default header

Theory

On the Relative Irrelevance of "Balance"

Moderator: JC Denton

On the Relative Irrelevance of "Balance"

Unread postby icycalm » 25 Feb 2012 22:08

After you read my essay, read the following post again and you will understand it (I mean the essay, which is among the most difficult I've yet written) a bit better:

http://www.rhizzone.net/forum/topic/305 ... #post-2693

watwatsen wrote:Got pretty burned out on games over the past year, after wasting way too much of my life on them since the days of 386s. After reading the article "How the '80s programmed us for war" ( http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2011/ ... our_future ) after it was posted in the old LF, (props to whoever did so, I forget) about the synergistic relationship of the Pentagon with Hollywood and the games industry for the purposes of recruiting, indoctrination, and training, I got pretty fucking weirded out.

I realized that basically everything I, and most people our age, were playing was violent and imperialist and there was a serious lack of peaceful and constructive shit out there. Red Orchestra and various Paradox strategy games at the time, mostly. I suppose bayoneting fascists is constructive in one sense, but still. The military even one-upped themselves with their house-coded America's Army bullshit and opened million-dollar recruiting centers in suburban malls with rows and rows of x-boxes playing stupid shit like Call of Duty to train kids how cool and rad it is to call in drone strikes with hellfire missiles on houses full of women and children, so they can deploy to Central Asia and die to an IED while protecting the CIA's opium and the lithium and copper mining rights purchased by Chinese corporations. Shit, they make the controls on drones and say the 20mm autocannons on IFVs as similar as possible to the game controls their recruits grew up with.

I don't think the choice of unrealistic trash like Call of Duty was a coincidence beyond the popularity of the series. The more unrealistic and arcadey a game is, the more it personsifies the right-libertarian deleusion of utter control over one's fate with person skill in a vacuum being the determining factor of success of failure. The quicker one can sidestep and the faster one can snap headshots from the hip the longer one will live. Undoubtedly their recruiting numbers would drop if they had PCs playing something like Red Orchestra which generally gives the impression "wow, war is hell" and sheer random luck and teamwork are far more important factors in life and death. Doesn't matter how good you are, chances are you'll be gibbed by an unseen frag grenade, or cut in half by an emplaced machine gun while crossing a street.


Note that I am not endorsing his "burning out on games" and "anti-imperialist" fagotry, but, against all odds, the last four lines of the last paragraph of his post are quite insightful.

That entire thread is actually worth reading to see how weakling loser shut-ins feel about the highest artform, among other things.
Last edited by icycalm on 23 Nov 2014 20:43, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby icycalm » 08 Feb 2013 16:01

http://culture.vg/forum/topic?f=3&t=4274

I wrote:He is an idiot who just got his account deactivated, so I'd take anything he had to say with extreme caution. But I'll say this much for now: what the fuck is "weapon balance" supposed to mean? That all the guns aren't "equal"? Well they aren't equal in real life either, assholes. I recall reading an interview with a WWII-themed game's designer recently (can't remember the name of the game, but I think it was a game posted in the News forum), where he was saying that the sequel to their game they were making would have better balanced nations, units, etc. for multiplayer, but that they couldn't make it perfectly balanced because these nations, units, etc. were not balanced in real life either. Some of them simply sucked, and the integrity of the setting would have been obviously compromised if they had fucked too much with that.
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby icycalm » 31 Jul 2014 21:35

Debunking Asymmetry
http://keithburgun.net/debunking_asymmetry/

I found this through a guy on Reddit who linked my RPG essay. A couple posts later he also linked this as an equally great article, so I made an effort to give it a skim.

It's hilarious. He tries to make you think that he is a smart, rational person and connoisseur of videogames, but he's just an aspie with a rationalization hamster spinning in his brain trying to make all games flat and boring with no variation whatsoever so that he can finally achieve his "balance" Holy Grail. It's exactly the danger I am warning about in the titular essay of this thread. Achieving balance through regression to Pong -- which is the only way to achieve balance as far as the code of the game is concerned -- instead of disregarding it altogether and simply making the game deeper as you move into the future. Balance is a red herring. Have you ever seen a novel or a film where the opposing sides are balanced? And have you noticed who is always on the (apparently) weaker side? The hero!

And what are the aspies, then, who are always striving for "balance"?

They are the villains! The villains of the videogame world, and ultimately of the art world and of culture!
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby icycalm » 31 Jul 2014 21:57

In tragedy the hero even loses!

But the aspies want to "win" at all costs...
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands


Return to Theory

cron