Spec Ops isn't a Anti-War game.
But I never thought about that kind of story being in an Arma game though. That'd be fucking horrifying playing Arma with the context being war-crimes and such. Playing a first person campaign of the Yugoslavian Wars as a Serb could possibly one of the most shocking (but at the same time mechanically sound) games that I think could be conceived with today's technology. (Outside the obvious one of playing as a SS Death Squad)
I like ArmA 2. Didn't really think of it as being anti-war though.
Spec Ops isn't just a comment on war, it's a comment on video game violence as well.
[QUOTE=ImperialGuard;46640152]Spec Ops isn't just a comment on war, it's a comment on video game violence as well.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Destroyox;46639942]Spec Ops isn't a Anti-War game.[/QUOTE]
Walt Williams has specifically said multiple times it's only commenting on the theming and gameplay of modern military shooters and their ilk.
[QUOTE=Destroyox;46639942]But I never thought about that kind of story being in an Arma game though. That'd be fucking horrifying playing Arma with the context being war-crimes and such.[/QUOTE]
There is evidence of war crimes in the A2 campaign. In that first mission he showed at night, you have the opportunity of finding a mass grave. There's also an unnamed town on the map that's been bombed.
[QUOTE=CMB Unit 01;46640225]There is evidence of war crimes in the A2 campaign. In that first mission he showed at night, you have the opportunity of finding a mass grave. There's also an unnamed town on the map that's been bombed.[/QUOTE]
You aren't doing them like in Spec Ops though.
[QUOTE=CMB Unit 01;46640225]There is evidence of war crimes in the A2 campaign. In that first mission he showed at night, you have the opportunity of finding a mass grave. There's also an unnamed town on the map that's been bombed.[/QUOTE]
It's a removed sense though, you aren't doing or seeing them first hand from what I can remember.
ArmA 3 is similar with a story about a country that has been through the ringer of a brutal civil war and as shown in the game a lot of the buildings are burnt or bombed with posters on the walls cursing the AAF, it's just that you don't really see it much in the campaigns, you just see the after effects.
[QUOTE=ImperialGuard;46640152]Spec Ops isn't just a comment on war, it's a comment on video game violence as well.[/QUOTE]
Personally Spec Ops is more about a flip on the flashy visuals and war messages of modern military shooters, how you regenerate health and you use your squad to blast down waves after waves of brown people.
It's not about war, if it were, you'd have done what you were told, and probably lost somebody to a sniper five miles away you didn't see.
when it comes down to it it's whatever game remembers that it's a game and chooses to explore it's story through what games are best at; being an interactive medium, not a showbox for a tunnel-narrative
Surprised there's no Red Orchestra 2, considering its often referred to as a PTSD simulator.
I was once alone defending a bombed out machine shop, and the HUD lit up with an enemy entering the cap zone, and I saw his shadow through the doorway. I put a round through the wall he was behind, and he collapsed into the open doorway flat on his back, clutching his gut, screaming, for at least the next 30 seconds which then turned to gurgling as he drowned in his own blood and finally stopped moving.
That wasn't the worst part either. It was a teammate.
[QUOTE=Squeegy Mackoy;46644256]Surprised there's no Red Orchestra 2, considering its often referred to as a PTSD simulator.
I was once alone defending a bombed out machine shop, and the HUD lit up with an enemy entering the cap zone, and I saw his shadow through the doorway. I put a round through the wall he was behind, and he collapsed into the open doorway flat on his back, clutching his gut, screaming, for at least the next 30 seconds which then turned to gurgling as he drowned in his own blood and finally stopped moving.
That wasn't the worst part either. It was a teammate.[/QUOTE]
Remember the allied dialogue from Rising Storm?
[video=youtube;ldNSMnEeKio]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldNSMnEeKio[/video]
RO2/RS have their gruesome moments, but they always struck me as being more like historic war movies, not explicitly pro or anti war, just "this is war".
