Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Games That Stick It To The Man

Zonk posted more than 8 years ago | from the take-that-business-figurehead dept.

Businesses 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.

cancel ×

147 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Obviously this won't work (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#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.

Re:Obviously this won't work (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14653244)

That's like saying that because people who read westerns don't go around shooting people, literature can't make you think.

Re:Obviously this won't work (1)

ZombieRoboNinja (905329) | more than 8 years ago | (#14653712)

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."

I have a game idea... (5, Interesting)

IAAP (937607) | more than 8 years ago | (#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.

Re:I have a game idea... (0)

Lord Kano (13027) | more than 8 years ago | (#14652946)

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."

Re:I have a game idea... (5, Insightful)

SeekerDarksteel (896422) | more than 8 years ago | (#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.

Re:I have a game idea... (0, Offtopic)

Dolly_Llama (267016) | more than 8 years ago | (#14653587)

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

Re:I have a game idea... (1)

aelbric (145391) | more than 8 years ago | (#14653689)

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.

Re:I have a game idea... (1)

killermookie (708026) | more than 8 years ago | (#14653985)

It proves to show that some of the Muslim communities (the most vocal, it seems) are still living in the past.

Re:I have a game idea... (4, Insightful)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 8 years ago | (#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.

Re:I have a game idea... (2, Insightful)

aussersterne (212916) | more than 8 years ago | (#14654563)

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 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... (1)

Stoopid-Guy0 (814282) | more than 8 years ago | (#14653041)

You're still implying that violence is an acceptable answer to something that is equivalent to, as you say, "depicting the Virgin Mary getting fucked by a pig with the caption "Technically, she's still a virgin."". I highly doubt that the "Western World" would accept violence against someone printing such a cartoon. How can you?

Re:I have a game idea... (4, Interesting)

IAAP (937607) | more than 8 years ago | (#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.

Re:I have a game idea... (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 8 years ago | (#14653415)

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.

Re:I have a game idea... (2, Insightful)

fdiskne1 (219834) | more than 8 years ago | (#14653731)

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... (0, Offtopic)

aelbric (145391) | more than 8 years ago | (#14653760)

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 (4, Interesting)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 8 years ago | (#14653635)

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.

Re:OT (2)

Shar-Kali-Sharri (890290) | more than 8 years ago | (#14655105)

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). The news-'slur' spreed in the Middle East after the imams went there were exaggerations and not what the imams were saying (the horror is that this rather outrageous slur isn't that far from the truth). That it all went crazy has many reasons - but to blame it on the danish imams is ignoring the main-issue here which is that moslems are treated like second-rate people in Denmark. The cartoons are just the provocation waiting to happen. It reminds me of something the leader of the right-wing fascist populistic support party of our goverment said. She claimed that a danish imam had spread the rumor that there was to be burned korans in a danish demonstration - which she argued triggered the burning of the embassy in Damascus. She went on to argue for this imam to be thrown out of the country - thus again mixing domistic xenofobic politics with world-politics. That there actually was a demonstration that day where they had said they would burn korans is something everybody seems to be forgetting. Another member of this xenofobic political party wrote on her website maybe 4 months ago that moslems were like cancer-cells and that convicted moslems should be sent to russian prisons - arguing for a leasing-deal with russia concerning this! I think Denmark as of right now is the most discriminating racist western country right now. And everybody seems to be forgetting that the whole problem here is that nobody fucking respects each other.

Re:I have a game idea... (2, Insightful)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 8 years ago | (#14653684)

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... (2, Insightful)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 8 years ago | (#14654351)

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. 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.

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... (2, Informative)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 8 years ago | (#14654632)

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 excuse violence, but you're wrong. The reason we have so much violence is lack of understanding, caring, and empathy. The reason we have so much violence is lack of forgiving. If you don't understand what drives a person to violence and hate then you will never stop it. A bomb kills a child whose brother shoots a soldier whose parent endorses a war. A man plants a bomb which kills another man whose child plants another bomb that kills a child. If you don't understand why people act, how can you expect to end violence? If you drive a man to violence with violence and then act stop the violence with yet more violence, how can you expect to succeed?

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.

And you're fundamentally failing to understand. "Extremists" are just people, like any other, driven by emotions and reasons. Villainizing them and dehumanizing them is failing to understand the real problem. That extremist may be an angry man whose son was senselessly killed by an american bomb. He thinks you are the extremist for giving money to the army and not doing everything in your power to protest flying around the world to murder his son. Maybe he thinks the only appropriate use for violence is to stop violence, just as you do; but he believes only by doing as much damage to the US as possible can he stop all of the US from murdering more of his people. Only by killing many people will it be driven home that people in his country are dying at our hands, for greed and power.

