http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6549265/
They'll do anything for money.
Now You Can Be A JFK assassin in this brand new game!
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!
Last edited by eestlinc; 11-22-2004 at 03:43 AM.
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.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...
Anyway, this JFK game seems pretty boring... I mean who would pay $10 to shoot 3 bullets?
"It's an adult kiss...we'll do the rest when you get back." -Misato Katsuragi
[size=1]Soul Calibur r0x0rz my b0x0rz!
Actually... I don't wear boxers, but Soul Calibur r0x0rz my briefz0rz just doesn't have the same ring to it...
**Proud owner of the Mercedes Scar**
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.
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.
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.
Moogle:
1. Catlike creature. Has a large red ball on it's head attached by a long hair. Some can fly. Some can fight. Some are lazy bastards. All say Kupo (or Puu)
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.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
Posting Permissions
