Quote:
|
Originally Posted by eden06
Okay, I will happily do that. (snip)
|
(Snipped the quote to keep postlength down)
If the game is purely meant to educate, why did he title it SUPER columbine MASSACRE? That's a pretty sensationalistic title for a game that would be more accurately called "Columbine: What happened?" don't you think?
Quote:
|
Of course, I can only describe it too you, if you really wanted to have an oppinion that wasn't knee jerk, maybe you could play the game yourself, then draw your own conclusions, as some people have
|
I did, on your suggestion. Not the whole thing, but enough. I'll tell you what I think. I think the guy wanted to create a big old splash. Maximum buzz. So he gave the game a sensational name, then put "educational" crap in there so he could later claim to have done it as a social awareness exercise.
Quote:
|
Also there are these interviews, one in audio form, one in written form where he states his intentions on making the game.
|
Nixon said he wasn't a crook. People lie in interviews.
Quote:
|
This game is forcing debate on videogames and they're roll in society,
|
No it isn't. That debate has been going on since long before Columbine. Hell I remember people getting mad about Wolfenstein 3d, much less GTA.
Quote:
|
The "gasoline on the fire" can only really be a good thing in my opinion, had GTA not done just that in the 90's gaming wouldn't be the same as it is today.
|
What are you saying? That gaming is better off today because GTA let you kill hookers? I'm not seeing that.
Quote:
|
If we don't explore the medium in new and different ways, and just play and create “acceptable” games because that appeases the public, then we are not giving the medium our honest respect as a medium comparable to any others.
|
No, we are disrespecting the medium if we push the envelope just for the hell of it. You need a reason to push envelopes, lest someone push back and sink you in a fight that you didn't need to start in the first place. This is why you don't hear "fuck" on TV every night, but you DID hear "fuck" in the 9/11 documentary that CBS aired shortly after the attacks. They pushed the envelope there because hearing the raw language of the day was necessary to truly get the full story. It is by contrast not necessary for Katie Couric to say "fuck" just for the sake of pushing the envelope.
Quote:
|
The majority of gamers, like all other fans of all other mediums have as much right to art on any subject as they like, just because some people don't think of gaming as legitimate an expression as any other does not mean as gamers we should bow down and let them effect us.
|
No, but we shouldn't, as I said earlier, throw gas on the fire just for the sake of seeing an explosion. There should always be a reason for pushing the envelope. Otherwise you come off as a jackass rather than an intelligent activist for the gaming scene.
Quote:
|
Another thought is that there will be some people who had never given the massacres a second thought have played the game, and it has opened they're mind to a dialogue and idea they would not normally be exposed too.
|
Not very many, because the type of people who are willing to explore the sociological implications of school shootings are not generally the type of people who would play a game titled SUPER columbine MASSACRE anymore than they'd play Wolfenstein 3D to explore the dangers of fascism.
Quote:
My statement was one of school massacres in general, which are the overall problem, since killing is killing no matter who perpetrates it, however, an extensive list of school shootings and massacres can be found here.
Notice the section entitled "Other secondary and post-secondary school killings" In which the first shooting perpetrated by a student is in 1974.
|
That incident was in Israel. Radically different culture - applying anything but tactical lessons from that incident would do next to no good in the USA.
Quote:
|
Although school shootings seem to be on the increase, one has to assume that something within these students, or the climate within which they have been raised, have caused a cocktail effect making them go out and commit these crimes.
|
Yes, but creating SUPER columbine MASSACRE is going to destroy the dialogue necessary for that (correct) idea to get out there because all that's gonna happen is that anti-responsibility idiots are going to see the inflamatory title as another method to use in attacking the video game industry.
Quote:
|
Just as certainly as Anthony Barbaro couldn't have been influenced solely by videogames in 1974, Eric Houston could not have been influenced by undiagnosed psychopathy or bulling within the school, and Eric Harris wasn't influenced by his inability to get a job.
|
Your logic breaks down here. Barbaro couldn't have been influenced by video games because in 1974 video games were barely even out there. Hell the first home pong system had only been released to the public 2 years previously. On the other hand an undiagnosed psychopath can be and almost certainly is dangerous and capable of acts such as what Houston did.
Quote:
|
I reply once again, when the games shooting section begins, there are never any captions stating the "shooting up classmates" is a primary objective. You can make your way through the entire game without killing a single classmate if you are so inclined
|
Yeah, and you can go through Deus Ex without ever killing anyone either, but who does that?
