Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: The End of Cyberpunk?
Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Shadowrun
Pages: 1, 2
streetangelj
I've brought this subject up in a couple of my posts, but gotten no real feedback. Therefore, I'm giving it it's own thread. Cyberpunk is dying (if not already expired) and something new is taking it's place. I'm not really sure what that is, but I don't want to see my favorite game die with it because it doesn't adapt. As far as I can tell, it is adapting; which is making the setting a little difficult for me to fully grasp (and therefore run a great game- as my past ones have been). The guys at Catalyst are doing a great job getting material out and Unwired is helping me to understand the wireless matrix and AR a lot better. I noticed from the age poll that I'm on the top endof the age range of most of the players (at 35), which may be part of my problem. I'll quote what I said in that thread:

"Another problem with attracting younger players is that cyberpunk is rooted in "Big Brother/NWO" (not the cheesy reality show/wrestling group), "Hackers" and "Terminator" style anti-technological fears/wonderment. Most of us grew up without the everpresent tech that exists even now. My daughter is 7 and frequently uses the computer at home (I never saw one until I was 10, and didn't have a PC - a Commodore Vic-20 at that- until I was 13; now that kind of computing power is smoked by a calculator or cellphone) and plays video games on the PS2 (I saw games only remotely comparable at the expensive arcades). She also knows how to use a cellphone better than I do, because her mom and grandma have always had them. The new edition of SR is moving away from cyberpunk because their isn't any real substance left for cyberpunk to draw from. In the US, we have privatized public services (my city just tried to lease out its sewers), security companies with their own SWAT teams (my brother worked for on in Toledo, OH 15 years ago), private armies (Blackwater, anyone?), wireless digital communication and computing practically everywhere, Megacorps (Chrysler, Disney, the german holding company that owns RJR-Nabisco and other large companies like it which I can't remember the name of, and that's just what I know about off the top of my head), a government that is rapidly decreasing our liberties "to insure our safety", and medical science making leaps and bounds in Biotech/Cybernetics/Robotics. All those fears/wonders are facts of everday life and hold no special "mystique" to draw a new player in.

I think in order to draw in the younger players, you need to stress the one thing about SR most of us have been brushing under the rug for years- the fact that a shadowrunner is a professional criminal/mercenary. Look at the popularity of "The Sopranos", the Mobsters Myspace App, and multiplayer FPS shooters. Give the players a chance to "stick it to the man", like most teens want to do instinctively. You also need to highlight the magic aspects of the setting, which is what seperated it from all the other (effectively dead) cyberpunk games."


Also the more gear-oriented nature of the new edition is a style change I'm having trouble with. Why drill holes in your head and yank out your eyes when sunglasses and a trode net can accomplish the same thing (I don't want to start another debate over this one, I'm just pointing it out becausee it couldn't be done in previous editions- and don't get me started on emotitoys)? It's changing the feel of the game for me and "I'm not positive I like that change.

I've been running and occasionally playing SR since it came out and own every sourcebook up through 3rd ed and about 1/2 of 4th (money crunch) as well as a handfull of adventures and frequently draw on them and past creations for inspiration while working out new stories for my players. For that reason I'm finding it difficult to figure out how to run a game "by the book", 400 BP just isn't enough to run the style of game I'm good at (too "street" for me), although the karmagen option does seem to build more suitable characters.

Advice? Opinions? Help...

J
Fuchs
I don't have the same views, and I played SR from the first edition, and am your age. For me, Cyberpunk is just a word. Even in the 1990s, I never saw Shadowrun as centered on Robin Hoods fighting the good fight against evil corps, but career criminals out for themselves. Regarding the technology: I see Shadowrun's daily life in the wireless world as very close to a current MMOG - people have profiles you can read, all sorts of customised "Mods" change how you perceive the world, and you use additional info (maps, private messages, chat channels, inventory, etc.) on a HUD-display while you move and talk on the phone (vent).
Vegetaman
I'm only 21, and I got into Shadowrun in about 2001... And despite the fact that I use computers all the time, in fact it is my major in college (Computer Science), I still have a love for Shadowrun. I've only ever played 3rd edition, but whereas all of my friends got hooked in D&D 3 and 3.5, I got bitten by the Shadowrun bug. With it's storyline and singular universe, it has something that other role playing games do not have.

But yes, the stress needs to be on the fact that Shadowrunners are just guns for hire. Too many players anymore seem to inject morals into their Shadowrunners that... Well, I feel are unrealistic. I think they do it without knowing it, really.
Spike
I see to major problems with the OP.

First is an overly restrictive definition of what Cyberpunk means

Second is the misaprehension that Shadowrun has ever been a truly Cyberpunk themed Game/setting, rather than a game with some Cyberpunk elements thrown in for flavor.
Ravor
I morn the loss of Pink Mohawks deeply.
hobgoblin
cyberpunk is many things to many people...

still, cyberpunk was i bit like star trek hit with a paint stripper, viewed from the klingon side...
Zombayz
Cyberpunk is still punk as fuck. You just have to play with actual punks, or people that share the beliefs.
maded
QUOTE (streetangelj @ Nov 13 2008, 11:53 AM) *
I think in order to draw in the younger players, you need to stress the one thing about SR most of us have been brushing under the rug for years- the fact that a shadowrunner is a professional criminal/mercenary. Look at the popularity of "The Sopranos", the Mobsters Myspace App, and multiplayer FPS shooters. Give the players a chance to "stick it to the man", like most teens want to do instinctively. You also need to highlight the magic aspects of the setting, which is what seperated it from all the other (effectively dead) cyberpunk games.


I'm 37 (I'm not old!), so I feel you on the age thing and being on the upper tier of the poll, which I likely missed since I rarely do more than lurk here.

I don't know if I agree with you that a 'runner is always a professional criminal/mercenary. While that seems to be the popular opinion, in my own worldview, I see tham as anything but polished professionals. They are disposable, deniable street scum, desperate and willing to do anything for a buck to survive, hired by the corps to do the dirtiest jobs that they wouldn't put their own employees up to. I think the only people who might view them as "professionals" are the 'runners themselves wink.gif

But then again, I prefer a more street game, myself. There's more brotherhood in a gang or criminal organization than in a bunch of money-hungry pros who don't trust anyone any farther than they can throw them. And the street is the ultimate expression of "sticking it to the man"; the little guy getting one up on the big fish. Survivng to tell about it is another thing wink.gif

Magic definitely needs to be highlighted, I agree, but when the Awakened populace is so small it's hard to really press home the point if you play it by the book and make them as rare as they are supposed to be. I tend to use a lot of bigscreen action 'vids in the background with the heroes as wizzes when I run things to play up magic, with very few practiced magicians unless it's a big run against a major corp target.

QUOTE (streetangelj @ Nov 13 2008, 11:53 AM) *
Also the more gear-oriented nature of the new edition is a style change I'm having trouble with. Why drill holes in your head and yank out your eyes when sunglasses and a trode net can accomplish the same thing (I don't want to start another debate over this one, I'm just pointing it out becausee it couldn't be done in previous editions- and don't get me started on emotitoys)? It's changing the feel of the game for me and I'm not positive I like that change.


I believe the gear you are describing is there to accomodate 'runners who may need to be more Essence-friendly, for the most part. Mages shouldn't be stuck in the dark ages with tech just because they need their Essence for magic, relying soley on casting spells all the time for any effect that might replicate tech. But you can't misplace, drop, or step on cybereyes (unless they're already out of your head!), so they are much more practical for those with no Essence worries in the long run. Plus, it's really easy to mix-n-match functionality with a pair of contacts or shades without having to update your cybereyes constantly.

And besides, every cyberpunk worth their salt has to have mirrorshades...

QUOTE (streetangelj @ Nov 13 2008, 11:53 AM) *
I've been running and occasionally playing SR since it came out and own every sourcebook up through 3rd ed and about 1/2 of 4th (money crunch) as well as a handfull of adventures and frequently draw on them and past creations for inspiration while working out new stories for my players. For that reason I'm finding it difficult to figure out how to run a game "by the book", 400 BP just isn't enough to run the style of game I'm good at (too "street" for me), although the karmagen option does seem to build more suitable characters.


