The School Shooter Mod

[mrhateful]

Jim's show while not my favourite, is starting to grow on me, more so than MovieBob as his views on things makes me sick to the bone. For instance that he views certain aspects of humanity disgraceful so that he himself can feel like an evolved being that rise above the norm.

Also on another note I like Jim's philosophy of words only being hurtful as long as you let them. Lets face we are not alike any of us in the entire world so we need words to describe feature of each other so we can better distinguish between all of us. I remember a time where I would hide the fact that I was a nerd, during that time nerd was a negative and hurtful word, then when I got older I learned that I should embrace my features and not reject them. And it made me an overall happier person.

 

[Giest4life]

Although I agree that it's subjective, guns have more less replaced the sword in terms of significance. In ancient times, swords were almost prohibitively expensive since they served no purpose besides the death of another human being. They weren't even used in hunting. Swords make shit tools, there's always something more practical to be found unless you're looking to end someone's life (it's hard to beat three feet of steel when that's the hight of military tech). Knives on the other hand serve countless purposes as a tool.

Guns act very much the same way. Although one could argue they serve a secondary purpose as a hunting tool, the point remains that no matter how awesome as guns are (and from a mechanical point-of-view, they are), the ONLY purpose they serve is to maim/kill its target. You can't create with a gun, you can only destroy. I think that's the major subtext with the problems inherent in gun-worship.

Also, being a little pretentious, Imma bust some Heraclitus on you and tell you that war and destruction is necessary for rebirth and life. Guns, for example, must destroy a life in order for you to feed your family. Sure, arrows and javelins and spears may do that, too, but they can't do it as safely or as efficiently as their modern counterparts. For, example, there are certain families in Western VA that depend on hunting, as well as people in Northern Pakistan, Africa, and Eastern India etc. And by depend I don't mean food, I also mean economics. Poaching, though illegal in many parts, is a primary source of income for many in India and Africa--sometimes the only way to feed their families.

 

[Logic 0]

I can't wait until the second part to see where their going.

 

[mxsilence]

fu-ck jim, i dont like you! stop spreading!

 

[hathfallen]

I want to add the statement that "Second Person Shooter" is a really brilliant idea. Imagine, your character is a lowly Imp spawned in a random point in a Doom level maze along with a horde of your allies, knowing that a homicidal maniac is roaming the corridor gunning you all down like fodder. Your only hope is to not attract his attention long enough to figure some way to bring him down, like lining up a bunch of explosive barrels in front of a door he's about to open, or freeing the Cyberdemon just as he ran out of ammo.

In a sense, it's the anti-School Shooter, a game that takes away the puerile empowerment fantasy of the basic shooter and forces you to win over brute force with wit and strategy.

 

[Awexsome]

Fully on Bob's side for this. Pretty much reflects my opinion on the game. Nobody really has any right to prevent it from being created, but that doesn't stop it from being terrible in every way.

 

[Shjade]

"A game like School Shooter couldn't survive in a world where the gamers (not the Jack Thompsons, who can safely be ignored at this point) don't raise an eyebrow."

If it hadn't come up on the Escapist (twice now), I would never have heard of this mod, and I still don't care. Does that mean I'm the exception since the game hasn't imploded and vanished from existence?

 

[DevilWolf47]

They brought up some interesting points, especially relating to the hypocrisy of any stance. I've railed against John Wayne in the past and the Western genre in general for trying to depict the practical genocide of the Native American culture as the justified killings of mindless savages, bringing up that i'm of Native American heritage, but then having no problem with giving Nazis roughly two dozen new assholes in Medal of Honor despite being of German heritage as well.

Anyway i'd like to comment on the School Shooter mod, but i'm not entirely sure what it's merits are. You could logically argue that such a mod would be justified as an attempt to better understand just what extreme mental strain the shooters must have been under to commit such atrocities and maybe better prevent them if we can understand the mindset, but at the same time there's no denying that there are psychopaths who would make such a mod because they would go on a shooting rampage themselves if they had access to guns and weren't afraid to die. And then you've got the third point, immature morons so desperate for attention that they do stupid things like claim to be members of the Taliban, make school shooter mods, and post spoilers online relating to the fate of Dumbledore. I'm not entirely convinced of which group the mod falls under and can't really make a comfortable stance when i don't have an answer to the basic question "WHAT THE FUCK, GUYS?!" I need a little more context. Mind you i might come to regret that if it's a depraved lunatic or someone who is socially retarded... still, this isn't something that should be taken lightly, and i'll be the first to scream opposition if a filmmaker is allowed to make a movie relating to a massacre but video games are denied publishers because of the naysayers who think video games magically turn anyone who touches them into spree killers.

 

[GaltarDude1138]

I say next conversation you guys go to the other end of the spectrum and talk about the artistic merits of Shadow of the Colossus or something.

