>Max Palevsky was second
By nothing more than 160 pt. margin, those tools!
Since I can, I want to tell anyone listening what I told the judges in all fucking sincerity Sunday afternoon:
In five years, this is far and away the best Hunt.
b70nd13
Captain of the All-Starrest All-Stars
In my view, that moment isn't just funny. I found it quite poignant and almost shocking. Given, I study videogames for my degree (>++++$), so it's was a gratifyingly perfect moment for inclusion in my thesis paper, but what happens there is that the character, heretofore assumed by the player to be an extension of the player's self, literally an alter ego, refutes the entire structure of identification and mastery that let's the player "get away" with pretending to *be* Max Payne. The result is that the premise of inconsequentiality and fantasy that allows for the enjoyment of such a violent scenario is broken. Worth noting, also, that that is the first moment in the game where the in-game gaze of Max actually meets the player's gaze. It's a joke, but the joke, ultimately, is on the player.
Thank you Derkec; I've posted along these lines repeatedly, and you're the first to bother replying at all. It's such a joy to know someone else in the world (besides my small band of fellow academic game theorists, and not even all of them) take games seriously. Now, if only most games took us more seriously...
Based on what they re meant to be. He really liked Tomb Raider because it was fun, there were nice breasts and life was good. The movie did what it was supposed to well. He also really likes the recent film Monster, which has a very low hotness factor, but is deep, moving and has excellent acting. While not "fun", it does what it's meant to do very well.
...which points to my only disagreement with the posts in this thread. "Fun" is a nearly meaningless word when you really begin to question what constitutes a "fun" experience. A movie like Monster isn't fun by any means, but if it succeeds, it is moving. Different texts (regardless of their genre or form) move their readers/viewers/players differently, but they all succeed at moving, at being emotionally affective. To relegate all videogames to the realm of "fun" is to do a great disservice to those rare games that seek to achieve a deeper affect, like Deus Ex which is the most reasonable enactment of a true moral conundrum available in gaming, or Half Life and System Shock 2, which dragged me through desperation and horror, emotions not usually considered "fun," but worth experiencing nonetheless.
The film and the book are, as I noted above, two completely different texts. In Easton-Ellis' novel, the reader is invited to sympathize with Bateman. In the film, the viewer is being invited to pity Bateman while holding him under the light of satire. However, this isn't a particularly useful direction for the discussion to go. I'm not interested in one-upsmanship. The comment was merely and aside that prefaced the actual content of the post.
Arts may not have moral valuation, but it is undeniable that it has a political valence. My above post (apology for the italics) is an attempt to point out the way that Manhunt goes about making itself into a "statement" about voyeurism, and simultaneously erases all serious consideration. In that sense, it encourages false conciousness. Therefore, politically considered, it is bad art.
Re: American Psycho: There is no way in hell the maker's of that film intended the viewer to "identify" with Patrick Bateman. The entirety of the film is an exercise in alienation for the purpose of satire.
Difference between games and movies: In movies, it is indubitably not you doing the doings. In games it simultaneously> you and not you doing the doings.
In this light, what disturbs about Manhunt is the absolute lack of choice. Max Payne pulled a similar trick by confronting the player with his enjoyment of the spectacle of a desperate man rampant. It turned the tables on the me-not me distance that let's so many gamers get away with the "only a game" excuse. Manhunt does nothing of the sort.
First of all, it puts the player in the position of always already being a killer. One, in fact, who was sentenced to death. From their, it goes on to try and destabilized the safe pleasure of voyeurism through the snuff film device. However, the player is not implicate in these snuff films. He is not offered a choice but to become their hero or their victim. You could say that either way you go, the player is the victim. Ultimately, then, the player is "justified" by this doubled victimization.
The question that begs asking in this light is the one the NZ censor answered. Manhunt may not "glorify" killing, but certainly does demand the player enjoy it, and justifies that enjoyment.
Does that justify censorship? Not in my book, but neither does it justify Manhunt. "It's only a game" is a weak excuse denying the implications of our own culpability in our fantasies of violence.
I think it is deeply unfortunate that some people are so fucking twitchy that they wanted to get on Rockstar's case about a poor choice of phrasing.
On the other hand, a few of the posts in this subthread have alleged that this is somehow a setback for videogames as art, or for "mature" games.
