SO the shooter in the Canada college killings was obsessed with this game, and RPG of thee columbine shootings. Honestly, what sick creep comes up with this.
[ September 15, 2006, 10:19 AM: Message edited by: kacard ]
Posted by 0range7Penguin (Member # 7337) on :
That is messed up...
I can't believe someone would take the time to make something like that.
Posted by Dr Strangelove (Member # 8331) on :
Wow.
Posted by kacard (Member # 200) on :
Sheperd -- discussing this topic is OK. Linking to the game is not.
Kristine Card
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Wow, there's actually a game about the Columbine shootings? And an RPG? Without asking for a link or anything, is there actually a serious company out there doing this?
I really would hope this would be the product of some twisted schmucks making a 'game' like that, and not a serious for-sale product. Ugh, terrible all around
----------
I'll bet a game like that doesn't make youth violence more likely, right? Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
Crap.
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
Yes, I've heard of at least one game based on Columbine, as a Half-Life "total conversion".
For that matter, I've seen video games based on trying to escape from the World Trade Center.
Although the former was probably a sick joke and I never saw game content for it, the second one went as far as to display a fully rendered WTC exterior and interior, including stairwells and areas engulfed in fire.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
There's also a game where your only goal is to successfully take the shot on JFK. Supposedly has a great physics engine, though I've never played it.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
So those who think it is appalling -- think nothing, though, of shooting cops in games like Grand Theft Auto??? Where do you draw your line?
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
The cops in GTA aren't real representatives of any real people. They are fake police in a fake city. The victims in the Columbine game represent real people, that really died. I think that is a huge difference.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I think it's the recreation of a specific historical event, Farmgirl.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Sheesh. I had serious moral problems with playing the stormtroopers in 'Star Wars Battlefront II.'
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Soo.... then you're saying games that re-enact you, for instance, being a soldier in the Civil War (a specific event) are okay just because they are so long ago and they don't seem very real to us, and we don't know the survivors or have anyone really hurting for them at this present day, that is different, right?
So in fifty or a hundred years, will it be okay to play Columbine?
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
(I'm not trying to pick a fight. I'm really musing on our society's thinking on this. I admit to having played a couple shoot-em-up games in my day. However, usually vs. aliens or nameless ships, etc.)
Posted by DaisyMae (Member # 9722) on :
First, let me just make note that I have serious problems with ALL violent games. Killing is killing. Not to mention that video games are such a worthless waste of time. If you're going to waste time, at least do it on the internet.
That said, I can see a difference between a Columbine game and a war game. At least in wars, soldiers go out knowing there is a possibility they could get killed or that they might have to kill another person. That's kinda what war is about. School is not like that. So if you pretend to kill soldiers, morally, I do think it is different than pretending to kill innocent students.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
I don't think pretending has any kind of moral implications, though I know several major religions that disagree with me.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Sheesh. I had serious moral problems with playing the stormtroopers in 'Star Wars Battlefront II.'
Don't ever run an RPG -- you'd have to play the bad guys!
------
I think the difference between a civil war shooter and a Columbine shooter is partly the time difference, but mostly the tone difference. For example, WWII shooters don't have you shooting up schools, even in parts where you play as the Nazis.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I hope everyone keeps in mind that while vicious, sick people often play violent video games, the two do not have a causal relationship. Many more people play violent video games who never hurt another person, commit a crime, or kill anyone.
I don't think anyone here has argued that yet, but people frequently seem to entangle violent representations and violent reality.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Don't ever run an RPG -- you'd have to play the bad guys!
You know, it's odd-- I can write really horrible characters (Quincy Umble, for example, in Eviction Notice) with no problem. But I can't play one in an RPG, and I dislike being the bad guy in video games. I think with RPGs and videogame characters, there's more of a sense of 'This person represents me.'
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
So is there a difference for you between writing a villain in a short story and writing one in a forum-based RPG as a DM? In both cases, you know that they're the antagonists, but in the latter case, you don't also get to write the "good guys." Maybe that's the mitigating factor?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I hope everyone keeps in mind that while vicious, sick people often play violent video games, the two do not have a causal relationship. Many more people play violent video games who never hurt another person, commit a crime, or kill anyone.
I'm not sure I believe that there is no causal relationship. It might even be that there is some causal relationship going in both directions -- someone who is vicious and sick might be more likely to play extremely violent video games, and someone who plays extremely violent video games might be more likely to become vicious and sick.
But if you meant that there's no absolute causal relationship (if you do X, you'll then do Y), then I agree with you.
Cause you start out stealing songs and then you're robbing liquor stores And sellin' crack and runnin' over school kids with your car Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I think with RPGs and videogame characters, there's more of a sense of 'This person represents me.'
Ick. I hope that the characters I've played don't represent me.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Don't ever run an RPG -- you'd have to play the bad guys!
Not that that's been a problem *mutter mutter* Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:For example, WWII shooters don't have you shooting up schools, even in parts where you play as the Nazis.
Do they have you slaughtering unarmed people, including old people and children? Or are they not that true to life?
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
We have an x-box and a computer, and we have a rule: sports or "city-building" or "business-running" or puzzle games only. (And we'd probably allow something like Oregon Trail, which we both played as a kid.) It works for us. We'll never have to tell our kids, "No, you can't play that, that game's only for grown-ups."
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
No Mario Cart!? Blasphemy.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
What's Mario Cart? Racing games are included in "sports" as long as the violence isn't over-the-top, if that's a racing game.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Oregon Trail is horribly violent, if I remember. I killed more people in that game than in Mortal Kombat. "Your family gets dysentery from drinking out of a dirty water hole. Four people die."
mr_p_h: I'll concede that there is probably some causal relationship, but I would argue that any reasonably well adjusted person can separate reality from fantasy.
I disagree with the people (I'm talking to you, Mrs. Clinton) who try to lay the blame for violence on the video games. It seems logical to me that people who are violent and possibly disturbed will seek violence in many areas of their life, including video games.
