tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29769707.post3104438619755580380..comments2024-02-10T18:19:36.406-08:00Comments on Newspaper Rock: King Philip's War the gameRobhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01478763837213733775noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29769707.post-46710350303644889302010-03-23T16:11:32.751-07:002010-03-23T16:11:32.751-07:00As I explained in Gamers Defend King Philip's ...As I explained in <a href="http://www.bluecorncomics.com/2010/03/gamers-defend-king-philips-war-game.htm" rel="nofollow">Gamers Defend King Philip's War Game</a>, I think most of the critics understand war games well enough. "Historical recreations of conflicts with an eye for historical accuracy and context"...yep, that's exactly what we thought.<br /><br />Let's put it this way: I haven't seen anything except unfounded allegations that we <i>don't</i> understand these games. If you can't cite and quote passages that <i>prove</i> our lack of understanding, spare us this worthless charge.<br /><br />Learning about a decades-old conflict through its violent ending is inherently limiting. Comparing this to Wikipedia is misleading since the typical Wikipedia entry is far more comprehensive than this game is.<br /><br />Your claim that a war game can't include a "peaceful option" is a dodge. Of course it can if you want it to.<br /><br />Your father made up the game's goals, which amount to kill or be killed. Why can't this or any war game end with "stalemate" or "negotiate an accord"? If you really want realism, you'd include these outcomes, since they're possibilities in most wars.<br /><br />That you don't see anything but victory or defeat as a goal is telling. What you seem to be saying is: You prefer to focus on the military aspects of a conflict and ignore the political, economic, and moral aspects. Which is the critics' point, of course.<br /><br />I can tell you posted this on another forum because it doesn't address much of my posting. Now that you've told us why war games are great in general, feel free to answer some of my specific questions and objections. Good luck.Robhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01478763837213733775noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29769707.post-70289039254597517012010-03-19T13:18:41.190-07:002010-03-19T13:18:41.190-07:00Part 2
I have been playing historical simulations...Part 2<br /><br />I have been playing historical simulations since I was in grade school. I can tell you I am an exception, raised in a household where learning was encouraged and simulationist "gaming" was a common. Most kids don't get into the hobby, not because it's bad for them or there is something wrong with it, primarily because it's in most cases inaccessible (the complexity of rules) and full of deep and disturbing concepts; for example the actual history we aren't taught in school, like in this case that the Native Americans were not only victims of a technologically superior foe but also had the pride, honor and shear balls to fight with everything they had to prevent being shuffled off their land. What's more what is often expressed in simulation games is that it is not always right and wrong that decides a conflict but tactical acumen, bravery, and technology that carries the day.<br /><br />To address several points; One this game and most war games are not marketed towards young children (teenagers at most) and are called learning told because that is what they are, you don't stop learning after you are done with school, or at least you shouldn't.<br /><br />Two. There have been serious simulations addressing just about every era and conflict since the beginning of recorded history so protesting a single game without knowing the context of simulationist gaming or the man you accuse of being a racist without speaking with him is every bit a ridiculous and intolerant as some of the accusations flying about.<br /><br />Three. The enjoyment derived from a 'war game' is that of tactical achievement and strategic acumen, not reveling in the deaths of anyone. These simulations are created by intelligent men and women and are the result of extensive research to be sure to accurate to the conflict being portrayed.<br /><br />Four. A "peaceful option" is beyond the scope of simulation games, these are recreations of conflicts, often bloody ones to the end of replaying them and learning from them.<br /><br />Lastly. Full disclosure. I am the designer’s son, I am in my late twenties and I am appalled with how my father is being treated. I am posting here of my own volition without his knowledge, my thoughts and statements are my own. To those in the gaming community I appreciate your support. To set the record straight my father spent years researching and designing this game to be what it is now. It glorifies nothing about the conflict but portrays a little known episode in American and Native American history that was pivotal in early American history. It was probably the single best shot the natives had ousting the Europeans, but as history has taught us numbers and technology determined the victor and the Europeans had both. This is not right, the game doesn't portray it as right nor as an inevitable conclusion, the natives have an even chance of winning the conflict, something that none of the Anti-King Philip’s War quotes have addressed. I was raised my father's son and no one has the right to call the man a racist or anything even approximating intolerant, lest they be made a total fool when and if they met him.