[A definition of Terrorism for the 21th century]

Essentially my entire argument in this thread has been that both sides were blinded by propaganda in their attempts to demonize each other in the name of self-interest. I guess I didn't really have to write pages justifying my argument: the proof is right here.

[Oblivion megamovie]

In terms of gameplay, at times I liken TES games to graphical but dumbed down versions of roguelike games (except Daggerfall, which I thought was way ahead of its time). You know, those text-based games with no real narrative that you could yet play for hours on ends because the gameplay was so fun and deep. Unfortunately, those games will never see commercial success in today's industry. As such, I tend to see the TES games' progression towards making the roguelike idea of random/procedural content the next best thing. Even if the folks at Bethesda does not seem to grasp how to create good motivating factors, their technological innovations will no doubt produce a engine that would one day make full dynamic immersion a reality.

 

That's my hope, at any case, and why I would praise Besthesda's goal even if I didn't particuarly enjoy Morrowind either.

[Oblivion megamovie]

MMORPGs vs. TES games:

 

I think a fundamental distinction that must and should be made here, SP, is that a MMORPG will be hard-pressed to ever achieve the kind of immersion that you attribute, currently, to FMV-narratives. This is not because it doesn't use FMVs, but because the grand summation of players can never be depended on to roleplay the game as characters in a story might.

 

On the other hand, because TES games depend on AI to populate the world instead of players, they have the capacity to, ultimately, achieve full dynamic immersion. Come a time when advancements in AI allow for the creation of interactive, immersive, and yet non-canned/pre-scripted responses from NPCs, game built on the TES principle will be able to do it whereas a MMORPG will not.

 

Now you may argue that the time for that has not yet come, and that currently TES NPCs suck. And I'd agree, except I think that you're missing the point that this is their *intent*, and that it's this *direction* that they're making advancements in and that it's their holding onto this *direction* that I'm praising them for. The game industry does not automatically adopt the latest AI innovations. Someone in the industry has to go out there and actively attempt to advance the technology of procedural graphics and AI with respect to games, because academics certainly ain't going to do it (at least not yet).

 

This is why what Oblivion could achieve is praiseworthy, why their direction is a triumph of the game industry even if it doesn't produce the kind of immersive, emotional FMV-narratives that you enjoy. Because here they're pursuing the ultimate goal, the grand jewel of interactive immersion, whereas most FMV-narratives are forever bound to cinematic improvements and modifications in gameplay (most of which has to do with combat, item collection, etc., and not with the principles of interactivity).

 

Example: when was the last time Square Enix made any significant change to the way the player character may interact with other characters? When was the last time they made any significant change to the way by which the events of the story responded to the actions of the player?

 

I don't know if I can explain it any better than that.

[Oblivion megamovie]

It's really quite simple, in both the case of an MMPORG and a PnP RPG the non narrative approach relies on the party dynamic, or the presence of other thinking people who you hange out with to create you own stories. Without those other people the whole thing falls flat. Thats why narrative is so important it replaces what is is lost by reducing a group experience to a solo one. At some point the technology may exist to counter that shortcoming, but I already used words to that effect in my previous posts.

 

Your wrong although not totally. A good game can stand on it's own gaming merits and be enhanced by the addition of cinematics, but likewise weak gaming mechanics can be overlooked if you have a strong story compelling you. Obviously I do enjoy them for interactivity or I would be watching movies rather than playing games.

But that interactivity doese not have to come at the price of a narrative. Rather it can enhance it. With a game like Morrowind once you realise how banal the whole thing is, much like an MPORG then there is nothing else to keep you playing. And since I've never come across an RPG which offers challenge on a gameplay mechanic level , the story becomes vitaly important to keep interest.

 

Having played a MMORPG for six years, I call BS on that. If there's nothing to keep you playing in a MMORPG what are the ~10+ million people worldwide doing playing them? I can only go through a narrative story once and retain full enjoyment, but I can play a MMORPG for years on ends and not hit the peak of enjoyment until 2-3 years in. Therein is why interactivity is far more important to the gaming genre: it's what sets games apart from the kind of once-through narratives that are fundamental to literature/films.

 

Now you might argue, logically, that it's the other people that keeps you playing, and you'd be absolutely right. But the presence of other people *is* an element of interactivity, and as such I'm justified to say that it's interactivity that keeps people playing MMORPGs and, for that matter, single-player games in other genres such as war games, RTS's, action games, and the like. I played Doom, personally, for 1-2 years - just blasting away at monsters and downloading new maps to blasting away at more monsters. It had nothing to do with the story or the characters. Herein is a game's special advantage.

 

Your compltely wrong since Star Ocean shares nothing with any of the FF series (although XII might come somewhat close). How Star Ocean plays is quite different from how FF plays even FF from game to game will have very different mechanics.

 

Well, I didn't say that Star Ocean shared the FF game mechanics, I said JRPGs that *I* played. Since I didn't play Star Ocean, I can't comment on it, which is why I made a point to leave its discussion for another time.

 

And equally Oblivion is a rehash of Morrowind , as Morrowind was of Daggerfall and it was of Arena. Actually I and others feel that Morrowind was a step back from daggerfall since it lacked many of the gameplay elements that Daggerfall had. Where as the only real change in the interactivity of the FF series has been to abondon the overland map in favour of a more direct approach. What cinematics have done for the FF series is to make them more involving ,actually they have won awards for it. If people have such short attention spans that they cant sit still through a cinematic , then thats something they probably need help with.

 

If anything, it's far easier to attract people's attention through FMV's than through gameplay, which is actually why it's used so often. Most people can sit in front of TVs all day long, but only a select group would play games for hours on ends.

 

Regardless, interactivity is the sole principle difference between games and films, which is why I consider it so necessary to innovation. One of the big arguments against FF nowadays is that the gameplay is subsidiary to the telling of the story, whereas once the FFs were good squad combat games in addition to vehicles for storytelling. Herein is where I see a dichotomy between the two characteristics of the genre: the old, bi-sensual (sight & hearing) cinematic attraction and the addition of new, interactive gameplay. Though advancing the former is certainly a enhancement to the overall product, it is not an advancement for what makes the product a *game*. Only the latter can do that. And since JRPGs (and Bioware, to a lesser degree nowadays) tend to prefer adding more and more to the former, I retain a certain degree of respect for companies like Bethesda that continues to innovate in the latter (and as said, saying that Oblivion is simply a rehash of Daggerfall/Morrowind is biased speculation, since by all accounts the feature list presents a plethora of progressive innovations).

[Oblivion megamovie]

So because Morrowind was crappy (and there are legions of people who would argue with you on that point alone), none of its gameplay innovations matter? Because something like Xenogears might have had a good cinematic narrative, its lack of gameplay elements is not a weakness in terms of interactivity? If you ask me to understand that FMVs do not preclude gaming, why is it then that you can't accept the fact that a non-narrative approach to story does not preclude RPGs? Aren't you relying on a too-narrow definition in this case of what a RPG *should* be?