Now I'm not saying your point of view is valid and I'm not saying his is. What I'm saying is that unless you are willing to empathize and understand the perspectives of others, it will not end.

I stopped reading after this... (1)

IAAP (937607) | more than 8 years ago | (#14654604)

Your problem is...

I know what my problems are.

Until I see "fatwas" or whatever they're called from the Islamic leadership or some other strong condemnation of these rioter's actions who call themselves Muslims, I will think that the Islamic people in this world condone the rioter's and terrorist's actions. End of story.

Actions, or lack of, speak louder than words.

Re:I stopped reading after this... (2, Informative)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 8 years ago | (#14654924)

Until I see "fatwas" or whatever they're called from the Islamic leadership or some other strong condemnation of these rioter's actions who call themselves Muslims, I will think that the Islamic people in this world condone the rioter's and terrorist's actions. End of story.

Not too many of the US papers have bothered to mention it, but muslim religious leaders as well as the heads of state of several predominantly muslim nations have spoken out against the violence, saying that while the cartoons are blasphemous and wrong, people should be tolerant and protest those who commit such sacrilege peacefully as the Qua-ran teaches.

Re:I stopped reading after this... (1)

Neoncow (802085) | more than 8 years ago | (#14655806)

I watched this on the news last night. I'm not sure what they're called, but there were religious leaders trying to block people from throwing stones at the riot police. It was ineffectual, but the man was there and he was standing with his back to the police and trying to calm his people.

Re:I have a game idea... (3, Informative)

amliebsch (724858) | more than 8 years ago | (#14653064)

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.

Re:I have a game idea... (1, Insightful)

eboot (697478) | more than 8 years ago | (#14653163)

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...

Re:I have a game idea... (1)

amliebsch (724858) | more than 8 years ago | (#14653724)

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.

Re:I have a game idea... (1)

Pantero Blanco (792776) | more than 8 years ago | (#14655616)

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.

Re:I have a game idea... (3, Insightful)

chill (34294) | more than 8 years ago | (#14654026)

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

Re:I have a game idea... (2, Informative)

Kadin2048 (468275) | more than 8 years ago | (#14655174)

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 people should act. Jewish and Muslim people are proscribed from eating pork, but I've yet to have someone come up to me and tell me (a non-Jew and non-Muslim) that I can't eat pork. Likewise, Muslims are prohibited from making images of the Prophet, but I fail to see how that extends to others.

I'm not just criticizing Muslims here, I would make the same criticism in regards to Christians who try to apply their religion's idea of morality onto non-Christians.

Your religion applies to YOU. It doesn't say anything about what I can and can't do. I'd like to believe that the majority of Muslims in the world understand this basic point (I think they do).

Second, I have no problem with Muslims boycotting countries they don't like. I think it's stupid, because I happen to agree with the goverment and people of Denmark in thinking that free speech and a free press is a Good Thing, but people should be free to buy their goods wherever they want to. Likewise, the Danes and countries friendly to them (the rest of the E.U.) have a right to decide that they will stop buying or importing things from countries that boycott Denmark. In the end, we'll find out who wants whose goods more.

However, there is a fundamental difference between boycotting a country's goods and attacking their embassy. In fact, it's not just a 'difference,' it's a gaping fucking chasm. It's the same difference between holding a placard outside an abortion clinic, and taping some Semtex and nails to your chest and blowing yourself up in front of it. One is a civilized act, the other is indefensible.

And at the end of the day, that's the difference between a Muslim (or probably any kind of) fundamentalist's view of the world and the view held by the member of a liberal democracy, or a non-fundamentalist person: in one view, when you disagree with someone, you try to argue with them or failing that, just refuse to interact with them; in the fundamentalists' world, you try to kill them.

Re:I have a game idea... (1)

TechieHermit (944255) | more than 8 years ago | (#14655692)

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 to their own first.

He felt, and I tend to agree, that this implies a certain something about the relative levels of wisdom and civilization in the two cultures that invalidates all the "cultural relativism" hoopla being pushed in colleges nowadays. :)

   

Re:I have a game idea... (1)

grazzy (56382) | more than 8 years ago | (#14653072)

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.

Re:I have a game idea... (5, Insightful)

dc29A (636871) | more than 8 years ago | (#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)

Re:I have a game idea... (3, Interesting)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 8 years ago | (#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).

