Blogging the experience of gameplayhttps://www.gamelog.cl/gamers/GamerPage.php?idgamer=1664https://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=5682So part 3 of this gameplay: you would think this part of the game would be the most fun, and it was…for about 30 seconds. For most of the game there is absolutely no combat, which is understandable because this game’s purpose is to tell a story, not be the greatest game ever. This delay of combat however made me believe that once it began it would be the most fun thing this game could offer, and because, honestly, the most entertaining part of the Columbine shooting is…the shooting. So me and Dylan go outside at 11:something (when the bombs go off) and await the students to fill Rebel Hill. Time for the killing, Dylan says, and I excitedly approach my first victim: a nerd girl. I look at all my weapon choices, all my methods of attack, I am definitely excited. Since I am a conservative for ammo I decide to melee her to death. I hit her once, she dies…cool! Next guy is a jock-like dude. I melee him (believing everyone is one hit kill) and he lives, following with his attack. I figured my life was over when he would attack, because I assumed we all do about the same damage (since we’re all human). Turns out he only does like 4 damage to my overall 82 health points. He virtually never even touched me. I melee him again, and he drops. Awesome, I learned something new this fight. After killing about 100 people (which took about 30 minutes to do) I realized something: this is insanely boring, mainly because the battles are too easy. Even when there were groups of 3 jock dudes, I still won easily just by using my gun and its damn near limitless ammo clips. Like I said in a previous entry, the programmers were fully aware of how bad they were at making games, so they did the best with what they could. That must mean that there is a reason why the combat is so easy. Again, this is a game giving a certain person’s view on a real-life event, so some truth must be applied to the gameplay. According to how the Columbine shooting went down, nobody at the school could even rival the two dudes, but for the sake of the game there must be some conflict. How could the creators elicit the lack of resistance by the school students/faculty/etc. in real life by implementing combat? Make it easy of course. It didn’t really feel like “combat” because they offered just as much resilience as a dead body. Like the rest of the game, the creators could have focused entirely on realistic depiction instead of adding any combat. In this case however the player would not be able to experience the easiness the real Eric and Dylan experienced during their spree. Instead, it would have just been boring.Wed, 15 May 2013 10:47:22 CDThttps://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=5682&iddiary=10021https://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=5682This experience of the game was probably the worst I have ever had. For the entire 30-minute gameplay I was stuck in the hallway of the school. Everyone else was in class, and there were about 10 hall monitors (for some reason, security must have been expensive). I was on my way to planting the bombs in the cafeteria. It was a straight shot to the cafeteria from the front door, and yet, it took waaay too long for me to get further than 10 feet from the entrance. I figured the lady that kept going up and down the hall saw me (you know, with her eyes and stuff), so the next million tries I hid in the doorway to other classes (that I could not enter). She walked past, didn't see me, awesome. I continued down the hall behind her, and I get caught again, by an unknown force. A trillion times later I realized: that weird thing on the wall, that pointed across the hall, was actually a camera. The camera had been catching me the whole time. Turns out the hall monitors' eyes didn't work unless they touched you......OK. After figuring this out the section became intensely easy, until I got to the cafeteria, but that's for another time. I was curious why whenever two men who were going to kill everyone got caught by someone they were not kicked out the school, but they left. I understand their plan was to detonate the distraction bomb (in real life) at a certain time, but being caught skipping class doesn't involve the police. I decided to YouTube videos of the school during the assualt, and noticed that they weren't entirely shy of the camera. So why would the developers make getting caught so detrimental to the plan? I have two ideas in mind. One is that the developers tried to push the humanity of these characters further than the actual reports held. Obviously, the real reports diagnosed Eric and Dylan as psychotic, and making characters that completely and directly ignored the authority of the school would not help in proving them sane, especially since that was the whole purpose of the game. This minor detail shows that the two had a fleshed out plan, and that plan only involved certain people. The other could possibly be a metaphorical depiction of how easy it was for them to sneak through the school. We are not them so obviously we did not do the planning they did before arriving at the school. The game's representation of this planning was the seemingly limitless failures we came in contact with when trying to go down the hall. Once we figured out all the niches to getting through it was a breeze, possibly a representation of how the real Eric and Dylan felt when entering the school. This again shows that these two were not psychotic but fully aware of what they were doing, as they would not have been able to enter the cafeteria so easily if they had not planned it out thoroughly beforehand, just as the player had to do with the constant failures.Tue, 14 May 2013 10:23:31 CDThttps://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=5682&iddiary=10003https://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=5682Starting Super Columbine Massacre RPG I immediately knew there would not be much to expect out of the coding and graphics of the games: everything came off to be as simple as a game possibly can be. The creators, however, mention that they always wanted to make a game but was never too knowledgeable as to how to go about doing, so there is in no way a sub-textual thematic purpose for this simplicity, just incompetence. They make up for this simplicity by driving the game's story through telling of immense detail about the main characters' feelings about the events, before and during