Anyways, only recently have I discovered the news on this game. And just today I have beat it (its more or less a one day game, unless you continue on into the afterlife). Now let me say this. This is a emotional game with some thought provoking dialogue. The violence contained within is not violence to promote violence, but rather violence to understand violence. The game takes you into the minds of these killers, and while you do feel that they indeed have been pushed over the edge, you also feel that they indeed are human's who have been stripped of compassion and strive. One might say that by giving you a peak into the minds of killers you would be corrupting your soul with an unneccesarily evil. However, to understand evil and violence is the only way to prevent it in the first place. Now I do admit, that sometimes the game indeed is a bit insulting and shocking. Indeed the title itself is a bit insulting, as there's nothing super about what happened. But, if you overlook this the creator is definitely trying to say something. I'll admit the gameplay is basic and as simple as RPG's come, but its not so aweful that you can handle it, you simply won't relish it; which of course is appropriate considering the games task. Still give the game a try, and see what the controversy was about for youself and leave your thoughts on it. What did everybody else think?
I never played it my self but I Support free speech and if movies and books can be made about Columbine why not games? the fire the game has gone under is utter bullshit.
i played it. i feel it doesn't promote violence but allows you to understand it and i support the "game".
I checked this game out, but then I did a real moron thing and started actually thinking about it, and thus I quit playing after a few minutes. One thing I always hear when it comes to games like this is that it comes down to a freedom of speech issue, which I suppose it does. So one can't then question someone's right to make a game as such. But you can however choose not to play it. I mean really if you think about it, there really is no reason to make a game out of such a tradegy, beyond merely exploiting said tradgey for whatever gain. Remember that game where you try to shoot JFK? The idea was that it was supposed to show how it was impossible, fine. Still made some people angry - if for no other reason that it was in extremely bad taste. How about if someone made a game called "Holocost," where the idea is that you're supposed to gas six million Jews in a limited amount of time, to prove it's not possible (which is one of the main arguements that holocost denier types use.) Would you be so quick to stand up for that person's rights? I wouldn't. I would stand there quietly as the game was removed from the shelves, and I would not hate myself for it. I see no contradiction between protecting freedom of speech and banning certain things that step out of bounds. (funny how you develop these attitudes as you get older.) What if someone made a game called "9-11," where you crash the planes into the trade towers, the idea being it's supposed to show that the planes wouldn't knock the towers down? Is that going too far? Sure, that developer has something to say... but is a video game the right way to be saying it? To me, a game about holocost denial or a 9-11 simulator is actually more obscene than a game with sex, drugs, or violence in it. One of them seems a healthy release of pent up tension, the other some sick slimebags attempt to rewrite history for political gain.
there was ideas to make a 911 game if you are against a 911 game, a holocaust game, a columbine game then you should be against all those WW2 shooters. and 1942 shoot'em ups.
exactally. REAL people died in world war 2 and the vietnam war. And because it's not our generation, we do not have emotional attachment to the events. It was taught to us in our history classes. We don't remember it happening. 9/11 and columbine though. We remember EXACTALLY where we were when we found out. And that is why you are against it, but a WW2 FPS game doesn't bother you one bit.
well, games like GROW2:Modern Warfare depict "nasty latino terrorists" and the "goody westerners" and you clearly take the "winning" side. There's no denying that for a competative game to work, you need two teams. Two oppositions. Some of these teams are fictional, eg in Mario Strikers, and some are based on real situations, eg The Axis and the Allies. What everyone has to realize is that there is space for personal opinion, even within games. You can choose not to play a game if you don't agree or have been agrieved by its real-life events , but don't expect others to do the same. That's just being fascistic in itself. And by the way, us Greeks should dislike Nazis and the Turkish government if the same rules of 9/11 applied. What would you think if we made a greek strategy game where you slaughtered turks? I think we clearly have that option if the world can make games about killing Nazis and their experiments. I m only defending freedom of thought and action as long as it doesn't physically harm anyone. It's certain that many people will feel offended because of historical reasons , but tough shit, you have to accept that there's always two sides to a coin, even if you don't like it. Disclaimer: I have obviously nothing against Turks or Nazis. That's right, i dont hate nazis, even though they may have hated me. As a famous person said: " I don't agree with what you re saying, but I will defend your right to say it". PS: I can feel the mods' hammer falling to close this thread btw
The very point of the Bill of Rights is that it applies in ALL situations, not just certain ones that we cherry pick. To say that there are exceptions to it is almost the same as disregarding it entirely. The founding fathers knew that crisis causes people to act irrationally and to break down the institutional sources of order and reason. They become desperate to the point where they are willing to give up anything (no matter how ridiculous) to protect themselves from disaster. The Bill of Rights was created to protect one institution in particular - human rights - in exactly such situations.
