The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3087121.stm
Well, maybe. I doubt it for some reason.
And part of me can't help but think it's all a ploy.
Well, maybe. I doubt it for some reason.
And part of me can't help but think it's all a ploy.
Page:
Yep, it's human geography, this fits into the Cultural Geography field - it's been approved by my dissertation tutor and they checked with the examinations board also.
Maybe destroy was too strong a word, challenge then :)
I actually think Baudrillard's work supports my idea, that games, simulations etc do not provide an alternate reality anymore than we each live within our own virtual reality every day. It's about perceptions of what is around us, and we each perceive things differently., and how those perceptions can be shaped by things. In general there is a media belief - through games like Everquest, Ultima, and even the Sims etc that people are creating virtual alternate lives for themselves.
One professor in the US reckoned, and did a paper, on how Everquest produced it's own GDP that was higher than most ex Russian states. I'd argue that the transactions needed to establish that were very much rooted outside of Everquest and that Everquest cannot have a GDP, as it does not exist as anything more than an illusion, a semblance of life. Another part is looking at the idea of AI in games that supposedly represents 'the enemy' and allies etc The closer I look at the area it seems clear that using the word AI is another illusion, it's really scripting and not true AI by most definitions www.gamestudies.org has an interesting paper on this.
I've got just under a year to go to submission so you'll have to excuse me if the ideas aren't too clear yet !
I actually think Baudrillard's work supports my idea, that games, simulations etc do not provide an alternate reality anymore than we each live within our own virtual reality every day. It's about perceptions of what is around us, and we each perceive things differently., and how those perceptions can be shaped by things. In general there is a media belief - through games like Everquest, Ultima, and even the Sims etc that people are creating virtual alternate lives for themselves.
One professor in the US reckoned, and did a paper, on how Everquest produced it's own GDP that was higher than most ex Russian states. I'd argue that the transactions needed to establish that were very much rooted outside of Everquest and that Everquest cannot have a GDP, as it does not exist as anything more than an illusion, a semblance of life. Another part is looking at the idea of AI in games that supposedly represents 'the enemy' and allies etc The closer I look at the area it seems clear that using the word AI is another illusion, it's really scripting and not true AI by most definitions www.gamestudies.org has an interesting paper on this.
I've got just under a year to go to submission so you'll have to excuse me if the ideas aren't too clear yet !
That's similar to what I did.
I don't buy into the technology creating alternate reality, for me that's the domain of...well...sci-fi movies and books.
It's how we, as sentient beings, choose to use that technology and whether we would truly embrace such a thing as "alternate reality".
It already exists, to a point, with the internet. People choose identities, assume personas and character traits that they would never display in the "real" world - which is why so many people and sites are fuelled on spite. Because people generally are timid, polite beings conforming to social ethos and frightened of repercussions. But within this "virtual" world, they act with total freedom of consequence.
Whilst Baudrillard discusses the ideas of employing methods to create alternate versions and awareness, as with a simulated tank battle (I think they actually did virtual battle tests before this invasion?), Chomsky takes a different angle and dissects the way that existing technology, language and perceptions are altered through more traditional methods - both with a similar outcome, but Baudrillard, from what I've read, prefers to take a more theological "what if..." approach opposed to Chomsky's "this is what A says, this is why A said it and this is what is behind the reason for A saying"
I can remember talk for years of "virtual reality", with those stupid headsets and that doesn't seem to have progressed much further in the past 20 years, I think primarily because of man's resistance to surrendering control to an alternate reality. We are, essentially, afraid of change and losing what little grip we have on our lives.
Which is why there is such fear and condemnation of things like stem cell research, cloning etc - it's removing our ability to control our environments and affect direct change in our lives.
And, as a side-note, I'm not entirely sure you can "destroy" these notions, would it not be more influential to counter-argue and offer alternate viewpoint as opposed to trying to "destroy"?
Whilst I appreciate the passion, I think with all due respect, trying to "destroy" the notions of academics like Baudrillard is a little...egotistical? They've been doing it a lot longer and in a lot more depth than yourself. Dont think I'm having a pop, just suggesting that you or I are hardly in the position to "destroy" notions set forth by intellectuals and philosophers that are operating on a level waaay above us?
Interesting dissertation.