<br /><br />Hear the whole story, learn all the fact and make a reasoned judgment if you must. Ad hominim attacks and sound bites based on partial information just make us all look bad and drag conversation down to a school yard level.<br /><br />This was posted on another firum but seemed appropriate to put here at the origin of the controversy. Posted in two partsAgentOfChangenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29769707.post-17684965443152181252010-03-19T13:17:48.545-07:002010-03-19T13:17:48.545-07:00Part 1
This is the kind of explosion that happens...Part 1<br /><br />This is the kind of explosion that happens when an often misunderstood niche is exposed to public scrutiny without context. Never mind the sensationalist slant of the original article and the understandable angry reactions of people who were most likely not presented all of the facts, the issue here is that of misunderstanding. On the part of the critics and media who most likely have not at all been exposed to simulation historical "gaming" and on the part of Gamers (as we call ourselves) because it is easy to forget that when you are a part of a generally small and insular sub-culture that few people outside the hobby actually understand your hobby.<br /><br />I address this primarily to those who do not understand exactly what simulation "gaming" is. First of all I put "gaming" in quotes because the term game has come to be a trivializing word that more often references video games, monopoly, and something children do rather than an all encompassing term that encompasses everything from "Tag" to monopoly to sports to Chess. The uniting factor between all of the activities under the "game" label is that people engage in these activities for some benefit (often competition, skill, and enjoyment) and to share an experience with other people.<br /><br />Simulation "gaming" is a particular niche within gaming that is characterized by historical recreations of conflicts with an eye for historical accuracy and context. Though in most cases because these are "games" often with complex systems to represent reality the feasibility of including a textbook to provide an entire social and political context to any given conflict is unrealistic an unnecessary. The target audience of these "games" is primarily adult and primarily for those who are aware of or who learn about after the fact the event(s) portrayed in the game. They are learning tools in a gateway sense. You see a game about a conflict you never heard about and you learn about it, it has an analogous effect to how Wikipedia works (you see a link about something that appears interesting but you don't know about it so you follow it to learn more).<br /><br />Addressing the detailed history and context of a conflict is more the burden of individual player than of the designers, however in many cases as in this one, the designer went out of his way to portray a balanced view of the conflict in the game documentation, which is something to be honest you do not always see in a war-game. That burden of learning is, however happily taken by most of this type of simulations primary audience sparking a greater spread of information than not. The recreation of the conflict has many benefits for the individual players but the greatest in my opinion is the ability to "change history" in playing out a conflict. The history of these things are always nuanced and rarely is there ever a "good guy / bad guy" dynamic. More often there is a historical winner and a loser and far more than we may like to admit both sides did horrible things during a conflict but history is, sadly, written by the victors. Which brings me to the value of simulations, how many people had even heard of this conflict prior this game. I hadn't, and now because people know about it they will learn about it.AgentOfChangenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29769707.post-43974132839792997412010-03-16T15:43:50.099-07:002010-03-16T15:43:50.099-07:00When will white America learn that not all that is...When will white America learn that not all that is taught in class rooms is the truth. It is only the controlling peoples truth. White America is ashamed to admit what was done. "Nothing like that has happened here" <br />My Grandmother would tell people she was colored, when in fact she was Native American. In her day to be colored, one was concidered half a person. If you where native you were concidered a zero.<br />There is nothing to be proud of the genocide of the native inhabitants of this land. What ever native people did to each other has nothing to do with what white America has done and is still doing to the native indigenious population. The highest incident of sexual violence is on the reservations out west and is committed by white Americans. White justice will not prosecute because that only happened to a savage. This game needs to be boycotted by all Americans.Nanawetea1https://www.blogger.com/profile/04727916439718870989noreply@blogger.com