Me too, 1e and up, although most of my old stuff is packed away or gone now.

Karmagen, not so much for me, but if you enjoy it, cool. BP can be boosted to up the ante on chargen quite easily, and I'm fine with that myself. I'm not much on the whole polished pro thing, enjoying the street level more, and I think that this version of SR caters more to that level for the most part. Most of your major cyberpunk heroes of literature aren't polished pros/mercenaries... Case was a small-time fixer, junkie and dealer after getting busted down from his high horse, and even Molly Millions was street to the core, despite her cyber and general badassery.
DocTaotsu
Magic is rare but I think people blow how rare it is out of proportion. Magical active represent about 1 percent of the population. Doctors represent less than 1 percent. We all know at least one doctor (I'd hope) so it's not unreasonable to believe that everyone has some direct contact with the Awakened on a regular basis.
hobgoblin
and not all magically active have to be magic 6. maybe there is the street healer that had heal as a knack?

or the near burnout shaman talking to rats in the alley.

magic, unlike doctors, can pop up in the strangest of places.
DocTaotsu
True true.

Oh and the bit about Molly and Case is spot on. Molly was clearly described as a sami who didn't have the best chrome in the world... she had just enough to make it work and the fuck anyone attitude to push it home.
noonesshowmonkey
QUOTE (Spike @ Nov 13 2008, 01:10 PM) *
I see to major problems with the OP.

First is an overly restrictive definition of what Cyberpunk means

Second is the misaprehension that Shadowrun has ever been a truly Cyberpunk themed Game/setting, rather than a game with some Cyberpunk elements thrown in for flavor.


What is with people thinking that relativism of this sort is valid criticism? Definitions define things. They typify and create boundaries and categories. Thats what they are. A non-restrictive definition is an oxy-moron - a contradiction in terms. What that is... is vague.

The portion regarding SR as a game that has cyberpunk elements is, however, better recieved. To say that SR is not cyberpunk is close minded in its own right. So, really, the whole 'critique' of the OP was basically a stuffed shirt.
Kalvan
Personally, Shadowrun Always struck me as more Cyberthrash or Cyber-Speed Metal with a little mindbending psychodellia and noir mixed in.

I would say a more Cyberpunk Shadowrun wouldn't feature meetings with Mr. Jonhson, even at a runner bar at the Barrens (Except to graffiti tag his briefcase/pda and those sellouts actually meeting with him). It would feature meetings with the likes of Uncle Che and Bombshell Betty, and the use of gangs as more than just mobile scenery and random combat encounters.

But that's just me, YMMV
MaxMahem
QUOTE (streetangelj @ Nov 13 2008, 11:53 AM) *
I've brought this subject up in a couple of my posts, but gotten no real feedback. Therefore, I'm giving it it's own thread. Cyberpunk is dying (if not already expired) and something new is taking it's place. I'm not really sure what that is, but I don't want to see my favorite game die with it because it doesn't adapt. As far as I can tell, it is adapting; which is making the setting a little difficult for me to fully grasp (and therefore run a great game- as my past ones have been). The guys at Catalyst are doing a great job getting material out and Unwired is helping me to understand the wireless matrix and AR a lot better. I noticed from the age poll that I'm on the top endof the age range of most of the players (at 35), which may be part of my problem. I'll quote what I said in that thread:

"Another problem with attracting younger players is that cyberpunk is rooted in "Big Brother/NWO" (not the cheesy reality show/wrestling group), "Hackers" and "Terminator" style anti-technological fears/wonderment. Most of us grew up without the everpresent tech that exists even now. My daughter is 7 and frequently uses the computer at home (I never saw one until I was 10, and didn't have a PC - a Commodore Vic-20 at that- until I was 13; now that kind of computing power is smoked by a calculator or cellphone) and plays video games on the PS2 (I saw games only remotely comparable at the expensive arcades). She also knows how to use a cellphone better than I do, because her mom and grandma have always had them. The new edition of SR is moving away from cyberpunk because their isn't any real substance left for cyberpunk to draw from. In the US, we have privatized public services (my city just tried to lease out its sewers), security companies with their own SWAT teams (my brother worked for on in Toledo, OH 15 years ago), private armies (Blackwater, anyone?), wireless digital communication and computing practically everywhere, Megacorps (Chrysler, Disney, the german holding company that owns RJR-Nabisco and other large companies like it which I can't remember the name of, and that's just what I know about off the top of my head), a government that is rapidly decreasing our liberties "to insure our safety", and medical science making leaps and bounds in Biotech/Cybernetics/Robotics. All those fears/wonders are facts of everday life and hold no special "mystique" to draw a new player in.

I think in order to draw in the younger players, you need to stress the one thing about SR most of us have been brushing under the rug for years- the fact that a shadowrunner is a professional criminal/mercenary. Look at the popularity of "The Sopranos", the Mobsters Myspace App, and multiplayer FPS shooters. Give the players a chance to "stick it to the man", like most teens want to do instinctively. You also need to highlight the magic aspects of the setting, which is what seperated it from all the other (effectively dead) cyberpunk games."

Part of the problem is because what you said is fundamental true. Cyberpunk IS dying. Cyberpunk is a child of the 80's. And the distopian view of the future that was held then is a lot different than the view that is held now. Back in the early 80's, still on the cusps on the computer revolution and the information age it was hard to see just how dramatically and fundamentally these revolutions are going to shake our world. I think we are still in the process of figuring that out now. Other potential revolutions such as those that may be coming in biology (with genetic enginnering) and nanotechnology (even though I think most of the crap talked about is pretty dam unlikely) were entirely unforeseen. And some revolutions (most prominetly cyberwear) seem less and less likely to happen today.

The other big problem is that one of the unforeseen consequences of the information revolution was a serious blow to the threat of the big brother and corporate control ideologies. In the 80s the coming information revolution seemed to make the threat of goverement control more realistic and frightening. After all only big corporations or big governments could control the 'Big Iron Mainframes' that would make such control possible. But in reality it hasn't worked out that way (at least not yet). The explosion in data that the information revolution and pervasive computing has introduced has made such 'Big Iron' style control much more difficult, and whats more means to control information has been democratized and spread out on the net to an extent that was certainly unforeseen. As was the computing power and access to information that a private citizen might controls today. Today the net is such a fractious place, and information is in such quantities and is so hard to control, that the idea of a big-brother style state or corp control us through it seems less likely as well.

I shouldn't be to hard on the 80's view of cyberpunk. It feel in to the most common trap of all futurists. Assuming that tomorrow will still be fundamentally like today (I mean they even assumed that 80's fashion would last forever... I mean really...). It is hard to imagine how different the future may end up being then the world today. The momentum of the present is strong in our minds. Heck. I may be falling into that same trap when I criticize it myself! Predicting the future is a tricky business after all. And I should also point out that cyberpunk still may end up getting a lot of things right after all.

Anyways. Cyberpunk IS dying. At least the 80's view of it is. We may morn its passing, but it should come as no surprise given that the future it predicted seems less and less likely from our current point of view. But just because 80's cyberpunk is dying, it doesn't mean cyberpunk is dying doesn't mean the genre as a whole has to go away. Some of the themes of cyberpunk, being an outcast from society, being a helpless cog in the machine, fighting against the man, giving up your humanity just to survive, are universal. The trick is to re-imagine how cyberpunk can stay relevant given our current view of the future. I think SR4 does a pretty god job of this, though it does unavoidably move away from cyberpunks roots in the process.

QUOTE
Also the more gear-oriented nature of the new edition is a style change I'm having trouble with. Why drill holes in your head and yank out your eyes when sunglasses and a trode net can accomplish the same thing (I don't want to start another debate over this one, I'm just pointing it out becausee it couldn't be done in previous editions- and don't get me started on emotitoys)? It's changing the feel of the game for me and "I'm not positive I like that change.