Quote:
|
but have you thought about playing it and finding out for yourself?
|
It doesn't matter. The title alone gives the anti-videogame lobby plenty of ammunition, even if the game itself was a pacman clone.
Quote:
|
Or is it easier assuming you know it all without researching the game, it's intents, it's content, or the impact it's had on both gamers and victims?
|
Again, I have played the game. But the Tipper Gores of the world have not, and will not, and with sensationalist titles like this game's, they've got plenty of ammunition to whip the public into an anti-gaming frenzy. Surely you don't think that's wise.
Quote:
|
However, it seems all reports in my country recently on the killings seem to reference the game and the columbine killings, along with various statements speaking of how despicable it probably is.
|
And this doesn't tell you that however laudable his goals supposedly are (I'm not buying that, btw) the plan backfired in a big way?
Quote:
|
Thanks for bringing this to the forefront. It highlights entirely my thoughts on this subject. The definition of Ignore in the "American Heritage Dictionary" is "To refuse to pay attention to; disregard." This is entirely what I see, the news coverage has pacified us to find an easy answer and then remove it from our psyche, in this case, the game is the scapegoat.
|
So don't keep giving them scapegoats for cripes sake!
Quote:
|
Another example can be found by someone who instead of playing the game, to find out what it's about, disregards it and asks people to "describe" it with sarcastic undertones, instead of researching said game and forming they're own opinions. As well as asking for sources for something I linked in my very first post on this site, when I linked to the forum, IE the makers intention to create dialog on the situation.
|
I actually was asking you to cite your sources that school shootings are being ignored- - you have yet to do this.
Quote:
|
Is one not simply ignoring the issue of the game, and what it speculates about the shootings by not playing it and simply blaming the parents?
|
No. One is recognizing that using inflammatory language in the game's title will automatically make people prejudge the game. Only a social idiot, which I believe the game's creator to be, wouldn't see that this is the case.
Take another example. If I want to tell people that gays should have equal rights to straights, I'm not going to make a game titled "Super Faggot Massacre." or "Men fucking men!" That's not exactly going to get the dialogue flowing.
Quote:
|
It seems common now to find a scapegoat and throw it out there without much research, for instance in your case, the parents. Dylan Klebolds parents state that they're son never showed any violent intentions, and that they couldn't percieve any. They didn't allow guns in they're home and Dylan had a religious, peaceful upbringing. He never stored guns or weapons in his home.
|
Yeah, but the signs were there. His dad made him return a laptop he'd stolen from school, he made bombs behind the pizza joint where he worked (once requiring the fire department to come put it out), got suspended for hacking the school's computer to get a locker combination, then putting a threatening note in that locker, then there was that school report that so graphically described the mass murder scene that he was preparing for that the teacher called his parents. In short, there were PLENTY of hints that the kid was troubled, and the parents turned a deaf ear to it.
Quote:
In contrast Erics parents encouraged his aspirations to join the military by allowing supervised sessions with guns.
To state in this case that his parents are entirely to blame would again be short sited, if a parent conducted a strip search on they're adolescent son every time they entered the house, a lot of questions would be asked about the parents role.
|
If my kid were building an arsenal in my house, you'd better believe I'd find out about it. This is why I get so pissed when parents say that searching their kids' stuff is an "invasion of the child's privacy." The child does not have privacy. Period. You cannot invade what he does not have. My kid is a good kid, but I don't think that simply because I hope it's true and close my eyes to any potential problems that might come up. I KNOW my kid is a good kid in part because I have checked my kid's stuff and have found no forbidden materials. There is no way for my kid to hide even one weapon, much less an entire arsenal, anywhere on my property. Anyone who tells you "I had no IDEA little Eric had enough guns to start World War 3" is either lying, or fell down HARD on their job as a parent.
Eric's parents didn't need to strip search him, just search his stuff. The overwhelming evidence is that there was plenty of warning about both of these two kids, and the parents just didn't see it. But rather than saying "Gee that's sad that the parents didn't see it" we should be asking "Why the HELL didn't the parents see it?" The signs were there, in Eric's case the weapons were there too. So yes, the whole incident boils down to, it could have been prevented if the parents had seen it.
But it goes even deeper than that. If the parents had seen it that would mean they were attentive parents who gave a damn about parenting, and with attentive parents, the vast likelihood is that the boys would never have decided to shoot up the school in the first place, so there would have been nothing to prevent.
Quote:
|
If you ever managed to keep something hidden from your parents
|
I didn't.
