Slashdot Mirror
Why We Fight
AsiNisiMasa writes "The Contrarian in this week's The Escapist is a brutally honest and exceptionally disturbing piece entitled 'Why We Fight.' It examines the underlying mentality behind our affinity for violent behavior in games, citing the desire for efficiency at all costs. From the article: 'Your people face famine, plague, poverty and unrest. What policies would you enact to solve these problems? (Fans of Tropico, you know how this works.) My friend's solution? Death camps. Round up the sick, the lame, the infertile, the ignorant, the useless, the unproductive and execute them.'"
There is an appealing simplicity in it all. In Age of Empires II, I usually just park my trebuchets outside the city and clear out their entire range before moving on, even if the mission doesn't require it.
I have come up with an idea years ago that I think would solve many of these issues. A free punch card.
Here's how it works:
Each citizen gets a "free punch" once a year. You can punch someone and as long as you have your free punch still there can be no lawsuits or jailtime.
See right now there is no accountability in America. People can act like assholes and hide behind suing you if you hit them, and they know it. but, if you had to wonder if the person still had their free punch card, you might not be so quick to be an asshole.
While it is not really feasable to implement in any way, I am dead serious, and it would end a lot of stupid shit that goes unpunished these days. What it boils down to is accountability and punishment, there is none anymore, and this needs to be dealt with.
http://teasphere.wordpress.com - A little spot of tea
The story in the summary reminds me of "Conscience of the King" -- a ruthless dictator killed half a colony's population during a famine so there would be enough food for the other half. (The story took place years later, after the ex-dictator had gone into hiding. Kirk and another Enterprise crewman had grown up on that colony, and recognized him in -- of all places -- an acting troupe.)
Where I live, whiskey is usually the cause.
Religion for nerds. Stuff that really matters
"My friend's solution? Death camps. Round up the sick, the lame, the infertile, the ignorant, the useless, the unproductive and execute them." Hmm?
http://teasphere.wordpress.com - A little spot of tea
When I was playing Caesar II for the PC, I had one mission to develop and then defend a city in the desert from an attacking army. I totally messed up the mission by letting the city sprawl out of control when the enemy showed up. So I loaded up the earliest saved file that I had and proceeded to systematically destroy the city. By the time the enemy showed up, I was wildly popular with the people and successfully defended the city. Go figure.
When resources are scarce, we usually don't attack our own societies, we attack those next to us. Don't look for cover for your fascist ideals in "human" nature. It's just your nature. The rest of us *do* weed people out who assert it, whether it takes a censure or a war.
It's logical, as he saw it! Not a single game *I've* ever seen has declared its sim-king to be morally skilled by a moral maze of moral obstacles... maximizing the goodness of all at the sacrifice of the fewest violations of principles. Such a game would even notice that those principles are later enacted by every single sim-citizen left alive as they learn of what is done in seats of power. [Hint: Death camps hardly qualify as good morality.]
All I'm saying is that every society suffers from shallow, mindless, compassionless culture that is often defended (here) as harmless. Now the fruits are falling off the tree in larger numbers (Columbine). The game industry needs to find a book somewhere (SOMEWHERE) and realize what exists outside a gun's barrel... what the consequences are for asking everyone to enjoy being a Barbarian for an hour. Rome falls.
Don't give me the bullshit that "Everyone Knows Its A Game". The evidence is mounting high right in that article that more than a few take the metaphor very seriously... and our current political shift... blowing off debt and lives without care... show it is growing indeed. Shallow, mindless politics from shallow mindless ethics.
The game industry (oh how direly important compared to, say, vaccines)... has apparently added to the numbness flowing from Hollywood and yet it doesn't even have depth in its plots! All the games referred to are huge, complex body count simulation systems to tell a story. Even wasting your life watching live sports has some credit toward seeing someone obey the rules properly or not.
So we are now back to a society with mutated glory-stories around a camp fire. Stories have always been told with many many many bodies forgotten because of one half-accurate hero who almost did something amazing (by luck). In old times, though, that lead to dreaming of thousands of Tutsis dead, thousands of Jews dead, thousands of Arabs. Legends built-to-order are dangerous things to rely on.... because they are too fun to listen to.
Everyone calls the stuff "crack", and walks away from the joystick without a real chemical addiction, but the question is what foundation of education is cracking? Aren't we experimenting with very old and very addictive illusions and lies that every history book admits (even after rewriting) always fails? Every society that experimented with fascism explodes into blazing ego and suffering that is retold for generations and generations of people.
Oh.. I forgot.. 10 years is a generation in computer years. I guess we need a fascist dictator every 30 years now to keep remembering?
Nietzsche is dead - God
I think this is a work of satire. Especially if you read through the entire article to the closing statements. As I read through I couldn't believe he could think so highly of such a single-minded enterprise, and I heavily disagreed with his statement that hardcore gamers only wanted to games that allowed them to kill. Maybe the definition of hardcore has shifted in the years, but my pile of strategy titles would argue with that initial claim.
Whether it's intentional or not, this article is pointing out how shallow and narrow our options for interactivity are. Technically we have a wider spectrum of options available to us in our games today, but it's really just a wider spectrum of violence. Solutions to problems that don't involve gunning down waves of enemies seem novel in action titles now-a-days. Half-Life was a memorable action title because you could actually *talk* to characters, the first 30 minutes of the game didn't even present you with a weapon.
I hope what the author is trying to say, is that we really need to look at other ways to interact in these worlds. I like the occasional action title as much as the next guy, but by *nothing but* killing waves of mindless enemies we're not only dumbing ourselves, but making the gamer demographic look more unappealing and less intelligent from the outside as well.
This is supposed to be a new artform. Play some Katamari, people!
The article is mainly a gamer's justification of how he reacts to games that appeal to animal instincts instead of human compassion. Well, DUH.
Being a wanna-be buddhist, I shake my head at the people who think this kind of tripe is insightful. Sure, in the short term, violence always seems like the best solution. But that's only if you're not thinking with your human mind, but rather solely with your animal instincts.
Civilization has a connotation of non-violence (among many other connotations, obviously)... the human mind can be civilized, but only at the expense of surpressing animal instinct.