[QUOTE=Super Muffin;46640160]Walt Williams has specifically said multiple times it's only commenting on the theming and gameplay of modern military shooters and their ilk.[/QUOTE]
and ray bradbury says that farenheit 451 isn't about censorship but the rise of television and decline of printed media but who the fuck cares it's constantly interpreted as being a story about state censorship and control
the main point is that auteur theory is bupkis, what the producer intends when producing media has substantially less impact than what the consumer feels
spec ops is widely perceived to be anti-war
I think it's because scenes that depict the gruesome truth of war, and scenes that praise an anti-war message, are both related yet can be separated.
Like the [sp]White Phosphorous[/sp] part in Spec Ops. It was fucked up and gruesome, and in that it is kind of anti-war, but not directly. "War is fucked up", and "War is fucked up and we shouldn't have it" can be totally up to the viewer's interpretation.
[QUOTE=asteroidrules;46644284]Remember the allied dialogue from Rising Storm?
[video=youtube;ldNSMnEeKio]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldNSMnEeKio[/video]
RO2/RS have their gruesome moments, but they always struck me as being more like historic war movies, not explicitly pro or anti war, just "this is war".[/QUOTE]
"Oh jesus, oh jesus take me home"
"Don't worry pa, I just fell off the tractor is all"
:suicide:
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;46644984]"Oh jesus, oh jesus take me home"
"Don't worry pa, I just fell off the tractor is all"
:suicide:[/QUOTE]
Personally I always found the roughest ones to be like the one around 1:00 "Get over here and save me dammit!", surrounded by brothers who're powerless to help you. The writing and acting in that game was top notch, which isn't usually such a standout feature for a multiplayer only title, but it gives the whole thing such an amazing atmosphere.
Fun fact: While I was alpha testing, we had multiple people who wanted to up the realism a bit more with a light bit of blood squirting from bullet wounds[as well as entry and exit wounds], as well as having death animations on the ground with the person going and gripping their found while shaking back and forth. Never came to fruition though.
[QUOTE=BrickInHead;46644298]
and ray bradbury says that farenheit 451 isn't about censorship but the rise of television and decline of printed media but who the fuck cares it's constantly interpreted as being a story about state censorship and control[/QUOTE]
'Author's intentions are invalidated by people who are wrong.'
Really. What's the point of creating anything if people not understanding your commentary/statement makes your own work wrong?
[QUOTE=Super Muffin;46645374]'Author's intentions are invalidated by people who are wrong.'
Really. What's the point of creating anything if people not understanding your commentary/statement makes your own work wrong?[/QUOTE]
Because one of the great things about art is that it's up to interpretation. You may write things with one message in mind, but other people, with their own experiences and beliefs and thought processes can come up with a completely different meaning.
[QUOTE=asteroidrules;46644284]Remember the allied dialogue from Rising Storm?
[video=youtube;ldNSMnEeKio]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldNSMnEeKio[/video]
RO2/RS have their gruesome moments, but they always struck me as being more like historic war movies, not explicitly pro or anti war, just "this is war".[/QUOTE]
Oh jesus, don't remind me of the time on bridges where a tank shell hit our trench and I was the only one not turned into meat. [I]WHY DID I LIVE?[/I]
[QUOTE=GamerKiwi;46645702]Because one of the great things about art is that it's up to interpretation. You may write things with one message in mind, but other people, with their own experiences and beliefs and thought processes can come up with a completely different meaning.[/QUOTE]
Not quite. I'm afraid you're either being too subjective here, or too simplistic. Rather than saying it's up to interpretation, you must think of it as purely a matter of perspective. It is a matter of seeing the same work of art in different lights and at different angles. The key thing is that any interpretation about the work of art must be drawn from the work itself and not the experiences and beliefs of the viewer. Any statement that is correct about a work of art, by needs, must be able to be explained entirely through evidence found in the work itself. If the viewer draws conclusions that are not supported by evidence in the work, or ignores evidence that contradicts their conclusion, then we can say that their interpretation is objectively weaker, and less correct, than other interpretations that are better supported by the work. When viewers come up with many, wildly different conclusions that disagree with each other, then it's generally the fault of the author, who's job is to thread a gossamer strand to lead the viewer invisibly through their work.