Quote:
|
then by your logic, they are as to blame for the Columbine Massacre as the parents of Harris and Klebold.
|
Uh, no, that's not my logic at all. I didn't shoot up a school. My parents did a good job raising me. Even if I had managed to hide something from them (I have no idea how I'd have accomplished this) they still wouldn't be to blame for Columbine since I did not take part in it. What are you talking about?
Quote:
|
Perhaps at the ages of 17 and 18 you don't believe people can possibly have a mind of they're own or be responsible for they're own foolish actions,
|
If I had an 18 year old kid who was still living under my roof and who stole a laptop, got suspended for threatening another student, played with fire and bombs, and scared his teacher so badly that she called me to ask about his mental health, you'd better DAMN well believe I'd be on his every move like a rat on a cheeto. He wouldn't be able to clear his throat without me being there and finding out why. AND we'd be in family counseling to find out what in hell was wrong with him, and to find out what in hell I was doing wrong to encourage him to act out like that. Were the boys responsible for their actions? Yes, obviously, but they do not get 100% of the responsibility. The parents shoulder a great deal of the blame and most likely the school does to. We all remember how well our schools handled bullies and fighting amongst the kids. If Columbine was even half as bad at dealing with kids as my old school was, then they contributed as well. Of course, again, when my school did something stupid my parents were in the principal's office demanding answers and results - something the boys' parents should have been doing as well.
OK, what's your point? Plenty of blame to go around. The majority is still on the people responsible for raising them.
Quote:
|
Maybe the pizza shop where they worked? If it is logical to assume someone is responsible enough to hold a job and earn they're income is it not possible that they could somehow be responsible for they're own actions?
|
Gee, if they're blowing up spray cans in the oven and setting off bombs in back of the store, no, I'd say they definitely need to be checked out, very thoroughly.
Quote:
|
I mean, it's no alternative to blindly stumbling into accusations of solely the parents and then assuming that's the only possible solution, or asking for a description of the game instead of playing it for myself, but I feel I'm getting there slowly.<<<<<<<SARCASM
|
1) I never said it was solely the parents. Read. Carefully.
2) I asked you to describe the game to us in your own words to give you a chance to prove your point. I did also play it for myself, but was willing to listen to your take on it.
Quote:
|
Sarcasm works great for us, we should try it more often, good job you stated it was sarcasm otherwise I would have started making the game already.<<<<<<<<< SARCASM
|
Quote:
|
As you would have realised playing the game, and now I shall state for the third time within this rebuttal, the objective is not to kill as many people as possible, the objective is to play through the game understanding the influences on Harris and Klebolds life, and they're warped interpretation of that.
|
Then don't give it such a stupid title, and when it DOES have such a stupid, inflamatory, sensationalistic title as SUPER columbine MASSACRE, don't be surprised when people get a little pissed.
Quote:
|
simply assuming these things has lead you coming out looking "vastly uninformed", and really, I don't think I want to see this happen to you again.
|
Again, the title of the game says it all. If you don't want people to assume that your game is a bloodbath, don't give it that title. If you give your game a title like that, do not try to squirm out of the anger directed at you by claiming you were trying to teach people about Columbine. That may be what he did on the surface, but what he's really after is to piss people off and then watch the online war start. If he was out to truly teach society a valuable lesson he'd have given it a different title, he'd have consulted with many experts in the various fields related to the incident, and frankly, he wouldn't have made a damn game out of it in the first place. Why didn't he take all these fine object lessons and make a documentary out of it? Or write a newspaper column? Or a blog? But no, he chose a video game (already a hotbed of controversy thanks to people wanting to ban many games so that they don't have to be a parent and tell their kid no, they can't play it) then chose a wildly sensational title for it (stoke that fire boys!) and then publishes as the splash-screen picture on the game's website a screenshot of the two boys shooting up the school (THROW that gasoline on there! Watch it explode!)
Well, he got his fun. He got the wildly pissed off reactions he was looking for, all I'm saying is now he shouldn't even TRY to convince people that he did this all for our own good.
Now, admittedly, I could be entirely wrong about this. Maybe he really thought that making a video game called SUPER COLUMBINE MASSACRE! would lead to calm intelligent discussion of the youth violence problem. That could very well be true. Of course, if it is true, he's an idiot for thinking SUPER COLUMBINE MASSACRE! will foster any discussion other than "video games are evil!" He's certainly an idiot for thinking a title like that will 1) make any responsible person who might be seeking answers to school violence want to play it or 2) not cause the issue to be buried under a snowstorm of anti-videogame rhetoric.