The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
An article about what we were discussing a couple of weeks ago with Baudrillard "Simulation and Simulacra" and the notions of reality and alternate realities:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3135247.stm
A bloke making a living selling items for a non-existent, online world.
Does this count as an "alternate reality"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3135247.stm
A bloke making a living selling items for a non-existent, online world.
Does this count as an "alternate reality"
Page:
Insane Bartender wrote:
> Deleting something, or destroying something doesn't mean that it
> never existed, it only means that it no longer exists. Does that mean
> it wasn't real? Does that mean that we imagined the conversations we
> remember? Not at all.
--
No, but our recollections are going to be different. Maybe massively, maybe minutely but they will differ.
Which comes down to perception of what was/is "real".
I could swear blind you said "A", yet you can swear blind you said "B", completely different recollections and our perceptions are different. So who's to say which version is the real one?
Same with reality - I percieved The Gulf War as something completely different to Bell. I percieved it as an illegal invasion, and subsequent deaths were immoral etc etc, yet Bell percieved it as a correct and just thing to do.
I can watch a bomb falling into a factory and say "That was a hospital", Bell can watch the exact same footage and say "No that was a weapons factory"
An even seen from a diametrically opposed viewpoint, the perception of what we have witnessed.
> Deleting something, or destroying something doesn't mean that it
> never existed, it only means that it no longer exists. Does that mean
> it wasn't real? Does that mean that we imagined the conversations we
> remember? Not at all.
--
No, but our recollections are going to be different. Maybe massively, maybe minutely but they will differ.
Which comes down to perception of what was/is "real".
I could swear blind you said "A", yet you can swear blind you said "B", completely different recollections and our perceptions are different. So who's to say which version is the real one?
Same with reality - I percieved The Gulf War as something completely different to Bell. I percieved it as an illegal invasion, and subsequent deaths were immoral etc etc, yet Bell percieved it as a correct and just thing to do.
I can watch a bomb falling into a factory and say "That was a hospital", Bell can watch the exact same footage and say "No that was a weapons factory"
An even seen from a diametrically opposed viewpoint, the perception of what we have witnessed.
Insane Bartender wrote:
> Belldandy wrote:
> Much of what this Baudrillard is on about is how real is only what
> you perceive it to be. War, for most of us, is tv images and
> reports,
> you can fake them. Anyone seen Wag The Dog, where that guy says to
> the other that he faked the image of a Gulf War smart bomb going
> through the air intake of a bunker, then says he didn't, then that
> it
> didn't matter because that became an image of the war ?
>
> That's different territory. If you can implant data into someone's
> mind, reality is whatever you can bend it to become. In that sense,
> the majority of the world is already living a virtual life, believing
> only what they're told in tabloid newspapers, which for the most part
> isn't an accurate reflection of events. So from that point of view,
> we're all living virtual existences, because none of us can ever
> truly know everything.
It's the same thing, the trick is to make those who play the games not to realise it is....
> Belldandy wrote:
> Much of what this Baudrillard is on about is how real is only what
> you perceive it to be. War, for most of us, is tv images and
> reports,
> you can fake them. Anyone seen Wag The Dog, where that guy says to
> the other that he faked the image of a Gulf War smart bomb going
> through the air intake of a bunker, then says he didn't, then that
> it
> didn't matter because that became an image of the war ?
>
> That's different territory. If you can implant data into someone's
> mind, reality is whatever you can bend it to become. In that sense,
> the majority of the world is already living a virtual life, believing
> only what they're told in tabloid newspapers, which for the most part
> isn't an accurate reflection of events. So from that point of view,
> we're all living virtual existences, because none of us can ever
> truly know everything.
It's the same thing, the trick is to make those who play the games not to realise it is....
Insane Bartender wrote:
> My point is that it's real. It's ALL real. If you percieve it as
> anything else, just because despite final ownership, you do not
> completely control it, you're just foolish.
Ah, you've actually summed it up well here IB, and hoepfully should help me prove my point, kind of.
