Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Businesses Entertainment Games

Games That Stick It To The Man 147

Posted by Zonk
from the take-that-business-figurehead dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Games That Stick It To The Man

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 06, 2006 @02:51PM (#14652779)
    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.
    • Being able to distinguish between games and reality means that we are also capable of gleaning helpful information from informative or educational games. You know, because we can recognize that those aspects of the game relate to "reality."
  • by IAAP (937607) on Monday February 06, 2006 @02:52PM (#14652791)
    Based on this FTFA: One is Gonzalo Frasca's "September 12," in which players shoot missiles at terrorists in a small village. The fun quickly turns political, however, as villagers mourning friends and relatives accidentally killed by the missiles morph into terrorists themselves. The message, clearly, is to think about consequences.

    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.

    • People keep talking about how unreasonable Muslim protests over these political cartoons are.

      Before violence erupted there were calls for boycotts (perfectly reasonable) to which the EU responded by threatening them if they dared to boycott a member state.

      They tried peaceful means first. Violence only came later.

      Second, these images of Muhammad are as offensive to muslims as it would be to christians to depict the Virgin Mary getting fucked by a pig with the caption "Technically, she's still a virgin."
      • by SeekerDarksteel (896422) on Monday February 06, 2006 @03:17PM (#14653032)
        Art depecting things that would be considered highly offensive is nothing new. Crosses in jars of urine, collages of the Virgin Mary made up of porno images, etc. But I don't see Christians rioting in the street, setting things on fire, and calling for people to die over these things, do you?

        They tried peaceful means first. Violence only came later.

        "We tried to do things peacefully, but they FORCED us to set fire to their embassies and attack law enforcement officers! It's not OUR fault! Honest!"

        Please.... No matter how offensive something might be, no matter what they may have tried, nothing gives someone the right to resort to violence because they dislike what someone else said.
        • But I don't see Christians rioting in the street, setting things on fire, and calling for people to die over these things, do you?

          Never heard of the Reformation? Try reading up on calvinism
          • With all due respect, that was almost 500 years ago. What you're basically saying is that:

            1. Christians did it at some point so it's OK for Muslims to do it now.
            2. It's OK to be as ignorant as people 500 years ago were.

            Neither answer justifies violence by the "religion of Peace". We are talking about political cartoons. There is no image on the face of the Earth worth jeopardizing a human life for.
        • by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) on Monday February 06, 2006 @05:01PM (#14654095)

          Art depecting things that would be considered highly offensive is nothing new. Crosses in jars of urine, collages of the Virgin Mary made up of porno images, etc. But I don't see Christians rioting in the street, setting things on fire, and calling for people to die over these things, do you?

          I certainly have heard the last one. Maybe you haven't watched enough televangelists. There are plenty of violent christians who would gladly beat an artist to death for making such a thing. Maybe that is why they are always shown in large art shows in trendy, civilized places like New York, rather than in small town Texas. Hell, over the course of history christians have killed and tortured at least as many people in the name of their religion as muslims have.

          The situation for christians in the US, however, is not even close to the same. These are people who are living in fear of the new christian crusades. They have relatives who were bombed and cousins who were shot in the head. They have recently seen photos of the invading christians raping their people and heard stories of much, much worse. They are understandable frightened and angry and if you don't expect some of them to act on that anger then you don't understand people at all.

          Please.... No matter how offensive something might be, no matter what they may have tried, nothing gives someone the right to resort to violence because they dislike what someone else said.

          With this I agree. These people are acting out of hatred and anger and fear and while I understand it, I don't condone it.

        • No matter how offensive something might be, no matter what they may have tried, nothing gives someone the right to resort to violence because they dislike what someone else said.

          No, it doesn't, you're right. But it (violence) has always happened, and will always continue to happen, anyway. And thus, it always behooves you to pick your battles with an awareness of the consequences, whether the consequences have a "right" to exist or not.

          In some cases, yes, it's justified to insult an entire religion or to ma
        • I know nothing whatsoever about the events you are talking about, but absolutist statements like the following kind of tick me off:

          Please.... No matter how offensive something might be, no matter what they may have tried, nothing gives someone the right to resort to violence because they dislike what someone else said.

          I dunno. What about verbally threatening someone? It's not really just the words, it's also the credibility, the capability to carry out the words- if someone threatens you and has the means

        • But I don't see Christians rioting in the street, setting things on fire, and calling for people to die over these things, do you?

          US abortion clinic.
          'Nuff said.

