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.
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
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).
Actually, a falling boulder can stop a bad guy with a gun. A poison dart can stop a bad guy with a gun. An electric fence can stop a bad guy with a gun. A femme fatale can stop a bad guy with a gun. Psychotropic drugs can stop a bad guy with a gun. Early intervention via counseling can stop a bad guy with a gun.
And not having a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun.
But let's face it, the fantasy of being the "good guy with the gun" is very appealing to the frustrated and insecure and sociopaths who could easily become the "bad guy with the gun".
You are welcome on my lawn.
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.
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.