Slashdot Mirror
Games That Stick It To The Man
News.com has a piece looking at subversive games with social commentary. The article discusses some titles that hit back against some of the frustrating trends in the industry today. Anti-advergames, specifically one striking out at McDonalds, are mentioned. From the article: "'Behind every sandwich, there is a complex process you must learn to manage,' Molleindustria said in a statement. 'From the creation of pastures to the slaughter, from the restaurant management to the branding. You'll discover all the dirty little secrets that made (McDonald's) one of the biggest companies (in) the world.' Neither McDonalds nor Kinko's responded to multiple requests for comment" More commentary from Guardian Gamesblog on the subject.
We all know that gamers have no problem distinguishing between games and reality, and that their ethics and behavior are not at all changed by, for example, games of violence and criminal activity. Therefore, this enterprise is doomed to failure.
The premise is this, some radical elements of a religion, really pisssed off over cartoons that were published on the other side of the world, riot and kill people in protest for depicting their religion as being violent, intollerant of free expression and hateful. People seeing these folks reacting like this (violence, murder, etc...) now see this particular religion as being: violent, murderous, and everything that the protestors say they're not. So what happens? People become really afraid of this religion because their actions prove the cartoons are correct. And when people become afraid , they start to do some radical things. Here's were I think I'll have this game go: there's another Holocost for this particular religion except:
It's done to some other religion besides th Jews.
It's done by multiple states - i.e. all over the world ( war on terror ya, know)
This time, no one stops it because the victims (of the holocost) refuse to live in this world with anyone who doesn't beleive the way they do.
n/t
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
As if nobody had ever played emogame...now there's a game with political content....
This is just old-fashioned "cultural work," as the communists used to call it. Use a popular art form to drive home political messages. Songs, dances, operas, novels....all can be used as propaganda. Why not games? The U.S. Army sems to think so--witness the success of the America's Army game.
would be a certain Japanese game where you roll over The Man - and pigs, cows, cars, buildings, towers, airplanes - to get enough to put Stars in the sky for your father the King of the Universe.
Katari Damashi is the name, I think. There's two other sequels to it.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
I think you only got part of the point. It's not that they are all ticking time bombs. You created an artifical difference between us and them. What's the difference between the U.S. Army and the Terrorists? The U.S. Army has better funding and organization.
Some people will see that as an indictment of the U.S. Army, it's not. It's the simple observation that when you screw with people's lives they get angry, get weapons, and screw you back. That's human nature, we're all capable of violence to protect the ones we love.
It's only racist because you choose to believe it's racist.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Oh good, because everyone has been asking for games that preach to them.
The U.S. Army has better funding and organization.
That and Terrorists blow up police stations in Iraq, coffee houses in Isreal, office buildings in the US, wedding parties in Lebanon...
Sorry to reply twice, but I just skimmed a blog article that helps put the violence and outrage in context
f _theres_hell_below_is_this_where_we_shall_all_be_s pending_xmas_.html
http://www.civitas.org.uk/blog/archives/2006/02/i
Basically, the writer contends that a bunch of Danish Imams took these cartoons (plus others) on a 'tour' of the Middle East to whip up some fury.
Now the really interesting part is when this blogger explains why they did this. He thinks it is because Denmark is going to become chair of the UN Security Council... and guess who is getting referred to the Security Council?
Iran.
Read his conclusions, he makes an interesting argument.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
this is kinda offtopic, but it's important. there is a disgusting violation of human rights going on in mcdonalds all across the world. mcdonalds employees, already highly degraded, are being forced to play The Fry Game. I couldn't find any screenshots, but I once worked for a mcdonalds, and I was forced to sit in front of a computer pretending to fry and serve mcdonalds french fries, for about an hour. it was the most agonizingly boring hour of my life.
It was not actually fun!
Until I see "fatwas" or whatever they're called from the Islamic leadership or some other strong condemnation of these rioter's actions who call themselves Muslims, I will think that the Islamic people in this world condone the rioter's and terrorist's actions. End of story.
Not too many of the US papers have bothered to mention it, but muslim religious leaders as well as the heads of state of several predominantly muslim nations have spoken out against the violence, saying that while the cartoons are blasphemous and wrong, people should be tolerant and protest those who commit such sacrilege peacefully as the Qua-ran teaches.