 

I understand that you would like to defend these games with good stories and characters. Hell, we have a entire multi-billion dollar industry devoted to doing just that on the big screen. But the enjoyment you garner from these games is, ultimately, a cinematic enjoyment. You enjoy them for the narrative, for the characters, and for the flow of the story. You do not enjoy them for why we'd enjoy a game over other mediums: interactivity. As such, though FMVs certainly do not preclude gameplay, they are, as you say, merely an enhancement of it - they do not comprise the actual gameplay, and thus *cannot* advance gaming as a genre.

 

Now whether Star Ocean indeed *has* better gameplay elements is another debate altogether. Personally, the JRPGs I've played have their level of interactivity straight out of the first FF games and, indeed, straight from the original CRPGs. Not much real development in this area has gone on beyond that, and many people indeed argue that the latest FF games are a step BACK from games like FF6 and FF4 in terms of actual interactive gameplay. This is why I say that they're not innovative, why they're basically rehashes with better graphics and better cinematic techniques. True, they're better as narratives, as films, but not as games. And therein is my point.

[Oblivion megamovie]

Oblivion is still pointless , the technology I was thinking of would be almost total immersion. As it is , I can think of few things more banal than standing in a corner clicking for no reason other than to increase a skill. In an MMPORG its a means to an end, but in a single player game there is no end that makes it worth doing. Your much better off spending the time improving your own abilities. Which brings me onto the other issue I have with games like Oblivion. If past games are anything to go by they wont challenge me and the gameplay will not be compelling enough to make up for a lack of a indepth story with interesting characters.

 

FMV brings the player emotional involvement in the game. That can lead to overlooking things like a poor control system since you are driven by other things.

 

FMV narratives dont have to be linear, many are not and incorporate multiple endings. What you dont get is the level of obvious that you get in the sort of things that Bioware make , its more subtle and hidden. You may not even realise you are altering anything at the time.

I'd take the gameplay of Star Ocean or Tales of Symphonia over the one dimensional mechanics of Morrowind any day. Morrowind dosnt even qualify as a game in my book, its more a simulation of you in a fantasy world doing your own thing. Ovlivion looks like its slimmed down the gameplay elements even further so I fail to see why that would make anyone extol it as a great game. If anything Oblivion is a step back not forward which dosnt go along with your theory.

 

On the other hand the telling of a good story is a timeless thing , that wont change regardless of how technology does. Rather the technology will ehance the method of telling.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That's fine and all, and I do realize that Oblivion has issues while FMV-narratives can be very enjoyable, but it doesn't answer my point, which is that FMV-narratives are a static medium that depends heavily on transferring techniques from film, while interactivity is the true advantage of a game and what differentiates this genre from all that preceded it. Thus, advancements in *this* genre necessarily depends on advancements in interactivity more than anything else, since without being interactive games would essentially be watered down animations.

 

With regards to Oblivion, then, how is Oblivion a step backwards? Procedural content is at the heart of producing dynamic content, and Oblivion is all over that. Improved AI via the Radiant AI engine, suffice to say, is the building blocks of truly dynamic NPCs, even if we're not there yet. And of course, general improvements of how PCs can interact with NPCs should not be overlooked, especially since we're talking about a range of interaction far greater than any existing RPG other than PnP.

 

Even if Oblivion is in fact a virtual fantasy world simulation, how can that be an indication of anything but the fact that Oblivion is more of a *game*? A game is *played*, it is not *told*. Products like Star Ocean and its ilk are more like cinematic narratives than games.

 

Therefore, I stand by my point that Oblivion is a step towards the future of gaming, while FMV-narratives are deeply rooted and will remain in the realm of cinematography. That's not to say that you can't be a fan of the cinematic experience over the gaming experience, or that we should stop producing FMV-narratives. But it is to say that with respect to games, innovation should be noticed where it appears, and innovation is most definitely something that Oblivion is striving towards - even if you don't like the game design itself.

[Oblivion megamovie]

When thechnology gets to a point where you can mimic the experience I might change my mind.

Oblivion etc do nothing new, they are simply offline MMPORGs , without something which can approximate a living breathing and changing world, they are rather dull and lifeless. If wandering around large expanses of empty is someones idea of fun, then they represent great value but otherwise the boredom factor kicks in long before the game is complete.

 

These two ideas contradict each other. On one hand, you imply that technological advancements might change your mind. But what was Oblivion's innovation in the first place if not in the procedural technology of dynamic worlds? It maybe true that Oblivion's current level of technology cannot simulate the living narrative that you would like to see, but at least they're making progress towards that, whereas most FMV-based narratives are simply sitting on their asses trying to make prettier graphics. The stories, I daresay, are not even getting better, especially since every story is necessarily subsidiary to their cinematic equivalent. Ultimately, I cannot see the slow, at times unconscious adaptation of decades of pre-existing cinematic experience into the digital medium as something worth getting excited over.

 

If anything, FMV-based narratives offer nothing new, while MMORPGs and simulated virtual worlds advance the gaming genre with each iteration, even though as of late we've fallen into a trap with companies trying to imitate WOW' success.

 

First we had books, then movies which "improved" upon the experience and games are the next step on the same media trail. RPGs from their PnP origins are after all interactive books of a sort. Without a story and a motivation you may as well spend the time improving yourself , rather than pressing a key for 20 minutes to improve your characters jumping.

 

What made PnP great was the amount of choices you had; the level of interactivity you could have with the environment and the narrative. Linear, FMV-based games suppress that in favor of a more cinematic level of enjoyment. Therefore, they cannot be said to be great *games*.

[God told me to invade Iraq]

You mean like an admission of guilt from Bush or his administration? They're not *that* dumb. :D

 

Regardless, it's true that this is likely exaggeration, since every form of media is fundamentally biased and politicized. The fact that Bush making an ass out of himself managed to make itself known through every avenue of media reporting, however, is truly extraordinary. Either we really have an idiot for a President, or the administration really believes that a mask of idiocy will garner votes from the average joe. Neither case bodes well for the prospect of intelligence in America.

[A definition of Terrorism for the 21th century]

Hmm...so what is your problem with Bush calling the Taliban terrorists, again?  I guess even though both regimes treated their people barbarically and without morality is a void point to you, huh?  Just out of curiosity, did you honestly expect Bush to call them freedom fighters, seeing what these people are like?  If your definition of freedom fighters is people who drag people from their cars and shoot them in the head, decapitate people and air it on TV, butcher and hang bodies of civlians from bridges, and set off bombs purposely near children, then I guess maybe Bush should call them freedom fighters. 

 

Perhaps your argument would carry some weight if Bush behaved in that matter.  Lots of countries oppose the U.S.  You didn't hear him calling Germany, France, or other countries who were against the war effort terrorists, did you?  How about any other country, for that matter?  Maybe you should go home and reconsider your argument. 

