Sephychu said:
Can I just take you up on this point? Several people have made it. Don't take the following personally, I mean it to everybody.
Why is the wholesale slaughter of your fellows okay if they've done bad things? Nay, you've been told they've done bad things. Why does innocence even come into it at all?
You kill a man or woman, you take away somebody's son or daughter, somebody's brother or sister, somebody's best friend, someone's father or mother. You take a life.
Why is that fine and dandy if they're bad people?
Killing people is one of the only objective wrongs in this world, and nobody has any right whatsoever to do it, even in revenge. That makes you just as sad an excuse for a human being as anybody who has killed too.
So why then, is this in any way bad? By playing it, you aren't killing anybody, you're putting yourself in that mindset, for fun. If you wanted to go out and do it for fun, you would. Instead, one plays a game about it.
Some people don't join the army, they play Call of Duty, or Bulletstorm, or whatever the hell they like. Games in which you kill people are nothing new. They're archaic.
This game has every right to be made, played and enjoyed, just like films about this kind of thing, just like paintings of this kind of thing, just like books about this kind of thing. If you don't like it, fine. 'The medium' as it is called should be allowed to depict anything it wants any way it wants.
Oh, and to all you people quoting Extra Credits, I got the impression from their video on 'Six Days in Fallujah' that they regarded games that dealt with touchy subject matter as good things, not bad things. Just some food for thought.
There is a difference in context here. It's a little lazy of me to cite Movie Bob and not go do some real research, but he articulated the point I am trying to say incredibly well on "The Big Picture" episode about Political correctness.(The episode name is "correctitude") Breaking sensitive Taboos has to have a purpose or you are just being a jerk. In the interview Pawnstick as much as said this is violence for violence sake.
"Will students or teachers ever fight back in the game? Why or why not?
The fun in killing the "innocent" NPCs is the fact that they are incapable of fighting back. It's more intuitive to leave it to law enforcement to try and end the player's spree, rather than the terrified fleeing members of the student body."
and again
"Given the constant attacks from mainstream media against videogames for portraying violence, why would you give these fanatics more ammunition to dismiss games as childish at best and harmful at worst?
Because that's exactly what games are. The media is right to dismiss games as "bang-bang shoot 'em ups" and "murder simulators," because at their core, that is exactly what most games boil down to. Take Bulletstorm, for example: It is pretty much the full embodiment of what the media assumes games to be. It's humor is crude, it's writing is dumb, and it's gameplay is ultra-violent. And that is exactly what makes it so appealing, not only to adults, but also to kids."
He isn't making something that would be protected under the constitution regardless the medium. legally this game is the very definition of obscenity, and Pawnstick says as much.
