You are making a game based around a School Shooting. How would you design it?

[Strazdas]

morality locked down in a chest far away.
we had games about everything, its been high time till we get one involving shooting kids. im serious.
realistic reactions. children fleeing and hiding in realistic places, on a non-repetative pattern. teachers hiding/running/fighting back, security guards, police responses, armed neighbors coming in to "be the hero" all while running physics that are similar to GTA4 but without the silly response lag.
eventually, as you rampage cops arrive. they act in realistic fashion but not too super. you may gun one or two down, but as reinfrcements pour in you are gunned down and you are dead. game over. it is not possible to win this game. the best you can do is put a stopwatch in front of your monitor and go for "last as long as possible".

 

[MammothBlade]

You are making a game based around a School Shooting.

No, I'm not. Because such a notion is irredeemably repugnant. People who are capable of the most basic levels of human empathy do not attempt to derive fun from real people's tragedy and suffering. I have to believe anyone who would even attempt such a game is on some level mentally/emotionally broken.

Or not, because they could be overtly inquisitive and want to find out what it would be like precisely BECAUSE they want to get into the mind of the shooter by recreating the experience. This is the same sort of misplaced moralising that enables anti-videogame killjoys.

 

[sheah1]

To make things worse, I highly doubt that the shootings were entirely the fault of the shooter and those at fault such as bullies and stuff are probably either dead, or definitely not going to own up to their responsibility and tell the truth... this makes a legit story very difficult.

Whenever anyone escalates a conflict, they are entirely at fault for the escalation. When you respond to bullying with mass murder, you are 100% to blame.

I think saying that the shooter is always "100% to blame" is a rather sweeping statement to make.

If you kill innocent kids then you're 100% to blame. No excuses. No rationalization. Fuck me, if you kill kids, you stop being human.

snip

Y'see, some of what you say makes sense. When something like this happens, the problems have to be examined and sorted out, better gun control, better mental health care, better whatever, because people don't do things for no reason and we need to find that reason. But after a point, you have to face your own problems. Yeah, you've had a shitty day at work, but you can't scream at your kid because of it. It's your job to face your own issues and problems, yes people can help you, that's fine, but projecting your issues onto other people is wrong, it means you're kind of shitty at being human.

 

[blazearmoru]

Whenever anyone does something, they are to blame for their actions.

I never said any such thing in this thread. I said when a person escalates a conflict they are 100% to blame for the escalation. Stop misrepresenting my opinion.

When consequences arise that involve, people, animals, living beings, machines... let's just stretch back to people since it's unclear. When basically you cause another person to kill, such as Hitler causing his minions to kill Jews, it's the fault of the minion not of Hitler. Hitler's only crime is talks, and threats, and is in no way 100% not responsible for the death of any Jew.

Absolute rubbish, I never said anything of the sort. Are you so desperate for an argument that you feel the need to lie in order to invent someone to argue with?

"Whenever Hitler threatens people, he is entirely at fault for the act of threatening. When you respond to threats with mass murder, you are 100% to blame." - Replaced anyone with Hitler, replaced earlier causation from escalation to threat. It's even fits as a plug in. Look, I didn't even need to remove mass murder.

Well, you might have had a point there if Hitler didn't escalate the conflict multiple times by invading several neighbors and rounding up Jews, homosexuals, Romani, and "undesireables" well before an Allied retaliation came into being, and the Allied retaliation was quite restrained compared to Hitler's aggression. And since both of those things are true, what you have done is waste our time with a bunch of piffle that has no basis in reality.

That's three strikes. I warned you twice to stop arguing against things I didn't say. Three times you did it anyway. So we're done. No useful conversation can be had when one party refuses to listen accurately to the other, espeicially when they choose not to question what they don't understand and instead pepper their response with "fuck you"s. You're going into my ignore list. Also, kindly stop personal messaging me. Second request on that. If I get any more PMs from you I will report you to the mods for harassment.

