• Announcements

    • khawk

      Download the Game Design and Indie Game Marketing Freebook   07/19/17

      GameDev.net and CRC Press have teamed up to bring a free ebook of content curated from top titles published by CRC Press. The freebook, Practices of Game Design & Indie Game Marketing, includes chapters from The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing, and An Architectural Approach to Level Design. The GameDev.net FreeBook is relevant to game designers, developers, and those interested in learning more about the challenges in game development. We know game development can be a tough discipline and business, so we picked several chapters from CRC Press titles that we thought would be of interest to you, the GameDev.net audience, in your journey to design, develop, and market your next game. The free ebook is available through CRC Press by clicking here. The Curated Books The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, Second Edition, by Jesse Schell Presents 100+ sets of questions, or different lenses, for viewing a game’s design, encompassing diverse fields such as psychology, architecture, music, film, software engineering, theme park design, mathematics, anthropology, and more. Written by one of the world's top game designers, this book describes the deepest and most fundamental principles of game design, demonstrating how tactics used in board, card, and athletic games also work in video games. It provides practical instruction on creating world-class games that will be played again and again. View it here. A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing, by Joel Dreskin Marketing is an essential but too frequently overlooked or minimized component of the release plan for indie games. A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing provides you with the tools needed to build visibility and sell your indie games. With special focus on those developers with small budgets and limited staff and resources, this book is packed with tangible recommendations and techniques that you can put to use immediately. As a seasoned professional of the indie game arena, author Joel Dreskin gives you insight into practical, real-world experiences of marketing numerous successful games and also provides stories of the failures. View it here. An Architectural Approach to Level Design This is one of the first books to integrate architectural and spatial design theory with the field of level design. The book presents architectural techniques and theories for level designers to use in their own work. It connects architecture and level design in different ways that address the practical elements of how designers construct space and the experiential elements of how and why humans interact with this space. Throughout the text, readers learn skills for spatial layout, evoking emotion through gamespaces, and creating better levels through architectural theory. View it here. Learn more and download the ebook by clicking here. Did you know? GameDev.net and CRC Press also recently teamed up to bring GDNet+ Members up to a 20% discount on all CRC Press books. Learn more about this and other benefits here.

mikeman

Members
  • Content count

    4924
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2924 Excellent

About mikeman

  • Rank
    Contributor
  1. Yeah, but that doesn't actually answer the question, or address the actual issue of the former colonies having to play perpetual catch-up in a competivive global economy, starting from a handicapped position. It's just more "let's not have bad feelings, no matter if we're rich or poor we're all human". Great. Is that of any solace to former colonies that live in constant poverty, like Haiti? Or even African Americans in USA that, just a couple of generations ago, were excluded by force from fully participating in economic, political, academic life? Can you say to them "hey we're all brothers now, let us compete; me starting from 50% and you starting from 10%". I'm..not so sure. Colonial powers *did* extract huge wealth and resources from colonized areas. They *did* use that wealth to develop themselves and grow stronger. Those colonial powers still exist today - Britain, France, USA are still around and world-leaders, while their former colonies are playing catch-up in the global economy from a severely handicapped position. You don't have to trace the ancestors of individuals around the world, it's not what we're talking about - you guys make it about the individuals when it's not about that. These countries still exist as formal entities, those governments exist, leading the world, operating from the same parliaments and congresses their great-great-grandfathers did. Do these countries owe something to the nations they colonized, in the form of material reperations(or even including technological and scientific know-how), or are we going to put everything under the carpet and go "hey, we'll all brothers now, even if the reason we're rich and you're poor is because our great grandfathers pillaged the villages of your great grandfathers"? I mean, if I steal from you now, use the plunder to invest and build my fortune, to send my children and grandchildren to great schools, can my great-granchildren say to your great-grandchildren in 100 years "hey, we're all brothers and equals now, doesn't matter that I'm rich and you're poor, we're all brothers, and btw I didn't steal from your great-grandfather, my great-grandfather did, you can't hold me responsible for that, so it's not like I owe you anything. You like my house? Yeah, it goes back 3 generations. I'm building a new wing now. I don't know why you still live in such a small slump, you gotta be entrepreneurial man" (Note, in all of the above, I make the extremely charitable assumption that any kind of oppression or discrimination is completely eradicated today, and the formerly oppressed are now completely free to compete and develop, just starting from a severely handicapped position. To paraphrase Malcolm X, the knife has completely been drawn out, all that remains is the gaping wound. I don't actually believe this is true at all, but for the sake of the argument let's pretend it is).
