The Answer to Terrorism

[Bomb Bloke]

Warning : Don't read this if you feel you have something better to do with your time.

 

Terrorism. It's all over the news, it's our world leader's favourite topic, and it's causing all sorts of havoc in the day to day lives of some of us.

 

Well, one day I was just sitting there, minding my own business, when the thought hit me. I have no real understanding of what it's all about. I mean, I've got a vague hunch that the politicians are encouraging it for whatever ends they want to further (I gather it's elimination of US liberties at the moment), but what are the terrorists actually after? I can't think of any possible goal which is actually achievable.

 

I've decided that the answer must be right in front of me. And, as it turns out, it is: video gaming. The entire terrorist network must be made up of gaming addicted individuals. If you'll bear with me, I might even be able to trace the whole thing back to the royal family, which is just one more reason why we should storm the palace and install Tammy as queen instead.

 

You see, back in the day, gaming was only mildly violent. The start with, there was space invaders. Little dotted aliens jiggled their way down the screen, while you shot pixils back at them from the bottom, blasting the odd UFO as you went. And while homework went undone, there was little to alert us to the threat this would evolve to...

 

But gaming progressed, to such things as Doom. The aliens had reached the moon (due to our lack of skill at space invaders no doubt), and so, with the advent of faster computers (such as my favourite build, the 486DX2), the graphics improved. The aliens ran around with blood splatters everywhere, while we typed in codes to produce chainsaws and such to kill them with. (Or we just found the chainsaw, if we knew what we were doing).

 

This sparked some alarm. Would the children of our nation try to replicate this stuff in the playground? Perhaps it was only the lack of miniguns etc in easy reach of our children that prevented this. I was a child at the time, and I'd have loved to have had one of those things. Still would, actually, but never mind that now.

 

Doom 2 is a bit of a landmark. It was one of the first games they wanted to ban (despite it being little more then a polished version of the original Doom). The more sensible types wanted it to have an R rating, but believe it or not, there was no such thing - if a game was deemed only playable by adults back in those days, it was banned. Doom 2 wasn't banned, the R rating never got through parliment, and we went back to fragging demons. (Actually, I was more interested in Commander Keen in those days, but never mind that).

 

Now, when I was a little tyke, my folks bought a PC. Nearly $5000NZ the thing was - even I feel old when I say that it was state of the art, fastest technology, with all the bells and whistles. IT WAS A 486. But it came with a lot of software, and it had the grunt to run stuff coming out years later.

 

Now, I could go on through the history of gaming, about how such stuff as Grand Theft Auto is just ASKING for the sorts of situations we have today, but I'll branch off onto the specific game I'm after. Syndicate.

 

I enjoyed this game. I liked the music. I liked the graphics. I liked the manual even. I still do, but lets not let picky stuff like that get in the way of this enlightening document. You wouldn't believe how many times I read the game manuals that came with our computer.

 

Recently I found my Syndicate manual. It was like going through Revelations in the Bible, like staring prophecy in the face. I could barely believe it.

 

I'd found the answer to terrorism.

 

Some say it's religion. Some say it's politics. I say the gaming situation is out of hand. I know the problem, I know the solution.

 

Let me explain.

 

I've got my Syndicate manual in front of me now, and that's the only reason I can spell the name 'Peter Molyneux'. I don't know how to pronounce it, but this is a forum so that doesn't matter. Remember this name.

 

Now, here's the scenario of Syndicate. It's the Future. The world is controlled (rather then ruled) by competing corporations, who basically keep the populance under control via the aid of technologically aided media. Yup, everyone's been microchiped.

 

You are an 'executive'. Your job is not to push a pen around paper (doesn't seem to be much of that in the future, everything is made up of holographic green screens), but rather you push people around. Place some over there, subtract some from there... All with the aid of of your friendly cyborg terrorists.

 

Erm, not so friendly, actually, but it rolls of the tongue.

 

By completing missions around the globe, your corp takes control of the world piece by piece. Quite often this involves killing the opposition, but sometimes there's some kidnapping thrown in for good measure. Your cyborgs carry a range of weapons, with which they can damage, kill, maim, burn, or just disintigrate whoever you happen to click on.

 

There's nothing stopping you 'clicking on' random people. Put most people in front of the game and they'll probably use them to try out random weapons. They decided to remove the ladies with baby prams from the game for some reason though.

