So today at TIGSource, an independent gaming forum full of developers, I run into a thread by the guy called Sigvatr, who created a controversial game called Muslim Massacre. The game, apparently, was decent enough. Nothing special, but not particularly horrible (from a gameplay standpoint, I personally find the subject matter pretty abhorrent). I haven't played it myself.
Anyway, the thread is entitled "Looking Back on Muslim Massacre". I was reading through, and the creator was such an enormous dickhead. I won't bother to reproduce his excuses here, but they basically boiled down to those "Discordians" that wanted on RFD, saying "nigger" to "remove the greyfaced taint" on the word.
"I'm a free thinker, durhurhur, watch me wave my metaphorical cock around and show off how much of a badass I am," in other words.
Anyway, TIGSource is a pretty nonconfrontational place. And i posted a rant, so I'll probably be banned, or at least suspended for this, but that doesn't particularly bug me. Backstory over: I'm going to link to the thread in question, and then reproduce my rant here.
http://forums.tigsource.com/index.php?topic=6705.0
"
Quote from: William Broom
Quote from: Dacke
If people get upset, it's hard not to feel that they somehow deserve to be trolled.
Just like Mipey said: things going on in games are usually horrible. To me it's really scary that people get upset by this game but not by other games (mostly). If people think this is bad, but not other games, does that mean that they think everything going on in other games is A-OK?
I agree with this. Like I said when the game was first released, I found that it said more about videogames than it did about terrorism or racism. Even if Sigvatr rejects that interpretation it's still there.
This Is The Correct Moralcycle.
I find gamers to be horrible, horrible people who I personally dislike associating with. There's something disturbing about "HAHA I SET THAT GUY ON FIRE LOOK AT HIM RUNNING AND SCREAMING AND FLAILING," fictional character in a computer game or no. As games get more realistic, I begin to think killing people in games will no longer be a viable option for me, even reluctantly. As for those people who find hacking other human beings to bits enjoyable, even in a game... well, they scare me already. I avoid that sort of thing whenever possible and don't play games focused on it very often, exceptions given particularly to stuff too far over the top for anyone to take seriously.
Generally speaking, I guess I just find it more difficult to feel comfortable with a psychopath, whether or not they're only a psychopath in a game. I'm probably in the minority here, though.
Threadjack over.
Never played Muslim Massacre, but it seems like whatever the game is like, the creator has a serious ego problem. The sort of ego that belongs to a person who would, you know, make a game about a sensitive subject, seeing it as little more than a chance to swing his metaphorical dick around and show off how much of a badass free-thinker he is. Oh, and then laugh at the people who he KNEW would get upset about it.
Then; and this is the kicker, folks; rub this in the faces of the few people optimistic enough to assume he's not a terrible human being and had some kind of philosophical reason for making it, as opposed to at least making an ATTEMPT to hide that he made a huge dick-move. I suppose he gets points for honesty, if nothing else. Of course, this hypothetical person doesn't exist, and for this I am glad because I would hate to learn that I am a part of the same species as someone so self-absorbed as to treat other human beings as their own personal punching bags.
Before the "haha you got trolled" responses come in, this has nothing to do with the fact that the game consists of killing muslims. It has to do with the creator's reasons for making the game, which are pretty disgusting, in my honest opinion.
And before I turn my back on this thread forever, I'd like to note that until I ran into this, I thought -I- was an awful human being. I guess I have to start re-examining my spot in the monkey-hierarchy of the world.
That is all."
I think the best way to frame this particular kind of activism is that it is an intensifier of thought. It seeks to create exactly the reaction you had, yes? If the author is concerned with anti-muslim sentiment, he has made an anti-muslim game so bad that it will create an anti-anti-muslim resistance to it. The problem, as you said, is that he ends up throwing out the baby with the bathwater by participating in the same rhetoric he is hoping to defeat.
Other organizations have done this much better - like the Barbie Liberation Front (http://sniggle.net/barbie.php).
