Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
If you have an email ending in @hotmail.com, @live.com or @outlook.com (or any other Microsoft-related domain), please consider changing it to another email provider; Microsoft decided to instantly block the server's IP, so emails can't be sent to these addresses.
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
Some thoughts on propaganda, history and games.
2011-10-13 15:48:23
edited 2011-10-13 15:48:23 in General
One foot in front of the other, every day.
This morning I watched the new episode of Extra Credits. It's about propaganda within video games, but it also brings up unintentional propaganda, such as in the case of modern shooters where Middle Easterners, or at least some kind of militant Eastern group, are almost invariably the villains. There's a few particulars of the situation that are especially interesting to me.
As an amateur student of Medieval times and pretty much anything to do with knights pre-1700s, there's a disturbing parallel with the Crusades. This is not lost on Middle Easterners; a distasteful way to refer to a white soldier in the Middle East is as a "Crusader", such figures understandably providing almost endless villain material in context of their historical perspective. It does beg a question, though: how far have we come since the final Crusades? While those military actions were far from perfectly justified -- and almost as far from unjustified -- they were rational under schools of thought at the time. These weren't random hate campaigns against Muslims, but a response to prior Muslim invasions that came through Spain via North Africa, then combined with the religious demand of controlling Jerusalem. That is, the Crusades were both a means of spiritual attainment and defending against a military force that had been and continued to be very threatening, plunging at times into the heart of Europe without even having to fight the powerhouses of Poland and Germany who would otherwise provide an almost impassble buffer in any military operation headed further West.
I'm not going to open the can of worms that is logistic, economic and social discussion of the current conflict, but I encourage someone else to if they feel the need. You all have the knowledge, so you can make your own comparisons and draw your own conclusions.
Next, I'd like to submit this episode. It's mostly a comparison of the philosophy behind the gun, the sword and the cultures that produced them. In the process, however, there's a great comparison between American and Japanese perspectives in gaming. Interestingly, the Japanese don't tend to make modern shooters, or many shooters at all, and their games tend to bypass race altogether. Sure, their characters have a race -- usually Asian or white -- but this is seldom, to my understanding, brought to attention. That's beside the point, though. The point is, Japnese developers do not make modern shooters with Middle Easterners as villains. In fact, almost no-one does outside the USA.
The question is not about why the USA makes that kind of game, but why there is such an overwhelming fixation on them. One might argue that developers and publishers simply follow the demands of the paying public, but then the question just gets aimed at game consumers within the USA. On whatever level you want to look at it -- publisher, developer, consumer, all of them -- , I'm interested to know the answer to that question. In some respects, it does make me wonder how far we've come since the 12th century, though.
As an amateur student of Medieval times and pretty much anything to do with knights pre-1700s, there's a disturbing parallel with the Crusades. This is not lost on Middle Easterners; a distasteful way to refer to a white soldier in the Middle East is as a "Crusader", such figures understandably providing almost endless villain material in context of their historical perspective. It does beg a question, though: how far have we come since the final Crusades? While those military actions were far from perfectly justified -- and almost as far from unjustified -- they were rational under schools of thought at the time. These weren't random hate campaigns against Muslims, but a response to prior Muslim invasions that came through Spain via North Africa, then combined with the religious demand of controlling Jerusalem. That is, the Crusades were both a means of spiritual attainment and defending against a military force that had been and continued to be very threatening, plunging at times into the heart of Europe without even having to fight the powerhouses of Poland and Germany who would otherwise provide an almost impassble buffer in any military operation headed further West.
I'm not going to open the can of worms that is logistic, economic and social discussion of the current conflict, but I encourage someone else to if they feel the need. You all have the knowledge, so you can make your own comparisons and draw your own conclusions.
Next, I'd like to submit this episode. It's mostly a comparison of the philosophy behind the gun, the sword and the cultures that produced them. In the process, however, there's a great comparison between American and Japanese perspectives in gaming. Interestingly, the Japanese don't tend to make modern shooters, or many shooters at all, and their games tend to bypass race altogether. Sure, their characters have a race -- usually Asian or white -- but this is seldom, to my understanding, brought to attention. That's beside the point, though. The point is, Japnese developers do not make modern shooters with Middle Easterners as villains. In fact, almost no-one does outside the USA.
The question is not about why the USA makes that kind of game, but why there is such an overwhelming fixation on them. One might argue that developers and publishers simply follow the demands of the paying public, but then the question just gets aimed at game consumers within the USA. On whatever level you want to look at it -- publisher, developer, consumer, all of them -- , I'm interested to know the answer to that question. In some respects, it does make me wonder how far we've come since the 12th century, though.
Comments
As for why it's only American games...that's a good question. Creator provincialism is part of it, probably. A game's protagonists are often from the country the game was made, and if that country isn't fighting wars in the Middle East, the realism factor is much smaller.
^ I did explain the differences, but the one very large similarity is the social parallel within media. These are certainly different conflicts, but it is interesting how both have produced similar prejudices.
You mean "concept of the adversary" in the most literal sense? That is, the concept of the adversary refers to that entity being an enemy and nothing else. Or do you mean the characterisation of the adversary irrespective of other elements?
In any case, I don't think there's any sense in denying that modern shooters are very different to their older siblings in ways that go beyond gameplay. Remember that early shooters were all about that "guy with a gun" thing where the player became a one-man army to fight against legions of bad guys. In modern shooters, that element of that particular philosophy isn't there. You're not a singular combat behemoth, but part of a unit with vast logistical support and military training. No longer is there the democratic concept of one gun or one warrior being just as good as the other.
Alex: You kidding me? Even in, say, COD, you still do basically do everything yourself. Your teammates basically don't do anything.
"Ramirez, do everything!" didn't pop up out of nowhere.
"
Given that you can survive a ton of bullets, then hide and get all of your health back, you pretty much are semi-invincible.
There's an extension of this concept in Dark Souls for much the same reason. While I'm a fair way through the game and found no ability or item that allows passive health regeneration, your basic healing items are limited byt the checkpoint system. That is, you have capacity for five healing items which are automatically rejuvinated at each checkpoint, which is clear and marked in the game world. This means that the game designers prevent the player from collecting too many helpful items while also preventing the player from running out entirely.
Same principle and concept, different genre.
"The currently popular health regen mechanic is a result of abstracting the concept of a health bar. This is for the sake of game design; rather than fret about whether there are enough medpacks in a particular area, or whether they're placed appropriately, game designers now return the player to a set level of health which aids game design monumentally. Basically, your low health with regenerative aspects ensures that strong use of cover and other superior positions becomes the most tactically advantageous option. It's design to impose limitations for the sake of realism while removing another limitation that hurt game design. "
That's a strange opinion, as most gamers have massive RAEG against health regen. It's like the most mocked feature of COD, besides bitching about the levels being linear.
I'd argue that it's for the players as well. After all, it ultimately makes the aforementioned cover and flanking tactics the best choices in most situations, so it achieves a sense of tactical realism and therefore immersion.