The School Shooter Mod, Part 2

[mikespoff]

For an example of how a game can be brainless but still have value, how about Left4Dead? I mean, what's the overarching message there?

Here are a bunch of zombies, have fun trying to kill them.

Nothing more pretentious, but lots of fun and really well made with some innovative AI. That's the right way to do a meaningless slaughterfest.

 

[mr.mystery]

Jim Sterling seems to be buying into his own persona, which is sad. I reiterate that he's capable of being clever and insightful when he's not trying way way way way WAAAYYYYY too hard to be funny. He actually had something to contribute, even last week.

But now he just ruins it by pretending that the sex in Mass Effect and Dragon Age added nothing and were just there for shock value (projecting much, Jim?).

Still, it's nice to see Bob and James go back-and-forth at the end, I was fascinated by their points.

I agree with you. This jim guy isnt funny. I think he is trying to hard

 

[mikespoff]

Jim: "However, let's say a more talented developer with a lot more time creates a School Shooter game from the ground up. Not like Super Columbine Massacre -- which comes with lengthy essays justifying the game and its message -- but exactly like School Shooter. No deep meaning, no morality, just a sandbox school environment in which you shoot up classmates and teachers for no reason. Would you still say it's bad?"

um... YES!

Because then you're taking an (apparently) talented developer and doing something pointlessly destructive. It's like taking a baseball bat and going around smashing people's car windows instead of hitting balls. There is never any redeeming value in killing random school children, so how could there possibly be anything good in this "sandbox" game?

Yes, I'm aware that most COD players don't really care about the military justifications and just want to murder each other's virtual avatars, but there is still a setting in which (under specific circumstances) their actions could be justified. Dead Space 2, for all its claimed shock value, is at least giving you the justification of "your survival depends on slaughtering everything you see".

Without those frameworks the games would have zero value.

 

[Moffman]

James Has a book, any one know what it's called and where I can get a copy? (I did read that right didn't I?)
I can see where they're all coming from. For example "Streets of Rage" was an awesome game purely because of its gameplay, the story was a joke tbh and no one ever paid attention to it. So in this respect I agree with Jim... However, I also agree with Bob, that narrative is now extremely important in our games, Bioshock is given a great lvl of depth through this.

What School Shooter is is a lazy grab for attention, I doubt the gameplay is ground breaking and a game with an in depth narrative like the examples Bob and James give would be so much more interesting and explore the possibilities of an interactive medium, giving us the story from a different perspective, that we would not experience if the game was not made. School Shooter is dross.

 

[ekkaman]

If school shooter is a lazy grab for attention, what can you say about another artical about it on the same web site?

Just leave it.

 

[5mj7R7yf4Dwr3gdZyyu9PeGNwYjlNrjzuh3iTXQG]

In the wake of the Columbine incident [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbine_High_School_massacre][footnote]While not there there, I was amongst the masses watching the news as events unfolded at Columbine High, as trailing students and teachers navigated their way out via channels with high amounts of cover, and the police tried to locate the gunmen. And I certainly remember the jock-esque kid disparaging the Trenchcoat Homosexual Mafia on national television, bringing to light some of the issues that may lead to shootings in general.[/footnote] when public outcry groups were blaming Marilyn Manson and violent video games, I had thought we needed not only a game about a high-school massacre (not necessarily from the perspective of the shooters) but one that celebrated the glories of video games. That is, one that would be a jolly good time to play.

1999 was a good year for First Person Shooters, as we were reeling from (and playing again and again) the original Half-Life. So I was thinking a Half-Life mod that that grossly plagiarized or referenced the original game was ideal, things like a school-bus ride that mirrored the tram ride. The story would begin with a walk to the principals office, him deciding you were crazy and locking you in his office while he called the white-coats. The crazed gunmen would then move through the admin-office, leaving you to escape via labyrinthine air ducts, accessed with a confiscated pen-knife that would coincidentally operate much like the crowbar (or the knife in OpFor).

Good times.

I had worked out that you'd be armed early-on by an encounter with the white-coat guys and would encounter radio-active guinea pigs (from someone's science project), overly aggressive SWAT guys, zombified slackers (thanks to mutant marijuana) and may or may not encounter the two gunmen during the course of the game. I wasn't going to worry about the feasibility of the high-school archetecture, so long as it occasionally looked like an actual school from the outside and a classroom was encountered from time to time.

Then life happened, and this game got filed away with my other incomplete projects.

238U.

 

[Felblood]

Towards the end, this conversation really started to remind me of the mission in SWAT 4, where you have to fight the Children of Tarrone.

As a player, it really opened my eyes to a lot of my unexamined assumptions about the value of human life, and due process of law.

I won't spoil it, but some people go in with non-lethal weapons when they read the brief, but go kill crazy when they see what's in the basement, while other people go in loaded for bear, but start trying to subdue targets mercifully when they realize what's been happening. Nobody comes out of that mission quite the same way as anybody else, and nobody comes out quite the same way they went in.

As a game designer, that really challenged me. To be able to craft something, which would evoke such a rich tapestry of complex reactions would be pretty incredible.

I kind of pity the guy who made School Shooter for not having the desire to create something like that, since his product is clearly made to evoke one simple reaction universally: disgust.

 

[Fiz_The_Toaster]

Jim: "However, let's say a more talented developer with a lot more time creates a School Shooter game from the ground up. Not like Super Columbine Massacre -- which comes with lengthy essays justifying the game and its message -- but exactly like School Shooter. No deep meaning, no morality, just a sandbox school environment in which you shoot up classmates and teachers for no reason. Would you still say it's bad?"

um... YES!

Because then you're taking an (apparently) talented developer and doing something pointlessly destructive. It's like taking a baseball bat and going around smashing people's car windows instead of hitting balls. There is never any redeeming value in killing random school children, so how could there possibly be anything good in this "sandbox" game?

Yes, I'm aware that most COD players don't really care about the military justifications and just want to murder each other's virtual avatars, but there is still a setting in which (under specific circumstances) their actions could be justified. Dead Space 2, for all its claimed shock value, is at least giving you the justification of "your survival depends on slaughtering everything you see".

Without those frameworks the games would have zero value.

Well in his defense that term "bad" has a two-folded answer, which he did answer, if I remember correctly. If everything involved, mechanically wise, in that game works as it should be and what makes a game a game, then no, it's not a "bad" game. However, fundamentally it's bad, horrible even, use any word you want to use to describe it, but the mechanics don't make it "bad" assuming that it's polished perfectly.

I say "bad" because it's such an ambiguous term since it gets thrown around without a real discussion on why it's bad, it's the same reason "good" is in the same boat.

 

[Groundchuck]

I can tell by the name "School Shooter" what this game is about even though I'm not real sure exactly waht it is. But, I like the way this conversation was presented and Bob's cool went up a bit again. And, I can see what all sides are saying, I'm sure the game is shit but the idea of making a game that explores this idea in a positive way is genius, I would like to see it happen. I am sure their is a market for a more gratuitously violent school shooting game, but Im also sure a amature abortion game could sell to the right demo but kinda seems to be in bad taste (no real way to put a positive spin on amature abortion, but you know what i mean.).

 

[MB202]

I think any game, no matter how shallow, can be analyzed on some level.

In that case, why not talk about Ninjabread Man?

Also, I think the idea of an otherwise fun to play game with controversy surrounding it is something Bob brought up in one of his Game Overthinker episodes.

http://screwattack.com/videos/TGO-Complex-Issues

Speaking of Bob, I find his stance on "stories in games" weird. I've been told dozens of times that the best stories in games are the ones in which story meshes seamlessly with the gameplay, and when Bob brings up Japanese interactive story-tellings, their kind of stories in games is the kind where the gameplay might as well not even be there, where the player has no input at all. Not to mention, Bob loves Mario games, and their story... Well, is non-existent.

I don't know, I'm just a little confused by what he said.

 

[mikespoff]

Jim: "However, let's say a more talented developer with a lot more time creates a School Shooter game from the ground up. Not like Super Columbine Massacre -- which comes with lengthy essays justifying the game and its message -- but exactly like School Shooter. No deep meaning, no morality, just a sandbox school environment in which you shoot up classmates and teachers for no reason. Would you still say it's bad?"

um... YES!

