Gaizokubanou
-
Content count
964 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Gaizokubanou
-
-
Saying that I find something inevitable and unsettling is a long way from arguing that it should be prohibited.
Beyond that, I hardly see how MAD applies to the introduction of drone warfare. Nearly every conflict that the states at the cutting edge of weaponized drone development have engaged in since WWII has been asymmetric.
Fair enough.
About the latter, idea would be to better arm potential 'punching bags' of these modern asymmetrical conflicts so that they are no longer 'punching bags'. So MAD is probably too strong of terminology, but enough punch so that they are no longer just defenseless targets. Or better alternative would be to pursue economical equivalent (too important economically to fight) and pursue strategy of deference I suppose.
Edit: NVM about this part
-
All of which is enabled by the massive change in the political calculus that occurs when weapons systems that don't put troops into harms way are introduced.
Then either you want to go with MAD (which I bitterly/reluctantly support) or are you seriously suggesting that military should actively sabotage their own troop's safety to make war more costly in their own human life? Cause that's like, never going to happen in same political system where wars become easier to manage politically due to lower cost in human lives.
-
I agree that the source of war is the bigger problem but I don't think that invalidates the concern that killing seems to be getting much easier to do and more impersonal, that's the part that worries me.
I can see why ease of killing would be a worry but why the impersonal part? Unless you think impersonal killing is a problem because it makes killing easier (which is probably true)?
And about the ease of killing, I would say that what we actually ought to be worried about is how much easier it is for people with advanced weapons to kill people without (because those with same weapons would be difficult to get to or situation results in MAD). Which is something I could probably rant about the whole resource accumulation and its meaning in context of technological advances and why tech education (not fear and aversion, but embracing it) is key to combat that growing snowball but I'm sure I've ranted way too much about things...
You know, kinda like how you were joking about how impoverished black kids should make these high tech tools... cause they probably should.
-
I think there's a huge difference between something like an Abrams or an F-18 that's a weapons platform built around a human driver or pilot and something like a Reaper or Atlas that is designed to be operated remotely and semi-autonomously (and in time, almost certainly autonomously).
Heck, during my time on active duty I was nervous whenever I had to roll our CIWS mounts into their automated mode, and that's a very limited defensive weapon. It's an odd feeling replacing a trigger or a firing button with a "hey robot, you figure it out in the code" button. That transition is well underway in surveillance and strike warfare, and stuff like Atlas and Petman make it clear that we're not that far away from it being introduced to infantry warfare. I'm not sure that "terrifying" is quite the precise term I'd use to describe the uncertainty that such a profound change in warfighting invokes, but for me at least it's not too far off.
There you are describing automated targeting system for weapons, which again, don't have much utility outside of pointing lethal weapons at things so are different from BD's robotics videos. What we see in these BD's robotics videos are auto pilots of very slow moving vehicles, more akin to cars parking themselves. What is it about these BD videos that show you something that's inherently worrisome?
Incoming rant.
And besides none of what you describe (which again, I would argue is different from BD's videos) isn't anything new in principle. It's all just another step in the ongoing effort to kill-people-from-as-protected-place-as-possible. The decision makers are still ultimately humans (it's not like infantry in large scale conflict ever amounted to meaningful decision maker... it's the leaders and these weapons are still being authorized by same leaders), just that they are moving further away from their intended targets. It's been done from spear to bow to gun to artillery to rockets to missiles.
Say 20 years down the road they get a completely autonomous armored vehicle. And by complete I mean this thing, given mission parameters, will target and shoot people\objects based on its own internal logic. Even then, I would point out that it's just an extension (and hence principally same) of smart weapons system because someone still set the criteria for targeting and someone still gave the permission to activate the said weapon system. All arguments against drones are really arguments against wars, and I'm very much sympathetic to the latter. But blaming the autonomous drones ends up being a distraction from the real source (those who declare wars) and that's why I'm going on this rant.
It's like complaining about how terrible drone strikes are in middle east because they are done by drones. No, they are fucking terrible because someone decided to kill (yes, choosing to launch these automatic weapons system is with complete intent to kill) bunch of other people for some dubious reasons. All this middle-ware blaming is letting that decision makers go unnoticed.
Closest analog that drones (with completely autonomous targetting system, otherwise it's no different from manned flight) could be argued against as specific weapon type would be inaccurate weapons like carpet bombing, cluster bombs or mines. And all those are ultimately about argument against killing of innocents because wrong tool was chosen. It's not about how machines are killing people, it's always been about how people choose to use wrong tool for a job that is already morally ambiguous to begin with (why are we bombing area with civilian presence, etc.). And even in these topics the argument against specific weapons has been a distraction to "why are these people killing others in that part of the world".