their happening, and the environment's reaction. The first 30 minutes I just spent walking around the house of Eric (I believe we play as Eric) and interacting with all the objects that told a story, or at least part of one. The creators did all they could to tell the Columbine story from the shooters' point of view without changing any factual details. This was done largely by taking what news reports and doctors predicted were the causes of the murder spree, and creating a fictional explanation of the shooters. They didn't do this in the cheesy "Marilyn Manson sings evil music and I love him so I must do evil things" but instead they treated the dudes like regular high school teens. They mention that they agree with a lot of the messages that Manson and some other abbreviated band's music portrayed, but later on in their dialogue they regain all selfishness for their actions: the two protagonists kick the musicians out of their conversation and they begin to speak of people deserving what is to come, and survivalist instinct driving them to do so; their actions are portrayed as vengeance-less tasks, duties that nature has imbued upon them. Whether they were mentally criminals we may never know, but the game creators decided that the story could play out just the same if the two protagonists were regular, suburban teenagers, who felt the need to escape what they portrayed as a shackled way of living, and just do whatever instinct tells them to do. Yes, a lot of what they do later on in the story is planned, but the overall cause was never inspired by black metal or "Doom", they merely finalized ideas the boys had already been leaning towards.Mon, 13 May 2013 14:49:14 CDThttps://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=5682&iddiary=9991https://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=5657For the first two gaming days I decided to play entirely for the sake of uncovering more of the narrative. As a prestigious gamer the story of all games matters the most to me, and the environment should be reflective of this story. The controversy of GTA: San Andreas usually involves complaints about the portrayal of racial stereotypes, and the neighborhoods they reside in. If the story were about some white guy trying to get promoted (arbitrary hypothetical situation) then the environment would be entirely justifiable, but because Carl, the protagonist has a history with the stereotyped individuals, and just about all the towns depicted, the environments are relevant to the story at hand. This time around, I decided to leave behind all the narrative related activities and do what most others do: explore the possibilities of San Andreas. Step one: get a ride, because running everywhere would take forever. I initially stole and drove a car, but I don’t like the mechanics for them, so I stole a motorcycle. Step two: find something fun to do while driving. Driving reckless is only fun for so long, so I wanted a way to spice up the driving. I tried racing but those weren’t very satisfying to win (too easy). So I ran over a cop. Cool, that got me a one-star warrant level, and police cars were chasing me. This made things fun, so I started driving even more recklessly while escaping the cars, in order to acquire more and more stars to get tougher police forces on my trail. I have read many forums where players have said it is impossible to get to 6 stars without using cheat codes, as the forces sent are ridiculously strong. This proved to be true, but it was my own fault; being chased by a lot of people plus driving recklessly on a motorcycle results in multiple crashes and flying off the seat (and I would get arrested on the ground). This happened at around 3 stars. The interesting ethical idea to point out here is that the entire game sets up almost limitless situations for the player to do illegal activities, but at the same time it punishes you by sending nearly unbeatable police officers at you, taking your money and guns after “dying” or going to jail, etc. People argue that San Andreas promotes criminal activity to those who are easily influenced, but fail to point out that there is still a legal system that frowns upon these actions. No one in their right mind (I hope) says that every citizen of America is susceptible to becoming a criminal because of the large amount of illegal activities that can be done because we are not given free range to do so, as there is a legal system too that punishes those acts. San Andreas seems like an outlet for those who want to do the unthinkable in an American society, but in a sense its telling the player that it is possible to do these in-game and in real life, and there will be repercussions.Wed, 24 Apr 2013 17:16:20 CDThttps://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=5657&iddiary=9969https://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=5657Day two of playing GTA: San Andreas; this time around I decided to lay off of the narrative aspect of the game and just run around and do stuff (I did this mainly because I don’t know how to read the San Andreas map). When running around, driving, riding bikes, I began to realize how boring these things were. It’s not because transportation is a boring part of sandbox games, because in racing games all the player does is these actions: drive. And this game even has racing events, which are pretty fun. So what’s the difference between freely traveling in a car and competing in races? The only actual difference is the competition a race offers. I’m guessing without competition there is a lack of necessity to actual do it, whereas with competition the goal is to win, plain and simple. Ok, so then I wonder what else is there to do in this game that has competition. The answer to this is very obvious, yet unexpected: everything. Let us not forget that for the entirety of this game the player is a gangbanger, doing illegal crimes all the time, whether it is petty stealing bikes or killing a police officer. In my free time of wandering Los Santos I first decided to beat up some guys outside Carl’s house. The guys reacted like they were meant to and began to fight back. This appeared to be fun, until I easily beat the dudes to the floor. Disappointed, I began to look for more fun confrontations. I then rode my stolen bike to the rival gang neighborhood and picked on a group of them. Some commenced our fight using only fisticuffs, and about two had guns. Overpowered, I jumped in my car and ran them all over. Piece of cake. Next, the bigger challenge was to fight the cops, who will hunt