Slashdot Mirror
Game On War In Syria Explores Ongoing Conflict
arclightfire writes "So while games have come under spotlight via the debate about the causes of the tragic school shootings in the U.S., it is worth remembering that games are now a broad medium and far from all games are FPS games. Even those about war are not now just about shooting, as Endgame:Syria shows by covering an ongoing war; 'The subject matter for Endgame: Syria should not however be looked on from a trivialized angle; people and civilian casualties are dying every day over in Syria.'" The game is part of a series from Auroch Digital.
Basically it's a FPS based on Q3 engine or similar where you you are a janitor in a school armed only with a single pistol and you have a limited timeframe to find and neutralise a hostile shooter who enters the school with a random kit of weapons and starts killing kids or taking hostages.
Too soon?
Honestly, this is the funniest flamebait / troll I have ever seen. Had you made any attempt at all to tie it in with the story, and had you posted it using an account, I would have modded this up. Seriously. Only for the demonstration of your talent. You have serious potential here my friend. try to find a good use for it.
Meanwhile, I've modded your create down to -1. No direct link to the article at hand and adds no value to the conversation. Perhaps someone will disagree. Meanwhile, feel free to try again.
+1 loved it. Would read this person's next post for sure.
And drink the milk of paradise !! That'll turn them all to sissies, and the war will be over !!
Of course this raises the moral question of "what's off limits for a game" - but also - "what's a game?".
Does something have to be "fun" to be a game? Is this the definition of a game (as opposed to say a "simulation"). Or is a game a "simulated environment where there is a win condition"?
Interested to hear slashdotters thoughts.
Ancient troll is...ancient. That story (even though it's based on fact, Malda really is a eunuch) goes back more than 10 years during the golden age of /. trolling...
There doesn't even need to be a win condition. Some of the classic games go on forever - pacman, tetris. The objective is to either maximise a score or keep the game going as long as possible.
So you guys are posting on Slashdot now:
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/12/assadosphere/
I hope you and Assad die slow, painful deaths.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
I can't define what a game is, but I know that chess works even when stripped down to the bare mechanics... and if you stripped these games down to their bare mechanics, they might still be games, but most of them would be more or less identical (at least if you consider the maps as input to the game just like players are, not as not part of it's rules). Because of that I'd say they are definately nowhere near as much the games they're perceived as.
What is called "game" these days often enough is just a vehicle for story-telling, super idiotic story telling at that. You know, you wouldn't be able to sit through most of these stories as movie, unless there was a lot of action or hot people in it. And you wouldn't be able to take it as a slideshow on the computer/console, either! So you get to mash a few buttons; that way you feel involved and stay on the petri dish.
That wouldn't be a problem if the people who told stories and their stories amounted to shit -- I am sure you could make a "pseudo-game" about (the effects of) war that has something to say... those games probably exist, they're just rarely hyped, are they.
But you cannot make an actual war game, not really, since war isn't so much about the pong/galaga/pacman mechanics that are used to portray them, as they are about propaganda and using the masses -- and not in an RTS way either, that just simulates the "general grunt" instead of the "infantry grunt". War is waged by planning in super comfy rooms with huge desks -- it's about profit and numbers, not about individual actions. Knowing that it's pretty much clear than 99.9999% of all war games obfuscate war, not explore or simulate it. They are just extensions of power, they are part of those wars. They keep even the people who are not currently out there being hired killers safely embedded in the fabric of war.
Replying off-topic but the summary doesn't mention this very relevant bit of information: The game is not an FPS, it's a card strategy game. Like Magic or something.
Which is disappointing, I was hoping it was an FPS and that some Russians and Iranians could play from the rebels' point of view.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
There are about as many definitions of what a game is as there a re people who've given it serious thought. Personally, I'm a fan of raph koster's:
Playing a game is the act of solving statistically varied challenge situations presented by an opponent who may or may not be algorithmic within a framework that is a defined systemic model.
. . . half the schools in the world would be empty by now. Just think of how many people in the world play these games.