 

If you believe that everyone who fights against the US is, in your words, "people who drag people from their cars and shoto them in the head, decapitate people and air it on TV, butcher and hang bodies of civlians from bridges, and set off bombs purposely near children", then it seems that the propaganda machine of the US has worked quite well. But in reality, there is a huge distinction between those who fight the US's presence and those who take advantage of the chaos in Iraq to unleash their criminal intents - a distinction that Bush does not make.

 

And Bush has quite implicity stated that countries that does not stand with the US against terrorism are supporters of terrorism. He may not have called France or Germany terrorist countries outright, but the implication is there: those who do not support the US in its War on Terror are either cowards or terrorist-supporters. This has in fact shaped the US conception of the rest of the world - that is, that they're consumed by jealousy and hypocrisy, and are thus incapable of understaning US righteousness - as if the US was righteous in the first place.

 

They recently found a weapons factory in a school.  Do you condone that?  Let me tell you something: if we wanted to, we could have just blown the entire country of Iraq sky high.  But we didn't.  We, unlike many of the people we face now, tend to avoid targeting civilians.  Perhaps if these terrorists (that's right, I said it) were actually fighting for a just cause, maybe I would condone their actions.  The only reason we're in Iraq now is to keep the country stable.  You seem to fail to realize that so far the biggest victims of the insurgents have been Iraqis.  These people purposely target not just the U.S., but their own people!!!  You honestly think they can be called freedom fighters?

 

I already covered this with Walsingham. How many times do I have to repeat myself about the reason why the US does not "blow Iraq sky high"? It's not like we HAVEN'T done that in the past with Japan.

 

As for the targetting of Iraqis by insurgents - do you understand the difference between the insurgents and the Iraqis? The insurgents do not see themselves as defending a country called Iraq. They see themselves as defending their holy land of the Middle-East. Most of them who are fighting in Iraq aren't even native Iraqis, so I'm not surprised that they could care less about the people there. Protecting the people is not their cause, nor is it the US's. In both cases, we have groups fighting for the sake of an ideology (in the US's case, of spreading democracy; in the insurgents case, of purging their land of US influence), which is the problem in the first place.

 

And as for calling them freedom fighters - of course they can be. And are, by those who support them. Of course, in the Middle-East, the term freedom fighter is not nearly as provocative as a link to Allah, which is exactly what many of these suicide bombers are called by their supporters muhajedin: the holy warriors.

 

Tell me, are you saying that we had it coming when it came to 9/11?

 

That requires a value judgment of whether US intervention in the Middle-East justified an attack against our soil. I can't make that judgment because I don't know the details of the damages our intervention did in the Middle-East. Apparently, though, Al Qaeda feels that our intervention deserves far worse, which is why you see Osama Bin Laden comparing the WTC to the two towers the Israel invasion of Lebanon destroyed.

 

However, seeing that history remembers what it's like to be a victim of European/American imperialism, I very much understand the world's stance towards any attempts at the dissemination of American intervention. The course of US foreign policy is such that you cannot but help notice the extent to which the US has forcibly meddled with the Middle-East. We, in many ways, put people like Saddam Hussein and the Taliban in power in our attempts to contain Communism back in the days of our "glorious" role as the champion of democracy admist the Cold War. From this perspective it is wholly understandable that there are people out there who hold justifiable hatred towards the US and would, in their mind, see the US as the equivalent of a foreign empire that must be stopped regardless of costs to their people or ours.

 

I have news for you: terrorists today are little more than a new face on an old enemy: radical Islam.  Islam used to be a dominating force in the world, and the Muslim/Middle Eastern nations were among the most enlightened people in the world.  And look at them now.  Their regions are replete with corrupt, manipulative, and repressive governments, their education is in ruins, their military is a joke, and their economy depends on oil.

 

The people like Bin Laden represent more than just a political agenda: they represent an outdated form of religious zealotry that mandates that they kill the infidels and make Islam a dominant force.  Before its downfall, the Middle East didn't have to resort to "terrorist tactics" to achieve its goals.  But now, they have to resort to hiding in proverbial caves, launching an attack here and there to make us cover our faces in fright, because that is all they are capable of as of now. 

 

End rant mode.

 

Radical Islam is no worse than radical Christianity, or any other radical religion for that matter. Both have committed atrocities over the course of history, the difference being that one side managed to become a set of first world nations while the other side fell into a disparate collection of third world states. First world nations are by their very nature more "enlightened", or should I say more prone to peace due to their socio-economic infrastructure. But this has nothing to do with the incapability to change. As you yourself said, the Middle-East used to be the most enlightened people in the world. As China had been. As Rome/Greek had been. As the US/Europe was and perhaps still is. The difference, then, lies not in any underlying ideological principle but in the mode of production, in the rise of industry and science in *place* of religion.

 

In this respect, the one and only way for a part of the world to become peaceful and prosperous is through their own initiative to change. It cannot be forced upon them - imperialism failed, ultimately, though it managed to spark the rise of nationalism as a mode of resistance against Western exploitation. And US intervention in the Middle-East - our attempt to force them into the molds of democracy, will likewise fail. This is because civilizations are built upon the dignity of the people, and the dignity of the people cannot be "given" by another, or it is not dignity at all. Change can only come about when people get tired of their present social state, and in that respect what is necessary from the rest of the world is understanding, sympathy, aid, and patience.

 

Violence on our part fuels the propaganda of the dictators who will use US aggression as their instrument of control. Misunderstanding on our part fuels the division of the world into sides that will fall deeper into the hands of those who can exploit people's ideologies. This is why I say that ideology is the enemy of the modern world, because ideology constructs reality instead of representing it. Ideology divides people even as it unites them, and leads to both ignorance and war. It is European ideology that led to the Age of Imperialism and the subsequent world wars. It is American and USSR ideology that led to the Cold War and the wars of containment in Asia. It is American ideology now that guides it in the War against Terror. In all of these cases ideological control is at the heart of why two nations both filled with peace-loving people would go to war for the sake of an idea, and it is this ideological control that must ultimately be destroyed for any progress to be made. This is a cause that *I* think is worth fighting for - the disruption of propaganda, the shattering of silence, and connecting people AS PEOPLE through the avenues of modern technology (ie the internet). Not a fight for democracy that simply becomes an oligarchy. Not a war for national interest that becomes the interest of the few and the powerful. Not a struggle for freedom that ends up in the thrall of a different kind of control via propaganda and capital.

