Kennedy killing now a video game

[D_Raay]

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/3E40EBCC-6E0B-4EC2-97B9-7081623CDAC8.htm

The release of JFK Reloaded is timed to coincide with the 41st anniversary of Kennedy's murder in Dallas and was designed to demonstrate a lone gunman was able to kill the president.

"It is despicable," David Smith, a spokesman for Massachusetts Senator Edward Kennedy, the late president's brother, said.

He was informed of the game on Friday but declined further comment.

Kirk Ewing, managing director of the Scottish firm Traffic Games, which developed the game, said he understood some people would be horrified at the concept, but he insisted he and his team had nothing but respect for Kennedy and for history.

"We believe that the only thing we're exploiting is new technology," said Ewing, a former documentary filmmaker and senior executive with Scottish developer VIS, responsible for games such as State of Emergency.

He said he sent Edward Kennedy a letter before the game's release.

Traffic Games said the objective was for a player to fire three shots at Kennedy's motorcade from assassin Lee Harvey Oswald's digitally recreated sixth-floor perch in the Texas School Book Depository.

Points are awarded or subtracted based on how accurately the shots match the official version of events as documented by the Warren Commission, which investigated Kennedy's assassination.

Shooting the image of Kennedy in the right spots in the right sequence adds to the score while "errors", such as shooting first lady Jacqueline Kennedy, lead to deductions.

Each shot can be replayed in slow motion, and the bullets can be tracked as they travel and pass through Kennedy's digitally recreated body. Players can choose to see blood by pressing a blood effects option.

Players can also view the motorcade from a number of angles, including the perspective of filmmaker Abraham Zapruder and a view from the "grassy knoll" where some conspiracy theorists believe a second gunman was stationed.

The game will be available via download for $9.99.

Anyone who would download this game and actually pay for it is a sick fuck.

And the fact that it has even been made indicates there are lots of sick fucks out there.

[Whois]

Anyone who would download this game and actually pay for it is a sick fuck.

And the fact that it has even been made indicates there are lots of sick fucks out there.

Ever played Kaboom?

"The human race consists of the damned and the ought-to-be damned."
- Mark Twain, Notebook, 1898

[D_Raay]

Ever played Kaboom?
No, but I assume it is a game where you drop bombs on Martin Luther King..

[Whois]

No, but I assume it is a game where you drop bombs on Martin Luther King..

Not quite...

http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view.php?id=50323

It's a suicide bomber game.

[Whois]

"I would first like to say if someone can't determine the difference between reality and an outlet of entertainment, then they should damn themselves to a dark cave for being so stupid." - Anon

[mickill]

how is this video game different from the countless other ultra-violent ones?

Because you're re-enacting an actual murder that undeniably took place. Forget that it's exploiting the assassination of a president, even. The O.J. in his white Bronco game is just as tasteless.

[Ace42]

That's call of duty, medal of honour, and battlefield 1942 out of bounds. Each of them enact military operations that actually took place and actually resulted in thousands of deaths.

[bigkidpants]

how is this video game different from the countless other ultra-violent ones?
because this is a deliberate attempt to indocrinate a new generation with an old lie the adults don't believe anymore. "conservatives" in the government killed kennedy, not no oswald.

[yeahwho]

to make money is prolly the main motivation, the game and the asassination.

[yeahwho]

would it work as a weekly TV series? or a late night TV talk show? iPod? Breakfast Cereal? Didn't Lincoln have some sort of logs and car?

[paulk]

"meh", to give this any special attention over those that Ace42 mentioned-- How many dead Iraqis/Vietnamese/Germans/Japanese equal one dead American? Was Kennedy's life any more valuable than Nguyen Tran's?

[Ace42]

Nguyen was a CHILD toucher!

Also, BFV rocks.

[D_Raay]

Also, BFV rocks.

Agreed.

However, this game focuses on nothing else but shooting Kennedy in the head. I realize other games mentioned re enact horrid wars but they don't isolate killing a global leader and sold right here in the country in which he was assassinated.

[Ace42]

One man, 100,000 man. Stalin made a comment about that.

In the words of the cybermen: "There are people dying all over your world, and yet you do not cry for them."

[D_Raay]

In the words of the cybermen: "There are people dying all over your world, and yet you do not cry for them."

Well, actually I do. Being born in Massachusetts I just found this particular game in very bad taste.

[DroppinScience]

because this is a deliberate attempt to indocrinate a new generation with an old lie the adults don't believe anymore. "conservatives" in the government killed kennedy, not no oswald.

Putting aside the whole conspiracy angle (whether true or not), this is far different from other shoot 'em up games like GoldenEye or Halo 2. Those are just shooting random cardboard cut-outs of people, not actual individuals.

By shooting Kennedy over and over, that's making light of a great tragedy. Exactly the same as if video games came out where you get to control a plane and ram it into the WTC.

And I don't think you can even compare a Kennedy assassination video game to those Medal of Honor games of actual WW2 missions. Who wouldn't love the chance to conduct operations in Normandy, Sicily, North Africa, etc. That would be fun to play those games. :)

[Ace42]

Why not, DS? because you have seen film footage of him? Because you know his face? His name? what his voice sounded like? What PRECISELY makes him off limits, but hundreds of thousands of other people not?

[DroppinScience]

Why not, DS? because you have seen film footage of him? Because you know his face? His name? what his voice sounded like? What PRECISELY makes him off limits, but hundreds of thousands of other people not?

Dude, Kennedy rocks the house. You just don't go there.

I'm born 19 years after the assassination and I STILL mourn Kennedy's death. It depresses the hell out of me how the world could have been so different (for the better, I'm hoping) if Kennedy had lived on completed his first term and likely would have been re-elected '64.

Hell, Kennedy would most likely have pulled out of Vietnam (faster than Johnson or Nixon would've done, that's for sure). :mad:

[Ace42]

Muh, I hope there is a conspiracy theory over my death. Then maybe Lethe will purge living men's minds of my sins likewise.

[DroppinScience]

Muh, I hope there is a conspiracy theory over my death. Then maybe Lethe will purge living men's minds of my sins likewise.

I'll talk to Tony Blair, MI6, the Mossad... maybe throw in a little bit o' KGB. We'll get some conspiracy surrounding your death. ;)

[ASsman]

Uh, I really don't think it's "just for fun". Maybe you should read into the developers intent, rather than assume it.

[yeahwho]

If there were no profit to be made this would not exsist, the game is not an altruistic venture by some noble soul on earth, it is about the money. There are plenty of websites of concerned people looking for nothing more than the truth on JFK and his untimely death. They are head and shoulders above a video game and ask for nothing more than an IQ above 65.

I read alot of different articles on this goofy guys game today and I actually kind of share Senator Joseph Lieberman's (http://www.tallahassee.com/mld/tallahassee/news/politics/10256536.htm) response to the game.

[Ace42]

Having had a look at the demo, and compared it to various forensic recreations of the event, I can safely say it is pretty damn accurate. It is avery thin line between watching the zapruder footage dilligently (every US citizen's responsibility) and taking part in a real time recreation of events (a despicable perverse game offending all right thing person's morals)

[ASsman]

Let's just make fun of cripples while we are all here.

[drobertson420]

It's kinda sick....yea.

But I wonder if you can hunker in the street-level sewer grate where the head-shot came from....... ;)


No, nevermind.....sick game.

[mickill]

That's call of duty, medal of honour, and battlefield 1942 out of bounds. Each of them enact military operations that actually took place and actually resulted in thousands of deaths.