Recently, the Connecticut killer has been labeled "a basement dweller." Maybe basements are the cause, and should be outlawed . . . ?
Ancient cultures have always played some sort of war games in tribal ceremonies. It prepares the young for the real thing.
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
Does something have to be "fun" to be a game? Is this the definition of a game (as opposed to say a "simulation").
Why ask us when you can ask WOPR?
Unfortunately, all the things AC wrote are indeed happening.
"What's in a name? That which we call a rose By any other name would smell as sweet." (Juliet)
So what's in a game? The subject has been discussed by folks far more eloquent and persuasive than I; but hey, this is Slashdot so what the hell. In some ways trying to define what 'game' means is akin to defining art; grasping at the wind. I think you're pretty close to the mark with your latter definition, although as sibling posters suggest the win condition is not necessary, and the concept of winning itself has been toyed with as a mechanism (see UnwinnableByDesign). "Fun" is hardly a necessity either, witness RPG grinds, for example. And how 'fun' would Contra be without UUDDLRLRBA?
That leaves "simulated environment", which I think approaches the heart fo the matter. Games (not just video games here) are a simulacrum, an approximation of a scenario. Some are more complex than others - Snakes and Ladders versus Dwarf Fortress or MilSim-du-jour - but all distill a scenario/environment into a set of rules. Fun and winning are usually part of the arrangement, but not by necessity.
Sibling post hit the mark too in saying that a significant proportion of gaming is there as a vehicle for storytelling. It's easy to be cynical as there are some bad stories out there. But there is good storytelling too, if that's your thing. Planescape: Torment* has a particular focus on story; and there are times where the line between 'game' and 'interactive story' are pretty heavily blurred. Dear Esther is an example which PA Report recommends quite highly:
Dear Esther is a $10 PC [note: currently on sale on Steam for £1.74 for the next two hours at time of writing] experience that toys with the concepts that make, or don’t make, a game. You are a man exploring a deserted island, and every so often you’ll trigger a voice over that helps to explain what you’re doing there and describes other characters you never see. It’s a desolate, lonely game that funnels you into one specific ending that’s impossible to escape. It takes around 90 minutes to finish, depending on how much of the island you choose to explore.
At the end of a day if someone creates something that is a representation of something with at least some semblance of interaction, and calls it a game I'm quite happy to believe them until proven otherwise.
*Planescape was recently discussed on /. and it was mentioned that GOG had it for ten bucks, which was nifty. Now they've discounted it to five bucks, which is at least twice as nifty by my calculations.
If all you have is a grenade, pretty soon every problem looks like a foxhole -- MightyYar
C'mon, the US official policy has been pro-islamist since, at least, 2006 or so. Just look at the Cablegate cables emanating from allied countries, e.g. from Morocco, but not only from there. There, US diplomats are reporting how they cultivated ties to the various islamist groups that were illegal at the time. They also invited them for talks in US universities and think tanks at the same time. In Libya, they militarily (!) removed a dictator that despite all his weirdness, kept the islamists in check (and promptly got "rewarded" for their help by the attack in Benghazi from the very same elements they worked so hard to get to power). In Egypt, the US were quick to abandon the secular opposition and supported Morsi and his new constitution. And, of course, in Syria, the US is teaming with Al Qaeda and other jihadists against one of the last secular regimes in the region. How much closer can you get by joining them? The US Government is in bed with them for quite some time... and that's a tragedy for people there who hoped for human rights, equal treatment of women and men, etc., and who will have to wait a couple of generations or more to undo the current damage.
cpghost at Cordula's Web.
US and other western governments are actively supporting, sponsoring, arming and training those rebels. Should they not do that, Assad would propably crush them quickly in some cruel way BUT thousands upon thousands of civilians would still be alive. It's sad to see our politicians being ultimately responsible for most of killed civilians and sponsoring those killings with mouths full of crap about "bringing democracy". If Norymberg precedents would be honored in today's world, most of our leaders would be already sentenced and jailed (or hanged).