I agree with you on this. A fundamental theme of cyberpunk is having to pay a cost (in terms of flesh and/or humanity) to get ahead in the world. Some of the no-loss gear options 4ed introduced do tend to take away from this I think. My solution is to ban/scale back the tech on these things. Don't let trodes or glasses give the same amount of bonus as there cybernetic equivalents. Make the effects of emotoys severally limited.

QUOTE
I've been running and occasionally playing SR since it came out and own every sourcebook up through 3rd ed and about 1/2 of 4th (money crunch) as well as a handfull of adventures and frequently draw on them and past creations for inspiration while working out new stories for my players. For that reason I'm finding it difficult to figure out how to run a game "by the book", 400 BP just isn't enough to run the style of game I'm good at (too "street" for me), although the karmagen option does seem to build more suitable characters.

I guess the first step is to fundamentally decide what kind of cyberpunk game you want to run. You can easily play up the cyberpunk themes at pretty mcuh any level. From street-level gutter punks, to world-traveling super agents. Think up a couple example types of runs you would like the players to go on. Then figure out where you would like the players to go from there.

Personally I like the 400BP level as it starts the players a bit out of the streets, but gives them some room to grow as the game progresses.
Kalvan
QUOTE (MaxMahem @ Nov 13 2008, 08:50 PM) *
Part of the problem is because what you said is fundamental true. Cyberpunk IS dying. Cyberpunk is a child of the 80's. And the distopian view of the future that was held then is a lot different than the view that is held now. Back in the early 80's, still on the cusps on the computer revolution and the information age it was hard to see just how dramatically and fundamentally these revolutions are going to shake our world. I think we are still in the process of figuring that out now. Other potential revolutions such as those that may be coming in biology (with genetic enginnering) and nanotechnology (even though I think most of the crap talked about is pretty dam unlikely) were entirely unforeseen. And some revolutions (most prominetly cyberwear) seem less and less likely to happen today.


Actually, from what I've been reading in science journals, and even the likes of Discover and Popular Science this stuff appears to be right on schedule. If anything, it seems almost ten years ahead of schedule. The details are a little different, but the big picture is the same.

QUOTE
The other big problem is that one of the unforeseen consequences of the information revolution was a serious blow to the threat of the big brother and corporate control ideologies. In the 80s the coming information revolution seemed to make the threat of goverement control more realistic and frightening. After all only big corporations or big governments could control the 'Big Iron Mainframes' that would make such control possible. But in reality it hasn't worked out that way (at least not yet). The explosion in data that the information revolution and pervasive computing has introduced has made such 'Big Iron' style control much more difficult, and whats more means to control information has been democratized and spread out on the net to an extent that was certainly unforeseen. As was the computing power and access to information that a private citizen might controls today. Today the net is such a fractious place, and information is in such quantities and is so hard to control, that the idea of a big-brother style state or corp control us through it seems less likely as well.


Then how do you explain what happened to Napster? How do you explain the USA PATRIOT act or DMCA? How do you explain the court case of Bush vs. Gore? They even got the 3rd Japanese invastion right. Look at Viz and Shoshinkan vs. Marvel, DC, and Image, or how Toyota has eclipsed GM. Okay, so United forgot to put armed to the teeth air security on it's planes on September 11 so no Shiawase analogue decision, but I am willing to bet Halliburton is going to sponsor a coup against Obama with full Pentagon approval in the first 100 days, assuming the Shrub doesn't declare martial law and shoot his enemies in cold blood on the congressional floors....

snip.

QUOTE
Anyways. Cyberpunk IS dying. At least the 80's view of it is. We may morn its passing, but it should come as no surprise given that the future it predicted seems less and less likely from our current point of view. But just because 80's cyberpunk is dying, it doesn't mean cyberpunk is dying doesn't mean the genre as a whole has to go away. Some of the themes of cyberpunk, being an outcast from society, being a helpless cog in the machine, fighting against the man, giving up your humanity just to survive, are universal. The trick is to re-imagine how cyberpunk can stay relevant given our current view of the future. I think SR4 does a pretty god job of this, though it does unavoidably move away from cyberpunks roots in the process.


Aside from a lack of big hair, air-conditioned jeans, and leg warmers, and the rise of the collectible card game everything I see in pop culture nowadays seems like the early to mid Nineties were slight blip, and the Eighties returned with a vengence, adjusted for inflation, of course (even [and especially] the Japanese Imports). Yes, Hair Metal may still be dead the last time I checked, but the Pop Punk of Good Charlotte and Fall Out Boy is just as banal, and there was even some of it way back in my childhood days. (Have you really forgotten about Cheap Trick, the Knack, and The Romantics?)

How do you explain Enron, Haliburton, the "Contract With America," Fox News, Saipan, Operation Iraqi Freedom, and Guantanamo Bay?

What you refuse to admit, MaxMeyhem, is that the Cyberpunk Future has come to pass and is contunuing to come to pass. You are either simply shrugging your shoulders and/or averting your eyes. If it's mainstream popularity has waned, it is because most people want escapism or at least versimilitude, not reality.
Glyph
Shadowrun has always had cyberpunk elements, but it has never been a wholly cyberpunk game. Cyberpunk is what they stuck in with D&D, Tolkien, John Woo, and James Bond before they set the blender to frappe. It has enough specific elements not to be a generic mush like GURPS, but it is not completely tied to a dying genre, either. Currently, transhumanism and urban fantasy are both going strong, and Shadowrun has many elements from both of those.

Shadowrun can be punk antiheroes sticking it to the man in an 80's action movie with pink mohawks, or it can be gutter punks struggling to survive in a world where they are nothing but disposable assets, or it can be cold, hard pros who commit corporate espionage and sabotage for money.

Or it can be a punk antihero, a gutter punk, and a cold hard pro all trying not to kill each other (or trying to kill each other), while the GM sits back and enjoys the trainwreck. nyahnyah.gif
Kalvan
QUOTE (Glyph @ Nov 13 2008, 10:30 PM) *
Or it can be a punk antihero, a gutter punk, and a cold hard pro all trying not to kill each other (or trying to kill each other), while the GM sits back and enjoys the trainwreck. nyahnyah.gif


Should I ever get around to making one, would you mind if I used that in my sig?
Wounded Ronin
QUOTE (streetangelj @ Nov 13 2008, 10:53 AM) *
"Another problem with attracting younger players is that cyberpunk is rooted in "Big Brother/NWO" (not the cheesy reality show/wrestling group), "Hackers" and "Terminator" style anti-technological fears/wonderment. Most of us grew up without the everpresent tech that exists even now. My daughter is 7 and frequently uses the computer at home (I never saw one until I was 10, and didn't have a PC - a Commodore Vic-20 at that- until I was 13; now that kind of computing power is smoked by a calculator or cellphone) and plays video games on the PS2 (I saw games only remotely comparable at the expensive arcades). She also knows how to use a cellphone better than I do, because her mom and grandma have always had them. The new edition of SR is moving away from cyberpunk because their isn't any real substance left for cyberpunk to draw from. In the US, we have privatized public services (my city just tried to lease out its sewers), security companies with their own SWAT teams (my brother worked for on in Toledo, OH 15 years ago), private armies (Blackwater, anyone?), wireless digital communication and computing practically everywhere, Megacorps (Chrysler, Disney, the german holding company that owns RJR-Nabisco and other large companies like it which I can't remember the name of, and that's just what I know about off the top of my head), a government that is rapidly decreasing our liberties "to insure our safety", and medical science making leaps and bounds in Biotech/Cybernetics/Robotics. All those fears/wonders are facts of everday life and hold no special "mystique" to draw a new player in.


Even so it doesn't mean you can't play a cyberpunk game with nymphomaniac sammies wielding flechette pistols and Harrison Ford eating ramen noodles at a stand designed by Ridley Scott.

Would you say that since the dark ages are long gone someone couldn't fire up a historically accurate campaign of D&D with lots of research into titles, social order, the politics of Charlemagne, and so on?

