Games That Stick It To The Man 147
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.
...and this surprising...how? (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:I have a game idea... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:I have a game idea... (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:I have a game idea... (Score:5, Insightful)
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
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)
Games with an agenda (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Geez (Score:2, Insightful)
That and Terrorists blow up police stations in Iraq, coffee houses in Isreal, office buildings in the US, wedding parties in Lebanon...
Re:I have a game idea... (Score:2, Insightful)
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 of anything you want. I condemn anyone who reacts violently to the expression of another. At the same time, however, I understand their reactions and I would expect them. Violence is the product of anger and fear. Anger is basically the primal instinct to remove a threat to ones person by destroying that threat. Fear easily turns to anger, they are linked.
Picture this, Canada, and several central american countries are invaded and conquered by predominantly muslim countries who scorn their "wrong" religion and set about building large military bases in these lands to "keep the peace" while selling off all the valuable resources to foreign investors. There are large, well reported cases of rape, murder and sacrilege in these countries under their new rulers and the quality of life is in the shitter. They have backed up sewers, scant food, erratic electricity, constant bombings, etc. The majority of the people there are filled with hate over their dead family members, wives, children and brothers who were killed by foreign bombs. Many flee to neighboring Mexico and the USA, brining with them stories of all this horror. No one seems to have a large enough army to stop the seemingly religious invasions.
Now the same muslim countries, with their occupying forces next door, start talking about an invasion of mexico, who is not doing things they way they would like, even though mexico signed a treaty a decade ago, specifically granting them the right to do what they are doing. Everyone in the US and Mexico knows it is just a pretext, because they want an excuse to invade as soon as they have enough man power.
Now picture into this environment, pakistan prints up a series of sacrilegious cartoons not only mocking christianity, but parroting the excuses the Muslim countries gave for invading Canada in the first place. How do you expect people in say, Kentucky would react? What actions would you expect the frightened locals and refugees would take regarding the Pakistani embassy in Kentucky? Some would call for boycott of Pakistani goods. Others would hop in their rusty Chevys and go shoot out the windows with shotguns. And if you think it is tragic that these same Kentuckians would not react equally strongly when they heard about a bunch of Muslim children being killed, you're right it is tragic. But that does not mean you would not hear Bob down at the bar muttering about how they deserved it and they should just get the hell out of America while he's chugging his Coors.
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. And just as I would not condemn christianity based upon the actions of some angry, frightened hicks from Kentucky, neither would i condemn the muslim religion and its adherents based upon the actions of a few radicals. I actually have some fundamental, philosophical objections to beliefs taught by the muslim religion. I also agree with a lot of the teachings as well.
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. Burning flags is fine, it is as much of an expression as cartoons are. Attacking others, however, is not fine, but anyone who did not expect it based upon the current situation and human nature is fundamentally misunderstanding one or more aspects of the world and mankind.
Re:I have a game idea... (Score:3, Insightful)
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 murder, we are told we should be more understanding. That, my friends, is beyond a double standard. If we had the same viewpoint, it really would be a war of Islam vs the West. It isn't, but from what I'm seeing it may be leading to that.
Re:I have a game idea... (Score:4, Insightful)
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
Re:I have a game idea... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:I have a game idea... (Score:3, Insightful)
It is also completely indefensible.
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.
The only time it is appropriate to use violence is when it will directly prevent harm to someone else, and even then only in appropriate measures. The only thing these violent protests have accomplished is to make Muslims look like jackholes to people who can't tell the difference between extremists and honest Muslims.
Re:I have a game idea... (Score:3, Insightful)
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 make a few terrorists through "collateral" damage. But you'd better ask yourself each time: will this one be worth it? Am I gaining more than I'm losing with this action? Am I hurting other innocent parties with this action? If so, is it a tradeoff with which I can live?
So often the argument made is that somehow that by not actively causing collateral damage and making terrorists or by not actively succeeding in offending someone with your speech, you're instead supporting terrorists or destroying free speech. Let me tell you: I am not destroying free speech by sitting here right now without saying anything offensive. But if I say something so offensive that it creates mass unrest and states feel the need to regulate speech in order to preserve safety, then -- then I just might be destroying free speech.
Idealism's great... if your head is in the clouds but the rest of you lives in reality.
Re:I have a game idea... (Score:3, Insightful)
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
The main problem with islam is that the moderates, the non fanatics do not intervene. 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. Why can't the moderate muslims learn to tell the extremists to STFU? Why does it take the death of 190+ people in Madrid for the spanish Imams and big cheeses to say that extremist islamists are wrong? Why can't the british imams come out against the protester who hold signs like: KILL EVERY COUNTRY THAT OFFENDS ISLAM
Want to really hurt "the man"? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:I have a game idea... (Score:3, Insightful)
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 say I'd just leave it to the reader's imagination, but why bother when you have Taliban Afghanistan as an abject example. I don't think you can ever come to any sort of compromise with these people -- there is simply no way to achieve what they want, within the framework of personal freedom that we value so highly in the West. Those two goals are mutually exclusive.