I don't wanna leech karma off Ian Bogost and Jonathan Blow, who for me are the Noam Chomskies of gaming haha, so if you found this post interesting, you will LOVE these two lectures, and maybe more you can find under related videos, exploring indie games, and what games are or could be:
Ian Bogost on Serious Games
Theoretically, there could be other forms of interactive art that's not a game. I just haven't seen one, maybe we got too fixed on the gamer mindset to think about anything else.
Or let them die out, just like the insane variety of christianity we had in europe during the middle ages.
No Risk
Take the reigns of a banking giant, too big to fail and certainly way too big to held accountable for laundering money from terrorists and drug lords. Whatever happens, you can't lose!
CatholicCraft
As the vicar of Christ, you'll remain true to Christ's teachings by amassing incredible amounts of money and hushing up years to inaction against known pedophiles. When caught, blame secularism for years of Church sanctioned abuses.
World of Youtube Debate
Take control of a typical YouTube master debater as he enriches the Internet with his sideways take on life. Buy the Game of The Year edition to receive a free game controller with pre-defined comments, including "lol", "gay" and "fuk u".
GTA - Riyadh
Play the role of a Saudi woman, rebelling against society by carefully driving her husband's car unescorted by a male keeper. How long can you drive responsibly before being hauled out of the car by the Mutaween, and beaten by your son.
I despise the 'Witch Hunt" style analysis of the affect(or is it effect?) of video games on children. That's like the 'church' in medieval times saying things were bad just to say they were bad. I'm sure they said 'Studies find that....' right before they sentenced someone to death too...
The point here is, video games are n o t t h e p r o b l e m. The problem is the lack of familial support for the nations troubled children / adults. Families are far more detached now than they have ever been... I think this perpetuates crime and violence through lack of guidance.
That's my two cents.
I know this is slightly off topic for the post but it needed to be said. That is all.
Here's an idea, sport:
You leave them alone, and they'll leave you alone.
If someone from across town set up a tent in your yard, stuck his nose into your affairs and tried to tell you how to run your life, killed your dog and "collaterally damaged" your child into a hospital or grave, they'd have to eventually have to do something serious about your rotten attitude.
See how that works?
Unfortunately, all the things AC wrote are indeed happening.
Indeed! What is being painted by the Western media as the Syrian edition of the Arab Spring uprisings that have installed Islamic regimes in Tunisia, Libya and Egypt is actually a thinly disguised civil war between the majority Sunnis of Syria vs the rest of the population, which form the backbone of the Baath Party and are under that umbrella. The situation in Syria is more (conversely) similar to Iraq or Bahrein, than to Egypt or Libya.
Honestly, there is little to choose between the 2 sides. The Assad regime backs, and is backed by Hizbullah, as well as the mullahs of Iran. The whole philosophy of Baathists is to gather Arab national socialists who don't fall within the majority Islamic sect in a given Arab country, and maintain power by force in order to prevent them from getting eviscerated. In Iraq, Saddam did that by uniting Sunnis, Christians and Turks behind him, and suppressing the majority Shias. In Syria, Hafez al Assad and after him, Bashar al Assad did that by uniting Alawites, Shias, Druze, Christians and Kurds behind him, and suppressing the majority Sunnis. Reason for both was simple - if these countries got Islamic regimes, then they would have assumed the majority sect as their official religions - Shia in Iraq (as is the de facto case now) and Sunni in Syria, and all other groups would have been persecuted and marginalized. In Iraq, that's already happening - almost all the Christians in Iraq have fled to Syria, and now they, along with Syria's Christians, will flee to Lebanon, if and when they see this regime collapsing. So neither could Saddam nor the Assads be faulted - Muslims ain't the 'Live and let live' type at all. If they are not oppressed, they'll be the oppressors. As they're showing in Iraq (towards Assyrians and Sunnis), Egypt (towards Copts), Tunisia (towards Jews), Lebanon (towards Maronites and Sunnis) and Libya.