I never said any such thing in this thread. I said when a person escalates a conflict they are 100% to blame for the escalation. Stop misrepresenting my opinion.

1. I fail to see the difference.
2. Did you mean that if someone does something positive, anything aside from not escalating a problem it's a different issue, only those who does things along the lines of creating a bigger mess, are responsible for the whole of the mess? Look at the Hitler analogy

absolute rubbish, I never said anything of the sort. Are you so desperate for an argument that you feel the need to lie in order to invent someone to argue with?

1. It's a rephrasing of what's above. You stating that a person who does the act of escalation is to blame for that act. I jumped to the conclusion thinking you meant that a person who does an act is to blame for that act but I was wrong, you're only stating the act of escalation which is even a more sickening double standard from my PoV. Instead of stating that everyone is responsible for only their actions, you're stating that only escalators are responsible for the final outcome of all prior escalations, in this case, the shooting alone is the final outcome after all other influences have settled into place. Unless I'm wrong again and you're only using it for this single particular situation by which then, wow, your double standards knows no limits. I could be missing a remaining option though. If so, feel free to explain it.
2. Nope, but you seem to need to be in denial. Also hitler's ww1's medals of accomplishment had to deal with being a messenger, not for killing sprees. Your position from what I can comprehend states that hitler's only crime is "escalation" to the point of rude chatting and threats. The actual murderer is not Hitler so he cannot be held accountable for it. Other people escalated it to murder.

Well, you might have had a point there if Hitler didn't escalate the conflict multiple times by invading several neighbors and rounding up Jews, homosexuals, Romani, and "undesireables" well before an Allied retaliation came into being, and the Allied retaliation was quite restrained compared to Hitler's aggression. And since both of those things are true, what you have done is waste our time with a bunch of piffle that has no basis in reality.

1. He invaded, true that. Didn't kill anyone.
2. Hitler's aggression? You mean his crime of talking offensively cus he definitely wasn't out on killing sprees. Or did you mean, waltzing into another country?
3. See, you're scapegoating based on your personal preferences. You're using double standards whenever it makes you feel good.
4. He still didn't escalate it to murder. He was just talking ( throwing orders ).

Also, kindly stop personal messaging me. Second request on that. If I get any more PMs from you I will report you to the mods for harassment.

My message simply stated that I responded and I'm sorry that I didn't respond quick enough. You stated that I stopped responding and I simply wanted to tell you I didn't. I even apologized for offending you at some point in the message. I think I may of also said something along the lines of "let's continue this tomorrow". You're pretty quick to take personal offense it seems. I'll stop but you're the one with the problem, not me. Also re-read the "fuck you" part, it's light hearted and in no way in insult.

My insults as you well know, are done differently and aimed at your understanding of biology, psychology, neurology, and even philosophy because from my understanding of philosophy, morality of decisions has to do with one's capability to decide things which at the point of the shooting, biology, psychology, neurology and the like have very clearly put the guy in a state much worse than any amount of alcohol or any other drug. To make things worse, I'm pretty sure that in philosophy, if a person chooses to ingest drugs and as a result does actions beyond his judgement, they are responsible out of the choice of taking the drug knowing that it'll cause them to lose judgement but this person didn't choose what he learned ( his environment ) didn't choose his birth ( a human with human brain flaws ) and sure as hell didn't choose to lose judgement ( his biology at his age, chemicals and emotions ). He didn't have control over jack shit. He didn't even have control over his own DAMN BRAIN and what do you want him to make decisions with? His ass? or his soul ?

Don't take my word for it that he's clearly in no state to make a clear decision, take the decision he made.

 

[Kopikatsu]

As someone who played Super Columbine Massacre RPG and enjoyed it at times (even laughing when something funny happened) I do think the game got a few things wrong. The forced stealth section near the start of the game killed a bit of the fun as did the repetitiveness of the enemies (how many jock types can you defeat before you get bored?).