 

Now let's compare the themes of Syndicate to modern times.

 

Reading through the manual in a vague order, the first introduction is drugs. Your agents do lots of these. Luckily you can counter the bad effects of these by putting them on some downers - when their system recover, you can put them back into a 'high' state of alert.

 

Oops, I was talking about terrorism, wasn't I... never mind the drugs for now.

 

Ah, here we go. The world wide ID card! I love this one. Well, needless to say, your tech guys have hacked the system (the research/strategy relationship is a bit like that of Enemy Unknown), so your agents can have special cards. Cards which don't so much say who they are, but rather say they are special goverment agents authorised to do what they like.

 

Casualties among the good citizens in most cases bring a swift response from local law enforcement agencies. Equip your agents with a special pass and the police believe the're working with the authorities; they're free to continue the slaughter unhindered.

 

Hmm. Scary that, isn't it? Could it happen with the cards various goverments of today want to introduce? A single, magic card which our authorities will place all trust in... And if you believe the computer systems can't be fooled and don't make mistakes, well, then you haven't seen what happens when they overheat.

 

Moving swiftly on, page 40 brings us to the suicide bombing bit of the game. Yep, with later upgrades come the ability for your troops to go boom at the press of a button:

 

Okay, so your remaining agents are out of ammo and rival Syndicate scum are circling like vultures, ready for the kill. What to do now? If you've invested in a Chest Modification Versions 2 or 3, press Control D on the keyboard and the active agent blows himself to bits in a huge conflagration, taking out everyone and everything in the surrounding area. Your remaining agents (who you've positioned well out of range, of course) can then grab lose weapons and continue the fight.

 

Similarly, Self-Destruct comes in handy when your mission budget has been swallowed up on unsuccesful outings. Even an unarmed agent can be a lethal weapon if it successfully evades detection and reaches the target. Press Control D again and the mission is completed. Self-destruct earlier to relieve enemy agents of the weaponry your cyborgs desperately need.

 

Low on assets? Blow your own men up. Sound... familiar?

 

Now of the Syndicates, there are a few worth nothing.

 

Sphinx Inc.: Sphinx Inc. executives try to expand their Syndicate into rival territories with and almost religious zeal. They aim to re-capture the lost majesty of the ancient Egyptians and establish an empire throughout Africa, the Middle East and the Mediterranean. Rivals claims this is just an excuse to commit acts of violence on a Biblical scale.

 

Although not the best equipped, Sphinx Inc. agents are injected with an unnatural dedication to duty. Even alone and injured they fight to the last and are far from easy to kill.

 

Executive Jihad: Caught between a rock and a hard place by the expansionist policies of both the Tao and Sphinx Inc., and near bankrupted by World Goverment fines levied for exporting oil and thereby increasing

world pollution, the Jihad is a Syndicate fighting for its home. But adversity is a great motivation and the Jihad executive has seen to it that its cyborgs are kill-hungry maniacs. They may be few in number and poorly armed, but you overlook the Jihad at your peril.

 

The Tao are the largest Syndicate. They are seconded by the Tasmanian Liberation Consortium, but since I actually LIVE in Tasmania at the moment, I won't go into their antics. Well, except for the bit where they took out the power source of the Tao's game consoles and retook Australia, thus re-establishing the Barby as the national passtime.

 

And thus you go around killing and generally terrorising the world, competing with other such organisations.

 

An executive must also have the reflexes of a steroid-addicted sprinter and a remoreless lust for power to commit gross acts of violence but sleep soundly at night.

 

Now, if games like this weren't around, would we really have such trouble? Of course, the terrorists these days probably never played it. Maybe if they had they would have got it out of their systems.

 

Ok, so two entirely conflicting answers there, but they are both answers and I'm proud of them. Now, solutions.

 

Most suicide bombers are young. Well, did you know that even today, games can't be rated at a higher level then MA15+? That's right, no matter how violent, how many sexual referrances, or immoral stuff gets programmed in, it can be sold to a minor.

 

Hrm. Ok, so maybe the bombers aren't gamers even today, but that's not the point. The point is we really could handle games like this a bit better.

 

So what is the fitting punishment for Peter Molyneux? You see - we need to replace the queen with Tammy!

