Games On Net - Sometimes Story is Overrated.
OK, time for a massive about face. I’ve banged on for months about the importance of story and how, for me at least, story and character take precedence over everything else in an RPG. Whilst that still remains true, I have an admission to make. I have an almost unholy love for action RPGs, or, as I like to call them, games of acquisition. As good as a story might be, sometimes you just need the gaming comfort food that is killing hordes of enemies and collecting the sweet, sweet loot that explodes from their ruined corpses. Diablo III is still “when it’s done” months away, but fellow fans of indiscriminate killing and incremental upgrades need not fear, there are a couple of games right around the corner that should keep us going until Blizzard finally decides to throw us a freaking bone.Mod DB - Why The "Why We Removed The School Shooter Mod" Article Pissed Me the Hell Off.
It has been asserted by some that the removal was ‘no big deal’ because the ‘School Shooter Mod’ was a “troll mod”, or one that was started for the sole purpose of riling up a bunch of people via its outlandish and potentially offensive content. While that can be argued either way, ultimately it is irrelevant. The true intentions of the mod team are only for they themselves to know, and not for anyone else to judge. The bottom line is that they made a mod on a site that hosts mods, and in an ill-advised attempt to appease some outspoken critics, the host of the site censored the mod in direct contravention of the most basic principle of modding – utter creative freedom. Moreover, they allowed a few to dictate to the many what they can and can’t create or use, and in one fell swoop have changed their basic role from archivists of mods to content police. For those who ask what the big deal is in removing one mod, I implore you to consider that concept very carefully. With such a precedent set, can we really be sure such a thing won’t happen again, this time maybe to a mod you personally are interested in and are excitedly following? Again, once started, where do you stop?
InBlack wrote on Mar 29, 2011, 09:39:
Great post, very well writen and to the point. I have been thinking along the same lines recently and share similar views. Our civilized society really does give new meaning to "survival of the fittest". We have taken it to the next level so that our very survival as a species is threatened.
space captain wrote on Mar 28, 2011, 22:26:derelict koan wrote on Mar 28, 2011, 19:09:
Great post, but I would suggest that conviction/will is necessary to feed/sustain systems of logic. I think there is definitely a balance available to achieve, perhaps the ethical responsibility that Cutter suggested.
Of course a balance is necessary, as emotion is always a more powerful motivation than logic. Its much older, as it comes from our instinctual nature, whereas our grasp of logic is much newer and less instinctual. The essence of intelligence is functional adaptability, and logic is the mechanical basis for that, even outside conceptual systems of language and so forth. This is easily observable in the geometries and harmonic ratios of the natural world. In terms of complex lifeforms, emotion is very much a part of intelligence, but not all emotion is "ethical" - some are organizational principals which are concerned with territorial dominance and hoarding rather than sustainability and community.
In terms of ethics, you must realize the difference between a man-made morality (like muslim laws against blasphemy which are punishable by execution, and so forth) and an inborn or natural sense of conscience. Natural conscience is an impersonal yet emotional relationship to the evolutionary imperative. It is on par with consciousness as a human trait. It is generally unknown by people, just rarely touched on and promptly ignored or covered up, buried, until it atrophies beyond redemption. It is the same with consciousness, although that is another matter. If people actually had a conscience, they would be unable to accomplish all the rampant hypocrisy they engage in on a daily basis without feeling those opposite feelings as they occur. Its a very pervasive situation, in different relative degrees of problematic institution. And yet, this capacity for hypocrisy is what feeds/sustains a large portion of our society and its systems.
So, in terms of real, actual ethics that are relative to the sustainable evolutionary potential of the human race - its just not happening on a wide scale level. All you have to do for evidence of this is to take a look around. The system is failing, as we are slowly making our own home unlivable, and the tiny few stack mountains of wealth while the great majority starves and suffers the lack.
The modern world we live in is the widespread accumulation and outward manifestation of the internal guiding principals of humanity in general. And until that wide scale level hits a tipping point of ACTUAL ethics instead of bullshit "politics", this world will continue to burn. It hasnt even been that long since civilized life was invented, and we've made a big fucking mess really quickly.