I donn't like the subject matter of the game, but it isn't what prompted the rant.
What prompted the rant was being so full of himself that I mistook him for a fractal.
Quote from: Erin Gardien on June 15, 2009, 02:35:31 PM
What prompted the rant was being so full of himself that I mistook him for a fractal.
:horrormirth:
Quote from: Erin Gardien on June 15, 2009, 02:01:09 PM
I find gamers to be horrible, horrible people who I personally dislike associating with. There's something disturbing about "HAHA I SET THAT GUY ON FIRE LOOK AT HIM RUNNING AND SCREAMING AND FLAILING," fictional character in a computer game or no. As games get more realistic, I begin to think killing people in games will no longer be a viable option for me, even reluctantly. As for those people who find hacking other human beings to bits enjoyable, even in a game... well, they scare me already.
Balls. Fake violence is actually life affirming, not the other way around.
FUN FACT: nobody has ever read a Raymond Chandler book and gone out pretending to be Philip Marlowe. It doesn't happen. People who are going to kill tons of people and chop them up were ALREADY CRAZY, and didn't need the help of pop entertainment.
So don't worry about unnecessary bullshit for no reason.
There is a small but noteworthy segment of the population who claims Jedi as their religion on census forms.
Use of guns in inner-city gangs climbed steeply during the 1980s, during an era in which gangs/gangsters in movies were portrayed as using guns (Scarface et al). (Prior to this, knives, chains, and baseball bats were the dominant portrayal in movies for 'gang weapons.')
Many gamers who have played the GTA series of games have jokingly commented on how, after playing the game for long periods of time, they have noticed themselves driving more unsafely (running stop signs, being slow to stop at traffic lights, etc).
QuoteFUN FACT: nobody has ever read a Raymond Chandler book and gone out pretending to be Philip Marlowe. It doesn't happen.
And
toxoplasma gondii doesn't force someone to drive to the pound and adopt twelve cats. So what?
Hoopla, don't get me wrong. I'm not Jack Thompson here. I'm not going to say violent video games are murder simulators and ask for them to be banned by the government post-haste. I played Quake 3, I'm making a multiplayer FPS with my dev team. I want to play that one Wii game, MadWorld. Have you seen videos of that? (If not, go look them up on youtube. They are the most awesome thing ever.) Personally, I think videogame violence is a good way to let out one's frustration harmlessly.
It's more just a general "goddamn those people creep me the hell out" sort of thing. I don't know. There's just something about people who can laugh till they shit themselves over dismembering someone, even just a digital someone... It just makes me want to avoid that person. It has nothing to do with the likelihood of them going axe crazy.
(To be fair, some might argue that they're all already axe crazy, but those people are shitheads.)
And Arafelis just reinforces Hoopla's sentiment that some people are fucking batshit to begin with. Who is this guy, anyway? He seems awfully stupid.
Quote from: Arafelis on June 15, 2009, 10:01:31 PM
There is a small but noteworthy segment of the population who claims Jedi as their religion on census forms.
Use of guns in inner-city gangs climbed steeply during the 1980s, during an era in which gangs/gangsters in movies were portrayed as using guns (Scarface et al). (Prior to this, knives, chains, and baseball bats were the dominant portrayal in movies for 'gang weapons.')
Many gamers who have played the GTA series of games have jokingly commented on how, after playing the game for long periods of time, they have noticed themselves driving more unsafely (running stop signs, being slow to stop at traffic lights, etc).
QuoteFUN FACT: nobody has ever read a Raymond Chandler book and gone out pretending to be Philip Marlowe. It doesn't happen.
And toxoplasma gondii doesn't force someone to drive to the pound and adopt twelve cats. So what?
Exactly, so what? Not sure what kind of point you were trying to make with that. Any of it really, since correlation does't imply causation.
