1) this article investigates the validity of games as a documentary which are meant to simulate real life events. These games are seen as falling somewhat short simply because as a game they fail to fully grab the player and transport them into the situation. However these games have the ability to address more than just one side of the event and that posses a distinct advantage, a condition that the article refers to as the ability to “run-code”.
2) Games that have a certain point of view within them have a very fine line to walk. These games can be truly excellent mediums for which to convey a message of social or political weight, these games can be engaging and educational. However more often than not games with a point of view can tend to be sluggish and poorly developed, then tend to not be very well rounded and therefore not overly engaging.
3) A game with an obvious point of view that actually succeeds is the “Call of Duty” franchise. The series which started as a World War II game has always carried an intensely nationalistic pro-American point of view has moved into futuristic warfare but still maintained the pro American point of view. This game is so successful because it does offer players the option playing other sides without them suffering any penalties so it is a well rounded game that still carries a strong point of view.
4) As they mention in the article the term documentary is used very loosely and has different applications for films and games. For films there is very set structure of what a documentary but in games the entertainment factor can pose a problem with the documentary aspect. There is still a definite link between the two however the documentary style is much stronger in film than in games and I feel that that will be reflected in future gaming trends.