I was interviewed for First Person Scholar last month and it went up today. A taste:

FPS: So we’ve actually had this conversation quite a bit lately among the FPS editorial staff about what makes good satire in a game. But I’m guessing you don’t think GTAV is very effective satire and I’m wondering if you could elaborate on that, on why it doesn’t work as a satire, or maybe why it does.

CK: Look, I don’t think that anyone in videogames knows what the word “satire” means. I think that’s just it. I think that people who read Wikipedia pages [on satire] and never actually read satire think that the moniker “satire” gives you free range to do and say whatever you want. The whole point of satire is that there’s going to be a turn in the satire that makes you realize that it’s not true. There’s a moment, maybe not a wink, but you see a set piece wall fall down or something and you’re like, “Oh, yes this is not being told straight-faced; it’s being comedic in some way or making light of the situation.” But when you have things like GTA that don’t play that, there’s no wink ever in GTA. Sometimes there’s a meta-move, to say, “Of course we know we’re a videogame,” but that’s not satirical. So there’s a sort of straight-faced reproduction of awful things and then you say, “Oh well it’s definitely satirical.”

The whole thing is here.