People may dress as Jedis and state that as their religion on forms but the fact is they don't go around breaking up fights with their lightsabers. And if you find a case where someone did, it's irrelevant since that person is clearly in some sort of state of derangement and would have done something equally whacko without Star Wars. You can't plan for crazy.
Quote from: Erin Gardien on June 15, 2009, 10:13:10 PM
Hoopla, don't get me wrong. I'm not Jack Thompson here. I'm not going to say violent video games are murder simulators and ask for them to be banned by the government post-haste. I played Quake 3, I'm making a multiplayer FPS with my dev team. I want to play that one Wii game, MadWorld. Have you seen videos of that? (If not, go look them up on youtube. They are the most awesome thing ever.) Personally, I think videogame violence is a good way to let out one's frustration harmlessly.
It's more just a general "goddamn those people creep me the hell out" sort of thing. I don't know. There's just something about people who can laugh till they shit themselves over dismembering someone, even just a digital someone... It just makes me want to avoid that person. It has nothing to do with the likelihood of them going axe crazy.
(To be fair, some might argue that they're all already axe crazy, but those people are shitheads.)
And Arafelis just reinforces Hoopla's sentiment that some people are fucking batshit to begin with. Who is this guy, anyway? He seems awfully stupid.
I dunno, you're free to hang around whomever you want or avoid whomever you want... but I happen to giggle like a ninny after fucking a prossie in GTA and then snuffing her, but I believe I'm a very decent human. Fuck, I once found a sluggish fly outside in November one year and brought it inside because I felt bad for it. The idea of actually hurting someone is not something I think about, but inside the game... well that's a different story.
Quote from: Hoopla on June 15, 2009, 10:40:27 PM
Exactly, so what? Not sure what kind of point you were trying to make with that.
Toxoplasma gondii is a multi-species parasite that inhabits the brain and muscle tissue of its hosts, and has been linked to "cat-owning behavior" in humans (docility, weakened social cue-reading, etc) and recklessness in rodents. It only undergoes sexual reproduction in felines. The effects of the parasite are pretty much unnoticeable in the short term for any given individual; it's
very interesting, however, as a statistical aggregate.
The fact that
toxoplasma gondii doesn't actually cause rabid cat-acquiring behavior in humans is irrelevant to that point, just as the fact that few or no people suffer delusional breaks with reality and claim to be Philip Marlowe is irrelevant to the idea of media's effects on the population.
QuoteAny of it really, since correlation does't imply causation.
No, correlation implies correlation. There is a correlation between media and behavior. The causative factor of that correlation remains unclear, but dismissing the options (just because some people have exaggerated them to the point of ludicrousness) is irresponsible. It's on exactly the same footing as the whole sagan-foundation-predicting-nuclear-winter-by-early-2000s-was-wrong-so-global-warming-is-a-hoax chain of thought that's made the rounds on the Web.
QuotePeople may dress as Jedis and state that as their religion on forms but the fact is they don't go around breaking up fights with their lightsabers. And if you find a case where someone did, it's irrelevant...
You see absolutely nothing wrong with the logical structure of this argument?
Quote from: Arafelis on June 15, 2009, 11:24:54 PM
QuotePeople may dress as Jedis and state that as their religion on forms but the fact is they don't go around breaking up fights with their lightsabers. And if you find a case where someone did, it's irrelevant...
You see absolutely nothing wrong with the logical structure of this argument?
WAY TO GO TAKING THINGS OUT OF CONTEXT, PAL.
Not everyone can be assed wording everything they say with the same care and diligence of the mega-human you clearly are.
The logic is sound, the way it was stated says to you that it wasn't. How about, to get it through your fucking skull, I reword it for you.
Crazy people are far, far, far more likely to do crazy things than non-crazy people. Therefore, it is safe to assume that when a crazy thing is done,the person responsible is crazy.