This game's based on the murder of a specific individual. The games you mentioned are based on historical events, but not one isolated person's death. The folks you shoot up in those games don't have names and bare any explicit resemblance to the people who actually died during those military operations/battles. It's not the same, dude. If there were a game that allowed you to re-enact the Manson Murders and stab an 8 month preganant Sharon Tate repeatedly, that would be the same thing.

[Ace42]

This game's based on the murder of a specific individual.

You kill one man, it's a tradgedy, you kill a million, it's a statistic - Joe Stalin.

The games you mentioned are based on historical events, but not one isolated person's death.

Yeah, heaven forbid you had a WW2 game where there was only one person you had to kill...

The folks you shoot up in those games don't have names and bare any explicit resemblance to the people who actually died during those military operations/battles. It's not the same, dude.

They do have names, certainly in BF42. It is quite conceivable that one of the names (generic and unspecific as they are) is the same as someone who died in one of the campaigns. So we can safely say it is not merely the fact that a pixelated model has been giving a name that is the factor.

In the same way as the polygonated character of JFK is designed to represent a real person in the game world, the polygonated characters in the other games I mentioned represent "real people."

The reason you don't KNOW there names? Because there were more of them, and they didn't command a nation.

Since when has an increase in the number of casualties lessened the tragedy? Funny how people in the US deride monarchies, but when one of their "elected monarchs" gets offed, they still tug the forlock like the most servile of peasants.

If there were a game that allowed you to re-enact the Manson Murders and stab an 8 month preganant Sharon Tate repeatedly, that would be the same thing.

And yet a game which allows you to reanact the mass-murder of THOUSANDS of people is perfectly ok.

I mean, hell they are just our ancestors, and they died over 50 years ago, and no-one can remember their names anyway. Who cares that you can re-enact THEIR bloody executions? Who cares if you get medals and a better score for the most ruthless carnage you can unleash?

Are you seriously implying that if BF42 or MOHAA actually had even just a couple of real people's names thrown in here or there for authenticity, it would suddenly make it "more wrong" ?

[ASsman]

Yes.

[mickill]

Are you seriously implying that if BF42 or MOHAA actually had even just a couple of real people's names thrown in here or there for authenticity, it would suddenly make it "more wrong" ?

You're really missing the point. And you're reaching. Is the objective in any of those games you named to shoot the characters, which you've suggested could have been modelled after actual victims, in the exact location where they died, in the exact places on their bodies they were originally shot, from the precise location the shots came from, while they're surrounded by models of the same people who were with them at the time?

[ASsman]

The reason you don't KNOW there names? Because there were more of them, and they didn't command a nation.

[Ace42]

You're really missing the point. And you're reaching. Is the objective in any of those games you named to shoot the characters, which you've suggested could have been modelled after actual victims, in the exact location where they died, in the exact places on their bodies they were originally shot, from the precise location the shots came from, while they're surrounded by models of the same people who were with them at the time?

The objective in these games is to kill the enemy. The fact that they aren't former presidents of the USA is neither here nor there.

Considering the number of times the game has been played, and the number of players to shoot, I find it impossible to believe that at least one death in one game hasn't been the exact replica of actual events. There are snipers in these games, and they do have to aim for the head. Numerous soldiers on Omaha beach, for example, were shot through the head by German soldiers whilst rushing up the beachead. These soldiers were surrounded by other fellow soldiers, some who they knew personally, some who were just guys in the same sort of uniform. In the games, likewise.

It sounds like your argument is solely that you are disgusted by the PRECISION with which the situation is recreated. That is a very odd argument, considering realism in the games I cited is often a key selling point.

Funny how you can't get your indignation as motivated over events that weren't taped in colour and replayed across the news ad infinitum.

I'm afraid it is YOU who is missing the point.

JFK was one man who was shot. Making a game of this shooting is no more disgusting than making a game of hundreds of thousand men that got shot. It only seems worse because you are a victim of the media. Nevermind a game depicting what happened to hundreds of thousands of men, if it depicts someone who was a well-recognised TV personality, then it is a moral abomination.

The location is immaterial, Omaha beach is an "exact location" where the people died. How many feet does a level in a game's archetecture have to be out before your tolerance turns to disgust? Inches? Clearly the fact that it comes down to scale is beside the point.

So, the location of the events is beside the point, the fact that you have to aim for a specific body part (the head, like in all FPS) is beside the point, the location of the shooter is beside the point (in any historical FPS, players are going to take up position in key strategic areas, just like the real life soldiers would) and the fact that the models are surrounded by other models that would've been there on the occasion is beside the point.

What does that leave?

JFK is famous, everyone knows about him.

I think it is a little bit perverse that you are only bothered about it when you can put a face to the name.

You get an old vet watching MOHAA, you think he wouldn't say "Wow, that is just how it was, you see that body go down there? That's exactly how little Bobby Parsons was caught, just like, same place, head-shot by a sniper, just the same!"

Of course, no-one cares about Little Bobby Parsons, he wasn't a president. There isn't film of him getting shot. He DOESN'T COUNT.

If it's not on TV, it didn't happen.

[D_Raay]

While I agree with your sentiment Ace, I can't concur about Kennedy being just another man. Maybe because you live in England you can't truly understand his legacy here.

[Funkaloyd]

What a shame that war is viewed as somehow more legitimate than murder; that games like this and Manhunt are more controversial than strategy titles which let the player recreate Hitler's invasion of Poland.

[mickill]

The objective in these games is to kill the enemy. The fact that they aren't former presidents of the USA is neither here nor there.

The fact that both games involve killing an enemy is not the bottom line. If that were the case, then I guess Resident Evil would be considered the same thing to you, as well.

Considering the number of times the game has been played, and the number of players to shoot, I find it impossible to believe that at least one death in one game hasn't been the exact replica of actual events. There are snipers in these games, and they do have to aim for the head. Numerous soldiers on Omaha beach, for example, were shot through the head by German soldiers whilst rushing up the beachead. These soldiers were surrounded by other fellow soldiers, some who they knew personally, some who were just guys in the same sort of uniform. In the games, likewise.

You're using the term "exact" somewhat loosely here. Would they be "exact" by coincidence, or by intent? And no, I don't think you could ever replicate an actual situation that took place, with the same accuracy, if it wasn't intentional.

It sounds like your argument is solely that you are disgusted by the PRECISION with which the situation is recreated. That is a very odd argument, considering realism in the games I cited is often a key selling point.

No, it's the fact that it's a depicting a play by play account of an actual event, which NONE of the games you've cited do.

Funny how you can't get your indignation as motivated over events that weren't taped in colour and replayed across the news ad infinitum.

That's a bit impertinent. Did I say that this is the only game that bothers me?

I'm afraid it is YOU who is missing the point.

JFK was one man who was shot. Making a game of this shooting is no more disgusting than making a game of hundreds of thousand men that got shot. It only seems worse because you are a victim of the media. Nevermind a game depicting what happened to hundreds of thousands of men, if it depicts someone who was a well-recognised TV personality, then it is a moral abomination.

When did I say that I'm not bothered by the violence in other games? I only stated that the games you cited and the game in question were dissimilar in their objectives.

The location is immaterial, Omaha beach is an "exact location" where the people died. How many feet does a level in a game's archetecture have to be out before your tolerance turns to disgust? Inches? Clearly the fact that it comes down to scale is beside the point.

And Earth is an exact location. Does that mean that every game that takes place on this planet falls under the same grouping?