 

[Weasker]

Yatzee please come back to Extra Consideration, wee need you. Just look who's replacing you.

 

[Dice Warwick]

It's like when Kramer went ballistic on a black person; it's less about how rasist he was, and more about how he was no-longer funny. I don't see how School Shooter is a fun game on it's own, If you have played "Fallout 3" then you have probably gone on a rampage in Megaton, but when you were done or dead, you reloaded your game and went back to playing the game like you normally do, well Unless you were planning on nuking the town later, then it was icing on the cake.

people tend to forgive the racie, or sociopathic, only becus the person going it was able to make it eather fun, funny, or thought provoking. When it is non of theses, then it sould be left to vanish into obscurity, not given an honor to be plastered all over the media.

 

[Lunacy]

It's not thematically the same as what James suggested, but there IS a "second person shooter" game called Second Person Shooter Zato that was posted on JayIsGames a few weeks ago. I haven't played it much, but it's quite neat having to shoot at the camera and seeing yourself through the "eyes" of the enemies. Actually, I suppose it's the opposite of what James suggested, but then would it be a second person "shooter" if you did nothing but have someone shoot at you?

And while I'd rather not bother with it, I suppose I should say something about School Shooter. MovieBob's statement at the end that "shit has its own integrity" about sums it up. Looking at the interview with the developer, he seems to think that games are toys for children and/or mindless entertainment. Exactly the kind of garbage the industry needs to get rid of. Pawnstick, come back when you've remade the game for people who don't want to shoot innocent, defenseless AI. There's a lot of things to say about school shootings, but "killing innocent people is fun!" is not one of them.

Considering he obviously doesn't want to make any kind of intelligent statement, I suppose we can just forget this thing ever existed and keep playing games that are actually good.

 

[loodmoney]

I must say, Sterling surprised me twice, with this one. First by showing up unannounced. Then by making a point I agreed with: that it would be hypocritical to attack the game in question but defend Grand Theft Auto and the like.

But then he just had to go and do this:

I've always held the belief that the only way to combat offensive content is to not be offended. It's our negative, hurt, upset reaction that gives offensive content the advantage. Why are racial slurs so powerful, for example? It's because of how we react to them. If we could casually write off such slurs, or even learn to laugh at how inherently meaningless and silly they truly are, then racists would be robbed of their biggest weapon.

Really? 'Don't be offended' is the advice here? I get that the creator of the game is a troll, and he should be ignored for that reason. I also get that some people might want to reclaim slurs in order to take away their power. But you do not get to tell people to not be offended. Words do have meaning, especially when those words are meant to let you know that people hate you. This is 101 stuff.

And this:

[...]leads me to further question why School Shooter should be singled out for being so honest about its violent, amoral content.
[...]we're stuck talking about this one and not about, say, the sexual abuse implications in Killer7[...]

If there is a problem in gaming, we have to single out games. Sure we could have a discussion about other games, but sooner or later you have to look at particulars. The 'why is this one being singled out' line can be applied to any game you choose; if it is so applied it effectively shuts down discussion about the issue. Not that there are other reasons not to single out School Shooter; I'd agree with Portnow, in that the reason to ignore this game is because of the audience its creator will get as a result. But I get the feeling that Sterling does expect or even want a conversation about the troubling sexual abuse implications in Killer7.[footnote]I'm not sure if I have interpreted the second part of this quote correctly. I take it to mean that we should be talking about troubling aspects of games by referring to good games, like Killer7, but there is certainly room for disagreement.[/footnote] After all, why should that game be singled out?

In other news, I love MovieBob. Between this and his "Skin Deep" clip, he really has been rocking the good points lately.

 

[Dana22]

Sorry Jim, your arguments are so weak, I could hardly call them arguments at all. You compare this piece of shit to games like CoD or GTA, but let me point one thing: Killing innocent people is not the one and only reason to play these games, its not even the main point of gameplay. You are talking about running over Grannies in GTA, but thats not the point if this game, you dont have to do this. While killing school kids is the only thing you can do in "school shooter".

 

[Marik Bentusi]

Just a quick reply concerning he "words only have power if you give it to them", a.k.a. "asshole" is just a word, you decide how it affects you: It's too shallow thinking, because the word is, usually, conveying that the speaker wants to insult or degrade you and this intention behind the word is what upsets and hurts people. Language is but a transmitter, correct, but our emotional interpretation isn't concerned about that. That's why it doesn't matter if you'd translate asshole, it still means the same thing and your brain gets the same reaction.

Just wanted to get that out of my system, thank you very much for skipping this.

My opinion on the game itself: Not worth the attention, really. "So Bad It's Horrible" stuff and "stunts" or attention-whoring stuff has been around forever, in any medium. Just look through the gallery of contemporary pop stars, many are there *because* of just attention-whoring. It's a working concept.