I think it's easy for someone who isn't perceptive enough, or isn't focusing their perception closely on Spec Ops to interpret it as an Anti-war game. I think that conclusion is drawn from incomplete evidence, and that when we look at the entire body it more strongly supports the position that the game is about war videogames far more than war itself.
[QUOTE=Dark Kite;46648416]It is a matter of seeing the same work of art in different lights and at different angles.[/quote]
nope
[quote]The key thing is that any interpretation about the work of art must be drawn from the work itself and not the experiences and beliefs of the viewer[/quote]
nope literally the complete opposite is absolutely fine
[quote]Any statement that is correct about a work of art, by needs, must be able to be explained entirely through evidence found in the work itself[/quote]
no it doesn't. there's no such thing as a 'correct' statement
[quote]If the viewer draws conclusions that are not supported by evidence in the work, or ignores evidence that contradicts their conclusion, then we can say that their interpretation is objectively weaker, and less correct, than other interpretations that are better supported by the work[/quote]
no you can't
[quote]When viewers come up with many, wildly different conclusions that disagree with each other, then it's generally the fault of the author, who's job is to thread a gossamer strand to lead the viewer invisibly through their work.[/quote]
no it's not
[QUOTE=ChestyMcGee;46648568]nope
nope literally the complete opposite is absolutely fine
no it doesn't. there's no such thing as a 'correct' statement
no you can't
no it's not[/QUOTE]
These are some pretty big statements to be making, it'd be interesting to know how you support this position and what experience informs it. I can only speak from the perspective of a literati.
[editline]6th December 2014[/editline]
I'm curious if you're holding the position that art is meaningless and any meaning found by the viewer is entirely imposed and created by them, thus all meanings found in a work of art are correct.
[editline]6th December 2014[/editline]
Or I guess, a more interesting question for me to ask you is this; from your position, what is it exactly that writers are responsible for in the stories they write? Do they, in their creative act, write something without logos, or is there a particular logos that is reflected into the work? Is it the case of the latter, but the attempt to convey the logos is a fools errand? Something impossible to accomplish? If you have a convincing argument for any of these conclusions, I'd care to read them although I'm inclined to disagree. I feel I ought to clarify my position; I do not believe that the creator always fully understands their creation or the extent of the logos they attempt to communicate with their story, nor do I argue that there is exactly one prescriptive interpretation that is correct; I argue that interpretations can be arranged by the degree to which they are supported by the work in question.
[QUOTE=Destroyox;46639942]Spec Ops isn't a Anti-War game.
But I never thought about that kind of story being in an Arma game though. That'd be fucking horrifying playing Arma with the context being war-crimes and such. Playing a first person campaign of the Yugoslavian Wars as a Serb could possibly one of the most shocking (but at the same time mechanically sound) games that I think could be conceived with today's technology. (Outside the obvious one of playing as a SS Death Squad)[/QUOTE]
In the campaign there is literally a mission where you are supposed to look around for evidence of war crimes and then stumble upon a mass grave. Surprised he didn't mention that part at all, especially since he had footage of that mission.
[QUOTE=Dark Kite;46648701]These are some pretty big statements to be making, it'd be interesting to know how you support this position and what experience informs it. I can only speak from the perspective of a literati.[/QUOTE]
they're way smaller statements than yours. i'm simply saying there's no rules, where you're imposing strict laws on the enjoyment and criticism of art?