So, the location of the events is beside the point, the fact that you have to aim for a specific body part (the head, like in all FPS) is beside the point, the location of the shooter is beside the point (in any historical FPS, players are going to take up position in key strategic areas, just like the real life soldiers would) and the fact that the models are surrounded by other models that would've been there on the occasion is beside the point.

What does that leave?

JFK is famous, everyone knows about him.

I think it is a little bit perverse that you are only bothered about it when you can put a face to the name.

So what you're saying is that if I beat my grandfather in a game of checkers, and I played on a team that beat the New York Yankees in a game of baseball, as well, these two games would pose no dissimilar objective. They are essentially the same thing, being that both games involve beating an opponent. Is that right?

You get an old vet watching MOHAA, you think he wouldn't say "Wow, that is just how it was, you see that body go down there? That's exactly how little Bobby Parsons was caught, just like, same place, head-shot by a sniper, just the same!"

Would he say, "Wow, I think that was supposed to be little Bobby Parsons. Let me look at the name of this game. Ah yes, it IS little Bobby Parsons!"?

Of course, no-one cares about Little Bobby Parsons, he wasn't a president. There isn't film of him getting shot. He DOESN'T COUNT.

If it's not on TV, it didn't happen.

Again, you're reaching.

[bobbydigital]

*wet fart*

[Ace42]

The fact that both games involve killing an enemy is not the bottom line. If that were the case, then I guess Resident Evil would be considered the same thing to you, as well.

RE is not a recreation of real events. War games are.

You're using the term "exact" somewhat loosely here. Would they be "exact" by coincidence, or by intent? And no, I don't think you could ever replicate an actual situation that took place, with the same accuracy, if it wasn't intentional.

But it is intentional. Omaha beach, my example, was an actual situation, and was recreated with varying degrees of precision in various titles. By your argument, if these titles had archetecure similar in accuracy to JFK, they would become distasteful. Considering I doubt you have played the game, I do not see how you can try to argue that their recreation is "more or less" accurate. By the "accuracy" argument, a game where you assassinate JFK would be more or less disgusting not because of the intention, but because of the coder's technical aptitude at recreating the scene.

I do not think that is your argument at all. If someone tried to code a carbon copy of JFK reloaded, and it was less realistic because their coders were incompetent, would it be "proportionally less outrageous" hmm?

No, it's the fact that it's a depicting a play by play account of an actual event, which NONE of the games you've cited do.

Omaha beach was an actual event. The only difference is that JFK was just *ONE MAN* - his assassination can only be "more real" in that because of the media surrounding it, you are more familiar with it.

When did I say that I'm not bothered by the violence in other games? I only stated that the games you cited and the game in question were dissimilar in their objectives.

How? In BFV you have to kill a computer generated model. In JFK you have to shoot a computer generated model. How is that different? If you just renamed JFK reloaded to "Assassinate the unamed game character" and kept everything else identical, would that be "a different objective" ?

And Earth is an exact location. Does that mean that every game that takes place on this planet falls under the same grouping?

I wasn't the one trying to use the fact that the game is set in an exact location to suggest that it is more terrible than any other game set in an exact location.

They are essentially the same thing, being that both games involve beating an opponent. Is that right?

That's insipid. BF42 / BFV / Mohaa you can be a sniper. You can sit in a window, aim down at someone driving about, bring the crosshair to bear on the back of their head, and WHAM. Blow their brains out of the front of their face.

They are not substantially different, and you cannot argue that they are.

Would he say, "Wow, I think that was supposed to be little Bobby Parsons. Let me look at the name of this game. Ah yes, it IS little Bobby Parsons!"?

So you are saying if they changed the name to "60's Texas Assassin" that would make JFK reloaded ok?

"Wow, I think that was supposed to be Kennedy!"

Again, you're reaching.

Bleh, keep repeating that, it might be more than just hot air eventually.

[mickill]

^

How far does a game have to go, in your opinion, before it really is just in poor taste? Surely you'll agree that young children were among the casualties in the wars depicted in the games you're referencing. If a game that involved the killing of children were developed, would that be analogous to the games you've cited as well? What's morally objectionable to some, obviously won't offend everyone.

And you're right, I haven't played many of these games, but I'm aware of the content. I've watched people play these games. And like I said, I don't necessarily agree with the level of violence in a lot of these games, anyways.

I think most people would agree that it's a lot easier to kill a faceless enemy than it is to stand before a man, knowing who he is, and end his life. If you could honestly tell me that it would be no different to you if a game portrayed a battle that one of your loved ones fought in or if it explicitly portrayed the actual killing of that loved one, and you would find neither more offensive than the other, then I'll buy your argument.

[ASsman]

I think most people would agree that it's a lot easier to kill a faceless enemy than it is to stand before a man, knowing who he is, and end his life.
Case and point.

[Ace42]

Surely you'll agree that young children were among the casualties in the wars depicted in the games you're referencing. If a game that involved the killing of children were developed, would that be analogous to the games you've cited as well?

It has been done, it was called "Postal."

And PERSONALLY (and this is just personal) it would not offend me. Children aren't magically more important than adult just because they are young. Furthermore, children are killed in movies, does it mean I am outraged and walk out on a movie for depicting it? No.

I think most people would agree that it's a lot easier to kill a faceless enemy than it is to stand before a man, knowing who he is, and end his life. If you could honestly tell me that it would be no different to you if a game portrayed a battle that one of your loved ones fought in or if it explicitly portrayed the actual killing of that loved one, and you would find neither more offensive than the other, then I'll buy your argument.

I'd not be offended, just like when someone does a "your momma" joke it doesn't offend me. Just like seeing soldiers in BF1918 get mowed down on the front lines doesn't bother me, despite it being a war in which my great-grandfather was killed. The fact is that in WW1 in most trenches, one person being killed just as well might've been another. I'd not say that seeing my ancestor shot and killed would be any more horrific than seeing "someone else's ancestor" similarly killed.

Likewise, if they chose to make a game of his wartime exploits (forgetten by all I would imagine, I certainly don't know too much about it) then I'd not start whinging "ooooh the humanity" - people die in wars, it is why I am so against them. To say "yeah, but there are more of them, so they all merge into a much of a muchness" is significantly MORE calous than recreating JFK's shooting. You might just as well say that their deaths "don't matter."

If my father was killed in a collision with a joy-rider, I'd not boycott Grand Theft Auto.

I'm not saying I'd be happy about it, but I'd be sad at being reminded and my own personal tragedy, not morally outraged about a game.

And either way, the point is moot. JFK is not a relation of mine, or yours, or anyone else here. Infact, direct relations of JFK (who would be suitable for your analogy) are few and far between.

You might just as well say "What if the game depicted your town mayor being killed in combat, or graphically killed in combat"

or "your best friend's dad"

[D_Raay]

^
Poppycock...
Bollocks...
And in American, bullshit.......

[mickill]

I can't even respond to that. If you're telling me you have no problem with seeing any of your loved one's deaths depicted in a video game, we're obviously not going to see eye to eye. And it's pointless arguing with you.

And as far as "your momma" jokes go, if someone I didn't know said something rude about my mom, I don't think I would let it bother me too much. But if someone I did know, who knew my mom, cracked offensive jokes about her, I'd probably let loose on his ass. That's the difference; it becomes personal at that point.

But you might not react the same way.

[Ace42]

But you might not react the same way.

Firstly, no, "sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me"

Same goes for cussing up my mother, even if you did know her. Secondly, the people making this game did not know JFK, and are not motivated out of mallice. It is not like the tagline is "slot the mofo!" or something.