I don't have any cute solutions to propose. It seems like there are two ways that people seem to go on the issue of 'what to do,' neither of which I think will work. Solution 1 is, "we cannot negotiate with them, so we'll kill them." In addition to subverting one's own value system by blithely resorting to violence, I'm not sure that killing all the extremists is really a realistic objective. But the second popular solution, which is simply to deny that what the extremists are seeking really is all that extreme, and proceed under the illusion that they can be negotiated with and brought to see the benefits of a free society, is also false. Extremists don't see a free society where people have the ability to choose their religion and say whatever they want -- no matter how blasphemous -- as a good thing. And if you reject that basic premise, none of the other arguments that get made in favor of democracy make sense.
In the end, I think the US and Europe will tire of meddling in Middle-Eastern Muslim affairs, and let the place become a giant 12th Century theocracy. A new 'Iron Curtain' will be erected, except instead of between Democracy and Communism, it will be between Democracy and Theocracy. Eventually, and it's starting to happen already, people in the US are going to decide that the freedom of a bunch of questionably grateful people is not worth American lives. I think the only reason why you don't hear more calls for this right now is because of oil; even if you don't value freedom in the Middle East per se, a democratic Middle East is a friendly Middle East, and friendly equals a steady supply of oil. Once that oil is gone, and 'freedom' is the only thing left as a motivation, I think you'll see the same carelessness applied to the Arab nations as we saw applied to Somalia. The second Americans start getting killed, we'll pull back like a person who's been burned, and let the place eat itself alive.
Re:Extremism violates the social contract. (Score:3, Insightful)
The real problem being that "extremists" actively work to harm individuals who have done nothing to harm the extremists and pose no direct threat to anyone?
The US military certainly fits that definition. Dropping bombs on cities filled with civilians is certainly actively harming those who have done nothing to them. For that matter, pretty much no one in Iraq did anything to the US at all. We just invaded them "for their own good" and now thousands are dead, they have unreliable electricity and polluted water supplies. No one goes out at night and everyone lives in fear. All the resources and infrastructure has been looted and sold/given to foreign corporations. The treasury has been looted and large debts have been taken out on behalf of the Iraqi people. Basically, life is much, much worse for most people and many are dead. All of this because extremist americans invaded their country without cause.
the members of a rational civil society who should take an absolute and uncompromising stand against extremists who advocate or cause harm to innocents, whether they're American politicians, suicide bombers, racist agitators, or media commentators.
And this is where you start holding people responsible for the actions of others. If a politician orders and attack, is he guilty or are those who actually shoot people, or both? What about those who elected him and funded him with their tax dollars. What about those who just don't care that he did it, or are uninformed and approve of his actions?
Understanding the perspectives of others and empathizing with them should never take precedence over establishing the rule of law and requiring all members of a society to respect the basic human rights of others.
There is no law in international relations and there never really has been. How can you expect a person who just saw their little girl murdered by those who violate basic human rights to still uphold those same rights while fighting to avenge her? The truth is he has no hope to change things and stop his people from being killed and exploited if he "plays by the rules" while the US is pulling every dirty trick.
Choosing to be driven by by emotions and disregarding the rights of others? That's well and good. Let he who is without emotion and fully cognizant of the rights of others decide whether to let you have a warning shot...
Wow, you really don't understand psychology. No one chooses to be driven by emotions. Emotions are a fundamentally deeper level of decision making than reason. Reason can, in most cases, mitigate or override actions that would normally be taken by acting on emotion, unless that emotion is too strong. More importantly the normal human condition is to act based upon emotion, while modifying and/or justifying those actions using reason. A person might decide to believe in a religion because they are emotionally driven by family and circumstance. Then, they use reason to justify their belief.
There are those who apply reason to the fundamentals of their lives, and a number of disciplines of thought, like the scientific method, but they are the exception not the rule. If you want to condemn the majority of our species for being what it is then that is your right, assuming you are not being hypocritical about it and you actually do apply a rational, reasoned method to your entire life.
So here is what I think is important. Given the same situation, most people would act similarly to the way the people of the middle east did. Most of them acted peacefully, but a few were driven by their emotions and lack of understanding to do something rash. I wholly disapprove of what they have done. At the same time, I wholly disapprove of the media characterization and most of the comments I have read here that insist on judging entire cultures and religions based upon the actions of a few. And given how much wrong has been done to them by some individuals that to them represent western culture and western religion I