Game spoilers follow

Spoiler

I think one of the best things that could've been done is to let you actually battle the police outside of the building because by that point in the game you've leveled up so much that the kids aren't a threat anymore (I almost lost to a jock in the parking lot at the start of the game) so it would've been nice to fight someone who could actually kill you. The section in Hell had too many enemies and not enough ammo and medkits, especially once you got the plasma gun. More varied attacks on the part of the students would've been good as well.

... ...??????

Plasma Gun and Hell level? What? What?

I'm suddenly interested in this game.

 

[Xan Krieger]

As someone who played Super Columbine Massacre RPG and enjoyed it at times (even laughing when something funny happened) I do think the game got a few things wrong. The forced stealth section near the start of the game killed a bit of the fun as did the repetitiveness of the enemies (how many jock types can you defeat before you get bored?).

Game spoilers follow

Spoiler

I think one of the best things that could've been done is to let you actually battle the police outside of the building because by that point in the game you've leveled up so much that the kids aren't a threat anymore (I almost lost to a jock in the parking lot at the start of the game) so it would've been nice to fight someone who could actually kill you. The section in Hell had too many enemies and not enough ammo and medkits, especially once you got the plasma gun. More varied attacks on the part of the students would've been good as well.

... ...??????

Plasma Gun and Hell level? What? What?

I'm suddenly interested in this game.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/326.397398-Super-Columbine-Massacre-RPG
Let me explain a bit more. In the game your ammo behaves like mana in that all guns draw from the same supply, better guns just use more. The pistol costs 1 ammo per shot, the shotgun 2 ammo, the plasma gun requires 10 ammo (the ammount a clip restores [think mana potion]).

 

[Kopikatsu]

As someone who played Super Columbine Massacre RPG and enjoyed it at times (even laughing when something funny happened) I do think the game got a few things wrong. The forced stealth section near the start of the game killed a bit of the fun as did the repetitiveness of the enemies (how many jock types can you defeat before you get bored?).

Game spoilers follow

Spoiler

I think one of the best things that could've been done is to let you actually battle the police outside of the building because by that point in the game you've leveled up so much that the kids aren't a threat anymore (I almost lost to a jock in the parking lot at the start of the game) so it would've been nice to fight someone who could actually kill you. The section in Hell had too many enemies and not enough ammo and medkits, especially once you got the plasma gun. More varied attacks on the part of the students would've been good as well.

... ...??????

Plasma Gun and Hell level? What? What?

I'm suddenly interested in this game.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/326.397398-Super-Columbine-Massacre-RPG
Let me explain a bit more. In the game your ammo behaves like mana in that all guns draw from the same supply, better guns just use more. The pistol costs 1 ammo per shot, the shotgun 2 ammo, the plasma gun requires 10 ammo (the ammount a clip restores [think mana potion]).

That is...interesting. I think I might give it a shot, especially since it's basically how I said a game about school shooting should be made. Just go batshit crazy with the whole thing.

 

[MammothBlade]

To start with, the game should clearly emulate the mental disorders experienced by the shooters. It should be based on their hypothetical motives to shoot up schools, and other places. But let's assume the game is primarily about school shootings.

Maybe it would involve a story mode in which the background of the shootings is explored to some degree by the protagonists. The characters should be as lifelike and believable as is possible, presenting a challenge to the player. Can you really bring yourself to shoot some unarmed fellow humans? Of course, the story element should be balanced with the combat. The preparation stage will include acquisition of weapons, perhaps bomb and improvised weapon making, training, and planning the shootings in detail - the movements of prospective victims, timing, etc. There should be a good variety of realistic weapons.

I'm split about including achievements and highscores. It should keep a body count, but glorifying the killings is probably too much. Perhaps that should be an opt-in feature.

 

[Faux Furry]

I would make it about a school water gun or paint gun shooting. The game's aesthetics could even be reminiscent of a water color painting. You didn't specify that the end result of the shooting in game had to be fatal or involve real guns.