It does not seem very logical, as a person who has played lots of video games, and has no violent inclinations, that the video games cause violent behavior. I spent a couple hours yesterday slaying undead soldiers and minotaurs (God of War is a pretty awesome game), and not once today have I considered hurting anyone, cow-headed or otherwise.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen:
quote:For example, WWII shooters don't have you shooting up schools, even in parts where you play as the Nazis.
Do they have you slaughtering unarmed people, including old people and children? Or are they not that true to life?
I've never played one, but my understanding is that in an individual level, WWII shooters generally depict specific battles, rather than the day-to-day lives of the soldiers on either side. So as the Allies, you might attempt the landing at Dieppe, for example, with support from computer characters.
I think that means the answer to your question is "no."
Posted by Shepherd (Member # 7380) on :
Sorry kacard. My bad.
Posted by Mrs.M (Member # 2943) on :
It is sickening.
We had some kind of video game system at the Y (I have no idea which). We only allowed rated E (for everyone) games. Being Richmond, the kids all played a NASCAR game. I broke up more fights over that game than anything else. I had a 5th grader go after another kid with a stool and an 8th grader, who was much bigger than me, go after another kid with a folded chair. I think that video games are fine in moderation (20 minutes per day max), but I have never seen them played non-obsessively.
Farmgirl, I personally find Grand Theft Auto repugnant. I'm also horrified that you can play a WWII game as Nazis, especially considering that most of my husband's family was slaughtered by them. I just don't understand how anyone can enjoy games like that.
Posted by Mrs.M (Member # 2943) on :
It is sickening.
We had some kind of video game system at the Y (I have no idea which). We only allowed rated E (for everyone) games. Being Richmond, the kids all played a NASCAR game. I broke up more fights over that game than anything else. I had a 5th grader go after another kid with a stool and an 8th grader, who was much bigger than me, go after another kid with a folded chair. I think that video games are fine in moderation (20 minutes per day max), but I have never seen them played non-obsessively.
Farmgirl, I personally find Grand Theft Auto repugnant. I'm also horrified that you can play a WWII game as Nazis, especially considering that most of my husband's family was slaughtered by them. I just don't understand how anyone can enjoy games like that.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
quote: We'll never have to tell our kids, "No, you can't play that, that game's only for grown-ups."
I wouldn't count on you NEVER having to say that, KQ. Once your kids are old enough to visit their OTHER friends' homes, the subject will come up!
Believe me, it did with us, and my kids are about as protected as kids can get. They hardly ever socialize at other kids' homes, since we don't live in town. But it did come up.
FG
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I guess I've played video games all my life, so to me they're no different than any other game. Nobody blames RISK or Battleship for violent behavior. I've never heard anyone suggest that kids shouldn't play Axis and Allies, because two players will have to be Germany and Japan during WWII.
Sometimes games are just game. All my friends and I played cops and robbers with toy guns, played with G.I. Joe, played video games of all sorts, and to the best of my knowledge, none them have ever been to jail or attacked anyone.
Posted by Dr Strangelove (Member # 8331) on :
I so knew this thread would become this discussion .
What makes a video game "bad"? I know some would say killing, and I can see where you're coming from, though I don't necessarily agree. But for those of us who play games in which killing is common place (Halo comes to mind for me, and I've also become an assassin in Morrowind), why is this Columbine game repugnant, even to us? I should say me, since I don't want to presume to speak for other people. For me (and this is going to seem stupid), my standard is to not do anything in a game that I couldn't concievably do IRL. GTA is completely out for me, because I find the whole premise distasteful. But war games I have no problem with, as long as I'm on what I see as the morally right side (ie. I wouldn't play the Nazi's). I justify multi-player Halo with the fact that the other people respawn in a matter of seconds. I'm not ending their life, I'm pausing it. This Columbine game really repulses me, because nowhere can I find any semblance of justification for what they did, much less attempt to apply it to my own psyche.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Mrs. M, what about the board game Axis and Allies? Or the movie Downfall? For that matter, it's easy to be a bloodthirsty tyrant in a game like Civilization. Essentially, I'm trying to figure out where you're drawing the line.
I think the game I was thinking of was Battlefield 1942, a primarily multiplayer game:
quote:Each battle takes place on one of several maps located in a variety of places and famous battlefields in all of the major theaters of World War II: the Pacific, European, North African and Eastern Fronts. While the combat is always Axis Powers versus Allies, the location determines which specific armies are used (for example, on the Iwo Jima map, it is Japan versus the United States, while on the Battle of Britain map, it is Germany versus the United Kingdom). The maps in Battlefield 1942 are based on real battles, but are not necessarily realistically portrayed; an example of this is the presence of American forces on the Operation Market Garden map, even though, in reality, the Americans had no participation in the battle at Arnhem where this particular map takes place.
As to my own position on where the line should be drawn... I'm not really sure. It's a complex question -- how different is playing as the evil undead in WarCraft III or playing an evil assassin character in an RPG like Oblivion from playing a multiplayer shooter as a soldier from a fascist country? Does the fact that one loosely depicts reality make it so much worse that the game shouldn't have been made?
Added: MightyCow and Dr Strangelove kinda beat me to it, though I'd say that while I don't own any of the GTA games, I don't have a problem with them being made. I don't think children should play them, though.
Posted by Terrd (Member # 9734) on :
I think that there is a major difference between war games then a columbine shooting game. for one war is (i know this sound odd) socaly acceptable and a nesesity of life,it may be said that vilence never solves anything. but thats not true, if you want to knwo what it solves ask the founding fathers of ether heroshema or nagasace. war is treated as honorable and a way to great political power. where as columbine shooting is nothing but a cowardest act that is rightfully scorned by both socaity as by any normal human being. no honor no grace just horror and abomination. (just my thoughts not nesisarly my belives on the topic, excpet the columbine bit.) sorry for all the horrable spelling im tying in a hurry.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
FG: you're right. I meant about a game at our house that we play. We want to set an example, and if something is not appropriate for our kids, it's probably not appropriate for us, either.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
twink - and in thinking about your post -- I personally don't have much problem with armies vs. armies games (Civ, Warcraft), as much as I do with first-person shooter games. Where instead of strategy, it is a "put a gun in my character's hands and let me go around shooting people and blowing things up".