Re:I have a game idea... (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 8 years ago | (#14654315)

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 religion who killed many of us. They distribute videos of our men being beheaded - worse than rape. (At least, in my opinion. You have a chance to recover from rape, but not from beheading.) And pointing at someone's genitals isn't rape, either, though it is sexual assault.

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.

So if no one can find the cartoons, who gives a fuck? Why do they care so much?

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).

Actually, I'm pretty sure that if they did, our police forces would put a stop to it - unlike their police forces. (It was stopped - in an extremely, insanely untimely fashion.)

Re:I have a game idea... (2, Informative)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 8 years ago | (#14654817)

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 distribute videos of our men being beheaded - worse than rape.

Yup, invading soldiers being executed. You act as though we did not kill hundreds of times as many of their soldiers and plenty of non-combatants as well. And why were we there again, killing these people? Why are we there now? They had nothing to do with Sept. 11. Aside from living in a country near where many of the hijackers were from (not even the same country) and being members of the same religion. They were not involved.

Of course all of this is completely beside the point. You're not even trying to look at things from the perspective of a person who lives in a muslim, middle-eastern country. They see invading people from around the world with a different religion attacking, killing, taking over, and mocking their religion. You don't expect them to react with hostility?

So if no one can find the cartoons, who gives a fuck? Why do they care so much?

The cartoons are easy to find. They were republished by other European news agencies who were duped into thinking they were genuine. It is the publishing itself, however, which is sacrilegious to them. You might as well say, sure someone yelled "I'm gonna shoot you right now nigger" but it turned out to not have been a KKK member at all so why did they react violently against our rally?

Actually, I'm pretty sure that if they did, our police forces would put a stop to it - unlike their police forces.

I doubt the police would be able to stop widespread rioting or violence. They have not done so in the past during numerous race riots. The truth of the matter is, you can't or don't want to understand the situation these people are in and why they have acted they way they have. You don't want to understand that they are just people who are frightened and angry with good reason, and much of that reason is the fault of the US. The truth is, the US has done a lot of harm, while most of the citizens have been completely mislead about what is going on and why. Most americans don't know and don't really care and would rather be prejudiced against all muslims and middle easterners and assume they are some sort of inferior, irrational people than face up to the truth that they are just people the same as any other. And when our bombs kill a son or daughter, brother or sister, or parent it makes people hate us. It makes people hate you, for being a christian american, just as many americans hate the Iranians for being muslim middle easterners. They think you personally are a violent war monger who thinks it is right to blow up their children, steal their wealth, and denigrate their religion. You see all muslims as mad bombers. They see all christians as mass murdering sexual assaulters. Hopefully they are as wrong as you are.

Re:I have a game idea... (-1, Flamebait)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 8 years ago | (#14654966)

So if no one can find the cartoons, who gives a fuck? Why do they care so much?

The cartoons are easy to find. They were republished by other European news agencies who were duped into thinking they were genuine. It is the publishing itself, however, which is sacrilegious to them.

Right! It's the publishing itself. In other words, what we have here is a clash of ideologies which led to violence. Once again, religion is shown to be what it is - a system of control that leads to evil deeds.

You see all muslims as mad bombers.

I see you as a flamebaiting, ignorant, arrogant asshole. Especially since I've gone out of my way over and over again to assure that I am specifically NOT relating any opinions expressed as applying to all Muslims.

What I AM saying is that the general, public perception of all Muslims is only harmed when they find out about things like this. You have some people rioting and setting fire to embassies because some people in another country published some cartoons that they find sacreligious because of their stupid ignorant ridiculous unsubstantiated religion. Furthermore, attacking an embassy is itself a statement that you are not interested in rational negotiation, because the embassies are the means through which we HAVE such discourse.

Don't make assumptions about what I think. You want to know what I think? How's about fucking ASKING me? Don't tell me. I don't respond well to that kind of bullshit.

Re:I have a game idea... (3, Interesting)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 8 years ago | (#14655226)

Once again, religion is shown to be what it is - a system of control that leads to evil deeds.

What an interesting statement. Religious, moral, and ethical beliefs are all subjective; as is the entire concept of evil. Religion did not cause this violence, people acting specifically to incite anger by attacking and disrespecting the beliefs of others did, and it was wholly intentional. The same type of behavior could be triggered by nationalist, philosophical, or many other kinds of belief. Anger, as I said, is the instinctual response to remove a threat by destroying it. They were attacked and they responded. It would be the same as if under very stressful conditions, where mathematics were being outlawed and mathematicians burned if someone insisted on yelling in your face "Pi is exactly three, bitch." Maybe you would react calmly, but maybe, under extreme stress and fear you would react violently. We all have beliefs and breaking points.