The same topic could be dealt with using people made of paper going to a school where they go to learn to make something of themselves(as origami,that is)who are stained and torn by either form of ammunition previously mentioned,making everything fairly abstract.

Every paper person could wear their influences all over their bodies as coded characters or pictograms and it is up to the player to try to decipher these symbols to try to find out who will try to erase everyone else before it is too late.

That hasn't been used too many times already,has it?

 

[Mr.Mattress]

I'm thinking you play as one of the Victim and you have to escape, but that you can also save others. In sort of a mix of a stealth game/RTS. Fighting back is simply not an option: You and as many people as you can get have to get out of there ASAP, in 60 Minutes of Real time or else a bomb they brought in is going to explode. There will be a point system, but it will fallow Hitman rules: You only get points by evading your enemies, not by fighting them or sending people to their death for you to flee.

I'm thinking the school will have 200 students, and although it may be 99% impossible, you can possibly save all of them. There will be 5-50 Killers, depending on Difficulty settings. Of course, only you and the killers will have personalities, but all the students will fit into a sort of role: Engineers can send Texts to Police Officers and turn off lights in other rooms to spook killers. Sports players are faster, or can hold doors longer to keep killers at bay. English Majors are good at locating other students and avoiding killers. Etc. You are a jack of all trades, but you can level up certain skills and abilities, a la Skyrim or Fallout.

For added Challenge; Ingenious Killers, Complete Lock downs of schools, Only 100 Students, Spies (Certain Classmates who turn out to be part of the Killers group and randomly turn on you) and 30-Minute Time Bomb are all optional.

Now go, and get out of there!

 

[Saviordd1]

I'd make it a survival horror game where the person is seeing monsters and stuff and he's not comprehending he's in a school but in some abandoned hotel or something, then by the very very very end, I'd reveal the protagonist was actually shooting children.


That's bound to mind**** a few folks.

This

It's pretty much the only "good" way to do it.

Either that or do it the other way around where its a survival horror game and the kid thinks his school is being invaded by monsters and you have to attempt to escape them, then at the end have a scene where the rescue workers show up and the truth is revealed.

You know, that actually kinda sounds like a cool idea. It'd certainly be interesting, even if the "school shooting" is a very small part of it.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

No I am not. I am an ordinary, boring person who isn't making a game based on a school shooting. Oh I could make a witty remark about Genre and X Meets Y, but I'm not here to amuse you, I'm here to stick to my principles.

 

[General Twinkletoes]

You are making a game based around a School Shooting.

2. It's not a "fun" game. Extra Credits did a video about this where they talked about Spec Ops: The Line and pointed out that games no longer need to be fun, in the same way other forms of art sometimes provoke emotions other than fun.

Damn man, look how far we have gotten, now games dont need to be fun...

Sigh- In those kind of times I actually miss the older gaming.

Can't you enjoy a good story or experience, even if it's not fun? Have you ever enjoyed a sad movie?

I don't get why you'd miss older gaming because of that, fun games are never going anywhere. This just means there are more options for people, why would you be upset about that?

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

I'd make it a survival horror game where the person is seeing monsters and stuff and he's not comprehending he's in a school but in some abandoned hotel or something, then by the very very very end, I'd reveal the protagonist was actually shooting children.


That's bound to mind**** a few folks.

This

It's pretty much the only "good" way to do it.

Either that or do it the other way around where its a survival horror game and the kid thinks his school is being invaded by monsters and you have to attempt to escape them, then at the end have a scene where the rescue workers show up and the truth is revealed.

You know, that actually kinda sounds like a cool idea. It'd certainly be interesting, even if the "school shooting" is a very small part of it.

After seeing that a few people here liked my idea, I gave it a bit more thought and developed some of the details.


