Blogging the experience of gameplayhttp://www.gamelog.cl/gamers/GamerPage.php?idgamer=http://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=4297So, this site is really poorly organized, in my opinion, so take two: The game is strange. The font is miserably hard to read. I have no idea what they are saying half the time and an l seems to be a t. I was also surprised the game was made by Japanese companies. That aside, I sensed a lot of sarcasm. Items have sarcastic and strange descriptions and bonuses. Like Doom gave me extra damage. I am left to wonder the game maker's intentions. It wasn't to entertain - this game is miserably boring and a ton of dialog. I got to plant the bombs, and get the guns and go through some more dialog so maybe the game will pick up. No shooting yet. One of the kids seemed pretty occupied with letting everyone know the people that helped him - like bought him guns, and his family, and his friends weren't at fault. The other one just seemed to want revenge. Whether that was the case with the real people or just the characters, I don't know.ShadowFri, 30 Jul 2010 21:18:27 CDThttp://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=4297&iddiary=7998http://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=4298Works that encourage people to look at destructive events from the point of view of the perpetrators walk on unstable ground. Though recent pieces of entertainment, notably the TV series “Dexter,” succeed in swaying the audience to the side of the villain, it’s usually in a fictional context – there never was a real Dexter, and he doesn’t come with any historical significance. It would be difficult to get people to sympathize with the instigators behind tragic events in history like WWII and the Holocaust, September 11th, and the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It would be easy for a game like Super Columbine RPG to be simply exploitative, and to be honest, that’s what I expected when the menu screen popped up with a Marilyn Manson song playing in the background. The dialogue between Eric and Dylan is pretty well written and it sets up their teen angst and us-against-the-world mentality pretty well. What we don’t get, however, is any idea of what drove them to shoot their classmates – they say they were bullied, but I never saw any actual examples of them being bullied, at least not at this point in the game. Their use of German irked me a little – they struck me as trying very hard to seem badass, and came off looking more like idiots. The game-play is not intuitive. The violence is just about as graphic as it is in Final Fantasy VII. That is to say that it’s very difficult to disturb the player with such heavily pixilated characters, though there is something sad about the little sprites covered in bloody pixels. I felt kind of bad killing them despite the graphics being very retro, especially the Openly Gay Man character, because it was hateful, plain and simple. Despite my distaste for the game, I admit that it must have taken courage to make it. Major game producers would never touch the subject of school shootings for fear of the controversy (and probably because they would find it distasteful, too). LucyFri, 30 Jul 2010 18:52:34 CDThttp://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=4298&iddiary=7997http://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=4291This game looks absolutely incredible. The only way I can describe it is Sin City. But without the noir. So it's lighter (more white?), but equally stylized. Perhaps unsurprisingly, this makes it really hard for me to tell what's going on at times which might actually be a good thing. I've still trying to figure out the meaning (for me) of the violence in the game. I can't say that I've really enjoyed playing it so far, but in terms of the representation I find that it's so over-the-top as to be almost comical. The problem is that it's ALMOST, which leaves me in a rather gray area which, as mentioned, I'm still trying to figure out. Does it glorify violence? How much of it is gratuitous? How do I think of it when compared to the also ultra-violent Manhunt? The experience of playing them is quite different...jpFri, 30 Jul 2010 16:37:50 CDThttp://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=4291&iddiary=7996http://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=4296I've been playing this in (sort-of) opposition to Plants vs Zombies. Both tower defense games, both on handheld (ipad perhaps less so) devices and both being played on (semi) alternate days. It's kind of unusual to find that the things that annoy me about one game are not present in the other, and vice versa. What is perhaps more interesting is that both games (exemplars in their class, according to review scores in any case, metascore of 86 and 88 for PMD and PvZ respectively) represent very different schools of thought regarding game design. PvZ is incredibly polished, has incredible personality, humor, and identity and is also entertaining to watch. Playing the game isn't terribly challenging and you mostly react to onscreen cues. Click here when coin appears, click there when sunshine appears. Most of the decisions you make while playing are easy and, barring the occasional mistake, the toughest choice you have is what selection of plants you want to have available during a game. PMD is less polished, has a strong identity and is also well-designed. However, rather than focus on easing the execution of your actions (call it interface polish if you will), it worries with providing tense in-game decision making moments through a combination of different incentives and risks. It is also a much harder game (I've barely made it into the "Medium" difficulty levels. Here's what I mean: (a) As usual, you need to build towers. However, their effectiveness varies a lot based on their placement and each level has a different geography that makes placement decisions a lot harder. (b) Enemies arrive quickly and for the most part move quickly as well. You don't have a lot of time to think. (c) You control a little guy who must go where you want to build a tower. So, traversing the map is important. You can waste a lot of valuable time simply going back and forth. (d) You can upgrade towers by spending gems. You only get gems by collecting them from dead guys. If your guy runs into an enemy, he gets knocked down (losing coins and gems). Not only is it quite risky to collect gems, but they also disappear fast as well! (e) Coins are dropped in the same way, but you spend them to build towers. (f) You can also upgrade your towers by standing still on them and "dancing". THIS creates a lot of tension since the impulse is to go out and