-
If a person like things just the way they are despite the knowledge it's wrong, it's a whole other issue in my opinion. You can't convince those people of anything directly if they are aware of the problem and refuse to change anyway. Societal pressure is the only thing that has a chance of suppressing that behavior, and that requires awareness in society in general. Also, there's a difference from knowing that I shouldn't discriminate against a minority because there are laws against it, and understanding how much it really hurts people. I'd like to think that most people, if made aware of how much pain can be caused, instead of just being told not to do it, would stop.
I guess it's all semantics in the end.
The last bit is actually quite ironic since Merus' linked article is all about how all 'awareness' does is affecting semantics without actually alleviating real pain (discrimination on job application, getting arrested more, etc.)
-
Thanks, guess I skimmed too much of the stuff to realize its main content. Re-reading through it and I think I see what you meant, like this
This obsessive focus on language seems, to those who have accepted its central premises, to be a trap that can catch all bad behavior within it. In fact, privileging language above all else merely empowers the more industrious to escape criticism through employing language themselves. If language is both the cage and the lock, language is inevitably the key.
-
But nothing about it will inherently be more safe or more effective.
That's my entire point, except also applied to 'scariness'. The technology shown in these videos are... one of most military neutral (it's a vehicle and it moves) that I'm kinda baffled if anyone feels threatened by what's being displayed. And about this part
But would you say a gun is just a tool? Or a nuclear bomb? Drones exist, they are purpose built weaponised robots.
Guns or nuclear bombs aren't even comparable because of their limitations for non-lethal applications. The robots being shown here just move, and fairly slowly at that. And about drones, what about it? Only thing that sets it apart from other planes is that it's a plane that's completely unmanned, or it's a cruise missile that can return mostly intact for cost efficiency. It has no special ethical aspects about it compared to any other warplanes. The difference is that those who are morally responsible for the killings are now on the ground in control room instead of being in the vehicle, and I fail to see how that either enhances or mitigates the ethical responsibility of the weapon users nor what it means to the basic technology that sets it apart (unmanned vehicle). Military drones doesn't turn hobbyist RC jets suddenly more scary or ethically questionable, even if they actually employ near identical platform because the base platform is morally neutral (unlike NBC stuff or guns).
I mean, the R&D is being funded by the Defense Department. I don't think it's a huge leap to project how Boston Dynamics stuff applies to the battlefield.
Yeah, but nothing about this method of self-propulsion is different from any other vehicle. It moves stuff. That's it. This isn't NBC stuff or even basic firearms which do have built in applications due to their limited (almost nil) non-lethal applications. These BD robotic stuff are literally cars with legs.
-
...
Also, thanks for listening to my ranting about things I haven't studied since college
.Cheers, it's all interesting and informative stuff so hey win win
I've realised that I've conflated flow with immersion before, and I'm now not entirely sure what the difference is.
Man the word 'immersion' is such a tricky word to tackle so don't worry if you feel unsure of what you meant by it, because I think very few people are actually sure what they mean when they utter that word.
-
I suppose that's a matter of preference really. Personally I see the actions the player can do as mechanics, and all supporting elements as rewards. That would include things like sound fx, particles, time stoppage, screen effects, etc. I think when most devs talk about rewards what they mean are the things you get at the end of a level or quest, though a psychologist would likely consider all non essential elements as rewards. For example you can make a slot machine with just 3 spinning wheels, but most of these machines have lights, sounds, and all kinds of other stuff that has no effect on the simulation but are instead geared at motivating you to keep playing.
Ah I see, thanks for sharing your insight, you are probably right that too many amateur designers think of high level rewards only and forget about micro scale stuff. I too tend to jumble those together at a micro scale (cause of my broader preference for use of 'mechanic'), although I would like to think that I'm somewhat aware and not a total dummy
Guess I'll see when my game hits first working prototype of entire system functioning as a coherent loop.
-
...
When you hit an enemy in a hack 'n' slash game, there is often a minute, almost indistinguishable stutter in the game's timing system when the blow lands on each enemy. This seems like a stupid little thing that developers do just so they can show off some flashy effects, but what this actually achieves is much more. It provides the player a clear, repeatable result of their input (i.e. a goal), they get feedback of their actions immediately, and based on the conditions of the board can begin to determine when and where this action will be effective again. This has nothing to do with the actual mechanic (i.e. swinging a sword), but is rather informed by the reward structure that results from the use of that mechanic, and the context in which that mechanic is used. A poor understanding of this is what makes people say that combining game X with game Y would be amazing, mainly in that the reward systems experienced by each game may be at odds with one another.
