As soon as I saw the first mention of JFK Reloaded, I just knew there was going to be an uproar/outcry over it (even from within game-friendly circles). It has inspired a ton of discussion around the web, in places like Slashdot and the IGDA’s own game design forum. Of course, this comes as no surprise to most.

I must say that I was impressed that one of the journalists actually downloaded and played JFK Reloaded before writing about it - adding much needed nuance to his commentary. And, as a game designer and academic involved in the more serious side of games, Gonzalo Frasca had some insightful points regarding its value as a learning tool, its accuracy as a simulation and, most importantly, whether it should be called a game.

To some extent, it is the term game (implying fun, playfulness, toys, etc) in relation to such a sensitive topic that just seems to piss people off. Would the reaction have been so strong if it was called an “interactive documentary” or a “simulated historical reenactment”, or something along those lines? As game-like applications and game-based technology continue to enter into more serious domains, to what extent does the term game hold things back?

Sidestepping the question of tastefulness, I do believe that JFK Reloaded helps to prove the power of the interactive digital medium referred to as “games”. And, I am impressed that someone who really had something to express (whatever the agenda) did so using the medium of “games”.

As some suggest, is this the future of news/reporting? If so, what’s next?

(FWIW, these statements should be taken with the full realization that JFK Reloaded is not a mainstream commercial game that you can find on the store shelf. For reasons that are both good and bad, the actual game industry wouldn’t touch applications like this with a ten foot pole…)