What's the actual course then? Human Geography?
I don't buy into the technology creating alternate reality, for me that's the domain of...well...sci-fi movies and books.
It's how we, as sentient beings, choose to use that technology and whether we would truly embrace such a thing as "alternate reality".
It already exists, to a point, with the internet. People choose identities, assume personas and character traits that they would never display in the "real" world - which is why so many people and sites are fuelled on spite. Because people generally are timid, polite beings conforming to social ethos and frightened of repercussions. But within this "virtual" world, they act with total freedom of consequence.
Whilst Baudrillard discusses the ideas of employing methods to create alternate versions and awareness, as with a simulated tank battle (I think they actually did virtual battle tests before this invasion?), Chomsky takes a different angle and dissects the way that existing technology, language and perceptions are altered through more traditional methods - both with a similar outcome, but Baudrillard, from what I've read, prefers to take a more theological "what if..." approach opposed to Chomsky's "this is what A says, this is why A said it and this is what is behind the reason for A saying"
I can remember talk for years of "virtual reality", with those stupid headsets and that doesn't seem to have progressed much further in the past 20 years, I think primarily because of man's resistance to surrendering control to an alternate reality. We are, essentially, afraid of change and losing what little grip we have on our lives.
Which is why there is such fear and condemnation of things like stem cell research, cloning etc - it's removing our ability to control our environments and affect direct change in our lives.
And, as a side-note, I'm not entirely sure you can "destroy" these notions, would it not be more influential to counter-argue and offer alternate viewpoint as opposed to trying to "destroy"?
Whilst I appreciate the passion, I think with all due respect, trying to "destroy" the notions of academics like Baudrillard is a little...egotistical? They've been doing it a lot longer and in a lot more depth than yourself. Dont think I'm having a pop, just suggesting that you or I are hardly in the position to "destroy" notions set forth by intellectuals and philosophers that are operating on a level waaay above us?
Interesting dissertation.
What's the actual course then? Human Geography?
It was a pain the neck to get hold of it I can tell you, had to get it from a guy in the US.
I'm starting my dissertation on Human Geography which is about Representation within modern videogames.
one of the biggest representation is that certain titles purport to show a simulation, or representation, of the real world. The distinction between reality and virtuality can become mixed and unclear. Baudrillard's work is important to my topic because he's essentially challenging how we perceive what is real and what is not, what exists and what is artificially created by others, an illusion, or what he terms, a hyper reality. It's early days yet so my ideas aren't too clear. In particular it's interesting how he shows that perceptions of something like a war can be created by the use of the a few images and scenes, in effect this is similar to a game. Also Baudrillard makes the links between the military and the use of the virtual, his example of an Iraq tank battle being digitally simulated with the ability to change the options and the outcome.
I've also got the Simulation Simulacra one (it was mentioned in that Matrix Reloaded topic you posted actually) but I haven't read it yet. I've got like 50 books to work through and endless internet papers...
The dissertation actually started out looking at things like gender, conflict etc but it's turned into looking at the whole reality/virtuality thing but it's not going to go all Matrix because ultimately I don't buy iunto this 'technology creating an alternate reality' thing, in fact I hope to try and destroy that kind of notion in my dissertation.
I'm starting my dissertation on Human Geography which is about Representation within modern videogames.
one of the biggest representation is that certain titles purport to show a simulation, or representation, of the real world. The distinction between reality and virtuality can become mixed and unclear. Baudrillard's work is important to my topic because he's essentially challenging how we perceive what is real and what is not, what exists and what is artificially created by others, an illusion, or what he terms, a hyper reality. It's early days yet so my ideas aren't too clear. In particular it's interesting how he shows that perceptions of something like a war can be created by the use of the a few images and scenes, in effect this is similar to a game. Also Baudrillard makes the links between the military and the use of the virtual, his example of an Iraq tank battle being digitally simulated with the ability to change the options and the outcome.
I've also got the Simulation Simulacra one (it was mentioned in that Matrix Reloaded topic you posted actually) but I haven't read it yet. I've got like 50 books to work through and endless internet papers...
The dissertation actually started out looking at things like gender, conflict etc but it's turned into looking at the whole reality/virtuality thing but it's not going to go all Matrix because ultimately I don't buy iunto this 'technology creating an alternate reality' thing, in fact I hope to try and destroy that kind of notion in my dissertation.