....
Very interesting post there itsamoose, but I have a question. Why isn't that reward system part of game mechanic? I would think that proper reward system is central to overall mechanics of the game, but would you say that I'm using the word 'mechanics' too broadly at that point?
@kaputt, I had those similar feelings right before I quit WoW and Diablo 3. Now if you are like me back then, try different stuff, it's quite liberating to cut clean off from those games.
@tegan, Yeah, addiction in context of modern F2P market's current image (at least one that I think public at large shares, but maybe I'm mistaken in that regard) is probably too uncomfortably close to gambling scene to be advertised.
-
Drones. Semi-autonomous, potentially directly controlled weapons platforms. Being flown, literally right now, somewhere. We clearly have no issue with machines doing fighting for us.
'Big-dogs'. Mobile, heavy-lifting, all-terrain, stable and self-guiding platforms, already modeled and displayed as combat vehicles at weapons shows.
Bomb-defusal and recon machines. Currently in use by pretty much every police dept. and military force who can afford it.
R&D of human shaped robots is irrelevant. Lots of robots look nothing and act nothing like people. The uncanny valley is irrelevant because of that. The fact that it's a vehicle is irrelevant. Anything non-living that moves under its own power is a vehicle. A bottle cap from a twisted water bottle is a vehicle for crying out loud.
Robots, either autonomous or controlled (A pointless and idiotic distinction people make by the way. A program is just an asynchronous, predetermined action by a person. A remote control, AI or a pre-programmed response differ only in when a decision is made and how; either right now on purpose by a person or a while ago by a person.) are super obviously currently serving a number of active, violent and serious purposes. Some of those involve bombs, placing bombs, identifying people to kill and killing people. I can't imagine your point, literally everything about it is either untrue or lacking in information, at least to me.
Even cars SHOULD be terrifying. It's, after all, just a vehicle, and even under the direct control of a person. Yet they kill thousands every year, more than many other 'scary' things.
I'm really quite drunk, so I might be a bit too harsh here, but man, it's like reading the robot version of a Russian gov't employed troll. And here I thought I loved the robots too much. I guess I flip-flop.
So WTF was your point again? I'm sober and you are rambling about how robots are scary but that they are not and how I'm reading like some troll... The bits about "uncanny valley is irrelevant" well no shit. Only thing that remotely connects to what I posted is "Even cars SHOULD be terrifying" to which I feel sorry for you if that's how you feel about the world and modern engineering.
"I can't imagine your point" Maybe cause you are drunk? I was responding to how you were going on about how robots shown in these videos are scary, and just pointed out they ought to be no more scary than any other vehicles because that's all that's been shown. Then you pull this rambling BS off. Hard to be nice to you when you respond incoherently AND accusing that I'm trolling you cause you are too drunk to give a fuck.
-
So, I don't know if this is just a weird personal thing or not, but despite the terrifyingly violent purposes these things seem suited for,
They are suitable for nothing as of now. It's just R&D into unexplored territory with no practical result yet. Very cool R&D, but nothing practical. Nor is anything terrifying even suggested... I mean it's a vehicle. Nothing about that should be terrifying. It just looks creepy cause of uncanny-valley-esque motion.
-
Well, no. This is why the link savaging white privilege classes is so important: if everyone in the world was aware, that means those who like things just the way they are would be aware, and they will have co-opted the argument while holding onto their power as tightly as ever.
The problem is not the words, it's the violence they disguise. The well-known slur about black people is verboten for white people not because it's a naughty word, but it's a word white people say who are happy to kill black people they don't like. Not outing trans people is important because people will kill outed trans people.
Could you link the specific article again if you don't mind? I saw 3 you have linked but none of them seems to be that and that one sounds really interesting.
Edit: Also interesting that I'm way more, erm, 'polite' in this particular forum than elsewhere, almost to the point of wondering if I'm being disingenuous. Just interesting to note if I'm simply tip-toeing for approval here, which is interesting because I get the feeling that most people here are white (based on few occasions when users identified their gender and race, nothing else), yet when I'm with my RL buddies (mostly dark skin hispanics and blacks from minimum wage class) all of us, including I, are not shy of all sorts of slurs that wouldn't go well online in general (which I get somewhat because there is a huge difference with same word in who speaks in what way and where)...
