xawery

I hang my head in shame. My university has opened its virtual doors on Second Life.

I'm reading "Shake hands with the devil" by Lt. Gen. Roméo Dallaire, the Canadian force commander of the UN mission in Rwanda, during the 1994 genocide. For those of you who have seen Hotel Rwanda: the Canadian colonel played by Nick Nolte is partially based on Dallaire. The book offers a very candid look on what went wrong in Rwanda, how it went wrong, and what could have been done to stop it. Thankfully, Dallaire steers well clear of contrived stylistic devices (the main pitfall of first-time writers), so the book remains very readable throughout its 500+ pages. Highly recommended.

Ah, this subject again... As per usual, the levels of hypocrisy make my eyes bleed. Bals, you say that children should not be included because war can scar them for life. Why is including males (both soldiers and civilians' ok then? Or do you think that war does not affect them? Yes, PTSD is a fairytale... You also claim that it´s impossible to simulate the true effects war has on children: traumas, etc. That´s true, but by the same logic we shouldn´t include men either, because the game fails to simulate the fate of many a soldier: loss of limbs, nightmares, panic attacks etc. Or do you believe that men cannot suffer from mental disorders? To put it short: why would killing men be less disgusting than killing women or children? An adult male can be as defenseless as a child. If someone would point a gun at me right now I would put up as little of a fight as an eight year old girl. Of course, one could say that soldiers are fair game - they signed up for it. But when SLX included animations for dragging wounded teammates, I don´t recall you being outraged at the immorality of shooting someone who´s trying to help a wounded, defenseless comerade. Now that we have established that excluding women and children from a wargame on moral grounds is nothing short of hypocritical, let´s explore the use of females and children in-game. Previous posters have mentioned enough uses: realism, immersion, moral dilemmas. You can´t just carpetbomb an enemy occupied town knowing that civilans, men, women and children are there as well. If you claim to offer a military simulator, you cannot just exclude such vital factors. One of the most misused arguments is the fear that some sicko would create a mission where your task was to kill children. That possibility exists, but there is no evidence to support a high probability. After all, with the currently available mod tools, you could easily make a mission in OFP where you play a white supremacist and your sole task is to kill black people. Just download Tonal and there you go. Did it happen? Nope. Of course, you could say that creating such a possibility alone would be damaging to BIS. Well, some sickos made a nazi death camp mod for Wolfenstein, but nobody accused ID Software of facilitating it, even though, strictly speaking, they ´created such a possibility´. The probability of a morally apprehensive mission being made as well as it´s supposed impact are not only exaggerated, they also eclipse the sensible uses of such addons. For example, Jinef of Zeus made an excellent PvP mission a while ago where west was tasked with moving a convoy from A to B, while resistance in civilian clothes was supposed to intercept them. Sounds straightforward, until one throws AI civilians in who go about their daily things. The moral implications of distrusting every civilian, man or woman, sparked a very interesting discussion. In essence: controversial material in the hands of responsible people will be a source of challenging, evocative missions. Any moddable material in the hands of bigoted fools will result in bad taste (vide the Raghead Hunt mission). If the developers believe that the negative consequences of the latter outweigh the benefits of the former, they shouldn´t make their game moddable. If they don´t, they shouldn´t try to sanitise a war simulator.

That's why we have libraries and bookstores! ;p I've only recently read Stanislaw Lem's "Solaris" and I feel compelled to recommend it to everyone who's interested in sci-fi with a bit of philosophy thrown in for good measure. I have read the original but I've heard that the English translation is very good as well. Incidentally, both silver-screen adaptations are very good.

True, but interaction with other humans is still the core of the concept, otherwise it might as well have been a single player 'game'.