  2. Hm, I'm not sure how one can seriously claim that the past has no bearing on the present. Did the wealth that was gained from colonization got vaporized? It didn't got transferred from generation to generation? First of all, colonization or the scramble for Africa don't go *that* way back; it's not like we're talking about the Greek-Persian wars. They're only a few generations ago. In 1870 10% of Africa was under European control, in 1914 it was 90%. 1914. It's not that far back. That's roughly 100 years ago. 100 years are pretty much 3 generations. Today's developed nations and former colonial powers such as Britain, France or USA did extract a lot of wealth from regions such as Africa, South America, Asia. This accumulation of wealth boosted their industrialization and modernization a great deal. Didn't that happen? How does that not have any bearing today? What exactly do we mean when we say "it has no bearing"? That today's people of former colonial powers don't inherit the "guilt" of their ancestors crimes, or that they don't inherit the wealth that was accumulated in their country due to those very crimes? Because you can certainly claim the former, but you'd have a hard time claiming the latter. I mean, imagine a simple example : There are 2 islands, and one island for 100 years systematically enslaves and extracts wealth and resources from the other island. Using this wealth, they build great things in their island - electrified factories, roads, railroads, hospitals, schools. The other island stays in an underdeveloped stage - economically, politically, intellectually. Now let's assume that, after those 100 years, suddenly they stop, and say "ok, you're free now". Great, so now the formerly enslaved island and presently severely underdeveloped island has to has to compete and play perpetual "catch-up" with the rich island, which of course isn't going to halt its development to wait for its former slaves to catch up. But, since the enslavement now is nominally over, it has no bearing on anything, and we shouldn't talk about it, or rather point out that the present riches and high development of the rich island is the result of the past enslavement of the poor island. I mean, the way I see it, it's not like the past has no bearing on the present; it's pretty much the exact opposite - the injustice that happened can't possibly be rectified other than inventing a time machine and stop it from happening(and when you return to the present, you probably find out that the people of the rich island don't have as good lives as they have now). It's not about saying that the today's people of the rich nation are "bad people" - it's not about morality or laying blame to someone. It's simple cause and effect. It's about saying that much of the riches they enjoy now *are* a result of a past injustices, it's about saying that the people of the poor, formerly exploited nations are expected to compete in the global economy starting from a handicapped position - and, you know, given those circumstances, significant reperations from the rich to the poor nations they used to exploit, such as from Britain to India, from France to Haiti, from European colonial powers to Africa, or from USA to African Americans shouldn't be out of the question just because "these are things out ancestors did when we weren't even born".
  3. I think the OP is just asking a list of games that level, within their narrative, any sort of critique against capitalism, either against specific issues or a system as a whole. Isn't it rather odd and besides the point to ask "what would a team complaining accomplish" or "what would be the alternative"? It's like asking "what a movie like Wall Street or Apocalypse Now could change". I think artists criticize and pinpoint contemporary issues and ills all the time through their work, without having the burden of necessarily outlining a viable alternative system, a way to transition to that, or even expecting their art to seriously change anything, besides perhaps some people's opinions. They're artists, not politicians or economists. In any case, I think the effectiveness of a work of art to change the current status quo is rather irrelevant to what the OP is asking anyway, unless I myself misunderstood him. He merely conducts a research and wants a list of games that do engage in such criticism. Tbh though, I can't think many games that do some serious criticism. Most of the time there are some "memes" here and there. I think the recent "Night in the Woods" deals with it, but I haven't played it yet. "The Sea will claim anything" could be another example. http://landsofdream.net/games/the-sea-will-claim-everything/ There's "I get this call every day" about office life. http://www.davidsgallant.com/igtced.html Also Sunset: http://store.steampowered.com/app/287600/ And quite obviously the Bioshock games are a critique/parody of Ayn Rand's Objectivist philosophy. They're not exactly "indie" though. :) (Seriously, what is it with the post formatting these days? :P )