Look at Fallout 3. The majority of the players have never seen the 50s firsthand. But they can still appreciate references to the 50s and imagery inspired by the 50s.
MaxMahem
QUOTE (Kalvan @ Nov 13 2008, 11:03 PM) *
Actually, from what I've been reading in science journals, and even the likes of Discover and Popular Science this stuff appears to be right on schedule. If anything, it seems almost ten years ahead of schedule. The details are a little different, but the big picture is the same.

I'm not sure exactly what your referring to in this point. But from my read of things cybertechnology is looking more and more likely to be mostly bypassed by its organic equivalents. As for nano-technology, SR4 has a fairly rational approach to it, but most of the 'grey-goo' stuff that people dream about remains utter lunacy IMO (and I have a BS in chemistry, so I know a bit about that which I speak).

But of course my point was that 80s cyberpunk missed its mark in predicting the future to some degree. It didn't forse exactly how much the information revolution would revolutionize the world. Or the extent of change that the revolution that smaller, faster, cheaper computers would bring. Or biowear, or nanotechnology. This is no blow against it, mind you, I doubt I would have seen these revolutions coming either mind you.

QUOTE
Then how do you explain what happened to Napster? How do you explain the USA PATRIOT act or DMCA? How do you explain the court case of Bush vs. Gore? They even got the 3rd Japanese invastion right. Look at Viz and Shoshinkan vs. Marvel, DC, and Image, or how Toyota has eclipsed GM. Okay, so United forgot to put armed to the teeth air security on it's planes on September 11 so no Shiawase analogue decision, but I am willing to bet Halliburton is going to sponsor a coup against Obama with full Pentagon approval in the first 100 days, assuming the Shrub doesn't declare martial law and shoot his enemies in cold blood on the congressional floors....

If anything I think Napster, DMCA, and PATRIOT just serve to prove my point. 80's cyberpunk envisioned a world where these acts happened, and succeed. The information revolution was crushed, information was controlled, and people were counted and registered, or slipped out of the machine entirely. We live in a world where these acts happened, and mostly failed. Despite government and corporate attempts to stop the information revolution, it proceeds at a breakneck pace. Despite the demise of Napster and the DMCA pirated information continues to be traded freely. Even more importantly a vast wealth of information exists out there created by the masses which the powers that be do not control. Worse yet, the most successful corporate strategy to deal with the information revolution appears not to be attempts to control information, but in fact to contribute and facilitate its distribution among the masses. This is very much a break from the 80s idea of cyberpunk. Yes, there is now more information out there than ever for the 'man' to collect about us. But this very wealth of information has made the vetting and use of this information even more difficult.

Also: Bush declaring martial law? Haliburton sponsoring a coup against Obama!?! Well if you are serious about making a bet, I will certainly take you up on it! What are your stakes!

QUOTE
Aside from a lack of big hair, air-conditioned jeans, and leg warmers, and the rise of the collectible card game everything I see in pop culture nowadays seems like the early to mid Nineties were slight blip, and the Eighties returned with a vengeance, adjusted for inflation, of course (even [and especially] the Japanese Imports). Yes, Hair Metal may still be dead the last time I checked, but the Pop Punk of Good Charlotte and Fall Out Boy is just as banal, and there was even some of it way back in my childhood days. (Have you really forgotten about Cheap Trick, the Knack, and The Romantics?)

As I said, 80's Cyberpunk certainly DID get a lot of things right. The rise in the prominence of the Japanese and Asian industry and culture was certainly one of them. I would not dispute that! To an extant the rise of corporate power is another theme that rings true today as well. Pop-music being mostly crap is pretty much a constant in reality, no matter the time period.

QUOTE
How do you explain Enron, Haliburton, the "Contract With America," Fox News, Saipan, Operation Iraqi Freedom, and Guantanamo Bay?

Enron, Haliburton, Fox News: Giant possibly morally corrupt corporations with large amounts of power. As I said above, the rise in corporate power is certianly a theme that cyberpunk got right. As do some of our recent banking woes.
Contract With America: I haven't noticed much out of the political careers of Newt Gingrich or Tom DeLay lately have you? Not real sure how this applies to 80's cyberpunk though.
Iraqi and Guantanamo: Possibly government abuses of power, but cyberpunk has generally been about corporate abuses of power.

QUOTE
What you refuse to admit, MaxMeyhem, is that the Cyberpunk Future has come to pass and is contunuing to come to pass. You are either simply shrugging your shoulders and/or averting your eyes. If it's mainstream popularity has waned, it is because most people want escapism or at least versimilitude, not reality.

You may be confusing my argument as being one against a distopian future. I personally am an optimist and don't believe our worst fears will come to past, but my argument is not about that. A distopian game is compelling, and one I enjoy playing. My point is that the KIND of distopian future we imagine now has changed. Which is why 80's style cyberpunk is no longer as compelling. Instead of the powers that be controlling the world through the flow of information, a different situation might occur. In our future we might be swamped in information, and our power to distinguish what is right and wrong is diminished, allowing the powers that be to cleverly pull our strings from behind the scene. Instead of attempting to manage and control our information, in a new cyberpunk future, the powers attempt to swamp us with their information (in terms of news, adds, ect...) to control us. And so on.

Lastly it's MaxMahem. The misspelling is intentional. Others in my post are probably not nyahnyah.gif
Glyph
QUOTE (Kalvan @ Nov 13 2008, 09:37 PM) *
Should I ever get around to making one, would you mind if I used that in my sig?

Go right ahead. smile.gif


As far as cyberpunk predicting the future, I would say that it is like most science fiction, in that it usually reveals more about the time it was written in than it reveals about the future. Accurate speculative fiction (such as H.G. Wells writing about the moon landing) is rare. Instead, you get things like the original Star Trek, with Kirk complaining about "women ensigns" and meeting Klingons that start out looking like greasers, then like Russians. Or cyberpunk itself, with Japan as this fearsome economic monolith, when these days, we miss all of the money they used to dump into our economy.
Wounded Ronin
If I had unlimited money I'd open an 80s-cyberpunk-Japan themed casino in Las Vegas called Nakatomi Tower.
DocTaotsu
Actually Japan still is a fearsome economic monolith... it's just not the huge cultural influence we thought it was going to be. Evidently early cyberpunk authors didn't take into account how awesome Japanese tend to think American culture is. Gibson corrected himself some what but cyberpunk has an air of proto-anime fanboy written all over it.

which is fine honestly, I'm of the "Hey the setting could stand some updating" mindset but keeping a strong Japan is always one of those fun elements for me. There are still some pockets of strong ultranationalist thinking in Japan (See: The sacking of the head of the Japanese air force, and that one guy who owns all those drug stores) and like all bad ideas I'm sure all it would take is some bad financial problems and the gentle prodding of the right forces (corps trying to make a quick war buck) for that boil over into some real political momentum.

Is Japan going to invade the PI again? Probably not in this timeline but I can imagine it happening in a world where shit hit the fan come 2012.


hobgoblin
QUOTE (MaxMahem @ Nov 14 2008, 02:50 AM) *
The other big problem is that one of the unforeseen consequences of the information revolution was a serious blow to the threat of the big brother and corporate control ideologies. In the 80s the coming information revolution seemed to make the threat of goverement control more realistic and frightening. After all only big corporations or big governments could control the 'Big Iron Mainframes' that would make such control possible. But in reality it hasn't worked out that way (at least not yet). The explosion in data that the information revolution and pervasive computing has introduced has made such 'Big Iron' style control much more difficult, and whats more means to control information has been democratized and spread out on the net to an extent that was certainly unforeseen. As was the computing power and access to information that a private citizen might controls today. Today the net is such a fractious place, and information is in such quantities and is so hard to control, that the idea of a big-brother style state or corp control us through it seems less likely as well.


And yet today more and more people sign their data over to the "cloud". Storing their contacts, schedules, photos, videos and other stuff on places like gmail, flikr, youtube and others.

The "big iron" of old may be dead, but these netbooks and so on show that "smart" terminals are coming back. Only that now they hook up to different clusters doing different things in different parts of the world.