It's all in the way you choose to live. "Nasty, brutish, and short" is a choice. "Live and let live" is a different choice.
All I'm saying is that every society suffers from shallow, mindless, compassionless culture that is often defended (here) as harmless. Now the fruits are falling off the tree in larger numbers (Columbine). The game industry needs to find a book somewhere (SOMEWHERE) and realize what exists outside a gun's barrel... what the consequences are for asking everyone to enjoy being a Barbarian for an hour. Rome falls
In truth or rather reality (because truth is a big gray area), given the choice of dictator or emperor or feuer or supreme chancellor or what have you is that you will decide your own morality rather than what other people believe in.
The more powerful you become the less morality comes into play. You could simply kill a hundred thousand persons with your signature as simply as you could squash a bug.
God won't come down and tell you that you are wrong, so the only persons that can tell an all powerful person he is wrong is himself or someone else at the barrel of a gun.
Chances are he won't up and change his mind about his wrong doings. Either an assassin or a nation with an opposing army will have to wrest that away from him.
I don't care who you are and what your moral upbringing has molded you into. If you pick a person off the street and hand him absolute power, he will be corrupted absolutely because it the easier route than trying to hold on to morals.
People don't want restrictions because if you restrict someone with morals then in affect you limit their free will. What is life without free will? Inability to choose from right or wrong. Unfortunately, as I mentioned above, it is easier to choose the wrong choice because it is easier to deal with. On the bright side, if you are all powerful then you get to dictate history and you get to decide what is right and wrong.
Moral relativity and cultural relativism is alive and well in the 21st century where the winners decide what history is and who is evil and who is saintly. If you deny it, then you might as well gouge your own eyes out and be blind for the rest of your life.
Don't discount Nietzsche, he was right about a lot of things that people are afraid of to know as the truth. And god agrees with him...
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
Don't you give the citizens enough prostitutes and they get happy again?
"Frag the weak, hurdle the dead, and assassinate those cursed snipers."
Uh, what? Short lunch break so I'll pick the one that stuck out the most to me:
The evidence is mounting high right in that article that more than a few take the metaphor very seriously
If you would, please give me a count of every person tried for murder, and attempted murder, that has been directly attributed to a video game. Feel free to narrow it down to your country (or state / province even) Now please compare that to the number of SOLD copies of every game with violence in it during the same period, same location. IANAS (I Am Not A Statician) but to me this clearly shows that it can't be video games causing violence, as there should be hundreds of thousands of additional murders every year caused by video games. Have you ever considered the fact that maybe those of us that played GTA, that haven't even had a speeding ticket in 5 years, are annoyed at being labelled dangerous citizens?
And something that has nothing to do with arguing for or against, just a line I think is a keeper:
morally skilled by a moral maze of moral obstacles...
Wow, that was the stupidest political rant I've read recently, which is pretty bad considering how many we see on Slashdot.
I especially love this part: "A friend of mine studied political science at Yale. In one class, the professor posted a game scenario: You are the newly empowered dictator of a third-world country. Your people face famine, plague, poverty and unrest. What policies would you enact to solve these problems? (Fans of Tropico, you know how this works.) My friend's solution? Death camps. Round up the sick, the lame, the infertile, the ignorant, the useless, the unproductive and execute them.
---
The professor was overjoyed. Finally, a student saw the point of the exercise: making comprehensible what looks incomprehensible when viewed through the media, understanding how Papa Doc and Pol Pot and all their ilk come to power and why they make the decisions they do.
---
My friend figured it out. He played the scenario and won. He saved the Kobayashi Maru. It should come as no surprise that he was a hardcore gamer."
That's the most retarded economic/political idea I've read in a long, long, time. It would devastate that country and put it *back* several decades, as your state destroys the people who create your nation's wealth. One of the few things that Adam Smith and Marx would agree on is that a nation's wealth comes from the productivity of its workers - and no, having the government kill off the 'unproductive' would not help at all. High unemployment is a sign of poor utilization of labor, not of defects in the population.
How well off would the U.S. have been in WWII if they had 'liquidated' all the unemployed during the depression? And did you notice how many great scientists came to the U.S. fleeing death camps like his friend proposed, to avoid being labeled as 'unproductive to society'? Some of them helped build the A-bomb, I'm sure you've heard of that? Point is, governments who make judgements about who is 'useful' to society and tries to destory those who aren't usually harm their society itself.
Notice the examples he cites - Papa Doc and Pol Pot - are not known to have improved their countries at all. Even cursory knowledge of history would clue you in to that. This is why Poli Sci people should never be trusted with anything more important than a Sim city or civilization.
Congratulations, John "Dumbass" Tynes, you've managed to give gamers an even worse reputation than before - now we're not just mindless killers, we're closet fascists waiting to have our putsch, too.
Suddenly, a new market for Punch Cards opens up. Sellers and buyers haggle over price and everyone who owns one can sell it!
;)
Rich people could own dozens of punch cards and personally punch the living daylights out of anyone they choose.
Or, better yet, they could hire professional boxers and lend them their punch cards with a contractually signed designated target. Think Mike Tyson as Hit (er Punch) Man. Talk about getting your money's worth.
Also, punch cards could be considered sexism since (on average!) women can not punch as hard as men.
Favorite
We need the ignorant, the useless, AND the unproductive people for our economy to work properly.
If we had intelligent, productive people, they wouldn't buy things they didn't need. They wouldn't tolerate useless sinecures, bureaucracies, or government jobs. They wouldn't be satisfied working for somebody else, or taking charity from the State. Useful, productive people don't need mass-produced goods made identically by machines, because smart useful people won't work in mindless jobs operating and managing the machines of mass production (whether they be hardware machines or social machines which are comprised of humans, yet lack humanity).
Intelligent, productive people have art and culture in their blood, and they release it by creating things with their own hands by the virtue of their particular genius. Intelligent, productive people are energized by other intelligent productive people, and as individuals and communities, they can take care of themselves.
Intelligent, productive people aren't born, but are made. America was once a land of such people, but now you look at yourselves and see what you have become, and you hate it. That is why you fight.
