Escape from Woomera is a first-person video strategy game (based on Half-Life) in which you play a refugee in the notorious Australian detention center. The idea is to call attention to the deplorable state of Woomera and the inherent cruelty of the detention process.
Q: By basing the game on the perpetration of illegal activities such as breaking out of detention aren't you inciting people to break the law?
A: This raises a further question:
"By basing the game on the perpetration of illegal activities, such as locking up people without trial, aren't you inciting governments to break the law?" Fortunately for those worried that the game would encourage refugees to break out of detention, or would incite governments around the world to break international law and defy UN conventions, these ideas show a real ignorance about the nature of videogames. Giving a player agency within a fictional game world – allowing them to make decisions and act out roles – is not at all the same as incitement or advocacy. Though there have been many studies done to try to prove a causal link between virtual actions in game and the real-life actions of the game player (for example "do violent videogames make kids violent"), no link whatsoever has ever been found. If we apply Ruddock's logic to the world's top-selling game for over a year (how many gamers do you know that haven't played GTA3?)- Grand Theft Auto III- a game in which the central premise is breaking the law, we'd presumably be seeing a massive increase in car thefts, prostitution and murder, and we'd have to believe that Rockstar games (the developers) condone such activities in real life. And finally, let's stop to consider exactly which law would be broken in an escape from detention. Yes, believe it or not – it's actually legally a crime punishable by imprisonment (oh irony of ironies!) to step outside a detention centre to 'tresspass' on Australian soil.
(Thanks, Jean!)