All in all, tech have gone full circle. And the average man finds himself generating more data then he can handle on his own without making it a full time job, and using impressive amounts of cash.

Funny enough, the people may willingly hand over the data that "big brother" wants, in the same of social networking. And those that dont will find themselves outcasts, branded as paranoid or suspicious, "what do you hide? your phone is not twittering your GPS location to facebook!".

The global village have adopted this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jante_Law

Dont fear big bro, fear your companions...
psychophipps
One thing to keep in mind about the "fighting the man" aspect of cyberpunk is that, with the one notable exception of Hardwired, it's not some crusade against oppression and tyranny like the Communist revolts of the late 20th century...that all led to oppression and tyranny...every single time.

A lot less philosophy of "Right vs. Wrong" and a lot more "Fuck me? No, fuck you!"
kzt
QUOTE (MaxMahem @ Nov 13 2008, 08:52 PM) *
If anything I think Napster, DMCA, and PATRIOT just serve to prove my point. 80's cyberpunk envisioned a world where these acts happened, and succeed. The information revolution was crushed, information was controlled, and people were counted and registered, or slipped out of the machine entirely. We live in a world where these acts happened, and mostly failed. Despite government and corporate attempts to stop the information revolution, it proceeds at a breakneck pace.

I saw a film by Cisco yesterday as part of presentation. They mentioned at the end that, during the time it took to watch the film, 47 americans died, 61 had been born and 647,000 songs had been illegally downloaded. The last drew laughs from the crowd of IT types.
hobgoblin
QUOTE (psychophipps @ Nov 14 2008, 06:25 AM) *
One thing to keep in mind about the "fighting the man" aspect of cyberpunk is that, with the one notable exception of Hardwired, it's not some crusade against oppression and tyranny like the Communist revolts of the late 20th century...that all led to oppression and tyranny...every single time.

A lot less philosophy of "Right vs. Wrong" and a lot more "Fuck me? No, fuck you!"


Something like "this is my hilltop, this is my shotgun, your laws dont apply here!"?
DocTaotsu
You also have to admit that SR canon doesn't have a great deal of "The little guy sticks it to the man!" at least in the metaplot
maded
QUOTE (Wounded Ronin @ Nov 13 2008, 11:46 PM) *
Even so it doesn't mean you can't play a cyberpunk game with nymphomaniac sammies wielding flechette pistols <snip>


Hey now, while I will agree that after the first time I read Neuromancer years ago, Molly Millions defined my ideals of sexy, I'd hesitate to call her a nympho. But I definitely envy Case!
noonesshowmonkey
Cyberpunk and its passing is somewhat similar to the passing of the Modern Art movement in a lot of ways.

Modern art, from the late 19th century and into the mid 20th, defined a series of principles of design and aesthetics that spawned everything from lawnchairs to skyscrapers. Charles-Édouard Jeanneret-Gris, a swiss architect, referred to buildings as "Machines for living in." The machine aesthetic, abstract expressionism and theory based art were the output of a movement that saw the industrial revolution as a process of ordering and refining the human experience towards the ends of effeciency first. In a similar vein, modernists believed in the power of art, especially when expressed through grand social projects like housing or commercial buildings, as vehicles for change.

Then someone woke up and realized that effeciency makes for a really uncomfortable chair (most of the time). We came to realize that flat planes, smooth surfaces, vertigo inducing heights and the replacement of all classical systems on the grounds of obsolescence and ineffeciency was, though sublime, rather abrupt for the human animal and too vapid for the human spirit.

More importantly, modern art has a begining and an end - starting in the late 1800s as the cities were made increasingly dense and more industrialized and the art of cubism or expressionism. The endpoints are generally marked in the late 1960s, but there are aftershocks until well into the contemporary era. The rise of art as theory and ideas is still vogue and many a modernist will tell you that these pieces show that the Movement is still alive - even some of the artists making these pieces will call themselves Modernists.

And there is the rub. Modern art is, by nature, contemporary and pushes the boundaries of experience and aesthetics. Similarly, Cyberpunk is a distinctly contemporary phenomenon. Cyberpunk is often deemed by those who proclaim themselves believers in cyberpunk to be what is now where now is life in the emerging information age. There is a lot to be had in this - namely the age old cyberpunk dilemma of self-hood in an era of machinelike sameness and dissemination of identity into millions of little points, be they actions or interests, or just data points in the great machine.

Anyhow, the main thrust of all of this is that Cyberpunk is a slippery bugger in some ways because of the Modern-like definition of "nowness". We do, afterall, have post-modern... Which is confusing to anyone who thinks in a strictly grammatical fashion.

As for the foresight, nigh on haruspection, of cyberpunk. Certain themes of old Cyberpunk still remain - the definition of self-hood is no less difficult now than it was then, even if counter-culture is not what it used to be. The Japanese did / are / will be kicking all kinds of ass in the business world but, as one user already pointed out, they love Western anything. A friend of mine travels to Japan frequently and recently said that "In the 80s I heard that Japan was taking over the US. I traveled there [on business] and saw that, no, WE had taken over Japan a long, long time ago." Even so, this kind of hegemony (business, cultural etc.) is a hallmark of the Cyberpunk tradition. We need monoliths for cyberpunk.

I find myself regularly reading through these forums and formulating a response only to find that MaxMahem has already penned most of it. Key to the death of traditional cyberpunk is the failure of the Establishment to deter, even slightly, the Information Age. The very nature of free information and the exchange of ideas is anathema to the oppressive culture envisioned in the 80s - instead we live in one of over-stimulation (not so far off the 80s mark here, at least) and awash in a sea of information. Our only 'tools' for parsing that information are apathy and unaccredited sources. The ability to lie successfully and not get caught, or just tell a doctored version of the truth, is easier than ever. This is the new post-cyberpunk.
sunnyside
Postcyberpunk is what it's called.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postcyberpunk#Postcyberpunk
(Also from there I notice the term Cyberprep, heh)


And it's increasinly being thought of as a genre.
Actually having some anthologies sold under the term
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rewired:_The_...rpunk_Anthology



Cantankerous
For me Cyberpunk was a dark world, a nearly hopeless world, and that was the contrast to the Runners, even when they employed the most horrific of tactics, the Runners represented the idea of the possibility of getting one over on the man. That was what Cyberpunk was, more than the Pink Mohawks, which were only a symptom, more than the tech or the toys or the magic or anything else, Cyberpunk was getting one over on the man.

In 4th the Man has already won. You can't get one over on him, not really, you can only roll over and take it quietly and with dignity or ignore it. I think that it is the perfect representation of the last eight years IRL, beyond hopeless where Big Brother had already won and anyone who argued the point was treated as naive or delusional. This was mirrored in the genre changes.





Warning: Rant Alert

[rant]Post Cyberpunk my ass. Allot of people gave up and gave in and took the new toys and said "Hey, what can you do; it not only looks hopeless it IS hopeless because you've already been co-opted and if you don't know it by now, you're just ignorant, at best, or suicidally delusional in all likelihood." It was "NO MAS!!!" being shouted by the novelists of the genre and they congratulated themselves on having given up. And since the genre as a whole was headed there, the game went that way too. People, Art imitates Life. It's a fun house mirror of the world itself, in a politically correct and harmless subconscious display of the FEEL of the time.[/rant]



Isshia


As an Aside: Sunnyside, I'm not dissing you. You're right, that is what it is called. I just think the people who came up with the term were full of shit.
sunnyside
QUOTE (Cantankerous @ Nov 14 2008, 04:34 PM) *
As an Aside: Sunnyside, I'm not dissing you. You're right, that is what it is called. I just think the people who came up with the term were full of shit.



I'm responding to this since I've been discussing some similar things with some anarchists about real life.

One of the key problems of the cyberpunk genre from the onset was that it made some incorrect assumptions about people.