Good god man, you make it sound like it's some kind of Dark Side/Light Side dilemma straight out of Star Wars! Incidentally, you touch upon a philosophical issue: the existence of good and evil. Personally I believe that absolute good and absolute evil do not exist. There is no absolute authority upon which we may rely to make that distinction. 'Good' and 'bad' are the product of tthe societal and temporal framework. While polygamy is frowned upon (and illegal) in the Western world, other societies either tolerate it or encourage it. We may find paedophilia disgusting, but buggering young boys was quite normal in Sparta. Religious societies all over the world reject homosexuality and abortion, while liberal countries accept them in the name of personal freedom. Both sides think they are right; so who's good, and who's evil? It's all relative. Now that that is out of the way, let's move on to the matter at hand The fact that there's such a hype around Second Life doesn't mean it's good. There was a hype around Big Brother too - does that mean it was a good show? The fact remains that Second Life offers nothing more than experiences which one can find in the Real World too (apart from flying). This alone makes SL escapist by default. Just like other MMO's SL is not suited for a casual gamer: you must invest time to enjoy it in any significant way. Put differently: you spend time doing virtually what you could be doing in reality. Of course, there is one difference between First Life and Second Life: the lack of any consequences or social control in the latter. Second Life is the paradise of 19th century anarchists - no rules, no enforcement of any kind of behaviour... Just do as you please. This might seem harmless, after all, it's just a game, right? However, it is a game which explicitly aspires simulating 'normal life'. The name says it all. It's not too hard to imagine that such an environment may turn young, impressionable people into moral infants. Of course, this is an old argument, which has been used time and time again to discredit games like GTA, or any other violent game for that matter. The difference lies in the fact that the aforementioned titles are truly GAMES - they do not aim to simulate life. They have their limitations. Also, their availability is (at least somewhat) limited to mature audiences. In contrast, anyone can lie about their age and play SL. Furthermore, violence is rather clear-cut: it's obvious to anyone that it is not acceptable in Real Life, punishable by law etc. People who commit acts of violence under the influence of games (German highschool shooting for example) are always mentally unstable individuals. The gameplay in SL is far more ambiguous: it revolves around social interaction, which has much more opaque rules. It's more difficult to say: what I am doing in-game right now is clearly unacceptable in the Real World. Add to this adolescents with uncristallised understanding of morals and you have a whole generation of moral retards on the horizon. Bottomline: if you want to create a simulation of Life, be conscientuous and include behavioural inhibitors such as law enforcement. That's a game I'd like to play.

Hear hear. The Song of Ice and Fire is by far the best low-fantasy series out there. Incidentally, HBO recently purchased the rights for adapting the novel to the tv screen. Given the quality of Band of Brothers, Carnivale and Rome I can only cheer

True, but freedom != anarchy. Actually, this game is an interesting experiment. Give people absolute freedom to do as they please, remove any negative consequences their actions may have and this is what you get. Flying penes, paedophiles and escapism. Three cheers for humanity!

True. If those two communists would have complied with gov't policy there would have been no problem. Of course, if the right wing parties had supported their own plans instead of trying to bring the gov't down, there would have been no problem at all. Jeez, Italian politics sometimes remind me of a circus... but then again, so does the British parliament

Amazing that a prime minister would resign over decisions taken by his predecessor. After all, it was Berlusconi who approved the plans to expand the US airbase and keep Italian troops in Afghanistan.

He already has, I fear. At least that's what Wikipedia claims; I wasn't able to find any sources on the matter.

Phew, where to start... How is the EU bloated? It employs about as much civil servants as the city of Amsterdam. The EU's budget is a measly 195 bn dollars. That is a small price to pay for gaining entrance to new markets, financial stability, harmonised legislation etc. This might come as a shock, but you ARE interdependant with the EU, as well as the rest of the world. This isn't the 19th century where you could live in splendid isolation. This is the age of globalisation, where dependency on foreign markets and cross-border capital flows align your interests parallel to those of your trade partners. You may not like it, but that's the reality. The EU didn't force the Irish to vote again, the national government did. Two countries may have rejected it (Ireland is still pending), but 18 have ratified it. Why should such a vast majority be held back by a minority? All this will result in is the isolation of the nay-sayers. Needless to say, it will be their loss. Incidentally, you are quite right in saying that the EU lacks decisiveness. The decision-making process needs to be streamlined. Ironically, the effort to improve it by introducing qualified majority voting was frustrated by eurosceptics who complain that the EU is a "sluggish leviathan"... Score +10 XP for flawed logic!