 

The grand, fundamental reason behind war is the economic struggle for resources. But what allows wars to happen, what justifies them and their brutality, is alienation between people. What allows a man to murder his neighbor in cold blood is his lack of sympathy for his fellow man, the alienation of one man from the humanity of the other. Because the murderer cannot see the world from his neighbor's eyes, because he cannot put himself in his victim's shoes, his nefarious deeds become possible. And so it is with war. When we cannot see the people of a nation as people but as followers of an ideal, it becomes possible for us to destroy their livelihoods. When we do not treat our enemies as human beings but as barbarians and savages, it becomes possible to kill without batting an eye. And just as the terrorist is alienated in this way from the Western world, so is the US in the thralls of this alienation from the Middle-East. Fortunately, there are those in the US who care more about people than ideology, just as there are people in the Middle-East who do the same. And it is these people who understand the costs of this war and its underlying futility. But for everyone of them you can probably also find someone who screams Death to all Muslims, and to hell with the Islamic Middle-East. They are the equivalent of the US terrorist - only lacking in the courage to blow themselves up.

[God told me to invade Iraq]

By God, Bush means the little voice in his head that speaks to him every night before he sleeps, the one that's been there all his life, that tells him that he's a good boy, and makes the bad things go away.

[Oblivion megamovie]

Where games have one up on movies is this. They can do what a movie can , and then some.

 

But is it advancing the RPG genre to make them choose-your-own-ending films? I'd think game developers should have more ambition than that.

 

In some senses though you're right in that RPGs are in some ways hybrids of the cinematic and the interactive experience. They attempt to tell a story (visually) and create interesting characters, and insofar as this is true they are films. They then integrate that with player input, which makes them games. And it is completely true that you may enjoy the movie aspect more than the game aspect and is willing to sacrifice gameplay for better FMV's, and there's nothing wrong with that, but as a game, the product would still have failed even if it succeeded as a narrative/film.

 

And as a step forward for the gaming medium - well, I'd argue that it wouldn't be a step forward at all as much as it'd be a retreading of the same domain films did. Now here I may be over-generalizing, and there may indeed be important differences inherent in a choose-your-own-ending film from a traditional film that requires a separate artistic sensibility. But in the overall sense, I still can't imagine it to be step forward for games.

 

What would constitute a step forward for games is the level of interactivity, since as I see it the dynamic effect of the player is what separates games from films. So in a RPG, an advancement in the level of the choices you can make would be an advancement of the game aspect, as would an advancement in the depth of their effects. From this perspective, "games" like Xenosaga that are basically FMV's with mini-games in-between are just the same old polished cinematic experiences, while games like Oblivion that try to push the boundaries of the gameplay aspect of RPGs represent an advancement. I say this not to the detriment of Xenosaga as much as I say it to the detriment of those who praise games like Xenosaga & its ilk as the way RPGs should be when they're CLEARLY not even games as much as they are films with a few choices and mini-games added in.

 

I simply do not see that, even if I at times enjoy it, as the direction RPGs should be taking. It's a tried and true medium, but by that very fact it's becoming tired, and even Square Enix realizes that when they attempt to innovate on the gameplay aspects of their games. Yes, you can come up with a new story every time and your fans will gobble it up, but that's just like a long-running film series. You'll never add anything really new to the genre until you make a innovation in the underlying gameplay.

 

In the end, every story has been told, and it's how they're told that makes them fresh and new. The how and not the what should be stressed in relation to what differentiates games, as it is already in literature and already in film.

[A definition of Terrorism for the 21th century]

i could care less what the bush administration says. my point stands as is. al qaeda existed before bush, so did hamas and so did the IRA. they were all three called terrorist organizations before bush, so how did he "redefine" the word?

 

tell me which organizations are labeled terrorist but really aren't.

 

By saying that everyone who's fighting against the US in Iraq are barbarians? By stating that the Taliban was a terrorist government and so was Saddam? By coining the term War on Terror that isn't really much of a war on anything other than going into Middle-Eastern countries that don't bow down and obey to US demands? Bush AND his predecessors far expanded the definition of terrorism so as to cover everyone who's fighting him. If we were just after Al Qaeda, why the hell is the majority of our attention diverted to creating a US-friendly government in Iraq? Because it helps in our search? Give me a break.

 

You don't hear him calling the insurgents in Iraq freedom fighters. You don't hear him making a distinction between Al Qaeda and other organizations. The only distinction he makes is between people who support the US (the freedom loving, democratic Iraqis!) and those who don't (terrorists, barbarians, insurgents). They're all our enemies - each and every one of them, regardless of whether their cause is just or has a point. As long as they oppose the US, Bush will demonize them. It's no surprise that most of the US population thinks that Middle-Easterners are in general prone to terrorism. That's the construction at work.

 

as it is, that the rest of the world is critical of the US is irrelevant. what makes them right and us wrong? why is it that as soon as there's someone threatening them, they suddenly have no problem looking to us to help out? i think the rest of the world's view is at best, hypocritical.

 

Ah yes, US exceptionalism at its best. Well guess what, I don't buy it, and the reason I don't buy it is not because I listen to the rest of the world but because I try to understand the underlying forces that generate the opinions of both the US AND of the rest of the world, whereas you only look at the US side and think that what we're doing must undeniably be right. Well it's not. Nor is what the rest of the world is saying undeniably right. What's right is what lies beneath the two propaganda machines, the political-ecnomic structure that operates off of ideologies and nations instead of between people.

 

not baseless at all. i have already backed up my point with numerous examples. i could care less what the government says, i know what happens. people that strap bombs to their chests and walk into streetside cafes are terrorists by definition. you're attempting to make a case that their views are simply unpopular or against the grain somehow. there is no moral belief system that would ever except such actions as merely "unpopular." hence, you are apologizing for their indefensible behavior.

 

Who the hell is apologizing for their behavior? Let me tell you something, taks, your attacks on my character are getting old. The world is not divided between terrorist haters and terrorist supporters. We don't live in Bush's vision of US against THEM. If you continue to try and pidgeonhole me the latter, I will start ignoring your posts, period. And then you can go off and ignore me too, if you will, since you are intent on doing that anyways.

 

so what.

 

Read.

 

now you're trying to place a moral equivalency on military actions vs. terrorist actions. first of all, there's no equivocation between walking into a cafe with a bomb strapped to your chest, whose only purpose is to kill civilians, and taking out a power plant. none. the distinction is not in the presentation, it is in the actual actions.

 

also, you mention they are trying to "root out hiding terrorists." tell me, really, how many military personnel intentionally hide among civilians? how many hole up in schools? how many take hostages? none? really? wow. you can't draw a moral equivalency no matter how apologetic you are. it just doesn't hold water.

 

I already went over this with Welsingham. The actions we take are the result of our superior position of power. We do what is necessary to win the war and for us that does not involve hiding in civilians or suicide bombing, both of which are contrary to our war effort. For the terrorists, it does involve that, so that's why they do it.

 

excuse me? how is walking into a cafe an attempt to crush the enemy economic-industrial war machine? how is flying into the wtc related to anything other than a symbolic strike on US soil? terrorists are a lot of things, but they aren't stupid. they want to cause fear and unrest. they wanted us to end up with less freedom. but they never, ever, thought that they could even dent our economic base or our so-called "war-machine." to suggest otherwise is ridiculous.