      • by IAAP (937607) on Monday February 06, 2006 @03:19PM (#14653062)
        Before violence erupted there were calls for boycotts (perfectly reasonable) to which the EU responded by threatening them if they dared to boycott a member state.

        No excuse. And I've never seen anyting about boycots. Again, no excuse for the violence

        They tried peaceful means first. Violence only came later.

        Still, no excuse.

        Second, these images of Muhammad are as offensive to muslims as it would be to christians to depict the Virgin Mary getting fucked by a pig with the caption "Technically, she's still a virgin."

        There would be outrage, but there wouldn't be any of the violence and murder that is occuring now. Any religion that will go nuts over a cartoon but not the murder (by them) of innocent people (not of their religion or even their version of their "faith") is a pathetic excuse for anyone that calls themsleves "children of God". Think of all the times Sunnis, Shiites, etc.. are all exterminating each other because they don't beleive the "right" way.

        Again, there's no excuse for acting like animals.

        • Ya know, most of these riots don't happen spontaneously.

          Usually someone decides that a certain event is something that they can use to whip people up into a frenzy.

          The only difference between Americans and rioting Arabs, is that the Americans usually save their riots for college football games. The exact same forces are at work, just for different reasons.

          In other news: Iran just cut off trade relations with Denmark because of the cartoons and I wouldn't be surprised if another country or two followed suite
          • Saying there is no excuse for the violence just means you don't sympathize with their viewpoint.

            When their viewpoint is that a cartoon is an excuse for arson and murder and other violent acts, then you're right. I don't sypathize with their viewpoint.

            People insult Christianity and Judaism constantly. If Christians and Jews say that people shouldn't say such things and create such art, they are blasted as being hateful and intolerant of others viewpoints. When Muslims use art as an excuse for arson and m

          • In other news: Iran just cut off trade relations with Denmark because of the cartoons and I wouldn't be surprised if another country or two followed suite.

            Well guess that just means I will have to stock up on plenty of Carlsberg [carlsberg.com] and Danish Cheeses [gourmetfoodstore.com].
        • OT (Score:5, Interesting)

          by TubeSteak (669689) on Monday February 06, 2006 @04:13PM (#14653635) Journal
          Sorry to reply twice, but I just skimmed a blog article that helps put the violence and outrage in context

          http://www.civitas.org.uk/blog/archives/2006/02/if _theres_hell_below_is_this_where_we_shall_all_be_s pending_xmas_.html [civitas.org.uk]

          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.
          • Bah - The danish imams went to the Middle East to gather support to opposing the danish moslem-bashing. The developments in this country of mine in the last ten years is outrageous, in the medias etc the moslems is treated like jews were in 30's germany. Our bloody prime-minister made the cartoons just another domestic politcal issue of bashing moslems. Claiming it was an issue of free speech, and most important, denying to meet with Middle Eastern ambassadors (which is preposterous in diplomatic terms). Th
        • There would be outrage, but there wouldn't be any of the violence and murder that is occuring now. Any religion that will go nuts over a cartoon but not the murder (by them) of innocent people (not of their religion or even their version of their "faith") is a pathetic excuse for anyone that calls themsleves "children of God".

          Your problem is that you are ascribing motives to a religion, not to people who happen to be members of that religion. I fully support free speech and the right to print cartoons

          • Again, there's no excuse for acting like animals.

            That is exactly what is happening. People are acting out of anger and fear, just like animals do. It is unethical, but also completely understandable.

            It is also completely indefensible.

            The important thing I think you should remember in all of this is that you need to understand why people act the way they do and also to avoid prejudging others based upon actions you have seen performed by people of the same race, religion, country, or sex. Burn

            • It is also completely indefensible.

              Some religion had this saying in one of it's principal works. It was something along the lines of, "let he who is without sin cast the first stone." I take it you've never acted rashly out of fear or anger, especially while subjected to both terrible violence and mockery of your beliefs?

              And anyone who would make excuses for it has their head up their ass and doesn't see that making excuses for violence is the reason we have so much violence.

              I specifically did not ex

              • "Extremists" are just people, like any other, driven by emotions and reasons. Villainizing them and dehumanizing them is failing to understand the real problem.

                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?

                This form of extremism in any cause is indefensible, and the reason we have so much violence is that extremism fails to drive enough of the people who matter to violence and hate-- the members of
                • 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

        • And I've never seen anyting about boycots.

          Aw, come on, where do you get your news? Fox News?


          Any religion that will go nuts over a cartoon

          Religions don't "go nuts". People do, regardless of their religion.