This is not to glorify or exonerate the Baathists, who were and are just as vile anti-Semites. Saddam was a major supporter of Hamas during his regime, and it was in Baghdad that Abu Nidal was killed shortly before the US invasion of Iraq. Assads were previously a sponsor of the Lebanese Shia group Amal, which later merged into Hizbullah, and on top of their support to Hizbullah, they also hosted Pali Islamic Jihad as well as PFLP in Damascus. So it's not like any of the parties are opposed to Jihadi terror.
So the ideal solution really is the civil war, which thankfully is showing no signs of ending. Iran and Hizbullah have thrown in what they have in support of the regime, and on top of that, Russia and China, which stand to lose their last customer of military hardware, are offsetting Western attempts to topple this regime. This is a good thing - honestly, it's inane of the West to support groups that are backed by the Muslim Brotherhood and al Qaeda. If the Assad regime falls, then instead of the Shi'ite crescent that runs from Teheran, Baghdad, Damascus and Beirut, there would be an Ikhwan crescent that would run from Damascus to Cairo, probably swallowing Amman and Beirut as well. It would be a rerun of 1967 if that happened. So the best thing is for all Jihadi factions to converge in Syria and fight out the civil war there and destroy each other, so that they can't destroy anyone else. Non Muslim powers, such as the US, Russia, China, EU et al should simply stay out of it, or just maximize their profits by arming both sides to the teeth.
Something about this sentence unsettles me. I don't quite know what.
Of course this raises the moral question of "what's off limits for a game"
What's "raising" this question?
Yes, thats exactly what it is. Todays world has new tools for propaganda apart from newsspin.
This game portrays the Syrian fight against terror in simplistic black and white just like most mainstream media likes to show it.
However, nothing in this world is as simple as that.
What you will not see in that game is:
* leading Syrian terrorist group Jabhat al-Nusra (categorised so by none other than US of A)
* daily beheadings done by islamist rebels (aka al-Qaeda)
* teaching beheadings to their children (will not post link as anyone can find it if (s)he so wishes)
* daily kidnappings for ransom by islamist rebels (aka al-Qaeda)
* killing of christians en masse by islamist rebels (aka al-Qaeda)
* destruction of churches by islamist rebels (aka al-Qaeda)
* all war crimes imaginable, mostly by islamist rebels
Just some links:
Fate of Christians in Syria
US designates Syria's Jabhat al-Nusra front a 'terrorist' group at lightning speed
#OpSyria v.2.0
I wholeheartedly agree. If the corporate media starts brainwashing people, be it for commercial gain or under political pressure, they usually succeed.
Why should simple people question mass-media? They have neither the information nor mental abilities to confront such power.
Also take a look at Alex Thomson at Channel 4 and Robert Fisk at the Independent.
Both are veteran British journos and both are actually raportinf FROM Syria. Not sitting in some comfortable chair 4000 km away.
__
L.
The problem with political games is that... they're still political.
Imagine that instead of making a game about the conflict, the same group had simply put out an editorial saying "Here is what we think about the war in Syria, and exactly what is happening there."
If they did that, and it was promoted as much as a game was, and it was typical media quality, everyone here would jump on it in a minute, pointing out that the editorial oversimplifies the war, and that most editorials are made by people with strong opinions on the subject who may be biased. Or the writer of the editorial may have based it on news reports but been a bit too trusting of them. Perhaps the editorial, while supposedly summarizing the war, leaves out important events. (And that's assuming all the facts in it are literally true.)
But package your editorial as a game, and everyone eats it up, as a "unique gamification approach" which "reports the news in the most entertaining fashion possible". As if a contentious subject suddenly turns into a completely objective analysis just because it was put in something that has cards and a score. Please.
Look at the network-related news. That's all you see is articles about Syria, just like we saw about Iraq and Afghanistan, as if any of they needed our help shooting them. This big issue about Syria is: they fed soldiers and materiel into Afghanistan and Iraq. We're still reading from Paul Wolfiwitz's big book of war. Stop it!
https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM
Hmm, the Falcon series of flight sims featured Israel as a combat theatre. There are very many paper wargames (ya know, old style) that feature conflicts in the Middle East. So it appears you are pretty ignorant - and what appears to be your attempt at anti-Zionism has failed.