And I wouldn't see "a loved one's death" in ANY video game. No matter how accurate or true to life.

Either you "buy into" it, and stand as a German soldier on the top of Monte Cassino taking off allied people's heads thinking "I just killed someone who could've been my grandfather" or you say "It's just an artificial recreation of events, and whatever I say or do, however I look at or treat it will have no effect on anything or anyone whatsoever."

It really is not worth spitting the dummy over. Not that I am saying you are.

The Oliver Stone JFK movie dramatically and (supposedly relatively accurately, like the game, there is clearly going to be a degree of artistic license in order to make concessions to the medium) realistically recreated the assassination.

Is that "Ghoulish" and callous? Or is it merely that the voyeuristic and vicarious nature of the film means you don't actually have to engage any sort of moral judgement.

Anyone reading up on the subject is going to try to recreate in their head as vividly and accurately the events as possible, that is just how people think. Are you saying that this would make any sort of research into the event equally horrible? Or is it only horrible when the recreation is on the PC, instead of in your imagination?

[D_Raay]

the people making this game did not know JFK, and are not motivated out of mallice. It is not like the tagline is "slot the mofo!" or something.
What is it then? Is there a practical reason for making this game? I can't think of any at all. Of course they wouldn't name it "slot the mofo" that's just ridiculous. I don't take lightly to someone making a game about shooting Kennedy, any more than I would making a game where the object would be to casturate Noam Chomsky. As far as the ww2 and vietnam games go, that stuff is made for the masses, not this game, they want people to disbelieve any conspiracy theory out there just because they say so and make a game about it. Again, bollocks..

[DroppinScience]

Ace,

Are you an abrasive jerk solely for the sake of being an abrasive jerk? (n)

[ASsman]

It's really pointless, Ace just cant see it. I think he will stop trying now. But whatever, it seems I can see it that way. Probably because I don't glorify the man.

[Ali]

Ace,

Are you an abrasive jerk solely for the sake of being an abrasive jerk? (n) He can't help it. He's in a wheelchair.

[drobertson420]

He can't help it. He's in a wheelchair.
hmmmhmmmhmmmm..................dumdedumm.......... .........
...................hmmm.....hmmmmmhmm............. ..................................
.......................(4 Days Later)......
"Oh wait! No He's not" :mad:


Originally Posted by bilbo
When you lie here, you disrespect other serious posters.

[Ace42]

Ace,

Are you an abrasive jerk solely for the sake of being an abrasive jerk? (n)

No, I do it just so that you can feel self-righteous.

Do you make insulting posts just for the sake of making insulting posts?

Don't like me interfering with your righteous indignation? Put me on ignore. It'll save you the effort of being a judgemental ass.

Oh, I mocked the plebs who were weeping for princess di and throning the streets, what a monster I am, by questioning their deeply held sentiments that they only discovered after she died, sparked by a media frenzy. How superficial and uncaring I am that I can't be disproportionately affected by the death of one individual who I never met, in a country I have never been to, decades before I was born.

I guess I am selling him short, what with him being the only man on the planet not to have caused total thermonuclear annhilation, and to try to get the US out of vietnam.

Oh wait, he managed to only narrowly avoid nuclear war, a crisis of unparallelled danger which came about in no small part to the actions of his government. And was fully complicit with the escalation of the war in Vietnam.

My freaking hero. We will not see his like again in many a year...

Sod kow-towing to a sitting president. If Bush really wants to escape criticism, he should get himself assassinated. So idolised, even a computer generated recreation of events becomes an abomination.

[mickill]

The Oliver Stone JFK movie dramatically and (supposedly relatively accurately, like the game, there is clearly going to be a degree of artistic license in order to make concessions to the medium) realistically recreated the assassination.

Is that "Ghoulish" and callous? Or is it merely that the voyeuristic and vicarious nature of the film means you don't actually have to engage any sort of moral judgement.

A film isn't an interactive medium. The movie industry is just as guilty as any other form of media of debilitating the moral fabric in society, but that's nothing to do with this discussion. A film can only tell a story. A game allows you to be part of the story; to participate in it. I doubt that EVERY person who saw JFK wanted to know what it felt like to kill the man. It's safe to assume that every person who plays this game does want to know how it feels.

Anyone reading up on the subject is going to try to recreate in their head as vividly and accurately the events as possible, that is just how people think. Are you saying that this would make any sort of research into the event equally horrible? Or is it only horrible when the recreation is on the PC, instead of in your imagination?

It would depend on whether or not your interest in the subject were one of curiosity or due to some sort of twisted pleasure that would derive from it. I would think that researching a man's death could involve any number of moral and/or immoral intentions, but I don't think it would necessarily always have to be pleasing. Playing a game, on the other hand, is more of a pastime; receation; fun. Therefore, it would be pleasing, in most cases. And are you suggesting that you agree with the manufacturer's claim that this game purortedly IS a research tool?

Also, in response to your last post (which I understand wasn't directed towards me), I've made no attempt to glorify JFK. And I never said that he was off limits, either.

[afronaut]

It seems like a pretty pointless idea for a game. I think the appeal for those World War II and other war games Ace talks about is the strategy aspect, tactics etc etc. The people I know who play those games play them for the same reason they paintball. Whereas with this game, you're just trying to shoot a guy in the head as accurately as you can in relation to the actual event. The attraction to that game is pretty much solely on interactively re-creating the real events of someone's real death. And it just sounds boring. I mean....If I want to snipe computer people, I'll just play a GTA game.

Anyway, who cares, its a game. And a shitty one by the sound of it.

Anyway, if you people are going to spend every waking hour of every single day debating idiots on a beastie boys message board, can't you people find something more worthwhile to debate for christs sake? This isn't even political, you're just pointing out the hypocrisy society places on certain things as compared to others. over and over again. If nobody has got that by now, they probably never will any time soon. You're just flexing your debating muscle just to flex it now man. You're obviously a talented debater, why don't you put it to some good use instead of verbally slapping people around on a beastie boys message board? It seems like a real waste...

[DroppinScience]

No, I do it just so that you can feel self-righteous.

Do you make insulting posts just for the sake of making insulting posts?

Don't like me interfering with your righteous indignation? Put me on ignore. It'll save you the effort of being a judgemental ass.

Oh, I mocked the plebs who were weeping for princess di and throning the streets, what a monster I am, by questioning their deeply held sentiments that they only discovered after she died, sparked by a media frenzy. How superficial and uncaring I am that I can't be disproportionately affected by the death of one individual who I never met, in a country I have never been to, decades before I was born.

I guess I am selling him short, what with him being the only man on the planet not to have caused total thermonuclear annhilation, and to try to get the US out of vietnam.

Oh wait, he managed to only narrowly avoid nuclear war, a crisis of unparallelled danger which came about in no small part to the actions of his government. And was fully complicit with the escalation of the war in Vietnam.

My freaking hero. We will not see his like again in many a year...

Sod kow-towing to a sitting president. If Bush really wants to escape criticism, he should get himself assassinated. So idolised, even a computer generated recreation of events becomes an abomination.

Ok then, have fun shooting people in the head with your "magic bullet" :mad:

While we're at it, I'll have some computer nerds create a 9/11 video game where you get to ram the planes into the WTC. I know you'll dig that.

Also, they'll gladly create a video game of a Palestinian suicide bomber blowing up Israelis in a cafe as well.

They're all people populated in countries you've never visited. Anyone who grieves are plebs who can't think. May as well create it all for "accuracy" in a video game, right?