 

Walking into a cafe = attack enemy morale.

Flying into the WTC = destabilize national economy and taking the fight to the enemy so that they actually have a STAKE in the fighting

 

On that subject, terrorists could care LESS about how whether America is democratic , free, etc. or not. I have yet to hear of a single terrorist proclaiming that the goal of the Middle-East is worldwide domination. What they want is the US out of the Middle-East and that has been the only goal I've ever seen proclaimed by Al Qaeda and subsidiary organizations. If the US did not meddle in ME affairs, and did not support Israel, and the terrorists are STILL hitting us - then you'd have a point. But since that has never been historically true, I can only go by what I think are the underlying factors.

 

intent sir, is the reason.

 

Al Qaeda's proclaimed intent: "We are fighting for our freedom, to stop the US from meddling in Middle-Eastern affairs."

 

Our understanding of their intent: "No, you're barbarians. Savages. Terrorists. You fight against the free world for the sake of chaos and disruption."

 

Intent is a construction, and the intent of a enemy is seldom the intent we attribute to the enemy. Therefore, only actions can speak for themselves.

 

so has nearly every other country on earth. out of curiosity, what claim does al qaeda have to any war in the middle east? OBL's home nation disavows any connection to him (as does his own family). he's a loner with no country. he rose to fame fighting the russians in afghanistan. he favors palestinians in gaza, yet they're originally egyptians. he's an outcast and simply picks up on the crisis du jour for his own self aggrandizement.

 

I daresay Al Qaeda has more claim in the Middle-East than the US does, seeing that they're an organization that's based in the ME, whereas we're a foreign organization that has nothing to do with the Middle-East geographically but is happy to meddle in their affairs ANYHOW. In fact, the only "claim" the US ever had on anything in the Middle-East is the UN decision to put Israel smack in the middle of their historical enemies, which subsequently became a US ally and thus, through its own wars against the surrounding nations, so dragged the US into it as well.

 

Argue it anyway you want, but in the end it's a matter of US intervention in the Middle-East. The terrorists justify their actions through believing that they're fighting a holy war against the Christian/Jewish invasion. We gave them that incentive. And then we painted the world between US and THEM, and so made the war a matter of good vs. evil, instead of our specific national interest in keeping Israel where it is and in keeping the Middle-East "friendly" to US capital.

 

stability in that country will go a long way to improving the odds of at least putting the overall terrorist picture in check (i'm not so foolish to think they will ever go away).

 

Because the terrorists were a problem before we started meddling in Middle-Eastern affairs, right? Look at the root of the problem instead of its manifestation. You can defeat Al Qaeda. You can defeat the IRA. You can defeat all the terrorist organizations in the world, but in the end unless you solve the root of the problem, they'll keep coming back in forms you won't expect.

[Oblivion megamovie]

Yes, but will it be substance or all FMV?  FMV is nice and all but I rather play the game than watch the game.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

FMV draws you into the game. There was an excellent piece about how Squenix games were such emotional rollercoasters and thats mostly down to how the FMV links the games sequences together. Of course games that are nothing more than FMV are better off being movies, but in RPGs especially good FMV should not be underated.

 

For me , the intro movie is hugely important. It determines whether or not the game is likely to draw me in enough to spend 60 ish hours playing it. A good story can even compell me to finish something even if the gameplay isnt really to my tastes.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Indeed. However, while FMVs can be effective in advancing a story and I really like them, I also understand that they're necessarily a step BACK for the gaming industry. That is, the future of gaming does not lie in films, because films preceded games, and the cinematic techniques in games are often far inferior to those already developed in films. Interactivity is the advantage of the gaming medium, and it is here that innovations should be made, or else we risk the prospects of eternally piggybacking on the cinematic medium. Instead of constantly giving off the image that games are simply a inferior "cheap man"'s version of films (which the film industry often has the perception of), the game industry should develop its own set of sensibilities and additions to culture.

 

And that is why I tend to support games like Oblivion more than I should: because they advance the technology that differentiates a dynamic game from a static film.

[A definition of Terrorism for the 21th century]

1. That was in response to your claim that revolutionary groups claim publicly that their intent is to cause chaos and disruption, when the leader of perhaps the most well-known revolutionary group at this junction in time made a claim that is completely different from chaos and disruption: 1. with actual goals 2. with justification (revenge) and 3. with a set of conditions. This makes them less the anarchists you characterize and more organizations with a clear political objective.

 

2. The danger with arguing anything on a good vs. evil basis is that intent is never as simple as criminal psychosis. Again this goes back to your bias that all terrorists are psychos, egomaniacs, or fools, when many of them, though of course not all, have very real political and social goals in mind, and are acting because they feel that the US has wronged them/their countries. Of course that too is often a product of propaganda, but to judge based on intent you must first understand why that intent has come about. This is why I make no distinction between the soldier and the terrorist in the real sense - because both are products of a propaganda that ultimately has misguided intents. Sure, the soldier thinks that he's doing good, but SO DOES THE terrorist, and both have this assumption because they were trained and drilled in that assumption. Therefore, to say that a terrorist kills because he has evil intents and a soldier does because he has good ones is off the marks, because neither operate on the basis of their personal intents but on the basis of a greater intent as imparted through propaganda - and this intent is almost always "righteous" in theory.

 

3. Again, it depends on the nature of self-interest. The US army can establish short-term gains by ignoring humanitarian concerns, but it will suffer long-term strategic defeats. Why? Because people at home will hear of it and the army will be forced to pull out as it did in Vietnam (a great example of what occurs when a war becomes a matter of survival; all kinds of atrocities were committed there by BOTH sides in the conflict). This is mainly because we're not talking about a matter of national survival here but a volunteer fight on foreign soil. If someone were to invade the US and successfully, we will then be in a similar state to the terrorists, and then I'll invite you to see what we will do in response.

 

4. Observations of underlying forces. First and second-hand study are useful, but they are never comprise a real conclusion until you put them in the framework of overall forces. The analogy I would give you is the man who studies flocks of animals and publishes his observations of how animals behave, versus the man who studies flocks of animals and derives the theory of evolution. I'm not claiming to be the latter man, but I do believe in his method - that in order to arrive at something, you must look at the whole picture instead of simply what you observe and find the underlying causes and effects of things.

 

I apologise for taking a rather snotty tone earlier, but I find myself frustrated at the constant havering I see on this forum over condemning terrorism. Good and evil are not completely arbitrary. A man who tortures and kills with no greater authority than his own opinion or inclination is not a good man.

 

Perhaps, but isn't that what's in question here: *whether* terrorists operate on his own opinions/inclinations? Isn't this is the key observation: that propaganda determines the actions of its receivers? I may not have had as much first hand experience of terrorists as you do, but even so I think I'm justified to say that most terrorists - especially the ones that sacrifice their lives - do not act on the basis of their own opinions but by the power of a greater authority whether it be the organizations whose cause they serve, or the Allah whose jihad and heavenly rewards they believe in. Perhaps this is the only thing that divides the merely criminal from the political militant, but regardless of how misguided this type of ideology is, it certainly is in the same class of ideologies a soldier would go to war for: a greater cause that he believes in.