It's like I'm more cautious to not be labeled as racist by online groups than real life minority friends I hang with (reluctant to label myself as minority because most of racism I get ends up being 'positive') because I sense much more strict behavior code. How strange and interesting!
-
If everyone in the world was aware, then behavior change would come naturally I guess? For behavior-only issues, being aware that there is a problem is the biggest chunk. One would assume that the vast majority would work naturally to fix problems once they're aware there are problems. I definitely see your point for something like cancer awareness, in which you both have to be aware, and willing/able to donate. But if everyone is aware that a word is hurtful, then only those intending to be hurtful will say it, and it will become stigmatized.
It's weird wording for sure.
Good points. I can see how on unintentional misconduct raising awareness alone would be the end-goal for certain (like I didn't know that 'midget' was derogatory term to describe little people until early last year so knowing alone stopped me from using that).
-
I think the idea is that if everyone is made aware enough, they'll all realize how important it is.
Right, but that's still a stepping stone (which is perfectly fine, having short term goals help us tackle big challenges systematically). Someone who became aware still has to take another action based on their new information.
-
Just to be sure, is GamerGhazi just another name for GamerGate?
I thought it was 'direct opposition' to GamerGate?
-
So I think these posts by a guy named Fredrik deBoer are really interesting critiques of social justice as it's actually practiced: this one talks about 'critique drift', where the language used to describe problems becomes a shibboleth, and thus made meaningless; and this one, which criticises the idea of social justice activism being limited to 'raising awareness' and 'describing experiences' by asking how much of it is actually taking the fight to the enemy. This one I've linked in the Gamergate thread, but honestly it's the one that gets my hackles up most because it's condemning something I agree is pretty shoddy in ways that make me realise I'm not that far removed.
I do get extraordinarily uncomfortable that we've got a very sizable Feminism thread on a forum that's overwhelmingly male, which implies that somewhere in there are pages and pages of men essentially patting themselves on the back for recognising that a system exists to privilege them and then assume that this means they have escaped its clutches.
I've heard similar complaints about specific incidents before (for instance: Donald Sterling has been racist for years, but it took him actually saying racist words for it to be considered a problem) but I feel like this does a good job of actually identifying and describing a trend that's been floating around for years.
Starting to read few of them now but yeah the whole 'raise awareness' bit always puzzled me not because I don't think awareness shouldn't be raised, but it's like to some people that's their end goal. That's why I appreciate when focus is on improving income and security for disenfranchised, but I also have bit of weird view on world (I'm far less hostile to core concepts of capitalism than the popular opinion shared here, also lot more 'militant') so who knows.
This feminism thread in that respect, is slightly better than other feminism threads I've been in. The last forum I was on (and left, actually, despite being there for years) had a feminism thread I started that ended up being so "well-meaning" but full of male allies not grokking 101 stuff that all of the women basically stopped posting. I almost left Idle Thumbs initially because I have a hard time dealing with men sometimes in any feminism topic.
Well please let me know I'm being a dummy sometimes because I'm not too well versed in that topic.
-
So those who were fighting for more diversity and better representation in games before it became a fashionable necessity were rightfully worried all through this that condemning GG would become the new ritual for video game progressives to pat themselves on the back.
Self congratulation isn't even a problem IMO. There is lot of that going on here as well and it's just fun at best (who doesn't like being praised?) or at worst, mostly harmless. I'm more worried about dog-piling and employer tattling, based on some dumb but ultimately, just dumb (mistakes can vary in degrees) tweets or other forms of online conversation (not that online is magical, it's just easier to archive), becoming the part of the ritual.
The point was to remove those elements from being used as vehicle of bigotry, not to just add on another criteria to it.
I was able to converse here about my differing opinion on TB (my opinion on him did sink a bit recently but it's still notably better than the average view here
) a while back and that's props to you guys for keeping chill while for you knew I was just trying to flamebait (it was like my 4th post?)... but it did cross my mind that I was potentially setting myself up to be flamed, a worry which turned out was thankfully unwarranted here. But that worry is always present when with this topic with strangers from what I consider to my relatively 'neutral' feel on this topic.On Maddy, she's been on my twitter feed recently and I enjoy reading her writings. Shame to see her being piled on.
-
By that concession you became the true victor in the eyes of mature ones. Well played Reyturner... well played...
So back from that minor derailing, is there anyone out there who is 100% in sync with that article (minus the author) to begin with? It also feels like a topic that Soren touched upon in his recent blog and briefly in podcasts because he said when he was younger he used to be very hostile towards narration in games.
