January 19 was the second anniversary of the murder of the Turkish-Armenian journalist Hrant Dink. Two years ago he was killed by a 17 year old nationalist who believed that Dink was insulting Turkishness by openly rejecting the official Turkish policy on the events of 1915. Dink believed that during the First World War the Armenian population of the Ottoman Empire became victims of a state run massacre, genocide. He was not the only one. Today officially 21 countries and 42 of the 50 U.S. states recognize the events as genocide. On the other hand the official history of The Turkish Republic rejects this allegation. According to many Turkish historians not only Armenians but also thousands of Turkish civilians died during course of war and there was no genocide.
After almost 100 years later, with its many layers, the recognition or denial of the events of 1915 as genocide is one of the controversial issues of the history and politics. In Turkey the issue evokes distrust and anger especially among nationalists. The ethnical nature of the conflict and Turkey's recent terror problems with ethnical routes also solidify these feelings.
After almost 100 years later, with its many layers, the recognition or denial of the events of 1915 as genocide is one of the controversial issues of the history and politics. In Turkey the issue evokes distrust and anger especially among nationalists. The ethnical nature of the conflict and Turkey's recent terror problems with ethnical routes also solidify these feelings.
Mourners marching in Hrant Dink's funeral. Photo by Kerem Ozan.
On
January 23 2007 one hundred thousand people, mostly Turks, gathered for
Dink's funeral. They were carrying placards reading "We are all
Armenian - We are all Hrant Dink". Both the number of people and the
slogan was unexpected and created strong reactions among nationalist
circles. A counter slogan is created: "We are all Turks - We are all
Mehmet". The name "Mehmet", or more common "Mehmetcik" is used here as
a term referring to Turkish soldiers, similar to United States' "G.I
.Joe" and in this context refers to the soldiers who die during the war
against terror. After two years both slogans are still used by both
nationalist and liberal circles and nationalists criticize the first
slogan heavily.
On
January 17 2009, a group of artists and intellectuals gathered in
Istanbul as a part of "Forgetting is losing" campaign to remember Hrant
Dink. Besides the speeches and a documentary film, for the first time
in Turkey an editorial game was introduced to the audience: "Huys",
meaning "Hope" in Armenian.
"Huys" was designed by Kerem Demirbas and, as he declares on his blog, uses the same game mechanics as Gonzalo Frasca's "Madrid". In
both games players have to click on hotspots to "illuminate" the game
screen and to win. The hotspots are objects in people's hands; in
"Madrid" candles, in "Huys" placards reading "We are all Armenian - We
are all Hrant Dink".
"Huys" recreates the image of Hrant Dink's funeral.
Referring
to the "Forgetting is losing" campaign Demirbas explains the aim of the
game as remembering Hrant Dink. The game directly bases on Hrant Dink's
funeral focuses not only on Dink, but also on the significance of the
political momentum of the funeral in recent Turkish history. Dink, his
funeral and the slogan are issues still debated and battled over in
Turkish politics. Especially nationalist blogs and YouTube entries
criticize and try to discredit them. This continuing importance of the
issue places the game on one side of a living debate. In that sense the
game mechanics of "Madrid" fits very well; even more than "Madrid"
itself; to the political agenda of the designer: Be active and remember
or we will lose. But still, one cannot stop recognizing inevitable
similarities with "Madrid" and wonders if a new game couldn't be
designed with similar goals.
Huys uses the same game mechanics as Gonzalo Frasca's Madrid.
From
a game design perspective "Huys" is a copy. But does this trivialize a
game, especially an "editorial game"? The question can be answered both
in positive and negative ways: If the content and the game mechanic fit
together, why not use it? On the other hand using pre-made game
mechanics over and over again can lead to fabrication and dissolution
of the "editorial" from games.
Although
"Huys" uses the "Madrid" game mechanics with different graphics, there
are some differences and also other features added by the designer:
"Madrid"
was a quiet game with no significant background music. "Huys" uses a
well known folk song in the background. The song itself is also
controversial. There are Turkish and Armenian versions and both sides
argue that the original is theirs. "Huys" uses the Armenian version.
A side bar next to the game screen gives information on the murder and the following trial process. While it can be meaningful to give the background of the game, especially for players who are not familiar with; a side bar with no connections to the actual game play is not an efficient way to do that. It is very hard, almost impossible to play the game and read the text at the same time.
A side bar next to the game screen gives information on the murder and the following trial process. While it can be meaningful to give the background of the game, especially for players who are not familiar with; a side bar with no connections to the actual game play is not an efficient way to do that. It is very hard, almost impossible to play the game and read the text at the same time.
The
game can be played in Turkish, in Armenian and in English. Yet the only
thing that changes is the language of the text on the side bar; the
slogans on the game screen or the song remains the same. The three
language option is in fact very meaning full considering Dink's
political ideals. He supported empathy and understanding between Turks
in Turkey, Armenians in Armenia and Turkey and also the Armenian
Diaspora abroad. In that sense the game reaches hands to all these
groups, but again the integration problem between game play and
information given makes it an ill-fated goal.
One more important question is for whom the game is made for. It is for the supporters of Dink for sure; the ones who stand for his ideas; Turkish, Armenian or else as the three language choice suggests. But why then is the side bar used? Don't the supporters know what happened? Is the game also for the ones who want to learn more about Hrant Dink? If yes, the game fails, once again because of the integration problem. A link to a website on Dink could do the job better. The designer uses an existing mechanics for a game with a particular target group, and it works. But at the moment he adds more to the game than it can mediate, it fails.
One more important question is for whom the game is made for. It is for the supporters of Dink for sure; the ones who stand for his ideas; Turkish, Armenian or else as the three language choice suggests. But why then is the side bar used? Don't the supporters know what happened? Is the game also for the ones who want to learn more about Hrant Dink? If yes, the game fails, once again because of the integration problem. A link to a website on Dink could do the job better. The designer uses an existing mechanics for a game with a particular target group, and it works. But at the moment he adds more to the game than it can mediate, it fails.
"Huys"
is Turkey's first important political game and it is a part of a
continuing debate. It adds the medium of electronic games to the
Turkish political arena. YouTube had a similar position while it was
used by political groups, yet radical and illegal content let to its ban by the Turkish courts
for almost one year. One cannot stop wondering how opposing groups will
use games like "Huys" the future and how the reactions will be.
Leave a comment