you down as long as a wanted star is available. I got up to 4 stars, until my car was blown up by a SWAT helicopter. The point of this is there are many things to do in GTA that offer a fun challenge. What is odd, however, is that everything “fun” is an illegal action. I’m not 100% sure about this, but I believe just about everything to do in this game is considered illegal. The next big question: why? Why isn’t it fun to obey the traffic lights, order some food and eat it, get a haircut? I personally don’t consider these things fun, and I am speaking entirely on behalf of my beliefs, but I’m quite sure most players won’t find them fun due to their lack of difficulty. I believe the biggest reason for this is to emphasize that video games are a way for people to do things they normally wouldn’t do in real life. For GTA’s case, the developers wanted the “unreal” actions done to be real, illegal things, rather than magical, mystical things. The idea behind this is similar to as if America gave its citizens a “free crime” day: many things that people are curious about can be done with no repercussions. Want to kill a man? Sure, just pick up a copy of GTA. Steal a car? GTA. Voice yourself to the fullest against the police? GTA. While the game gives players the freedom to do anything, it is reflective of the player’s ethical framework. After all I’ve done in the game, I’ve never hit a woman in the game. I never consciously avoided them, I just never wanted to. That’s not to say all the other illegal things I do in the game I don’t mind doing, but to show that even with these punishment-less tasks that can be done, there will always be at least one every player either never or rarely does.Tue, 23 Apr 2013 22:14:47 CDThttps://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=5657&iddiary=9953https://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=5657I have played Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas before, but playing again with the intent of observing all the cultural aspects depicted I’ve realized it’s not as mindlessly put together as I thought. Granted I only played 30 minutes of the game this go round, I got through enough of the game to understand the basic principles of gameplay and narrative for the entirety of the game. You play as Carl, an ex-gangbanger who has lived in Liberty City for the last five years, who is called saying that his mom has died (or killed, I don’t remember). He then makes his way back to San Andreas and starts back up doing activities with his old gangbanger friends. For this diary log I feel the need to keep in mind that he is the protagonist of this game, yet he is in no way a hero. While I didn’t find much of an answer in the first 30 minutes I will now keep in mind what exactly is it that makes Carl protagonist-worthy? He is no good guy, and he does just the same as every other gangbanger in San Andreas. I can, however, answer that his bad guy stance is necessary for this story to even exist, and the developers must have somehow implemented some way of persuading the players that we should want to accomplish his goal. Either all the developers for this game were born and raised in the ghettos of western America, or they all put a lot of research into accurately portraying these neighborhoods and their people, realistically and stereotypically. In case it is not clear, stereotypes are usually not made-up details about a demographic, but usually have some factual representation. That being said, just about every aspect of every character is a sort of stereotype. The largest most prominent one belongs to ethnicity. The black people fit the generalization that they are all angry, all the time, they live in poverty, and they are affiliated with someone in a gang. The white people so far are the ones who have jobs, they all annunciate every letter in their words, and they do bad attempts at saying slang. And the Mexicans at this point are cab drivers and the enemy gang. I don’t think many players consciously ponder this idea, but it is made obvious that all these people fitting their stereotypes is not the developers’ attempt at making the most racist game ever, but to elicit some sort of message. The biggest hint to this is that the law enforcers, the good guys of American cities, are now the bad guys, and the murderous, grand-theft-autoing, drug-abusing gangbangers are, in a sense the “good” guys. While this is an obvious role reversal of common protagonists and antagonists in media, the big question is still “why?” This choice could be done just because the developers wanted to, but because there is a narrative there must be a deeper reason. Relative to this ethics class, I believe the purpose is to show that the “bad” guys of America have a genuine reason for doing what they do, and the gameplay combined with the narrative is to convince us so. The game starts off with Carl learning that his mother has died. Whether it is said at this or I am just remembering later details, but his mom was killed by the hostile gang, who was already an enemy. For most people, even if they had no clue about Carl being a gangbanger, the hostile gang being an age-old enemy, someone killing a mother would be enough reason for them to understand why he does certain actions throughout the game: to avenge his mother. Like we have discussed in class, there are ethical frameworks that rely on emotional reason, and then there are those that only concern the results. The framework that Carl ultimately acts on is a blend of both. His initial reasoning for starting his revenge is fueled all by emotion, which is totally understandable by most because mothers are highly regarded when it comes to “ethical worth”, so to speak. He then avenges his mother with no regard to anyone or anything, he does what he sees as a vengeful task (in his case is defacing his rivals). Using a Kantian point-of-view in this world he is totally within the boundaries of moral, as he is not surprised when his rivals fight back, doing the same things he has been but for a slightly different reason (avenging their loss of dominance). The racial and cultural stereotypes in this world are definitely necessary for Carl’s journey to have any ethical security. If he were a cop the players would not condone his actions of a hero (take “Lakeview Terrace” as an example), and if he were just some guy targeting a random gang the players would be slightly confused as to what his motive is. Mon, 22 Apr 2013 23:32:16 CDThttps://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=5657&iddiary=9942