  4. Don't get this wrong, but the part in emphasis made me laugh. That's a statement from someone living in a small EU country having a military budget rivalling the largest, and being high up in the top-ten worldwide on weapon imports. A country which, despite being bankrupt, and after having cut down by the creditors, proportionally still spends twice as much of its national economic output for military than the average European country. No offense. :lol: Yep. We're a small poor country that spends way too much on its military, due to the constant tensions with Turkey, resulting in cutbacks to things that would actually benefit the population, like education and healthcare. An imperialist power, though, we are not. And, like you said, if we cutback on our military budgets(which a lot of us are asking to do), that would make the people selling us the weapons(US, France and Germany) pretty "sad". http://www.businessinsider.com/why-greeces-military-budget-is-so-high-2015-6
  5. I'll say this : Last time we had a similar situation, Iraq was in the place of Syria, Saddam was in the place of Assad, WMDs was in the place of chemical weapons. The plan was to "get rid" of Saddam and his "WMD"s and "liberate" the Iraqi people. Well, we never did found out for sure if the WMDs existed. What we do know for sure is we got rid of Saddam(for whom I obviously had no affection, and the same stands for Assad), but somehow situation got even worse for the Iraqi people due to this power vacuum. ISIS was born, which now controls large areas in Iraq and Syria, and now USA it seems is disengaged from Iraq and...is looking around the globe for other problems to "fix" I guess? What I'm saying is that maybe it's time for US to stop asking itself "what action should we take" when troubles arise in another sovereign nation. Maybe you shouldn't take any action at all. Who legitimizes you to? Who says you(by "you" I mean the US) even got the ability and competency to even "fix" problems in other sides of the globe, even assuming your intentions are "pure"? Who says you even got the commitment to stay in that area and deal with extremely complex problems over a long timespan? You decide "here's how we're gonna fix this problem", yet you're not affected by any unwanted side-effects if your execution fails or things don't go as planned. When they do, it's the population of that area that has to stay and deal with an even worse situation(like Iraq). And all you worry then is about your "exit strategy" from that humanitarian intervention that got rid of the "bad guy", but suddenly got an ugly unexpected turn which was not predicted by the "experts", and now it's too costly for the US to remain entangled in the situation. It doesn't matter what "comprehesive plan" or "larger strategy" you present before you intervene. Let's assume a liberal president/congress decides to intervene, and says "in the case of greater instability caused by our actions, we have a plan to accept a large amount of refugees from that area". So? Does it mean anything? It's possible that in less than 4 years another president will be elected that goes "no refugees". This has happened enough times for people to start thinking that maybe the real major problem here is Americans saying "we should do something" each time very complicated problems arise in another area of the globe. This is what I'm saying : Stop asking "what we should do" entirely. Other populations and other nations have agency too. Honestly, we have a problem of communication here - as someone from a small European country(Greece), I can't get into the mindset of a citizen who, when he sees trouble in other sides of the globe, asks himself "what should our military do". This is the mindset of a citizen who thinks his country, due to its outstanding moral fibre apparently, owes it to the world to take the burden of "world police". It's totally alien to me(since Greece couldn't obviously play that role even if it wanted to), so we kinda have a rift of how we're seeing things here.
  6. Trolling? I'm criticizing them for their milquetoast politics, the terrible candidate they chose, and feeble campaign. Criticism towards liberals can(and should) come from the Left too, you know. It doesn't come only from people that watch Fox. What liberals seem to want is to keep the Empire in its place, just make it more "tolerant". That leaves me pretty unimpressed as a non-USarian socialist and anti-imperialist. If you see that as trolling...   What is that, a no-true Scotsman argument? Liberals are what liberals do. What liberals did was choose Clinton over Sanders in the primaries, giving her a pretty easy victory by 12%. So, is Pelosi a liberal or not? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MR65ZhO6LGA Guy : "Are the Democrats willing to move economically more to the left, towards more populist policies/messages"? Peloci : "No, we're capitalists. Here's how modern capitalism is hurting people though. 20 years ago it was better. I have nothing more to add". Note : I may be overgeneralizing. Obviously quite a lot of liberals *do* want the party to move more to the left. But the Democratic Party's leaders(and remember Sanders was an independent) seem convinced staying to the centre-right is the way to go.
  7. Well, can you explain to me the liberal mindset when it comes to the Syria situation, cause I just don't get it. What I hear from liberals is this : - We lost the election because Trump and Putin are buddies. - But Trump just bombed Putin's ally... - Yes, but he notified Putin before he did it. So...you guys not only want to bomb Syria, but ignite WW3 while doing it? What the hell? Seriously, all I'm hearing here is "Hillary would have bombed Syria so much better". Liberals have somehow gone from well-meaning but largely ineffective anti-war protesters in the 70's to trigger-happy warmongers?