(and I have played both -- just found the latter to be distasteful.)
FG
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Yikes, I love shooters. Played Half-Life, both Halos, and while the war based soldiering games aren't my favorites, I have played them.
My husband plays them a lot. I see a huge difference between playing a WWII game and a Columbine game though - war games are based on soldiers who went out to fight a war and were combatants, whereas in Columbine you had the deaths of innocent minors who were just plain murdered. Maybe the distinction is only in my mind, but I do see a distinction there. I would not allow a game based on Columbine in our house, but do allow WWII based first person shooters. (not that anyone really plays them but my husband and he's old enough to make his own decisions.) GTA glorifies illegal activities and violence against police officers so it would not be allowed.
Posted by Terrd (Member # 9734) on :
the thing about gta is, its not really based on life, its based on hollywood. its really not much different then some of the action movies in theater aswell as on tv. not quite the same as columbine. still though i wouldnt recoment it to anyone that has problems with vilent movies or a heavy distaste for vilents in gen. and dont let youre kids play it any more then youd let them stay up late watching terminator or snached.
Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
Making a simulation of Columbine is just sick. I mean I have nothing against violent video games. I played them as a kid, as a teenager, and even now at the age of 21. I don't have any violent tendencies and have no desire to lift a finger against anyone. There's a large difference between violence and a simulation of a tragic event. I'm disappointed that someone took the time to make this (the same with the WTC stuff and the JFK stuff). It's just not good.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
My parents always prohibited video games of any sort at home and felt violent games should be more comprehensively banned from young children (they are pediatricians.) I think I will raise my children the same way, although I have been asked if I am Amish, and no, it wasn't a joke. Of course, my Aunt was a Mennonite, as were the couple that baby-sat for me as an infant....
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
While I support video games under free speech, and generally don't see a problem with violent video games, I do think the idea of a Columbine video game just shows horrible taste. I support urinating in the woods when you're camping, but I don't think anyone should do so in a graveyard.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: My parents always prohibited video games of any sort at home and felt violent games should be more comprehensively banned from young children (they are pediatricians.)
Aren't they banned from young children the same way movies are? It's not like a 7 year old can walk into the store and purchase Mortal Kombat. Most places I know won't sell it to you unless you're over 17. Just like some books and movies, video games have content that may not be suitable to young children.
quote: First, let me just make note that I have serious problems with ALL violent games. Killing is killing.
I have a real problem with this viewpoint. Killing in video games is not even remotely the same as killing in real life. It's like playing laser tag or something. Sheesh.
Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
Yep, games are rated by the ESRB like movies. Stores are supposed to get in a lot of trouble if they sell an M-rated game to anyone under the age of 17. I remember my mom had to purchase an M-rated game for me when I was 16.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
That reminds me, I went to see a movie called Crank last weekend, and while I quite enjoyed it, I noticed that it was essentially Grand Theft Auto -- The Movie in terms of the mayhem caused by the protagonist.
The movie was essentially a re-imagining of Speed where, instead of the bus not being able to go below a certain speed, it's the guy's heart that can't beat below a certain rate. So he causes all of this mayhem in the process of tracking down the guy who poisoned him, while maintaining his heart rate to stay alive.
Farmgirl, that makes sense. What about the case of Oblivion? It's a first-person roleplaying game set in a fantastical world, but you're free to do essentially whatever you want. There's a guild you can join called the Dark Brotherhood -- to gain membership, you must first commit a murder -- where you can essentially carry out contract killings (i.e. be an assassin). There game has a spectrum of moral options open to you, and laws are enforced if you're caught, but it's entirely possible to play the game as an evil character and do some pretty awful things if that's what you want to do. Would that be classified with the WWII shooters under your framework?
With respect to shooters, I agree with Belle, though I have a more charitable view of the GTA franchise than she does (largely for its laudable design acheivements in terms of open-ended gameplay, but still).
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
My understanding is that the so-called "Columbine RPG" is far more satirical and thoughtful than any of the media presently surrounding it would lead you to believe, and it's far from a glorification of the events of the shooting.
We have chosen as a society to presume that adults are capable of ingesting media in a thoughtful manner, and that, by and large, playing a game that involves shooting people is no more likely to cause one to shoot someone in real life than reading romance novels is to make someone leave their husband for a pirate. That assumption does tremendous good for us as a society, meaning that topics and ideas cannot be easily removed from consideration on the basis of a minority's preconception of what is "good for us". It also means that occasionally we face a tragedy and wonder if there might have been some trigger in the media that brought it about.
I don't doubt that people seek out things that seem to justify and vindicate their views, whether its listening to Alanis Morisette after a nasty break-up or reading Sean Hannity or Michael Moore after a politician does something that strikes us as particularly agregious. And while we're free to speculate that x may have played a part in y, I would oppose anything that tries to enforce policy on the greater whole on the basis of such speculation.
Consider that violent youth crime was at a low when games like "Mortal Kombat" and "Night Trap" were released.
Or the amount of violence that surrounds organized sports events around the world, with far less media comment.
Video games have come a long way; their audiences are older, and their ability to convey narratives and ideas have progressed tremendously. I hope a day will come when there isn't an automatic latching on the "new kid" for daring to engage the contraversial.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
quote: someone who is vicious and sick might be more likely to play extremely violent video games, and someone who plays extremely violent video games might be more likely to become vicious and sick.
I agree with this, but I think the first statement is more often the case.
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
I'm not going to post the link to the game directly, but a quick search on Google yields instant results for those that are curious.
From the bottom of that site (which has the lovely title "Super Columbine Massacre RPG!")...
quote:"I said this game is one of the most important in gaming history, which I meant for two reasons. First, [the creator] has used a video game (successfully, I might add) to explore an important socio-cultural event. This is, hopefully, the first step towards the acceptance of video games as a legitimate medium for the expression of serious thought. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, it is one of the only psychological explorations of the Columbine killers ever completed, and its sincerity is evident in the care displayed in the design of the game. It reminds us that Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, the murderers of Columbine, were victims of Columbine, as well." - Ryan Moore, The Pale Writer
Emphasis is mine.
