Blogging the experience of gameplayhttps://www.gamelog.cl/gamers/GamerPage.php?idgamer=964https://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=3660The end of this game came for me before the actual game ending. I kept getting to the Hell part of the game and kept dying and having to restart. So the end of the game for me was the end of their mortal lives. The thing was, that they died reflecting about how things might have been different, but how they might have just ended up forced back into the same position by the same uncaring society they tried to avoid. The last line was 'But who would have heard?' I think that's the biggest part of the social commentary of the game. Very few people were kind to these kids. Others just didn't pay attention to them. Their parents didn't pay close enough attention, their teachers didn't see how the bullying affected them, their peers kept up the pressure, no one listened to what these kids were really saying. The fact that one of them even kept a blog about making the bombs and his preparations for the attack, yet he was allowed to be free (although there was a search warrant that the sheriff's office was going to submit)says a lot. No one really listened to these guys. It's as Marilyn Manson said in his interview during Bowling For Columbine. He was asked what he would say to the shooters if he could and he said "Nothing. I would have listened, because no one else did."Mon, 23 Feb 2009 02:23:43 CDThttps://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=3660&iddiary=6869https://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=3660The game has a very anti-consumerism idea to it, that almost seems out of place in the context of the game. It seemed as if the Game Designer decided to throw it in just because he needed to have a rant from the main character. While in the park, right before going into the school and beginning the shooting. He goes into a huge anti-consumerist rant about how society tells you to do so many sit-ups and push-ups and if you buy this coat you'll be cool, or if you buy this color of pants you'll be all the rage. Now I'm not saying that there aren't problems with pop-culture and the incessant need to buy things in order to be part of the 'in' crowd. But it just seemed odd in this game. As I said earlier, there was a lot of pop-culture blaming and scapegoating by the media. But here the Artist makes the character go on this anti-consumerist rant. It just doesn't fit. Obviously we don't know the whole story behind the real shooters. We know they had a distaste for society, but I don't remember hearing anything about how they hated consumerism. It's obvious an artistic license, but it's one that isn't really necessary. In a game full of meaning, handling such a serious topic, is it necessary for the artist to inject this out-of-nowhere rant? It just seems as if the artist needed a rant to keep interest in the game, and make the characters seem angrier, so he just made stuff up. Artistic license is one thing, but there normally is a point, or it serves to further a point.Sun, 22 Feb 2009 19:37:08 CDThttps://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=3660&iddiary=6850https://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=3660One of the first things I noticed about this game was the usage of Marylin Manson's music. It was redone here, to make it sound somewhat more like RPG Music(i.e. Uematsu's music or Final Fantasy music in general) but it was still his music. All of it (at least so far as I've played) has been from Manson. When you first start playing there is even a poster of Manson in the basement and the character says how 'they' (most likely media, investigators, etc.) will try to portray the event as the fault of Manson and his music. Oddly enough though, in the very first room it shows the Doom game that the two of them had been playing, but the protagonist doesn't say anything about how it might be blamed. It's very odd, because they keep trying to look at their actions from the outside looking in, and how people will see it. They understand how their music will be blamed, how their parents will be blamed, but they don't look at the Doom game like that at all. They were right about the other things. Manson was blamed, their parents were blamed. But the biggest blame (at least according to the TV news that covered the event) was the Doom game. It was blamed for 'Training them.' Now maybe 'they' (the actual people) didn't recognize either the music or the game as the source I don't know. Now whether this outside looking in view was an actual part of the real shooter's ideas or whether if it's an artistic license by the game maker in order to make the player more conscious of their actions I'm not sure. But it is still odd that the maker choose to omit the characters analysis of the Doom game but place the Manson analysis in. Perhaps he chose to do this, because Manson was given a chance to defend himself that the games were not. Or perhaps it's because of the fallout after the event. When it came to light (as was mentioned in the game) that neither shooter were big fans of Manson, yet the News Media portrayed them as such, essentially attempting to use him as a scapegoat, which could also be applied to the games and movies they enjoyed. All of these things, music, games, movies, etc, were used as scapegoats because so many didn't want to look at the underlying reasons as to why the shooters would go out and do such a thing. Nobody wanted to know the real reasons because then the fault might end up with them or it might point to some larger social ill. It's easier to play the Ostrich and put your head in the sand, than it is to actually look at a problem and try to deal with it.Sun, 22 Feb 2009 15:44:50 CDThttps://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=3660&iddiary=6835https://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=3556The