Blogging the experience of gameplayhttps://www.gamelog.cl/gamers/GamerPage.php?idgamer=1480https://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=4814An interesting feature carried over from RPGs is the leveling up as you kill unarmed students. I'm not sure how intentional any commentary might be, but it does go with their value of strength through natural selection/violence, if not skill in the traditional RPG sense. I'm not quite sure what the point of the hell level is. Maybe it's a reference to Doom (like the disk you pick up) or their asking that one student if they believed in god (some anti-religious view?), but I didn't see anything that cast any more light on thier actions. From all the popular culture characters in hell, it seemed like it might be some commentary on media and violence (going from their use of song lyrics at points in the game, it's another influence the game is suggesting). However, a lot of the characters down there, like Pokemon, just don't seem to follow with this argument (it doesn't seem serious at all). The lyrics do raise the question of how desensitized someone could become through media violence, but I think there's also the question of context. Were their values inspired by media or were they attracted to this kind of media because of their values. Just as you could argue they were influenced by media, you could argue that the bullying, wanting of revenge, depression, and such came first and that as a result they sought out any media they could interpret as reinforcing their values? For example the soldier in the video seemed more stunned/shocked by the violence against the villagers and condoning that violence didn't seem to really be the message of that kind of documentary. However, they wouldn't have viewed it in that light and would have been seeking out/much more receptive to even the slightest violent suggestion. However, without knowing what they were thinking or how these views came out and what came first, it'd be difficult to draw conclusions on the influence of media.Wed, 12 Oct 2011 11:03:56 CDThttps://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=4814&iddiary=8932https://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=4814Picking up where I left off, I'm now starting the actual shooting section after the bombs fail to explode. After reading up on the events a bit, the way they unfold in the game doesn't seem totally accurate. While granted the emphasis seems to be on the the shooters, rather than a complete recreation of the events, it does call into question some of the other elements, like dialogue that are key to the games point. There's more dialogue about following animal instincts and this sense of natural selection/strength through violence. Assuming it's accurate, it further underscores this as a strong ideal/value for them. I also now noticed that the pills I had picked up earlier were anti-depressants, probably another factor. I found it very difficult to shoot any students and went through trying to shoot as few as possible to progress. I given all the suggested causes, I still don't see how they could have gone to such extreme violence without mental illness of some kind being a factor. It does raise the more general question of a what point is someone committing violence treated as an illness or a crime, such as how people will argue that drug addicts aren't criminals in the tradition sense. In the case of the columbine shooting they would have been sentenced to several life sentences at least, in a more general sense it does seem like a difficult question. Such as children of abusive parents being abusive themselves, a what point can you make the argument they couldn't control their actions? Either way someone who commits violence like that should be locked up, but I guess there might be some distinction in how you treat them. The flashbacks seem to suggest the game is concluding bullying was a major factor. This seems to make a little sense as the other suggested factor was valuing strength through violence. Revenge most likely would go hand in hand with those kinds of values, but how they got from being bullied/wanting revenge to idolizing violence isn't clear.Wed, 12 Oct 2011 01:42:04 CDThttps://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=4814&iddiary=8916https://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=4814First off, I think the creation of super columbine massacre RPG, is ethical. Primarily because of free speech, but also because a game may be one of the best ways to put someone in the shoes of another person (probably why it's more controversial than a TV documentary about the shooting for example) and it does seem like a effective way to deliver on what the author say's their goal was, to examine why they made the choices they did. Whether or not it's well executed is a whole other issue. The presentation in RPG maker may seem like it trivializes the incident and I think it does stay towards this a bit, but overall it's probably better than a more realistic/graphic presentation. The focus is on the two shooters and their motives, a more abstract presentation can do that without lots of gore/violence shown. As for gameplay, the section in the house was perhaps the most interesting, being able to examine his stuff, recordings, and such. Some of it did give some insight, there's some sense of their value of "strength" in the sense of being able to commit shocking amounts of violence, from the dialog (e.g. natural selection) and the video with the special forces solider talking about the level of violence needed for a group to cut off the arms of everyone they had given vaccines to in a village. The accuracy of this is questionable, both as I don't think anyone knows what they said at home/in the park and if/how important that video was. I'm assuming the video was found at his house, but was it just that clip, a documentary that happened to be laying around? Was it watched a lot/found in the VCR or just in the house. It makes sense that they would like it as it appeals to their values, but the context is a bit unclear. This was then paired with a strong desire for revenge for all manner of alleged wrongs, by apparently everyone. There wasn't any particular targeting, but a "war on everyone". Once past the exploration, it seems the game really doesn't offer much more choice or exploration, you mostly just follow instructions and trace the steps of the shooting. The dialog does provide more info, but there isn't much exploration on the part of the player. So in many ways it plays out like a documentary with some interactive sections and doesn't (as far as I've played) leverage the game media for exploration. However there is something different to putting the player in the position of actually having to click on students to kill them, but it doesn't seem to pan out beyond shock value. Doesn't add to the ethical exploration without meaningful choice, you just reenact the event as it historically unfolded.Tue, 11 Oct 2011 00:48:25 CDThttps://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=4814&iddiary=8892https://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=4759One thing I've noticed is that drugs are considered worse in game than violence. While probably a reflection of US culture in general, CJ never does any drugs, beats up the drug dealers early on in the game, and seems to generally avoid them. Yet the opposite approach is taken with violence, where the main character can engage in quite a bit of violence and it's quite explicit. The player is given some room in exploring/choosing how much violence to use. For example early in the game against opponents who don't have guns, simply point a gun at them can cause them to put up their hands or leave you alone (a surprising discovery in a game that seems to channel the player towards more violent options). While the game requires you to kill people to progress in the story, hitting pedestrians, shooting police, and other non-required violence is up to the player. If you're careful it seems that in many cases you can avoid harming innocent bystanders and just run from the police(but you can never surrender to the police, meaning you may find yourself cornered with the options of being shot or shooting them). However, the player can often be put in situations where they may end up running someone over in high speed chase or shooting the driver of a car to steal it faster (I noticed if you shoot the driver, they fall out of the car and open the door in the process, making the car fast to steal). This lead to a situation where I could save several police officers by shooting an innocent lady so that I could steal her car before four police could ram me. Which would have likely lead to the deaths of several police officers if I was cornered with no option to progress other than shooting my way out (due to no surrendering). Though in the long run, letting myself be shot probably would have been the ethical utilitarian choice, given that for me to progress further in the game, it was highly likely I'd have to kill quite a few characters through out the game and do far more damage. So by escaping alive, I was likely reducing quite a lot of happiness within the GTA universe. However, in a game, not progressing really isn't a practical moral choice. It does however bring up the point that many of these choices with regards to how the player uses violence have to be made quickly. How do you make an ethical choice/what framework could you use given a few seconds? Even a minute? Overall the characters remained pretty shallow and the game only seemed to succeed at a little satire from time to time, for the most part no real commentary on gang culture has evolved at this point. (This entry has been edited1 time. It was last edited on Wed, 28 Sep 2011 10:28:29.)Wed, 28 Sep 2011 10:26:28 CDThttps://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=4759&iddiary=8836https://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=4759No improvement with respect to character depth. The Grove street gang are all still stereotypes with no hit of any character underneath. No new non gang characters yet, Jeffery/OG LOC is introduced as a apparently college bound guy who instead purposely got himself thrown in jail and tattooed so that he could fit in as a gangster. However instead of being a satire to the values and behavior that CJ and his buddies admire, Jeffery appears to be cast in the light of not being cool/respected/hardcore enough for the rest of the gang. While his avoiding college is mentioned, he quickly begins to try to become a rapper and send CJ on missions. Overall, the game seems to still only show a stereotypical view of gang culture, with a general lack of any other perspectives. The weight of various crimes/police responsiveness seems to set up some unusual consequences within the world of GTA. The wanted level for a multiple homicide is the same as that for graffiti. Running over and shooting twenty people is less severe than killing one police officer. For the most part the police will leave you alone if you don't attack them and it seems difficult to get a high wanted level by anything other than killing police. The police also have no memory of your actions and you don't get a reputation/notoriety. If the police don't see it, there's usually little consequence (sometimes you'll get one star if the police are called, apparently no matter how severe the crime). Attacking the police appears to be only offense with major consequences. Shooting at them will quickly bring a massive response while it seems any other crime will have relatively little consequence. (This entry has been edited1 time. It was last edited on Wed, 28 Sep 2011 01:38:37.)Wed, 28 Sep 2011 01:26:18 CDThttps://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=4759&iddiary=8823https://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=4759Day 1 Values of respect (earning trust of fellow gang members/fear of opponents) and loyalty to the gang are put above all else. CJ comes to town and from some reason or other, I can't really put my finger on it, but he doesn't seem to be the gangster type (despite his efforts to fit into that culture). He does however badly want to belong to the gang and all the time is trying to prove he isn't a "buster", seeming like he could be quite easily be peer pressured into anything. This is where a lot of the stereotypes come in, all of the grove st gang idolize the gangster stereotype and as a result to earn the trust of his fellow gang members, CJ has to adopt this stereotype. I may give rockstar the benefit of the doubt that this is building up to some commentary/satire on the 1990s inner city gangs. CJ wants to get back in with his group of friends and belong, so he does what he can to prove he's not a "buster". It starts out easy, spray paint some stuff, then next thing you know everyone's pressuring him to drive for a drive-by and then it snowballs into all out gang warfare. Players do have a lack of choice given that they can't progress without doing the missions, but it does build CJs character(if not the player's attachment) by the player being a spectator as CJ tries to prove himself/get pressured into a whole load of violence and the player can't do anything about it/resist the other gang members. For an example of their values, loyalty to the neighborhood is a major value, but solving things peacefully isn't. So you can end up with CJ and his buddies going around beating up crack dealers for being bad for the neighborhood (with plenty of irony given the gang can't go out for tacos without a double digit bodycout). The make the choice that crack is bad for the neighborhood (despite all the other drugs ryder and others seem to be involved with), solving problems with violence is ok (they don't value others well being), and so solve the problem themselves with baseball bats (apparently beating them very seriously/to death given the amount of blood). In this regard, stereotypes are unavoidable, all of the gang members aspire to this "gangster stereotype", which from their perspective seems to be a set of values they admire/think they need to show to fit in. What remains to be seen is if the characters are one-dimensional cardboard cutouts, or if this is how they act around their buddies to fit in, but that more depth beyond the stereotype might be revealed later. If not, then the stereotypes will just be blatant stereotypes, not a means to show different dimensions of the characters or a satire of gangster culture. You do get some sense that these values aren't universal, while CJ and his buddies are obsessed with this lifestyle, his sister isn't and calls them out on their hypocrisy/racism in the beginning of one mission. I haven't seen any real non-gang characters besides CJ's sister at this point (she still wears the gang's green though, so her relationship there is iffy, but she doesn't act like them), but they might not follow the stereotypes and offer more commentary.Sun, 25 Sep 2011 01:28:04 CDThttps://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=4759&iddiary=8764