And you know what? Your manner of fighting is completely useless. It's only a way of hiding from the problem. We treat our symptoms and ignore our problems. But that's what the Managed Utopia is all about: leveling the masses and robbing them of real courage to stand up and make changes.
Do you think if America had stayed faithful to her original Dream that her armies would now span the globe? That her Senate would echo the politics of George III's parliament? That places like Wal-Mart would even be possible? I walk the isles of Wal-Mart and see full-grown men playing games on the demo XBox console. This is what America has become.
Intelligent, useful, productive people don't have time for video games.
Heck, I have BOXES of punch cards somewhere. :-) :-)
Mainframe/UNIX Bit Twiddler and long time Windows/Linux Hobbyist.
The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.
Actually, pick pretty much any nation-state through human history and something of the sort inevitably pops up. In the end, nothing is gained from it except a ton of hurt and pain.
There's an easily implementable solution, repeal the murder laws.
AJLOJYQY (or BGLUAWML).
Murder is no longer a crime.
AEZAKMI
If you really want to have some fun mandate that everybody must carry a serviceable firearm at all times.
FOOOXFT
Have fun playing out your scenario.
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
thats a pretty sexist remark, to be sure, but for sake of women getting a "kick to the nads" card, I'll agree with you. but when I actually get my card, you may want to be a bit more careful about dismissing the abilities of women. :-p
I may have the wrong author. Might be james p hogan too. Basicly, everyone in the world had a chip implanted in their head that would kill them if too many people reported them as being an asshole, no one knew the exact number it took. So as a consequence, poeple were extrodinary polite for the most part, and there were very few assholes left. However, in the story, one of the characters discovers the world has been lied to, its actually the reporter, not the reportee who can be killed. That inssuferable grumpy neighbor who calls up to report his whole neighborhood eventualy trips over the magic number and dies, televenagelst and other insufferable bastards who just cant leave other people alone are actually the ones killing themselves off. I kinda like the idea.
All Troll + "offtopic" mods are meta moderated as "Unfair", because you abused the system.
This is why fascism is inextricably linked with violence: When the individual and the fascist state come in conflict, violence is how the state achieves its aims.
When I played the original Castle Wolfenstein, or for that matter any of the games in his list, I wasn't enjoying it because I thought my political ideals were more righteous than the ideals of the pixel-people I was shooting.
I'll admit I've only played about half the games he lists in his (very cheesy) bit at the beginning, but to be honest my political standpoint comes into a game of Day of Defeat just as much as it does into a game of Counterstrike or Unreal Tournament; not very much at all. I do not play these games to silence my compentition, or win political arguments.
I play these games for the same reason I play Nanaca Crash for hours until I get a 10,000 meter score, and then email the link around to all my friends with a "Beat my 10,000 meter score!". It's fun to compete, either against humans or a computer opponent. It's the same reason I enjoy a good round of ultimate frisbee.
There are certainly games with political themes, such as Half-Life 2 where you're fighting an oppresive government, trying to "save the world - by force", as the author puts it, but this is really just window dressing. The story is interesting, but it isn't what makes the game fun.
Not a single game *I've* ever seen has declared its sim-king to be morally skilled by a moral maze of moral obstacles... maximizing the goodness of all at the sacrifice of the fewest violations of principles
You have no clue what your talking about do you? The reason games don't attempt to score things on a moral basis is because the media would have a shit fit if games took that trend. What moral set are you using? Who decides the weight of those moral choices? What's immoral? These are matters that to this day have not been agreed upon, and you want a scoring system based on it? Ridiculous. The media will latch onto any angle they can get to sell advertising. If that means they will crucify video games one minute for being to violent and teaching our children to kill, and they will crucify them the next for attempting to force a moral ruleset on them. You cannot win that fight. And companies looking for a profit don't want to pick it.
Now the fruits are falling off the tree in larger numbers (Columbine). The game industry needs to find a book somewhere (SOMEWHERE) and realize what exists outside a gun's barrel... what the consequences are for asking everyone to enjoy being a Barbarian for an hour. Rome falls.
Quit getting your numbers from the media, they are over sensationalizing things to sell advertising - that's it. Check out the numbers , especially chart 1.1 where you can clearly see the amount of fatal violence going down. The real problem lie in those children, and their parents. If you are susceptable to being turned into a killing machine from a video game, you are one weak willed fool. If your parents didn't teach you the difference between pretend and reality, then they suck as a whole.
Don't give me the bullshit that "Everyone Knows Its A Game". The evidence is mounting high right in that article that more than a few take the metaphor very seriously... and our current political shift... blowing off debt and lives without care... show it is growing indeed. Shallow, mindless politics from shallow mindless ethics.
Everyone does know it's a game. Just becuase someone takes the metaphor seriously doesn't mean that they will actually go out and kill everyone who disagrees with them. Rational people don't do that. They realize that in order to make the world as they see fit, that would probably be the most efficient and quickest way, but probably not the BEST way. Even you are exhibiting behavior, unilaterally deciding what politics are shallow and what ethics are mindless. In a free society if somebody wants to watch football all day, ruin their credit, and vote the way they want - they can. You seem to abhor that behavior, and allude to anyone who behaves in this manner as inferior. Am I to assume that if given the chance to change things you wouldn't? And how would you realistically do that without becoming a facist?
All the games referred to are huge, complex body count simulation systems to tell a story.
That's the point, they are cathartic. I love my tactical stealth games and squad shooters because I NEVER WANT TO ACTUALLY DO THAT SHIT! I would like a decent simulation though where the only person who gets hurt is a non-existent internet man. A bunch of ones and zeros fabricated from someones mimagination and brought to life through a console conduit. To say that this type of material in the hands of an adult is going to be the downfall of our rome is assanine. Rome didn't fall because the actors were putting on violent or Facist plays. It fell because a small handful of power weilders tried to manipulate the whole for thier own gain - and that mentality did not come from any media they ingested.
Hardcore gamers don't buy games where the goal is to compromise. They buy games where the goal is to save the world - by force.
