What about hiroshima?

rubenandthejets · 03-23-09, 05:05 AM

Stunning, especially for an Australian, the flatest continent on earth. It's got that funny cold white stuff on it too. I think Mt Ranier is nicknamed Fuji, right?

Torplexed · 03-23-09, 07:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rubenandthejets

Stunning, especially for an Australian, the flatest continent on earth. It's got that funny cold white stuff on it too. I think Mt Ranier is nicknamed Fuji, right?

Actually the mountain around here that most resembled Fuji in terms of it's shape and symmetry was Mt. St. Helens. But that certainly changed for the foreseeable future in 1980 when it committed volcano seppuku.

Mt. Rainier is a bit lumpier, but a bit higher than Fuji. (4392 meters)

Midwinter · 03-24-09, 09:52 AM

At the risk of pulling us back onto the topic that everyone had so neatly manoeuvred away from, I have to say I agree with Soundman. I believe in seeking out peaceful solutions to conflict, but I'm no pacifist. I understand that military activity is sometimes the only viable route to take, but it should rarely be the first choice, and if there are other ways we should be exploring those thoroughly before we take up arms.

I know that this could potentially flare up the whole "should we be simulating war for fun" debate. So my take, very briefly:

Silent Hunter, and other war-based simulations, are entertaining, and maybe that's a little weird, when you think about it. Though like most other people, I'd much prefer the idea of wars being fought in simulation than for real. But this war really happened. Still, I say to myself that it's also educational in that, after spending several ingame hours attempting to escape from a flotilla of alerted destroyers, I think I have a better appreciation at least for the mechanics of what submariners had to face during the period. I'm not going to presume that I understand what they went through, that "I can relate" - but I can say that playing the game has made me think. And by and large I think that's a good thing.

And at its most basic level a game of this type is a challenge: this is your situation; these are your constraints; this is what you want to do. Now find a way to do it within those constraints.

So I'm not for one moment arguing against the simulation itself or the detail it presents. But. There is something about the idea of displaying the detonation of those weapons that I would find a little uncomfortable. Is that inconsistent? Is it irrational to think that way about one specific atrocity in a war of many atrocities? Maybe it is. But somehow, I think that certain events are significant not just for the number of people they killed - as if that's not bad enough - but for what they represent. In the case of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, they were symbols that the world had changed - there was a new power in the world. War was no longer something that was (in principle at least if rarely in practice) restricted to the battlefield. While civilian casualties had always been inflicted and rationalised, suddenly we're faced with the most powerful weapon ever devised, and it was specifically designed to incinerate huge areas - and therefore huge numbers of people - in one strike. And if Little Boy and Fat Man weren't terrifying enough in themselves, they were the heralds of a new age of fear and brutality. We can argue over whether the detonations over Japan were justified in light of what the Japanese had done, but in the end their significance spread out far beyond the Pacific war and encompassed all of humanity, present and future.

I can't truly rationalise this. I'm maybe being oversensitive or too... what was it? Too 'bleeding-heart'. But no, I think we're better off for holding that particular event as something that is spoken of, but not seen in the game. It should, I think, bring pause. Whatever other reason I think we can offer as to why we choose to amuse ourselves with recreations of horrific situations, I think it's worth holding that particular event in a special place.

hermanJnr. · 03-24-09, 12:24 PM

Quote:

I can't truly rationalise this. I'm maybe being oversensitive or too... what was it? Too 'bleeding-heart'. But no, I think we're better off for holding that particular event as something that is spoken of, but not seen in the game. It should, I think, bring pause. Whatever other reason I think we can offer as to why we choose to amuse ourselves with recreations of horrific situations, I think it's worth holding that particular event in a special place.

I think, respectfully, you're looking at it in the wrong light.

Without being too pretentious, games aren't just a form of entertainment, they are a form of artistic expression too.

Art is not just viewed for amusement, it is used to convey the whole human emotional spectrum.

If Hiroshima was put in the game, it wouldn't be for entertainment, it would (if done correctly), be a respectful rememberance of what a terrible event it was.

For example, while it does not depict real life events, have you ever played Call of Duty 4? At the end of the game, many of the main characters are killed alongside you, and you are powerless to help.

That's not done for amusement, it's done to convey a more serious message to the player.

There's a difference between mature artistic expression and sinking things for fun, though if done carefully and respectfully, it is possible to get across serious and thought-provoking messages to the player through an entertainment medium.

My two cents, anyway

FIREWALL · 03-24-09, 12:38 PM

What makes any of you think there wasn't a sub their to photo the event if it could, and is still classified Top Secret.