P.S. - No, I will not put you on ignore. I don't live through a filter. I'll want to see all the views: Even your lack of compassion for human lives who happen to populate Western lands.
P.P.S. - It was Johnson who escalated Vietnam involvement, not Kennedy.

[mickill]

You're just flexing your debating muscle just to flex it now man. You're obviously a talented debater, why don't you put it to some good use instead of verbally slapping people around on a beastie boys message board? It seems like a real waste...

I don't know if you're talking about me or Ace, but this is the first time I've even gotten into a debate with anyone on this board. And I think that this is pretty much only the second political discussion thread I've even posted in since I've been here. I'm not trying to drag this out. Seriously. But I really think that Ace is dodging the real argument and denying a lot of obvious points I've made.

But it's cool. I'm going back to Beastie Free, where I can argue about the merits of Junior Mints over Reese Peanut Butter Cups.

[afronaut]

I'm talking about ace obviously.

[ASsman]

He's English. (!)

[drobertson420]

He's English. (!)


And a POS.

Originally Posted by afronaut
You're just flexing your debating muscle just to flex it now man. You're obviously a talented debater, why don't you put it to some good use instead of verbally slapping people around on a beastie boys message board? It seems like a real waste...

True,but...



"...unless he's lying, i think he's stuck in a wheelchair."

Now, Kindly Remove That Signature, "ACE"



When you lie here, you disrespect other serious posters.

[Ace42]

A film isn't an interactive medium.

What is "the willing suspension of disbelief" is not interaction? Both psychologically and critically, people engage with a movie.

A film can only tell a story. A game allows you to be part of the story; to participate in it. I doubt that EVERY person who saw JFK wanted to know what it felt like to kill the man. It's safe to assume that every person who plays this game does want to know how it feels.

That is not true. Firstly, films effect people deeply and profoundly. Why cry at a story? To quote Hamlet " What's Hecuba to him, or he to Hecuba,
That he should weep for her?"

The reason films move us so deeply is because we interact with them, rather than merely absorb someone's fiction.

And supposedly the fact that the game IS interactive makes it more ethical, as rather than the footage, where JFK can only die, at least in the game the shooter has the choice not to shoot.

Also, being fascinated with the mechanics of the killing is quite different to "wanting to feel what it was like" and it is a logical fallacy to attribute that motive to all people who would want to play the game.

It would depend on whether or not your interest in the subject were one of curiosity or due to some sort of twisted pleasure that would derive from it. I would think that researching a man's death could involve any number of moral and/or immoral intentions, but I don't think it would necessarily always have to be pleasing. Playing a game, on the other hand, is more of a pastime; receation; fun. Therefore, it would be pleasing, in most cases. And are you suggesting that you agree with the manufacturer's claim that this game purortedly IS a research tool?

People often take pleasure from research and understanding. That is not necessarily connected to what they are researching or how they are doing it. To say that derriving pleasure from having a comprehensive knowledge of JFK's assassination is immoral, and yet deriving pleasure from a comprehensive knowledge of the circumstances of combat in WW2 isn't is quite different.

Again, it seems to me that the term "video game" is being used in a perjorative sense. To you it implies a "toy" a "diversion" - to me it is a medium. To imply that would, to me, be the same as implying that a book must be a "toy" or a "diversion."

Personally, I find it quite telling that because it is a game, you assume (or rather, assert) that people must be interested in order to get some sort of perverse gratification from killing JFK. And yet, if someone spent time pouring over the Zapruder footage, you would NOT assume that.

Likewise, the idea that "it is only ethical to play the game if you don't enjoy it" is a little bit curious.

And I also think that while you consider "knowing how it feels to kill JFK is immoral" <even though many games simulate killing> immoral, you do not assume that these people merely are interested in what it feels like to be Lee Harvey Oswald. To my knowledge, there are many biographies about Oswald, so rather than being fascinated with the act of killing, they could equally be as interested to "get into the mind" of a killer. Something which is common in many crime-thrillers and "real life crime!" style books, and god knows how many "thrillers" where the criminal psychologist has to get the drop on the serial killer. IE Silence of the Lambs.

Also, in response to your last post (which I understand wasn't directed towards me), I've made no attempt to glorify JFK. And I never said that he was off limits, either.

Well I am glad that someone isn't dismissing my take on this out of hand.

[ASsman]

And a POS.

Originally Posted by afronaut
You're just flexing your debating muscle just to flex it now man. You're obviously a talented debater, why don't you put it to some good use instead of verbally slapping people around on a beastie boys message board? It seems like a real waste...

True,but...



"...unless he's lying, i think he's stuck in a wheelchair."

Now, Kindly Remove That Signature, "ACE"



When you lie here, you disrespect other serious posters.

He's ignoring you, as should I (for obvious reasons).

[Ace42]

Ok then, have fun shooting people in the head with your "magic bullet"

If I were to play this game, I would be able to deduce the merits of the "magic bullet" theory in a manner more authoritative than the numerous conflicting recreations I have seen in TV documentaries. Again, a case for the educational merits of the game.

While we're at it, I'll have some computer nerds create a 9/11 video game where you get to ram the planes into the WTC. I know you'll dig that.

Been done, MS flightsim can be configured to recreate it. I suppose the "sickos" that did this are probably in a better position to comment on the "Pentagon" conspiracy theories than you are because of it.

Also, they'll gladly create a video game of a Palestinian suicide bomber blowing up Israelis in a cafe as well.

"Kill the terrorist" games are nothing new. Counter-strike, yada yada.

They're all people populated in countries you've never visited. Anyone who grieves are plebs who can't think. May as well create it all for "accuracy" in a video game, right?

If your argument is that accuracy in video games is immoral, then perhaps you should pertition the FCC, etc to make all blood spatters in games green, and all faces on the characters to have bright red eyes to show they are zombies.

And there are hundreds of thousands of deaths around the world which no-one bats an eyelid-for. To fill the streets weeping about the death of a woman that a week earlier was disregarded as an adulteress is the height of hypocrisy. Likewise morning the death of Kennedy whilst not considering the numerous films and games made about the war which he WAS complicit in.

P.S. - No, I will not put you on ignore. I don't live through a filter. I'll want to see all the views: Even your lack of compassion for human lives who happen to populate Western lands.

If you want to see it, then shut your goddamn mouth. You throwing around insults does not encourage me to post. If I were to stop posting because of your cussing (and really, what else could you possibly hope to achieve?) then it would amount to the same thing, with the sole difference being that the few people here who have professed to be interested in my postings would not get to see it either. Just because it pisses you off, and you don't have the goddamn common sense to ignore it, doesn't mean you should shoot your spit-flaps off and spoil it for everyone else.

I mean, really, does insulting me give you a hard-on? You want to join the "Ace42 haters" circle-jerk? There are a lot of stroppy asshats with their noses out of joint to join. By all means, masturbate out your pronouncements and deprecations to the thumbs up of the proles on the board, but don't then try to legitimise it by saying "no, I really want to hear what you have to say."

It is not a lack of compassion, it is a proportionate compassion. People are murdered all the time / No-one knows, and no-one cares if a game or a film recreates the scene vividly, either by intention or coincidence.

P.P.S. - It was Johnson who escalated Vietnam involvement, not Kennedy.


Mr. BRINKLEY. Mr. President, have You had any reason to doubt this so-called "domino theory," that if South Viet-Nam falls, the rest of Southeast Asia will go behind it ?

The PRESIDENT. No, I believe it. I believe it. I think that the struggle is close enough. China is so large, looms so high just beyond the frontiers, that if South Viet-Nam went, it would not only give them an improved geographic position for a guerrilla assault on Malaya but would also Live the impression that the wave of the future in Southeast Asia was China and the Communists. So I believe it.