I would just like to point out thatt GTA:VC is hardly mature because of it's content. In fact, what it makes so much goddamn fun is the sheer puerility of it all.
The road to videogames that might be counted as art is not through more rampant idiocy with a flavor of the naughty, but through games that use the player's complicity (agency, even) in his or her actions as a tool for relfection and the asking of difficult question. Look to Deus Ex or Thief or even the infamous hallucination sequencee of Max Payne for evidence of this, and then tell if me GTA:VC stacks up.
I'm as perturbed by this development as the next guy (okay, not nearly as much as some of the froting lunatics in here), but let's keep our issues straight.
>The process predictably goes on an on, until we have communism
No, it goes on until you have Stalinism, which, for the last goddamn time, HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH COMMUNISM!
Libertarians who haven't studied the history and theory of Communism should go buy a small plot in Vermont and live off jacked deer so we don't have to listen them.
Don't misunderstand; I'm not a Communist, nor do I think it has ever, or probably could ever work, as it has been formulated and practiced......BUT, at least read the freaking "Communist Manifesto" before you go tossing the word around so lightly.
2003 AD is 211 years since the French Revolution. Hence the replacement of the days of the week with Nonidi, Decadi, etc. on the list. Also the reason for the decimal hours listings: the captain/judge meeting at 3h33 happened at 8:00 AM.
Had that figured out 15 minutes into the list (~3.25 AM, Thursday).
Now, try this one on for size: "Rockford. Knutson, Elixir. Lost I.D...". Note that there is a spelling error hear for which I shall whip one of the judges as soon as I've slept enough to move.
Yrs,
Potato Head Ears
Uber-Tuter for Road-Trip Coordination
Lush Puppies, Mark III: The F.I.S.T. Deux: Deleuzean Potato
Re:MIT still kicks uchicago's stupid elitist ass.
on
ScavHunt211
·
· Score: 1
1) Pandering my ass. I do everything in my power to make fun of the poor bastards. Like throwing the socks I'd been using to stuff my underwear for the fashion right at them so Sam "Scavvy" Hunt had to catch them. And I had been too busy to shower for the last three days.
2) Monetary Prize? When was the last time this actually got paid out? And it's on the order of $500 for the *whole* team. The winning teams usually consist of ~50 members. So $10 each is a prize? That's barely a reimbursement for the duct tape and aluminum foil I used this year to convert an Acura Integra into Marty McFly's delorian!
3) Elitist? WTF? We're in Chicago, for frag's sake!
4) We have a Humanities program, so neaner, neaner , neaner.
bl0nd13
PS: When's the last time an MIT student set Lake Eerie on fire?
Slashdot Mirror
>Max Palevsky was second By nothing more than 160 pt. margin, those tools! Since I can, I want to tell anyone listening what I told the judges in all fucking sincerity Sunday afternoon: In five years, this is far and away the best Hunt. b70nd13 Captain of the All-Starrest All-Stars
In my view, that moment isn't just funny. I found it quite poignant and almost shocking. Given, I study videogames for my degree (>++++$), so it's was a gratifyingly perfect moment for inclusion in my thesis paper, but what happens there is that the character, heretofore assumed by the player to be an extension of the player's self, literally an alter ego, refutes the entire structure of identification and mastery that let's the player "get away" with pretending to *be* Max Payne. The result is that the premise of inconsequentiality and fantasy that allows for the enjoyment of such a violent scenario is broken. Worth noting, also, that that is the first moment in the game where the in-game gaze of Max actually meets the player's gaze. It's a joke, but the joke, ultimately, is on the player.
Thank you Derkec; I've posted along these lines repeatedly, and you're the first to bother replying at all. It's such a joy to know someone else in the world (besides my small band of fellow academic game theorists, and not even all of them) take games seriously. Now, if only most games took us more seriously...
The film and the book are, as I noted above, two completely different texts. In Easton-Ellis' novel, the reader is invited to sympathize with Bateman. In the film, the viewer is being invited to pity Bateman while holding him under the light of satire. However, this isn't a particularly useful direction for the discussion to go. I'm not interested in one-upsmanship. The comment was merely and aside that prefaced the actual content of the post.
We weren't discussing the book. It was the movie that was mentioned. Those are two different texts.
Normally, I'm a big fan of rational discourse and measured debate... but... NAZI SKINHEADS FUCKING DIE!!!!