There's still alot of classfied stuff from WWII today.

quietguy52 · 03-24-09, 12:58 PM

War is terrible, killing is wrong, etc, etc.

Playing this sim is not war, "sinking" colored pixels is not killing.

e n t e r t a i n m e n t

If something more is taken away from playing, such as knowledge of history, people or events... great.

If using this medium enhances our personal value of human rights and freedom, tremendous.

Gotta take this in perspective.

Just my 1/2 cent worth...

Sailor Steve · 03-24-09, 02:22 PM

WELCOME ABOARD!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Midwinter

At the risk of pulling us back onto the topic that everyone had so neatly manoeuvred away from...

Nothing neat about it - we wander like that all the time. Doesn't matter how it starts, but that's how it always ends.

Quote:

I believe in seeking out peaceful solutions to conflict, but I'm no pacifist. I understand that military activity is sometimes the only viable route to take, but it should rarely be the first choice, and if there are other ways we should be exploring those thoroughly before we take up arms.

Well said. I agree completely.

Quote:

I know that this could potentially flare up the whole "should we be simulating war for fun" debate.

It's been discussed before, so it's okay to shy away from it this time. Most of us agree with your summary that it's meant to be a learning experience. I don't think you were overly "bleeding-heart", or overly anything.

On the whole a great summary of the way most of us feel. Fantastic first post. I hope to see more.

Rockin Robbins · 03-24-09, 02:58 PM

It's interesting to me that submarine veterans are also split on the issue of whether war gaming is appropriate. However, the ones who don't have a problem with it are reluctant to offend their fellow vets and the ones who object do so loudly. The surest way not to get any information is to sashay into a veterans' bulleting board, mention that you want some information to include in a Silent Hunter 4 scenario.

Those guys were afraid for their lives. They are very aware that the opinion of many wargamers is that the Japanese were toothless grandpapas. They don't like that. And they have a problem with playing at war anyway. It's an oxymoron to them that lost buddies there and can't conceive of going to war for fun, even if it's not real.

Playing Silent Hunter 4 is a symbolic gesture, and like all symbols, it is prone to ridicule, dismissal as demeaning to its object, trivialization, abuse and neglect.

quietguy52 · 03-24-09, 03:33 PM

"It's an oxymoron to them that lost buddies there and can't conceive of going to war for fun, even if it's not real."

I'm from the VN era... a vet.

And for me, as long as no one dies, no blood is let, and it's pixelated, I have no objection whatsoever.

Soundman · 03-26-09, 07:39 PM

There have been some stimulating comments in this thread, it does make for a good debate.. I suppose many of us will have various opinions on simulations. This may be a bit off subject, but I'd like to add that, for me, when I did play Silent Hunter III, I found it to be a very good game. I would (and still do) get very immersed in my sims, but with SHIII, following my usual fist pumps upon sinking American boats, somehow I found myself feeling a little guilty rooting for the other guys. I realize that seems silly. Just shows to go ya, how these "simulated" games can seem so real sometimes, at least briefly! I was so glad when SH4 came about and I could finally root for the good guys.

I doubt I'll ever go back to SH3 for those reasons alone.

03-23-09, 05:05 AM	#1
rubenandthejets 中国水兵 Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 279 Downloads: 20 Uploads: 0	Stunning, especially for an Australian, the flatest continent on earth. It's got that funny cold white stuff on it too. I think Mt Ranier is nicknamed Fuji, right? __________________ HMAS Sydney III "Thorough and Ready"

03-24-09, 12:38 PM	#5
FIREWALL Eternal Patrol Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: CATALINA IS. SO . CAL USA Posts: 10,108 Downloads: 511 Uploads: 0	What makes any of you think there wasn't a sub their to photo the event if it could, and is still classified Top Secret. There's still alot of classfied stuff from WWII today. __________________ RIP FIREWALL I Play GWX. Silent Hunter Who ???

03-24-09, 12:58 PM	#6
quietguy52 Sailor man Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 46 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	War is terrible, killing is wrong, etc, etc. Playing this sim is not war, "sinking" colored pixels is not killing. e n t e r t a i n m e n t If something more is taken away from playing, such as knowledge of history, people or events... great. If using this medium enhances our personal value of human rights and freedom, tremendous. Gotta take this in perspective. Just my 1/2 cent worth... __________________ Lennie... "Get busy living or get busy dying..."