But I don't agree with those who say we should withdraw. That would be a great mistake. That would be a great mistake.

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/kentv.htm

That is Kennedy right there.

How is that NOT being complicit?

[ASsman]

This is top 10 on my drawn out (yet interesting) list of threads.

[Ace42]

He's ignoring you, as should I (for obvious reasons).

Yes, so you don't quote the troll.

And, Troll, BTW it was irony. The joke was that someone might find the title of the movie "whitemen can't jump" offensive NOT because of the "race" issue, itself obviously inflammatory and racist, but because of the clearly innocuous and neutral "jump."

The humour comes from the subordination of expectations. To say that is a "lie" is to say that when someone says "An Englishman, an Irishman, and a Scotsman walk into a bar" - they are infact lying.

No, they are not "lying"

v. lied, ly·ing, (lng) lies
v. intr.

1. To present false information with the intention of deceiving.
2. To convey a false image or impression

"with the intention of deceiving" - As it was clearly a joke (well, clearly to anyone who isn't a stupid fuckwit looking for any excuse, no matter how feeble, to attempt to regain some of their lost dignity by deprication) the intention was not to "deceive" but to amuse.

If I had meant to deceive, I would not have then said as soon as it became clear that some pea-brained buffoons had got the wrong end of the stick (due to reasons clearly of gross idiocy) "and BTW, I am not in a wheelschair, DUH"

So, Mr Troll, hopefully now you see just why you do not deserve to have a computer, or indeed, any means of communicating your infectious stupidity to the world at large.

But, of course, that is a very naive hope, because someone as mentally stunted as yourself will never, never be able to come to terms with their own fundamental inadequecies.

The least you could do is moan about me "making fun of the disabled" - that way you'd look every so slightly less of a fuckface.

You'd still be wrong (for the reasons I outlined above. I was not making fun of people in wheelchairs, as I said nothing perjorative about them) and you'd still look like a reactionary bellend, BUT, you'd be less obviously wrong, and maybe some "swing-morons" might just be motivated enough to give you the undeserved benefit of the doubt.

[mickill]

But it's cool. I'm going back to Beastie Free...

I lied. Oh well.

What is "the willing suspension of disbelief" is not interaction? Both psychologically and critically, people engage with a movie.

It's not the level of interaction you can achieve in gaming. That's like saying I would be interacting with you right now, even if I didn't respond, because I'd have felt frustrated by your comments. My will has no bearing on the outcome of a movie. My interactive ability to affect the movie is limited to pausing, rewinding and fast-forwarding.

Firstly, films effect people deeply and profoundly. Why cry at a story? To quote Hamlet " What's Hecuba to him, or he to Hecuba,
That he should weep for her?"

The reason films move us so deeply is because we interact with them, rather than merely absorb someone's fiction.

And supposedly the fact that the game IS interactive makes it more ethical, as rather than the footage, where JFK can only die, at least in the game the shooter has the choice not to shoot.

Films do affect people. So do games. They stimulate various senses and emotions. I never said that films didn't. I merely suggested that most people can watch a movie without wanting to re-enact the occurrences in the film. I don't think that most gamers are content to just watch someone else play a game. The idea behind playing a game is to have control; to experience something you likely never will, as an "active participant" with "control".

Also, being fascinated with the mechanics of the killing is quite different to "wanting to feel what it was like" and it is a logical fallacy to attribute that motive to all people who would want to play the game.

No, not all people. Probably not even a large percentage of people. I doubt that very many people who would play the JFK game even aspire to kill anyone in real life, at all. My point was, and remains, that you're not an observer when you're controlling the game. You are, however, an observer, not an active participant, when you watch a movie.

People often take pleasure from research and understanding. That is not necessarily connected to what they are researching or how they are doing it. To say that derriving pleasure from having a comprehensive knowledge of JFK's assassination is immoral, and yet deriving pleasure from a comprehensive knowledge of the circumstances of combat in WW2 isn't is quite different.

I'm not denying that there are people who play video games because they would like to further comprehend something that they have limited firsthand knowledge of, but I don't think that video games generally make accurate learning tools. While I'm sure that there are some that do. But I never said that "derriving pleasure from having a comprehensive knowledge of JFK's assassination" was immoral. I said that fewer people would find pleasure in watching him assassinated, while watching it take place in the movie, than those who would willingly want to know what it feels like, by re-enacting it themselves.

Again, it seems to me that the term "video game" is being used in a perjorative sense. To you it implies a "toy" a "diversion" - to me it is a medium. To imply that would, to me, be the same as implying that a book must be a "toy" or a "diversion."

1. I didn't fabricate the term "video game".

2. I referred to it as a medium, never a toy.

3. I "implied" neither.

Personally, I find it quite telling that because it is a game, you assume (or rather, assert) that people must be interested in order to get some sort of perverse gratification from killing JFK. And yet, if someone spent time pouring over the Zapruder footage, you would NOT assume that.

I assumed nothing of that sort. Again, all I said was that more people are likely to "enjoy" the act of killing a pixelated model (let's just forget that the model, in this case, represents JFK for a moment) than those who are simply watching a film, whether it be actual footage or a staged depiction of the event. Watching it happen is one thing; wanting to actively participate is a different level of interaction altogether. Wouldn't you say?

Likewise, the idea that "it is only ethical to play the game if you don't enjoy it" is a little bit curious.

It is. Good thing I never said that.

And I also think that while you consider "knowing how it feels to kill JFK is immoral" <even though many games simulate killing> immoral, you do not assume that these people merely are interested in what it feels like to be Lee Harvey Oswald.

I never said that I considered it immoral to have any curiosity about Oswald's actions, or any other heinous crime, for that matter. I think it's important that I clarify one misconstrued point of your argument: I never said that playing this game was immoral. I said it was in poor taste that games like this are manufactured. I also said that I don't really agree with the level of violence in any of the games you mentioned. That's not even to say I wouldn't play any of those games. My point has remained unchanged throughout this friendly wrangling.

.When did I say that I'm not bothered by the violence in other games? I only stated that the games you cited and the game in question were dissimilar in their objectives.


To my knowledge, there are many biographies about Oswald, so rather than being fascinated with the act of killing, they could equally be as interested to "get into the mind" of a killer. Something which is common in many crime-thrillers and "real life crime!" style books, and god knows how many "thrillers" where the criminal psychologist has to get the drop on the serial killer. IE Silence of the Lambs.

Good point. I won't argue with you there.

To be fair, you've made many valid points. But since I've made it clear that my objections to this sort of game would readily apply to any number of gratuitously violent games, then this would be a matter of opinion and/or personal tolerance.

My one main point, however, which is that the games you mentioned are not equally likely to offend in the manner of intentionally depicting the deaths of individuals by their specific names, physical likenesses and by the locations of their demise in an accurate portrayal of those occurences, seems to have been forgotten altogether.

[DroppinScience]

Other than the fact that I don't get a hard-on if you throw a jab at you (ewwwwwww... :eek: ), yes I'm aware Kennedy said that, BUT...

When it came to Vietnam in those last weeks of his life, he'd shift between wishing to withdraw and wanting to stay. I remember that in "The Kennedy Men: 1901-1963"

I am quite sure that if Kennedy lived on and things would have went uber-shitty in Vietnam (as we saw under Johnson and Nixon) he'd have withdrawn far faster than either of them had been willing to do. Especially when there'd likely be a lot of protestors in the streets.

Kennedy listened to the will of the people and didn't have "secret plans" (like Nixon) to get out when there were never any plans.

Anyways, I'll never shut my mouth. I'll speak out if I feel I want to.

Meanwhile, stop equating hard-ons with yourself. That's enough to make me flaccid. :p

[Ace42]

It's not the level of interaction you can achieve in gaming.

It depends on the game. Many games have very very linear stories, and it is only the "action" that you have control over. When events in a film happen of screen, you ahve very limited information about how it transpired, and so you have to create your own visual imagery of how it actually occured in order to interpret it. One (esoteric) example would be that all action in greek theatre happens off-stage. Thus, to understand the events, the audience has to participate by visualising and creating the specifics.

Also, "reader response" theory states that a "text" (for out purposes, a film or even a game qould qualify) is not merely a physical entity (a collection of paper, a piece of celluloid, etc) nor even merely the end result of a collection of processes. It states that a "text" is given meaning by the reader (which is why a discrete and static text can be interpreted in so many different ways, and why critical interpretation of it can vary dramatically by different societies) and this clearly is interaction, as it is the reader who makes the text as much as the author.

For example, a reader might consider, say, the Lord of the Rings to be about alienation in society. There is nothing overt in the text that says "THIS IS ABOUT ALIENATION!" - therefore it is clear that this meaning has been inferred, or "read into" it by the reader. When he tells someone this, the recipient will also look at the work differently, in effect changing what the book means to them.

From a philosophical standpoint, the physical interaction is secondary in importance, as all physical interaction is filtered by psychological perceptual processes, indeed they are the product of them.

That's like saying I would be interacting with you right now, even if I didn't respond, because I'd have felt frustrated by your comments. My will has no bearing on the outcome of a movie. My interactive ability to affect the movie is limited to pausing, rewinding and fast-forwarding.

It does though. Whether a movie has a happy ending or a sad ending is subjective. You might say "Casablanca has a sad ending" - to change it to a happy ending would be to change the movie. And yet, if you consider Rick and the frog's redemption, it can be considered to be a "happy ending" in that respect.

My point is that movies effect us in an often intangible manner, so the fact that our responses to them are intangible does not mean they "do not count".

I merely suggested that most people can watch a movie without wanting to re-enact the occurrences in the film.

I can play a game without wanting to renact the occurences in it. I enjoy playing a game where I can be an evil vampire and stalk dark city streets. However, I would not want to REALLY be a vampire and do that for hopefully obvious reasons.

I don't think that most gamers are content to just watch someone else play a game. The idea behind playing a game is to have control; to experience something you likely never will, as an "active participant" with "control".

Apply that to any televised sport.

You are, however, an observer, not an active participant, when you watch a movie.

Hopefully I have argued against that. There are plenty of scholars who make a good case for this.

but I don't think that video games generally make accurate learning tools.

Clearly it depends on the game, however it has been scientifically proven that gaming is a far superior method for learning than "by rote." There are pilot schemes in the UK to teach via games. Generally "edutainment" sucks, but that is due to poor implementation, not because of the theory. It is a much more organic method for aquiring knowledge and skills, and thus overcomes many of the shortcomings of conventional methods.

I said that fewer people would find pleasure in watching him assassinated, while watching it take place in the movie, than those who would willingly want to know what it feels like, by re-enacting it themselves.

Many people prefer films to games. If JFK reloaded outsells Oliver Stone's JFK, then your case would certainly seem to be the case.


1. I didn't fabricate the term "video game".

Never said you did.

2. I referred to it as a medium, never a toy.

3. I "implied" neither.

Playing a game, on the other hand, is more of a pastime; receation; fun. Therefore, it would be pleasing, in most cases.

Apply that to "books" and tell me if in that context you believe the two are synonymous. A book can be horrifying, and disturbing, it does not mean it is "unpleasing" in the sense that you would not want to buy it, or that you are sick in order to do so.

Watching it happen is one thing; wanting to actively participate is a different level of interaction altogether. Wouldn't you say?

I know plenty of football supporters who would say otherwise.

It is. Good thing I never said that.

It would depend on whether or not your interest in the subject were one of curiosity or due to some sort of twisted pleasure that would derive from it.

I think it's important that I clarify one misconstrued point of your argument: I never said that playing this game was immoral. I said it was in poor taste that games like this are manufactured. I also said that I don't really agree with the level of violence in any of the games you mentioned. That's not even to say I wouldn't play any of those games. My point has remained unchanged throughout this friendly wrangling.

Indeed, consider most of my rebuttals nit-picking, and, in the same way you say:

(which I understand wasn't directed towards me)

You can take it as read that I am second-guessing the numerous mis-apprehensions or "takes" on this that other silent readers may have. "nipping it in the bud" so to speak. My point was that the game was singled out, in my opinion unfairly. Whether games are generally too violent or not is rather beside the point. Not having seen the actual act itself in the game, I can't say how gory it actually is, but judging by many games that show very graphic dismemberment, etc, I'd imagine even if it was as perfect a rendition of murder as you could conceive, it would STILL be less gory than numerous other games.

Beside the point though this is.

To be fair, you've made many valid points.

As have you.

But since I've made it clear that my objections to this sort of game would readily apply to any number of gratuitously violent games, then this would be a matter of opinion and/or personal tolerance.

Indeed, something which is so inherantly subjective that other than merely noting your own personal outrage, it would be rather hard to pass judgement on other people who would play it (IE sick) fairly. Something which I anticipate a lot of people in this thread would do, if it transpired someone here played the game a lot.

My one main point, however, which is that the games you mentioned are not equally likely to offend in the manner of intentionally depicting the deaths of individuals by their specific names, physical likenesses and by the locations of their demise in an accurate portrayal of those occurences, seems to have been forgotten altogether.

More sidetracked than forgotten. And yes, they were not as likely to offend sensibilities as a game whether the specific individual was named.

My point was this was due to very irrational and wooly thinking. Analgous to the fact that Princess Di received a more gratuitous outpouring of emotion in the street from complete strangers than most people get from their distant family at funerals.

People are outraged not because there is anything intrinsically more outrageous about the concept, but because of the stigma attatched to it, and a whole host of other very impractical factors.

I don't accept the perculiarities of the JFK assassination make it any more "off limits" than the peculiarties of any of the numerous military scenarios recreated (to a greater or lesser degree of accuracy) in other games.

[Ace42]

When it came to Vietnam in those last weeks of his life, he'd shift between wishing to withdraw and wanting to stay. I remember that in "The Kennedy Men: 1901-1963"

That is written after he was martyred. The whole "don't speak ill of the dead" stigma, and the popular mythos around him would make a stern condemnation very unpalatable. Also, someone closely associated with him would most likely be someone who viewed him favourably. It would be like expecting Colin Powell to say "He kept saying that we needed the oil, and he didn't care how many rag-heads died to get it!" in eulogy to Dubbyah if he croaked it.

Especially given the hindsight of the conflict. "Yep, our greatest elected official, president was convinced Vietnam would be a cake-walk, then he died."

I am quite sure that if Kennedy lived on and things would have went uber-shitty in Vietnam (as we saw under Johnson and Nixon) he'd have withdrawn far faster than either of them had been willing to do. Especially when there'd likely be a lot of protestors in the streets.

Kennedy listened to the will of the people and didn't have "secret plans" (like Nixon) to get out when there were never any plans.

You may have a point, but I am far from convinced. To me this just suggests he had better posthumous PR than the living 'Nam Preses had.

