DC, VGA, TATE'd monitor and Agetec stick (damn i need to mod this thing. my Sanwa has spoiled me badly), and my copy of UD.
i could use some speakers, but some decent headphones are doing the trick for now.
its nice. just sharing.
Under Defeat for DC
i hooked up with a free Trinitron monitor last week and i made myself a little dedicated Under Defeat station in the dining room.
DC, VGA, TATE'd monitor and Agetec stick (damn i need to mod this thing. my Sanwa has spoiled me badly), and my copy of UD.
i could use some speakers, but some decent headphones are doing the trick for now.
its nice. just sharing.
DC, VGA, TATE'd monitor and Agetec stick (damn i need to mod this thing. my Sanwa has spoiled me badly), and my copy of UD.
i could use some speakers, but some decent headphones are doing the trick for now.
its nice. just sharing.
Something like: 2 nations (I think the federation and union) have been at war for 10 years. Both sides are exhausted, and agree for a date of cease fire. On the day of that cease fire the bad guys double cross the other side and attack, and you have to go wage the final battle with your helicoptor.Ganelon wrote:Just wondering: what is the full story to this game anyway? Or did I miss it somewhere in the flurry of posts?
It's a pretty minimal story, even by shmup standards.
In a related note: NCSX just sent me one of those decals that came with preorders. I guess they got a hold of more of them. Wasn't that nice of them?
-
SAM
- Posts: 1788
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 5:27 am
- Location: A tiny nameless island in South China Sea
Actually both these statment is true. 
The side which won the war is always the "Good" side. If you cannot finished, that you are on the "Bad" side.
This is true because:Ceph wrote:The side you are on is always the "good" side. Otherwise you wouldn't be on it.
The side which won the war is always the "Good" side. If you cannot finished, that you are on the "Bad" side.
This statment should be written as "In war there is no good or bad side", as the "good" and "bad" here is the orginal meaning of the word.CIT wrote:Guys, in war there is no "good" or "bad" side. Everybody just has to kill or be killed. That's the point of Under Defeat.
*Meow* I am as serious as a cat could possible be. *Meow*
No, I was really talking about the rationale of personal morals and behavior. Everyone justifies their decissions and actions to themselves all the time. Hence, when fighting in a war one either belives to be on the "right" (=good) side, or will defect/refuse to fight. During any war soldiers on all sides are convinced of doing the right thing. There are no universally valid timeless morals, otherwise there would be no wars.SAM wrote:Actually both these statment is true.
This is true because:Ceph wrote:The side you are on is always the "good" side. Otherwise you wouldn't be on it.
The side which won the war is always the "Good" side. If you cannot finished, that you are on the "Bad" side.
This statment should be written as "In war there is no good or bad side", as the "good" and "bad" here is the orginal meaning of the word.CIT wrote:Guys, in war there is no "good" or "bad" side. Everybody just has to kill or be killed. That's the point of Under Defeat.
I strongly beg to differ, I believe there is such things as "valid timeless morals" as you put it.Ceph wrote:No, I was really talking about the rationale of personal morals and behavior. Everyone justifies their decissions and actions to themselves all the time. Hence, when fighting in a war one either belives to be on the "right" (=good) side, or will defect/refuse to fight. During any war soldiers on all sides are convinced of doing the right thing. There are no universally valid timeless morals, otherwise there would be no wars.SAM wrote:Actually both these statment is true.
This is true because:Ceph wrote:The side you are on is always the "good" side. Otherwise you wouldn't be on it.
The side which won the war is always the "Good" side. If you cannot finished, that you are on the "Bad" side.
This statment should be written as "In war there is no good or bad side", as the "good" and "bad" here is the orginal meaning of the word.CIT wrote:Guys, in war there is no "good" or "bad" side. Everybody just has to kill or be killed. That's the point of Under Defeat.
I believe you can inherently belong to one side, knowing well in your heart that what you are doing is wrong, bad (i.e. not good), and still go along with them for other reasons or benefits.
You can attempt to convince yourself that what you're doing is right, by focusing on the benefits you gain from your actions, or look for reasons to try and justify your cause. Or someone else can convince you (read: brainwash). But that doesn't change the fact it is wrong.
People can go to war because of racist hatred for the other side, and believe their right, but that doesn't change the fact that it's actually wrong.
A huge majority of the Nazi ss soldiers in the death camps (many of whom were normal citizens, with no history of psychotic behaviour), were found to have been brainwashed, many of whom were convinced that genocide againat the jews and war against the allies was the "right thing to do".
There's a reason Hitler among many others allowed millions of the nazi government expenditure to go into propaganda and brainwashing much of the youth of germany. They understood that they had to convince people to go against their morals, and it was easier and more effective to target the kids.
I would agree that in reality it isn't as exggerated as is shown in the movies, and the difference between good and bad isn't as clear as black and white, but they do exist and there are morals, even in times of war.
As said in Glengarry Glenross, there is no abosulte morality 
But really, people are very easy to convince. As seen on TV, you don't have to try hard to brainwash anyone in the name of patriotism. The best you can really do imo is "this side had fewer atrocities than the other side", or, "this side started the war which led to X deaths".
At any rate, HOW THE HELL DOES THIS BELONG ON AN UNDER DEFEAT THREAD?!
But really, people are very easy to convince. As seen on TV, you don't have to try hard to brainwash anyone in the name of patriotism. The best you can really do imo is "this side had fewer atrocities than the other side", or, "this side started the war which led to X deaths".At any rate, HOW THE HELL DOES THIS BELONG ON AN UNDER DEFEAT THREAD?!
Humans, think about what you have done
Believe what you will. The facts don't support you in this case. Example: In ancient Greece it was normal for grown up men to fuck young boys.Nei First wrote:I strongly beg to differ, I believe there is such things as "valid timeless morals" as you put it.
Another example, since you brought it up: In the Third Reich jews were not part of the so-called people's community, therefore it was considered obligatory to prosecute them as enemies of said community and it did not pose any moral problems for those involved to eventually even kill them.
A recent study has shown that close to 92% of those directly involved in the mass executions were completely sane with no psychological defects, which is exactly the number of sane people in any society.
And how was that possible? Because at those times and places, different sets of morals applied.
Agreed, enough alreadylouisg wrote:At any rate, HOW THE HELL DOES THIS BELONG ON AN UNDER DEFEAT THREAD?!
That’s a section of people in Greece, are you implying that “everyone” in Greece thought it was ok or normal for grown men to fuck boys? Also you’re confining it to just Greece, what about the rest of the world, did they all think it was normal, I highly doubt it.Ceph wrote:Believe what you will. The facts don't support you in this case. Example: In ancient Greece it was normal for grown up men to screw young boys..
Those people involved may have thought it was normal, but what about the kids themselves, how did they all feel?
That’s my point, morals are morals. It’s wrong to kill, it’s wrong to steal, it’s wrong for adults to sleep with minors, regardless whether the people doing it think it’s right, and regardless what period of time it happens in.
What about the many people in society who were close friends with jews in germany, before the third reich existed. They saw them as people of the community.Ceph wrote:Another example, since you brought it up: In the Third Reich jews were not part of the so-called people's community, therefore it was considered obligatory to prosecute them as enemies of said community and it did not pose any moral problems for those involved to eventually even kill them.
If you read about WW2, you’ll find that the ss soldiers who were behind most of the killings were convinced (again brainwashed) into believing what they were doing was right, through propaganda, nazi ideals etc. Which reflects the point I made in my last post, that people will use other reasons, or look at the benefits of their actions to try to justify their cause, and ultimately convince themselves that what they’re doing is right.
Hitler understood this and through propaganda/brain washing, forced people who were once close friends to separate, convinced people to go against morals and commit terrible atrocities.
I mentioned this in my previous post, to make the point that normal people can be forced to commit the worst crimes. But again, morals are morals, they don't change or fade away.Ceph wrote:A recent study has shown that close to 92% of those directly involved in the mass executions were completely sane with no psychological defects, which is exactly the number of sane people in any society.
Let me ask you this, do you think it’s morally right for adults to sleep with minors? Do you think it's morally right to kill another?Ceph wrote:And how was that possible? Because at those times and places, different sets of morals applied.
Then ask yourself this, would a different time period or a society's change of thought, affect the value of those morals?
Times change, people change, but morals don’t. In the year 3025 if the world is still around, it might be normal for many people to steal from and rape their mothers, and think it’s right…… but it morally isn’t. It never was, and never will be.
Morals do constantly evolve and change. There really is no disputing this. The behavior I cited was morally acceptable or even desirable at the respective times and places. It would not be morally ok for you and me today because we have different morals.
If you think that only brainwashed nazis can commit genocidal mass murder, you are (unfortunately) quite wrong. Do some research on the members of the Einsatzgruppen (the acculturation of their leaders took place before the Third Reich), or about the genocides in former Yugoslavia or Rwanda.
...
Sorry, but I have a feeling that we lack a common frame of reference which will render further discussion concerning this topic fruitless. No offense! Let's talk about shmups.
If you think that only brainwashed nazis can commit genocidal mass murder, you are (unfortunately) quite wrong. Do some research on the members of the Einsatzgruppen (the acculturation of their leaders took place before the Third Reich), or about the genocides in former Yugoslavia or Rwanda.
...
Sorry, but I have a feeling that we lack a common frame of reference which will render further discussion concerning this topic fruitless. No offense! Let's talk about shmups.
You’re confusing morals with human choice. Morals don’t evolve or change any more than the Bible or Qu’ran changes it’s values (i.e they never change). I actually find it quite disturbing and sad that you would think so. At the time it was never morally acceptable…… You do know that society can choose to do things that don’t agree with morals right?Ceph wrote:Morals do constantly evolve and change. There really is no disputing this. The behavior I cited was morally acceptable or even desirable at the respective times and places. It would not be morally ok for you and me today because we have different morals.
So then…
When has it EVER been morally right to kill another?
When has it EVER been morally right to rape?
When has it EVER been morally right to steal?
This can’t be disputed.
I never said once in my posts that only brainwashed nazis can commit atrocities. Don’t try to discredit my point by making false assumptions; every human has the potential to do the worst of evil. You might need to think more about what you’re saying, again I’ll reiterate, times change, people change, morals don’t. I don’t think you realise, what kind of world we’d be in if it weren’t for morals, it would be quite different.Ceph wrote:If you think that only brainwashed nazis can commit genocidal mass murder, you are (unfortunately) quite wrong. Do some research on the members of the Einsatzgruppen (the acculturation of their leaders took place before the Third Reich), or about the genocides in former Yugoslavia or Rwanda.
...
I have valid points so it wouldn’t be fruitless from my end, no offense. But I do agree with your last point, lets get back to under defeat, and discuss this topic elsewhere if need be.Ceph wrote:Sorry, but I have a feeling that we lack a common frame of reference which will render further discussion concerning this topic fruitless. No offense! Let's talk about shmups.
-
SAM
- Posts: 1788
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 5:27 am
- Location: A tiny nameless island in South China Sea
If you are talking about "valid timeless morals", there is a simply of correct answer of this: Both sides are "Bad".Nei First wrote:I strongly beg to differ, I believe there is such things as "valid timeless morals" as you put it.
Normally people would said the side they are on is "Good" when being asked, dispate they know that their side had did a few bad deeds.
And because the above reason, the side won is the side that left to write history, and thus "the side that won is always Good".
Too much of this meaningless discuession, lets get back to the game.
*Meow* I am as serious as a cat could possible be. *Meow*
my name is ceph and/or nei first i'm going to shit up an under defeat thread with inane philosophical babble and pretend to be smart because i can't actually be intelligent and contribute to an actual meaningful discussion ps i also thought the matrix was high level philosophical shitTwiddle-Dum wrote:Twiddle dumb.
You see, Under Defeat's plot follows a common form called the Monoshooterplot. From the 80s to the present day, shooters are always about you (the "good guys") versus enemies who are almost always perceieved as invaders.
Typically in the Monoshooterplot, the hero starts with limited capabilities but slowly upgrades their craft or person. Sometimes this is vital to the narrative, such as in Gradius. Other times, the player needs only collect "bombs" and "options". Most Monoshooterplots end with the enemy vanquished and the hero returning home for a hero's welcome. Often if the game does not branch, there is also a "bad ending". This shows how the shooter genre is a shining example of the promise of interactive entertainment, second only to Sillywood "full motion video" games such as Who Shot Johnny Rock.
Curiously, Space Invaders does not follow the Monoshooterplot structure-- instead, it has a clever cyclic structure reminiscent of Svankmejer's Faust movie.
Typically in the Monoshooterplot, the hero starts with limited capabilities but slowly upgrades their craft or person. Sometimes this is vital to the narrative, such as in Gradius. Other times, the player needs only collect "bombs" and "options". Most Monoshooterplots end with the enemy vanquished and the hero returning home for a hero's welcome. Often if the game does not branch, there is also a "bad ending". This shows how the shooter genre is a shining example of the promise of interactive entertainment, second only to Sillywood "full motion video" games such as Who Shot Johnny Rock.
Curiously, Space Invaders does not follow the Monoshooterplot structure-- instead, it has a clever cyclic structure reminiscent of Svankmejer's Faust movie.
Humans, think about what you have done
For instance at war, in self defense, to preserve your own people, as revenge.Nei First wrote: When has it EVER been morally right to kill another?
When has it EVER been morally right to rape?
When has it EVER been morally right to steal?
I just didNei First wrote:This can’t be disputed.
Please read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morals
One more thing about the bible: The old testament and the new testament are both teaching a very different set of morals (sometimes conflicting), because they were written at different times and places by different people. And while it contains many contradictions, the Quran's morals are more homogenous simply because it was written during one man's life, so only this person's views are reflected.The evolutionary critique points to the radical ways which morality differs across times and cultures among human beings. Very few activities are always morally wrong across all human societies. For example, some groups still practice forms of infanticide, incest, and paederastry, activities that would be condemned harshly in most Western societies. It has been argued that morality is simply whatever norms are present within a given society at a given time, while the other argument lies in the existence of morality.
@SAM: That's more like it, though personally I don't believe in "good and bad" or "good and evil"; rather in justified and unjustified.
@Twiddle: Si tacuissis...
