The School Shooter Mod
- Thread starter Extra Consideration
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Sure. But who's more likely to make a change?Harry Mason said:
Either good people take it on the chin and thus remove the power of their words, or we all sit around being very upset waiting for the dicks to stop being dicks.
There's a simplicity to our reality: you can only change one person, and that person is yourself. Yes, the onus should be on people making deliberately offensive statements to change their behaviour, but they won't.
And who gets to subjectively judge what a laudable treatment is and isn't? You?ThisNewGuy said:
Oh fuck.
Actually, it wasn't that bad. Jim wasn't trying to be funny in that painfully terrible way of his, so what he was saying was actually more than half decent.
Odd. Very odd.
It seems like Jim is actually reasonably good when he's not trying to force his "humour" upon us...
Actually, it wasn't that bad. Jim wasn't trying to be funny in that painfully terrible way of his, so what he was saying was actually more than half decent.
Odd. Very odd.It seems like Jim is actually reasonably good when he's not trying to force his "humour" upon us...
Bolded for emphasis. This is undeniably a very good point, and sums up something that has always bugged me about the GTA series in particular. Saints Row gets a pass for knowing exactly what kind of game it is, and revelling in the sheer excess of the characters (Like Johnny Gat being on trial for 1 count of attempted murder and 387 counts of first degree murder) whereas GTA completely ignores the random killing sprees in its eagerness to portray the protagonist in a serious, dramatic and often sympathetic light.
Can we please not involve Jim on this excellent series? He's like the school shooter mod in a sense: a stunt, made for shock value. Bob's great, James is great. Let's leave it at that.
I think you completely missed the point of my post. I'm not talking about who gets to judge or if there is a validation for judgement.Sentox6 said:
Interesting. You propose a right and way wrong of utilising virtual violence, yet don't feel the need to do anything with this categorisation per se?ThisNewGuy said:
At any rate, where do multiplayer shooters fit in your paradigm? Many of them dismiss any context other than "kill your opponents". By your standard, a deathmatch in CoD or a round of FFA slayer in Halo seems very problematic.
Hear, hear. I was sort of turned off by the surprise Jim entrance in this week's panel, but decided to read through it anyway. Jim has good and valid points, but his video series...deathninja said:
Anyway, OT: I have to agree with James, games like School Shooter should be allowed to be made, but doesn't deserve publicity like these. They are practically targets for the pro "Violent games should be banned" groups. And they don't really hold up any valid arguments in defense of games. The only thing that protects them would be free speech, which has taken a lot of crap from these lately.
P.S. James, I would love to play your SPS game.
I have to disagree with Jim on this one. Intent plays a big role for me and the intent of this game isn't fun or enjoyment it's just meant to be shocking.
Edit: Games like Grand Theft Auto get a pass from me because they are played up in parts as being silly. If I ran over someone in my car I wouldn't expect them to get back up, run over to the door, drag me out and start kicking me. In fact my issue with the recent GTA games is that they are becoming too realistic.
Edit: Games like Grand Theft Auto get a pass from me because they are played up in parts as being silly. If I ran over someone in my car I wouldn't expect them to get back up, run over to the door, drag me out and start kicking me. In fact my issue with the recent GTA games is that they are becoming too realistic.
Usually I wouldn't go near this brand of shit with a 100ft barge pole, it goes completely against my lurk ethic. here goes -
school shooter is a piece of shit, and that has nothing to do with it existing or not, or being censored. I am entirely against all types of censorship, in pretty much any form. you want to make a Holocaust Tycoon game? go for it.
Violence is inherent in pretty much everything. Context is what shapes violence, not in deed, but in the perception thereof. i.e. - killing an enemy combatant in a war on the orders of your superiors compared to gunning down someone for no good reason. killing for fun, for profit, for survival - the deed remains the same, the meaning behind the act does not.
off topic - video games as art? who gives a shit. just make them good, leave the art to the pretentious fucks who need a box like 'art' to give some sort of validation for whatever they're wasting their time on.
btw; jim kicks ass, movie bob is awesome though I disagree with most of what he says. keep up the good work please, it makes it worth coming to the escapist.
school shooter is a piece of shit, and that has nothing to do with it existing or not, or being censored. I am entirely against all types of censorship, in pretty much any form. you want to make a Holocaust Tycoon game? go for it.