ZOMG. I just watched a documentary about... childpornography in Second Life. Apparently, you can purchase genitals (I shit you not! E-penis is real! ) using your credit card and engage in sexual activities with other users. Sad but harmless one might say, but apparently there are whole servers where you can sodomise young boys who still hold a teddybear in their hand. And believe me, pacifiers are not the only thing these virtual children are sucking on. This documentary caused an upheaval in the Dutch parliament. A majority of the chamber roared in righteous indignation and is in favour of banning such material. The question is: what good will that do? Censorship doesn't work in the internet age. The lawmakers may feel good about themselves for passing such a law, but would it matter? I highly doubt that. Unless, of course, we introduce a virtual police force in Second Life

I think it's common knowledge that airbourne penes are humorous. On a more serious note; I've tried the game a while ago, just to see what all the fuss is about. Perhaps I didn't give it enough time, or perhaps it's my general dislike of mmorpg-esque games, but I hated it. For me, the only reason to play a game is because it offers you an experience you couldn't have in the 'real world'. Second Life offers mundane experiences, like interacting with someone. I think this says more about Second Life players than anything I could write up...

Haha, the belief that the "US and A" is the best thing since sliced bread isn't exactly new. I can only recommend Alexandra Pelosi's (yes, Nancy's daughter) documentary, "Friends of God". It premiered last thursday on HBO, but it's already being broadcasted here in the EU (it's being shown on Tegenlicht as I type). It's an intriguing study of extreme religiosity and nationalism. "There can be no morality without religion", "USA is the best country in the world", "The USA is blessed by God", "Please visit our drive-thru church" (I shit you not!... Amusing, but also pretty scary. Another interesting aspects is that Pelosi was interviewing Ted Haggard around the time he was faced with accusation of drug and sexual abuse... Brilliant stuff; one moment he's preaching about how wrong gayness is, the other he's buggering a male prostitute. Double standards FTW! Highly recommended!

Does anyone remember the eighties film "WarGames", starring Matthew Broderick? I'm specifically referring to one of the last scenes, where the protagonists watch a computer screen in terror as nukes are launched all over the world. As it happens, you now have the chance to bring about world destruction, in the same style. Introversion Software, the makers of the fantastic indy-game Darwinia, bring mutually-assured destruction to your monitor with "DEFCON: Everybody Dies". Though it may look complicated, Defcon is one of those rare games which combine simple gameplay with impressive strategic depth. The game consists of five phases (Defcons, obviously). In the first phase, you place your installations, such as radars, silos, air defenses, airbases and fleets (consisting of carriers, destroyers and subs). At Defcon 2, the raders are activated and you can survey your surroundings. During Defcon 3 and 4, you may engage your enemies using fleets and aircraft. At Defcon 1... Well, get ready to launch! It sounds deceptively simple, but the strategic depth is amazing. "If I launch from here, I will disclose my position to the enemy. Perhaps I should send in fighter jets to distract their AA defenses and create an opening for my ICBM's." There are many factors to consider, but one thing is certain: everybody loses in the end. The goal of the game is to destroy as many enemy cities as possible, while minimising one's own civilian losses. The game's motto goes: "It's Global Thermonuclear War, and nobody wins. But maybe - just maybe - you can lose the least." The interface is very crisp and clear, and the worldmap is very deftly abstracted. Aesthetically, the game is very pleasing to the eye. It really gives you the idea that you're hiding in some bunker, pressing buttons, realising fully well that you're heralding the end of the world. The ambient sounds only strenghten this feeling. You hear some vague radiochatter, the humming of computers and other machinery, someone coughing, someone crying... Very immersive. The best part of this game is that it can (and should) be played online. You can forge alliances, break them, sneak-attack you supposed allies, or gang up on a particular nation. Gee, sounds like the world we're living in, doesn't it? DEFCON costs only $19.95, and can be obtained via Steam. So, if anyone fancies a game of armageddon...