Even more disturbing is the "Artist's Statement" on the site, in which he tries to justify why he created this.
And, for that matter, there's also a Wikipedia listing, which I won't directly link either.
quote:Controversy
Ledonne, anticipating a negative reaction to the game, sought to remain anonymous after its debut, using the alias "Columbin" on the few occasions he was contacted by a reporter. His identity was revealed by Roger Kovacs, a 22-year-old web developer who said his search to identify "Columbin" was a response to his anger over the game. Kovacs was a friend of one of the Columbine victims, Rachel Scott.
"The game does not glorify school shootings," Ledonne told The Washington Post. "If you make it far enough into the game, you see very graphic photos of Eric and Dylan lying dead. I can't think of a more effective way to confront their actions and the consequences those actions had."
2006 Montreal Shooting
Kimveer Gill, who shot 20 Dawson College students killing one on September 13, 2006, expressed his love of the game on his internet blog[3].
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
I just realized I am kinda my own paradox. For all that first-person shooter games make me uncomfortable, in real life I love playing lasertag. I don't know if that is because I think of it more as harmless tag game, or if it is because it makes me feel like a powerful soldier...
twink -- I've never seen or played Oblivion, so I don't have an opinion on it. I do have a co-worker who plays it quite a bit, I might ask him more about it. Are you shooting "people" or is it like some of the fantasy games where your enemies are fantasy characters like Undead or Dwarves, etc. etc. (like WoW)?
FG
Posted by Altáriël of Dorthonion (Member # 6473) on :
quote:Originally posted by DaisyMae: Not to mention that video games are such a worthless waste of time. If you're going to waste time, at least do it on the internet.
I beg to differ! *feels slightly offended* That's almost like saying that animation is also a worthless waste of time.
Posted by JemmyGrove (Member # 6707) on :
quote:Originally posted by Terrd: the thing about gta is, its not really based on life, its based on hollywood. its really not much different then some of the action movies in theater aswell as on tv.
One possible danger I can see in this is that some of the youth who play GTA may be less capable of discerning the difference between Hollywood and real life (just as with movies and other 'Hollywood' media which depict elements of the GTA lifestyle as more common and socially acceptable than they really are). In games where you play a character who kills other characters it's generally obvious that 'this isn't real, this doesn't exist for me in my life.'
On the other hand, many gamers do a lot on things in-game that they would find distasteful or unacceptable IRL, and in my experience playing the game doesn't make the act any less distasteful or unacceptable IRL. I imagine those gamers who find stealing cars to be an unacceptable act in their lives probably are not going to change their mind because it's fun to do in a game. And for those who are already inclined to steal cars, well, the game wouldn't change much for them either. (Maybe it would give them an outlet that didn't involve an actual car. )
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: playing a game that involves shooting people is no more likely to cause one to shoot someone in real life than reading romance novels is to make someone leave their husband for a pirate.
You know, my ex traveled back in time to date a pirate. I always thought it was just her, but she did love romance novels. I'm calling Hillary! Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: playing a game that involves shooting people is no more likely to cause one to shoot someone in real life than reading romance novels is to make someone leave their husband for a pirate.
It wouldn't surprise me at all if obsessing on certain types of romance books (reading them 8+ hours a day) would make someone more likely to leave their spouse for something that seems more exciting.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Here is an interview with the creator of the Columbine RPG*. Everyone who has posted in this thread should watch it. The Toronto Sun isn't exactly a grand bastion of investigative journalism, but to his credit, the RPG's creator answers the questions clearly and without rambling. Regardless of whether you agree with him, I think you'll agree that he's remarkably well-spoken. There is now a non-negligible chance that I will play his game. [Added: Or not, it's Windows-only.]
By the way, we're not talking about something graphic, here, it's very much after the Super Nintendo graphical style -- just in case anyone thought it was a Grand Theft Auto clone or even a Half Life 2 mod.
[ September 18, 2006, 08:29 PM: Message edited by: twinky ]
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote: playing a game that involves shooting people is no more likely to cause one to shoot someone in real life than reading romance novels is to make someone leave their husband for a pirate.
It wouldn't surprise me at all if obsessing on certain types of romance books (reading them 8+ hours a day) would make someone more likely to leave their spouse for something that seems more exciting.
I don't think doing anything aside from sleeping for more than eight hours a day is healthy. At least, not with any frequency.
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sterling:
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote: playing a game that involves shooting people is no more likely to cause one to shoot someone in real life than reading romance novels is to make someone leave their husband for a pirate.
It wouldn't surprise me at all if obsessing on certain types of romance books (reading them 8+ hours a day) would make someone more likely to leave their spouse for something that seems more exciting.
I don't think doing anything aside from sleeping for more than eight hours a day is healthy. At least, not with any frequency.
Considering I haven't even done that in the past year, I'm pretty much screwed then.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: [I don't think doing anything aside from sleeping for more than eight hours a day is healthy. At least, not with any frequency.
quote: How long is the average work week in the U.S.
According to a study by the National Sleep Foundation, the average employed American works a 46-hour work week; 38% of the respondents in their study worked more than 50 hours per week.
*Nice* Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by Farmgirl: I just realized I am kinda my own paradox. For all that first-person shooter games make me uncomfortable, in real life I love playing lasertag. I don't know if that is because I think of it more as harmless tag game, or if it is because it makes me feel like a powerful soldier...
twink -- I've never seen or played Oblivion, so I don't have an opinion on it. I do have a co-worker who plays it quite a bit, I might ask him more about it. Are you shooting "people" or is it like some of the fantasy games where your enemies are fantasy characters like Undead or Dwarves, etc. etc. (like WoW)?
FG
Now I want to play that game. First person shooters usually make me motion sick, but this is an RPG so maybe it won't. I've played GTA before. When I first saw some teenagers play it it freaked me out the way they could get codes for extra bullets and just shoot people. When I played it years later I'd steal cars, run people over and go on a rampage to be caught by the cops later. I reckon that playing an evil character didn't really do anything to me, but to people who have trouble with reality and see themselves as the tragic heros of their own story, then they should be banned from playing those sort of games or at least forced to go out and deal with people instead of escaping into a fantasy world.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:It reminds us that Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, the murderers of Columbine, were victims of Columbine, as well."