 

Ok, so all the above asside, I still say Syndicate is great fun. But it seems strange to me that so many games these days set us up as terrorists. Of course, the modern day definition of 'terrorist' could be applied to many 'great people' in history. Like the french who resisted the Germans. Or Einstien, who worked on the A-Bomb.

 

And so on and so forth.

 

I'll stop rambling now... It's past midnight... All I can say is that I look forward to the next release of Fable. (Molyneux is working on that, too). That and I'll work on the spelling/grammer in this post later.

[Accounting Troll]

It seems to me that you have a hidden agenda to make Queen Tammy supreme world ruler. As she would do a far better job than the current mob, I'm with you. After all, I bet Bush isn't literate enough to know why trolls hate billygoats.

 

LONG LIVE EMPRESS TAMMY

 

There have been so many computer games set in the near future that it's hardly surprising if some of them get a few things right.

[Pete]

I've got to check out that game

 

Nice post BB! I'll have to comment more later.

[FullAuto]

I'd just like to point out that over here in the UK we have the PEGI rating system (purely advisory, not legally constraining) and the BBFC rating system, which is age-based (12, 15, 18 etc) and is legally binding.

Apart from that though, BB, your post makes many excellent points.

[sir-roosio]

Interesting point, and a great game to boot, love syndicate.

 

However, I hope I'm not out of line when I say I believe I have the definitive answer to terrorism. . . .

 

Terrorist TV

 

Terrorist TV would be a 24 hour live broadcast channel beamed around the world via digital, terrestial, and internet TV.

 

The initial outlay to set up terrorist TV would be very inexpensive. A small field in the middle of nowhere, a digital camera, a blast-proof panel, and some sattelite broadcasting equipment.

 

Representatives from various ahem Organisations, would then be invited to turn up a the Terrorist TV 'studio' whereupon they can stand before the camera, state their grievance, then demonstrate their belief.

 

The method of of demonstration would be completely up to the individual (or organisation) involved, they can choose to blow themselves up, shoot themselves, take a cyanide pill, gargle a military marching song with bleach before swallowing, or call russell crowe a jumped-up prick to his face. In fact, the more wierd and wonderful their suggestion, the more attention their cause would recieve.

 

All terrorist TV would ask in return is that they don't take up to much air-time (after all, they arent the only extremist movement in the world) and leave the fiel pretty much as they find it for the next customer (if this involves bringing friends to remove a body, or replace 3 tonnes of topsoil, then so be it).

 

As you can see, this plan would make everyone happy, the public get a new form of reality TV, and certain organisations get a guaranteed voice in the world.

 

Thankyou

[Matri]

... :blank:

[Bomb Bloke]

I missed your point before, roosio...

 

But on with a similar issue (and a bunch of quasi-random comments jumbled into a semi-coherant rant), I loaded up the Ctrl+Alt+Del webcomic this morning to find the latest comic going on about some Jack Thompson guy, wanting a game to be made.

 

It caught my interest, so I decided to try and find out a bit out about him. Besides the Wiki-page, and a few smatterings in forums and other articles, I couldn't find much of interest, let about some info on this game of his.

 

But, what I can see of the guy... It looks like this is one of the few who take games seriously. And, in contrast, no one else takes ANYTHING seriously. I read pages like this, and start off lost for words.

 

Here's a guy who apparently wants to keep violent games away from the kiddies. Getting death threats. And the guy writing the above article reckons Thompson should expect nothing less?!

 

I mean, wtf?!

 

It is news to me that San Andreas was banned in Australia (I was surprised it was released in the first place), and I reckon it's justified. Here's a game where sex and violence are served in large helpings. This game should be kept away from anyone not in their late teens. Do the rating systems serve this purpose? Shyeah right.

 

And what does the guy get for his trouble? I mean, read that and tell me who the idiot is here.

 

While I do love just about every Bullfrog title, I was attempting to make a valid point with Molyneux's knighthood. Syndicate is a footnote in his career, but it really does draw some strong parralels with today's issues, and getting gamers to side with the mad killers doesn't help... Even if the game isn't played these days.

 

Personally, I don't see games causing someone to go mad and starting killing others. I'd play Syndicate 3, if it was ever made. But, modern games are each an education to an impressionable mind. Sure, I learnt how to make explosives by playing the Origin game 'The Savage Empire', but I learnt to plow through a field of bloody corpses while playing the more modern Rune.

