PeaceMaker is a 2006 video game designed and published by Impact Games about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. You play as the leader of one of the sides and win the game by establishing lasting peace. Part of what drew me towards analyzing this game is the current state of the conflict, however I will focus on my opinions towards the game more than the real-world conflict (though be rest assured I do have opinions).
Of the eight forms of aesthetics (i.e., “fun”) identified in the MDAO framework, three are of the most important for this game: Challenge, Narrative, and Fantasy.
Inherently, the object of reaching a peace agreement between two very complex sides means overcoming challenges and obstacles if the fun. The events that this produces along the way, plus the real-world setting, constructs the narrative story of actions and progress described by text which players intently read. However, despite its supposed grounding in reality, a portion of the fun comes from a form of make-believe. Peace between Israel and Palestine seems even more preposterous now than twenty years ago, and the notion that as the leader of one of the two countries I as the player could establish lasting peace in less than a year (as I did in both of my games even on maximum difficulty) felt far more like wish fulfillment than reality.
The primary mechanic and only action in the game was choosing from a long list of actions each turn. The most important dynamic that resulted from these actions were the level of support your administration has with different groups. As each action increased or decreased these group’s support, the result of your actions would change. For example, it will be easier to get aid from a country the more support you have from them. This gave the aesthetics its needed complexity and personality of each group added to the narrative.
I have saved outcomes for last because, in my view, this is where the game falls flat. Of course, the game does not have the additional twenty years of information that would probably have changed its model. Nonetheless, I find it near impossible to believe that if suddenly the entire leadership of Israel or Palestine committed themselves fully to peace that peace would be as easy as presented here. Instead, I remember that Israeli Prime Minister Yizhak Rabin signed the Oslo Accords with Palestine in 1994 and that resulted in him being shot to death by one of his own citizens.
In both of my games, I managed to achieve peace. However, both times, the game’s end screen criticized me for the amount of violence I used to obtain peace. As the leader of Palestine, I built up my police force and issued a heavy crackdown on Hamas and other militant groups, seizing weapons and arresting their leaders. As the leader of Israel, I pulled back all of my support of settlers outside my country, dismantled settlements when possible, and removed my army. Despite the game’s statement that my actions were not the ‘best’ way towards peace, I did achieve peace, and far faster than I would have otherwise. Personally, I view the other ‘pathway’ as instead the false road to appeasement (you’re telling me I should have kept my army there indefinitely?).
That does not mean the game itself is wrong. Instead, it might even mean the opposite. There is no reason why the designer’s intent should be the game’s only allowed intent. The game clearly makes a serious attempt to model the dynamics of the conflict, and I can see the message. The fact it does not land with me despite that forces me to think critically about what the real path to peace might actually look like, and in a roundabout way that is what this game is about.