collect the coins/gems. Towers can also level up by doing damage, so it is often the case that you need to pick the ideal moment to dance on a tower so that it levels, without losing coin collecting opportunities. (g) At the end of each wave, you get a bonus amount of coins that is a percentage of the coins you currently have banked. Another interesting point of tension! If you wait too long to build a tower, it wont' get built in time, but you can get the bonus coins. On the other hand... (h) You can also spend gems to unlock (for that level only!) special towers. These are pretty much essential during the levels. So, there's a lot of tension involved in deciding when to lose time heading back to your home (where you can unlock the special towers) or if it's better to simply use the gems to upgrade. Almost none of these tensions exist in PvZ even though, especially if you look at someone playing, both games SEEM very frantic and tense. Honestly, PMD is the real contender for the mental anguish prize. It also doesn't help that it's taken me a while to figure the game out. For example, I assumed that all upgrades to a tower were essentially the same: do more damage. It turns out that (there are little icons, but they weren't explained anywhere), different towers upgrade differently. Some upgrades increase range, some damage, and they can vary even for the same tower. So, Lev1 to Lev2 might increase range but Lev2 to Lev3 might increase the damage.jpFri, 30 Jul 2010 16:33:20 CDThttp://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=4296&iddiary=7995http://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=4295Before I even downloaded Super Columbine Massacre RPG (SCMRPG), I was excited by the name of the game itself. Although this may sound unethical, I am highly interested in grotesque things such as the Manson family murder stories, and the fact I get to play a game about the Columbine massacre caught my attention. Before I started playing SCMRPG, I mapped the game out in my head. I imagined the game to start with two high school students talking about their plans at home, and getting prepared to go to school. Using my experience with Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, I expected to see highly computer graphic imaged teenage boys running around in their school yard and shooting innocent students. I was not living in the U.S. when the shooting occurred, but I have heard a lot of things about it and seen multiple TV show episodes regarding the incident (Too Young to Kill, for example), so my initial goal (or hope) of playing this game was to figure out how the massacre went in details. I was quite shocked when I started playing SCMRPG. Not only did the game started out with someone knocking on Eric’s door saying he has to get up since he is “going to be late for bowling class”, but it reminded me of Pokémon that is played on a Gameboy. I was not expecting to see such a pixilated game where the character moves around like he is on ice. Trying not to laugh at how the game looks, I paid attention to the phone conversation he had with Dylan to see how they are setting up their mission. I was immediately disturbed when Dylan said, “what fun is life without a little death?” As a psychology major, I wanted to do a research on him to figure out if he had a troubled childhood that might have caused him to view death as something “fun”. I mean, maybe it is Marilyn Manson’s music that might have affected him? Just joking. Except not really. Nirvana playing in the background? Okay! Then I got really disturbed by the idea of SCMRPG. What kind of person would program a game that reminds people of such a catastrophic event? I mean, I wonder if someone out there is secretly working on Super Virginia Tech Massacre RPG! I can understand that this game is to raise awareness of gun violence, especially in young adults, but seeing that this game is available for free online, the age group that plays SCMRPG can be hard to get statistics of. It could be males in their late 20's, and it also could be females in their teenage years. I believe SCMRPG is unethical because it could give people an idea of "How to destroy [insert a place name here]" by showing them that a certain weapons can be used. Also, the placement of bombs and the fact that you are able to control the time of it could tell people that it is one alternative way of adding a nice little cherry on top of your "big day". (This entry has been edited3 times. It was last edited on Fri, 30 Jul 2010 12:52:07.)yewonkimFri, 30 Jul 2010 12:50:06 CDThttp://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=4295&iddiary=7994http://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=4292I guess I shouldn't play too many tower defense games at the same time. I've been alternating between this one and Pixeljunk Monsters Deluxe. They're quite different, but strangely neither seems to hit the sweet spot for me. At this point I've finished the campaign as well as all the minigames and have decided to start working on the different achievements. The campaign was largely uninteresting for me because it was simply too easy. I never lost. The minigames, on the other hand, while still mostly easy (I only had to replay 3 of them, out of about 12?) were at least different. My favorite is perhaps the Bejeweled clone in which you have to shift your plants around (all of which are active and fighting zombies) in order to get sunshine points you can use to either upgrade or replace your plants. Sadly, the goal is to make a certain number of "matches". Then you win. What I enjoyed most about this minigame (I think it's called Beghouled...) is the tension between making matches and choosing NOT to make them because they'll screw up the defensive layout. It's also harder to make matches due to all of the action on the screen. I guess someone who has never played a tower defense game would find the main mode interesting, but for me it's been the mini-games that make things interesting (even if it's still too easy!). I'm hoping there is an ultra-hard endurance-mode level I can unlock somehow. We'll see.jpWed, 28 Jul 2010 12:56:06 CDThttp://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=4292&iddiary=7993http://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=4278I'm frustrated by my experience with this game. I'm frustrated enough that I decided to move on to something else because I feel that otherwise I may never get around to playing a Splinter Cell game (and I've heard so many good things about the series in general). My frustration is not so much with the game, but rather with all the elements surrounding the actual gameplay combined with what I would my "play context". Essentially, I'm