[quote]I'm curious if you're holding the position that art is meaningless and any meaning found by the viewer is entirely imposed and created by them, thus all meanings found in a work of art are correct.[/quote]
no it's quite the opposite
i'm saying art holds incredible meaning. it's incredibly important. but that's why there's many schools of artistic interpretation and criticism and that is why all artistic interpretation and criticism is infallible an can't be 'incorrect'. can you disagree with someone's dumbass interpretation? yeh sure you can. but it's not incorrect
if art isn't what we interpret from it, then it isn't anything
[quote]Or I guess, a more interesting question for me to ask you is this; from your position, what is it exactly that writers are responsible for in the stories they write?[/quote]
writers, from my perspective, are responsible for whatever the hell they want to be responsible for
[quote]Is it the case of the latter, but the attempt to convey the logos is a fools errand? Something impossible to accomplish?[/quote]
sometimes yes. it's entirely dependent on audience. sometimes a writer or designer or artist sets off with a single, ultimate, goal of a message to convey. maybe they feel if they fail in that, then their artwork has failed
there are countless numbers of artists who's work is highly revered and remembered and interpreted as something completely different to what they intended it to be. does this mean they have failed? maybe they consider they did, depending on the artist but, personally, i wouldn't
if you can say that The Room by tommy wiseau is a failure, which by your logic it is, then i can't agree with your logic
[quote]I argue that interpretations can be arranged by the degree to which they are supported by the work in question.[/quote]
well that's absolutely fine i guess. personally i wouldn't bother i'd just view it on a completely subjective scale of "that's dumb"
[QUOTE=ChestyMcGee;46649376]they're way smaller statements than yours. i'm simply saying there's no rules, where you're imposing strict laws on the enjoyment and criticism of art?
no it's quite the opposite
i'm saying art holds incredible meaning. it's incredibly important. but that's why there's many schools of artistic interpretation and criticism and that is why all artistic interpretation and criticism is infallible an can't be 'incorrect'. can you disagree with someone's dumbass interpretation? yeh sure you can. but it's not incorrect
if art isn't what we interpret from it, then it isn't anything
writers, from my perspective, are responsible for whatever the hell they want to be responsible for
sometimes yes. it's entirely dependent on audience. sometimes a writer or designer or artist sets off with a single, ultimate, goal of a message to convey. maybe they feel if they fail in that, then their artwork has failed
there are countless numbers of artists who's work is highly revered and remembered and interpreted as something completely different to what they intended it to be. does this mean they have failed? maybe they consider they did, depending on the artist but, personally, i wouldn't
if you can say that The Room by tommy wiseau is a failure, which by your logic it is, then i can't agree with your logic
well that's absolutely fine i guess. personally i wouldn't bother i'd just view it on a completely subjective scale of "that's dumb"[/QUOTE]
It seems we agree more than you might like to admit, although there are some differences that account for that. The most noticeable thing is that you have conflated art with the individual's interpretation of art as the same thing. I'm not sure why you'd argue that, perhaps you've misunderstood Marshall McLuhan when he said the medium is the message. Art is the thing that opens the conversation, not the conversation itself. By your argumentation we can say that The Room by Wiseau is not art, nor is any film, book, game, song, play, poem, or other medium of art. Secondly I'd say that if an artist has created something completely different from what they originally intended, that is a failure, BUT I must stress that I do not mean the work of art is a failure. What I mean is that the artist has failed to begin fully comprehending what they were creating. From experience I can say that what you set out to create is hardly ever what the finished product is. Creating art is a reciprocal process that changes the artist as they work. The Room is an interesting example to examine. I have no idea what Tommy Wiseau was trying to do with that film, but there are two possibilities I see. He could have intended his film to be (hilariously) bad, or he could have not intended that. I personally see the latter being more likely, and in that case the film is an excellent example of somebody trying to create a work of art without having much idea how to use the tools involved in making said art. If he's using his filmmaking tools (dialogue, framing, music, et cetera) without knowing how to use them well, then he won't have a very good idea of what he's actually doing and making. An unskilled carpenter can construct a chair without realizing it'll collapse under someone's weight, and if it will not function as a chair, then is the thing still a chair? So in Tommy's case, I simply think he didn't realize he was creating a comedy.