Generally humans are still quite "animalistic", and even less intelligent than other animals in terms of sustainability. Their unique capability for self evolving has been ignored in favor of simple exploitation, and the results of their efforts bear this out. The corruption has taken on a life of its own; most people dont even have a chance of noticing it, and even less of a chance to do anything about it.
What this does is encourage these moralistic crusaders and 'habitually-offended by everything' types to continue pressing for censoring of material on moddb and elsewhere because it is proven to be effective.
A scan of Netflix shows that Irreversible, Death of a President, and The Basketball Diaries are all available for watching. We are talking about movies that show rape (very graphically), Assassination of a sitting (at the time) U.S. President, and yes, a violent school shooting respectively.
You don't have to like or approve of the content; but in my view you ought to believe in its right to exist regardless.
This is simply the 'slippery slope' fallacy. While they've made a decision to remove this particular mod, what indication is there that they have any plans to remove any other mod? There is no reason to believe they are going to go on a mod banning spree now, than there was before this took place.
There's a significant difference between stopping people from obtaining something, and choosing not to participate in people getting something.
The bottom line is that they made a mod on a site that hosts mods, and in an ill-advised attempt to appease some outspoken critics, the host of the site censored the mod in direct contravention of the most basic principle of modding – utter creative freedom.
Moreover, they allowed a few to dictate to the many what they can and can’t create or use, and in one fell swoop have changed their basic role from archivists of mods to content police.
With such a precedent set, can we really be sure such a thing won’t happen again, this time maybe to a mod you personally are interested in and are excitedly following? Again, once started, where do you stop?
And most people, left, right and center have a pretty good idea where the proverbial line is.
derelict koan wrote on Mar 28, 2011, 19:09:
Great post, but I would suggest that conviction/will is necessary to feed/sustain systems of logic. I think there is definitely a balance available to achieve, perhaps the ethical responsibility that Cutter suggested.
Beamer wrote:It does make the threads harder to read.
Do people here get annoyed when Blue censors Icewind's racist/classist drivel?
Kosumo wrote:Yes, it was very well done, it evoked an emotional response, and it generated great discussion. I think it did far more good for the maturation of the industry/hobby/art than it did harm.
Did any others here play "Super Columbine Massacre RPG!"?
Cutter wrote on Mar 28, 2011, 18:02:Keep up the good work Cutter!
A post full of emotional arguments and strawmen.
Cutter wrote on Mar 28, 2011, 18:02:ModDB says that people mistook the site for being the creators of the mod. We should use your argumentum ad populum logic there too.
It's called the moral majority for a reason. And most people, left, right and center have a pretty good idea where the proverbial line is.
space captain wrote on Mar 28, 2011, 16:46:
They feel that they can win arguments by conviction rather than logic, and that is why they get so angry and emotional about it - because thats all they have to work with - just a never-ending sense of hurt pride, of being offended, of not getting enough respect for how awesome they are. It fuels the moral outrage and self-righteous indignation and helps deflect the issue away from themselves. Thats why fundamentalists are such crusaders, because they are too chickenshit to deal with their own internal problems.
There's a line you just don't crossyeah and that line is drawn by you? Who draws the line? Maybe the one drawing the line doesn't draw the line where you draw the line. So just because you draw *a* line somewhere.. that makes your censorship suddenly right but Chinas censorship wrong?
Jerykk wrote on Mar 28, 2011, 16:05:
Censorship is always problematic because it assumes that morality is objective. It isn't. Morality varies from culture to culture and from person to person. Censorship may satisfy one person or group but it inevitably offends another group or person.
Verno wrote on Mar 28, 2011, 16:04:
Art takes many forms. Let's take a movie like Irreversible with an incredibly graphic, long rape scene and a death scene so violent that people had to leave the theater to throw up. Did the director need to make it that long or graphic? Who defines that line you mentioned? What if he was purposely trying to unsettle the audience, to take you out of your comfort zone and experience emotions that you would never feel normally?