Arts may not have moral valuation, but it is undeniable that it has a political valence. My above post (apology for the italics) is an attempt to point out the way that Manhunt goes about making itself into a "statement" about voyeurism, and simultaneously erases all serious consideration. In that sense, it encourages false conciousness. Therefore, politically considered, it is bad art.
ah shit, I really gotta' double check those tags. sorry 'bout the italics.
Difference between games and movies: In movies, it is indubitably not you doing the doings. In games it simultaneously> you and not you doing the doings.
In this light, what disturbs about Manhunt is the absolute lack of choice. Max Payne pulled a similar trick by confronting the player with his enjoyment of the spectacle of a desperate man rampant. It turned the tables on the me-not me distance that let's so many gamers get away with the "only a game" excuse. Manhunt does nothing of the sort.
First of all, it puts the player in the position of always already being a killer. One, in fact, who was sentenced to death. From their, it goes on to try and destabilized the safe pleasure of voyeurism through the snuff film device. However, the player is not implicate in these snuff films. He is not offered a choice but to become their hero or their victim. You could say that either way you go, the player is the victim. Ultimately, then, the player is "justified" by this doubled victimization.
The question that begs asking in this light is the one the NZ censor answered. Manhunt may not "glorify" killing, but certainly does demand the player enjoy it, and justifies that enjoyment.
Does that justify censorship? Not in my book, but neither does it justify Manhunt. "It's only a game" is a weak excuse denying the implications of our own culpability in our fantasies of violence.
Play Deus Ex: Invisible War instead.
sorry, typed too fast... "reflection" and "sequence," and "its," not "it's"...
I think it is deeply unfortunate that some people are so fucking twitchy that they wanted to get on Rockstar's case about a poor choice of phrasing. On the other hand, a few of the posts in this subthread have alleged that this is somehow a setback for videogames as art, or for "mature" games. I would just like to point out thatt GTA:VC is hardly mature because of it's content. In fact, what it makes so much goddamn fun is the sheer puerility of it all. The road to videogames that might be counted as art is not through more rampant idiocy with a flavor of the naughty, but through games that use the player's complicity (agency, even) in his or her actions as a tool for relfection and the asking of difficult question. Look to Deus Ex or Thief or even the infamous hallucination sequencee of Max Payne for evidence of this, and then tell if me GTA:VC stacks up. I'm as perturbed by this development as the next guy (okay, not nearly as much as some of the froting lunatics in here), but let's keep our issues straight.
Clearly, the only solution is miscegenation; we just need to interbreed until we're all a creamy tan!
>The process predictably goes on an on, until we
...BUT, at least read the freaking "Communist Manifesto" before you go tossing the word around so lightly.
have communism
No, it goes on until you have Stalinism, which, for the last goddamn time, HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH COMMUNISM!
Libertarians who haven't studied the history and theory of Communism should go buy a small plot in Vermont and live off jacked deer so we don't have to listen them.
Don't misunderstand; I'm not a Communist, nor do I think it has ever, or probably could ever work, as it has been formulated and practiced...
Hint: It's actually spelled EliXur.
bl0nd13
a.k.a.
Potato Head Ears
own up, man, it was a beautiful idea that went horribly wrong.
p.h.e.
Had that figured out 15 minutes into the list (~3.25 AM, Thursday).
Now, try this one on for size: "Rockford. Knutson, Elixir. Lost I.D...". Note that there is a spelling error hear for which I shall whip one of the judges as soon as I've slept enough to move.
Yrs,
Potato Head Ears
Uber-Tuter for Road-Trip Coordination
Lush Puppies, Mark III: The F.I.S.T. Deux: Deleuzean Potato
1) Pandering my ass. I do everything in my power to make fun of the poor bastards. Like throwing the socks I'd been using to stuff my underwear for the fashion right at them so Sam "Scavvy" Hunt had to catch them. And I had been too busy to shower for the last three days. 2) Monetary Prize? When was the last time this actually got paid out? And it's on the order of $500 for the *whole* team. The winning teams usually consist of ~50 members. So $10 each is a prize? That's barely a reimbursement for the duct tape and aluminum foil I used this year to convert an Acura Integra into Marty McFly's delorian! 3) Elitist? WTF? We're in Chicago, for frag's sake! 4) We have a Humanities program, so neaner, neaner , neaner. bl0nd13 PS: When's the last time an MIT student set Lake Eerie on fire?