[mickill]

It depends on the game. Many games have very very linear stories, and it is only the "action" that you have control over. When events in a film happen of screen, you ahve very limited information about how it transpired, and so you have to create your own visual imagery of how it actually occured in order to interpret it. One (esoteric) example would be that all action in greek theatre happens off-stage. Thus, to understand the events, the audience has to participate by visualising and creating the specifics.

I agree that one's perception of the action could vary greatly from someone else's. I'm more referring to the discernable action that you'd be able to see than the semi-intangible action that would occur "off screen", though.

Also, "reader response" theory states that a "text" (for out purposes, a film or even a game qould qualify) is not merely a physical entity (a collection of paper, a piece of celluloid, etc) nor even merely the end result of a collection of processes. It states that a "text" is given meaning by the reader (which is why a discrete and static text can be interpreted in so many different ways, and why critical interpretation of it can vary dramatically by different societies) and this clearly is interaction, as it is the reader who makes the text as much as the author.

For example, a reader might consider, say, the Lord of the Rings to be about alienation in society. There is nothing overt in the text that says "THIS IS ABOUT ALIENATION!" - therefore it is clear that this meaning has been inferred, or "read into" it by the reader. When he tells someone this, the recipient will also look at the work differently, in effect changing what the book means to them.

Fair enough. The variance of individual interpretation of any medium is a point we've had no trouble agreeing on.

From a philosophical standpoint, the physical interaction is secondary in importance, as all physical interaction is filtered by psychological perceptual processes, indeed they are the product of them.

I'd say that the two are of equal importance in this argument. Individual perspicacity has little bearing when an image is depicted unambiguously and leaving little to the imagination (dismemberment, the image of a head being blown off etc).

It does though. Whether a movie has a happy ending or a sad ending is subjective. You might say "Casablanca has a sad ending" - to change it to a happy ending would be to change the movie. And yet, if you consider Rick and the frog's redemption, it can be considered to be a "happy ending" in that respect.

My point is that movies effect us in an often intangible manner, so the fact that our responses to them are intangible does not mean they "do not count".

I won't argue with that.

I can play a game without wanting to renact the occurences in it. I enjoy playing a game where I can be an evil vampire and stalk dark city streets. However, I would not want to REALLY be a vampire and do that for hopefully obvious reasons.

I meant re-enact while you're playing, not necessarily after the fact. All media is influential, in good ways and bad. Some people are more impressionable, though. But that's a completely different discussion.

Clearly it depends on the game, however it has been scientifically proven that gaming is a far superior method for learning than "by rote." There are pilot schemes in the UK to teach via games. Generally "edutainment" sucks, but that is due to poor implementation, not because of the theory. It is a much more organic method for aquiring knowledge and skills, and thus overcomes many of the shortcomings of conventional methods.

I agree. Gaming can be highly useful in training and learning, but it's rarely utilized in that area; at least not to the extent it could be.

Apply that to "books" and tell me if in that context you believe the two are synonymous. A book can be horrifying, and disturbing, it does not mean it is "unpleasing" in the sense that you would not want to buy it, or that you are sick in order to do so.

I should have perhaps included "thrill-seeking" among my examples. I don't think that all entertainment is meant to be pleasurable, but I agree that just because a particular form of entertainment can be upsetting, it doesn't mean that it is "unpleasing". A lot of people enjoy horror movies and thrillers. But very few people would want things of that nature occuring in their real lives, yet our curiosity leads us to want to venture outside of what's comfortable or "moral". Which isn't to suggest that we all have a morbid interest in things that are evil or immoral, but if you believe that it is man's natural inclination to sin, then you probably wouldn't disagree that it's more or less up to the individual to decide where he or she or their children should draw the line.

Naturally, some people have a higher threshold for violence or disturbing subject matter than others. Some aren't affected by violent imagery at all. Others can't even stand the site of blood. But where IS the line drawn? And you have to ask what demographic is being targeted by the various types of media and the negative imagery companies hawk to the consumer.

Indeed, consider most of my rebuttals nit-picking...

I have.

You can take it as read that I am second-guessing the numerous mis-apprehensions or "takes" on this that other silent readers may have. "nipping it in the bud" so to speak. My point was that the game was singled out, in my opinion unfairly. Whether games are generally too violent or not is rather beside the point. Not having seen the actual act itself in the game, I can't say how gory it actually is, but judging by many games that show very graphic dismemberment, etc, I'd imagine even if it was as perfect a rendition of murder as you could conceive, it would STILL be less gory than numerous other games.

I agree with what you're saying here. The game IS being unfairly judged based on it's subject, rather than it's content. While it may be in poor taste, in my opinion, that doesn't make it wrong. And certainly no more wrong than the multitude of games that likely depict far more graphic content.

Indeed, something which is so inherantly subjective that other than merely noting your own personal outrage, it would be rather hard to pass judgement on other people who would play it (IE sick) fairly. Something which I anticipate a lot of people in this thread would do, if it transpired someone here played the game a lot.

And yes, they were not as likely to offend sensibilities as a game whether the specific individual was named.

My point was this was due to very irrational and wooly thinking. Analgous to the fact that Princess Di received a more gratuitous outpouring of emotion in the street from complete strangers than most people get from their distant family at funerals.

Such is the nature of celebrity.

People are outraged not because there is anything intrinsically more outrageous about the concept, but because of the stigma attatched to it, and a whole host of other very impractical factors.

I don't accept the perculiarities of the JFK assassination make it any more "off limits" than the peculiarties of any of the numerous military scenarios recreated (to a greater or lesser degree of accuracy) in other games.

I agree. JFK isn't any more "off limits" than any other individual. But like I said, it's up to the individual to decide how much they can stomach. I personally, wouldn't want to see a game that allowed you to abduct a child or rape a woman (and I can see games heading that direction eventually, if they haven't already), but that's my opinion. Others might not see this as being any different from depicting someone's head being split open.

[drobertson420]

He's ignoring you, as should I (for obvious reasons).

Fine Then.
Peace.

[ASsman]

I said I should, never said I did or will.

[drobertson420]

I said I should, never said I did or will.


I'm really not pushing to be..

i'm done with the Ace thing....

He could stab his mother and find a link justifying it.

Moving on.......[whistling]

[DroppinScience]

I'm really not pushing to be..

i'm done with the Ace thing....

He could stab his mother and find a link justifying it.

Moving on.......[whistling]

Haha! You know, I wouldn't be that surprised if he was able to pull that off. He's THAT good at debating. ;)

[drobertson420]

Haha! You know, I wouldn't be that surprised if he was able to pull that off. He's THAT good at debating. ;)

yep. He needs to re-direct that talent.
oh well.

[drobertson420]

It has been done, it was called "Postal."

"


I know he can't see me, but I just played Postal 2,(some of it)
and it's a very twisted game.

In one scene, a bunch of protesters storm a gaming company to kill everyone for making violent video games! (lol)

They were chasing me down a hallway, about 6 or 7 of them,
and I dumped a whole can of gas behind me as I was running,
turned around, and flung a match.

Very viscious outcome of that scenario.

Yea, this game is twisted.

The disclaimer at the start says"Not for children or anyone looking to establish or enhance a political career" :D

[ASsman]

I enjoy urinating on myself ,when I am set on fire.

[cosmo105]

my twelve-year-old sister told me and my boyfriend about this a while back and we didn't believe her.

scary.

[drobertson420]

I enjoy urinating on myself ,when I am set on fire.

I hadn't played enough of the game to get this....but I get it now.
:D