Supposedly, the removal of all objects which could become 'hotspots' (and thus set a person on fire) was a necessary precaution in the early stages of testing. The contractor claims that the weapon was later tested under more realistic circumstances without adverse effects on the test subjects. Of course, nobody has any idea what the long-term effects are. Oh, it's also very easy to turn this into an offensive weapon - lower the frequency, and the beams will penetrate much deeper. Who knows what the effect will be if you excite water molecules deep in the body, rather than 0.5 mm into the skin, where only the nerve endings are affected. Boiling someone alive; now that should prove to be quite a sight. Critics say that in the wrong hands, this could prove to be a very intense torture tool. The question is: what couldn't? Should we deny our law enforcement agencies access to firearms, because firearms in the hand of the wrong people could harm innocents? Of course not. It's a tricky issue... If this works, it would be a huge improvement over the current instruments of riot control - rubber bullets, watercannons, gas... These things can maim or even kill. If the ADS is what the makers claim it to be, then it would be a great addition to the police arsenal.

I recently played DEFCON against human players, and it's a completely different game with a new dimension to it. Alliances crumble over misinterpretations of other players' actions, pointless retaliatory strikes ensue... Amazing what a 50 MB game can deliver. I wonder what a six player game would look like...

Brilliant stuff, Tovarish. Btw, have you seen "Letters from a dead man"? I can't seem to find it anywhere.

I just watched Threads, and what can I say... Harrowing. I watched The War Game (not to be confused with Wargames) right after that, and even though it's a good film, it's not half as candid as Threads. I especially liked the fact that the authors speculated about the state of society 10+ years after the war. I often wondered about the effects of a nuclear exchange, but never considered the major impact lack of education would have upon the first post-war generation. The primitive version of English the children were speaking really got to me. And yes, the illustrations from the DEFCON manual come straight from this film. Even some of the wording (especially about building a lean-to)! Highly recommended.

Hey, thanks for that recommendation Eizei, "Threads" sounds very interesting indeed! Btw K@voven, the experiment you are referring to was performed by Dr. Milgram. He made a short film about it, called "Obedience". It's freely available and can be downloaded from torrent sites. It's really worth watching, I can tell you that!