EDITED FOR CLARITY IN CASE I GET YELLED AT BY SOMEONE WHO CAN'T DO SOMETHING AS SIMPLE AS PARSING INFORMAL LANGUAGE
Quote from: Erin Gardien on June 15, 2009, 11:38:24 PM
Crazy people are far, far, far more likely to do crazy things than non-crazy people. Therefore, it is safe to assume that when a crazy thing is done,the person responsible is crazy.
That seems irrelevant to the falsifiability problem I was objecting to. It also walks right into the 'correlation is not causation' statement Hoopla brought up, bangs its nose, and falls over... so I find it unlikely that that is what s/he meant.
No, that was pretty much what I meant.
I don't see anything wrong with the logic in that bisected argument because a single case doesn't negate the general rule. Or, maybe it does to you, you're starting to remind me of the cat that sat on the hot stove.
I won't believe that the media affects the behavior of non-mentally ill citizens until I see some very strong evidence for it. I'm sort of outlandish like that.
Game is boring but gets plus points for honesty.
Quote from: Hoopla on June 16, 2009, 12:02:28 AM
I won't believe that the media affects the behavior of non-mentally ill citizens until I see some very strong evidence for it. I'm sort of outlandish like that.
My concern is that you seem to be setting the bar too high. Your proposed cases are basically schizoid breaks; the effects of environment are much more subtle and gradual than that.
Quote from: Arafelis on June 16, 2009, 02:14:57 AM
Quote from: Hoopla on June 16, 2009, 12:02:28 AM
I won't believe that the media affects the behavior of non-mentally ill citizens until I see some very strong evidence for it. I'm sort of outlandish like that.
My concern is that you seem to be setting the bar too high. Your proposed cases are basically schizoid breaks; the effects of environment are much more subtle and gradual than that.
My concern is that you set the bar too low; I don't think people are as stupid as you believe.
Quote from: Hoopla on June 16, 2009, 03:22:37 AM
Quote from: Arafelis on June 16, 2009, 02:14:57 AM
Quote from: Hoopla on June 16, 2009, 12:02:28 AM
I won't believe that the media affects the behavior of non-mentally ill citizens until I see some very strong evidence for it. I'm sort of outlandish like that.
My concern is that you seem to be setting the bar too high. Your proposed cases are basically schizoid breaks; the effects of environment are much more subtle and gradual than that.
My concern is that you set the bar too low; I don't think people are as stupid as you believe.
:cn:
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on June 16, 2009, 11:24:50 AM
Quote from: Hoopla on June 16, 2009, 03:22:37 AM
Quote from: Arafelis on June 16, 2009, 02:14:57 AM
Quote from: Hoopla on June 16, 2009, 12:02:28 AM
I won't believe that the media affects the behavior of non-mentally ill citizens until I see some very strong evidence for it. I'm sort of outlandish like that.
My concern is that you seem to be setting the bar too high. Your proposed cases are basically schizoid breaks; the effects of environment are much more subtle and gradual than that.
My concern is that you set the bar too low; I don't think people are as stupid as you believe.
:cn:
I don't need a citation for an opinion.
If you go around having far fetched opinions like that you're going to be asked for them regardless
The evidence around me day to day is enough for me to know that most people are not stupid. It's just the squeaky wheel that gets the grease.
Quote from: Hoopla on June 16, 2009, 03:16:00 PM
The evidence around me day to day is enough for me to know that most people are not stupid. It's just the squeaky wheel that gets the grease.
:mittens:
Wow. well for starters, let me say that anyone who even considers an upper limit to human stupidity will be proven wrong by the sheer ingenuity of idiocy so quickly they ought to be held responsible for creating the mere opportunity for the Force of Nature known as The Dumb to demonstrate itself.
Having said that, I can relate to the OP.
I remember seeing some people play GTA:San Andreas, and was impressed by the realism as the player pulled/punched someone out of their car and realized "hey that actually isnt very nice".
Not that I think it should be prohibited or something, but yeah, it did affect me in some way.