Grand Theft Auto series is a very violent series of games. Ground breaking, I know. But the question is, is all of the killing in the game that you do always immoral? Now obviously, picking up a hooker, doing you're business, then running her over to get you're money back is wrong. But I'm talking about the killings that the game wants you to do, in the storyline. Previously, I talked about how the vengeance creates more vengeance in a never ending cycle of 'justice'. But that was a very general view of the city itself. From CJ's standpoint (and it probably would look the same from the viewpoint of many individuals in San Andreas) his constant fighting, killing, and stealing have a purpose. All's fair in war, and the constant gang fighting in the city could certainly constitute a war. Now often the actions in war can be seen as horrifying, even disgusting in a time of peace, but during war (pick any Revolutionary War, WWI, WWII, Korea, any really) the soldiers are trying to survive as well as maybe make things better for their families and future generations. Let's just avoid the issues that the Iraq war raised, things like blood for oil or whatever for now. Now from the standpoint of a soldier, is what CJ doing wrong? He is attempting to carve out a better existence for his friends and family. In of and itself a pretty fair and just goal. However, he ends up (is almost forced to actually) pave a path of blood in order to get to his goal. Just as in the scene with Officer Tenpenny framing him, he is forced to do many of these things. So in a time of war, do ethics change? Obviously the answer's yet, but should they change? What is the limit that ethics are allowed to be stretched during war. Over the past century we have created laws for warfare, in order to make it more 'humane'. Apparently it's okay to rip a guy's entrails out of his body and leave him laying there bleeding to death, but it's not okay to suffocate or poison him with a chemical agent. The only real difference between CJ's 'war' and an official war,is that his doesn't have a political backing. Although later on in the game when he begins to work for much more richer and more powerful businessmen, it can be said that even this difference fades significantly. I think the answer is that yes, the way you view ethics should change dramatically when you start sending people (or are sent) to a battlefield to fight, kill and die. Just like when the bombs were dropped in Japan during WWII, normally innocents aren't allowed to fight, but here it was allowed, even considered an act of heroism. Now obviously not all of the murders CJ commits can be rationalized this way, but a good many of them can be.Wed, 21 Jan 2009 01:34:21 CDThttps://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=3556&iddiary=6677https://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=3556The city of San Andreas, and it's current situation reminds me a lot of Gotham City. It's a city (with suburbs and such) of almost complete corruption, where crime runs rampant throughout every rank of it's people. For example the police. They come looking for Carl solely to get him under their thumb early. They frame him for the murder of a police officer, which they most likely caused. In the game, you can commit a hit and run in the presence of a police officer, and the 'heat' will die down rather quickly. In fact, a single murder only nets the player a 1 star crime level, the same as petty thievery. With all these problems with the crime system, it falls to the inhabitants to police themselves. Which turns into gang wars rather quickly, with everyone getting together to try and defend their 'turf'. A lot of it comes down to family and friends defending each other. Which isn't a bad goal in and of itself. But this goal leads to people killing each others friends and family in order to intimidate or gain vengeance for past grievances. However, vengeance doesn't work as a system of law, since the punishment for even a minor grievance can be a very painful death. Which results in more vengeance. Impartiality is completely removed from the equation, and in the end the 'right' party comes down to whoever has the biggest guns, and the least qualms about using those guns.Tue, 20 Jan 2009 19:28:48 CDThttps://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=3556&iddiary=6651https://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=3556Okay, so the very first thing that you notice about the game is the consistent stereotyping. It's completely obvious, not even bothering to hide it. The main character, CJ, is a stereotype as well, however, he's somewhat different than the others. No, I don't mean that he is 'special' in the way that he is the main character and therefore better or worse or more important or smarter than the other character stereotypes. He is, but what I mean is that as a stereotype he is special. In America, we like to pretend racism is a dying lifeform,even though it remains fairly prevalent. A very odd trend in racism is the lightness of skin. For example, an African-American would be more likely to be discriminated against than someone who's asian, simply because his skin is a darker shade. A lighter skin-toned African-American generally tends to experience less racism both from outsides groups, and from his own group, than a very dark skin-toned person. This less obvious trend continues with GTA, in that CJ is a lighter skin tone than his brother and all the other African-American characters that you meet (at least in the beginning of the game. Is this lighter skin tone supposed to make him easier to trust or like? Or is this merely a coincidence that the lightest toned man in the beginning of the game is considered supposed to be more important than the others?Tue, 20 Jan 2009 17:13:25 CDThttps://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=3556&iddiary=6647