http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6549265/
They'll do anything for money.
Printable View
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6549265/
They'll do anything for money.
That's just...wow. Um. I don't know what to say.
I think it's neat...what's wrong with it? O_o
Virtual Fly-a-plane-into-the-WTC Beta .97 now available from Greedy
Bastard Games!
.opt
Jack Ruby kills your patsy. You get off Scot Free!
How many video games DON'T involve brutally murdering someone or something? This is just a bit more tasteless because it's less fantasy and more reality. I consider games like World War II simulations to be just as tasteless though. I'd rather there be a big nice clear line between reality and fantasy. I don't feel bad killing a giant walking mushroom or a dragon or zombie.
Anonymity is another good way to keep that line drawn. I don't feel bad killing anonymous pedestrians as I race a stolen car down the sidewalk in a game. I would feel very uneasy if I was playing a game where I was killing people who really lived, especially a game where I was re-enacting someone's murder as it really happened, ESPECIALLY if it was from the point of view of the murderer.
It's called GTA:SA.Quote:
Originally Posted by Optium
But in WWII games like Medal of Honor and Call of Duty, the people you kill ARE anonymous... so I don't get why you say that's tasteless...Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Unne
Anyway, this JFK game seems pretty boring... I mean who would pay $10 to shoot 3 bullets?
They are, but also that stuff really happened, and many people's sons were killed in those battles. I dont like those sorts of games either, because of that, but it's not my place to say anything about anyone else playing them. It just doesnt sit right with me.Quote:
Originally Posted by BatChao
And the JFK game... I dont see how it debunks any conspiracy theory. It doesnt even get into the possible government involvement and the whole Jack Ruby thing.
TheAbominatrix is right, it's because it's still based on history. It's somewhat anonymous, but it's a recreation of something that really happened. Not as bad as this JFK game, but more tasteless than a game where you're killing imaginary people (or aliens or something) in imaginary places.Quote:
Originally Posted by BatChao
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.
Agreed. Anything directly relating to historical person might affect a descendant of the person. As such it isn't right to have enjoyment at their expense.
Though I do have enjoyment at people's expense at times....
Altough the game gives something to think about, how far will we go? I agree that it is some what strange, but what games did we already have. We indeed have WW II-games with anonymous soldiers you need to kill. But how brutaly is that? The Germans did do anything good. I own Medal of Honor: Frontline and I played the D-Day mission, you will see that "mates" of you are flying around. Or what to think about the GTA games. You just can kill just someone who is walking on street. Shoot cops, get to be a terrorist etc. Then an other game that made loose alot Carmegeddon. You can run over people (I know that it are zombies), that is also not very ethic I shall say. And now this game, what is wrong about it? You shoot three times ad that's it? That's no fun. No matter what the game is about. But still it is a historical fact that made loose alot in history including conspiracy theory's, but they better could have made a game, you were the "smoke on the hill" and you must try to escape without being seen etc. We didn't cross a line here, we already did. The question what is next, hijacking a plane? I don't know, but this isn't going to be the worst we have seen yet. I can imagine that a next game will be that we will train our own terroristnetwork.
When I first read that article I was amused because I was waiting for a punchline or something as I thought it was a Satirical piece from an Onion-esque site. Yet, when I realized it was indeed a real game, I became very disgusted by the concept. I'd certainly have to agree with what Unne and Ashley have said, that games directly depicting lives of people or incidents can very easily be in bad taste. That being said, this game in particular baffles me because the makers apparently think what they're doing will have some educational value when in reality, how many people are going to play this game, if any, and think about the real ramifications behind what they are doing, or if it's even possible? I'd say, people will play it because you can shoot someone, not because they think it'll shed any new light on this subject.
The only difference I make with games like Medal Of Honor is that these games set you up for good versus evil. Since you are being shot at, you shoot back and I think our moral consciousness can accept that, even if the situations being depicted weren't always so black and white. Games like the one in question here though, where there is no moral reality, where you're just a guy shooting the president, make it very tough to play and feel good about yourself because you'll be questioning why you are doing this.
Also, the reason these types of games as well as games like Medal Of Honor, GTA and the like sell so well is because we as a society are now obsessed with violence and with doing things we wouldn't imagine doing in reality. We are so obsessed with Vietnam, as this past Presidential campaign showed, that we want to relive it, or live it for the first time, yet without all the moral and personal scars that actually being in Vietnam will leave. That, deep down, is the power of video games and realistic violence, that we can live and do things we're either scared to do or don't think we can do, yet don't have to risk being forever rocked by it.
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.
Ultimately, I agree with you Unne, I much prefer games of fantasy, where the good and bad are so easy to define and you can't blur your conscience.
Take care all.
I think this brings up quite an important political issue. Personally, I wouldn't really want to assassinate JFK, but I don't think by any means the game should be banned, as I heard one reporter suggest. If the game was cut off, that would open up the game industry to be heavily censored. Incredibly groundbreaking titles like GTA would obviously be taken off store shelves. Perhaps I'm just overly liberal, but the fact this game exists doesn't bother me as much as it seems to bother the majority of the public. What does bother me, though, is that this game is apparently not subject to a rating system of any kind. This is a problem. Do we now need an ESRB to cover online games to protect the kiddies?
I agree, Azar, I don't think the game should be banned. It just shouldn't
be made in the first place. :p But then to believe that a system like that
is possible I would have to believe that there is an underlying goodness in
all people which will not succumb to greed and I don't believe that for a
second.
.opt
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Unne
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Captain
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! "
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.
So what if they support homosexuals. Does that mean they have to agree to certain things just because of that?Quote:
Originally Posted by Turk
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.
Read the post carefully. I said, it's all what your opinion of "distasteful" is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bert