Concerning antagonists in videogames: Antagonists are almost always like that in fiction. You can only convey so much in a set time without boring the consumer and newer mediums *seem* to attract less patient audiences. Not to say that's a good thing, in fact I'd like to trade some reflex-friendly games for some of thought and patience in the gaming landscape, but it's how it is. Combine that with many writers that are not used to writing for this medium and what you end up with is a cast of characters that isn't fleshed-out very well in general. The protagonist-side is often a bit better fleshed-out because we spend more time with them; it's incredibly rare to find an example of any medium where protagonist's and antagonist's motivations and characters are explored to the same level.
That's because many people just like simple stories that are easily accessible, that's why they are so much more enjoyable than the complicated wicked mess called real life. The closer we get to reality, the further we stray from escapism and the less attractive things become - for some people.

Personally I think a good mix is always the best way - both a mix of escapism and realism in a single "piece of entertainment" as well as many different pieces of entertainment in the spectrum between escapism and realism. Realism is generally harder to write while still keeping it interesting, so I actually value it greatly in some places - but sometimes I just want to relax and outwit people wearing a different color, be it red and blue TF2 mercenaries or black and white chess figures.

 

[lifegospel]

Well, as much hate as I'm going to get for this, hear me out.

To me, it sounds like you guys are asking two totally different questions, so I'll give my thoughts and opinions on both of them.

First, should this game exist? Of course it should. I could ramble on and on about "Freedom of speech" or point to examples like the infamous "Airport level" in Modern Warfare 2, but the fact of the matter is, if Call of Duty, Manhunt, Postal, etc. can get away with putting worse content in *retail* games, then why can't we grant the same courtesy to a group of gamers making something that wouldn't have gotten many downloads in the first place?

Second question: Is this game *appropriate?* Hell no. Just like so many other games out there, it offers nothing more than brutal violence for no reason other than a few laughs. I'm sure we've all gotten bored and murdered a town or two full of innocent civilians in Fallout, or tried to see how high we could get our wanted level in GTA just for shits-n'-giggles. Those games are perfectly acceptable for a worldwide audience, yet we rage at indie developers who try to make a statement about this type of thing.

In conclusion, there's no way I'd support something like this. It glorifies horrible events like the Virginia Tech Massacre or the Columbine Shooting, but what I *do* support is the choice to make and play something like this. If we had the exact same scenario in, say, an industrial warehouse, would we be any more outraged? I doubt it. We'd see it as a fun little distraction from the dullness of our lives, instead of an over-exaggerated "murder simulator."

 

[lord.jeff]

Jim is really insightful when he's not doing his normal vulgar routine, hope he stays on extra consideration.

 

[violent_quiche]

While there is definitely a debate to be had about the ethics of FPSs, school shooter is no more worthy of it than Serbian Film is as an avatar for free speech. Don?t most shooters at least present an opponent that fights back? Some sort of narrative context- war, invasion, defence of home- to at least thinly justify the violence? Not saying there isn?t one, but I can?t remember that last game that was entirely bent on mowing down defenceless citizens until the authorities show up to put you down. Yes, there are games like GTA that enable the option should the player think to do so (sorry Jim, guess I?m in the minority who don?t see it as an itch to scratch), but at least Rockstar also offer you a buttload of better and more rewarding things to do with your time. There is a modicum of difference between making murder of innocents an option vs making the sole focus.

And it isn?t just gamers that worry about this shit either- this is precisely the sort of game that is fodder to moral-majority types that know jackshit about gaming, but have enough legislative influence to BAN THIS SICK FILTH!@!!!@! As someone living in a country where one pearl clutching attorney general can hold up the entire censorship reform process, this crap can have an effect.

I will defend the artistic merit of games like GTA, but this gets a 'they have a right to make it and thats all' from me. Do it if you must, but don?t pretend you are doing anything more useful that trolling for attention.


One other thing:


Why are racial slurs so powerful, for example? It's because of how we react to them. If we could casually write off such slurs, or even learn to laugh at how inherently meaningless and silly they truly are, then racists would be robbed of their biggest weapon.


Apart from their actual weapons. Ask a gay kid who has been beaten by a gang of homophobic thugs how meaningless the word 'fag' is. Slurs dont exist in a vacuum, part of their power is in the actions that sometimes back them up- it only takes one out of ten to follow through on the threat to make it real.

 

[brainslurper]

The fact that we are having such a deeply moral discussion over such a young medium makes me proud to be alive when video games are evolving.

 

[aeroz]

Reading what the developer said on it, I think this mod shows more then anything the affect media has on our society. They said they built their games based on what the media reported on. Think about that for a moment, everything needed to emulate that event, was gotten from news outlets.

There are always reports of how violent games cause real life violence, but here is an example of how real world sensationalist media caused this mod to be brought into existence. I wish this would help bring to peoples attention that going into graphic detail on acts of mass murder and saturating all news outlets with these events for weeks causes alot more harm then "killing" non-existent people by tapping a button.