03-24-09, 02:58 PM	#8
Rockin Robbins Navy Seal Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: DeLand, FL Posts: 8,900 Downloads: 135 Uploads: 52	It's interesting to me that submarine veterans are also split on the issue of whether war gaming is appropriate. However, the ones who don't have a problem with it are reluctant to offend their fellow vets and the ones who object do so loudly. The surest way not to get any information is to sashay into a veterans' bulleting board, mention that you want some information to include in a Silent Hunter 4 scenario. Those guys were afraid for their lives. They are very aware that the opinion of many wargamers is that the Japanese were toothless grandpapas. They don't like that. And they have a problem with playing at war anyway. It's an oxymoron to them that lost buddies there and can't conceive of going to war for fun, even if it's not real. Playing Silent Hunter 4 is a symbolic gesture, and like all symbols, it is prone to ridicule, dismissal as demeaning to its object, trivialization, abuse and neglect. __________________ Sub Skipper's Bag of Tricks, Slightly Subnuclear Mk 14 & Cutie, Slightly Subnuclear Deck Gun, EZPlot 2.0, TMOPlot, TMOKeys, SH4CMS

03-24-09, 03:33 PM	#9
quietguy52 Sailor man Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 46 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	"It's an oxymoron to them that lost buddies there and can't conceive of going to war for fun, even if it's not real." I'm from the VN era... a vet. And for me, as long as no one dies, no blood is let, and it's pixelated, I have no objection whatsoever. __________________ Lennie... "Get busy living or get busy dying..."

03-24-09, 09:52 AM	#3
Midwinter Bilge Rat Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 1 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	At the risk of pulling us back onto the topic that everyone had so neatly manoeuvred away from, I have to say I agree with Soundman. I believe in seeking out peaceful solutions to conflict, but I'm no pacifist. I understand that military activity is sometimes the only viable route to take, but it should rarely be the first choice, and if there are other ways we should be exploring those thoroughly before we take up arms. I know that this could potentially flare up the whole "should we be simulating war for fun" debate. So my take, very briefly: Silent Hunter, and other war-based simulations, are entertaining, and maybe that's a little weird, when you think about it. Though like most other people, I'd much prefer the idea of wars being fought in simulation than for real. But this war really happened. Still, I say to myself that it's also educational in that, after spending several ingame hours attempting to escape from a flotilla of alerted destroyers, I think I have a better appreciation at least for the mechanics of what submariners had to face during the period. I'm not going to presume that I understand what they went through, that "I can relate" - but I can say that playing the game has made me think. And by and large I think that's a good thing. And at its most basic level a game of this type is a challenge: this is your situation; these are your constraints; this is what you want to do. Now find a way to do it within those constraints. So I'm not for one moment arguing against the simulation itself or the detail it presents. But. There is something about the idea of displaying the detonation of those weapons that I would find a little uncomfortable. Is that inconsistent? Is it irrational to think that way about one specific atrocity in a war of many atrocities? Maybe it is. But somehow, I think that certain events are significant not just for the number of people they killed - as if that's not bad enough - but for what they represent. In the case of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, they were symbols that the world had changed - there was a new power in the world. War was no longer something that was (in principle at least if rarely in practice) restricted to the battlefield. While civilian casualties had always been inflicted and rationalised, suddenly we're faced with the most powerful weapon ever devised, and it was specifically designed to incinerate huge areas - and therefore huge numbers of people - in one strike. And if Little Boy and Fat Man weren't terrifying enough in themselves, they were the heralds of a new age of fear and brutality. We can argue over whether the detonations over Japan were justified in light of what the Japanese had done, but in the end their significance spread out far beyond the Pacific war and encompassed all of humanity, present and future. I can't truly rationalise this. I'm maybe being oversensitive or too... what was it? Too 'bleeding-heart'. But no, I think we're better off for holding that particular event as something that is spoken of, but not seen in the game. It should, I think, bring pause. Whatever other reason I think we can offer as to why we choose to amuse ourselves with recreations of horrific situations, I think it's worth holding that particular event in a special place.

03-26-09, 07:39 PM	#10
Soundman Commodore Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Orlando, Fl Posts: 617 Downloads: 60 Uploads: 0	There have been some stimulating comments in this thread, it does make for a good debate.. I suppose many of us will have various opinions on simulations. This may be a bit off subject, but I'd like to add that, for me, when I did play Silent Hunter III, I found it to be a very good game. I would (and still do) get very immersed in my sims, but with SHIII, following my usual fist pumps upon sinking American boats, somehow I found myself feeling a little guilty rooting for the other guys. I realize that seems silly. Just shows to go ya, how these "simulated" games can seem so real sometimes, at least briefly! I was so glad when SH4 came about and I could finally root for the good guys. I doubt I'll ever go back to SH3 for those reasons alone.