See, this is the kind of stance I do not understand. I agree that this sound is somewhat upsetting (especially since at first it's difficult to say whether it's someone coughing or sobbing), but that's exactly the point, wouldn't you say? The very point of the game is to evoke cognitive dissonance and thought-provoking emotional discomfort in the player. All too often players actively oppose the inclusion of certain features in games, just so the subject matter remains non-controversial and well within their comfort zone. One example of this is the inclusion (or rather, lack) of children in OFP. The reason cited is that shooting children is 'immoral'. Even if I disregard the hypocritical nature of this statement (civilian men and women are included and can be killed, apparently this isn't immoral at all), I still have many objections. Personally, I find it very disturbing when people try to rid controversial subject matter (such as war) of its sharp edges. In an effort to avoid mental discomfort we inadvertently sanitise the gruesome nature of the horror that is war. Why do war-themed games rarely feature flamethrowers? Because to see and hear someone burn to death is absolutely terrifying, even virtually. Why do virtual soldiers in such games only know two states, i.e. alive or dead? Because to see another human being writhing on the floor, crying in pain and begging for a quick death is shocking and disturbing, and boy, we wouldn't want that to ruin the fun, now would we? I don't think we fully understand the ramifications of this trend. By stripping controversial issues of their controversial aspects, we raise a generation oblivious to the horrid reality of things like war. If you think I'm exaggerating, take a look at history. For example, why did it take so long for the nonsensical slaughter we know as World War One to end? Because the general public was purposefully kept in the dark about the reality of war. Governmental info-films showed staged engagements, and depicted dying soldiers as brave men, clutching their chests and gently slumping to the ground when shot. The civilian populace never saw the horrors of the trenches, dismembered bodies being flung into trees by explosions, wounded men drowning in foxholes in no-man's land, etc. etc. When the mentally scarred soldiers returned home, they were regarded as cowards. What could be better than dying for your country?! The leadership wasn't much better: generals consciously avoided the battlefield, "so as not to let emotions affect their judgement". Because of such myopic reasoning the hellish, pointless slaughters such as at Passchendaele could take place. If you think that this doesn't hold true for the present, think again. How many young men and women join the army because they have an idealised, false view of war? Why was the U.S. gov't trying its best to keep media attention away from flag-covered coffins arriving in the US? Because when confronted with the reality and consequences of war, the public would be much less willing to support a pointless war. The idea of differentiating between civilians as being innocent and soldiers being 'guilty' is a common one, but ambiguous and problematic in times of war. The civilians may not be pointing a gun at you, but they contribute to the war effort by working. They are not a direct threat, but they are a threat nonetheless. Crippling the enemy's industrial capacity is crucial for winning a war, but if you bombard factories civilian workers will die. Would this be justified then or not? After all, they aren't trying to kill you directly, are they? To use an example from DEFCON: is bombarding a military airfield morally acceptable? After all, those mechanics, cooks etc. who work there are not a direct threat, are they? Of course, you could say that by working for the military-industrial complex these people are legitimate targets, as they contribute to the war effort. However, even factories manufacturing such seemingly harmless products as warm coats and socks contribute. Without them, enemy soldiers in cold areas would be less combat-effective. This may look like an abstract, contrived example, but it was nevertheless an actual issue during WWII: remember the German soldiers clad in autumn uniforms at Stalingrad? One of the main reasons why the German offensive failed, which marked a turning point in the war. The point of this very long-winded post is to say that war is intrinsically morally ambiguous, and that simple rules of thumb about "innocent" and "legitimate" targets don't work when subjected to closer scrutiny. By removing certain nasty elements from our depictions of war (be it in games, books or films) we systematically reinforce a false, idolised image of war as a clean, surgical endeavour where soldiers die from a clean bullet through the heart. Life is about choices, and as long as we close our eyes to the consequences, we will keep making the wrong ones.

Tovarish, either you're very lucky or a brilliant strategist. Enemy fleets are usually the biggest of my problems (damn subs!. Incidentally, you can download the manual here. It's a great read, and a nice display of the developers' thoughts on the subject matter. Especially the "Nuclear Exchange Survival Tips" are great. "In the event of a nearby nuclear strike of twenty (20) megatonnes or more, expect variable hours of operation in your local stores and businesses." Give it a read, K@voven

Assuming we overlook the revolutions in Poland and Hungry, the wars in Serbia, Croatia, Albania and Macedonia; the two wars in Cyprus. Not to mention the armed struggles for seperation in Northern Ireland and the Basque country. Sounds like someone is re-writing history to me. Of course, you do realise that none of these countries were in the EU's zone of influence when these conflicts happened? The seperationist movements in Spain and Northern Ireland were, and still are internal issues. Oh, and I'd really like to know which war-like 'revolution' occured in Poland during the second half of the twentieth century. I must have missed it when I blinked. The EU's success lies in the fact that it managed to reconcile countries which were at each others throats for centuries. The method was delightfully simple: creating economic interdependencies. The result? Unparalleled, unprecedented prosperity and peace.

K@voven, that's exactly the point of the game - to provoke thought on the matter. I find it particularly laudable that the developers managed to achieve this effect without getting preachy. The game is a splendid excercise in cognitive dissonance: when you succesfully nuke a large city, your first thought is "Yes! Points!", while the second goes along the lines of "wait, what? 6 million people died and I'm glad?". This kind of thought-provoking ambiguity was also present in Darwinia. You managed to defend the Darwinians from the virii, but at the cost of innocence. Besides, why is killing another human being in OFP less immoral than destroying a city? Scale?