the prose is entertainingly written, if unsubtle, and there are tailored responses for quite a few unimportant actions the player might attempt while playing around before undertaking the one action that has any effect. Given the extremely limited scope of the game, that's not a particularly large accomplishment, but the attention to detail is worth noting.
All that said, I do think this game is worth taking the couple of minutes it takes to fully play through, if only for a peek into the author's psyche. If nothing else, it made me think, though probably not about the things the author intended.
Comments on this review
Previous | << 1 >> | Next
You've missed a fundamental point of the game - the concept that Islam does not allow critique - and then wander off into some sort of complaint about xenophobia. You've never heard of sharia law? Strike one.
The first amendment is in more than a little trouble on most public college campuses -- college administrative decisions have the full weight of law, at least until they are sued. You were unaware of "free speech zones"? Strike two.
Does satire have to be nuanced or subtle for it to be satire? No, but when people dislike something, they often attempt to redefine a category in order to disallow styles or perspectives they don't wish to hear. Thus this cannot be satire; music they dislike cannot be music; and so on. This is the perspective of the bigot and the censor, who bears much in common with those who would disallow criticism of Islam itself. Strike three. Batter out!
All you have done is reframe your ignorance as criticism and your preferences as law. I'm not impressed.
"You've missed a fundamental point of the game - the concept that Islam does not allow critique - and then wander off into some sort of complaint about xenophobia. You've never heard of sharia law? Strike one."
The notion that Islam is uniquely intolerant of criticism is characteristic of xenophobia.
Next batter!
The game is described as humor/satire/comedy -- not satire alone -- and there are more than enough elements of each of these to warrant describing the game as such. Strike one.
To address the issue of "Islam bad, all other religions neutral or good", the game depicts, with some sarcastic, satiric exaggeration, what contemporary theologies produce in their adherents. Plenty of examples exist of spontaneous riots justified by the destruction, in part or in total, of the Koran, and there have been more than a few occasions of "sudden jihad syndrome" on American campuses. So the game is satirical, but not by much. Additionally, there was plenty of criticism to go around, from the school administration to the adherents of other religions, Christians especially. Strike two.
Finally, it's interesting that you could not help but personally attack the author and try to impute thoughts/beliefs to him. Insinuation says more about the person attempting it than its target; but those who wish to fight in the gutter should not be surprised that outside observers think that they dwell there. Strike three.
Batter out! Two down.