What is it that you're studying to require you to read Baudrillard then? Sounds like an interesting course.
Yeah I've got that, haven't read it in a while though.
Surprises me that you're reading it, although it is for a Uni paper.
The thing about Baudrillard, as you're obviously aware reading the dude, is that he deals with perceptions and notions of reality.
"Simulacra and Simulation" is very good as well, although not specifically to do with the Gulf.
The stuff about reporters watching CNN to get their news, and reporting on CNN made me chuckle.
He's an interesting writer, always questioning the validity of information and how you percieve it.
Which, oddly enough, is exactly the same subject Chomsky deals with in "Manufacturing Consent" and "Public Propaganda".
2 authors with the same idea, approaching from vaguely similar viewpoints yet make totally different reading.
Surprises me that you're reading it, although it is for a Uni paper.
The thing about Baudrillard, as you're obviously aware reading the dude, is that he deals with perceptions and notions of reality.
"Simulacra and Simulation" is very good as well, although not specifically to do with the Gulf.
The stuff about reporters watching CNN to get their news, and reporting on CNN made me chuckle.
He's an interesting writer, always questioning the validity of information and how you percieve it.
Which, oddly enough, is exactly the same subject Chomsky deals with in "Manufacturing Consent" and "Public Propaganda".
2 authors with the same idea, approaching from vaguely similar viewpoints yet make totally different reading.
I'm reading 'the gulf war didn not happen' by Jean Baudrillard at the moment, it's related to some uni work, very interesting guy and though he wrote about the 1991 conflict, his words stand for this one as well. Anyone else read it or heard of it ? I'll do a post on it when I've finished it - have to take notes as I'm reading for the uni work so it's taking a couple of days.
Protoss wrote:
>
>
>
> While your comparisons are fairly astute and humorous, I am sure that
> after the Romans conquered a province for the Empire (same with Iraq?
> I am undecided...) they didn't build sanitation and law overnight
> there, the Americans need more than a few months just as I am sure the
> Romans needed. Plus the Romans didn't have to worry about power. Or
> establishing democracy, meerly bribing the local warlords and
> slaughtering anyone who stood in the way of the Emperor, at least the
> US has to go to an effort to decieve its public rather where as all
> the Roman government had to do was put on a new gladiator show.
Hello.
Not quite; the Romans had to cope with barbarous subjects who were constantly fighting (Gauls and various tribes of Germans, not to mention the Britons), a population who hated each other as much as their conquerors (Egyptians, specifically Alexandria), and populations who rebelled at every opportunity (the Jews, the Armenians, hell most of what is now the middle east). They had a hell of lot to go through. A picky sort of point I know, but there you go...
>
> Seriously, while you (any forum user here, no one specific) may not
> aprove (to say the least) of the 'Coalition' invading Iraq, I find it
> absurd that people think it would be rebuilt to the glory days of
> Babylonia overnight. Why isn't there a complete democracy? Lol, you
> don't just build a new representative government overnight. I think
> these kind of judgements can only realistically be made in 10 years
> time. Think how long the Allies were in Germany rebuilding. Of course
> in this case you would (not any user specifically) probably argue that
> we are the aggressors.
I agree; it's not going to happen overnight. But with Iraq at the moment, it looks like it won't happen at all. The Allies are taking the hammer in their, and the American public have a history of demanding their troops withdraw when lives start to be lost (Vietnam for example). Once the US public demand the troops come home, will they be kept there? I doubt it.
I agree with you to be honest; although like Goatboy I don't think they should have been in their in the first place, now that they are it's their mess to sort out, and sort it out they should.
>
> I think Americas reputation is working against them before they even
> began, since they have had considerable troubles in comparison to the
> British. Though it should be remembered that the US occupies the
> capital whereas the British control the smaller city of Basra.
> But of course you already knew that.
I don't think the American habit of slaughtering civilians and being so gung-ho is helping either. So many journalists (yes, embedded journalists included) have criticised the manner of the US military in Baghdad that it would seem their troops are digging their own graves.
>
> And I know it was humour, I found it funny, I only want to point out
> some of my own views of what, while in jest, is actually a serious and
> interesting discussion point.
