John TynesJohn Tynes knows why we fight. Join The Contrarian as he explores the appeal of fascism in an increasingly democratic world, and gives his reason why gamers should rule.
Issue 22 - The Contrarian: Why We Fight
- Thread starter The Escapist Staff
- Start date
Original Comment by: Ortwin Regel
http://gamefreaks365.com
"Hardcore gamers don't buy games where the goal is to compromise. They buy games where the goal is to save the world - by force."
I didn't know we had a choice?
http://gamefreaks365.com
"Hardcore gamers don't buy games where the goal is to compromise. They buy games where the goal is to save the world - by force."
I didn't know we had a choice?
Original Comment by: Yoshi
Actually, one of the reasons I liked Civilization III so much was because of the "diplomatic victory" possibility.
Actually, one of the reasons I liked Civilization III so much was because of the "diplomatic victory" possibility.
Original Comment by: TheKeck
?If they?d just make me dictator for a day, just one day, I?d straighten this mess out.?
I've never thought this. Perhaps Tynes is projecting his personal feelings onto all of us gamers.
?If they?d just make me dictator for a day, just one day, I?d straighten this mess out.?
I've never thought this. Perhaps Tynes is projecting his personal feelings onto all of us gamers.
Original Comment by: Ortwin Regel
http://gamefreaks365.com
Yeah, well, he is doing that in every article. That's his job.
http://gamefreaks365.com
Yeah, well, he is doing that in every article. That's his job.
Original Comment by: lud
I can't tell if Tynes thinks the appeal of facism to gamers is a good thing or a bad thing. He certainly seems to enjoy the notion. I guess as "The Contrarian" he doens't need to provide a morals-based point, just an opinion that we want to disagree with (even if we can't quite get a solid grip on it to do so).
I can't tell if Tynes thinks the appeal of facism to gamers is a good thing or a bad thing. He certainly seems to enjoy the notion. I guess as "The Contrarian" he doens't need to provide a morals-based point, just an opinion that we want to disagree with (even if we can't quite get a solid grip on it to do so).
Original Comment by: Mark
Everybody wants to be in control, wants to do things their way. It's just that most people don't like it when somebody succeeds whose "way" is different from their own.
Games are indeed about control and freedom. If the game presents the character as an avatar independent from the player, then the player is controlling the character. If the game causes the player to feel as if s/he were "one with the character," then the player is being given the freedom to manipulate a cleverly constructed environment.
Everybody wants to be in control, wants to do things their way. It's just that most people don't like it when somebody succeeds whose "way" is different from their own.
Games are indeed about control and freedom. If the game presents the character as an avatar independent from the player, then the player is controlling the character. If the game causes the player to feel as if s/he were "one with the character," then the player is being given the freedom to manipulate a cleverly constructed environment.
?If they?d just make me dictator for a day, just one day, I?d straighten this mess out.?
Guilty. Especially any time I hear some new stupidity from the legal system. My legal system would be fast, efficient, and perfect, and have no lawyers. Really. I promise.
Actually, one of the reasons I liked Civilization III so much was because of the "diplomatic victory" possibility.
You know, that's a really good point. On the other hand, my experiences with the diplomatic victory are usually based on my government/country/society completely overwhelming the rest of the world. So, in a way, it's a still a representation of me making the perfect society, and conquering the world. Despite the myriad of options available, Civ is still mostly about battling other civ's, not making the imaginary citizens happy.
Guilty. Especially any time I hear some new stupidity from the legal system. My legal system would be fast, efficient, and perfect, and have no lawyers. Really. I promise.
Actually, one of the reasons I liked Civilization III so much was because of the "diplomatic victory" possibility.
You know, that's a really good point. On the other hand, my experiences with the diplomatic victory are usually based on my government/country/society completely overwhelming the rest of the world. So, in a way, it's a still a representation of me making the perfect society, and conquering the world. Despite the myriad of options available, Civ is still mostly about battling other civ's, not making the imaginary citizens happy.
Original Comment by: Funky J
http://www.funkyj.com
I'm with the Yoshi on the diplomacy of CivIII.
I wish more games would allow a non-combative approach to a solution.
Then again, I'm thoroughly enjoying smashing the living bejesus out of gang members in The Warriors at the moment...
http://www.funkyj.com
I'm with the Yoshi on the diplomacy of CivIII.
I wish more games would allow a non-combative approach to a solution.
Then again, I'm thoroughly enjoying smashing the living bejesus out of gang members in The Warriors at the moment...