Now You Can Be A JFK assassin in this brand new game!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dr Unne

I think I even saw an ad for a Vietnam war simulation game. Half my uncles fought in that one; there's something sick about getting menial enjoyment out of reliving something like that.

---

When I've played the Call of Duty single player campaign, I didn't walk away with a feeling of "Mmm-hmmm, I killed dem nazzzys good." It was more of respect for the people involved, seeing the situations they were put into. I think of it as along the lines of a movie like Saving Private Ryan or a series like Band of Brothers. Some war games are done for sheer exploitation of the war, but I think some are done to show people what the greatest generation went through.

I don't think it's right to compare all war games to this...they're in much different context. Now, if there was a game where you played Hitler going to a concentration camp to gas the inmates, it'd be different.

With this, it's as bad as making a game like Battlefield: Columbine or Flight Simulator: Colombia.

Haha, my dad wants me to get Nam '67 so he can see how realistic it is.
He was in Nam in 67 (and says anyone in it any other year is a ). :p

.opt

Shellshock? Don't bother. It's nowhere near as realistic as they say - for one thing, it looks more like Southern California than Vietnam. The gameplay sucks, the so-called gritty realism is laughable, and there are no real moral problems - there are no consequences should you slaughter the peasant village. No one even mentions it - it's just a thing to do.

Not to mention the "boom-boom", which is utterly retarded.

It does have Spike Spiegel's voice actor, though. There's one positive point, I suppose.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Captain

I predict, that in a few more years, someone will come out with a game called something along the lines of:

"Escape 9/11", where you have to try and get out of the Towers before they collapse, and people will play it because they can experience the horrific events, then turn it off and have a beer.

---

No way. The game will have you be the highjackers and you have to get through crappy airport security and onto the plane where you must frighten people with box cutters then fly the plane into the the towers.

Either way there is a game coming out where you get to relive horrible disasters from earth quakes to tornados and one of the events is 9-11. I don't really know what about it you get to do but you play as police officers, fire fighters and the like.

" Now You Can Be A JFK assassin in this brand new game! "



ing awesome.

While I am against censorship, I must say the developers show a distinct lack of taste in making this game.

Yay, 'casue it's all about fun an no-one really gets hurt! I hope they make more games based on real-life crimes, like one where you get to play as OJ Simpson, or an RPG where you get to abduct and murder JonBenet Ramsay. After all, it's about EDUCATION, not exploiting other people's suffering. All the worst serial murders and rapes from history should be turned into games so we can EXPERIENCE THE TRUTH.




:rolleyes2

I am so completely sick of game developers creating perversions where you're supposed to enjoy committing criminal acts of suffering against others. I'd love to pay a visit to these kinds of people with a softball bat, see how "fun" it is when a defenceless person really gets hurt. They're probably the kind of weedy, nerdy, totally-diverced-from reality nerd stereotypes who simply can't comprehend what it means for an actual person to suffer. I'm not talking just about this one game in particular, I mean all the pathetic "murder the innocent and defenceless" games that are springing up. Violence in war/counter-terrorism games is understandable and justifiable. Gratuitous games about harming the innocent are morally wrong, in my opinion.

One of the interesting things I've found about myself is a game like Age of Empires didn't really bother me too much, but when I saw the box for Carmaggedon which depicted a car running over a business man I felt like I wanted to throw up it disgusted me so much. The personal aspect about it just seemed to sicken me to the core.

I dunno, I'm pretty indifferent. Pretty much all I play any more are RPGs, and even the most modern any of them get is FF8.

I mean, someone is always going to be pushing the envelope a little further, its the way things work. If they go to far, that crazy free market of ours will cause them to be *****-slapped by the invisible hand of the marketplace.

I mean, think of all the other things deemed to graphic or awful that later became mainstream. I mean, there was a time when Andrew Dice Clay was edgy. And remember when people blew huge fits over South Park?

So, I say, it's all good, because no matter what happens, something else is waiting to shove some beyond-the-pale media in our faces.

To be honest I'm not morally offended by the concept of this game, or games of a similar vein, but I do find it strange that someone could take such an event and place it in the context of a game.

War games I can understand. War is a horrible thing, but it is an event that fulfils certain macho ideas, and therefore is effective material for a game. Small children like to act out war games on the playing fields, and some of these children grow up and act out similar situations through their games consoles. These games do nothing to capture the real horrors of conflict, but they do simulate the violent actions, which is what people look for in that sort of game.

A game such as Medal of Honour: Frontline can be justified by its relatively inaccurate portrayal of the scenario. The guns may have reakistic recoil, the sounds may be authentic, but the people you kill are not realistic or unique. Your victims are carbon-copies with no past, no personality and no emotions. In effect, they are evil and you are good. Grand Theft Auto gets away with what it does because of its cartoonish attitude to violence. The theme may be violent gang warfare, but the translation of this theme into the game is far from realistic.

This game, on the other hand, is a simulation of actual events. The intention of the developer is to capture the experience of an event as realistically as possible. The characters are real, their experiences real, the actions that the player carries out are all real. If you shoot in the game you're manipulating code, just as you would with any other game, but this code represents a real person. Your motive while playing the game is to recreate the assassination of a figure who actually lived. You might as well return to the scene and replay the event using plastic dolls, since that is the sort of realism the game is aiming for. What's more, the good/evil justification can't be used here, since the player takes control of the killer.

I don't think the game should be banned, but I do believe that the developer was in extremely poor taste to create this simulator (I hesitate to use the term 'game'). I can't imagine the mindset of someone who would want to make such a thing, or spend money just to act out such an awful event.

This post is rather hypocritical, since I own many violent games, and I've killed countless people through this medium. But those people weren't real, and beside their human appearence, no effort was made to make them real. But when a player shoots JFK in this game, they're killing more than a programmed piece of code. They're killing the memory of the man himself.

I don't see anything wrong with the game...It's all personality I guess. Like a lot of the people here who mention this game being in poor taste, are pro-homosexual, which others would consider poor taste. go figure :confused:

Although I would hope that homosexuality is never equated with the assassination of the President of the United States.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Turk

I don't see anything wrong with the game...It's all personality I guess. Like a lot of the people here who mention this game being in poor taste, are pro-homosexual, which others would consider poor taste. go figure :confused:

---

So what if they support homosexuals. Does that mean they have to agree to certain things just because of that?

Honestly, what's worse? Being an assassin and killing one man, because you don't agree with his way of doing things in your own country?

Or going to a country on the other side of the world to destroy the type of society that the inhabitants chose and supported, killing as many of them as you can in the process?

That may be a harsh statement, but I was so terribly shocked by the wave of 'Nam games and the fact that people actually want to play those things, that I can't really be so shocked over this anymore.

What's the problem? That this time you're left-wing and killing a right-wing president? Is that it? Well, excuse me, but that seems very short-sighted to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bert

So what if they support homosexuals. Does that mean they have to agree to certain things just because of that?

---

Read the post carefully. I said, it's all what your opinion of "distasteful" is.