I'm reading this article more as satirical commentary, rather than as a serious analysis of gamer problem solving skills. Are FPSs more popular in comparison to RPGs and MMOs, I wonder? I sort of doubt whether fascist approaches to problem solving would appeal to people who play these types of games. Did he even consider the possiblity that people who like and play FPSs are doing so for the escapism the games provide, rather than because they're trying to express their internal Hitlers? The reason I like to play Half-Life is because of the story and the physics. And blowing stuff up is fun. People (even if they're Combine) - not so much.
Aha, again the beauty of my system at work. See, if I ruled the world I'd enact systems like these that balance themselves out without any beuracracy involved.
I'm sure many women could put quite a hurting on a number of slimeballs. Oh, and nothing said you had to notify the person you were about to cash in your card... so women could always use surprise and the good ole sucker punch FTW!
http://teasphere.wordpress.com - A little spot of tea
Oh, I know there's plenty of women who could beat me up with or without a Punch Card. ;) But they've seriously trained for it, whether in martial arts or extensive weight training. Otherwise, men do have an inherent advantage in strength. As long as they're generally fit.
;)
And, honestly, if people get into serious fights they usually don't just punch and kick. A crowbar is a great equalizer.
Favorite
I'll have to look into this book... as with all my great ideas, someone always beats me to it. I like this idea based on the same principle, just in reverse.
If my system did come to fruition, I would love to see the assholes that are just a constant bruise day in and day out. It would be sweet justice just to see that dick from your office that you've always wanted to smash walk in every day with a new welt or bruise.
http://teasphere.wordpress.com - A little spot of tea
And, honestly, if people get into serious fights they usually don't just punch and kick. A crowbar is a great equalizer. ;)
As is my patented "bite a chunk out of your face" move.
I was making fun of the article submitter's friend you stupid fucktards.
Occam's razor is the blind faith in the natural selection of least resistance and in universal oversimplification. -- EF
A funny aside on this topic... one time in a fight I clocked a guy so hard he went unconsious from the first hit. I had so much built up hatred and anger that I didn't want the fight to be over yet, I hadn't gotten my fill of ass kicking... so I bent over and grabbed ahold of his hand and snapped his index finger, just for good measure.
It was the single sickest thing I ever freakin felt. It was like breaking apart a buffalo wing at the joint. Instead of the satisfying "snap" I had hoped for it was a grissely wierd "pop" that felt disgusting. That feeling stuck with me to this day and still makes me shiver.
I can imagine biting a chunk of face would have the same outcome... great idea in theory, but disgusting to actually do.
http://teasphere.wordpress.com - A little spot of tea
"MIT betrayed all of its basic principles."
Sorry about that, I know it has little to do with the grandparent post, replied to the wrong thread somehow
Only to be used when outsized and out classed.
The reality of the matter is that most "fights" aren't really fights at all. Thy consist of one person sucker punching another and then pounding on them while they're down.
A "real" fight is rare and dangerous. Two combatants squared up with no rules is not pretty. It goes VERY fast and tactics tend to be gruesome.
Well as someone who has "starred" in more "real" fights than I care to say... I can say you are completely correct. I have gouged eyes almost to the point of out, I have broken arms, and partially ripped off an ear... real fights are not pretty and generally last about 30-45 seconds. They are primal affairs.
http://teasphere.wordpress.com - A little spot of tea
Wasnt a book, was just a short story. Sorry i cant remeber the name or the author for you.
All Troll + "offtopic" mods are meta moderated as "Unfair", because you abused the system.
You're missing the exact point the professor was trying to make. The goal was to understand Pol Pot's position, not to endorse it. It's much easier to fight ones enemies if you understand them. It's easier to notice that a country is heading down a road to death camps if you understand the (faulty) logic that led there. The next real world facism probably won't look like WWII Germany or Italy. But the reasoning that leads there will likely be the same.
Tynes's bigger point isn't that deep down all gamers want to run death camps. His point is that in games we tend to be as efficient and ruthless as possible. Games don't reward doing things for the right reasons. Games encourage gaming the system. We change our game play to optimize for what the game rewards. That sort of thinking, combined with some faulty input data or logic can lead to facism.
Search 2010 Gen Con events
What a load of BS. Only a few negligent whiners don't realise it's a game.
You are totaly blowing these things out of proportion. The sky is not falling, and the deterioration of family values isn't the medias fault, it's the families.
I watched He-Man, Superman, GI-Joe. All these shows had one thing in common all problembs were resolved through violence. Something bad is happening quick get my gun/sword/kneck-punch-fist, that's what I learned by watching these shows. Hey you know what my mom did when I broke my brother's arm playing "WWF" steal cage match in our backyard? She grounded me. Funny I got the blame, I had to take responsibility for my actions. I wonder what would of happened if she sewed the "WWF" instead?
Raise your kids teach them to take responsibility fo their actions. The truth is most parrents do a great/good job of this. Unfortunatly only the ones that are bad at it make the news.
-matt
"The reason games don't attempt to score things on a moral basis is because the media would have a shit fit if games took that trend. What moral set are you using? Who decides the weight of those moral choices? What's immoral?"
Ultima IV: Quest of the Avatar, was a game that revolved around you becoming the paragon of morality in the land. There was no evil magician at the end. There was just the Codex of Ultimate Wisdom. Only accessible by one who was pure in all the eight virtues of the land. Who's morality? Why Lord British (Richard Garriott) the creator of the game of course.
In more modern games the common moral element is one of given a choice (although usually a black and white, either or choice) to the player - such as in Knights of the Old Republic. Be bad, be good either way you can win. Perhaps the odd thing is that often times in games being "bad" is easier or more straightforward than being "good". Someone comes up and pleads to you for help with some annoying problem, do you help him hoping for a reward? Do you butcher him, rob his corpse, go butcher those he spoke to you about and rob them too? Do you build a benevolent nation in Civilization aiming to win through piece and diplomacy? Or do you systematically exterminate every other nation in the game?
Hell, I wouldn't mind something like Ultima 4 again. Just because it was different and interesting.
Sometimes my arms bend back.
You just made me laugh so hard, I snorted milk out my nose.
How much is your data worth? Back it up now.
LOL thanks thats twice I have snorted milk out of my nose!
Do you have any idea how big a machine has to be to make x-rays intense enough, and focused enough to cause reproductive harm?