      • by amliebsch (724858) on Monday February 06, 2006 @03:19PM (#14653064) Journal
        They tried peaceful means first. Violence only came later.

        The means are irrelevant, except that they have become so grossly disproportionate. Their very goal - the suppression of speech they find disagreeable - is illegitimate in liberal societies.

        Second, these images of Muhammad are as offensive to muslims as it would be to christians to depict the Virgin Mary getting fucked by a pig with the caption "Technically, she's still a virgin."

        Yet, curiously, when confronted with such works as the piss Christ and the elephant dung Virgin Mary, Christians were told to suck it up and accept that as the price of living in a pluralistic society. And guess what? They did.

        • by eboot (697478)
          And yet when confronted by an abortion clinic or a gay marriage some good wholesome Christians get a little explosive dont they? All religions have there stupid fundamentalists who take the whole thing a little too seriously. Whats dangerous is the ones who dont see their religions flaws and only find flaw in the t'other...
          • Even accepting the analogy, that is irrelevant. Such behavior is unacceptable, regardless of who is doing it. If somebody posted a defense of abortion bombers, arguing that they tried nonviolent means first and so had no other choice, I would condemn them just as harshly.
            • The abortion clinic bombers believe that innocent lives are being destroyed, and that the abortionists are murderers, not because it "offends them". The people going into a frenzy over the cartoons are performing acts of violence simply because they feel they've been insulted.

              There's no comparison there.
          • by chill (34294) on Monday February 06, 2006 @04:53PM (#14654026) Journal
            There is a significant difference between a few people getting a little "explosive" and:

            1. Mass rioting for days in over a dozen countries by thousands of people;
            2. The formal protests of half-a-dozen Governments;
            3. The destruction on several embassies and consular buildings;
            4. The suspension of diplomatic relations or closing of embassies by a couple countries;
            5. Invasion of EU-run buildings by masked, armed mobs demanding apologies.

            The reaction of the Moslem world is way, way over the top and utterly shameful. The rest of the world seems to have advanced beyond the 12th century, yet there still seem to be barbarians to be found.

              -Charles
            • I'm out of mod points, but I think you hit the nail on the head.

              I want to add two points:

              First, many of the Muslims who are being quoted in the media want apologies from or punishment given to the cartoonists themselves, not just the publishers. And that's completely out of line -- I can't imagine that it's actually consistent with most Muslim theological doctrine, either -- simply because a religion (any religion, take your pick) sets out rules for its own followers. It doesn't say anything about how other
              • Interesting point a friend of mine once raised:

                He was fascinated by the fact that whenever the moslems get all bent out of shape over something, they destroy their own country first (including embassies, which cuts off diplomatic relations and etc). They may get around to figuring out how to do something in the other guy's country, but FIRST they destroy their OWN.

                On the other hand, when first world countries get annoyed, they go blow up the OTHER guy's country. It never even occurs to them to do something
      • Something most people here are missing is that the nordic / scandinavian countries are secularised. We wouldn't give a shit about it if someone did just that.

        I read in a article that someone down in Libanon (Beirut) said that either the publishers of the cartoons were trying to provoke (ie starting a war) or clueless.

        I think they were just curious.
      • by dc29A (636871) on Monday February 06, 2006 @03:49PM (#14653364)
        Second, these images of Muhammad are as offensive to muslims as it would be to christians to depict the Virgin Mary getting fucked by a pig with the caption "Technically, she's still a virgin."

        Do you watch South Park? Do we have christians around the world up in arms, threatening to boycot, kidnap and kill every day despite christianity being ridiculed completely on South Park?

        For starters, if you watch South Park: Most of the catholic church is made up by child abusers. Jesus has a tv show, he occasionally does a boxing match with Satan. Satan is gay, but in reality not evil at all. Hell is far more nicer place than heaven. God is one ugly animal who sometimes uses vulgar language. Only mormons can get into heaven. The head of the catholic church is a giant spider queen. Ugh ... I am sure there are other things South Park ridicules from the church. Then there was the bloody mary or whatever episode fiasco and who knows what else. Saddam is in heaven building WMDs while God is way too incompetent to realize it. I could go on for ages!

        Not to mention you got many Black Metal bands pretty much singing about Mary being a whore, Jesus being a moron and who knows what else. Pick up some Cradle of Filth, Deicide or Gorgoroth!

        I won't even get into the "lighter" side of church ridicule from the Simpsons and other comedy shows. However, we don't have christians all around the world calling for boycot and revenge and murder over this do we? I am sure some/many christians are offended by those cartoons, bands, whatnot, but hey, they are smart enough to realize it's a free society with free speech. They enjoy freedom of religion, while we enjoy free speech! Fair deal no?