One of my favorite game books ever for flavor is "Listen Up You Primitive Screwheads" a supplement for CP2020 in which the developers yell at GMs and Players in no uncertain terms for playing CP2020 "wrong". Instead of playing rock stars, dressing in bright colors, having tons of sex and drugs, living out of coffin motels, and going on heartfelt missions to stick it to the man players and GMs were, well, basically they were playing Shadowrun without magic.

That right there should have told them something about the cyberpunk movement.

Shadowrun had a much better grip on human nature. The corporations need the runners and the runners need the corporations. They each think the other is scum, but they have an understanding. Sure the corporation treats the poor and downtrodden in the barrens like crap. But runners with their, in those editions, million nuyen worth of goodies right from chargen were not hypocritical enough to really get up in airs as they cruise around in their sports cars.

In the end it wasn't about The Man. It was about being the Big Dog. The corpers went about it one way, and the Runners went about it theirs.





streetangelj
Wow, this has gotten all over the map.

First off, I want to thank everyone who gave me actual advice. I loved that trainwreck comment. It appears to be the way my games are going lately with all three types of runners trying to not kill each other (thankfully).

Secondly I have to disagree that Shadowrun wasn't cyberpunk at it's core, just read the history section from the first two editions. Yes, they threw a bunch of other genres into the blender, but that's what made it different from CP2020 (and what made it better IMHO).

Lastly, the meat of my post (where I get into politics and philosophy) boils down to one thing- APATHY. I have to admire Cantankerous' rant, because it's so spot on. At least where I'm living, a small city in the US Midwest, I see it all around me; even at the university (where one expects progressivism and rebellion) people have given up more and more of their individuality and freedom and noone seems to really care or notice the loss. Most people are just trying to survive from paycheck to paycheck and find a little entertainment to distract them from how miserable they really are. Practically noone is motivated to change the status quo for their own betterment. Corporations and the media run our government and tell us what to think. Yes, "Big Brother" isn't the iron fisted tyranical government people once feared, but believe me "He/She/It" does exist- a person has become a collection of information all accessible to anyone with the right tools, and perhaps that's an even scarier situation. I mourn the loss of what I see as cyberpunk (and punk in general) and have resigned myself to living in whatever world develops. I am thankful, however, that I have faith that change must come and I have managed to hang on to my sense of self (even though it has cost me friends and kept me poor) in an ever-more apathetic world.

J
Wounded Ronin
QUOTE (maded @ Nov 14 2008, 01:14 PM) *
Hey now, while I will agree that after the first time I read Neuromancer years ago, Molly Millions defined my ideals of sexy, I'd hesitate to call her a nympho. But I definitely envy Case!


Dude, she picked a scrawny burnt out man off the street who was about to die of natural causes and began inserting various parts of him into her labia. That's like something out of one of those "beauty and the beast" themed small time pornos.
Synner667
QUOTE (Wounded Ronin @ Nov 15 2008, 05:01 AM) *
Dude, she picked a scrawny burnt out man off the street who was about to die of natural causes and began inserting various parts of him into her labia. That's like something out of one of those "beauty and the beast" themed small time pornos.

Have you actually read Neuromancer ??

Molly is told to "recruit" Case by Armitage [under direction from the AI]...
...She has little say in the matter.

As to bedding Case, you saying she's not allowed to get horny, and pick and choose who she fucks ??
However, if you actually read the book, you'll see that she falls for Case because he reminds her of her 1st love, Johnny Mnemonic.
Wounded Ronin
QUOTE (Synner667 @ Nov 17 2008, 08:38 PM) *
As to bedding Case, you saying she's not allowed to get horny, and pick and choose who she fucks ??


I don't see why this is so confusing. She picked the depressive man who was about to die of natural causes. When she could have presumably gone after anyone else.
MaxMahem
QUOTE (Synner667 @ Nov 17 2008, 09:38 PM) *
Have you actually read Neuromancer ??

Molly is told to "recruit" Case by Armitage [under direction from the AI]...
...She has little say in the matter.

As to bedding Case, you saying she's not allowed to get horny, and pick and choose who she fucks ??
However, if you actually read the book, you'll see that she falls for Case because he reminds her of her 1st love, Johnny Mnemonic.

I was also under the impression that the sex was more of a mercenary thing. She was ordered to recruit Case, and having sex with him seemed like one of the most efficent ways to keep him motivated and from getting to depressed. Given Molly's background, it seems like a logical decision for her to make.

Though I would also admit that it is possible her motives were more complex. She probably enjoyed the sex somewhat and developed some feelings for Chase as well. Maybe some sort of Stockholm Syndrome or something.

In any case the motivations of women are rarely simple. And the motivations of a woman like Molly are certainly not.
Tachi
QUOTE (Kalvan @ Nov 13 2008, 05:53 PM) *
I would say a more Cyberpunk Shadowrun wouldn't feature meetings with Mr. Jonhson, even at a runner bar at the Barrens (Except to graffiti tag his briefcase/pda and those sellouts actually meeting with him). It would feature meetings with the likes of Uncle Che and Bombshell Betty, and the use of gangs as more than just mobile scenery and random combat encounters.


I just wanted to share this with everyone. grinbig.gif

Uncle Che gets the "Mickey treatment". That's one mass murderer who, I was glad to hear, died screaming and begging for his life. grinbig.gif HOORAY for the CIA.
Wesley Street
Time and Ramparts magazines and investigative reporter Jon Lee Anderson disagree with the screaming and begging bit:

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Che_guevara
QUOTE
Moments before Guevara was executed he was asked if he was thinking about his own immortality. "No," he replied, "I'm thinking about the immortality of the revolution."[103] Che Guevara also allegedly said to his executioner, "I know you've come to kill me. Shoot, coward, you are only going to kill a man."[104] Tera¡n hesitated, then pulled the trigger of his semiautomatic rifle, hitting Guevara in the arms and legs. Guevara writhed on the ground, apparently biting one of his wrists to avoid crying out. Tera¡n shot him again, this time hitting him fatally in the chest" at 1:10 pm, according to Rodraguez.[105] In all Guevara was shot nine times. This included five times in the legs, once in the right shoulder and arm, once in the chest, and lastly in the throat.[106]


Anyway, back on-topic. Shadowrun has never felt like the now-dead cyberpunk movement, at least not in the way it could be compared to the writings of the major cyberpunk authors of the time. It's just a fantasy-action game with a near-future setting. It only had the sheen of cyberpunk as that's the easiest way to convey a sense of "it's just around the corner." Plus, utopian settings make for dull story-telling.
Heath Robinson
QUOTE (Wesley Street @ Nov 18 2008, 03:44 PM) *
Plus, utopian settings make for dull story-telling.

Every dystopia is another person's utopia.
Dr Funfrock
QUOTE (streetangelj @ Nov 14 2008, 08:04 PM) *
Lastly, the meat of my post (where I get into politics and philosophy) boils down to one thing- APATHY. I have to admire Cantankerous' rant, because it's so spot on. At least where I'm living, a small city in the US Midwest, I see it all around me; even at the university (where one expects progressivism and rebellion) people have given up more and more of their individuality and freedom and noone seems to really care or notice the loss. Most people are just trying to survive from paycheck to paycheck and find a little entertainment to distract them from how miserable they really are. Practically noone is motivated to change the status quo for their own betterment. Corporations and the media run our government and tell us what to think. Yes, "Big Brother" isn't the iron fisted tyranical government people once feared, but believe me "He/She/It" does exist- a person has become a collection of information all accessible to anyone with the right tools, and perhaps that's an even scarier situation. I mourn the loss of what I see as cyberpunk (and punk in general) and have resigned myself to living in whatever world develops. I am thankful, however, that I have faith that change must come and I have managed to hang on to my sense of self (even though it has cost me friends and kept me poor) in an ever-more apathetic world.


Apathy is not new. It's what cyberpunk, as a genre, specifically evolved to address. This recalls previous rants I've had, but cyberpunk is neither utopian, nor dystopian. Everyone isn't really happy, but they think they are. The heroes of cyberpunk never "stick it to the man", they just make a quick buck and get out while they still can.