  8. Well, I hope you realize my...calculated scheme of making you despair of Democrats isn't to shift you towards Republicans, lol. :P
  9. The guy was a certified commercial pilot, having got his FAA license in US. He probably was no Maverick(or Goose for that matter), but I'm sure he could write down his own name and manage to crush a plane. :)
  10. Just keep in mind, when I say "masses", I don't mean "a bunch of mindless sheeple". Just the average working person. As an outsider, I was still reading and watching a lot of US liberal "pundits" and I was always left with the question : "who the hell are they addressing? Who is this message for?" Like really, most of them were writing in a way that would only convince only those that were already convinced anyway. What's the point in that? Are you trying to convince people to come to your side, by providing an incentive for them to do so, by connecting with them, by mobilizing them, or are you patting yourself in the back for the amazing achievement of watching John Oliver and voting Democrat(big freaking whoop), and claiming anyone that would vote for Trump or a 3rd party would be the most horrible person ever? After the elections, I was reading liberal "thinkpieces" like this gem: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/12/12/1610198/-Be-happy-for-coal-miners-losing-their-health-insurance-They-re-getting-exactly-what-they-voted-for ...Seriously? http://www.vox.com/2016/4/21/11451378/smug-american-liberalism (Note : This is not a guy defending Trump, for those that would be confused. This is a guy that lost his job because he advocated actual action against Trump instead of just smug jokes). http://www.vox.com/2016/6/3/11853096/statement-on-emmett-rensin Also keep in mind, that maybe you didn't lost to Trump, or to "The Russians", but you lost due to a lot of people not even bothering to go vote, because they didn't see any difference between Clinton and Trump. Obama managed to mobilize people with his message of "Hope" and "Yes we can" and won 2 terms. Clinton's message OTOH was terribly weak. The turnout in Obama's first election was 62% and he won 53% of that. The turnout of 2016 was 55% and Clinton won 48%. Has there been any self-criticism from the side of the Democrats about that, or is it all about Russians? I understand of course that as an American you care whether a foreign power interferes in your elections, but you should probably understand that, yes, the rest of the world is affected a lot by what happens in the US, but really we don't care much about your internal squabbles. Especially since USA itself historically interferes with the affairs of other sovereign nations all the time. Anyway, let's relax with a little song :) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u52Oz-54VYw (also, wth is it with the formatting of the post, I just can't get it right) :P
  11. Obviously this "Russia collusion" thing is for consumption by US liberals only, who at this point are entirely hopeless and lost. Sanders tried to save them from themselves and infuse some new blood, "New Deal" style, but they were too busy fawning over the Clintons. Many of them even liked what Trump did in Syria. He looked "presidential". And why not? What, Obama or Clinton wouldn't have done what he did? Clinton already said she would. Of course she would. Anyway, most of the rest of the world doesn't give a crap whether the US elections were tampered by Putin, whether Slay Queen Hillary was more "qualified" than Trump(qualified to do what? Run a global hegemony that benefits USarians? Why the hell would we care about that?), whether US gets destabilized, or any of that. Tbh, and don't take this the wrong way guys, but most of us, especially from poorer countries, just wish US would just...go away. You're not the benevolent empire you seem to think you are; "woke" liberals, "charming" Obamas, "feminist" Slay Queens, and Bernie-style "socialists" included. Time and time again, you make things 10x worse wherever and whenever you decide to "intervene". We don't want you to be "tolerant" enough to take in refugees from countries you go to war with. We kinda want you to stop bombing them in the first place. The only thing I care about the US is the amount of CO2 and explosives it unleashes into the rest of the planet; other than that, you might as well all go sink into the Pacific pardon my french. :P And this thing with liberals and Russia is getting *really* ridiculous, just admit you lost any connection you had with the masses and try to win them back. Do some freaking self-criticism. And don't put Lena Dunhamn in charge of your PR in the next elections.