Since you are ignorant here's a capsule history in 5 minutes that explains the situation in the Middle East, from Purdue University. The situation is very simple and clear. It is the resolution that is complex. How do you defuse intrinsic hatred of Islam for all non-Mulims? solve that and you will solve all the Islam created problems in the Middle East; eg. Islam vs unbelievers like Europe; Iranian Shia Islam vs Arabian Shia Islam; Islam vs Christians in Iraq, Syria and Egypt; Islam vs animists on Sudan; Islam vs Israel; Islam vs the US; etc etc:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63hTOaRu7h4
Unfortunately the United Nations can't be relied on to sort it out, for the following reason:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7Mupoo1At8
Furthermore, the UN is attempting to outlaw Free Speech by disabling our ability to cricitise the flaws in any religion (but specifically, the barbarism of Islam):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uadgk2kveRU
The political Left are usually helpful watchdogs, but they are no help either (they are so anti-American as a vestige of Cold War reasoning, that they excuse the totalitarian imperialism of the Islamists who seek to impose a new global Caliphate):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TA3OzSCdCUk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqSY285BqQg
So, your statement is a bit of a fail. It simply shows you know nothing about gaming/wargaming (the Middle East is covered extensively) and probably have a poor grasp of the situation in the region (and it turns out, the World, since the goal of the jihadis is to conquer the World once they've crushed Israel).
The only news I am interested in is news that directly affects me. Life is short, I have too many things I want to do and I don't have time to catch up on all of the latest gossip like you do.
I will never forgot the map of the eastern Mediterranean after playing the old game Conflict: Middle East Political Simulator http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict:_Middle_East_Political_Simulator. It runs beautifully in dosbox and is available at abandonia http://www.abandonia.com/en/games/24764/Conflict+-+Middle+East+Political+Simulator.html Air Force Commander burned the map of the middle east into my brain at a very young age. It also runs in dosbox and I found it at the home of the underdogs if anybody is interested http://www.hotud.org/home/44-war/21074?lang=en%2Findex.php%3Foption%3Dcom_realtyna%2F%2Findex.php%3Foption%3Dcom_realtyna
A game has to be fun to be relevant. If it isn't fun, it might still be a game, but it doesn't matter since no one's going to play it unless forced to, and if they are, they'll just go through the motions while daydreaming.
But of course the straightforward answer to your question is: it depends entirely on how you define a game, and thus varies depending on the context. Which, in this case, is "convenient scapegoat".
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
As a child I was an introverted little nerd kid. My father was a police officer who retired from the department when I was four or so. We had a snub nose 38 police special in my parent's closet, loaded and unlocked, and I always knew where it was. I was taught what it was, how dangerous it was and that I wasn't to handle it without my father present.
As I grew older I of course played games. I was given a modem at one point, and on a BBS I found the anarchist's cookbook. It told me how to make all sorts of dangerous things. My father gave me gifts like pocket knives, and I was even known to play with matches!!! My uncle taught me things like mixing iodine and ammonia. My older brother taught me the value of lighter fluid and a tube of tennis balls. What you may not realize is how much interaction I had with my family on these dangerous subjects, and ultimately how I was allowed to explore things with proper supervision. Playing with fire all the while confined to the fireplace.
I once set a fire outside the home. I was caught and sent to my room. When my father came in to the room I figured I was going to get it. Instead he tossed a box of matches at my feet and asked that if I was going to burn the house down to at least let him know so he could get my mother and sister out safely. Today I own MANY guns and know how to make MANY dangerous things.
I have NEVER had a thought of hurting a bunch of people I don't know, nor anyone I do know. My favorite game is GTA and I also play some Saints Row.
I don't know why anyone ever does, and it saddens me that this keeps happening. Some firearms legislation is quite positive. Never fear a guy who has a dozen weapons, fear the person who has never had one but needs one right NOW. Putting a delay on new ownership is a VERY good idea and I support it even if it seems counter to at least the spirit of the constitution of the United States.