 

Hence the ultimate conflict is not between people, but ideas. US Imperialism - that's an idea from the point of view of those who hate the US. Freedom and democracy - that's an idea from the point of view of those who support us. These ideas are not the root causes of our conflicts (natural resource and territorial power are much more fundamental, since they're a feature of all animals), but what is used to control and direct our world. They are what divides the world. It is only when we realize them for what they are that we can even begin to change the way the world is. You won't get *anywhere*, I argue, by going about fighting terror and dictatorship where you see them, so long as what you replace terror and dictatorship by is your own version of the same kind of ideological control. Yes, you might one day achieve a united and peaceful world. But then so might have Hitler done if he wiped out other ethnic groups. In either case, might is not right, and perhaps that is a moral absolute.

[A definition of Terrorism for the 21th century]

Azarkon, you can criticise taks for being some sort of victim of government propaganda, But you are simply showing your own ignorance in the rest of your document. You seem equally blinded by supping solely from counter-cultural sources.  If you had any experience, whether first or second hand with the military and with terrorists you would understand there is a very real difference. It is not merely because we are us and they are them.

 

I'm not saying there is no difference between our military and theirs. But why is there a difference? How is it constructed? Those are my concerns, and my argument is that the method of construction is revealing, not the definition itself. It has nothing to do with getting my info from "counter-cultural" sources, because my sources are necessarily the medium of the propaganda. In other words, in order to criticize Bush, I must listen to what he and the military says. As such, my sources are the same as yours, but my interpretation is different, as I will demonstrate.

 

Military Marching types

 

When most disciplined militaries take actions which injure civilians they do so reluctantly. I'm not saying they do always, but by and large this is the case. It is certainly drummed into all NATO forces (and those who train with us) that civilians are neither a militarily useful, nor morally sound target. Indeed, one of the things which makes soldiers most riled about terrorists is that they hide among the civilians the soldiers are trying to protect, and kill those same civilians.

 

Here you are demonstrating my point: there is a clear distinction between the ideology behind military vs. terrorism, but only in the realm of ideology. When push comes to shove, the facts remain that ideology doesn't make a damn difference. The need to shoot before you ask, because they hide among civilians? Necessary self-defense. Must bomb buildings with civilian in them? Regrettable loss. We certainly SAY and make our soldiers FEEL that civilians are to be protected, but that line of thinking ends where our interests begin. Again, I make this argument:

 

If the US army were a third world freedom fighting organization going up against a Middle-Eastern superpower, would it do any different? If Al Qaeda was the dominant superpower invading a third world America, would it still rely on the ideology of terror? My answer is no and no.

 

When push comes to shove, governments and militaries have demonstrated that they could care less about what it takes to achieve victory, including wiping out entire civilian cities, regardless of what they feel or apologize for afterwards. The reason the US do not fall to terrorist tactics is because we can AFFORD not to, and because we NEED not to. To pursue a line of warfare other than NEED under the current state of the American ideology is political suicide: if you urged the destruction of civilians without excuses you will get your ass kicked out of the government in a matter of weeks. On the other hand, if America was being overwhelmed by a foreign power and we had the capacity to strike back at their civilian targets, you can bet your ass we will do so with brutal efficiency, because at that point, we will NEED to strike at their civilian targets.

 

Now think on this from Al Qaeda's perspective. Do they NEED to strike our civilian targets, and if not, what targets can they strike to stop the US from meddling in Middle-Eastern affairs?

 

Revolutionary Types

 

The second type of terrorist is your full-octane revolutionary/apocalyptic cult (Al Qaeda are revolutionaries). Their aim is to cause maximum chaos as described before. They make zero distinction between a soldier in a tank and you or I. I'm not making this up; this is what they typically say in their public pronouncements. This is mainly so they can hit soft targets and go home feeling big about themselves (In my opinion). But it also serves to further their aim of inducing chaos and disruption, which they believe they can exploit by retaining the initiative, and gaining credibility.

 

In Bin Laden's public announcement as to why he initiated the 9/11 attack, he was very concrete about the goals of Al Qaeda and why he did what he did. It's available here:

 

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/29/...den.transcript/

 

Whether we believe him or not is inconsequential, the point is how can you claim that what they typically say in public announcements is that their goal is solely to cause chaos and disruption? Here he clearly states his goal: "US out of the Middle-East", proves justification: "Revenge", and states tangible propositions: "We won't attack you if you stop supporting Israel/attacking us". He demonstrates the ability to manipulate the public just as well as Bush can - in fact better, in some ways, since he seems to be aware of American opinion in a way Bush is not aware of Iraqi opinion.

 

Certainly you can make the argument that the *END RESULT* of his statements is chaos and disruption, but chaos and disruption is exactly the guerilla way of fighting. You seem to make the distinction between terrorists and guerilla insurgents without understanding the underlying connection that their goal, both, is to drive out the influences of a ruling power through disrupting said power's economic, social, and political gains. Whether they are constructed as terrorists or insurgents is what distinguishes them, not their inherent properties.

 

Summary

 

The militarists and revolutionaries both consist of egomaniacs, psychos, and fools conned by the two preceding types into believing they have a duty to fight. The fools kill regular people because they are told to. The egomaniacs believe they have a destiny and a right to. The psychos do it because they want to.

 

And you call me biased? And you call me ignorant? Such a generalization makes it impossible for me to take you seriously, and makes your interpretation of the situation no differen than Bush's - that "terrorist" organizations are all evil and composed of evil people with no redeemable qualities and who must be exterminated for the greatness of our civilization.

 

You seem colored by the fact that you read a few interviews, talked to a few ex terrorists. Well guess what, those interviews and those talks are given for political reasons, and they are spread - through the net or otherwise - for political reasons. Until you can argue objectively about those political reasons and the underlying forces that create them, their words are meaningless.

 

It's easy to read a line and say what it means. Difficult to undertand what created its meaning. That's the difference between those who can look at the administration and see through their propaganda, versus those who take it at face value simply because they saw a few supporting documents.

 

Recommendation

 

You seem like a smart guy. So I would politely suggest you get to grips with terrorism first hand, by reading interviews, reading their training manuals, and chatting to some (retired) ones first hand. You never know who you can dig up if you try. You may not agree with me when you do, but you'll sound less like an ass (donkey).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It sounds to me that you believe if I witnessed documents where the terrorists confess to their diabolical goals I will be happily transformed from a ignoramous into a hard-lined realist, when in fact that is exactly the opposite. The more I read about people who think they know what they're doing, the less I think they do. The reason for this is two-fold:

 

1. As I mentioned before, all documents of this manner are disseminated for a very political reason. There are very few sources indeed that have no political goals in selecting these documents, so to speak, and very few sources that will allow you to chat with ex-terrorists without first politicizing what they're going to say.