I'm not advocating word of God like a muslim would. Authors are fallible, capable of not really knowing what they're creating, and not appreciating what they've created for what it actually is. But it's hogwash to argue that an author has no influence over what their story is about, or that all interpretations are valid. There are some interpretations that people can make which fall so far on your scale of "that's dumb" that we can say they are on some level objectively wrong. I'd argue that the scale of "that's dumb" is not entirely subjective. If I say that "Ears in the Turret" by Dylan Thomas is about how we as human beings are always connected and are incredibly close to each other, you can objectively argue that my interpretation is wrong by citing textual evidence (placed purposefully by Thomas) that conflicts with that interpretation.
It is wrong to try and argue that art is entirely dependent on the audience. If it were, there'd be no need for the artist or the art itself. It's entirely dependent on a very complex interaction between artist and audience through the medium. Art is not a democracy, at least not in the Athenian sense. Yes, the meanings behind works of art will change as the audience's context grows more distant from the author's; cultural change has rendered most holy scripture in the Abrahamic religions mostly incomprehensible to most laypeople, but it's fallacious to assume that because of facts like this that engaging in art is not an interaction between creator and audience, that it is something that only involves the individual. No man is an island, entire to itself; every man is a a piece of the continent, a part of the main. Should we try to wash a clod away in a sea of subjectivism, we are the less for it, lost in a solipsistic wasteland. I do not know if it is important to know what one man intended to say, but I do know it is important to know what they did say.
[QUOTE=Dark Kite;46648416]Not quite. I'm afraid you're either being too subjective here, or too simplistic. Rather than saying it's up to interpretation, you must think of it as purely a matter of perspective. It is a matter of seeing the same work of art in different lights and at different angles. The key thing is that any interpretation about the work of art must be drawn from the work itself and not the experiences and beliefs of the viewer. Any statement that is correct about a work of art, by needs, must be able to be explained entirely through evidence found in the work itself. If the viewer draws conclusions that are not supported by evidence in the work, or ignores evidence that contradicts their conclusion, then we can say that their interpretation is objectively weaker, and less correct, than other interpretations that are better supported by the work. When viewers come up with many, wildly different conclusions that disagree with each other, then it's generally the fault of the author, who's job is to thread a gossamer strand to lead the viewer invisibly through their work.
I think it's easy for someone who isn't perceptive enough, or isn't focusing their perception closely on Spec Ops to interpret it as an Anti-war game. I think that conclusion is drawn from incomplete evidence, and that when we look at the entire body it more strongly supports the position that the game is about war videogames far more than war itself.[/QUOTE]
the authors purpose in producing a work is only critically important as it is being produced. The second it enters the public conciseness the autuers intent only becomes one simple lens through which to interpret a piece of art. The concept that a work must only be interpreted for what it contains and not the context in which it is viewed is silly. Art is a living thing and you debase it by claiming that the interpretations of it are so limited. What makes a piece of art great is its ability to be viewed in multiple contexts and adapt to each new context. This is what makes art pieces timeless, not the auteurs skills or intentions in producing it.
[QUOTE=BrickInHead;46651663]the authors purpose in producing a work is only critically important as it is being produced. The second it enters the public conciseness the autuers intent only becomes one simple lens through which to interpret a piece of art. The concept that a work must only be interpreted for what it contains and not the context in which it is viewed is silly. Art is a living thing and you debase it by claiming that the interpretations of it are so limited. What makes a piece of art great is its ability to be viewed in multiple contexts and adapt to each new context. This is what makes art pieces timeless, not the auteurs skills or intentions in producing it.[/QUOTE]
You are right, however you must be careful not to debase art yourself by trying to claim that what a work of art contains is not important, that only the context in which it is seen is important. As I said earlier, any work of art is a form of interaction between creator and audience. You cannot say it is one or the other, because that is to make art less than what it is. What I am advocating is that the content of a work of art can be seen in many lights (audience contexts) and that will affect the meaning of what makes up the piece itself. If the audience draws a conclusion only from their context and ignores the content of a work of art, then is does their conclusion have to do with the work of art? Nothing. It is an interaction between the content and the context in which it is seen. To say that the author brings nothing to the table is as idiotic as saying the audience brings nothing to the table.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