Violence is inherent in pretty much everything. Context is what shapes violence, not in deed, but in the perception thereof. i.e. - killing an enemy combatant in a war on the orders of your superiors compared to gunning down someone for no good reason. killing for fun, for profit, for survival - the deed remains the same, the meaning behind the act does not.
off topic - video games as art? who gives a shit. just make them good, leave the art to the pretentious fucks who need a box like 'art' to give some sort of validation for whatever they're wasting their time on.
btw; jim kicks ass, movie bob is awesome though I disagree with most of what he says. keep up the good work please, it makes it worth coming to the escapist.
the problem with this stance is where does it stop?Nelson LaQuet said:
you can take this to the extreme and argue that, if someone slugs you in the face for being a '******', you should just walk away and that would take away the power of their intent? i know im being a little ridiculous here in pushing it so far but that is what Jim is saying if you take it to extremes.
there is a reason why jackasses are called jackasses and it feels like Jim doesnt just want to defend jackasses but wants to defend the existence of one and the right of being one. which, to me, makes absolutely no sense whatsoever
Seconded, on both points by me.starwarsgeek said:
I find myslf unmotivated to view the contents of the escapist becuase of Mister Jim.
More importantly I would like to buy that game James was writing about.
I'm with you on that - also, whilst you CAN murder hundreds of innocent civilians in GTA, it isn't necessary. You can behave like a good boy, obey traffic signals etc if you want to. Must say though, the moral justification for most shooters is flimsy at its very best.Valdus said:
EC always seems to strike some interesting chords, good read as usual.
One of James' comments made me think of an old game I played as a child:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_the_West
It combines dialogue with very simple shooter mechanics. The player controls a sheriff in a typical Western town. As an interesting effect the world is seen from the point of view of the sheriff's right hip. (First hip shooter perspective?)
This game could have been made as a mindless shooter, but they chose to make it more interesting by encouraging peaceful resolutions to conflicts. The player needs to deliberately pull the gun to get into shooter mode, an action that the NPCs will react to negatively.
The main objective of the game is to simply survive the day, but this can be done with varying degrees of finesse and the game will rank violent actions negatively. The player will need to carefully consider his actions, but also be quick to draw if the circumstances call for it.
As far as I remember it is possible to complete the game without any violence at all, but that is hard to do.
One of James' comments made me think of an old game I played as a child:
The game that suddenly appeared from the depth of my subconsciousness was "Law of the West":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_the_West
It combines dialogue with very simple shooter mechanics. The player controls a sheriff in a typical Western town. As an interesting effect the world is seen from the point of view of the sheriff's right hip. (First hip shooter perspective?)
This game could have been made as a mindless shooter, but they chose to make it more interesting by encouraging peaceful resolutions to conflicts. The player needs to deliberately pull the gun to get into shooter mode, an action that the NPCs will react to negatively.
The main objective of the game is to simply survive the day, but this can be done with varying degrees of finesse and the game will rank violent actions negatively. The player will need to carefully consider his actions, but also be quick to draw if the circumstances call for it.
As far as I remember it is possible to complete the game without any violence at all, but that is hard to do.
And with the inclusion of Jim, I woefully retract my interest in "Extra Consideration." I was trying to avoid Jim by not watching his show, but now he's creeping into things I like, and I don't want him here. Sorry. I'm avoiding all Jim, all the time.
Actually, I think we did.Yossarian1507 said:
I watched Jims first two episodes, and read the comments to them. Anyone familiar with Jim's work over at Machinima (or wherever he was/is before) says that he is much better in written format. I'm betting that Russ Pits was made aware of the public distaste for Jim's show, and tried to see how this will work. I'm betting we'll see one or two more instances of Jim in Extra Consideration before anything further can be decided.
You have to admit though, Jim sure can stir a pot. 4 pages of comments, and I'd lay down a 20 that says half of them are about "Jim? On EC?! WTF!"