exactally. Everyones opinion of what is out of bounds is just that, an opinion. i can call you a "fucking faggot" and you might be all "whoa dude. whoa. not cool." but the rest of us wouldn't give a fuck. You might want me to not be able to say that. but the rest of us couldn't care any less. Who is right in that situation? Same thing as this.
I think is all down to your concept of morality... Honestly I dont see anything offensive in this game, yet I DO think that the view that the media gives about smart and/or different people (like denigration and making social harrasment against them being ethically "correct") is without a doubt immoral, since theres basically no difference between racism and ideological discrimination, since both are based on the hate against the one who's different. Theres a lot of discrimination in our society that goes unpunished both legally and socially speaking. And even when the law does punish these actions theres a large part of society that actually approves these lewd acts. Isnt immoral that thousands of kids are discriminated against in schools? Of couse it is, but for most part of our society it isnt, thats why they act so surprised when one of these kids snaps and starts shooting their classmates. Therefore, wheres the limit if theres no law nor punishment? The fact is that while theres just a few cases of nations acting against their very laws, a nation or society which's only limits are those made by its inhabitants is doomed to end in disaster. Just look at our world: in countries wheres theres laws that regulate society theres a balance which is not permanent but is kept in its place by both sides in every situation, since these sides know that balance its vital for their survival. The other countries, both rich and poor, where law is left aside in favor of "complete freedom" theres a constant power struggle between the oppressed masses and the most powerful groups, where the last ones use expensive lobby agencies to modify the few laws that stand in their way and protect the individual citizen from any abuse, therefore destroying the concept of freedom that was given to said state at its very creation. You guys have to understand that the bill of rights was wrtten at a time when the breach between the rich and the poor was so big that there were no laws to protect the physical integrity of poor people. Back in the day you could get slashed to death by a noble person just becos he wanted to do so. So, basically, the bill of rights was made to give a minimal amount of rights to every single man, but lets face it: even at the time when it was written the concept of freedom of speach was a theory and not a reality, since even powerful men had to watch what they were saying.
Hey WOOOO THERE! It's not who's generation? Hate to have to say it but I was around at the end of the Vietnam war so I am definately of the generation LOL. :fresh: As for the conversation going on in this thread - I've been far too often dragged into similar debates on here (and elsewhere). I too uphold the right to free speech, however if there was ever a "law" that was humped too f*c* in a bid to come out with daft sh*t and spout utter garbage the "freedom of speech" is your Daddy!
Well, what I'm saying is that games such as these are exploiting a tragedy - and in a sense hurting the survirors and victims of said tragedy. Thus while it shouldn't be illegal to create such a game, I can't play them with a clear conscious. Let's take something less political - let's say I made a game called "The Manson Family." It's a RTS type game where you play as Charles Manson, and you have to go around Hollywood, singing in clubs, selling your music to the Beach Boys and the like, all with the goal of raising enough cash to buy your ranch and recruit members of your "family." And once you get the ranch you have to manage a prostitution ring in order to keep enough cash to be able to afford enough drugs to turn your family into your brainwashed cultish slaves. The whole game accumulates with the Tate murders. Now, do you think the relatives of Shannon Tate, Wojciech Fryowski, and Abigail Folger would have a right be a little pissed off at such a game? At the same time, a game about a serial killer, obvisously inspired by Charles Manson, in which the player does all of the above but dashed with some tounge-in-cheek humor, while that might be just as tasteless it might not come off as offensive. The thing is there's paradoy, and there's exploitation. One of them crosses the line, the other pushes it out just a little further. I'm the last person on Earth who supports censorship- I like movies with hideous monsters, people getting shot in the face, head explosions, and disgusting alien creatures ripping naked schoolgirls apart with tentacles - but some things do cross the line, and it's not wrong to point that out.