What I AM saying is that the general, public perception of all Muslims is only harmed when they find out about things like this.

And I'm saying that public perception, that prejudice of judging muslims only as a group is just as wrong as the violence some particular muslims committed.

...they find sacreligious because of their stupid ignorant ridiculous unsubstantiated religion.

Ahh yes, lets ridicule the beliefs and religions of others. Obviously then, you have all the answers. Tell me then, what is the nature of reality and thought and the fundamental basis for ethics. Now tell me in simple terms how should all communities co-exist and resolve disputes? There is plenty of real, useful reasoning in islam, just as there is in christianity and buddhism. To claim that a religion is "wrong" and its adherents "stupid" is the pinnacle of hubris.

Furthermore, attacking an embassy is itself a statement that you are not interested in rational negotiation

I think we previously established that the individuals in question were reacting emotionally, rather than with reason.

Don't make assumptions about what I think. You want to know what I think? How's about fucking ASKING me? Don't tell me. I don't respond well to that kind of bullshit.

Fine, but you were responding to what I had written by attacking the concept of understanding the perspectives of others. You're the one who made both moral judgments and assertions that my comments explaining the perspective of others was "the reason we have so much violence." If you do not want to be considered intolerant, show tolerance. If you do not want be seen as unsympathetic to the suffering of others show empathy. All your remarks were attacks on understanding and I for one reject such holier than thou crap. If you can't put yourself in the shoes of another and understand their reasoning and perspective you have business judging their actions, or condemning them.

Re:I have a game idea... (1)

Vasey (909370) | more than 8 years ago | (#14656028)

You'd have a point about the beheadings if they weren't just grabbing anyone they could get their hands on. There've been a few relief workers and the like taken by the resistance over there and it's really getting tiresome as far as I'm concerned. It's one thing to kill soldiers occupying your country, it's another entirely to kill random civilians that are actively trying to help your people.

Re:I have a game idea... (2, Insightful)

dc29A (636871) | more than 8 years ago | (#14655016)

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, shiites and sunnies are in a never ending religious war. Both groups are muslims, yet they keep killing eachother. One day a grenade blows up in a shiite mosque in Pakistan. Another day a sunni blows himself up in a shiite mosque in Iraq and so on. The lebanese muslims can't tolerate other non muslim lebanese citizens, especially christians whom a few were killed in this week's and last week's protests. The southern thai province (forgot the name) is on a jihad vs buddhist monks. FFS, Buddhist monks!. Aceh province in Indonesia wants their own radical state. Again, the muslims need to police themselves before looking outside their own backyard.

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 ...

Re:I have a game idea... (1)

GeekyMike (575177) | more than 8 years ago | (#14655187)

First, it is not "the muslim world" it is several Muslim Countries

Fixed that for you

Second, christians are not currently the subject of what must seem to them (and many objective observers) as a crusade

So to clarify "Death to the infidels" is not a cry to religious genocide, but a cheer for the Jihad basketball team. Thank you for clearing that up for me.

Re:I have a game idea... (1)

killmenow (184444) | more than 8 years ago | (#14653652)

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 were murdered?!

Riot on, brother.

Re:I have a game idea... (1)

ChildeRoland (949144) | more than 8 years ago | (#14654006)

"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?

Re:I have a game idea... (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 8 years ago | (#14654267)

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 me get back to the main point; the comic that supposedly was the most offensive to them was a picture of mohammad in a turban which was sculpted into a bomb complete with burning fuse. A lit bomb. The muslim extremist response? Prove the cartoonist right by lighting a bunch of shit on fire.

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."

Good. Fuck the Muslims, and fuck the Christians too. Fuck all those intolerant religious assholes. Woops! Looks like the Christians are actually more tolerant than the Muslims are! There's material like that all over the US every day but I don't see the Christians rioting in the streets over it.

The situation with these cartoons is very, very simple. A lot of people, yourself included, are trying to make the situation more complicated than it really is. Let me lay it out for you.

Violence is not the proper answer.

What we have here is some people responding to a cartoon with firebombing. There is no excuse you can make that makes that okay. I don't care how it makes someone feel. I don't care how it makes anyone feel. I don't care how it makes everyone feel. You can have no other rights without the freedom of speech.