To you, it is indeed all real. Items in online worlds, the financial transactions involved for them, these boards, the people on them, and so on. You believe in them, and you're not wrong for doing so.
Now imagine, instead of exchanges being typed out and posted to this forum, that the forums were instead a 3D photorealistic virtual world, and that users could choose and design their own realistic virtual avatar, and that discussion was in real time voice chat. Imagine that, say if someone hit another then they'd feel it, or their muscles would react to simulate that hit.
It becomes irrelevant as to whether a real person hit another, because the damage is the same. So, it'd be an immersive, sensory, online forum with believable representations, but ultimately it's computer code and the rest is all to form the impression of real. But if you can be hurt, can feel things, can talk to what appear to be real people, in a real world, then how does it matter if it is just a simulation, not real ?
More importantly what do we want to simulate and why ? I'd guess members of these forums rarely get a change to do real life discussion of many topics on here, hance we use these forums for that. It's something we don't or cannot do in real life. It's puzzling at first why the Japanese like such oddities as fishing games, or ones which cover mundane tasks like cooking or train simulators, etc, but it's all about doing something in the virtual that you cannot in the real.
The whole thing is a fascinating area to look at, I've read tons of stuff on it and I'm still no closer to any one idea because everything opens more questions than answers.
I must go now, so apologies to anyone who asked or replied to something earlier, I have to do work on the actual dissertation now :( Damn heat.....
> My point is that it's real. It's ALL real. If you percieve it as
> anything else, just because despite final ownership, you do not
> completely control it, you're just foolish.
Ah, you've actually summed it up well here IB, and hoepfully should help me prove my point, kind of.
To you, it is indeed all real. Items in online worlds, the financial transactions involved for them, these boards, the people on them, and so on. You believe in them, and you're not wrong for doing so.
Now imagine, instead of exchanges being typed out and posted to this forum, that the forums were instead a 3D photorealistic virtual world, and that users could choose and design their own realistic virtual avatar, and that discussion was in real time voice chat. Imagine that, say if someone hit another then they'd feel it, or their muscles would react to simulate that hit.
It becomes irrelevant as to whether a real person hit another, because the damage is the same. So, it'd be an immersive, sensory, online forum with believable representations, but ultimately it's computer code and the rest is all to form the impression of real. But if you can be hurt, can feel things, can talk to what appear to be real people, in a real world, then how does it matter if it is just a simulation, not real ?
More importantly what do we want to simulate and why ? I'd guess members of these forums rarely get a change to do real life discussion of many topics on here, hance we use these forums for that. It's something we don't or cannot do in real life. It's puzzling at first why the Japanese like such oddities as fishing games, or ones which cover mundane tasks like cooking or train simulators, etc, but it's all about doing something in the virtual that you cannot in the real.
The whole thing is a fascinating area to look at, I've read tons of stuff on it and I'm still no closer to any one idea because everything opens more questions than answers.
I must go now, so apologies to anyone who asked or replied to something earlier, I have to do work on the actual dissertation now :( Damn heat.....
Belldandy wrote:
> Much of what this Baudrillard is on about is how real is only what
> you perceive it to be. War, for most of us, is tv images and reports,
> you can fake them. Anyone seen Wag The Dog, where that guy says to
> the other that he faked the image of a Gulf War smart bomb going
> through the air intake of a bunker, then says he didn't, then that it
> didn't matter because that became an image of the war ?
That's different territory. If you can implant data into someone's mind, reality is whatever you can bend it to become. In that sense, the majority of the world is already living a virtual life, believing only what they're told in tabloid newspapers, which for the most part isn't an accurate reflection of events. So from that point of view, we're all living virtual existences, because none of us can ever truly know everything.
> Much of what this Baudrillard is on about is how real is only what
> you perceive it to be. War, for most of us, is tv images and reports,
> you can fake them. Anyone seen Wag The Dog, where that guy says to
> the other that he faked the image of a Gulf War smart bomb going
> through the air intake of a bunker, then says he didn't, then that it
> didn't matter because that became an image of the war ?