I think the problem stems from at least two things. First, that those who do these things feel isolated from a world of people they believe are indifferent to them or perhaps even hostile. We didn't have that feeling so long ago as communities associated with each other more closely. Technologies that keep us entertained in our home do far more damage then collaborative multi player games like Call of Duty ever will. The violence upon the imaginary has less of a negative impact then the violence in movies and seen on TV that are set upon real live actual people. These murderers are most often known as loners even when in small groups.
Second, I've come to believe that our news media takes the lion's share of blame in these acts of mayhem against the populace. They fall short of glorification, but in the end everyone knows the names of these perpetrators. They spend months rehashing this news. Nancy Grace goes on and on spewing her dramatic bile. So... wanna be famous? Well, at least infamous. Just kill a bunch of innocents... the more terrible the better! Everyone in the world will know your name! Then we'll throw a friggin pity party for your corpse going on and on about how hard your life was, poor poor you. We always seem to get copy cats after these tragedies, and I am disgusted that the media's profits increase from this coverage. They collect their blood money from the misery of the victims.
So, I ask everyone, what new gun law can we pass that would have prevented the loss of all these children? The guns were owned by the mother, legally, and for quite some time. What new restrictions on games could keep them away from someone in their 20s with an internet connection, hmmm? What legislation could we introduce that would have actually stopped this murderer? So far the only suggestion that may have has some impact was given by the NRA and mocked by the media.
I wonder how those in the media can look at themselves in the mirror in the morning. I could never be a part of that... but I guess I was just raised better..
rather run the world's most oppressive and brutal totalitarian state than risk submitting to the whims of a Muslim population. And given a choice, they'd rather fight to the last Muslim...
In the Middle east the main problem is sectarian supremicism/violence/oppression/hatred. Muslims may be at the root of that, but it's not just them. EVERYONE uses the Jews as their safe scapegoat. And you might say Alawites are Muslims... but they're probably not, but because of the violence it's better for them to pretend to be and for their allies to pretend they are too.
I could give you examples, but basically things in the Middle east aren't worse than you imagine, they're worse than you CAN imagine.
Can this not be framed into a category of obscene material? This and violent video games? I know this raises touchy First Amendment issues here in the US.
Obscene material alone is considered a touchy subject, child porn is generally universally accepted as obscene and not protected by the First Amendment. The act of producing it in the US and most of the world is criminal.
With regards to this particular circumstance, I feel that a violent videogame about a current violent actual real life tragic event is no worse than the actual real life events unfolding in front of us right now in real time. The fact that some people are using this event to cash in is crass.
Thank you for mentioning the old DOS Conflict. I spent many an enjoyable hour playing that game. Only now in hindsight do I realize how nice it was to have a fun yet challenging game that wasn't a cliche side-scroller, RPG, or FPS.
It's kind of funny... often when I played Conflict, I'd try to nuke somebody and still win the game... never succeeded. Perhaps that was the game designer's subtle way of saying the nuclear option is a no-win scenario?
Anyway, this new Endgame Syria bears a striking resemblance to Conflict, almost to the point of being a rip-off -- Conflict had newspaper headlines too, influenced directly by your political and military in-game decisions. But if Endgame Syria raises awareness of the Middle East's issues, I guess I can forgive the author.
DRM 'manages access' in the same way that a prison 'manages freedom'
You missed oppressing Amercians in America and Australians in Australia.
No, seriously.
In Australia they are forcing their way in by boat and then demanding that Australian change its laws to suite their culture. They recently demanded that their kids be allowed to carry 'ceremonial knives' to school.
There was a series shown on TV called "Go back to where you came from" which had a heavy slant on showing what boat people go through to get to Australia. Two things went wrong there. Firstly, it didn't explain why people leave the relative safety of Indonesia to try to cross into Australia and it did not explain why so many of these people are young male and muslim.
Absolutely. Do you want these people fighting it out in your back yard? No? Then don't move to Sydney or Melbourne because it is already happening there.
Geopolitics. You don't understand it.