Let's address some motivations here: Throughout Neuromancer Case just wants to get high and get online. That's it. He couldn't give a rat's ass about anything else that's going on, he just wants the rush of the net and the rush of the drugs.
Jonny Mnemonic just wants to get paid for the job he did, and get out alive.
Tucker is after his paycheck. Bobby is after a girl. Angie is just trying to figure out what the hell is wrong with her.
Hiro Protagonist doesn't actually care about sticking it to the man or anything, he just wants to protect the net that he helped create. It's still, ultimately, a selfish motivation, and YT is just doing it because the money is good and because she looks up to Uncle Enzo as the father figure that she is obviously lacking.

Look at Bobby's mum, lost in sims, or YT's mother, working in a cubicle farm with no rights and no privacy. Look at the whole idea of vicarious living that Angie or Tally Isham represent, and compare it to our modern culture of soap operas and celebrity magazines.

Through and through, cyberpunk is a commentary on a world where people have given up on their own hopes and dreams, content with the crumbs that fall from the table of the powerful few. It's not about "big brother" or totalitarian control. In fact there is a distinct lack of control in the worlds of cyberpunk. Look at the "burbs" of Snow Crash, independant nation states that only care about keeping themselves safe. The people living there aren't ruled by some psychotic overload or anything like that. The only problem with the burbs is how utterly xenophobic they. The cops in Snow Crash aren't evil, just bumbling and narrow minded. It's not a world of overarching regimes, it's a world of little people carving out little spaces for themselves.

Dystopia describes the utter destruction of the human will by a malevolent force. It describes the tools of control, and the ruthlessness with which they are leveraged.
Utopia describes the immortal power of the human spirit and rational understanding to overcome all obstacles.
Cyberpunk describes human apathy, the refusal of people to actually care who governs them, who watches them, who pays them. There are no tools of control, because none are needed. Nobody sits down and invents a whole new language just to stop people from being able to think defiant thoughts; instead people simply forget that they have anything to defy. Nobody forces people to take a drug that makes them docile, because they have already gone out to buy that same drug in their droves.

Cyberpunk was never about pink mohawks and demonstrations. It wasn't about oppression and defiance. It was never "punk" at all. It was about the wasteland of modern existance, the fast food, 24 hour news culture that we created.
In the words of Spider Jerusalem: "This is the future. This is what we built. This is what we wanted. It must have been. Because we all had the fucking choice, didn't we? It is only our money that allows commercial culture to flower. If we didn't want to live like this, we could have changed it at any time, by not fucking paying for it."
Wesley Street
QUOTE (Heath Robinson @ Nov 18 2008, 11:50 AM) *
Every dystopia is another person's utopia.

Most people aren't fans of nipple-clamps but there are those handful...
Wesley Street
QUOTE (Dr Funfrock @ Nov 18 2008, 12:26 PM) *
Dystopia describes the utter destruction of the human will by a malevolent force. It describes the tools of control, and the ruthlessness with which they are leveraged.

I agree with 99.9% of what you said though I'd argue that malevolence requires a will behind it which would disqualify it from being a necessity in defining a dystopia. As long as there are elements of squalor, disease and/or overcrowding you can have a dystopia without the outright oppression, suppression, and or trickery.
QUOTE
Cyberpunk was never about pink mohawks and demonstrations. It wasn't about oppression and defiance. It was never "punk" at all. It was about the wasteland of modern existance, the fast food, 24 hour news culture that we created.

Clap. Clap. Clap. notworthy.gif
Spike
QUOTE (noonesshowmonkey @ Nov 13 2008, 01:48 PM) *
What is with people thinking that relativism of this sort is valid criticism? Definitions define things. They typify and create boundaries and categories. Thats what they are. A non-restrictive definition is an oxy-moron - a contradiction in terms. What that is... is vague.


Re-read what you quoted. I said 'Overly-restrictive', not 'non-restrictive'. For such a fan of hard coded definitions, you must realize they only work if you apply them to the words actually used. The simple fact is that the entire OP reeks of treating Cyberpunk as purely an outgrowth of 80's aesthetics, which has been discussed further down the thread. I am not alone, by any stretch, in rejecting any definition (and who really has the authority to push unwanted definitions on others?) that purely grounds Cyberpunk in a single decade.


QUOTE (noonesshowmonkey @ Nov 13 2008, 01:48 PM) *
The portion regarding SR as a game that has cyberpunk elements is, however, better recieved. To say that SR is not cyberpunk is close minded in its own right. So, really, the whole 'critique' of the OP was basically a stuffed shirt.


This is an old, old topic of conversation. Never mind that you get somewhat self contradictory in that you demand that we not stray from a definition of Cyberpunk, than insisting we flex the definition far beyond it's bounds to accomodate Shadowrun. Make up your mind, does a definition have boundaries or does it not? Without going into depth, I feel reasonably confident in establishing that one 'boundary' that almost everyone can agree on is that Cyberpunk does not have magic and elves. That isn't to say, as I already did, that a setting with magic and elves can not have cyberpunk tropes or elements, that it can not have been influenced by cyberpunk... but if definitions do, in fact, have boundaries, magic and elves sets shadowrun firmly outside of Cyberpunk.

But you seem to labor under the impression that somehow 'not qualifying' as Cyberpunk is a 'bad thing'. Really? Conan doesn't qualify as Cyberpunk either and yet Conan is awesome on toast. If anything Shadowrun might be closer to Sci-Fi Horror than Cyberpunk, what with the bug spirits, blood magic using corporations and Drop Bears and all. Most, if not all, of the prepublished adventures/meta-plot advancement do seem to focus on horror themes... farming children's brains into jars and so forth...
Dr Funfrock
QUOTE (Wesley Street @ Nov 18 2008, 12:48 PM) *
I agree with 99.9% of what you said though I'd argue that malevolence requires a will behind it which would disqualify it from being a necessity in defining a dystopia. As long as there are elements of squalor, disease and/or overcrowding you can have a dystopia without the outright oppression, suppression, and or trickery.


OK, I'll grant that "malevolence" was a poor choice of wording. You are right that dystopia does not require an active malevolence so much as a callousness. At the same time I have to argue that squalor, disease and overcrowding do not a dystopia make (unless you intend to make the argument that 90% of literature is dystopian, which I would feel stretches the term to the point of being useless).

Charles Dickens did not write dystopian fiction, but he certainly wrote about squalor, disease and overcrowding. These elements also feature heavily in crime ficiton, pulp, detective noir, horror, modernism, the decadent period, and ancient mythology. People often seem to think the word "dystopia" just refers to fiction that is "dark". It's a much more specific term than that; it refers to fiction that paints a vision of the future as being ultimately hopeless. Dystopian visions describe all human endeavour as ultimately turning towards our own destruction.
Terminator is dystopian; the ultimate result of human technological advancement is our destruction.
Star Trek is utopian; humanity creates an ideal society, and the conflict revolves around protecting that society and helping the less enlightened to become a part of it.
Blade Runner is neither; the situation on Earth is indeed quite horrible, but it is not the only option. The people on Earth are the ones who have chosen to remain there, instead of seeking a brighter life in the colonies. Whilst cyberpunk is certainly dark, it is only because the focus is always placed on the darkest parts of the world. The "shadows" if you will. For the vast majority of people in a cyberpunk world life is neither terrible, nor perfect. It just is.
noonesshowmonkey
QUOTE (Spike @ Nov 18 2008, 02:37 PM) *
Re-read what you quoted. I said 'Overly-restrictive', not 'non-restrictive'. For such a fan of hard coded definitions, you must realize they only work if you apply them to the words actually used.


Well, calling a definition overly-restrictive is calling it a definition... a tuatology. Anyhow, I think I also laid out later in my 2nd post that Cyberpunk is an outgrowth of the 80s aesthetic and that anything else is... something else.

QUOTE (Spike)
This is an old, old topic of conversation. Never mind that you get somewhat self contradictory in that you demand that we not stray from a definition of Cyberpunk, than insisting we flex the definition far beyond it's bounds to accomodate Shadowrun. Make up your mind, does a definition have boundaries or does it not?