Just to pull a hypothetical example. What if videogame gfx become so utterly realistic, it's indistinguishable from a snuff? Would that be bad? It would certainly make me sick, personally. And depending on the context, perhaps indeed a bit wary about the person enjoying that sort of thing.
Quote from: Triple Zero on June 16, 2009, 04:25:13 PMWhat if videogame gfx become so utterly realistic, it's indistinguishable from a snuff? Would that be bad?
No.
Quote from: Triple Zero on June 16, 2009, 04:25:13 PMIt would certainly make me sick, personally. And depending on the context, perhaps indeed a bit wary about the person enjoying that sort of thing.
Fair enough, that's your right.
I can't imagine why someone would want to play the first person shooters based on the Columbine shootings, but do I think they should be banned? Certainly not.
I find a lot of things distasteful... I had a hard time getting through Cannibal Holocaust, but some people love it... I'm not wary of someone who enjoys it, though. Not unless their behaviour has several other indicators that something is off.
And, for the record, I didn't state that stupidity doesn't exist, just that I don't think the vast majority of the planet is stupid, as some other people obviously do.
I think you're misinterpreting what we're saying, Hoopla.
The games are fine. The people who play them are fine, mostly. It's just that when I see someone catch the giggles from setting someone on fire, I feel disgust. It doesn't matter whether or not they are bad people or will be bad people, they tripped the "oh god what the hell" switch in my brain.
I'm sure Trip feels similarly.
No, I understood your point, I just don't share it. When I see someone catch the giggles from setting someone on fire I see something different I suppose. At any rate, I've probably said all I can on the matter, so carry on.
Quote from: Hoopla on June 16, 2009, 05:16:33 PMI don't think the vast majority of the planet is stupid, as some other people obviously do.
be careful, every time you say that, a Democracy is born.
Regardless of the other factors in play: I don't necessarily equate suggestibility with stupidity. Some of the smartest people I know are Christian ministers.
Quote from: Arafelis on June 17, 2009, 12:09:22 AM
Regardless of the other factors in play: I don't necessarily equate suggestibility with stupidity. Some of the smartest people I know are Christian ministers.
So, christian ministers are by default suggestible?
Quote from: Kai on June 17, 2009, 12:11:17 AM
Quote from: Arafelis on June 17, 2009, 12:09:22 AM
Regardless of the other factors in play: I don't necessarily equate suggestibility with stupidity. Some of the smartest people I know are Christian ministers.
So, christian ministers are by default suggestible?
Christians are. As are Muslims, Buddhists, Ba'ha'i, Scientologists, Shinto, and Wiccans.
Quote from: Arafelis on June 17, 2009, 12:45:15 AM
Quote from: Kai on June 17, 2009, 12:11:17 AM
Quote from: Arafelis on June 17, 2009, 12:09:22 AM
Regardless of the other factors in play: I don't necessarily equate suggestibility with stupidity. Some of the smartest people I know are Christian ministers.
So, christian ministers are by default suggestible?
Christians are. As are Muslims, Buddhists, Ba'ha'i, Scientologists, Shinto, and Wiccans.
Sorry, I don't buy it.
Quote from: Triple Zero on June 16, 2009, 04:25:13 PM
Wow. well for starters, let me say that anyone who even considers an upper limit to human stupidity will be proven wrong by the sheer ingenuity of idiocy so quickly they ought to be held responsible for creating the mere opportunity for the Force of Nature known as The Dumb to demonstrate itself.
Having said that, I can relate to the OP.
I remember seeing some people play GTA:San Andreas, and was impressed by the realism as the player pulled/punched someone out of their car and realized "hey that actually isnt very nice".
Not that I think it should be prohibited or something, but yeah, it did affect me in some way.
Just to pull a hypothetical example. What if videogame gfx become so utterly realistic, it's indistinguishable from a snuff? Would that be bad? It would certainly make me sick, personally. And depending on the context, perhaps indeed a bit wary about the person enjoying that sort of thing.
