 |
|
Oct 12th, 2011 at 11:03:56 - Super Columbine Massacre RPG (PC) |
An 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.
add a comment  - read this GameLog  |
|
Oct 12th, 2011 at 01:42:04 - Super Columbine Massacre RPG (PC) |
Picking 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.
add a comment - read this GameLog |
|
Oct 11th, 2011 at 00:48:25 - Super Columbine Massacre RPG (PC) |
First 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.
add a comment - read this GameLog |
|
Sep 28th, 2011 at 10:26:28 - Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas (PC) |
One 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 edited 1 time. It was last edited on Sep 28th, 2011 at 10:28:29.
add a comment - read this GameLog |
|
|
 |
| Bayz's GameLogs |
|
Bayz has been with GameLog for 12 years, 6 months, and 25 days |
view feed xml
|
| Entries written to date: 6 |
|