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

Re:I have a game idea... (2, Insightful)

Kadin2048 (468275) | more than 8 years ago | (#14655327)

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 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:I have a game idea... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14654699)

You know what? If this dutch cartoonist gets the chance to draw another cartoon before a muslim suicide bomber collects on the bounty on his head, he should draw one last cartoon.

It should consist of Muhammad holding a flamethrower to a star of david, and titled simply "Hypocrisy". The "extremist" Muslims who are rioting over this are almost certainly a set of Muslims containing most (if not all) of the "extremists" that call for the destruction of the Jewish people. And yet they feel that they have a leg to stand on when someone "insults" their faith as if every time their religious and political leaders call for the destruction of Jews is not a greater insult.

Re:I have a game idea... (1)

payndz (589033) | more than 8 years ago | (#14654792)

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!

Re:I have a game idea... (1)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | more than 8 years ago | (#14652997)

Can I buy a t-shirt for that game?

Please, give us a weblink!

Re:I have a game idea... (1)

GrumblyStuff (870046) | more than 8 years ago | (#14653127)

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 actually made that game... (1)

Cryptnotic (154382) | more than 8 years ago | (#14653494)

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.

Re:I have a game idea... (1)

ZombieRoboNinja (905329) | more than 8 years ago | (#14653741)

"here's another Holocost for this particular religion..." ...because editorial cartoons are JUST LIKE concentration camps.

Re:I have a game idea... (1)

Glonoinha (587375) | more than 8 years ago | (#14655880)

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.

Re:I have a game idea... (1)

esampson (223745) | more than 8 years ago | (#14655064)

The premise is this, some radical elements of a religion, really pisssed off over [an opera], [send death threats] in protest for depicting their religion as being [violent, intolerant, and full of hypocrisy]. People seeing these folks reacting like this ([violent, intolerant, and full of hypocrisy]) now see this particular religion as being [violent, intolerant, full of hypocrisy,] and everything that the protesters say they're not. So what happens? People become really afraid of this religion because their actions prove the [opera is] correct. And when people become afraid , they start to do some radical things.

http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,, 14929-2013698_1,00.html [timesonline.co.uk]

The fact is that just about any religion is going to have people who take such extreme views that they can find argument to kill people (though I will admit I haven't heard about any Buddhist car bombings recently). Islamic extremists embody the beliefs and practices of the majority of Muslims just as much as the Klu Klux Klan embodied the beliefs and practices on main stream Christianity. I don't invoke the name of the KKK in any attempt to be inflammatory but to use them to illustrate a very real point. Just as Islamic extremists center their rhetoric around the beliefs of Islam the KKK wrapped its own rhetoric in the beliefs of Christianity. Even today we have Christian extremists who use bombs against people who do not support their views or who call for the assassination of foreign heads of state.

Does this mean that the religion itself is to blame simply because a few individuals attempt to co-opt bits and pieces of that religion to justify their own skewed world view? Do we assume that because one preacher claims that the stroke suffered by Ariel Sharon is divine retribution all Christians must believe such a thing is true? I should certainly hope that we don't.

Blaming Christianity for the actions of a few extremists is no less fair than blaming Islam (as your post seems to suggest) for the actions of a few of its extremists.

Re:I have a game idea... (1)

Kadin2048 (468275) | more than 8 years ago | (#14655430)

Islamic extremists embody the beliefs and practices of the majority of Muslims just as much as the Klu Klux Klan embodied the beliefs and practices on main stream Christianity.

I believe this also ... yet, every time something horrific is perpetuated in the name of Islam and the Prophet, the people who have the authority to speak out and condemn it, seem rather reticent to say so.

Or at least if they are saying so, there's very little evidence of it in the media. When the US media goes looking for a Muslim apologist, they seem to always end up talking to some professor of Mid-East studies at some university somewhere. Why don't the 26 Clerics of the House of Saud or even the most high-profile Imams and clerics flood the Internet and subsequently the airwaves with pronouncements condemning these acts? It's not as if they don't have a soap box to stand on, or that the media wouldn't give them coverage. There's hardly a conspiracy afoot to black them out, if anything the news sources would love to have that.

It would seem as though extremism is a rather large problem facing the Muslim world community right now. I can't think of anything that would possibly be greater, in fact. It seems to me that if the religious leaders of various sects were really interested in doing anything about it, that they could get together and issue a strong condemnation of it, as one.

However, their silence -- or at most, seemingly week protestations -- is the norm, rather than the other way around.