        IMO, the whole muslim world is WAYYYYY too sensitive about this issue. I find it ironic when they insult the jewish and christian religions in their cartoons it's all good, but when someone else does something similar it's the end of the world!

        (burn karma burn)
        The muslim world needs to police itself before trying to comment/police the non muslim world.
        (/burn carma burn)
        • by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) on Monday February 06, 2006 @04:52PM (#14654009)

          IMO, the whole muslim world is WAYYYYY too sensitive about this issue. I find it ironic when they insult the jewish and christian religions in their cartoons it's all good, but when someone else does something similar it's the end of the world!

          First, it is not "the muslim world" it is particular individuals. Second, christians are not currently the subject of what must seem to them (and many objective observers) as a crusade where their countries are invaded by foreigners from another continent with another religion who kill them, mock their religion, sell off all their resources and land, and print pictures of their men being raped. Second, they are being purposely manipulated into this action by people with a political interest in things, as the three most offensive cartoons (like the one showing a dog fucking mohammed) were never printed in any newspaper that anyone can find and seem to have been made or disseminated by european muslims to aggravate the situation.

          If you honestly think a bunch of scared and angry hicks from texas would not attack a foreign embassy in response to published cartoons of jesus having intercourse with a pig, if they felt threatened and thought it likely they would be conquered by invading muslims in the near future then you don't understand people in general (and probably have never watched the 700 club).

          • Second, christians are not currently the subject of what must seem to them (and many objective observers) as a crusade where their countries are invaded by foreigners from another continent with another religion who kill them, mock their religion, sell off all their resources and land, and print pictures of their men being raped.

            Man, you've got a serious case of identifying with the violator here.

            On a certain September 11th, we (the US) were invaded by foreigners from another continent with another

            • Man, you've got a serious case of identifying with the violator here. On a certain September 11th, we (the US) were invaded by foreigners from another continent with another religion who killed many of us.

              Yes, and those foreigners died. They were flying the planes. Then that was used as an excuse to invade a completely different country, one which was actually quite hostile to the organization involved. You do know Hussein was hunting them because they wanted to overthrow him too, right?

              They distribu

          • by dc29A (636871)
            First, it is not "the muslim world" it is particular individuals. Second, christians are not currently the subject of what must seem to them (and many objective observers) as a crusade where their countries are invaded by foreigners from another continent with another religion who kill them,

            Indeed. Indonesia, Pakistan, Syria, Lebanon, Turkey, U.K., France, Canada (protests this weekend coming up) are all being invaded and the people are killed there regulary by people with another religion. Oh wait ... FFS,
            • Why does it take over a week of riots, violence and protests for one single moderate islamic group to say that extremists are wrong. As soon as some nutcase christian calls for the assasination of Hugo Chavez every other moderate christian is outraged and they immediately voice their opinions.

              Christianity has a central religious center that governs the exact details of the religion - in this case, it is the Vatican. (There are some splinter groups of Christians that have their own interpretation of the

            • Again, the muslims need to police themselves before looking outside their own backyard.

              Muslims need to police themselves? When the US invades another country an murders thousands based upon a lie do we say, people in green need to be less violent? When the IRA blows up a car do we say, Christians need to stop being so violent? Christians for the most part invaded another country and murdered thousands of them. Maybe the christians should stop being violent before they start trying to interfere with musl

          • Well, complain about what's actually wrong, then. Your country is invaded because some pseudo-Hitler wannabe needs an excuse to stay in power? Your friends, family and acquaintances are killed and tortured left and right because somebody felt the need to slap a "terrorist" label on them? You are thrown into a Kafkaesque nightmare and nobody cares?

            Complain about THAT, then; it's perfectly justified. But don't use it as an excuse to complain about cartoons that you view as offensive to your religion, because
            • But don't use it as an excuse to complain about cartoons that you view as offensive to your religion, because one issues doesn't have anything to do with the other.

              Yes, they do. The muslim people of the middle east feel they are being persecuted partially because of their religion and partially because they are being made scapegoats for the actions of others who are fighting the US. Then a series of cartoons is released that not only mocks their religion (reinforcing the first belief) but equating their

      • Second, these images of Muhammad are as offensive to muslims as it would be to christians to depict the Virgin Mary getting fucked by a pig with the caption "Technically, she's still a virgin."