Obviously your not educated or cynical....
If you think about how much legal violence can be put on you, you would realize the whole system isnt working.
First you remove rights from the people by the way of "Felony", then you increase the "Felony"'s to non-violent crimes, and soon you have over 1/2 of your population that cant vote or have standard rights.
A 2nd class citizen.
Then you put these people into prison, make them work for 20 cents an hour, while the prison owners make 2-3 dollars an hour. The prison system makes money, its now important to have more criminals.
Now that you will make criminals, you should make money off them by taking their cars, houses, and everything they own without due process. If they where not criminals, they wouldnt loose anything, see perfect circle logic.
Now that you have so many "Criminals", maybe they start to think about how injust they are in the courts, and in daily lives they might even "Riot" or start a revolution.
Lets take a man, pays his taxes, raises his family, loves his wife. The wife can now fall in love with another man, take 1/2 his pay, his house, and put the man on the street. The man is not a criminal, but you tell him if it doesnt do what hes told, you take everything from him, call him a criminal. So he feels violent against an unjust system and either kills himself or kills other people. Look the system just made another criminal.
The whole system we live in is more violent than you wish to believe, the "Peace Officers" already think they have to shoot first or crush a person that doesnt agree with them.
If you have a gun pointed at your head, do you have the right to fight back? American society says not, you must do it legally, which is insane. The legal system is to protect the powers that be.
If you are being beaten by a cop, dont you have the right to defend yourself?
People who crave power often become police, so you now you have gun welding luntics that can kill. What a system.
To be honest, I know absolutely nothing of X-Ray tech. SO no, I have no idea if it is plausable or not. I guess I could have googled it, but I'm really too lazy.
In case you havent noticed, what they are talking about is the concept of machiavelli "the prince" which is basically "The goal justifies the means" meaning that often the ones in power may occlude ethics in order to "achieve a greater good" killing the ill is a perfect example of it (a technique that was sadly used by the nazis) of course in practice this has never worked (at least not lately I hope) since most people do have strong ethics and will eventually rebel (by themselves or aided by their governor enemies) to stop such practices and take revenge. Which is more or less what happened in WW2 (I think, Im uneducated in the subject) , the horror stories of the nazis fueled the allied forces to destroy their growing empire and "free" mankind of their evil.
However in games: pfft! most gamers are pretty unethical about gaming since is an scape to their actual real life ethics, just look at what people have done in games like fable, b&w, tropico, kotor and even GTA (in which you are already a criminal to begin with) not only most gamers choosen to be truly evil if they had the choice, they even went beyond the developers expectations in their machiavellic thinking.
A perfect example: Peter Mollineux in an interview confessed he was stunned when certain gamers found out a way to kill an entire population of a village in Fable (an event thats not supposed to happen since towns are heavily guarded) and then manage to sell it back to new coming NPC's building by building amassing a virtual fortune in the process. (And of course the new NPCs would eventually get killed too) virtual genocide for fun and profit!
More horror histories can be found in B&W (like the world record of killing 1000 peasents in a single thunder strike) or GTA.
Go ahead MOD my day!
More opinions here
yeah, but the thing about those games is that the "morality" is deciding who you are going to kill. That's pretty much it.
I do agree that Ultima did attempt to make a game where "moral" behavior was rewarded, but you still went around and killed stuff - you didn't exactly try to form a commitee to discuss why the antagonist was so antagonizing.
I have never played a Civ game, but in those empire building games I would think that having a diplomatic route is neccesary to flesh out the concept. Beyond that, I can't really comment due to lack of experience with the titles.
After reading the responses, I felt compelled to actually RTFA and I see that most replies are way off the mark as to what the subject / purpose of the article was : "But these games begin at the point where politics has failed, where the will of the state to survive can only be expressed through violence. "
You can say all you want as to how horrid it is and how we as a people should learn to 'get along". The games would be pretty boring if thats the case.
Sorry, the most exciting/terrifying/exhilirating time of my life was when I was in the midst of a firefight. No right, no wrong. My squad against the others. No politics. If by chance some one stood up and said "Can't we all just get along" I would have personally shot them. The nature is that nothing said will stop the enemy. Regardless of who that enemy may be. Thats the nature of human instinct (perfect example is that you might disagree and post a reply) . In a situation like he was describing, the quickest way to bring order is to control everything. The best way to maintain order is to allow others a say and a community be formed. That would not work in a short period of time. Someone has to be in charge, and someone has to make the tough choices. Thats what I think the Article was about anyhow. For the "instant gratification" we play war games. We shoot to kill. We take satifaction in the fact we survived 'the onslaught" and ones who did not shoot or shoot in time failed. That part of the game. A game that solely based itself on politics would, in my opinion, not sell well at all.
Because it would take too much time.
You keep going until you die..."Me".
To the players, the appeal behind war games isn't because we all secretly yearn for some dictator to come and take over our lives, it's because games are about competition and war is as about as competitive as an activity gets. From the perspective of the publisher, a war game's appeal is similar to the reason that war novels are popular with writers: You get lots of conflict to drive the plot without needing a lot of justification or exposition.
True. You couldn't just talk your differences out with the Orcs over a pint of brew in Ultima IV. And although you had to meditate on the virtues at shrines to get them, in order to get experience and "level up" you had to kill tons of monsters.
Black and white was a bit interesting when it came to "moral" decisions. As your "good" or "evil" behavior reflected upon your pet and you could focus on being benevolent and drawing worshippers away from the other god via your good acts.
Oddly enough most Civ games or RTS games have a very weak diplomacy component if they have it at all. The standard victory condition is overpowering the other nations/factions through force. Civilization has always had a peaceful victory option and these options have gotten a greater focus in the more recent in iterations. In Civ 4 you can win a peaceful victory by:
1. being the first to build a space ship and reach alpha centauri
2. developing cities with a huge cultural level
3. being elected head of the United Nations
Culture, which was introduced in Civ 3, is a quantification of non-violent improvements and developments in your nation. Developing art, philosophy, religion etc. boosts your nation's culture value. It might seem a bit contrived, but it is a useful element as a measurement for those pursuing a peaceful win.
