Fortress America: When Gaming and Politics Collide

prosfilaes · Dec 25, 2011

Alzrius said:
Second, everyone has the right to object to something - they don't have the right to say that because they object to it, it must be altered.

The distinction is noise, IMO, unless they're actually going to do something about it, more then just not buy the game.

Another fundamentally incorrect statement. They're saying that this must conform to their personal beliefs.

Who is? Who are you arguing against? With respect to the posts I've seen on the subject, that's hyperbole.

I'm saying that no one has the right to make others - or the work of others - conform to their personal beliefs.

I have no problem with that statement. But I don't see anyone threatening to come to the FFG offices with a bat, or sue them or even organize a boycott. I have problems with implications that saying something is offensive is tantamount to making others conform to their personal beliefs, and I don't see how, if those are equivalent, that you aren't trying to make people conform to your personal beliefs.

Remus Lupin · Dec 25, 2011

Samurai said:
Ok, what is the point of the game? The first edition worked fine with 3 Communist invaders attacking the continental US. What is it in this new version that requires America be evil?

The point of the game is to create a fight scenario between the US and someone else, with catastrophic global stakes. The narrative simply exists to set up that scenario. In a post-soviet world the US vs communists wouldn't be as compelling, though I think one with Hina as a major antagonist could work well.

I would also say that, whether you like it or not, the last decade has given many people legitimate reason to doubt the idea of the US as the good guy by default, and that to me represents the cautionary aspect of this game.

Samurai · Dec 25, 2011

Remus Lupin said:
The point of the game is to create a fight scenario between the US and someone else, with catastrophic global stakes. The narrative simply exists to set up that scenario. In a post-soviet world the US vs communists wouldn't be as compelling, though I think one with Hina as a major antagonist could work well.

I would also say that, whether you like it or not, the last decade has given many people legitimate reason to doubt the idea of the US as the good guy by default, and that to me represents the cautionary aspect of this game.

Well, while that characterization may be "common knowledge" in some circles, I disagree that the last decade has done that at all. We were attacked on 9/11 and we responded by going after the terrorists and their supporters the Taliban in Afghanistan. We spent at least as much time building schools and helping people there as we did going after terrorists. And then we looked around to see who might attack us next, and saw that Saddam was flaunting UN resolutions, denying access to inspectors, trying to buy yellow cake uranium, shooting at our planes, and had a long history of supporting terrorists, so we decided to take him out and create a democratic state for the people of Iraq. The world is much better off without that dictator, and his end caused a domino effect still being felt today, causing others to topple as well such a Qaddafi in Libya. That could well be a catalyst to remarkable change in the middle east if they can resist the Islamist forces that would enslave the people under Sharia the way the dictators did before.

But I don't want to get too side-tracked. I don't feel that many people (potential customers) saying it's offensive and the makers changing the fictional background is the same as censorship. It's just common sense... if you offend and insult your customers, they won't buy your product.

S'mon · Dec 25, 2011

Samurai;5758107. And then we looked around to see who might attack us next said:
Yeah, but the trouble is that these kind of justifications can be applied to almost any* nation, hence the fear of US aggression. To be fair, plenty of anti-US people would paint the US as an aggressor whatever she did; the trouble with Iraq was that they suddenly had actual evidence to support their position.

*The one unusual/egregious thing Saddam actually did do, plot to assassinate HW Bush in the early '90s, was not cited as a reason for the invasion.

Alzrius · Dec 25, 2011

prosfilaes said:
The distinction is noise, IMO, unless they're actually going to do something about it, more then just not buy the game.

You're entitled to your opinion, but I think intolerance is a bad thing, even when it's "just" limited to intolerant expressions.

Who is? Who are you arguing against? With respect to the posts I've seen on the subject, that's hyperbole.

It's spurious to now ask for specific examples of people spouting this belief; everyone who objected to FFG's original flavor text does not post on EN World. That's also beside the point, since I'm speaking in generally of people who adopt the attitude of "change that which bothers me."

Some people have that opinion about some things, and that's what I'm speaking to. Intolerance is bad; taking a stand against intolerance is not bad even if you call it intolerant to intolerance.

I have no problem with that statement. But I don't see anyone threatening to come to the FFG offices with a bat, or sue them or even organize a boycott.

One doesn't need to make an explicit threat to say that they don't tolerate something's existence. Simply saying you don't recognize its right to exist carries a threatening element by itself, as its saying that you don't agree that it deserves to be.

I have problems with implications that saying something is offensive is tantamount to making others conform to their personal beliefs, and I don't see how, if those are equivalent, that you aren't trying to make people conform to your personal beliefs.

You keep displaying a fundamental misunderstanding of my point. I'm not saying people can't be offended by things - they can. I'm saying people have no right to expect the things that they're offended by to change for the sake of assuaging their sense of outrage.

Be offended all you like. But that offense stops at the point where you expect things to change just to suit you; you don't have that right.

tuxgeo · Dec 25, 2011

Remus Lupin said:
The point of the game is to create a fight scenario between the US and someone else, with catastrophic global stakes. The narrative simply exists to set up that scenario. In a post-soviet world the US vs communists wouldn't be as compelling, though I think one with Hina as a major antagonist could work well.

I would also say that, whether you like it or not, the last decade has given many people legitimate reason to doubt the idea of the US as the good guy by default, and that to me represents the cautionary aspect of this game.

