Is It Wrong to Assassinate the President in a Videogame?
- Thread starter John Funk
- Start date
Is It Wrong to Assassinate the President in a Video Game? My answer is no. Every human being, fictional or real, living or dead, is fair game in my eyes when it comes to gaming. As Gary Coleman once said in response to the video game Postal 2 using his likeness in their game: "Shoot me, kill me. It's only a game."
Its a game, but if it was Obama or Al Sharpton or Oprah there would be blatant racism and it would all be instigated by far right wing terrorists who only eat red meat and read bibles and watch fox news with guns.
Anyone else it would be just fine.
----------------------------------
The differences Ive noticed is that Bush would call it democracy in action. Pelosi would call them names and act like a giant whiny toddler.
----------------------------------
Finally my opinion is that it may be a game but its still not something I would play or own. If it involved killing terrorists I'm OK with that because they make it their goal in life to try and kill me.
Anyone else it would be just fine.
----------------------------------
The differences Ive noticed is that Bush would call it democracy in action. Pelosi would call them names and act like a giant whiny toddler.
----------------------------------
Finally my opinion is that it may be a game but its still not something I would play or own. If it involved killing terrorists I'm OK with that because they make it their goal in life to try and kill me.
When did it become wrong to assassinate the president in real life? I'm pretty sure the constitution gives us the right to grab a rifle and tear out the entire presidency, cabinet, and congress when we feel they're no longer listening to us. We're not too far from that happening again either.
And before you flame me, just don't. I know there's a passage in the constitution that supports this, I just don't want to find it. I think it was Jefferson.
And before you flame me, just don't. I know there's a passage in the constitution that supports this, I just don't want to find it. I think it was Jefferson.
As a game setting putting the player into the role of the freshly recruited insurgents and fighting against the US Army would at least create a plausible challenge and all that. The US is simply stronger than anyone else and making a game where the player is a high-tech US soldier fighting against kids who just picked up a rifle isn't exactly going to create a sense of danger. Generally plots tend to get more and more outrageous when trying to justify how your character can be hated by everyone and still be the good guy.
Of course a publisher wouldn't let you make anything that features unpopular groups as its hero, there was a game (Freedom Fighter?) that was originally intended as taking place in a smaller eastern European country that's being invaded by the Soviets and the player fighting against the invaders, the publisher wanted to make it more palatable to the US audiences so the whole thing got revamped and instead the story had the USA captured by the Soviets...
Of course a publisher wouldn't let you make anything that features unpopular groups as its hero, there was a game (Freedom Fighter?) that was originally intended as taking place in a smaller eastern European country that's being invaded by the Soviets and the player fighting against the invaders, the publisher wanted to make it more palatable to the US audiences so the whole thing got revamped and instead the story had the USA captured by the Soviets...
I don't think it actually gives you that right or the government would not be allowed to arrest you for it. You are allowed to carry a gun but if you want to overthrow the government you'll obviously have to fight against its forces and will only get to walk away if you win.ShadowKatt said:
I think it is ok to depict the assassination a president as part of a plot, but encourage a player to do so is bad taste at best and treason at worst. I read the article and sympathies with the guy getting censored, but we have rules that make advocating the death of a sitting president for a reason. To openly flaunt those rules to gain attention does not make this guy a martyr of the 1st amendment. He could have made his game more tasteful by using a generic president like so many movies and TV series do.
Nothing wrong with it. Change in perspective is a vital tool to cultural understanding and progress in art forms.
Adovcating killing a particular person though is where it steps into the realms where the law will get involved - you could easily be a party to a crime if some nutter kid goes out and attempts to kill Bush for real.
The point could be made far more simply by using a generic president, as hamster mk 4 said
Adovcating killing a particular person though is where it steps into the realms where the law will get involved - you could easily be a party to a crime if some nutter kid goes out and attempts to kill Bush for real.
The point could be made far more simply by using a generic president, as hamster mk 4 said
He kills presidents with his chin clearly.swaki said:
The president thing is interesting, people joked week in week out and killing or at the very least removing GW Bush. Obama however has a much more popular (at the moment) so imagine there'd be more uproar and probably some racist accusations.
That being said killing a specific person who defiantly exist seems a little wrong, Bush is being targeted because this guy disagree's with him. It's like being rendered in pixels then blown up for your music taste. (not exactly the same I'll grant you). Should've just used a generic president or Nixon (let's face it he's pure evil)...BRANNIGAN!
Abedeus said:
Agent 47 of the Hitman series always kills those who "have it coming".
You never see him kill charitable CEO's or the police chief who plans on cracking down on crime. Its always sinister targets...and for that, there is a disconnect from the cruel people hired killers really are...
It may seem totally silly but there was a great game... Stubbs the Zombie in Rebel Without a Pulse! In that game the only reason you come back to life is because american civilisation has expanded onto your grave. (sure there might be something to do with radioactivity and shit) Basically, however you are fighting back against 'city hall' because what was meant to be your own peacefull place to 'sleep' for the rest of eternity became a hive of floating cars and democracy. Now, compare this to real world. Yes, its so bloody weird and its not exactly 'presidential' standard assassination but where is the TRUE difference apart from the dark comedy? These 'terrorists' are fighting against people who they believe have violated them in one way or another.
Take it or leave it but please dont be an idiot about this. It's just my opinion. These games are already way out there. Ya just gotta look harder for them.
Take it or leave it but please dont be an idiot about this. It's just my opinion. These games are already way out there. Ya just gotta look harder for them.
You wouldn't get that far, he'd go all Incredible Hulk super president bad-ass on you and punch you into Nicaragua.Dyp100 said:
I dont care. So long as the game and the motives are presented well to the player, it's all an experience.