 

2. Understanding does not come from hegemonious knowledge. If I spoke to the average American about the definition of terrorism they would spill to me exactly what the propaganda of the government tells them. Now you may believe that this is the true definition, but replace terrorism with "Japan" and replace the US with "China" and quickly you realize the extent to which the majority of the people in a country think alike - and think alike erroneously. This is no different with terrorists. Propaganda affects them as it affects us as it affects everyone. No one would die for a cause they do not believe in. Conflicts do not exist between good and evil. You do not blow up your own people rationally. You do not kill 50,000+ civilians rationally and shrug it off as justified. The US is not the heroes and Al Qaeda are not the villains, or vice versa. People from one country do not intrinsically cheer when another country suffers. Nor do they intrinsically believe that the Middle-East must be "democratized" through war.

 

All of these attributes of modern society are products of propaganda, of cultural and moral hegemony, and fighting one brainwashed group with another brainwashed group does nothing but increase the enmity of the entire world. In the end, true peace comes from true understanding, from sympathy between people instead of ideas. Ideology itself is, in this respect, the real enemy of modern society - and it is about time people realized the extent to which they are blinded by it.

[A definition of Terrorism for the 21th century]

that's not true at all.  al qaeda is not called a terrorist group because they want change nor because they are an insurgent group.  they're called a terrorist group because they indiscriminately kill innocent people in an attempt to terrorize (terrorize: to coerce by intimidation or fear) them.

 

That's certainly what the Bush administration says. The question you gotta ask if whether you believe it. If you can but tear your eyes and ears away for a moment from the hegemonic view of this nation, you would know the reason why much of the world is critical fo the US and its policies. Yes, there are organizations out there who use terror as their instrument of attack, but that category certainly does no comprise the current administration's umbrella of all who oppose the US.

 

contrary to your beliefs, the idea that the word terrorism is applied only to insurgent groups that are "unpopular" is the new definition applied only by people such as yourself, in an attempt to bring legitimacy to their actions.  in any rational belief system actions committed by terrorists are morally repugnant and worthy of the moniker terrorism.

 

Completely baseless. I would argue that the reason you believe thus is only because you have been thoroughly indoctrinated by the moral hegemony generated by government propaganda. The degree to which the Bush administration engages in this kind of over-simplification is blatant to the point of parody. For instance, when Bush claims that the world is divided between Us and Them, he is engaging in a gross categorization with the sole purpose of galvanizing a Good vs. Evil view. He relies on examples such as terrorist attacks against civilian infrastructures, while completely excusing the US army's own actions as being either accidental or necessary. In both cases, the distinction lies only in the presentation: the US army does not *target* civilian infrastructures *by choice* and without *military justification*, therefore they are just even if they target civilian infrastructures, as they often did in air raids and bombings in order to root out hiding terrorists. On the other hand, the terrorist attacks on US civilian infrastructures are *unjust* even though they are done for the same purpose of crushing the enemy economic-industrial war machine. In the end, the US inflicts MORE civilian casaulties than Al Qaeda ever did, but we write it off as the mere cost of war. Why then cannot Al Qaeda do the same? Remember, 9/11 was not the first casaulty of this war, despite what the Bush administration would like you to believe. They did not attack us out of the blue. The US has been meddling in the affairs of the Middle-East both economically and militarily since before the Cold War. If anything, we started this war. We've just been fighting it on foreign soil until they decided to take the fight to us.

[A definition of Terrorism for the 21th century]

Common to tyrannical governments, arresting or assassinating outspoken religious or political leaders to instill fear in the people and keeping them in line also seems like terrorism to me.

 

But that's not called terrorism. Terrorism as a modern day term only applies to insurgent groups, or for governments associated with these insurgent groups. If a large national government executes dissenters, it's either called a problem of human rights (China), or a tyrannical state (Iraq), depending on the standing of said country in the world.

 

Like I said, terrorism is a term constructed by those who oppose it. Yes, it indicates a strategy based on fear, but that's only because in propaganda you concentrate on the attribute that most people can identify with rather than one that most people can't. For instance, the assassination of a government leader is NOT necessarily for the sake of instilling fear. Yet it is called terrorism by said government. Similarly, attacking commercial and military structures can clearly be seen as economic warfare, but it is their terrorist nature that's stressed. In neither of these cases can we be confident that the GOAL of the attackers is to instill fear - perhaps it is, perhaps it's not. We certainly cannot judge them only based on the results. After all, gang wars DO bring fear to the populace, but gangsters are not called terrorists. Dictators construct fear to control the entire populace, yet it is not terrorism.

 

In the end, the question of whether or not the goal of terrorism is to bring fear is irrelevant. ALL acts of war bring terror and fear upon the populace, and all manners of control depend somewhat on fear. Whether if that was the strategic purpose is, in most cases, difficult to see. For example, it's easy to say that an attack on a children's hospital is an act of terrorism if done on purpose. But what if it wasn't done for the sake of terror? What if the purpose of the act was hate crime? It's hard to say, and most of the times no one knows the details - certainly not the media. So in the end it's government's propaganda that discerns a terrorist from a freedom fighter. We, in the US, *have* called terrorists freedom fighters (ie when we were supporting them in Iraq & Afghanistan against the USSR), and we have called what other countries consider freedom fighters terrorists. This is solely a matter of political self-interest: we color the world as would advance our own goals, and the vast majority of the population believe in the divisions we give.

 

In war, it is necessary to paint the other side as evil, and our own cause as the cause of righteousness. The enlightenment of a society, then, depends on whether it is able to sympathize with the other side. Common sense dictates that conflict is resolved through mutual understanding. Yet in the modern world, such a philosophy does not exist. On either side.

[Oblivion megamovie]

Course, that does mean that those who would rather see innovations elsewhere, such as in gameplay or character interaction, would be disappointed.  But hell, that forest is an awesome work of real-time procedural graphics, and having researched that topic myself in academia, I can tell you that what they did is quite impressive.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Those are not realtime.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Right, of course. What I meant was the real-time *rendering* of procedurally generated plants (the plants are of course generated off-time, per game I assume). That's not an easy thing to do because procedural methods have the tendency to inflate the number of polygons. This is the reason why programs like SpeedTree can generate very lush looking forests, but most games that use them end up looking like crap. You could fix this with artists going in and specifically modifying the scene to suit the game's needs, but that takes ALOT of time, so the fact that Oblivion managed to do this procedurally is certainly a step forward for games in general.

 

And with respect to the soil erosion and wind factors, etc. - these are all procedurally based graphic generation methods that haven't been used, to my knowledge, in games. This is why Oblivion is innovative technologically - because it manages to tackle with one of the biggest problems in game development: the overhead of modeling labor, which then frees artists to engage in more creative endeavors such as designing dungeons and cities.