Actually, I never implied that cyberpunk needed to stretch. I merely stated that Shadowrun incorporates elements of cyberpunk in it. In this case it is Shadowrun that is doing the stretching. See the next chunk.

QUOTE (Spike)
But you seem to labor under the impression that somehow 'not qualifying' as Cyberpunk is a 'bad thing'.


I am not really sure how you imply what my impressions are from an analysis of semantics and argumentation, but whatevs. See the above chunk on cross-genre elements in Shadowrun. At no point did I ever proclaim it bad. I merely state that cyberpunk is its own thing, it has a distinct meaning that can be clearly defined, and that wielding a term wildly or using it bluntly does not a strong argument make.

QUOTE (Spike)
Really? Conan doesn't qualify as Cyberpunk either and yet Conan is awesome on toast.


Conan is awesome on toast. Conan > pants.

Anyhow, my response was mostly just a knee-jerk reaction to relativism as a method of criticism. I hate it with a fury that burns like a Thousand Sons.
Wesley Street
Unfortunately, "dystopia" has been slapped onto many a cyberpunk product and that's often the word associated with the lit movement by armchair critics who confuse it with noir. The definition of dystopia that I usually go by is a society where existence is as bad as it possibly could be. It's one that's usually characterized by squalor, etc. etc. but is more than the sum of those parts. There's a world of difference between the classic dystopia of 1984 and the near-future heterotopias of Blade Runner, Neuromancer or Akira.

If cyberpunk were truly defined by mohawks and other retarded 1980s style-choices, then the protagonists in steampunk novels would all dress like Sid Vicious rather than Victor Frankenstein.
Spike
QUOTE (noonesshowmonkey @ Nov 18 2008, 01:31 PM) *
Well, calling a definition overly-restrictive is calling it a definition... a tuatology. Anyhow, I think I also laid out later in my 2nd post that Cyberpunk is an outgrowth of the 80s aesthetic and that anything else is... something else.


Not at all. Restrictiveness is a quality of definitions, not the whole. Labeling a country, for example, 'small' is not a tautalogy; and just so calling a definition 'restrictive' or even 'loose' is merely adding the same sort of quality descriptor.

Given the origins of Cyberpunk in literature, which tends to be less caught up in aesthetic timeliness, and the existance of it as a fashion/subculture into the early nineties, I strongly disagree that the aesthetic qualities are truly the important element. Working from the literary angle I would be more comfortable with the somewhat circular definition of Cyberpunk as the moments that lead up to a transhuman revolution, circular because transhumanism seems to be to be an evolution of cyberpunk... thus we (tautologically...) define Cyberpunk by what it becomes. It is crude and even ugly, but it is sufficent for a random internet discussion.



QUOTE (noonesshowmonkey @ Nov 18 2008, 01:31 PM) *
Actually, I never implied that cyberpunk needed to stretch. I merely stated that Shadowrun incorporates elements of cyberpunk in it. In this case it is Shadowrun that is doing the stretching. See the next chunk.


We were speaking of the definition of a term, not a thing itself. Genre is a terrible catagorizing system as it must typically be applied to creative efforts after they are done. The common mistake of trying to write (music, books, etc...) to a genre results, nearly uniformly, in derivative and hollow efforts. Shadowrun doesn't need to stretch to accomodate Cyberpunk. Shadowrun is, essentially, its own genre; sitting on teh shelf somewhere between the 'genre' pigeonholes of Cyberpunk and Techno-Fantasy. The fact that Shadowrun has invented its own tropes speaks to this fact.



QUOTE
I am not really sure how you imply what my impressions are from an analysis of semantics and argumentation, but whatevs. See the above chunk on cross-genre elements in Shadowrun. At no point did I ever proclaim it bad. I merely state that cyberpunk is its own thing, it has a distinct meaning that can be clearly defined, and that wielding a term wildly or using it bluntly does not a strong argument make.


I continue to feel that the initial Post was not deserving of a strong counter-argument. To provide one would be to provide undue validity to the rather vapid ground it staked out. I judged your response to my dismissive rejection of it to be based on a perceived criticism that Shadowrun wasn't Cyberpunk.... which seems a reasonable response until you really think on it (not being a particular 'other thing' is not, in and of itself, a good or bad state.). I just feel it would have been the height of rudeness, not to mention unnecessarily cryptic murmuring to simply post "Catagorical Error" or some other distillation of my impression.

QUOTE
Conan is awesome on toast. Conan > pants.

Anyhow, my response was mostly just a knee-jerk reaction to relativism as a method of criticism. I hate it with a fury that burns like a thousand sons.


If you like, my response to the OP was just a knee-jerk reaction to people assuming that cyberpunk is intrinsically tied to pink mohawks and The Bangles, which does not approach the height of silliness, but rather makes such a height the very nadir of the concept of silliness... Snake Plisskin may be Cyberpunk, but so too is Jet Li's The One... and the two couldn't be farther apart.



* The Author takes no responsibility for the contents of this, or any other, post given the possibly illegal levels of coffee that is currently, continuiously circulating through this coffee stream....
Rasumichin
QUOTE (Wesley Street @ Nov 18 2008, 10:40 PM) *
Unfortunately, "dystopia" has been slapped onto many a cyberpunk product and that's often the word associated with the lit movement by armchair critics who confuse it with noir. The definition of dystopia that I usually go by is a society where existence is as bad as it possibly could be. It's one that's usually characterized by squalor, etc. etc. but is more than the sum of those parts. There's a world of difference between the classic dystopia of 1984 and the near-future heterotopias of Blade Runner, Neuromancer or Akira.


IMHO, a seemingly utopian world that has a terrible, hidden flaw (a society free of violence where all potential criminals get lobotomized, a world where famines where averted by using liberal amounts of Soylent Green or something like this) may also qualify, even though your definition is a safer bet.
In either case, the dystopia label certainly doesn't fit SR.
Dr Funfrock
Dystopian literature is largely political in nature (there are exceptions, and I stand by my point about Terminator, though it's a fringe example at best). Dystopian literature is an attempt to discuss the way in which people become subject to the political systems that they help to create. Dystopia is not neccisarily hopeless, but it is a discussion of how all political systems seek stability, and in doing so tend towards the destruction of hope. Hope breeds change, and change is the antithesis of stability. It is therefore more politically expedient to foster fear than to foster hope, because fear strengthens the existing political order, and in doing so creates increased stability (or so the argument runs). Even Terminator fits this example; Skynet is, ultimately, a political system. It rules the world (except the small remaining pockets of human resistance), and it does so through the application of force and the destruction of hope. Skynet rules by tyranny, with no thought to inspire or seek devotion. It's servants are mindless machines, and it is the enemy of all free thinking beings. This is all largely allegorical, but the comparisons with 1984 or Farenheit 451 are pretty obvious. In this context Sarah Conner is a metanym for hope, which Skynet is actively seeking to destroy in order to perpetuate itself. The central struggle of Terminator, just like that of 1984 or Farenheit 451, is of one man seeking to resist an overwhelmingly powerful political system that does not seek to destroy him, but rather to destroy the hope that he has found.

Cyberpunk, in contrast, is largely apolitical. Governance is either minimal or non-existant in the worlds of cyberpunk. In Snow Crash the US Government is simply another corporation, fighting for it's own survival. It has little to no real power or authority remaining, save within it's own thoroughly limited dominion. The central figures of cyberpunk stories have no political ideals or aspirations, they seek only to survive in a harsh and uncaring world. Whereas dystopian literature pits it's protagonist against a single, unified, "system" that seeks to crush them, in cyberpunk literature the protagonist is caught between many different "systems", each seeking to destroy the others and become dominant. The protagonist typically seeks to profit from this struggle without being destroyed by it. Hence, Shadowrun, by it's core conceit, is inherently cyberpunk. The trappings are largely irrelevant. What people are largely discussing here is not the definition of cyberpunk, but the depiction.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Dumpshock Forums © 2001-2012