-
IMO, Depression Quest's impact comes from its systems, or subversion of systems. Choose Your Own Adventure is the oldest form of narrative game there is and it mirrors life in a very basic way.
Yeah it's a good subversion of 'choose your own adventure', but I guess it's more of my deal that I just can't hold that entire genre all that highly when it comes to mechanics so I just considered that subversion more of success on narrative end than anything mechanical.
If the subversion was set in such way that most players end up choosing (meaning alternative was possible) the subversion then I would call that mechanical (again, Papers, Please does this really well! You can let people pass or not carry out bad laws but the subversion is that you are encouraged to carry out those questionable acts due to the way you are 'scored' via cash). But when it's ruled out completely regardless of player input, that's subversion achieved purely on the developer's end, which seems closer to narrative.
-
@Reyturner, I just tried out Depression Quest and it's an 'odd' example to point out games' strength in mechanics over narrative when it felt very much narrative driven (and not for any worse either, it does what it sets out to do and in more mechanic focused games I doubt they would be able to address the topic as well as it did as player could game the 'depression', which would completely miss the difficulty of suffering from depression).
I feel like best is good mix of the two, where narrative give better context to the mechanics and mechanics then reinforces the narrative... like Papers, Please which tberton mentioned does this exactly so well. If you go raw mechanics then it's a sandbox... it can mean anything (Day-Z like games where it could mean joy of exploration with friends to torture-fest) or nothing (all the flight sim(ignoring the fanatics who argue that slight misbalance in favor of USA/Soviet fighter is clear sign of capitalist/communist agenda)). Go raw narrative then it's not a game (movie, book, etc.). If two contrasts then they detract from each other (I think this is AAA's actual real problem... most AAA games actually have plenty of system, just that they are not really fleshed out in conjunction with their equally busy narrative and two ends up just mixing into mediocre).
Article is... well it's a good article in a sense that it'll get people talking about it, it's just irritating enough of an opinion that it'll get temporary heat and attention but no long term damages. I would assume that the author intentionally overstepped his logical limit to create that bit of poke.
-
The reason I am considering that it naseau may be hardware-induced is because I read multiple accounts from GDC that point this benefit of the Vive out. One article quoted Gabe Newell of claiming a 0% naseau reaction to the device, another was a initial impressions video where one host claimed that they experience no naseau at all (and implying that they did frequently with other devices).
Oh and by the way, you said "simulation-sickness" non-chalantly and unironically. This is the cyberpunk-future I've been promised.
I think odds are the demo software they ran is just better written and designed than others.
BTW simulation-sickness I was referring to military research since 1950s
Interesting tidbit BTW... According to wiki... as the pilot got more real life experience, pilot's likelihood of nausea increased. Meaning slightly awkward walking simulator (activity most of us are used to (not trying to single out people with disability, just pointing on general likelihood given I know so little about rest of you guys)) might be more vomit inducing than some wild flight sim (activity that most of us are probably not used to) XD
-
I wonder how much of simulation sickness is caused by the hardware though? Most cases of simulation sickness doesn't happen because of a TV brand, people get sick because of what's being shown. I would assume that simulation sickness would have to be solved on program by program basis on the software developer's end to not put naseua inducing elements and to tie in control scheme well.
-
Oh man, talking about intro to anime... great intro to both anime and with taste of mecha would be "Gundam 0080: War in the Pocket". Hands down the best of Gundam franchise. If you want something more cheesy but still not too 'anime' then 0083 also works wonders.
Gaming, rewards and addiction
in Video Gaming
Posted
I'm a dummy in psychology so I'm just Googling these stuff, but based on few sites (AKA WIKI) it sounds like FLOW is just deepest state of 'immersion' (in terminology that is commonly used by people when describing game's immersion).
@SuperBiasedMan,
For me the distinction falls into just how I feel about the activity afterward... like addictions make me feel shitty when I don't perform them (and performance just bring the level to neutral), but good 'time sink', as you describe, make me feel good during and afterward. I want to play 'time sinks', but when I have something else, stop playing them doesn't frustrate me. I can just pack up and leave feeling pretty happy. But addiction? Every moment not spent playing is worse.
For me, many addictive games definitely started as good 'time sinks', but when I kept returning to them cause of low hanging hooks (playing them is habit than conscious choice, I'm farming for random loots, etc.) I instead of actually being excited about them, they turned into addiction and hence sour the whole deal.
EU4, CiV, Isaac, Tekken 3, Starcraft, all great time sinks. But Diablo 3 (more so than 2 for some reason) and WoW? Just awful.