To me, that silence is more damning a condemnation than a thousand suicide bombers' explosions.

but you are the man, sir (4, Funny)

stoolpigeon (454276) | more than 8 years ago | (#14652826)

n/t

Re:but you are the man, sir (1)

LiquidCoooled (634315) | more than 8 years ago | (#14652915)

Why is this a troll, it was polite and I cannot gather a single malicious character in his entire title.
If anything its a bit redundant, but if it got him the free subscription then maybe we should all try to be nicer.

Re:but you are the man, sir (1)

stoolpigeon (454276) | more than 8 years ago | (#14652972)

maybe i should have put the rest of the text, but it's a line from one of my favorite commercials out there right now. so i was shooting more for funny-- but my karma is in good shape, so i'm not too worried. no biggie. thanks for saying something though-- that sure was nice. but i'm not sure what 'the free subscription' is about.

Re:but you are the man, sir (2, Funny)

Tickenest (544722) | more than 8 years ago | (#14652983)

So you're sticking it to yourself?

Re:but you are the man, sir (2, Funny)

stoolpigeon (454276) | more than 8 years ago | (#14653067)

maybe

Re:but you are the man, sir (1)

AndreiK (908718) | more than 8 years ago | (#14655661)

Who's the man!?

Serious games. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14652846)

Serious Games: Games That Educate, Train, and Inform (Paperback) [amazon.com]


Learn how to take the skills and knowledge you use to make games for entertainment to make serious games: games for education, training, healing, and more. ?Serious Games: Games That Educate, Train, and Inform? teaches game developers how to tap into the rapidly expanding market of serious games. Explore the numerous possibilities that serious games represent such as the ability to teach military training in a non-lethal environment and the ability to convey a particular political viewpoint through a game?s storyline. You?ll get a detailed overview of all of the major markets for serious games, including the military, educators, government agencies, corporations, hospitals, non-profit organizations, religious groups, and activist groups. Discover the goals of each market, the types of games on which they focus, and market-specific issues you need to consider. Case studies of how professionals in these various markets utilize games provide ideas and inspiration as well as credibility for serious games. ?Serious Games? shows you how to apply your game development skills to a new and growing area and also teaches you techniques to make even entertainment-based games richer and more meaningful.

...and this surprising...how? (2, Insightful)

Brunellus (875635) | more than 8 years ago | (#14652884)

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.

A Game that Really Sticks it to the Man (3, Funny)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | more than 8 years ago | (#14652977)

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.

Re:A Game that Really Sticks it to the Man (2, Informative)

Stradenko (160417) | more than 8 years ago | (#14653444)

Katamari Damacy [wikipedia.org] only has one sequel -- "We Love Katamari" [namco.com] . Fun games, 'though.

Re:A Game that Really Sticks it to the Man (1)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | more than 8 years ago | (#14654047)

well, there is another one for the Nintendo DS

Re:A Game that Really Sticks it to the Man (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14654895)

I wish it were coming out for the DS, but sadly, it will be on the PSP. Just imagine repopulating the cosmos with the touchscreen!

Re:A Game that Really Sticks it to the Man (1)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | more than 8 years ago | (#14655609)

I wish it were coming out for the DS, but sadly, it will be on the PSP. Just imagine repopulating the cosmos with the touchscreen!

Oh, darn. No prob, at least there's Nintendogs for the DS.

Now, isn't that kind of a subversive game? I mean, it records where you pee ... and we all know The Man wears expensive shoes and probably doesn't appreciate dog poo ...

Re:A Game that Really Sticks it to the Man (1)

SScorpio (595836) | more than 8 years ago | (#14654178)

It's not out yet, but a PSP sequal is coming out soon. I think that's what he's refering to.

Geez (1)

Reality Master 101 (179095) | more than 8 years ago | (#14653074)

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 into terrorists that blow up innocent children. Better not make 'em mad. Because, you know, "they" are all the same.

Also offtarget... (1)

temojen (678985) | more than 8 years ago | (#14653242)

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 (2, Interesting)

tbannist (230135) | more than 8 years ago | (#14653283)

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 protect the ones we love.

It's only racist because you choose to believe it's racist.

Re:Geez (1)

Reality Master 101 (179095) | more than 8 years ago | (#14653428)

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 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.

Re:Geez (1)

akheron01 (637033) | more than 8 years ago | (#14653504)

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.

Re:Geez (1)

Reality Master 101 (179095) | more than 8 years ago | (#14653585)

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.

