Politics today is a very sensitive/hot/debated topic in today’s society. Everyone has an opinion about how people should lead, what they shouldn’t do, what they should do to improve, why they should never have been given the title in the first place, etc. etc. The way that Ian Bogost opened up this chapter on political processes brings everyone in the United States into a mind-frame of remembrance, sadness, and criticism of the government. While I do think it is important to highlight and recall those instances, I feel that Bogost used them in a disrespectful way and to his advantage, to get readers angry with the government as they started to read his ideas of politics in games and entertainment. While I do think that Bogost makes a vital point, and I do agree that a majority of these political entertainment dull down the complexities of the structure, I don’t know that I love how he went about arguing it. But aside from that, in support of his idea I do agree it is bad to simplify them because they are complex issues and should be recognized as such. Dulling them down or making them purely entertainment will make them seem less important and could effect the perception that an individual playing that games has on the issues. This is extremely important to notice esp. for the upcoming generations who are surrounded by video games and other various forms of entertainment that depict political figures and ideas in cartoon-ic ways. We want to keep generations after us interested and concerned in the workings of their government and their world, not laughing at them and brushing them aside.