So in Civilization it IS possible to win playing as a pacifist, but even there you will likely need to fight - if only defensively. Of course that pretty much mirrors the real world, where even the most pacifistic cultures have had to defend themselves.
There are a number of games that don't involve killing, although they tend to be either more abstract puzzle games or economic type simulations (aside from sports and racing oriented games). The Sims is also a good example of a game that doesn't resolve around fighting. Interestingly both the Sims and Rollercoaster Tycoon (economic) computer games were huge best sellers and had much longer lasting sales than your standard FPS or RTS. Indeed Rollercoaster Tycoon spawned a huge number of economic tycoon games that unfortunately have generally been poorly constructed and generic. Overall this has had a negative impact on the genre. I might be a bit of an odd gamer but I really enjoyed games like Capitalism, Restaurant Empire and Railroad Tycoon.
Sometimes my arms bend back.
Interestingly enough the Sims and Rollercoaster Tycoon were both huge hits that stayed on the top 10 lists for much longer than the average shooter. Both are pretty non-violent. Sure you can abuse your Sims, or build coasters that kill - but doing so won't get you further in the game.
The puzzle genre has also spawned games with wide appeal such as Bejeweled and Bookworm. Maybe all of these games sell well because they appeal to a large number of players of both sexes.
Sometimes my arms bend back.
For the love of all that is sane and rational, someone please throw parent a mod point.
So many people involved in these discussions about games and violence seem to forget the whole underlying point of our modern societies: That we, as individuals, are responsible for our own actions. Nobody else is. That's why we have laws against theft, murder, etc. If I willfully kill someone, I am responsible for that person's death, therefore it is I who face the penalty for that action.
It is never too early to teach kids to take responsibility for their actions. I don't mean using harsh punishments at an early age, I'm talking about actually teaching them. Sit down with them and explain why it's wrong to commit harmful acts against others, about showing the same respect that they'd want in return, and not being a hypocrit (ie. I can do it to you but you can't do it to me). If you do this right, and reinforce responsible behavior as they grow, they'll understand with crystal clarity that when they play a violent game, it's fantasy, not reality, and it's not OK to do to real people what they're doing in the game.
That's how I was raised, and to this day I'll take any reasonable measure to avoid a pointless and unnecessary brawl (bars are often a great place to find these). Don't get me wrong, I'll certainly defend myself or someone else, and I won't run away, but I'll usually try to defuse the situation diplomatically before it gets that far.
And I have absolutely no trouble at all reconciling this with my love of wargames and violent RPGs, where the in-game rewards come from killing the enemy. How? Because I know it's just a game. It's fantasy. Hell, I'd say it's even cathartic -- better to kill a bunch of polygons and pixels than to beat the shit out of a rude customer at the store where I work.
If video games -- or comics, or movies, or cartoons, or whatever -- push someone over the edge where they start killing others, then that person had a deep-rooted psychological problem long before they ever picked up a gamepad or clicked a mouse to kill a virtual enemy. All they needed was a catalyst. Blame the person who did the mindless killing in real life, not the catalyst that his/her fractured mind couldn't digest properly.
Heinlein has a particularly apt quote as well, which fits very nicely: "An armed society is a polite society."
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
Don't give me the bullshit that "Everyone Knows Its A Game". The evidence is mounting high right in that article that more than a few take the metaphor very seriously... and our current political shift... blowing off debt and lives without care... show it is growing indeed. Shallow, mindless politics from shallow mindless ethics.
"Everyone Knows It's A Game"
You're suggesting that video games are responsible for some kind of growing lack of concern for human life? That video games contribute to a "kill 'em all" world view?
Long before video games, and long before video, people thought this way. And they'll think this way long after Age Of Empires is finally taken out of the Best Buy Bargain bins.
The truth is, a lot of people, if not most, will think nothing of slaughtering an entire village or town or city or even civilisation just to make a point. People in general, really don't care unless it's happening to them. For evidence of this see Carthage, Bèziers, Auschwitz and in fact, most of the rest of the Guide.
May the Maths Be with you!
Reading about those Civ games now has me interested. I usually stay away from those types of games because the ones I messed with early on incorporated RTS elements, and I really don't jive with those games.
You bring up an interesting point about the Sims and Tycoon games. Another interesting fact about those games is they are huge with girls. I guess the whole kill everything you can deal doesn't appeal to the emotionally based part of the species. I tried playing the sims when it first came out, but after 15 minutes of taking out the garbage and going to the bathroom I decided I had my own garbage to take out and didn't want to do virtual chores too. Maybe I should give it another chance and delve a little deeper into it.
I've never heard of Restraunt Empire,the title sounds interesting, is it any good? I did a google search on it but would like a first hand opinion from someone who doesn't get paid to give them.
Moral relativity has always existed, but has tracked more against the backdrop of traditions and isolated groups who have to consider more than one person inside their group. All those traditions have similarities. There exist stupid moral traditions, insipidly selfish traditions, even genocidal traditions. Even so, most traditions that survived have no delusions of solipsism or personal realities. The belief that you are all that exists ... or all that is significant... requires technological artificial propping up (and a prosperous society) to be so deluded.
A good earthquake, hurricane or revolution... and it all comes crashing down. (Of course... for the revolution part, you could just almost maintain it if you were on the winning side... until the purges under a new dictator).
What I'm saying is that we're artificially supporting a bizarre extension of this philosophy back into the netherworlds of caveman stupidity, Internet and libraries be damned. Everyone has believed stupid legends of glory and self-importance.. but everyone around a campfire, lying to each other about glorious stories, didn't have access to real records. We supposedly have education to help us... but it appears lessons of history are being tossed aside because "All is possibly true today and I will pick what I like". Say Hi to the Sophists again.
Don't discount Nietzsche, he was right about a lot of things that people are afraid of to know as the truth. And god agrees with him...
Mr. Sneeze was certainly a deep thinker, but he (like many in the 1800s) constantly reacted to his environment instead of considering its implications. He's like postmodern academia: fighting the endless battle against modern academia.. and so on. He just fought against the State/Church like Freud did later on. You cannot end up in Nilhilism and declare you found something new. Pure willpower and freedom were new for him. They are not new to us and anarchy is nothing fascinating nor holy. Constructing a definition of core humanity on vague feelings of despair and shock and a declaration to live somehow.... well it works only for certain audiences. His type will appear again and again, but they aren't innovatively comprehensive in what they explain: they just punt certain questions into the Void.