Re:Geez (1)

mr.moneda (935361) | more than 8 years ago | (#14653634)

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

Re:Geez (1)

killmenow (184444) | more than 8 years ago | (#14653865)

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 civilians they've killed are innocent.

As with many cultural divides, the problem is one of perspectives. But perspective makes neither one the truth.

Re:Geez (1)

Reality Master 101 (179095) | more than 8 years ago | (#14653958)

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 monsters who don't care how many people they kill. In fact, they enjoy killing!

Gah, I'm out of here. I knew I shouldn't have posted. There is a class of people who don't understand the military, don't want to understand the military, and think they're all terrorists in a different uniform. It's just so f***ing stupid! --must resist urge to post more--

Re:Geez (1)

killmenow (184444) | more than 8 years ago | (#14654060)

Hey, I don't mean to sound ridiculous. I came across too harshly there. I did say many as in: not all soldiers/leaders. I'm quite certain there are also many soldiers and leaders in the U.S. military that cannot sleep at night because of the horror of taking so many innocent lives. Perhaps many is too strong in regards to the military...maybe I should've just said some feel that way.

I am far more inclined to believe more soldiers on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan right now are traumatized by the murder of innocents than not. But I know some military people who sincerely do not believe any Iraqis are innocent...except perhaps children. To some degree, I think it may be a coping mechanism, because the (admittedly few) military folks I know are not generally that jaded.

I am mostly convinced that terrorists, on the other hand, sincerely believe the civilians they murder are not innocent. Oh, and I have zero faith in U.S. military leadership.

Re:Geez (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14654211)

With a signature like that (the lack of any explanatory qualifiers indicate that you're a troll), and claiming that it's excusable for the US Army to knowingly kill innocents (do you think the young children killed in recent "precision" strikes had any choice in the matter?) when it's "acceptable" collateral damage, or because of "intelligence" of known low reliability, you are either supremely incapable of rational thought, amoral, or a troll.

Re:Geez (1)

tbannist (230135) | more than 8 years ago | (#14653901)

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 their friends and loved ones.

That being said, there is definitely a difference in methods. I have no love for terrorists, nor any tolerance either. However, the difference in methods chiefly stems from a lack of organization and funds. You need both to field an army.

Re:Geez (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14654275)

With a signature like that (the lack of any explanatory qualifiers indicate that you're a troll), and claiming that it's excusable for the US Army to knowingly kill innocents (do you think the young children killed in recent "precision" strikes had any choice in the matter?) when it's "acceptable" collateral damage, or because of intelligence of known low reliability, you are either supremely incapable of rational thought, amoral, or a troll.

Re:Geez (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 8 years ago | (#14654407)

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 structure-hit with shaped charges, the military uses a so-called "smart" munition which is anything but intelligent, because it's okay to kill ten or fifteen innocent people if we can save the life of one U.S. soldier.
5) Corporal Bob gets sloppy aiming his "smart" munition.
6) Army intelligence proves that it is anything but and designates the wrong structure (this has happened more than once, including a certain embassy bombing which we did "by mistake")

I'm sure we can come up with more. Stop assuming the world is a simple place. It isn't. It's lumpy and dirty.

Re:Geez (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14656038)

6) Army intelligence proves that it is anything but and designates the wrong structure (this has happened more than once, including a certain embassy bombing which we did "by mistake")

Better edit that last one, it was done under Bill Clinton's watch, not the hated GW. Here at slashdot the Democrats can do no wrong, Republicans can do no right, and GW is worse than Hitler.

--posting anonymously as my karma can't take another hit from mods who won't accept any other opinion than the DNC party line.

Re:Geez (2, Insightful)

MightyTater (592114) | more than 8 years ago | (#14653532)

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...

Re:Geez (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14653321)

If a government started shooting missiles at my children, I'd start shooting back. No, I'm not a terrorist. No, I don't own a gun. But I'd fight back any way I could.

Re:Geez (0)

OmgTEHMATRICKS (836103) | more than 8 years ago | (#14653621)

OR maybe it's better to realize that that's what happens when you blow up innocents in war in times like these with devices as inaccurate as bombs and missiles. Again.
And Again.
And Again.
Without any regard to the actual people who aren't your targets.

Why do you think America wanted to go to war after 9/11? Surely if 3,000 innocent people getting blown up, by something which is very close to a bomb(but it flies instead of drops,) equates as cowardice, what exactly is the result on a populace when over 10 times more are killed by the same techniques?