This makes me want to vomit.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Why? That acknowledgement, if accurate, does nothing to mitigate their responsibility for the shootings.
Added: It's not unlike trying to understand the root causes of terrorism. Contrary what neoconservatives would have you believe, understanding the causes of terrorism and defeating terrorists/preventing future terrorist attacks are not mutually exclusive goals.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:That acknowledgement, if accurate, does nothing to mitigate their responsibility for the shootings.
I disagree.
I agree with you about needing to root out the causes of terrorism. However, recognize that that's a general application remedy. The individual 9/11 terrorists were not victims.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
That's true, which is why it isn't a perfect analogy (has there ever been a perfect analogy?).
I don't see why or how it mitigates the responsibility of Harris and Klebold, however. I don't think we should let the monstrous nature of their crime deter us from exploring their reasons for perpetrating it.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I once made a perfect analogy. Oh, man, it was beautiful...
quote:I don't see why or how it mitigates the responsibility of Harris and Klebold, however. I don't think we should let the monstrous nature of their crime deter us from exploring their reasons for perpetrating it.
In truth, we need to understand what the writer meant by the phrase 'victims of Columbine.' The writer may have intended to say that H & K were victims of bullying and abuse, in an effort to cause the reader to sympathize with them, and to shrink their responsibility for the shootings. This is what would make me vomit.
Yes, we should study monsters.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Originally posted by twinky: Why? That acknowledgement, if accurate, does nothing to mitigate their responsibility for the shootings.
Added: It's not unlike trying to understand the root causes of terrorism. Contrary what neoconservatives would have you believe, understanding the causes of terrorism and defeating terrorists/preventing future terrorist attacks are not mutually exclusive goals.
I disagree that they are "victims of Columbine". They might be victims of poor parenting or even of society itself, but they are not victims of Columbine. They are the perpetrators of Columbine without whom Columbine itself would still be in relatively peaceful obscurity. I cannot think of a single way in which they are "victims of Columbine" any more than a bank robber is a victim of a bank robbery. The whole premise is a non-sequitur and horrid bastardization of the English language.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Further, I think that being a victim of something does not relieve one of any moral responsibility. Far better would it be to explore how perpetrators of injustices towards these two are in some way co-perpetrators of Columbine, in part responsible for that outcome. It's certainly a premise I find far more defensible.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
But it is factual that people don't exist in a vacuum. While it is true that H & K are responsible for their crimes, it is also true that how people treat others effect who people are. Ignoring this fact allows those who abuse to not shoulder the full repercussions of what they do.
So, I'd say that while H & K should shoulder their crimes, those who committed crimes against H & K should shoulder theirs.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote: The writer may have intended to say that H & K were victims of bullying and abuse
This is what I think the writer meant...
quote:in an effort to cause the reader to sympathize with them, and to shrink their responsibility for the shootings.
...but this is not the conclusion I draw about the writer's reasons for making the statement. You seem to be implying that this is the only reason the writer could have for making the first statement, which I don't think is true.
Added: I agree with Storm. Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Hmm... I think the disparity between the two crimes is such that I'm afraid that mentioning the two in such close proximity lessens the impact of the more grievous and heightens the effects of the more minor.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
That may be true, but it doesn't mean that was the writer's intent.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Very possible, twinky.
EDIT: That is to say, you may be right, twinky. I may be wrong about the writer's intent. I'm going to stick with my interpretation, though, because I've seen evidence of this kind of thing before-- where mild condemnations of violence are followed by rants on social disparity or bullying or environmental degradation. The problems that H & K allegedly suffered, and the ends that H & K wound up perpetrating are sufficiently out of proportion that I dislike watering down the one with the other.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Now that we've clarified ourselves to death, I guess my question really was: would the statement still make you want to vomit if that wasn't the writer's intent?
In case we ever meet, I need to try to establish a "Scott R nausea threshold" in order to avoid being puked on.
[Edit: I originally had "weren't" in italics, but I think "wasn't" is correct.]
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Nope. "Weren't" is correct.
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
For the past half page, every time I see "H & K" I keep thinking it stands for "Heckler & Koch".
Guess I've been a game developer for far too long...
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
quote:FG: you're right. I meant about a game at our house that we play. We want to set an example, and if something is not appropriate for our kids, it's probably not appropriate for us, either.
Honestly, I think that the right way to go. When asked where to draw the line on censorship, I think the best answer is at 0 because any other line will seem arbitrary. In other words, allowing violent video games is akin to allowing pornography, its the inevitable consequence of a free and just society. We have to allow it, we have to allow the Columbine game, we have to allow the WTC game, and the way we register our disgust isnt with censorship, but with our remotes and our wallets. You dont like it, dont buy it. You dont want to watch it, turn the channel. Im not a big fan of Fox news, but I dont want it removed from the air, I simply turn the channel. I dont want hate speech on my campus, but I dont want them denied access, I simply walk away.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:I don't think doing anything aside from sleeping for more than eight hours a day is healthy. At least, not with any frequency.
Can you tell that to my husband's boss? Please?
It was almost 8 when he got home tonight. Again. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:The game, available online as a free download, was a finalist in the Slamdance Guerrilla Gamemaker Competition until the festival's president yanked it this month for being a little too radioactive for the lawyers. Now, nearly half of the competition's 14 finalists have withdrawn their entries, calling the organizers' move an insult to their medium. The festival has also lost one sponsor, the Interactive Media Division of the University of Southern California.
A homebrew creation of filmmaker Danny Ledonne, the game examines the lives of shooters Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold as they prepare for and carry out their killing spree. In flashbacks throughout the game, players learn about the killers' backgrounds, including their obsessions and their friendship. The game has been controversial for its very existence, as well as for the fact that Kimveer Gill, a Montreal gunman who went on a shooting rampage last year before killing himself, was a fan.