  12. That's an extremely dangerous (and rather authoritarian) position to take. Many dictators and tyrants have come into power legitimately (to be clear, I'm not classifying Trump as that - yet). No one (or very few) are arguing that he isn't the legitimate president. But that doesn't mean we aren't allowed to resist his policies. Trump and the Republican party being able to remove all your civil liberties, to the point where you can't get rid of him in four years by legitimate election is extremely unlikely. I think its quite safe to say that US politics has a lot more checks and balances than post world war one Germany. On the other side of the coin, some of the situation is similar. Germany was in the depths of a depression looking for a scapegoat. Hitler came onto the scene promising to put it right, and tried to hide his bad things within many massive building projects such as building the autobahn. Most people in Germany had no clue what was really going off and those that did were too scared to speak out. In America they are currently recovering from quite a long and deep recession same as the UK. Trump has promised to "make America great again" via a bunch of quite sensationalist building works. He certainly can't be compared to a twentieth century fascist dictator, but the situation would be ripe for someone sly enough and patient enough to do such a thing if their endgame was measured in decades or a generation. For example, you'd have to replace the entire supreme court with poeple on your side, replace the police and army chiefs etc with people sympathetic to your cause to prevent a coup, etc. It wouldn't be easy. I'm sure such a thing isn't going to happen and the guy is just an arse in need of the "things that aren't appropriate to say any more. Grandpa" book, in hardback form. If he can be reigned in, it's likely that someone with some business sense outside the usual establishment might be an engine for positive change. But hey, I'm just an ignorant Englishman. Time will tell... Or (god forbid) another major terrorist attack could happen in the US again, "extraordinary measures" may be claimed to be needed to protect the American people from "bad dudes", until, you know, "we figure out what's going on", with enough popular support for that and enough far-right allies in Europe...and nobody knows what happens from there. I'm not saying it will happen. It's an extreme case scenario, maybe. But it also doesn't have to happen *exactly* like the "last time". And it doesn't have to be as blatant as a straight-up dictatorship. If fascism does rise again in a major liberal western democracy, nobody can predict its exact time, form and trajectory. It doesn't have to necessarily be like 20th century fascism. You don't have to expect to see browshirts marching on the streets. And many people have the (false, by my standards) impression like "this isn't the Weimar Republic of 1933, we know/are better by now". Do we, really? Or the only difference is that we carry iPhones now? Advanced technology is potentially something that could *aid* a future fascist regime, not something that necessarily protects us from it. In any case, let's hope the best case scenario is 4 years of a demamogue clown and not much else, really. But it's needed to be vigilant. The much-touted "checks and balances" are not an unbreakable mechanism or an unbreachable fortress. When a lifetime conservative like David Frum is writing articles like this, one at least starts to get a bit worried. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/03/how-to-build-an-autocracy/513872/   Of course, Frum here posits that this can be stopped by "individual citizens" respectably phoning and writing their representatives and so on...not by massive collective action...but then again he is a neoconservative, he's not going to turn into a liberal, let alone a leftist. But the fact alone that he writes about a danger of Trump establishing an "autocracy" is telling enough.
  13. It certainly seems you did imply that.   You don't see anything behind those protests besides "Soros' money". You're reading this all wrong. And you're gonna get lost. Tough times ahead.
  14. You're taking this all wrong. Nobody denies that powerful/rich people have their goals and use their resources to influence or finance politicians/groups/etc. Of course they do. In fact, I bet you that politicians get similar e-mails from a bazillion different businessmen, each lobbying for their causes. Your error is that you're trying to find a, more or less, *singular* cause for important historical events, a single "thread" that leads to those "puppeteers". That's where the "conspiracy" comes from. It doesn't work like that. Everyone is trying to achieve their goals, using their resources. It's more or less chaotic. There is no "puppeteer". Out of all this boiling pot of the few powerful and the many not-so-powerful-but-numerous people that are all trying to "move the strings" from each possible direction and to each possible direction, emerges the general historical trend. If you are trying to find your place in history based on what emails Hillary is getting, you're gonna get lost in it, my dude. To think hundreds of thousands of people are out there in the streets because Soros wants them to be there is just silly and lazy thinking. It allows you to not worry about what's really happening around you, but instead always trying to figure out who's the "puppeteer" behind everything. You don't see history, you don't see society, you just see a few individuals just..."running things". You know, oh BLM did not emerge out of the anger of black people towards police brutality, Soros just created it as part of some plan to do this or that or whatever. How convenient and reassuring for us. I've got to say wikileaks has done a bit of a damage on that front; while it's useful to finally have some stuff exposed, let's not lose the forest for the tree, and obsess about what Soros or the Koch brothers or whoever else is doing. (Liberals are also guilty of this; instead of turning inwards and do some self-criticizing about their loss, they cry "Russia!". Scapegoats are always so useful! Why admit we've lost connection with the masses when we can just blame Putin?)
  15. Oh, right, I forgot. They also tend to use the word "sheep(le)" a lot. :P