True enough, and it was nice to see you giving some reasons for why you think what you do.
>
>
>
> While your comparisons are fairly astute and humorous, I am sure that
> after the Romans conquered a province for the Empire (same with Iraq?
> I am undecided...) they didn't build sanitation and law overnight
> there, the Americans need more than a few months just as I am sure the
> Romans needed. Plus the Romans didn't have to worry about power. Or
> establishing democracy, meerly bribing the local warlords and
> slaughtering anyone who stood in the way of the Emperor, at least the
> US has to go to an effort to decieve its public rather where as all
> the Roman government had to do was put on a new gladiator show.
Hello.
Not quite; the Romans had to cope with barbarous subjects who were constantly fighting (Gauls and various tribes of Germans, not to mention the Britons), a population who hated each other as much as their conquerors (Egyptians, specifically Alexandria), and populations who rebelled at every opportunity (the Jews, the Armenians, hell most of what is now the middle east). They had a hell of lot to go through. A picky sort of point I know, but there you go...
>
> Seriously, while you (any forum user here, no one specific) may not
> aprove (to say the least) of the 'Coalition' invading Iraq, I find it
> absurd that people think it would be rebuilt to the glory days of
> Babylonia overnight. Why isn't there a complete democracy? Lol, you
> don't just build a new representative government overnight. I think
> these kind of judgements can only realistically be made in 10 years
> time. Think how long the Allies were in Germany rebuilding. Of course
> in this case you would (not any user specifically) probably argue that
> we are the aggressors.
I agree; it's not going to happen overnight. But with Iraq at the moment, it looks like it won't happen at all. The Allies are taking the hammer in their, and the American public have a history of demanding their troops withdraw when lives start to be lost (Vietnam for example). Once the US public demand the troops come home, will they be kept there? I doubt it.
I agree with you to be honest; although like Goatboy I don't think they should have been in their in the first place, now that they are it's their mess to sort out, and sort it out they should.
>
> I think Americas reputation is working against them before they even
> began, since they have had considerable troubles in comparison to the
> British. Though it should be remembered that the US occupies the
> capital whereas the British control the smaller city of Basra.
> But of course you already knew that.
I don't think the American habit of slaughtering civilians and being so gung-ho is helping either. So many journalists (yes, embedded journalists included) have criticised the manner of the US military in Baghdad that it would seem their troops are digging their own graves.
>
> And I know it was humour, I found it funny, I only want to point out
> some of my own views of what, while in jest, is actually a serious and
> interesting discussion point.
True enough, and it was nice to see you giving some reasons for why you think what you do.
Practical Magic wrote:
> At last, a person on the forum who doesn't expect Iraq to be rebuilt
> and democracy established, along with a health service, power,
> electricity, sanitatation and a Star Bucks in matter of months...
---
I'm not going to go into this right now, too much personal stuff has happened today and it's taken the fight out of me.
All I will say is whilst they are perfectly valid points, my argument is and has been that we had no business being there in the 1st place.
Still, rehashing and all that and i just cant be bothered anymore.
> At last, a person on the forum who doesn't expect Iraq to be rebuilt
> and democracy established, along with a health service, power,
> electricity, sanitatation and a Star Bucks in matter of months...
---
I'm not going to go into this right now, too much personal stuff has happened today and it's taken the fight out of me.
All I will say is whilst they are perfectly valid points, my argument is and has been that we had no business being there in the 1st place.
Still, rehashing and all that and i just cant be bothered anymore.
Practical Magic wrote:
Operation Flashpoint is probably one of the best for
> accurately conveying warfare - you're men die, often without seeing
> who fired the shot.
--
Whilst I cannot comment on the accuracy of warfare - having never been in it - Flashpoint is a bloody good game.
Been playing that tonight as a matter of fact, Red Hammer.
Dificult but rewarding.
What's with the asshat popping all these threads?
Operation Flashpoint is probably one of the best for
> accurately conveying warfare - you're men die, often without seeing
> who fired the shot.
--
Whilst I cannot comment on the accuracy of warfare - having never been in it - Flashpoint is a bloody good game.
Been playing that tonight as a matter of fact, Red Hammer.
Dificult but rewarding.
What's with the asshat popping all these threads?
Page: