Blogging the experience of gameplayhttps://www.gamelog.cl/gamers/GamerPage.php?idgamer=1337https://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=4463So today is my last day of playing Super Columbine and I reached the part in the library where I am shooting different students. In the game, Dylan asks a "religious girl" if she believes in God before killing her. I found this to be completely disturbing and unethical. The entire game is unethical but this part made me almost disgusted playing it. The game got really graphic and showed victims families crying and I guess it sort of visually showed me what happened at the Columbine shootings but I would not have liked to have seen it that way. The end of the game is stupid. The two boys go outside and start shooting at police officers before they kill themselves. Then, the game takes the two boys to hell where they fight random characters from older games. I thought this level was extremely random and unfitting the mood of the rest of the game. Even if the creater made this game to be in any way "educational" or to at least teach players about what happened in the massacre, it did not do its job with this round. It almost seemed like the creater put this in just to make the game more playable. Although, it wasn't that fun anyway. The entire creation of the game was immoral but the last round was the worst. Based on Kant's first Categorical Imperative, we can create a rule: It is okay to make disturbing games for anyone to play as long as the last level is fun. If we universalize this, it would say everyone should make disturbing games with the last level the funnest. This is self-defeating because if everyone made disturbing games with only the last level being fun, no one would really want to buy games anymore because the entire game would not be fun until the end. Therefore, video game creation companies would lose money and people would be unhappy without video games.Thu, 28 Oct 2010 09:48:17 CDThttps://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=4463&iddiary=8351https://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=4463This is my second time playing the game and I still could not really figure out what I was supposed to do to make the game progress more. The characters and music seemed pretty good quality. Although, the game really erked me with the conversation between Dylan and Eric. It seemed like the creators of the game tried to really make it controversial and put in what they thought the killers may have talked about privately. This game is clearly crying for attention and does not really feel like a game while your playing it, well at least for me it didn't. I do not like violent games and it almost seemed like a mockery of the actual Columbine shootings. It seemed pretty real and well-depicted but it was not fun because while I was playing I thought about how a person could possibly get enjoyment out of the game and not think about what it is based on. (This entry has been edited1 time. It was last edited on Wed, 27 Oct 2010 10:20:33.)Wed, 27 Oct 2010 10:20:11 CDThttps://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=4463&iddiary=8322https://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=4463For my first time playing this game I was pretty bored. I went around shooting all of the students and this seemed a little hasty to me. I feel that it is games like this that make society question violent video games as a whole. The game seemed like a pretty good depiction of the Columbine Massacre; although, it was not educational in making people understand what the poor students had to deal with. Rather, the game turns you into a vicious killer of innocent students. I did notice a slight gender motif with women regaining strength through prayer but men tried to fight back. None of the students really tried to run, no matter what gender. Instead, they just carried on with their regular routine while they were shot at. I don't think it was ethical to even create such a game. According to rule utilitarianism, if everyone were creating games with depictions of violent events many people would be effected. Society would have a negative outlook on it because the game can cause people to have the wrong idea of what is okay to play or not. I'm sure that the families of people murdered or hurt in the shooting would not be pleased to see a game like this. Also, parents of young children who somehow find this game on the internet and play it would not be happy because the children may not understand that it is bad to find fun out of someone else's peril. Overal, it would cause more unhapiness then hapiness to people who play it, their families, and families of victims from the shooting. Therefore, the creation of the game itself was unethical.Wed, 27 Oct 2010 09:44:54 CDThttps://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=4463&iddiary=8320https://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=4379This is my third and final eatry, and over all this was a good game; however, it applied many stereotypes about black people and "gangsters" in general. First, the setting is in a low-income slum-like "hood". In order to move ahead in the game you need to have money, respect, and health. In order to gain those you have sex, smoke, drink, steal, and kill/hurt peoplle.o gain more health you can do one of two things: have sex with a hooker or go to the market and eat. The more "gangster" thing to do is sleep with the "hoe". Also, all of CJ's friends always drinking and smoking weed. Lastly, the missions are usely set for you to shoot at someone or someone to shoot at you and you have to make it through without dying. Most of the time you have to shoot back or try to beat them up or you can not pass the level. Through the past two days I applied Kant's frameworks to various aspects and missions in the game to determine that no matter how I phrase it, the things that go on in the game are completely immoral. Who believes it is truly right to kill an innocent person for the better good (or evil) of yourself? Although sometimes CJ is sent out to kill crackdealers or other abominations of society, most of the time the killing is not personal on any level; rather, he uses it as a means to an "end" and to gain power. This game was pretty fun in the beginning but after a while and viewing every stereotype ever thought of, it seemed to just be shooting shooting and more shooting. Coming from someone who loves race games or arcade classics, I'm going to give this one a thumbs down based on the values it teaches its players. (This entry has been edited1 time. It was last edited on Tue, 05 Oct 2010 08:57:43.)Tue, 05 Oct 2010 08:54:21 CDThttps://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=4379&iddiary=8188https://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=4379My second time playing Grand Theft Auto I was more acquainted with the basic game idea. This time, I was able to move on to the mission where you have to go shoot up the crack dealer’s house and the police and FBI come after you. As the game progresses, this is the way you earn respect from your fellow gang members and people in your “hood.” You take this to another level by robbing people to get money to purchase weapons. Using Kant's theory the first Categorical Imperative tells us to create a rule. The main character (you) has to face the choice of stealing from people to purchase weapons and using them to complete missions and gain respect. In this case, the rule would be that it is okay to steal to get what you want. If we universalized that, everyone would steal because it is okay. If everyone stole there would be no reason for anything to have value anymore and therefore, this statement contradicts itself. Therefore, the “right” choice in the game is actually the wrong choice.Mon, 04 Oct 2010 20:30:36 CDThttps://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=4379&iddiary=8174https://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=4379Today, I played Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas for the first time ever. It was an interesting beginning where we learned that the main character (you) found out that his mother died and the police find him and beat him up and leave him in the middle of nowhere. He has to take a bike back to his "hood". Along the way, you can steal cars to get to your destination faster. The faster you get to your destination, the sooner you have a chance to complete a mission for money, respect, and various other admirable aspects. Although I was only able to play the game for about fourty five minutes, I believe that the idea is to complete missions to so-to-say "get to the top". The main character has to explore the ethical issue of whether it is okay to hurt and steal to be prosperous in life. He obviously comes from a poor neighborhood, basically working his way up from nothing. In class, we discussed moral requirements and what it means to be a dutiful person. In this case, all of this is thrown out. The main character is not dutiful because he does not feel compelled to act in a certain way, with compassion to other people and their property; rather, he violates the second formulation of Kant's Categorical Imperative. He treats other people as a means to an end because he hurts them and takes their property (mostly cars) to complete his missions faster. Therefore, the idea of stealing cars and hurting people to succeed in life is immoral.Sat, 02 Oct 2010 23:35:20 CDThttps://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=4379&iddiary=8155