I have to think that "China" was meant instead of "Hina" in the first paragraph. (Hinamatsuri - festival of the dolls. Love Hina - famous hotspring/harem anime show.)

The new version of the game is, IMHO, pot-boiling: what was a fairly believable scenario in the 1980's is less so now, because of the imbalance of military might. Few nations have more than one aircraft carrier; China is still getting its first. The Exocet and Silkworm missiles are a threat to US naval power, and technology does change rapidly, but the heaviest military threats to the US right now are nukes and terrorism -- nukes because they're so formidable, and terrorism because it can get to places where troops in the open could not go.

Iraq had the fourth-largest army in the world around 1991; the US and her allies crushed that. IMHO (again), I think the science fiction of this game is its strong point: FFG needs to have quite a bit of science fiction in the game in order to make an even marginally-plausible game scenario. That stated game scenario doesn't make a lot of sense (again, "to me") without a healthy dollop of "pretend the situation is as wild and crazy as this."

Samurai · Dec 25, 2011

tuxgeo said:
I have to think that "China" was meant instead of "Hina" in the first paragraph. (Hinamatsuri - festival of the dolls. Love Hina - famous hotspring/harem anime show.)

The new version of the game is, IMHO, pot-boiling: what was a fairly believable scenario in the 1980's is less so now, because of the imbalance of military might. Few nations have more than one aircraft carrier; China is still getting its first. The Exocet and Silkworm missiles are a threat to US naval power, and technology does change rapidly, but the heaviest military threats to the US right now are nukes and terrorism -- nukes because they're so formidable, and terrorism because it can get to places where troops in the open could not go.

Iraq had the fourth-largest army in the world around 1991; the US and her allies crushed that. IMHO (again), I think the science fiction of this game is its strong point: FFG needs to have quite a bit of science fiction in the game in order to make an even marginally-plausible game scenario. That stated game scenario doesn't make a lot of sense (again, "to me") without a healthy dollop of "pretend the situation is as wild and crazy as this."

Yeah, I think if that situation did happen, they would not stage a 3-pronged land invasion of the US because they'd know that a) their invasion forces would be wiped off the map by that super-weapon, b) followed by the countries that launched them being wiped off the map for their impudence. I mean, if you're going to say America has truly gone evil, then that's what would happen to a land invasion.

Their only option would be a massive barrage of nuclear weapons, and hope that it happens fast enough that only 1 or 2 countries are destroyed by the super-weapon in return, and that the nuclear retaliation from the US doesn't kill them in return or start a nuclear winter on Earth.

Plane Sailing · Dec 25, 2011

On reflection I dislike both the blurbs. The first sounds more exciting, but if the us had a super weapon that could obliterate countries, surely an "invasion America" scenario would be, uh, rather short?

The SPI Invasion America scenario at least had the virtue of tapping into the worries of those days (communist threat expanding, etc). Although I can envisage plenty of "bad America" scenarios, I find it hard to conceive of one which makes a large scale conventional invasion necessary or even possible!

Remus Lupin · Dec 25, 2011

Samurai said:
Well, while that characterization may be "common knowledge" in some circles, I disagree that the last decade has done that at all. We were attacked on 9/11 and we responded by going after the terrorists and their supporters the Taliban in Afghanistan. We spent at least as much time building schools and helping people there as we did going after terrorists. And then we looked around to see who might attack us next, and saw that Saddam was flaunting UN resolutions, denying access to inspectors, trying to buy yellow cake uranium, shooting at our planes, and had a long history of supporting terrorists, so we decided to take him out and create a democratic state for the people of Iraq. The world is much better off without that dictator, and his end caused a domino effect still being felt today, causing others to topple as well such a Qaddafi in Libya. That could well be a catalyst to remarkable change in the middle east if they can resist the Islamist forces that would enslave the people under Sharia the way the dictators did before.

But I don't want to get too side-tracked. I don't feel that many people (potential customers) saying it's offensive and the makers changing the fictional background is the same as censorship. It's just common sense... if you offend and insult your customers, they won't buy your product.

You are of course welcome to disagree, but polls around the world support the contention that there is a deep suspicion of the US and it's motives around the world. You can argue that those suspicions are misplaced, and they may be, but that doesn't change the perception. And the Iraq war, the rhetoric surrounding it, and it's results tend to give good grounds for that suspicion.

But again, my point is only that the game is using that set of conditions to set upnanscience fiction scenario that is US vs. the world that is compelling in a contemporary context.

Remus Lupin · Dec 25, 2011

tuxgeo said:
I have to think that "China" was meant instead of "Hina" in the first paragraph. (Hinamatsuri - festival of the dolls. Love Hina - famous hotspring/harem anime show.)

The new version of the game is, IMHO, pot-boiling: what was a fairly believable scenario in the 1980's is less so now, because of the imbalance of military might. Few nations have more than one aircraft carrier; China is still getting its first. The Exocet and Silkworm missiles are a threat to US naval power, and technology does change rapidly, but the heaviest military threats to the US right now are nukes and terrorism -- nukes because they're so formidable, and terrorism because it can get to places where troops in the open could not go.

Iraq had the fourth-largest army in the world around 1991; the US and her allies crushed that. IMHO (again), I think the science fiction of this game is its strong point: FFG needs to have quite a bit of science fiction in the game in order to make an even marginally-plausible game scenario. That stated game scenario doesn't make a lot of sense (again, "to me") without a healthy dollop of "pretend the situation is as wild and crazy as this."