There is an inferiority complex among the group who refers to others as "the man". They assume that "the man" is pulling strings behind the scenes and that there is no way that they could ever hope to beat "the man" except through violence or hatred campaigns.
Consider this. Just for a moment, clear your mind of all the hatred and pent up rage within your soul. Then let's think logically for a moment. Let's assume that votes really count, that politicians really do have to get elected, and that the government is really ultimately run by the politicians, when push comes to shove. Who is "the man" that is oppressing the people? It is the government. But the government is made up of politicians, or people accountable to politicians. And the politicians are elected by the people. So "the man" is really "the people". People are abusing themselves.
Let's look at it another way--"the man" being corporate suits. Where do they get their power? From their money. Where do they get their money? From the people. If the people stopped eating at McDonalds or buying Nike shoes, these companies really do go out of business. And the corporations really are held accountable to the politicians. When they really screw up they get thrown in jail for real, that is, when the politicians want them in jail. And who elects the politicians?
In both cases, the power ultimately rests with the people. There is no need to fight "the man" except by participating in politics and participating in business. In fact, you yourself can become "the man" if you figure out how to get elected or how to make a billions dollars a year. "The man" is a position that is held at the whim of the people. If they don't like you, you don't get elected. If they don't like your products, you don't get your money.
When you fight against "the man" you are really fighting against the people in this country. Keep that in mind.
The radical sect of Islam would either see you dead or "reverted" to Islam.
The real problem being that "extremists" actively work to harm individuals who have done nothing to harm the extremists and pose no direct threat to anyone?
The US military certainly fits that definition. Dropping bombs on cities filled with civilians is certainly actively harming those who have done nothing to them. For that matter, pretty much no one in Iraq did anything to the US at all. We just invaded them "for their own good" and now thousands are dead, they have unreliable electricity and polluted water supplies. No one goes out at night and everyone lives in fear. All the resources and infrastructure has been looted and sold/given to foreign corporations. The treasury has been looted and large debts have been taken out on behalf of the Iraqi people. Basically, life is much, much worse for most people and many are dead. All of this because extremist americans invaded their country without cause.
the members of a rational civil society who should take an absolute and uncompromising stand against extremists who advocate or cause harm to innocents, whether they're American politicians, suicide bombers, racist agitators, or media commentators.
And this is where you start holding people responsible for the actions of others. If a politician orders and attack, is he guilty or are those who actually shoot people, or both? What about those who elected him and funded him with their tax dollars. What about those who just don't care that he did it, or are uninformed and approve of his actions?
Understanding the perspectives of others and empathizing with them should never take precedence over establishing the rule of law and requiring all members of a society to respect the basic human rights of others.
There is no law in international relations and there never really has been. How can you expect a person who just saw their little girl murdered by those who violate basic human rights to still uphold those same rights while fighting to avenge her? The truth is he has no hope to change things and stop his people from being killed and exploited if he "plays by the rules" while the US is pulling every dirty trick.
Choosing to be driven by by emotions and disregarding the rights of others? That's well and good. Let he who is without emotion and fully cognizant of the rights of others decide whether to let you have a warning shot...
Wow, you really don't understand psychology. No one chooses to be driven by emotions. Emotions are a fundamentally deeper level of decision making than reason. Reason can, in most cases, mitigate or override actions that would normally be taken by acting on emotion, unless that emotion is too strong. More importantly the normal human condition is to act based upon emotion, while modifying and/or justifying those actions using reason. A person might decide to believe in a religion because they are emotionally driven by family and circumstance. Then, they use reason to justify their belief.
There are those who apply reason to the fundamentals of their lives, and a number of disciplines of thought, like the scientific method, but they are the exception not the rule. If you want to condemn the majority of our species for being what it is then that is your right, assuming you are not being hypocritical about it and you actually do apply a rational, reasoned method to your entire life.
So here is what I think is important. Given the same situation, most people would act similarly to the way the people of the middle east did. Most of them acted peacefully, but a few were driven by their emotions and lack of understanding to do something rash. I wholly disapprove of what they have done. At the same time, I wholly disapprove of the media characterization and most of the comments I have read here that insist on judging entire cultures and religions based upon the actions of a few. And given how much wrong has been done to them by some individuals that to them represent western culture and western religion I