I was rather amused to get have Oxfam send me a mailer about their new Virtual Village this morning. since the notion of a virtual village had come up in a brainstorm a couple of weeks ago in suggestions for a new mechanic for a charity. And the reference point we used for the idea was the Farmville widget in Facebook. Where you have little characters wandering around fields. Its playful. Which Oxfam is trying to do - they call it a brand new game. But it isn't a game. Its an educational tableau of buttons which open up information popups. Yes that's a quiz but that doesn't make it a game. It is the interpolation of a bunch of noticeboard standard visuals with the clear message - cut the crap and buy a well/maize planting and so on.
I'm trying to figure out if this is a deliberate strategy because they want money rather than engagement. Or if it is becuase a po faced charity can't cope with the idea of fund and playfulness. It oughtn't to be for lack of resources. It simply won't do to say that it would look extravagant spending money on 3D animation when there is so much poverty. There's a reason why the gaming market is as big as the cinema market and several orders of magnitude more profitable. Games involve people and involvement draws money out of peoples' pockets.
It shouldn't be difficult to whitelabel a Farmville type software platform and to do something with that. This could be involving enough to get 20-30 minutes gameplay out of me. Instead of which I have leafed my way through a slightly different kind of catalog and am wondering if I should go back and donate a goat. Or something else instead this year. I think Oxfam or their agency need to raise their game. Because this isn't one. And its a missed opportunity.