[A definition of Terrorism for the 21th century]

Terrorism is just a word.  It has no meaning outside of what is socially implicated in its definition.  Those who think that the goal of terrorism is to cause fear are taking that definition from those who oppose it.  The terrorists themselves, even the leaders, do not necessarily agree with said definition.  But then neither would they call themselves terrorists.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

we define the terrorists actions based on what their ultimate goal is, not what is socially implied. the semantics are irrlevant. that the terrorist leaders openly admit their own goals or not is irrelevant. their intent is fear, no matter how you want to define it. UBL (OBL?) wants to frighten. the IRA wants to frighten (well, the radical arm). hamas wants to frighten. of course, once enough people are afraid, other, perhaps more materialistic, goals are attainable (these leaders are tyrants by any definition).

 

and kaftan says he's not making any political statements "

 

taks

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

How do you justify your statements? You basically just repeated your argument.

 

For instance, the ultimate goal of terrorism is terror? What? Terror is the instrument, not the goal. If fear were the goal of terrorism then we might as well call horror movie makers terrorists.

[A definition of Terrorism for the 21th century]

i think you're letting the ultimate goal of terrorism take a back seat.  it is not simply "in opposition" to society.  terrorism is, at its heart, designed to terrorize.  i.e. the goal of terrorism is to cause fear. 

 

terrorists make a lot of lofty claims, but they're all simply excuses, rationalization as it were, for their own tyrannical desires.  in this sense, remember, i'm referring to the leaders of the terrorist movements.  no doubt the followers believe in what they are doing.

 

either way, any definition that does not include the desire to cause fear is incomplete.

 

taks

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Terrorism is just a word. It has no meaning outside of what is socially implicated in its definition. Those who think that the goal of terrorism is to cause fear are taking that definition from those who oppose it. The terrorists themselves, even the leaders, do not necessarily agree with said definition. But then neither would they call themselves terrorists.

 

Unfortunately, any argument over terrorism IRL tends to expose too many deep, fundamental emotions, so I won't go further than that.

 

An ideal or political movement whose agenda can be presumed to support and/or encourage violence and/or a radical change in society, and that can be considered to be in opposition with that of the authorities or goverment

 

I would say the question you have to ask here is who is using this definition. It sounds like the definition of a neutral observer instead of either party, unless the point of this definition is to reveal a world where the government and the terrorists both respect each other's causes. I'd say that a definition never exists in a vacuum but is always the product of the social factors that surround those who coin it. Since the word terrorism implies a antagonistic outlook towards its goals (an idealist would not name his movement "terrorism", I'd think), it is most likely coined by those who are against it, and therefore its definition would probably be much more condemning.

[Oblivion megamovie]

This game is money. Definitely the most technologically progressive game I've seen out of the RPG genre in a long time, and with today's games essentially determined by the degree to which they can demonstrate next generation technology, Oblivion's shaping up very well.

 

Course, that does mean that those who would rather see innovations elsewhere, such as in gameplay or character interaction, would be disappointed. But hell, that forest is an awesome work of real-time procedural graphics, and having researched that topic myself in academia, I can tell you that what they did is quite impressive.

 

Tech showcase? Sure. Genre-defining tech showcase? Very probable.

[New Supreme Commander interview]

It looks great. The question I have is whether it will have as many varied units as TA did. Most modern RTS's focus on a small number of easily balanced units versus a large array of possibly unbalanced units. Will Supreme Commander be one way or the other?

[The decline of isometric perspective.....]

Just what people are actually talking about when discussing immersion in videogames? Do they just use it as a synonym of absorption and fascination?

 

One definition of immersion is as a measure of the suspension of disbelief, the feeling that you are in the game world rather than out of it. Another is people's use of the term for the experience of being a character, but that, of course, denotes a natural affinity for the first person.

 

If that is the case, then I find it difficult to believe they can objectively attribute more value to one perspective than another, when both first and thirdperson unmistakably make players feel like they are "there" by the simple reason that they allow them to view the gameworld where they are playing.

 

If we went by your definition of immersion, I agree absolutely. In terms of the first definition I offered, however, you ought to consider what is revealed to the player with respect to the gameworld in first-person vs. isometric. In isometric view, you are only given a top-down view of the world which, depending on the angle, may be extended to a half-view of vertical structures. This is not how *we* view the world, and as such leads to a distancing between the player and the world, the same as if you were staring at the World Map versus as if you were traveling the world yourself. Clearly, the two experiences are not the same, and the latter is more convincing of you "being" in the world.

 

If we take the second definition I offered, this effect is exacerbated. We should now consider that the experience of being a character is a function of the distance from said character. If we can experience what said character experiences through all five senses, then we are in Full Immersion. Clearly, a first person view here is far superior of an immersive experience because looking down upon your character is not as close to the experience of being him as looking from his eyes.

 

None of this is to say that you cannot have a great game either way. However, when your purpose is to close the distance between the player in the real world and his character in the imaginary, which is in fact a major concern of RPGs, your choice of camera perspectives undoubtedly has an effect on the extent of the immersive experience. Good directors understand this and will exploit it in films. By analogy, good designers should also be concerned with it.

 

However, before I'm branded as a first-person fan, let me be the first to say that a first person perspective is NOT necessarily the most satisfying or dramatic viewpoint, even for a RPG. In real life, many events that would've, under a different viewpoint, offered dramatic expression, come off as being rather mundane and plain by virtue of our first person perspective. Easy example of this is a battle: watching a battle unfold before you creates a greater sense of excitement than watching a battle from the first person perspective. Seeing two lovers kiss is more romantic than seeing your partner's oblong, depth distorted face as you kiss (hence why many people close their eyes).

 

It is for this reason that the statement "the first person perspective is the most immersive of all perspectives" must be taken with a grain of salt. That may very well be true depending on your definition of immersion, but it does not necessarily mean anything with respect to how to best tell a story.

[The decline of isometric perspective.....]

First person has its drawbacks, as does third person, but in general isometric is a strategic point of view derived from the old miniature tabletop games (and one step up from the overhead view of RTS's). As such, isometric tends to create a sense of distance between the player and the character, as if the character is a piece on a board instead of your personal perspective. This works if you like to see RPGs as tactical combat simulators in addition to RPGs, and works especially well if you don't have very good 3D models and thus does not want the player to look closely at the characters, but ultimately it's not a format endemic to true immersion.

 

Frankly, I'm not exactly sure that the format of staring at a character's butt all the time, as is the case in KOTOR, is any better in this respect, so I can understand the criticism. First-person definitely lends itself to the most immersive experience, but there are serious problems with using first-person in a party-based game. As such, in the end it's a matter of what game the devs want to make. A party-based, squad-combat centric RPG will do fine with an isometric POV, whereas a game that stresses the immersive experience of a single protagonist will need to find alternatives such as first-person or dramatic 3D camera.

[Electronic Arts Invasion]

EA is a typical corporation. In other words, our future masters.