A practical attempt at a life philosophy has to get out of the 1800s.. and yet be relevant to an aborigine back in 4000 B.C.
Nietzsche is dead - God
You have no clue what your talking about do you? The reason games don't attempt to score things on a moral basis is because the media would have a shit fit if games took that trend.
I genuinely remain surprised that you (who may, in principle, support GTA: *) are worried about controversy. What a strange world you live in that the media makes you so worried about opinions!! A moment earlier you find it unmoving if someone pops their fifth prostitute to get their money back. It must be purest hypocrisy. You don't care about media controversy and you appear to worry only about the shock and surprise among your own group. That group (like many I've known) finds morals a taboo subject. That's what it appears you fear breaking.
What moral set are you using? Who decides the weight of those moral choices? What's immoral? These are matters that to this day have not been agreed upon, and you want a scoring system based on it? Ridiculous.
The funny thing is how offended morally you would be when you have real crimes done against you. Maybe you don't subscribe to some complex victimless-crime monitoring system. Still, trust me... the endless arguments of "There's no real morality at all" are a solid source of laughter for me. Hypocrisy unending! Everyone maintains morality codes, often nearly the exact same ones as their friends. Morality codes form politics.
[ Disagreement doesn't mean non-existance. Some have vague respect for similar people and some follow a strict code of conduct but very few act only on nothing but self-impulse. Not you. Those folks don't discuss others' philosophical failings on Slashdot. ]
Anyway... Just because fringe elements differ doesn't mean you aren't totally deep in your own group's religion. In fact... denying there is core morality is a kinda of tribal passphrase these days. You're quite the conformist.
The media will latch onto any angle they can get to sell advertising. If that means they will crucify video games one minute for being to violent and teaching our children to kill, and they will crucify them the next for attempting to force a moral ruleset on them. You cannot win that fight. And companies looking for a profit don't want to pick it.
Truly bizarre. You act like anything at all can get media time. Isn't it obvious that the media reports on something "amazing" or at least "shocking"?? Maybe they do so because video games genuinely represent a departure from everyday practice, life, trust, culture and even may remind people of very real and very scary times of history. People worry about both extremes (censorship and pushing immoral culture) and this surprises you? Your own morality is really getting imposed over all else here.. and you only see one worry of the two, right?
Everyone does know it's a game. Just becuase someone takes the metaphor seriously doesn't mean that they will actually go out and kill everyone who disagrees with them. Rational people don't do that.
Mein Kampf is just a book, y'know. The Qu'uran is just a set of poetic writings. Rational people would never try to take over the world. Wait.. it takes rationality to even try it!!
It is the highest joke that you feel no real moral code exists for some and yet at the same time you feel "Rational people" are everywhere. Your word "Rational" is a stealth replacement for "Morally stable". Morally stable people are in short supply in many parts of the world... and times of history... because they don't just "exist" naturally to keep us all safe in our beds. Morality shifts in dreadful directions (regretted later) when people believe a lie long enough. Those ships long moored in a calm lagoon would be well advised by those who have seen a real hurricane.
Rome didn't fall because the actors were putting on violent or Facist plays. It fell because a small handful of power weilders tried to manipulate the whole for thier own gain - and that mentality did not come from a
Nietzsche is dead - God
I think you may have misinterpreted my statements.
I genuinely remain surprised that you (who may, in principle, support GTA: *) are worried about controversy. What a strange world you live in that the media makes you so worried about opinions!!
If you took my statement as a whole, you would see that I was attempting to explain the business decision behind not implementing this type of scoring system. It's a touchy subject for alot of people. It's actually easier to fight on a front where the lines have been clearly drawn and the battles have been fought before (violence, coruption of youth).
I don't worry about people who have opinions, I worry about the actions of some who attempt to inflict their opinions on others. I don't force anyone to play the games I enjoy, and I actually support keeping the material out of childrens hands - what I won't support is someone defining my morals and attitudes as unhealthy and twisting them so I look like a fascist loving idiot. I genuinely remained suprised that someone can mistake an attempt at explaining a third group's behavior as my own stance.
Isn't it obvious that the media reports on something "amazing" or at least "shocking"?? Maybe they do so because video games genuinely represent a departure from everyday practice, life, trust, culture and even may remind people of very real and very scary times of history.
The media makes it amazing and shocking, that's my stance. Very few events are actually shocking or amazing, and if they are they generally arent actually reported on because they aren't "news worthy." Almost all media represents a departure from everyday practice, life, trust, and culture. Science fiction often employs distopias to get their point across. Movies use disturbing imagry that often makes reference to horrible events in our history. The difference with video games is the interactivity. That element is scary to alot of people, especially those who control the media, it's foreign to them. Much like the Radio was to paper reporters and TV to Radio reporters. The medium is in it's infant stage. You could say anything about it and it could possibly be true. When this attitude is acted upon by others I balance out that action with my own. People make their own decisions, I don't make them for them.
It is the highest joke that you feel no real moral code exists for some and yet at the same time you feel "Rational people" are everywhere.
How the hell you got this is beyond me. Where do I infer that I have no moral code? Where do I say that no moral code exists? I stated that multiple codes axist and to choose one as a scoring system for a game was a dangerous business decision. It's much easier to choose none and let the consumers apply their own within the context of their play.
Still, trust me... the endless arguments of "There's no real morality at all" are a solid source of laughter for me. Hypocrisy unending! Everyone maintains morality codes, often nearly the exact same ones as their friends. Morality codes form politics.
This I agree with, yet how this applies to anything I said is beyond me. Once again I was attempting to explain the difficulty of the business related decision, not my own decision. I do not have these issues. The media will not go ape shit over my personal morals until they directly clash with anothers in a manner that could generate revenue by reporting on it, then they will care.