        Yes, I distinctly remember the riots, kidnappings, burnings of embassies by "thousands of protesters", death threats agains all non-Catholics, and other mass hysteria that followed the airing of this episode of South Park [wikipedia.org].

        Oh, and remember how all of those people who started the Fuck the Skull of Jesus [mit.edu] stuff wer

      • "Second, these images of Muhammad are as offensive to muslims as it would be to christians to depict the Virgin Mary getting fucked by a pig with the caption "Technically, she's still a virgin.""

        I've seen a TShirt with a depiction of Mary that was captioned "She's only a virgin if you don't count anal" Do you see Catholics killing over that?
      • People keep talking about how unreasonable Muslim protests over these political cartoons are.

        I just read some articles on this subject in the San Francisco Chronicle. It was a really interesting read because they had a sub-article titled something about cartoonists playing into the hands of extremists on both sides, basically an anti-free-speech article. Both it and the main article above it were very right-wing, which I found exceptionally interesting in a San Francsico newspaper.

        But anyway, let m

        • One thing this DOES indicate is that extremist Muslims can't handle free speech. It doesn't say anything about anyone else.

          Well said. And consider this: they've made it clear they can't even tolerate freedom of speech in another country, even one as far away and relatively insignificant as Denmark. How do you think that bodes for ever setting up any sort of truly free society in the Muslim world? Not very well, I'm afraid.

          As for the kind of society they would set up, given any say in the matter -- I would s
        • The muslim extremist response? Prove the cartoonist right by lighting a bunch of shit on fire.

          Once again, The Onion Predicts The Future [theonion.com].

      • these images of Muhammad are as offensive to muslims as it would be to christians to depict the Virgin Mary getting fucked by a pig with the caption "Technically, she's still a virgin."

        So become an atheist or (if, like me, you're a lazy Gen-Xer and can't be bothered to commit to any particular belief) an agnostic. That way you won't give a shit about any offensive religious imagery!

      • Oh yeah and where were all the protests from the muslims about the cartoons of jesus we've had the last hundred years? Just because they believe he was only a man and not a part of god doesn't mean he's not a big part of it. He's second only to Muhammed in the order of importance among the prohets, but there's no protests about that. No, it's just a bullshit excuse for rioting and attention-seeking.

        Freedom to worship how you please != freedom from being made fun of.
    • Can I buy a t-shirt for that game?

      Please, give us a weblink!
    • Sadly, who is at fault in such a situation?

      I don't really care what someone believes in but when they insist I believe in THEIR god and are willing to kill me if I don't, well gee, they kind of forced the issue, huh?
    • If you were to actually make that game, the Muslim extremists would call for your head on a platter. Some well-financed Muslim might issue a fatwa calling for your execution, like they did with Salman Rushdie. Cat Stevens would probably support your execution. You'd have to live your life in hiding.

    • "here's another Holocost for this particular religion..." ...because editorial cartoons are JUST LIKE concentration camps.
      • He wasn't talking about the cartoons. He was talking about how all the WASP countries were going to get pushed a little too far over the Muslim reaction to some cartoons, and gathering up all the Muslims and putting them into concentration camps, since every other solution to get them to be nice has been tried unsuccessfully (infering that the Final Solution, however, would probably work.)

        But he said it like it was a bad thing.
  • by Brunellus (875635) on Monday February 06, 2006 @03:02PM (#14652884) Homepage

    As if nobody had ever played emogame [emogame.com]...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.

  • by WillAffleckUW (858324) on Monday February 06, 2006 @03:11PM (#14652977) Homepage Journal
    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.
  • One is Gonzalo Frasca's "September 12," in which players shoot missiles at terrorists in a small village. The fun quickly turns political, however, as villagers mourning friends and relatives accidentally killed by the missiles morph into terrorists themselves. The message, clearly, is to think about consequences.

    Maybe it would be better to realize that this "message" is totally and completely racist, bigoted and prejudiced. Of course, all of "them" are ticking immoral, barbarian time bombs ready to turn

    • A better one would be one where you pick as an ally a murderous fundamentalist, train him as a terrorist, arm him, and pay him billions of dollars, then are suprised when he turns the weapons you gave him back on you.

      Or you could just watch the movie "The Siege" [imdb.com].
    • Re:Geez (Score:3, Interesting)

      by tbannist (230135)
      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 protec
      • What's the difference between the U.S. Army and the Terrorists? The U.S. Army has better funding and organization.

        Oh, please. What crapola.