The core concept of it was basically an exploration of madness and of what may drive someone to commit something this horrible. I was thinking of the person seeing the monsters so as to explain the actions but at the same time it doesn't make sense as far as games go for fleeing people to be able to harm you, so we'd need something else in there, something entirely out of the mad person's mind which has no real counterpart.


I was thinking of there being the harmful monsters and the inane monsters, the harmful monsters would be big and slow moving and once they reached you you died but you'd be able to slow them down by killing the harmless monsters. Obviously, the harmless ones are gonna be the ones revealed to be children. Oh and what these monsters (the slow ones) do to you to make you die, since they indeed are not real as we said, is make you kill yourself. It'd probably have some kind of body-takeover animation. Eventually, the game would go on to a point where you're backed against the corner and all slow monsters have caught up with you, then they'd go poof and in doing so, the whole scene would transform into the actual real surroundings. The "madness" would be lifted sort of speak, so the player will have to trace his steps back through familiar-looking rooms with...corpses in them. At first you'd just see one or two, enough to allow you to shake the idea and be like "nah, I couldn't have been..." but eventually it'd set in. I'm not sure on how the final moment here should be played, since simply killing yourself there would be too predictable. It may come to me later.

 

[Saviordd1]

-snip-

Honestly that could work.

Now if only I had a direct line to a game developer...

 

[Batou667]

It's odd; there are loads of games on the market that have you play as "a bad guy" and doing things which are morally-dubious or just flat-out illegal. And I'm not just talking about fringe games for psychos, like Rapelay or Postal 2. Successful, mainstream games like the GTA series allow you to go on mindless killing sprees. Action games like God of War and Mortal Kombat are starting to blur the line between "game" and "snuff simulator". And the mind-bogglingly successful Call of Honor: Modern Ops franchises have made a fortune turning real-life conflicts and theatres of war, many of them still ongoing, into cheap entertainment.

And yet, we don't condemn these games because even if we don't personally enjoy them, we can accept that they're just games and harmless forms of expression and players who own these games are playing a role, not acting out your own desires.

But, as soon as the anthropomorphic bundles of polygons become child-sized, we flip our collective shit and declare that nobody but a real-life child murderer could possibly enjoy this particular form of make-believe.

Is child-killing really the last taboo in videogaming?

 

[weker]

I'm not sure, I would either design it in one of two ways.
The first option would be comparable to Dinner Date more of an interactive story telling situation, where the player doesn't fully control the character but has a method of guiding the story.
The alternative is hyper realistic while also attempting to remove much of the joy of it. stuff like making much of the game play difficult like the shooting and the deaths unsatisfactory. Dull gun tones weapon, bad handling and very quick and simple deaths could be used.

 

[alphamalet]

You are making a game based around a School Shooting.

2. It's not a "fun" game. Extra Credits did a video about this where they talked about Spec Ops: The Line and pointed out that games no longer need to be fun, in the same way other forms of art sometimes provoke emotions other than fun.

Damn man, look how far we have gotten, now games dont need to be fun...

Sigh- In those kind of times I actually miss the older gaming.

Can't you enjoy a good story or experience, even if it's not fun? Have you ever enjoyed a sad movie?

I don't get why you'd miss older gaming because of that, fun games are never going anywhere. This just means there are more options for people, why would you be upset about that?

I know I'm sort of jumping into a discussion here, but I think Katatori makes a good point. If we are talking about "fun" in general terms, then no, games don't need to be "fun". I wouldn't necessarily describe survival horror games as fun, since they stand or fall on how much of an emotional response the player has when the game attempts to scare them.

I think games should be judged on how well their gameplay mechanics help to elicit the intended emotions that the game wants to convey.

This still allows for judgement on how solid the core mechanics are, as well as opens up the possibilities for broader artistic statements. If the core mechanics are done poorly, immersion will suffer, and the core gameplay will impede the game's ability to evoke an adequate emotional response from the player. If the core mechanics are done right, then we have new possibilities where developers may be able to convey more of the negative emotions of the human psyche that might not be classified as "fun".