That's different territory. If you can implant data into someone's mind, reality is whatever you can bend it to become. In that sense, the majority of the world is already living a virtual life, believing only what they're told in tabloid newspapers, which for the most part isn't an accurate reflection of events. So from that point of view, we're all living virtual existences, because none of us can ever truly know everything.
monkey_man wrote:
> OK, take ths site for example. All the opinions on it are real
> (except The Crazy Col's), but if Bob wanted to, he could delete the
> threads as if nothing had ever happened, with no visible evidence.
> It's not real, it can go and no-one would be none the wiser. Not
> like for real objects that will always exist in some form.
Umm. You have to format a hard drive about 7 times before any trace of what you've deleted is completely gone, and I'm sure if I took a load of real life conversation on paper, and burned them 7 times over, they would cease to exist in any recoverable form. Does that mean that the conversations never happened? No. Why? Because we remember them.
Deleting something, or destroying something doesn't mean that it never existed, it only means that it no longer exists. Does that mean it wasn't real? Does that mean that we imagined the conversations we remember? Not at all.
> OK, take ths site for example. All the opinions on it are real
> (except The Crazy Col's), but if Bob wanted to, he could delete the
> threads as if nothing had ever happened, with no visible evidence.
> It's not real, it can go and no-one would be none the wiser. Not
> like for real objects that will always exist in some form.
Umm. You have to format a hard drive about 7 times before any trace of what you've deleted is completely gone, and I'm sure if I took a load of real life conversation on paper, and burned them 7 times over, they would cease to exist in any recoverable form. Does that mean that the conversations never happened? No. Why? Because we remember them.
Deleting something, or destroying something doesn't mean that it never existed, it only means that it no longer exists. Does that mean it wasn't real? Does that mean that we imagined the conversations we remember? Not at all.
Insane Bartender wrote:
> That's the essence of computer games. They're not real. You save the
> world by flapping your thumbs. Yet people pay for them every day.
> It's no different. People are paying for an experience.
A professor at (I think) Loughborough University is researching some very interesting angles to cybernetics, on paper he has the concept of how people could be given memories they never had, skills they never acquired, experiences that could not have happened - only thing stopping this being put into practice is that there is no way to try it other than do it on a real person.
Much of what this Baudrillard is on about is how real is only what you perceive it to be. War, for most of us, is tv images and reports, you can fake them. Anyone seen Wag The Dog, where that guy says to the other that he faked the image of a Gulf War smart bomb going through the air intake of a bunker, then says he didn't, then that it didn't matter because that became an image of the war ?
In the same way people go about their lives interpreting and viewing certain things, and they do it differently. I see Bush as a great leader, and without turning this into an argument, other do not. Neither is right because it's a perception, in the end its is a man, with power that is itself illusory.
Ironically most war games are now less realistic than the real thing, despite improvements in technology. In a game like C+C Generals the decision to attack is instant, there is no negative to doing so other than the chance of defeat. Black Hawk down offers no penalty for the killing of unarmed civilians, Raven Shield nothing for executing surrendering terrorists, in Conflict Desert Storm no reference is made to the run up to war and the impression is your 4 man squad singlehandedly tunrs the tide of war. Even in GTA Vice City the crossover between the real and virtual is blurred, it's supposed to be satirical, but increasingly the faked adverts sound more like the real ones we have today.
one of the main things of my dissertation is not so much to say that games are worthless, or not real, more how we define what is real and virtual, and the representations we encounter in them, ultimately what is the difference and how do we tell, expecially in light of new technologies of the present and future. To quote Existenz, "how do we know this isn't real?"
> That's the essence of computer games. They're not real. You save the
> world by flapping your thumbs. Yet people pay for them every day.
> It's no different. People are paying for an experience.