        The difference between the US Army and the Terrorists is that the US Army targets the bad guys, while Terrorists target people at random (hence the name "terrorist" -- they want people to feel fear, so they'll pressure political leaders to do what the terrorists want).

        If the US Army happens to kill innocents, there are two reason:

        1) The terrorists hide among inno

        • or number 3, you know, when they just kill people that really are innocent and had nothing to do with the terrorists, and believe me, it happens all of the time, and if you don't think so, then you're deluded.
          • or number 3, you know, when they just kill people that really are innocent and had nothing to do with the terrorists, and believe me, it happens all of the time, and if you don't think so, then you're deluded.

            I'm sure it does happen. The question, however, is intent. Terrorists intend to kill innocent people.

            • I hope you don't believe that purposely killing innocent people and accidentally doing so and not caring are very different.
            • Terrorists intend to kill innocent people.

              Note that I am not defending terroris(m|ts)...but, in an effort to better understand, I think I should point out that most terrorists do not actually target people they believe are innocent. They merely believe differently about innocence.

              In the eyes of a person willing to strap a bomb on their body and self-detonate in a shopping mall, none of the people they maim or kill are innocent. In the eyes of many U.S. soldiers and leaders, few (if any) of the civilia

              • In the eyes of a person willing to strap a bomb on their body and self-detonate in a shopping mall, none of the people they maim or kill are innocent. In the eyes of many U.S. soldiers and leaders, few (if any) of the civilians they've killed are innocent.

                I need to get out of this conversation, because I'm getting too irritated, but to think that the US soldiers and leaders feel that none of the civilians they've killed were innocent is just idiotical prejudice against the military. Yeah, they're just all

        • Seriously, think about this for a moment:

          1) The U.S. Army is in Iraq to protect the American people. They are there because terrorists attacked Innocent people in the U.S. The soldiers are there in a misguided attempt to protect the people of the United States of America.

          2) Why did Terrorists attack the U.S.? Because the U.S. has a history of interfering in the Middle East, of providing funds and equipment to dictators, including Saddam Hussein. They attacked the U.S. in a misguided attempt to defend th
        • If the US Army happens to kill innocents, there are two reason: 1) The terrorists hide among innocent people, thereby endangering their own people. IOW, it's the terrorists fault. 2) The "innocents" know about the terrorists, yet do nothing. Therefore, it's their own fault.

          3) The noncombatants (not necessary to use '"innocents"', which automatically casts a shadow over them) were not aware that their neighbors were terrorists.
          4) Instead of risking a few people to put men on the ground and do a safe

      • Re:Geez (Score:2, Insightful)

        by MightyTater (592114)
        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...
    • Have you ever seen the movie, "Red Dawn?" It tackles this very issue, with Americans as the terrorists. The Basic plot is the Russians invade and grab a huge chunk of the US, which they occupy. Then as the Russian army kills rebels and dissidents the local hicks wage a hit and run war against them, planting bombs and trying to stay alive in the mountains. Every time the Russians execute some locals, the resistance grows, just as it always does in countries around the world under the same circumstances.

      The

  • I've tried to play that anti-McDonald's game. It was not fun at all - and its "criticism" of the company was infantile drivel. And what "advergames" does McDonald's have? Mick & Mack: Global Gladiators (92, Virgin Games) and McDonald's Treasure Land Adventure (93, Treasure/Sega). The main difference: they are actually fun!
    • 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!
  • I got a copy of Steer Madness [steermadness.com] as a gift a while back. It's pretty good. It's organized around missions and plays a lot like GTA, except it eases you into the world of protest against corporate interests. It really sucks you in. You start by putting up harmless stickers around town, and before you know it you're ... well, you'll have to see for yourself. After playing for a while I realized that, while The Powers That Be make a big fuss about how awful GTA is, if they haven't seen this game, they really have
    • Steer Madness? Not only are you a mad cow, but you've been anthropomorphized, apparently due to some sort of freakish genetic mutation? How can you condone a game with such apparently dangerous themes!?
  • by Gogo0 (877020) on Monday February 06, 2006 @03:57PM (#14653460)
    Oh good, because everyone has been asking for games that preach to them.
  • by jgardn (539054) <jgardn@alumni.washington.edu> on Monday February 06, 2006 @06:49PM (#14655106) Homepage Journal
    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.
    • 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.

      I saw a mildly humorous commercial for tacos or something the other day in which a character was refering to someone as 'the man'. He wasn't in the least advocating violence or 'hatred campaigns', and such advocacy wasn't even part of the joke. 'The

To err is human -- to blame it on a computer is even more so.

Working...