 

Does any of this apply to the strategy gamer? Dunno. Each dead Sectoid is just another bunch of pixils and numbers to me, after all the research I've done into the data files. When I'm in an actual playing mood? Just another $20k.

 

I don't really know if I'm the best guy to comment on modern gaming. I'm not a modern gamer. I've seen some bloody sights on both the TV and the computer screen, and realistic as any of it gets, my face doesn't even twitch. I move on to the next target.

 

If I was exposed to half the stuff I see while gaming in reality, on the other hand, I've got no idea what I'd do. All I know is I wouldn't be the guy who started it. Even when I was a kid I knew where the line was.

 

I know games won't ever affect me negatively. Sure, I'm as detached as anything when I see the real life carnage on the TV screen (which I don't watch anymore, but you know what I mean), but that's simply because I know what applies to me and what doesn't.

 

But these days, a lot of people I know are online. I hear of a blast in such-and-such a place, or a shooting, and it hits me: I know people there. Then I start to get worried. I've got my own ideas of what is right and wrong, what can be justified and what can't, and there are others out there who just... don't give a stuff. It's hard for me to comprehend. I doubt I'd even kill someone in self defense (my slight build aside).

 

After the hurricane hit New Orleans, the one thing the folks in the hospital didn't count against were the snipers taking pot shots at the buses bringing patients in and out.

 

I know it probably doesn't have much to do with it. I know it won't solve all the worlds' problems. But when people are getting killed for no good reason, I reckon Jack's got a point. Perhaps people don't need to experience certain things on a screen. All this makes brings me to my point (which I admit I hadn't actually worked out before I started typing):

 

Are violent video games really worth it?

[Accounting Troll]

I've never had a problem with violence in video games, provided the games are marketed sensibly. A game that glorifies graphic violence should clearly not be marketed at a pre-teen.

 

These nutjobs are rather proving the chap's point. He argues in favour of stricter controls over the sale of computer games that contain violence or sexual content to children, and he gets 10,000 death threats! This tells me that we NEED strict controls over the sale of computer games because evidently there are a lot of people who are developing their value system from violent computer games.

 

I think some of the hatred directed at him is because he is working with Hillary Clinton on this. She gets a lot of abuse from misogynistic men who feel threatened by the concept of an assrtive woman who has her own career.

[FullAuto]

He didn't get 10,000 death threats. He got 10,000 hatemails telling him to stop being an enormous arsehole. The number of death threats was probably a dozen or so. Maybe less, maybe more, but the actual figure wasn't revealed. Why? Because it was a signifcant portion of those 10,000 hatemails? No. Because it was a miniscule percentage. And of course, how many of those hatemails were actually intelligent, thoughtful revocations of Thompson's argument?

Because I'm betting quite a few. 10,000 hatemails, out of how many gamers? Millions? That's a VERY small percentage. A very small minority. So you're going to let a few nutters (assuming all those emails WERE hatemail and not well-reasoned counter-arguments) spoil it for the rest of us? Grow up.

 

Even when I was a kid I knew where the line was.

 

Exactly. So why are kids today any different? Answer is, they're not. Unbalanced, violent individuals are drawn to and influenced by mediums that feature violence. Among many others (including Art, but hey who looks at Art any more right? What are we going to do, blame the 'Rpe of the Sabines' for increasing instances of sexual assault? Har har.) computer games are one of those mediums. The medium itself is not to blame. An ordinary balanced individual will not be influenced by such tame material (and tame computer games are, compared to film and TV). Computer games, no matter how hard they try, are not realistic. That's why war games and such are so popular. You get to shoot at things without feeling your friend's brain splash all over your face, or see what an actual bullet does to someone (e.g. they don't fall over and disappear).

As for sex, well, are we forgetting that many children are exposed to sex and sexuality at a very early age? How many kids have seen their parents doing the dirty deed (and that phrase is quite revealing about some attitudes to sex, I might add). I'll bet there's quite a few. Do those children grow up to be rapists, child molesters, and serial killers?

I don't think they do.

 

We don't need strict controls over computer games. We need parents to raise their kids right, or stop having them.

[sir-roosio]

Hands up, i walked in on my parents 'at it' when i was a wee nipper, I closed the door and walked out again quietly, they never knew (I think). I would like to believe that despite that trauma; I am a well adjusted member of society.