A professor at (I think) Loughborough University is researching some very interesting angles to cybernetics, on paper he has the concept of how people could be given memories they never had, skills they never acquired, experiences that could not have happened - only thing stopping this being put into practice is that there is no way to try it other than do it on a real person.
Much of what this Baudrillard is on about is how real is only what you perceive it to be. War, for most of us, is tv images and reports, you can fake them. Anyone seen Wag The Dog, where that guy says to the other that he faked the image of a Gulf War smart bomb going through the air intake of a bunker, then says he didn't, then that it didn't matter because that became an image of the war ?
In the same way people go about their lives interpreting and viewing certain things, and they do it differently. I see Bush as a great leader, and without turning this into an argument, other do not. Neither is right because it's a perception, in the end its is a man, with power that is itself illusory.
Ironically most war games are now less realistic than the real thing, despite improvements in technology. In a game like C+C Generals the decision to attack is instant, there is no negative to doing so other than the chance of defeat. Black Hawk down offers no penalty for the killing of unarmed civilians, Raven Shield nothing for executing surrendering terrorists, in Conflict Desert Storm no reference is made to the run up to war and the impression is your 4 man squad singlehandedly tunrs the tide of war. Even in GTA Vice City the crossover between the real and virtual is blurred, it's supposed to be satirical, but increasingly the faked adverts sound more like the real ones we have today.
one of the main things of my dissertation is not so much to say that games are worthless, or not real, more how we define what is real and virtual, and the representations we encounter in them, ultimately what is the difference and how do we tell, expecially in light of new technologies of the present and future. To quote Existenz, "how do we know this isn't real?"
Insane Bartender wrote:
> Maybe I just don't understand the debate, but what we call
> "virtual" isn't actually "virtual" at all, since
> it's all real, we can all see it, we just can't pick it up and throw
> it about. Therefore, trying to argue that some things we do in a
> "virtual world" don't exist is a bit stupid, because it
> does, otherwise we couldn't do them.
OK, take ths site for example. All the opinions on it are real (except The Crazy Col's), but if Bob wanted to, he could delete the threads as if nothing had ever happened, with no visible evidence. It's not real, it can go and no-one would be none the wiser. Not like for real objects that will always exist in some form. You can't just make a dog mystically disappear by pressing a button - you have to put it in a sack in the river, but then a tramp can always find it, and no matter how much he eats, there will always be bones...unless he gives them to a dog, and the circle of life is complete...
> Maybe I just don't understand the debate, but what we call
> "virtual" isn't actually "virtual" at all, since
> it's all real, we can all see it, we just can't pick it up and throw
> it about. Therefore, trying to argue that some things we do in a
> "virtual world" don't exist is a bit stupid, because it
> does, otherwise we couldn't do them.
OK, take ths site for example. All the opinions on it are real (except The Crazy Col's), but if Bob wanted to, he could delete the threads as if nothing had ever happened, with no visible evidence. It's not real, it can go and no-one would be none the wiser. Not like for real objects that will always exist in some form. You can't just make a dog mystically disappear by pressing a button - you have to put it in a sack in the river, but then a tramp can always find it, and no matter how much he eats, there will always be bones...unless he gives them to a dog, and the circle of life is complete...
I've got it!
Life.
Life.
When you're "escaping" you still exist. Therefore, your actions have consequences.
You can enter a virtual world, tell someone they're a tool, only to find out that said person has had a really bad day, and your comments drove them to suicide. The people joining you in the virtual world are real, therefore people have a sense of responsibility to act like it.
You can enter a virtual world, tell someone they're a tool, only to find out that said person has had a really bad day, and your comments drove them to suicide. The people joining you in the virtual world are real, therefore people have a sense of responsibility to act like it.
No, life is life. We're not plugged in, and changes can always result in serious, sometimes life-threatening, consequences. Life is a game, but not escapism. Escapism is fun, to take your mind off things. Doing something you don't want to do, but do it for the benefit of others is one of the most noble acts you can perform. Is that escapism?
Page: