"a lazy, cynical media attention-getter dressed up as edgy provocation." Did bob just described Jim?
The School Shooter Mod, Part 2
- Thread starter Extra Consideration
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I disagree here. GTA III and its spinoffs do a great job of being an offensive crime-based Tarantinoid B-Movie, and people have a lot of fun playing it. The difference is craft, and the care placed in it. GTA: San Andreas would be far more offensive if it wasn't making allusions to already existing Gangster movies, not to mention the LA Riots.Delta2501 said:
Bioshock is another example of content that takes a stand and could be morally objectionable - to the point of alienating a specific player base (followers of Objectivist philosophy and/or Libertarians/Conservatives), but because it's so well put together, it works.
Craft can go a long way.
HAHAHAHAHAHA.Felix Arturo Macias Ibarra said:"a lazy, cynical media attention-getter dressed up as edgy provocation." Did bob just described Jim?
Call Bob what you will, he isn't lazy.
Neither is Jim, really. He's one of the most prolific games writers - but I do think he stretches himself out with easy answers.
Birth of a Nation is one of the most important works in cinematic history. It WAS considered offensive when it came out (not nearly as much as it is now).The Random One said:
Resident Evil V is actually a really good comparison as its offense was unintentional and deeply embedded in the culture. In much the same way that Soul Caliber was unintentionally sexist, it became defined by boobs.
I think its interesting that they don't point out in their comparison between GTA and school shooting, they don't point out that while in GTA many people will go on killing sprees and fight the cops/army, that isn't the full extent of the game. That is the full extent of school shooter.
Yep. No "survival" games where you're an innocent person trying to survive/escape a horrific event with a mechanic to lead others to safety.
Oh wait...
It does exist. The enemies are just zombies instead of guys with guns.
Anyway, I would like to thank Jim for saying exactly what I think about Bioware's sex scenes/romance plots. I never saw the big deal about them in Mass Effect. You talk to all your squadmates anyway and you end up "in love" with a bunch of them just by chatting and have to tell all the ones you don't want "Sorry, but it turns out that just chatting with you doesn't mean I want to have sex." And then you get to watch a brief cutscene that makes the Uncanny Valley look natural with the one you did pick. Why does Bioware make such a huge deal about this?
I'm even more convinced that this "second person shooter" has to happen. Help us James, you're our only hope.
a good topic. the moral problem of "could i call this good based on mechanics without considering plot."
i would say a game that makes a joke about it probably couldn't be proclaimed good, because intended or not, you are trying to lighten up a plausible real life event. this is the type of game that could rationalize the stereotype that games cause violence. all it would take is some dumb kid shooting up his school and saying he got it from this game to throw the whole medium into chaos. whether he really believed the game condoned it or not would be irrelevant as far as prosecution would be concerned. idk how a serious game would go, but it is a slippery slope.
that said, the ideas brought up for a game do sound intriguing. it could involve mental or social problems, and there could be sections involving shooter(s), hostage(s) and police. it could be a stealth/shooter if it was a multiplayer shooter, or a multiple solution novel type, where you could play out various scenarios from all the angles. as i said above though, trivializing anything in this could be hazardous for an already controversial topic. most companies don't have the huevos to even attempt a serious game this sketchy.
i would say a game that makes a joke about it probably couldn't be proclaimed good, because intended or not, you are trying to lighten up a plausible real life event. this is the type of game that could rationalize the stereotype that games cause violence. all it would take is some dumb kid shooting up his school and saying he got it from this game to throw the whole medium into chaos. whether he really believed the game condoned it or not would be irrelevant as far as prosecution would be concerned. idk how a serious game would go, but it is a slippery slope.
that said, the ideas brought up for a game do sound intriguing. it could involve mental or social problems, and there could be sections involving shooter(s), hostage(s) and police. it could be a stealth/shooter if it was a multiplayer shooter, or a multiple solution novel type, where you could play out various scenarios from all the angles. as i said above though, trivializing anything in this could be hazardous for an already controversial topic. most companies don't have the huevos to even attempt a serious game this sketchy.
Though that initial scene where the mother hugs what I can only assume she though was her child, only to be blown into pieces when they do hug; that stopped me for a second, it was sick and sad, yet good at the same time in that it was actually able to make me feel that way. Though when actually fighting them, they just become another necro to kill, and I never felt the same way towards them as that scene.TwistedEllipses said:
I dislike the argument that "If the gameplay is still technically good, it cannot be a bad game!" This comes from the thinking that somehow video games must only be about gameplay or that the only thing that matters in a game is gameplay and that everything else is just extra. Yeah, sure, if the gameplay mechanics of School Shooter are okay, that doesn't make the story, presentation, and overall message any less shit or pretentious (as, yes, if you read the interview of the guy you'd see that this guy is trying to make a statement as pretentious as other "statement" people).
So yes, School Shooter could still be considered a bad game. "Good" gameplay doesn't automatically make a game good, it's the product of the whole that makes a game good. By these definitions, BioShock should be a completely average game with its servicable shooting mechanics, yet the presentation, narrative, and overall concept made it shine above the rest.
I also don't buy the "it's hypocritical of the gaming public! They shoot down civilians in GTA!". Just because other games do that doesn't make this one any more right. I'm reminded of MovieBob's "Big Picture" episode on how one of the characters in Thor was black, check it out as it can sort of apply to what I'm saying. Just because other games let you mow down civilians (and do so much better with legitimate social commentary (at least some of the times) does not make the situation in School Shooter any less offensive or disgusting. Sure, free speech n' all, I don't care what the guy makes, but my point stands.
So yes, School Shooter could still be considered a bad game. "Good" gameplay doesn't automatically make a game good, it's the product of the whole that makes a game good. By these definitions, BioShock should be a completely average game with its servicable shooting mechanics, yet the presentation, narrative, and overall concept made it shine above the rest.
I also don't buy the "it's hypocritical of the gaming public! They shoot down civilians in GTA!". Just because other games do that doesn't make this one any more right. I'm reminded of MovieBob's "Big Picture" episode on how one of the characters in Thor was black, check it out as it can sort of apply to what I'm saying. Just because other games let you mow down civilians (and do so much better with legitimate social commentary (at least some of the times) does not make the situation in School Shooter any less offensive or disgusting. Sure, free speech n' all, I don't care what the guy makes, but my point stands.
I'm with you on this one. One of the classic arguments against "Video games cause violence" is "I know that the people in this game are fake. They mean nothing to me, for they are imaginary." I've seen it used multiple times in various Escapist articles, for example by both Yahtzee and Mikey in the Morality Matters episode of Extra Consideration. What I've found, though, is that the best games I've played were the ones where the characters stopped seeming like imaginary bunches of data and took on a new life in my head. As long as this is true, the mechanics of the game will not be the only thing that matters.Delta2501 said:
On a completely unrelated note, I wish I could have casual conversations with Crispin Freeman. I sometimes forget that James actually does work in the videogame industry.
On the other hand, why aren't we, collectively, similarly outraged by GTA and games like it? Perhaps you are, and you would have every right to be, but why wasn't the same debate raised within the gaming community when GTA was released? Personally, I think it's for two reasons:Jumplion said:
1)The non-gaming community was against it, and so we united against them.
2)Killing civilians was not the main point of the game. A player can go on killing sprees if they want to, but that's not what the game is about. A game like School Shooter shoves the civilian killing right in your face and has nothing else to redeem it. I other words, we are willing to overlook and even participate in some morally questionable things as long as there's something there beyond doing bad stuff because it's bad. However, this does not necessarily excuse this behavior.
What do you think?
Also, I watched the Big Picture episode in question (Skin Deep, yes?) and while it was good, I'm not sure how it was relevant to this issue. Could you clear that up for me?
Also also, Dear Captcha. I cannot type Chinese characters on this keyboard.
I really don't think Jim, who seems mostly interested with the mechanics and gameplay, really belongs in a discussion with people who talk about games as they relate to culture and philosophy. You're not going to get anywhere in a discussion if one person maintains a game is good so long as it's developed enough to hold your attention, while everyone else is talking about actual content. I'd much rather have Yahtzee here.
I feel like there's a difference between a morally repugnant game and a bad game. That difference is whether or not the game is actually FUN. And the former can be a good game.
It's like the difference between Atlas Shrugged (Part 1 of 3!!!!) and Iron Man 2. They come from the same source material (awful objectivist bull, from my perspective) with the same basic story in mind, but while one is awful one is a lot of fun. I find the source material reprehensible but still enjoyed Iron Man 2 and would call it 'good'.
When you make a 'game' that has any purpose for the player other than entertaining that player, I wonder not only why the player would play that game, but why you would even call it a game in the first place.
It's like the difference between Atlas Shrugged (Part 1 of 3!!!!) and Iron Man 2. They come from the same source material (awful objectivist bull, from my perspective) with the same basic story in mind, but while one is awful one is a lot of fun. I find the source material reprehensible but still enjoyed Iron Man 2 and would call it 'good'.
When you make a 'game' that has any purpose for the player other than entertaining that player, I wonder not only why the player would play that game, but why you would even call it a game in the first place.