 

There always are a minority of people in society who experience emotional or behavoural problems. there always has been, there always will be. Whats changed are the catalysts for the extremes of their behaviour. Whilst it used to be religion (believing god was talking to you or sending signs) nowadays it's the world of celebrity (stalkers) and films, computer games, and music that get associated in the media as triggers.

 

Who didnt go to school with a kid with behavoural problems? There was a kid at my school who asked to borrow my coke can when I'd finished it. When he got bored of kicking it round like a football he decided to rip it apart and cut himself with it, then threaten to kick the shit out of me because it was my can and I should have put it in the bin. Should we ban school kids from being exposed to drinks cans?

 

I've always been of the opinion that if a person plays a violent game, then goes out and does it in real life, the problem is not with the game. A balanced and reasoned individual will be able to seperate whats make believe from whats real.

 

My 6 year old niece recently walked into my bedroom whilst i was playing driver 3. If it was GTA, conflict vietnam or something similar i would have switched it off there and then, but as it was driver and i wasn't embroiled in a gun fight i kept it on. Her first words were 'cor, i hope you never drive like that in real life!'

 

In the UK games deemed worthy are given a legal age rating, they should not be sold to kids under that age. GTA SA, for example, was rated 18. the same as a very violent or sexual film. Yet I have seen so many parents buying this game for their child it is unbelievable. I feel like standing behind them every time a saying 'alright you fu**ing c**t!' and if they tell me not to be so rude infront of their kid pointing out the games content.

 

Im starting to ramble now, and sound like im contradicting myself saying one minuter that peeps and my niece can seperate fact and fantasy, then saying I'd switch off GTA if she walked in. But i guess my point is this. As an adult I feel i have the right to spend my lesiure time as wish (obviously within the boundaries of law). If i wish to play computer games that depict violence, sex, crime and low riding then thats my right and i wish to exercise it.

 

However along with my rights i believe i should take certain responibilities. one of them is not to expose people to that content unless i believe they themselves are 'adult' enough to experience them. Hell, there are some films I wouldn't want my girlfriend to watch being the sensitive soul that she is.

 

if kids are getting hold of violent games and playing them we shouldnt ban the games. we should encourage parents to take responibility for their kids actions and keep an eye on the little buggers. A couple of years back there was outcry by a group of parents in this country because so many of their kids were looking at porn on the internet. The rest of the country turned round and said 'take responibility for your kids and keep an eye on them'.

 

Thats it really. sorry it took so long to get there.

[FullAuto]

That being said, I own Full Spectrum Warrior for the Xbox, and the game contains lots of swearing and xenophobia, plus people being shot and blown up. But it doesn't have a BBFC rating. None at all. It has a PEGI rating of 16+, but this is only an advisory (ie 'useless) system designed to inform parents of what is in the game by way of a numerical rating and various symbols representing thenes within the game (eg Violence, Bad Language, Fear etc. Yes, Fear. No, I'm not making this up. According to this system, some games contain fear. A neat trick, I think you'll agree).

I don't particularly mind, I really don't think a child playing GTA:SA is suddenly going to go out and become violent. I watched films like the Predator and The Thing when I was under eighteen (I was young, not stupid. There are only so many places you can hide a video) and I have yet to go on a killing spree. There is the argument that games are much more powerful because they are a participatory medium, but the participation is still only pressing buttons.

Quite frankly, I think films and games which unrealistically portray violence do more damage to people's minds.

[FullAuto]

AHAHAHAHAHA! JUSTICE IS SWEET!

 

Link.

 

Sometimes, I have hope for the human race.

[Crazy Gringo]

I heard about this dude...

All I can do is to quote what's tattooed in the palm of Jesse James: 'Pay up sucker!'

[knight_of_the_ravens]

u know what i think?...i think we should call X-COM!!!...YEAH!!!....and pay them quadgillions of dollars so they can't say no....give them the biggest, baddest nuke we got...then have em drill it into the center of the earth and detonate it blowing everything INTO OBLIVION!!! YEAH!!! THAT'LL END TERRORISM!!!...BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!....ooops....hey wait a minute....umm....lemme rethink this... :mad:

[Matri]

AHAHAHAHAHA!  JUSTICE IS SWEET!

 

Link.

 

Sometimes, I have hope for the human race. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Heh, did you know he was p-wned by a 14-year-old? The kid wrote a polite, mature letter to him and all Thompson did was bitch and whine back.

[Bomb Bloke]

 

:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: