'The Castle Doctrine and its wilfully ignorant critics'

bitbutter · 2013-07-25 14:14:37

I posted an article in response to the one that tells people not to play TCD, and gets a bunch of stuff wrong:http://georgeoughttohelp.tumblr.com/pos … nt-critics

Blip · 2013-07-25 14:39:52

Great job. After reading Kunzelman's piece, I myself began thinking of responses to his claims; all of these were addressed very well in your article!

bitbutter · 2013-07-25 15:03:34

Thanks. Here's a great piece also just published with a coincidentally similar title to mine, it's very good i think: 'The Castle Doctrine and its Critics' http://imaginaryplaymates.squarespace.c … itics.html

colorfusion · 2013-07-25 15:06:40

Nice response to Kunzel's article.

A lot of the points they seem to pick out are things present in all games and it seems strange to pick TCD in particular to talk about them. In the majority of games you only play as one main character, be it male or female, and you have to search hard to find a popular game without some form of violence.

The article also seems to talk as if absolutely everything that happens in game is what Jason things should happen in real life, and then concludes not to buy the game because of Jason's views?

jere · 2013-07-25 17:13:52

Thanks to the in-game couple’s ability to earn income passively, and due to the fact that a robber can scout your home but leave without attempting to breach its defences, it’s not necessary to kill anyone to play (and progress)

This is a great point that is not being talked about enough. To be fair though, it's worth mentioning that the salary feature wasn't initially part of the game. It was added only to drive the economy. But even before salary, not robbing was a totally valid option. In a sense, you still had to "kill" people to progress, but it was the traps passively killing robbers.

While violence and death are important to the mechanics of the game, there’s nothing at all glamorous or attractive about the way violence and death is portrayed in TCD.

Exactly. This isn't a game about being a hero. It's a game about being a victim. The violence in TCD is the best kind! It's specific violence. Every time you rob someone or kill one of their family members, you're making a conscious decision to hurt another player. Disturbing? Yes! That kind of thing should be!

I cannot believe we're having this fierce of a debate considering that games like Bioshock Infinite (where you're encouraged to brutally slaughter hundreds of people) get a free pass. Oh sure, people might complain about it being less than perfect, but they're not boycotting it. Guess which critics are boycotting TCD and its single developer while simultaneously putting more money into the coffers of ultra successful studios like Irrational which do nothing but pump out murder simulators: here's a hint.

Last edited by jere (2013-07-25 17:17:38)

bey bey · 2013-07-25 18:01:35

Wow, this is incredible. Probably the guy set up a house and found out he couldn't handle the neighbourhood.

It's a very sad thing if people can't understand that TCD is at least as much a piece of collective performance art as it is a normal game.

largestherb · 2013-07-25 18:33:57

this article is a much better response to the critics than some of the replies i've seen on twitter simply telling people to fuck off!

i wonder how many of these critics have actually contacted jason personally, because posting wildly on the internet without talking to someone (or indeed, without even experiencing the game first-hand) is a bit silly.

Ludicrosity · 2013-07-25 19:40:13

Until a few minutes ago I had never heard of Kunzelman, but reading his blog post has been a very depressing experience.

This guy is being unfair, hypocritical, and arbitrary in his criticisms of TCD.

It just sounds like he developed a passionate dislike for Jason on a personal level based on a few isolated comments taken from an interview that was only partially transcribed. Based on those comments he's extrapolated Jason into being some sort of ridiculous caricature. I don't know Jason, but I did read the comments section from the interview, and Jason clearly proves himself to be nothing like what Kunzelman unfairly pegs him as being. Furthermore, none of this has any bearing on the game itself. Kunzelman seems to be saying that he, as some sort of moral arbiter, has decided that Jason is not a good human being and therefore everyone needs to boycott his game. This is akin to book burning, and the fact that Kunzelman identifies as an "academic" is truly disturbing to me.

I will never understand how some people become so motivated by anger and/or frustration that they become utterly blind to their own close mindedness, but it seems to happen all the time throughout humanity. Just the thought of rebutting his post is exhausting since he makes so many poor judgments and unfounded accusations.

I have to give kudos to Jason for having such thick skin to withstand this kind of unfair treatment with such good nature.

Last edited by Ludicrosity (2013-07-25 19:42:49)

jere · 2013-07-25 19:42:42

Sorry, I don't want to hijack this thread, but browsing through Kunzelman's blog, I just can't help myself.

Look at some of the criticisms of TCD while considering that the same criticisms were not lodged at Infinite. [potential spoilers]

Some obvious issues with this setup: women and children are property that are essentially resources in the male-on-male violence that makes up the game; this is yet another example of the “dadification” of games where you play a grizzled man who has to do what he has to do, which is invariably killing other people

Sound familiar? In Infinite, you play a dad, essentially a grizzled white dude who "has to do what he has do". Yup, kill a bunch of people. The main NPC is a young girl, treated as property, and mechanically speaking a resource for the player.

Now, listen to Kunzelman heap praise, with no apparent sarcasm, on Red Dead Redemption (emphasis mine):

I appreciate RDR because it doesn’t dodge the question of why the main character is doing horrible things like killing fifty citizens and then razing their town. It wasn’t because he was suffering from psychosis or because he was being mind controller or because *finger wag* the plaaaaayer expects it to be this way, you naughty player. It is because the most important thing in his life is the people he cares about and he is both capable of and willing to do anything, anything, in order to make sure that those people are safe.

Ridiculous.

Interestingly, he has a policy that he will play any game someone buys him if anyone wants to take him up on it: http://thiscageisworms.com/2013/02/17/n … -about-it/

Ludicrosity · 2013-07-25 19:55:32

I really wish we lived in a world where people would listen to other people's ideas and genuinely consider them on an intellectually honest level.

Instead we live in a world where some people become so consumed with personal disdain for those with ideas with which they disagree that they lash out in irrational ways at those people, blackballing and discriminating freely against them. Often they are not even aware of what they're doing, being blinded by hate and/or arrogance.

dalleck · 2013-07-25 21:13:33

Ludicrosity wrote:

I really wish we lived in a world where people would listen to other people's ideas and genuinely consider them on an intellectually honest level.
Instead we live in a world where some people become so consumed with personal disdain for those with ideas with which they disagree that they lash out in irrational ways at those people, blackballing and discriminating freely against them. Often they are not even aware of what they're doing, being blinded by hate and/or arrogance.

Amen brother. So-called 'intellectuals' are often the largest peddlers of hate. It is in fact not irrationality that is the problem, but the extreme opposite, over-rationalising. With enough rationalising, people can become blindly-ragingly convinced of anything, and woe to those who disagree with their point of view.

With regards to Kunzelman and his ilk, they are prime examples of those nay-sayers who stand outside the circle and tell everyone how to suck eggs.

bitbutter · 2013-07-26 00:49:08

Quoted in full because win. Wow, the guy really has no internal hypocrisy alarm bell.

jere wrote:

Sorry, I don't want to hijack this thread, but browsing through Kunzelman's blog, I just can't help myself.
Look at some of the criticisms of TCD while considering that the same criticisms were not lodged at Infinite. [potential spoilers]
Some obvious issues with this setup: women and children are property that are essentially resources in the male-on-male violence that makes up the game; this is yet another example of the “dadification” of games where you play a grizzled man who has to do what he has to do, which is invariably killing other people
Sound familiar? In Infinite, you play a dad, essentially a grizzled white dude who "has to do what he has do". Yup, kill a bunch of people. The main NPC is a young girl, treated as property, and mechanically speaking a resource for the player.
Now, listen to Kunzelman heap praise, with no apparent sarcasm, on Red Dead Redemption (emphasis mine):
I appreciate RDR because it doesn’t dodge the question of why the main character is doing horrible things like killing fifty citizens and then razing their town. It wasn’t because he was suffering from psychosis or because he was being mind controller or because *finger wag* the plaaaaayer expects it to be this way, you naughty player. It is because the most important thing in his life is the people he cares about and he is both capable of and willing to do anything, anything, in order to make sure that those people are safe.
Ridiculous.
Interestingly, he has a policy that he will play any game someone buys him if anyone wants to take him up on it: http://thiscageisworms.com/2013/02/17/n … -about-it/

bitbutter · 2013-07-26 05:49:03

And one more article here, this time talking about the 2nd half of Kunzelman's hit piece, where he's (imo) making mistakes about Rohrer's ideological assumptions rather than mistakes about how the game plays (NB. long):

http://georgeoughttohelp.tumblr.com/pos … e-doctrine

jasonrohrer · 2013-07-28 23:23:47

Wow, great stuff here. The negative vs positive rights stuff, and importance of property rights, was very illuminating for me. I'm a very casual student of political thought, generally. I wish I had more time to read serious works on these subjects, but sadly, I don't!

So.... bitbutter.... did you make those 3 animations on that site?

I've often made the "taxation is backed by the threat of physical violence" argument... kinda thought I came up with that one myself!

"Schools are important!"
"Are they so important that we should kill someone who doesn't want to support them?"
"We don't do that."
"What happens when you don't pay the school tax?"
"They kick you out of your house and take it away."
"What happens if you won't leave your house?"
"They'll arrest you."
"What happens if you won't let them arrest you?"
"They'll aim a gun at you until you let them arrest you."
"What happens if you aim a gun back at them."
"They shoot you.... hmmm..."

Though most people aren't convinced by it.

bitbutter · 2013-07-29 01:09:26

Hi Jason, thanks. Yes I made the 'George' series of videos with the blue characters. They're collected on one page for convenience here: http://www.georgeoughttohelp.com.

re the 'schools are important!' kind of conversation: absolutely! I've found that it's very difficult to get people to appreciate the violence involved in taxation, because there are a few levels of abstraction involved, and its something you need to direct your attention at for a little longer, in order to see that, than most champions of the state are prepared to do. I made 'You can Always Leave' in part to help communicate this argument so I don't have to keep typing it out.

I've found the phrase 'under the ultimate threat of deadly force' to be useful as a way to characterise the demands made via laws in general. Some of these laws, tax laws for instance, are designed to modify the behaviour of _peaceful_ people (those not violating the property rights of others)--that, for me, is problematic.

If you're ever looking for good resources that talk about these traditions of thought I've personally learned a lot from http://www.mises.org, also http://c4ss.org/ and http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/ often have some excellent writing too.

I hope the unfair responses to your games and statements don't get you down, and keep up the great work.

Last edited by bitbutter (2013-07-29 02:34:19)

bitbutter · 2013-08-04 02:27:29

One more: The Insidious Game Mechanics of Defender
http://georgeoughttohelp.tumblr.com/pos … f-defender

jasonrohrer · 2013-08-12 11:05:48

bitbutter: wow, amazing job making those videos. That, my friend, is a major accomplishment. One of those vids has 136K views!

The Castle Doctrine Forums

#1 2013-07-25 14:14:37

'The Castle Doctrine and its wilfully ignorant critics'

#2 2013-07-25 14:39:52

Re: 'The Castle Doctrine and its wilfully ignorant critics'

#3 2013-07-25 15:03:34

Re: 'The Castle Doctrine and its wilfully ignorant critics'

#4 2013-07-25 15:06:40

Re: 'The Castle Doctrine and its wilfully ignorant critics'

#5 2013-07-25 17:13:52

Re: 'The Castle Doctrine and its wilfully ignorant critics'

#6 2013-07-25 18:01:35

Re: 'The Castle Doctrine and its wilfully ignorant critics'

#7 2013-07-25 18:33:57

Re: 'The Castle Doctrine and its wilfully ignorant critics'

#8 2013-07-25 19:40:13

Re: 'The Castle Doctrine and its wilfully ignorant critics'

#9 2013-07-25 19:42:42

Re: 'The Castle Doctrine and its wilfully ignorant critics'

#10 2013-07-25 19:55:32

Re: 'The Castle Doctrine and its wilfully ignorant critics'

#11 2013-07-25 21:13:33

Re: 'The Castle Doctrine and its wilfully ignorant critics'

#12 2013-07-26 00:49:08

Re: 'The Castle Doctrine and its wilfully ignorant critics'

#13 2013-07-26 05:49:03

Re: 'The Castle Doctrine and its wilfully ignorant critics'

#14 2013-07-28 23:23:47

Re: 'The Castle Doctrine and its wilfully ignorant critics'

#15 2013-07-29 01:09:26

Re: 'The Castle Doctrine and its wilfully ignorant critics'

#16 2013-08-04 02:27:29

Re: 'The Castle Doctrine and its wilfully ignorant critics'

#17 2013-08-12 11:05:48

Re: 'The Castle Doctrine and its wilfully ignorant critics'

Board footer