I think that'd be awesome. Now if we could integrate really realistic sex too. I could be the serial killer I've always dreamed of being, without the risk of jail, or, y'know, hurting real people.
To be honest I think the rape simulation game (more of an interactive DVD) was a little worse - Stockholm: An Exploration of True Love
Where you kidnap a woman, and force her to fall in love with you using psychological torture
Of course the creator tried to call it an exploration into stockholm syndrome or some other crap...
there has been several movies and books, ect. exploring very similar worlds - but none of these are interactive by nature
and lets be honest this is just an excuse for sexual deviants to interactively pretend to dominate women
...just as im sure your Muslim game is just an excuse to participate in the kilingl people who we're told to blame for pretty much everything
I don't know the psychological effects of this, but I'm willing to be its kind of negative
Thurnez, great timing. Today in that thread, Sigvatr had the wonderful idea of making a game to rape small children at a McDonalds.
This person is harmless, right? Not despicable, just an "artist". Right?
And it's totally not okay for him to, say, be tied to the front of a derailed freight train heading for a forest fire, right?
You guys are giving him a lot of attention
which he probably really likes
I stay out of "artistic" discussions because they never end well. Maybe this guy is legitimately exploring a darker side of humanity, and maybe it is important.
There is an participation element that is more apparent then other media, books, movies, comics, ect.
But I'm very much on the fence on this issue, thought I do find it interesting that more and more the object of identification in many games is not one of a virtue, or even moral ambiguity, but this identifying with a perpetrator of an almost fratlike violence, more often against women, or minorities. Something that's also crept into horror movies, especially with these almost sensational torture porn films - which might I add are much more water downed then the more grimy almost poetic gorefests of underground films of the 80's (ie Psycho Girls, Guinea Pig 2, or 5) and definitely invoke a less negative reaction in the viewer.
I tend to agree, sympathize with your position, and definatly aggree with it more when there is an attempt to commercialize
but on the other hand human fantasies can be dark, very dark
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on June 20, 2009, 08:11:28 AM
But I'm very much on the fence on this issue, thought I do find it interesting that more and more the object of identification in many games is not one of a virtue, or even moral ambiguity, but this identifying with a perpetrator of an almost fratlike violence, more often against women, or minorities.
It is interesting, isn't it? The more the traditionally powerful feel like they're "losing control" of culture, the more mainstream their revenge fantasies become.
Quote
but on the other hand human fantasies can be dark, very dark
Agreed, and so I guess I agree with the idea of some kind of artistic merit in this work. But I don't think that means I need to like it, or that anyone else commenting here is obliged to feel any less than outraged at it. (Nor do I think that you're suggesting that they shouldn't. I'm just being more explicit.)
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on June 20, 2009, 08:11:28 AM
You guys are giving him a lot of attention
which he probably really likes
I stay out of "artistic" discussions because they never end well. Maybe this guy is legitimately exploring a darker side of humanity, and maybe it is important.
There is an participation element that is more apparent then other media, books, movies, comics, ect.
But I'm very much on the fence on this issue, thought I do find it interesting that more and more the object of identification in many games is not one of a virtue, or even moral ambiguity, but this identifying with a perpetrator of an almost fratlike violence, more often against women, or minorities. Something that's also crept into horror movies, especially with these almost sensational torture porn films - which might I add are much more water downed then the more grimy almost poetic gorefests of underground films of the 80's (ie Psycho Girls, Guinea Pig 2, or 5) and definitely invoke a less negative reaction in the viewer.
I tend to agree, sympathize with your position, and definatly aggree with it more when there is an attempt to commercialize
but on the other hand human fantasies can be dark, very dark
No, he's not. He's a 14 year old kid. He's stated that he does this shit to piss people off, in other words to be an insensitive cunt. This has no artistic merit. I tried to think up a good metaphor in the vein of "It has all the artistic merit of...", but there really isn't anything to compare. There's more art in flushing a toilet or stabbing your eyeball with a heroin syringe than in his garbage.