Because then you're taking an (apparently) talented developer and doing something pointlessly destructive. It's like taking a baseball bat and going around smashing people's car windows instead of hitting balls. There is never any redeeming value in killing random school children, so how could there possibly be anything good in this "sandbox" game?

Yes, I'm aware that most COD players don't really care about the military justifications and just want to murder each other's virtual avatars, but there is still a setting in which (under specific circumstances) their actions could be justified. Dead Space 2, for all its claimed shock value, is at least giving you the justification of "your survival depends on slaughtering everything you see".

Without those frameworks the games would have zero value.

Well in his defense that term "bad" has a two-folded answer, which he did answer, if I remember correctly. If everything involved, mechanically wise, in that game works as it should be and what makes a game a game, then no, it's not a "bad" game. However, fundamentally it's bad, horrible even, use any word you want to use to describe it, but the mechanics don't make it "bad" assuming that it's polished perfectly.

I say "bad" because it's such an ambiguous term since it gets thrown around without a real discussion on why it's bad, it's the same reason "good" is in the same boat.

Yeah, I read his argument and I disagree. They're supposed to be making a game. Games can be fun, they can be educational, they can cause deep self-analysis, but they need to have SOME point to them. What he's describing may be a competently executed piece of software, but it still has no point and cannot thus be described as a good game.

If I place a perfect dog turd on a plate and serve it up for dinner, it is not a good meal. It fails in all the important functions of a meal, regardless of how well it was pooped out.

 

[5mj7R7yf4Dwr3gdZyyu9PeGNwYjlNrjzuh3iTXQG]

This is, actually, a good place to acknowledge the issue of context which comes up in numerous shooters.

Playing Left 4 Dead not too long ago, I gunned down six police officers in a single campaign. Granted, they were all infected and zombies, but shit; that still makes me (within the game) a cop-killer, and wouldn't Jack Thompson and Hillary Clinton and Fox News have a field day with that?[footnote]This is why, incidentally, there are no riot-police Uncommon Infected in the German release of Left 4 Dead 2. They didn't take kindly to the idea that the survivors would have to fight peacekeeping officers.[/footnote]

I sometimes also wonder if the game would feel any different if we were on the verge of a medical breakthrough, and all these berserking commons could be cured, if they were captured and treated in time. It remains an issue that when zombies are no longer magically-[footnote]...or atomically-...[/footnote]raised undead, but alive and infected, which means they are still human. Even if their brains have been fried by some kind of super-rabies or mad-human prion, they would still have rights according to every civilization known.

So, one of the easiest ways to raise the questions that come up with school shooting would be to create a Left 4 Dead campaign that includes wading through a school as part of the journey to safety and rescue. Zombies in school uniforms and faculty attire would hit the point home: The players are still shooting up a school, albeit, one in which not too much academic learning is going on anymore.

238U.

 

[cricket chirps]

Wow, that "survive a ___" (either war or random shooting) realy does need to exist to an extent that i cannot even explain. How detrimental would it be to create such a thing in a GAME (our beloved medium) and show the world that something so serious can be lived/experienced in a way that so many can barely understand. That game would work so well as a learning lesson for so many reasons. Can you guys(those present in extra consideration) PLEASE continue a talk about such an idea? I would LOVE BEYEND LOVE to hear your thoughts on how that might be introduced into society and the media.

 

[TwistedEllipses]

So, one of the easiest ways to raise the questions that come up with school shooting would be to create a Left 4 Dead campaign that includes wading through a school as part of the journey to safety and rescue. Zombies in school uniforms and faculty attire would hit the point home: The players are still shooting up a school, albeit, one in which not too much academic learning is going on anymore.

238U.

The nearest existing thing is in Dead Space 2 where you go through a nursery and school and are attacked by kamikaze necromorphed babies and children. The thing there though is they are so far from appearing and attacking like children that you tend to forget it...


127.60TE

 

[Fiz_The_Toaster]

Jim: "However, let's say a more talented developer with a lot more time creates a School Shooter game from the ground up. Not like Super Columbine Massacre -- which comes with lengthy essays justifying the game and its message -- but exactly like School Shooter. No deep meaning, no morality, just a sandbox school environment in which you shoot up classmates and teachers for no reason. Would you still say it's bad?"

um... YES!

Because then you're taking an (apparently) talented developer and doing something pointlessly destructive. It's like taking a baseball bat and going around smashing people's car windows instead of hitting balls. There is never any redeeming value in killing random school children, so how could there possibly be anything good in this "sandbox" game?

Yes, I'm aware that most COD players don't really care about the military justifications and just want to murder each other's virtual avatars, but there is still a setting in which (under specific circumstances) their actions could be justified. Dead Space 2, for all its claimed shock value, is at least giving you the justification of "your survival depends on slaughtering everything you see".

Without those frameworks the games would have zero value.

Well in his defense that term "bad" has a two-folded answer, which he did answer, if I remember correctly. If everything involved, mechanically wise, in that game works as it should be and what makes a game a game, then no, it's not a "bad" game. However, fundamentally it's bad, horrible even, use any word you want to use to describe it, but the mechanics don't make it "bad" assuming that it's polished perfectly.

I say "bad" because it's such an ambiguous term since it gets thrown around without a real discussion on why it's bad, it's the same reason "good" is in the same boat.

Yeah, I read his argument and I disagree. They're supposed to be making a game. Games can be fun, they can be educational, they can cause deep self-analysis, but they need to have SOME point to them. What he's describing may be a competently executed piece of software, but it still has no point and cannot thus be described as a good game.

If I place a perfect dog turd on a plate and serve it up for dinner, it is not a good meal. It fails in all the important functions of a meal, regardless of how well it was pooped out.

And I agree with you. However, you can only defend something so far, and I believe that's what he's doing. There's the notion of intent, and that developer really didn't have a decent enough intention to justify that "game". All he wanted was a super violent and insensitive "game" to make, and mission accomplished. He acknowledged the criticism and didn't care, so to me, what he was doing was horrifying.

I will argue that some games have no point at times, GTA where you can do whatever you want, to me, it's pointless, but when you go back to the story and objectives you go back to the point. But that's a minute point, and I will admit you bring up a good point about what makes a "good" game. I still say it all goes back to intent at that point, and to use your example, if you served a turd as a meal and called it such, I would question your intent. Yes it's a meal, but what was the point in that?

 

[TheRocketeer]

Last week, I pointed out that, despite employing some of the most intelligent and opinionated writers on the website, Extra Consideration fails as a feature simply because no subject -that they've yet discussed- has possessed any real depth, and each column so far has fallen on its face when they figure out on the second page that they all feel the same way. Yet every topic so far has 'merited' two three-page columns.

This time, they admit on the first page that they have run out of things to talk about. I'd say they actually hit that point on this subject halfway through the last column, but either way, this entire three-page edition of Extra Consideration boiled down to a flaccid consideration of what exactly James Portnow meant by 'good.'

Gaming produces as much controversy and disagreement as it does solely for the fact that the people doing the bulk of the arguing are biased, stupid, bored, trolling, ignorant, or all five. I think it's a brilliant commentary in itself that three people with even basic insight can inadvertently expose how overblown and shallow gaming's 'controversies' really are. Otherwise, this is not a good use of the creators' time. Give them something worthwhile to do.

 

[RTR]

I've always thought the "survive a warzone/shoot-out as a civilian" would be a great idea.
After this column, I can only say one thing:
Jim Sterling vs. Yahtzee. Make it happen.

 

[Biodeamon]

Fox news will have a field day with this...

 

[Dogstile]

Why is Jim included in this... I understand what hes trying to say but it just so completely misses the point.

He's included because he has a different point of view. Which you kind of need for a debate, otherwise you'd just get a bunch of people spouting off that its bad and then everyone does it and its boring as hell.

Jim Sterling seems to be buying into his own persona, which is sad. I reiterate that he's capable of being clever and insightful when he's not trying way way way way WAAAYYYYY too hard to be funny. He actually had something to contribute, even last week.

But now he just ruins it by pretending that the sex in Mass Effect and Dragon Age added nothing and were just there for shock value (projecting much, Jim?).

You seriously thought they added anything? As deep as Bioware tried to make the sex scenes, in mass effect they were cheesy as hell, and in dragon age they were both cheesy and easy to get. Like pathetically easy. It doesn't even affect your party much aside from the other person who wants the bang you is a little bit miffed.