It's a disturbing piece of software but is considered by some in the tiny, indie gamemaker scene to be important as a work that explores the boundaries of what a game is, or can be.
Ledonne says he hopes his title, which he considers to be an "electronic documentary," will inspire others to base games on topics they find important.
...
Ledonne doesn't express much hostility toward Slamdance. "I don't agree with the choices they made, but they aren't easy choices to make," he said.
I downloaded Ledonne's game recently and was surprised by the amount of work that had gone into it. Ledonne relied on transcripts of the two shooters, witness reports and other sources to create the dialogue for a game that is loaded with information.
But when it came time to start creating mayhem in the school's halls, I couldn't bring myself to push the buttons to continue. Odd, I suppose, because I have "killed" thousands of video game characters over the years. And though the game's chunky graphics are primitive, compared with nearly any new title, no game has ever made me feel nearly as queasy. I didn't want to be responsible for the real-world violence that happened that day, even in a game.
I haven't digested this myself, yet.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
While I agree that this game has bad taste, to blame a game for school shooting is in my opinion is ridiculous.
I have played through this game. I did not play it to have fun, I didnt play it because it was a game. I played it to see what all the hubbub was about. I think the game is horrific. To have a game based on this massacre is bad taste. While I respect the creator for trying to get the history behind it out there, it shouldnt have been made into a game.
The first time I heard about the Columbine shooting I was horrified. When the media blamed the shooting on a video game however I had to laugh. To blame a video game for such an act is only shifting the blame off of these two guys for their actions, and to a lesser extent, their parents.
Their parents should have taught them better.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
There are few people indeed who blame media exclusively for horrific acts of violence, Geraine, as you appear to be suggesting is done by some.
I've never spoken to anyone who thought there weren't a variety of causes and areas of responsibility, which included influential violent media.
Personally, I think that to absolve extremely violent and commonplace media (video games, violent movies, violent television and the related glorification of violence) from any involvement in, well, horrific acts of violence is naive at best.
Posted by Survivor (Member # 233) on :
You know, that follow up got me thinking....
Has anyone here played the Hordes of the Underdark expansion for Neverwinter Nights?
I played up to the point where you have to make an alliance with the Illithids (Mind-flayers). I'd always just wig and start killing them all. Even got as far as the main brain guy, where they ask for an alliance despite the fact that I've just been running around killing them all. And I just couldn't do it. I could not make an alliance with them, even in a game. It isn't like I have a deep-seated racial hatred against Illithids either, this game was pretty much my first exposure to them. Maybe if they'd been presented differently...I didn't even blink at making friends with those drow, after all. But then again, drow chicks are pretty hot.
This might seem to be making light of the issue...my point is that I do believe that there are some things that can be in really bad taste, even if it's just a game. Even if it's just a fantasy game. It wasn't just about violence or anything. And of course, as always, I'd taken humans as a favored enemy for my Ranger;) (yeah, I know, real useful choice, that). It's just that certain kinds of things don't sit well with me.
I don't think I would have had a problem with the Columbine game. I'm not going to download it to find out, because frankly it sounds like kinda a sucky game qua game. I mean, shooting a bunch of helpless enemies that can't shoot back or even escape...what kind of fun is that supposed to be? I guess it could be "cathartic" or something if I were a picked on teen, though that seems pretty lame. It's just not fun if nobody shoots back.
Hell, maybe that's the whole point of the game "you might think this would be cathartic, but actually it's not even fun". Who knows?
But I'm not about to go on a moral crusade against Hordes of the Underdark for requiring that the player do something I found morally repugnant in order to progress the game. That would just be silly. And I think that the furor over this Columbine game is equally baseless. Not that there's no room for people to give it negative reviews and say that it's objectionable, but getting so worked up over it is dumb. Would it really be okay if the game were redone with changed names and cute little anime-style "enemies" to kill?
It would still suck as a game, and it would still be just as morally objectionable as art. But it wouldn't be newsworthy, for some obscure reason that I frankly don't understand.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
I agree with you Rakeesh. Children are desensatized to the violence due to video games, television, music, and movies. However to blame the forms of media instead of the parents who enabled their children to have access to these types of media is a shame.
A person under 17 should not be able to buy an M rated game. Just like someone under 17 should not be allowed to watch a rated R movie. Without parental permission of course.
Movies can be more violent and bloody than a video game. I have played games like Mortal Kombat, Postal, and GTA, but the violence in these games doesnt even come close to some of the horror movies out there.
Posted by Tara (Member # 10030) on :
Survivor,
You say you don't have a problem with the Columbine game. Now image your friend died in the Columbine shootings. Or your kid. And then finding out someone made a video game in which players have to shoot as many high school kids as possible to get to the next round (or whatever).
You say that there are plenty of video games in which people kill other people or enemies, so this one should be okay too. But the people who died in Columbine were specific people. Essentially, you're comparing the memory of someone's child to a little green monster or a faceless, generic viking soldier. How can you say there's no difference?
Sorry for the drama, but this really is one of the most morally outrageous things I've heard of in a long time. I think if I were a family member or friend of one of the victims, I would feel extremely insulted, as well grief-stricken all over again.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
I think there's a double standard here. SCMRPG is horrifying to people in a way that, say, Van Sant's Elephant isn't because it's a game. There are connotations to a phrase like "You made killing those people into a game" that there aren't to "You made killing those people into a movie."
If it's because a game puts the player in the position of the initiator of violence, I can kind of understand that. If it's just because games are seen as a trivial medium that can't reach the high pinnacles of art or journalism that a book or movie can, I suspect there's what amounts to a generational rift.
As to the effect of violent media on those who perpetuate violence, I think it would be equally naive to fail to consider the possibility that the cathartic effect of violent media may have prevented real violence. But, of course, that's a more difficult extrapolation to pin down. You don't read about the 'A' student who volunteers to help the elderly playing "Grand Theft Auto". There's nothing about his or her life that we're fumbling to explain.
Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
I think that there really isn't that graphic, and it isn't really about the massacre part of the shootings. It it is more about the people who participated in it. I think that was the point that the creator was trying to make in the interview. He compared it to the recent 9/11 movies, and I agree fully that even if it may be uncomfortable or simply wrong in some people's, things like it still need to be done. He said it was a work of art, and I can agree with him fully. How is this different than all those 9/11 movies?
I mean I read an article about the game, and in it I read that the creator of the game wanted to make a movie about the shootings, but he couldn't afford all the promotion required for such a movie. So he turned to the next big media outlet that was available, video games. Sure the goal is to kill as many people or whatever, but in reality that's not the point. His real point is to show that things like Columbine could be avoided if more people took action when they needed to. Teachers really don't care for the nerds and stuff and I feel sorry for some of the kids I see. Also blaming shootings on video games is like blaming black on black violence on rap music. It is just looking at one piece of a puzzle without the picture of the final one. There are so many factors playing into a kid's mind that blaming it on video games, when in reality it is the parent's and school's fault is just wrong.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Sorry for the drama, but this really is one of the most morally outrageous things I've heard of in a long time.
Oh, I don't know about that. It's extremely disrespectful. But there's a lot of actual, real-world harm and death being dealt to people. That strikes me as morally much worse than a game could ever be.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tara:
Survivor,
You say you don't have a problem with the Columbine game. Now image your friend died in the Columbine shootings. Or your kid. And then finding out someone made a video game in which players have to shoot as many high school kids as possible to get to the next round (or whatever).
You say that there are plenty of video games in which people kill other people or enemies, so this one should be okay too. But the people who died in Columbine were specific people. Essentially, you're comparing the memory of someone's child to a little green monster or a faceless, generic viking soldier. How can you say there's no difference?
Sorry for the drama, but this really is one of the most morally outrageous things I've heard of in a long time. I think if I were a family member or friend of one of the victims, I would feel extremely insulted, as well grief-stricken all over again.
Just to play devil's advocate here (since I take strong objection to the Columbine game), what about historical FPSs which include specific people? Or how about men from a particular platoon/unit?
Posted by Tara (Member # 10030) on :
I thought of a better way to phrase what I think about the Columbine game:
The point of a war video game, in which real soldiers are depicted from a real battle, is that it's a strategy game. It's based off a battle because battles ARE strategy. So maybe in that case, it's okay to have human-like enemies, just to make it realistic and history-buff-ish. (but couldn't you just as easily take the battle plan from those battles and adapt it into a shoot-the-little-green-things game? what's the added appeal of shooting real-looking people?)
anyway though, the Columbine incident wasn't strategy, it was a massacre. There's no game there. If the game maker's point was to tell the story of Columbine, make a movie or a book. if you don't have enough money, wait till you have enough money. a Columbine video game would be deeply disturbing for the victims' loved ones -- you can't deny that. and since it has no fun, exciting strategy value, and since it would be better told as a movie, why make the game at all?
Posted by Tara (Member # 10030) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer:
quote:Sorry for the drama, but this really is one of the most morally outrageous things I've heard of in a long time.
Oh, I don't know about that. It's extremely disrespectful. But there's a lot of actual, real-world harm and death being dealt to people. That strikes me as morally much worse than a game could ever be.
Of course you're right; I guess what I meant was that it was morally disturbing in the field of video game making.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tara: I thought of a better way to phrase what I think about the Columbine game:
The point of a war video game, in which real soldiers are depicted from a real battle, is that it's a strategy game. It's based off a battle because battles ARE strategy. So maybe in that case, it's okay to have human-like enemies, just to make it realistic and history-buff-ish. (but couldn't you just as easily take the battle plan from those battles and adapt it into a shoot-the-little-green-things game? what's the added appeal of shooting real-looking people?)
anyway though, the Columbine incident wasn't strategy, it was a massacre. There's no game there. If the game maker's point was to tell the story of Columbine, make a movie or a book. if you don't have enough money, wait till you have enough money. a Columbine video game would be deeply disturbing for the victims' loved ones -- you can't deny that. and since it has no fun, exciting strategy value, and since it would be better told as a movie, why make the game at all?
Since we're arguing against the game on moral grounds, we can't really use 'not fun' or 'not strategy' as arguments, IMO.
As for realistic war games; there is the matter of historical interest, and the fact that players are looking for a simulated experience of war in that period. The more real and integrated it feels, usually the better. There will always be a degree of fantasy in games and often moderation in realism can produce a better game than a historically purist one (I enjoy playing Day of Defeat more than Red Orchestra, though Red Orchestra does so much more to simulate the experience of being in a real world battle), but abstracted strategy is not always what players are looking for.
Posted by Abhi (Member # 9142) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tara: I thought of a better way to phrase what I think about the Columbine game:
The point of a war video game, in which real soldiers are depicted from a real battle, is that it's a strategy game. It's based off a battle because battles ARE strategy.
You've never really played any of these games have you? First-person shooter is a key element of any war game... Let's take Call of Duty 2 [a game i personally like]... im granading / shooting in the head hundreds of german soldiers on an hourly basis, and pretty much following the commands i'm given.
If you think real war is all strategy, talk to someone who's been in a war. My father fought three wars, and it's nothing but blood and death. It's about killing the person who's trying to kill you before he gets the chance.
[ January 19, 2007, 12:08 AM: Message edited by: Abhi ]
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
quote:Originally posted by Abhi:
If you think real war is all strategy, talk to someone who's been in a war. My father fought three wars, and it's nothing but blood and death. It's about killing the person who's trying to kill you before he gets the chance.
I think you're being a bit hard on Tara there. She was only saying that she believed war games were simulating the strategic aspects of battle (and as chaotic as war is, there is always strategy involved).
Posted by Survivor (Member # 233) on :
Yeah...I mean, my own point wasn't that there's nothing objectionable about the game. It sounds like a sucktastic waste of time and it's morally offensive.