As an example, a "moral" game consisting of a being a combat photographer could still be extremely violent, yet you would not be commiting those acts of violence. But then comes the decision of who the "bad" party is in the conflict. For a story to progress there needs to be a protagonist and an antagonist. Some one is going to get their panties in a wad when you start applying those elements to their group. If you focus on "terrorists" as being the bad guy, certain groups are going to get angry that they are portrayed commiting the heinous acts you ta
Civ is kind of the last great hold out of turn based strategy games these days. I think for open ended gameplay and catering to multiple styles of play (from warlord to diplomat) it's the best thing out there. If you like turn based strategy games with a broad scope, you're likely to enjoy Civ.
Someone once explained to me that the Sims is basically a digital doll house. The focus is on dress up, socializing and interior decoration. I found it horribly boring and tedious - I mean having to tell your Sims to pee? Obviously a lot of people love the game, it has to be about the most successful computer game series ever judging by it's constant appearance on the top 10 sales charts.
Interestingly enough Restaurant Empire has a similar interface and look to the Sims. Even some similar elements such as building and decorating your restaurants. The difference is that these elements are not cosmetic. You can't have a five star restaurant if it looks like a dump. I quite enjoyed the game, which can either be played in a series of "missions" following your progression as a cook and restaurant owner, or sandbox style. The gameplay revolves around building your restaurant, hiring and managing staff, learning new styles of cuisine, creating your menus and sourcing ingrediants. Like any economic sim there are plenty of spreadsheet types of decisions to make. Do you go high class and buy the best ingrediants but have to make everything more expensive? Is there a better profit margin in making a solid two star restaurant that get's heavy traffic? I wouldn't recommend it for the twitch gamer crowd, but if business sims interest you, I think it's worth a go. There is a demo available and if you like it the game sells pretty cheap, with a jewelbox only version going for $10. The game was designed by Trevor Chan who is known for the Capitalism games. It's a lot more accessible than those (although narrower in focus) and I thought it was superior to the Hotel Giant business sim his company also released.
Sometimes my arms bend back.
I think you may have misinterpreted my statements.
I'll grant that that may be possible. Holding on to "Morals are confusing and irrelevant to games" and "Media drive the feelings of revulsion felt by anyone" would be very difficult. Well you hold on to the second one.
If you took my statement as a whole, you would see that I was attempting to explain the business decision behind not implementing this type of scoring system. It's a touchy subject for alot of people.
I think you're being Touchy. You can see obvious huge huge morality decisions in the very design and structure of GTA and Half-Life and many other games (increasing in number). No one in that sphere is not already weighing in on what they think is fascinating to imagine and what they don't consider relevant to simulate. More games give more chances to destroy than to create anything.
Now, I can easily grant how tough it is to write code to express a complex novel, a philosphically intense exploration or a morally high-minded adventure of tough-to-solve salvations for all your rescued victims. Big explosions, bullet trajectories, dead prostitute ragdolls are easier to code... but only as much easier as any type of morally questionable issue. Porn. Executions. Gossip/Lies. Many things are easier.
The issue isn't how tough it is to make or how common "mental junk food" is or will be. The issue is how much starts to give children (and adults) diabetes. Frybread baked by Native Americans (due to free US flour and fat) is very yummy.. and was intended to be a staple .. but it is
satisfyingly empty of nutrition and effectively ends many of these people's
lives in obesity and heart attacks. So much for the "easiest solution" to a
problem of feeding destitute Indians. It kills them.. but it was intended
to be a great solution. The US had to take helping feed a rejected people more
seriously.
Game designers' decisions are taking their toll because they're showing off an isolated culture that is (beginning to) believe their own games' well-delivered illusory sensations of power and independence.
Someone who dares to say killing prostitutes is personally distasteful to publish fantasies about shouldn't so deeply offend you in return. Disliking wonton murder is not so controversial as you may fear. Don't impose silence on the discussion of fantasy-stories' effects because you feel its taboo to discuss.
The media makes it amazing and shocking, that's my stance. Very few events are actually shocking or amazing.....
Just because the media report it doesn't mean they made it that way. Maybe you're a bit too numb a half billion people's worth of significant news. CNN doesn't play it up.. it filters it down and we're becoming numb-er ... and numb-er... and numb-er. Why? Because no perspective over
a half-billion people's time and space is added .. but merely the pizazz of
intensity. Why were we hearing about Ms. Natalee Holloway in Bermuda so
much? Intensity of a missing pretty blond.. picked from the filter.
The difference I find interesting is that you don't consider Movies and Books and Games any different than the news. News merely filters down to get its heinous/porn/gossipy high with a little or lot of spin to help viewers feel comfortable. Story-writers can construct a world to order entirely out of spin with no nub of reality at all... and then they satiate us with nothing but their single feeling. It's on demand dementia! "Pure feeling" with only polygon counts to limit its intensity for games.
My point being: game designers and story writers have to account for the effects of their fantasy medium... not their ease of coding and a high thrills-per-fps (which is what their shareholders demand).
The difference with video games is the interactivity. That element is scary to alot of peop
Nietzsche is dead - God
Someone who dares to say killing prostitutes is personally distasteful to publish fantasies about shouldn't so deeply offend you in return. Disliking wonton murder is not so controversial as you may fear. Don't impose silence on the discussion of fantasy-stories' effects because you feel its taboo to discuss.
OK, I may have jumped the gun on this a little bit. The reason for this is that most people who argue against violent and questionable content in games are often proponents of censoring that content. Rereading your posts, and your statements about "mental junk food" and diabetes, has lead me to believe that this is not the case with your opinion. I personally do not find your disdain for this type of content controversial, but I do attemt to prevent anyone from using their sense of taste as a reason for censorship. To add to that, I do not believe that accurate content ratings or regulating the sale of content to minors is censorship. I am genuinely interested in hearing the stance of someone who can give me honest reasons for why they dislike content while still respecting my decision to enjoy it. No subject is taboo with me, but I do fight real hard against censorship. I apologize for misinterpreting you and categorizing you prematurely and innacurately.
The rest of this discussion has multiple tangents as far as I can see:
As I stated before, I am genuinely interested in hearing your views on these subjects. My email once again is hatemail@binarydeathtrap.com, I really hope you wish to continue this dialog.