playing this game on a portable device (obviously, it's for PSP) while I commute to and from work. So, why the frustration? (1) Playing on the train means that lighting conditions are usually less than ideal (i.e., I'm not playing in a dark room), so, game levels that are dark or require special attention to minute or subtle visual cues tend to be problematic. (2) A saving system that is multi-layered and lengthy is annoying when gameplay sessions aren't that long. In particular, you have to go through multiple levels of a menu and, not only wait for the save to happen, but also wait for the level to load back up again. I would be exaggerating if I said that the menus have their own loading screens, but it definitely feels that way.jpTue, 27 Jul 2010 13:05:21 CDThttp://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=4278&iddiary=7992http://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=4294I began playing GTA not knowing what to expect. There was quite an uproar about it a few years ago, when violence in video games was especially controversial right after Columbine. It's not the kind of game I usually play and the gameplay was a bit hard to figure out. I didn't know what to do to continue the story mode, so I ended up running aimlessly around the city getting shot at. I lost the bike right away and at one point I jumped off of a mountain. Needless to say, I didn't complete any missions and spent all of the time figuring out how the game worked. The atmosphere of aggression and hostility was overpowering to the point that it seemed ridiculous. San Andreas seems to be populated entirely by characters who embody racial stereotypes (including, inexplicably, white people who all sound British or Australian) who shout at each other and pull guns if you stick around too long. I wouldn't presume to have the ultimate knowledge of good and evil or anything, so I wouldn't call this game immoral or unethical per se, but it definitely skirts the edge of good taste.LucyMon, 26 Jul 2010 21:25:56 CDThttp://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=4294&iddiary=7991http://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=4285After playing GTA: San Andreas several times, the game became an opportunity for accomplishment. I was trying to complete more missions than the last time but I couldn’t. I should admit that people who play these videogames are very smart because it is not easy at all. I think what attract people but not me is that this video game contains a lot of challenges, which are mandatory in order to complete the game. You should spend lots of hours and concentrate only on the game forgetting about the world around you. However, I did not understand how the map works or where I should exactly go. I was not doing the right thing by not following the map. That was a real problem I faced in the game. Geography is not one of my favorite subjects and I have a hard time to understand maps everywhere. I did have to mute my computer because I did not want my son to hear the bad language. There are a lot of swears and whenever some one walk beside you he says offensive words. GTA: San Andreas promotes sexuality, violence, strong language, and racism. It has more than one negative side. I think parents need to know more about this game to protect their kids. I can say that this game has every abnormal accomplish that a criminal could think of. When players participate in shooting, robbing, and killing they will be affected by the big amount of aggression they are received. Moreover, when you hear such swears and awful words for ten times in a game, you will use them unconsciously in real life. I am thankful it did not happen with me but I can see it happening with teen-agers and kids. I will try this time to apply Act Utilitarianism on the general idea of GTA: San Andreas including all the bad behaviors in the game. It is obvious that GTA: San Andreas promotes sexuality, violence, strong language, and racism. The benefits of this GTA: San Andreas are entertainment for players and lots of money for designers and publishers. On the other hand, the harms of GTA: San Andreas are more and worse than the benefits. Players are getting aggressive behaviors and learn awful stuff from the game. Also, parents spend most of their time teaching their kids good behaviors and these videogames are destroying everything Moreover, these kinds of videogames are negatively influence players’ observation, feelings and behaviors. Therefore, GTA: San Andreas is an unethical and immoral game. I think we should protect our generation from these virtual diseases to prevent the harms. Briefly, Grand Theft Auto is an extremely aggressive game involving the stealing of cars, escaping the police, and killing people. I do not recommend this game for anyone under any circumstances. In my opinion, GTA: San Andreas is unethical videogame form all the perspectives.NajyahMon, 26 Jul 2010 12:43:25 CDThttp://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=4285&iddiary=7990http://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=4293My third time playing this game I decided to just run around and explore the city instead of focusing on the missions. After walking around I realized that the stereotypes that the game likes to use can be seen in even smaller details than in just the major characters that you encounter. I discovered a fast food restaurant selling fried chicken and run by a black person which is linked to the stereotype that all black people love fried chicken. I also came across a tattoo parlor and it too plays into the stereotype that poor, lower class people like to get a lot of tattoos. After playing on three seperate occasions and looking back on my experiences, I've come to realize that you literally cannot progress in the game or do pretty much anything without partaking in some sort of illegal activities. Whether it's beating up a hooker for money for robbing someone, either way you have to participate in violent acts in order to do anything. I think it's unethical for the game developers to create the game in a way that you are forced to do this but at the end of the day the consumer does have the final decision on whether or not the want to play it and based on the popularity of the Grand Theft Auto series I would have to say that the mass majority of people do not have a problem with the game and its ideals. The game is centered around violence, stereotypes, and racism but I think it really comes down to the type of person who is playing the game as to whether or not it has a negative effect on the player.jblincow19Mon, 26 Jul 2010 12:08:05 CDThttp://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=4293&iddiary=7989