But I honestly believe that if the game had you murdering cute little green aliens that couldn't fight back it would still be sucky and morally offensive. At least, that's the way I feel about it. I'm just basing that on my experience of being required to make an alliance with a morally repugnant, though totally fictional, group of slave-trading brain-washing monsters. I simply wasn't willing to do that. I quit and played a different module (I considered cheating to see if I could defeat the big brain, but I thought that would probably break the module and it seemed pointless anyway, but maybe I will).
But even though I found that scenario objectionable, I don't make a big fuss about it. It was, ultimately, my own choice as to whether to act out a storyline I found offensive. And I made that choice. If it had been a book, I would have stopped reading it.
Now, if it had been a movie...you have less control when watching a movie. It takes an active effort to take yourself out of the situation, and it inconveniences a bunch of other people who may or may not share your moral views. That's one reason I think movies are much more morally dangerous than a game can ever be (unless it were made more like a movie). In a game, you must make the active decision to keep going. In a movie, you need only make the passive decision to stay put till everyone else is leaving.
But, a game can still be pretty bad. I just don't see what it adds to make it about specific events. Sure, lots of people have had plenty of fun making light of bad things that have happened to me. Maybe that's desensitized me or something. But if somebody made a video game about one of the various unpleasent things that's happened to me, using my specific name and image...I don't think it would be worse.
Probably I'm the only one that feels this way.
Posted by Dr Strangelove (Member # 8331) on :
I haven't read all the new posts, but I did read Dag's and I found what it said about basing games off of "topics they find important" to be kind of ... eye opening, for lack of a better word. I'm taking a Creative Nonfiction writing this class this semester and the teacher has said over and over that we should write about something that bothers us, makes us angry, or even scares the **** out of us. When keeping that in mind, and thinking of the game as a piece of art, it's creation becomes more reasonable. I'm not an art connoisseur, so I don't know the names of specific paintings, but I'd imagine that people who painted images of war and suffering and innocents dying weren't condoning or encouraging such actions. When painting the expression on the face of a man about to execute an innocent girl, the artist examines the depths of humanity. As Montaigne said, "Every man has within himself the entire human condition". To create a piece of art, yoyou study and try to understand the subject. Yes, it sometimes is offensive and ... painful. But just because it offends sensitivities doesn't mean that such art shouldn't be made. Examining something like the Columbine massacre is not only acceptable, but maybe even commendable. When I look at it that way, I have a hard time objecting to its translation into art.
Of course, this is all contingent on video games being seen as an art form.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Dr. Strangelove:
With most visual arts, even movies, you are asked to be an observer. At most, you are asked to put your emotions on the line.
The difference with videogames, and what makes them such a powerful medium, is the heightened level of interaction that is available to the consumer. We're not just looking at a picture or reading a poem about Flander's Field-- we're involved with the battle, killing enemies, being killed. The process moves from an intellectual, imaginary setting to a virtual reality.
I think this game is monstrous. I don't think it's an important piece of art; I don't think it should necessarily be banned, either.
I do think that video game makers should expand their reach a bit-- what about a SimLife type game where people try to woo the trenchcoat mafia into normalcy before they become monsters? Sure, there are no shotguns-- but the story and the art could be much more provacative, much more powerful.
Posted by Dr Strangelove (Member # 8331) on :
You make a good point and I agree with you. I think my perception and hesitant acceptance of the game comes from the fact that for me, art is something very personal. It's only to someone very close to me that I'll show any of what I consider my art, whether it be poems or videos or drawings. It's a record of something that I've put a lot of time into. It's the physical representation of hours of excruciating introspection and transfer of that introspection to paper, or whatever medium fits best. It's only recently I've started to use art as a medium for expression, so I probably am still looking at it through rose colored glasses, but I see it as something sacred.
But, like I said, I do agree with you, because he made it available to the public, and that's where my ability to accept and even respect it ends.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
The real question is, why would anyone want to experience, even partially as in a video gaming medium, the reality of teenage mass murderers re-enacting real murders?
I can't really find any answers to that question that aren't, as Scott says, monstrous. And "so we can understand it" just doesn't really fly, because you're not going to understand a psychotic, homicidal outlook just by playing a game.
Posted by Survivor (Member # 233) on :
I don't know why it makes any difference that the events being depicted were "real". Yes, it makes a difference when you show footage of actual killing in a movie, but that's because a real killing had to take place in order for you to make the movie.
The Columbine massacre didn't have to take place for someone to make this game. True, the game wouldn't have been made otherwise, but it doesn't depend for its creation on any artifact that exists solely as a result of the murders that took place. If these guys had been stopped at the last minute, the game could still have been made.
Would that make it any less offensive? It certainly might make it a better game, you'd have to include a part in the game where you bypass or defeat whatever obsticle stopped the killings in real life. But leaving that aside, would it make the game any less horrible an idea?
Art isn't just entertainment or recreation, after all. Art is a chosen experience that we create and accept to express our values and view of the world. It can be really horrible, provoking monstrous ideas as well as uplifting ones. And ideas are the root of actions, etc.
Leave aside my silly (if sincere) example of something I wasn't willing to do in a role-playing game. Let's say that the Columbine massacre had been prevented at the last moment by a freak accident, say these guys got hit by a truck on the way to school and police found all the guns and bombs and plans and such that way.
Would that really change your view of this game?
Why?
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I can't really find any answers to that question that aren't, as Scott says, monstrous. And "so we can understand it" just doesn't really fly, because you're not going to understand a psychotic, homicidal outlook just by playing a game.
I don't think playing a game is any less likely to make one understand an event than simply finding video games culpable for the event.
I suspect I should probably play the game before I make any broad statements about what it does or does not, might or might not accomplish.
And I don't have the kind of psychological expertise that allows me to describe the killers of Columbine High School as psychotic. It seems to me an oversimplification, much like the tendency to blame the media for the event in the first place; a desire to have a pat answer and move on rather than engage a monstrous event.
Still, if any media could cause one to understand the motivations that drive such an event, it might be worthwhile- and possibly a better answer than the metal detectors and dress codes that treat every student like a miscreant and a tragedy-waiting-to-happen.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
Played Half-Life, both Halos, and while the war based soldiering games aren't my favorites, I have played them. ![[Mad]](mad.gif)