It's human nature to want to attack back at those who brutally murdered your loved ones or your best friend - especially if what was blown up was not just a building one person you loved was in, but your entire family while you were away at work.
Can you imagine the countless fathers and mothers and sons and daughters and husbands and wives and boyfriends and girlfriends that have to come home to find burning bits of their family and friends scattered around the rubble of what used to be their lives?

They have nothing left. All those many, many years they spent with all those people they loved, all the emotions and memories they put in it.. Gone, charred beyond recognition in a blink of an eye. All because someone else wanted to kill a group of people they thought was bad, thought lived near these poor souls, and instead of using smart measures to take them out, uses a bomb to destroy everything surrounding the targets to make sure they're taken out.

And of course, when mentioned later on, they're called collateral damage, like pointless bits of concrete that might've been blown up as a result of the bomb's explosion. The people who survive, after days of shock, sadness, and on the edge of sanity from all that has happened, decide to do whatever it takes to avenge those that meant most to them. And usually they don't have too much money to get what they need, so they join whatever group that can supply them with tools to take their vengeance.

It's not racist. Those are the consequences. That'd happen in any country given the circumstances.

Re:Geez (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14653790)

Because, you know, "they" are all the same.

Maybe "they" are. In the Muslim religion, religion is EVERYTHING. It effects your job, your eating habits, your sexual life, your social life, your family life, your political life, everything. To say 'oh "They" (Muslim extremists) are not apart of "us" (Muslim moderates) because we say so' is bullshit. "They" (Muslim extremists) use the same argument against Americans. "They" (Americans) are all the same, therefore we should kill/hurt as many of them as possible; cue 9/11.

Re:Geez (1)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 8 years ago | (#14653820)

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 movie is very patriotic and I think they play stars and stripes when Patrick Swayze finally bites it.

The point the game was trying to make, which you seem to have totally missed, is that the only difference between a terrorist and a heroic freedom fighter is who is printing the newspaper. Dropping bombs and shooting suspected terrorists is not going to solve anything, it is just going to make more people want to fight; people the US government then labels as "terrorists." There is no better way to make people hate you so much that they are willing to die just to get some sort of revenge, than killing their wife and children and brothers and leaving them with nothing to lose. It is only racist if you assume that will only happen with people of a given race, which is patently not so. If the Russians invaded and killed my family, blew up my home, and basically made life unbearable, I'd probably be picking them off with a high powered rifle right now. That does not make me prejudiced against white Americans.

Re:Geez (1)

hobbit (5915) | more than 8 years ago | (#14654357)


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.
Who mentioned race? Healer, heal thyself!

But how good are the games? (1)

Stormwatch (703920) | more than 8 years ago | (#14653206)

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!

Re:But how good are the games? (2, Interesting)

xilmaril (573709) | more than 8 years ago | (#14654623)

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!

Steer Madness is pretty good (1)

jamie (78724) | more than 8 years ago | (#14653412)

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 no idea how subversive and insidious a game really can be. I recommend it for that reason alone.

Re:Steer Madness is pretty good (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 8 years ago | (#14654432)

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!?

Games with an agenda (2, Insightful)

Gogo0 (877020) | more than 8 years ago | (#14653460)

Oh good, because everyone has been asking for games that preach to them.

Feebay game (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14653815)

The online game mocking eBay's rise in fees called FeeBay had people throwing debris at Meg and Peter and other powerful eBay types. It's several years old too.

Simbabwe. (1)

sharkytm (948956) | more than 8 years ago | (#14654034)

Ever played Simbabwe? Its pretty nasty, and political. The same goes with all the games made by DailyGrind.

Re:Simbabwe. (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 8 years ago | (#14654546)

It figures that some armchair activist would make a game only for MacOSX. If you want to get your message out, it makes sense to embrace a little more enveloping format of media...

I'm R conFused! (1)

slysithesuperspy (919764) | more than 8 years ago | (#14654187)

I would be hypocritical to say I do not like advertising because of the partially free stuff it funds, like TV channels and certain webpages. But, I can't think of an advert that has persuaded me to buy something, they have made me aware of something- which is obviously their point, maybe I've answered my own questions but a lot of adverts are for a load of fucking bolocks. Anything I buy is either from the shelf, or I've done some research into it (something expensive). well wtf

Want to really hurt "the man"? (3, Insightful)

jgardn (539054) | more than 8 years ago | (#14655106)

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.

Re:Want to really hurt "the man"? (1)

Hockney Twang (769594) | more than 8 years ago | (#14655957)

'When you fight against "the man" you are really fighting against the people in this country.'

Damn the man.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?