I played Spent, a game about the harsh realities of poverty and homelessness in the United States. The game was developed by McKinney, an advertising agency, as a pro bono project for the Urban Ministries of Durham. At its core, Spent is a narrative game focused on making hard life decisions throughout the span of a month. Having the player’s own decisions dictate the outcome of the game, and constantly situating the player as the main character within the story, Spent is able to tell its story through an uncommon and deeply empathetic form.
From the start, you are put into a scenario where you have no house, no job, and only a thousand dollars to your name. It is very clear that the creators of the game had the Outcomes and Aesthetics they wanted to convey as the first, and most important, objective when creating the project. Throughout this analysis, we will see how the game designers attempt to convey critical information about their cause, change the player’s attitude, and even potentially provoke a change in behavior regarding peoples’ relationship with poverty in America.
One of the main ways in which the game provides information arises after the player has made their decisions. For example, once they choose to rent a house that is closer to their job, the game makes it salient that over “38 million other American households” spend significantly more than they should on housing. Suddenly, your decision has gained a deeper significance. This mechanic of presenting information connects your in game decisions into a broader context of the real world. It raises the stakes of your next decisions as they gain a level of realness that goes beyond the computer screen. In some ways, I find that the black background and simple text also allows for the facts presented and the decisions you must make shine even more. In this simulated environment, your choices don’t have actual consequences, but you are quickly reminded that they impact millions of Americans every day.
The situations you keep getting presented with just become harder and harder. By knowing the amount of money you have and the amount of money you are making, you quickly realize that you are given Impossible Choices. I mean this in the sense that there really isn’t a way to win. For example, every health insurance plan is too expensive, but you can’t choose to not have one. Another example of this is when you decide to contest a 200$ charge, but you can’t find a lawyer so the game makes you pay for it regardless of your previous choices. The purposefully unfair scenario presented even with outcomes that you have no say in, bends the notion that your decisions could actually help you. Once again, it reminds you of the unjust reality it is trying to portray.
In the end, the game congratulates you for making it through (even though rent on the next day would leave you in debt). It then breaks the molds of its playspace by giving you a final choice: donating actual money to their cause. Honestly, the game does such a good job at fostering empathy throughout the experience that it is quite compelling to promote a change in behavior and donate. The designers wanted to raise awareness (and also even money towards this cause) from the very get go. Having established their intentions allowed them to construct simple mechanics, such as having three strikes before losing your job, that increase the weight behind every decision. At the same time, it also allowed them to show that some decisions don’t matter: unpredictable events such as the death of a relative might come at any point and change pre-made plans. Spent purposefully creates and dismantles the sense of choice. However, after the experience ends, it gives a final decision back to you relating to its initial, serious, cause.
