Raise the Village: how playing this social development game might be representative of "bad" poverty work

Have you ever wished that you could turn all those hours that you've spent playing life simulation games (i.e. Sims, Farmville, etc.) into something more productive, meaningful, purposeful? Well now you can... or can you?

Raise the Village is a game developed by a group called New Charity Era. In Raise the Village, the player can create a highly personalized virtual village while simultaneously transforming an actual village-- the village of Kapir Atiira in Uganda. In the process, the player is given the option to make meaningful decisions about the progression of his/her village, with the ultimate goal of making it "sustainable." For each item bought (i.e. a mosquito net, clothes, etc.), a portion of the money goes toward an actual item for the village, and once the items are purchased, he/she will be able to see pictures of the people benefiting from the game with the items. The game even includes a portal that players can enter to learn about the culture and lifestyle of locals there by reading blog posts, watching videos, and viewing pictures. Now, all this information I take from a post by New Charity Era, the organization behind the game, made up of a team of 6 guys, purportedly with a vision of changing the world, one village at a time.

Watch the trailer for the app here:

Now, I had a difficult time concluding my thoughts on this. Is the concept genius? Or is it just plain wrong? Trying to find more about the game, and about the organization behind it was difficult. The website (www.raisethevillage.com) is no longer functioning, so it was difficult to find recent updates about the game. It seems that the game is no longer available, although I am not sure why, as it used to be available on the app store for ipads, iphones, etc. with over 300,000 downloads. My guess is that the funding was no longer there, so the guys moved on. For now, I'll just present some thoughts about it, and let you guys share what you think.

(A brief note before I begin: It's possible I might be generalizing some of the game details here. I wanted to try and play it but I couldn't find it anywhere! So hopefully I am not misrepresenting the game too much.)

My main concern with the game and the concept behind it is that it runs the risk of over-trivializing actual decisions to be made regarding the community. The player is not exposed to the reality of the circumstances that the decision is placed in, nor the context. For example, if you are given the decision to buy mosquito nets for the community, do you know what the burden from malaria is to the community? What value might the nets be if there is no local knowledge about how malaria is transmitted and how it can be properly prevented? Are there any cultural concerns that might interfere with the use of the nets? These are all questions that are left unaddressed and overlooked in the process of the player "making his/her move." Next, the power of ownership: while the concept of the game might be able to generate resources that the community lacks (money, food, etc.), how can the locals of this village in Uganda take ownership of addressing these issues in their community? How are their thoughts and their input in assessing their own needs valued? These concerns bring me to the notion of the importance of participatory development, which we recently discussed in class. It seems that the power that the player has in such a game is so disproportionate, characterizing this kind of "charity" or poverty work as the "unequal and one-way transaction" that Professor Talwalker brings up in her essay. The player is somehow both the ruler/decision-maker and the benefactor. This, to me, is concerning.

Perhaps I am being over-critical. I mean, it is a virtual game developed with the main incentive of "doing good" for this village in Uganda. Perhaps it is even informative to some people who have a complete blind eye to the existence of poverty in the world. Besides, why would anybody want to play a game that is representative of the true circumstances and contexts of poverty? Maybe I am overanalyzing it, but it seems to me that the rules and concepts of the game represent a lot of what is wrong with development and poverty work, where the player of the game literally represents the well-intentioned but misinformed international development player. Isn't it condescending to the state of countries like Uganda that first world citizens are playing, for the sake of entertainment, a game in which we exercise power to make decisions about community development in a third world country, of which we know nothing of?

I'd be interesting in hearing what others might have to say. What do you guys think- would you play this game?