This game was made with RPG Maker 2000. It really put video game violence in perspective when it came out.
I love this game, it's fun, and it's innovative or something.
People who are against the game might argue that it's wrong to make a game that's based off of such a horrible event, and that it's way too violent.
People who are for the game might argue that it provides a point of view coming from the two involved in the shooting, and that it doesn't have to be really violent as it plays out to match the way you yourself play it.
Are you for it, or against it, or a little bit of both, or even neither, perhaps? What are your thoughts on this game?
A little of both.
Kind of messy that some kids make a game about it.
But then again, people make games about Vietnam, WW, WWII, etc.
Not much of a difference.
I AM HEAVILY AGAINST IT.
Now, brb while I go play Battlefield 1942, which re-creates a bloody war with people dying everywhere <3
I understand the reasoning behind why they made the game, but now's not the right time to do it.
Quote from: NAMKCOR on August 24, 2007, 02:58:51 AM
I understand the reasoning behind why they made the game, but now's not the right time to do it.
Agreed.
Quote from: Roph on August 24, 2007, 02:55:36 AM
I AM HEAVILY AGAINST IT.
Now, brb while I go play Battlefield 1942, which re-creates a bloody war with people dying everywhere <3
Yes, both games are the same, those soldiers went into war knowing they would be shot at, and likely die... why shouldn't kids get the same things at school?
would this make more sense in rpg maker discussion? or video games? xD
Quote from: Nouman on August 24, 2007, 03:28:42 AM
would this make more sense in rpg maker discussion? or video games? xD
Nah, it's debating the morality of the game.
Not discussing it's features, graphics, etc.
good call ;)
Quote from: BanisherOfEden on August 24, 2007, 03:27:50 AM
Quote from: Roph on August 24, 2007, 02:55:36 AM
I AM HEAVILY AGAINST IT.
Now, brb while I go play Battlefield 1942, which re-creates a bloody war with people dying everywhere <3
Yes, both games are the same, those soldiers went into war knowing they would be shot at, and likely die... why shouldn't kids get the same things at school?
They do, most kids now know if they go outside they might be shot at the die =/
Quote from: Roph on August 24, 2007, 02:55:36 AM
I AM HEAVILY AGAINST IT.
Now, brb while I go play Battlefield 1942, which re-creates a bloody war with people dying everywhere <3
LOL if you're honestly relating a war between nations to a massacre between 2 kids and the rest of a highschool.
And I mean LOL in a sad, "you're a fucking idiot" kind of way.
But if you were sarcastic or something, <3
Quote from: arlen on August 26, 2007, 02:10:48 AM
Quote from: Roph on August 24, 2007, 02:55:36 AM
I AM HEAVILY AGAINST IT.
Now, brb while I go play Battlefield 1942, which re-creates a bloody war with people dying everywhere <3
LOL if you're honestly relating a war between nations to a massacre between 2 kids and the rest of a highschool.
And I mean LOL in a sad, "you're a fucking idiot" kind of way.
But if you were sarcastic or something, <3
He's comparing one situation with people killing each other to another. The only difference between the two is that we think killing people is okay as long as our government is telling us to do it, but when you do it when you feel like it you suddenly become a monster because it destroys the illusion of safety that people built up when they took flight from the Negro - infested cities into the suburbs. Thus: Battlefield 1942 = reliving glorious battles, Super Columbine = murder simulator.
What's with the weird talking?
Violence based on real things is very ... normal.
I don't think there should be a problem with it if:
A. the game is telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, excluding some stuff we don't want you to see of course.
For example, I don't think having a nazi game in which you play the nazi side, hide every nazi war crime while it suddenly will also suggest that usa attacked germany on 1939 with nuclear bombs so germany was forced to peacefully enter poland, but they didn't like the germans so they tried to kill them and the germans had no choice but to destroy poland and make put the horrible very violent people that were also named gypsies, jews, gay, sick, notlikinggermanstoomuch people in "their happy place", and of course let's not forgot the nazis simply forgot to feed them, it's not like they were trying to get rid of them...
and so on.
that... would be a bad sick and twisted game (and the owner will probably get killed 3 times before he can say Hi I was just kidding!)
However if you keep things the way they were, even if you make your side look better (The nazi game: How we proved we were superior until those damn americans #%#$)
Well that's my opinion anyway.
So games set in fictional universes aren't okay? That leaves us with Madden and maybe America's Army.
Im confused, is he saying games that depict violence when there was non really are wrong?
Quote from: Plump Prince on August 26, 2007, 02:55:09 AM
Quote from: arlen on August 26, 2007, 02:10:48 AM
Quote from: Roph on August 24, 2007, 02:55:36 AM
I AM HEAVILY AGAINST IT.
Now, brb while I go play Battlefield 1942, which re-creates a bloody war with people dying everywhere <3
LOL if you're honestly relating a war between nations to a massacre between 2 kids and the rest of a highschool.
And I mean LOL in a sad, "you're a fucking idiot" kind of way.
But if you were sarcastic or something, <3
He's comparing one situation with people killing each other to another. The only difference between the two is that we think killing people is okay as long as our government is telling us to do it, but when you do it when you feel like it you suddenly become a monster because it destroys the illusion of safety that people built up when they took flight from the Negro - infested cities into the suburbs. Thus: Battlefield 1942 = reliving glorious battles, Super Columbine = murder simulator.
For some reason, I just can't understand the point you're trying to make here, if any.
I'm saying there's a difference between a game about some war and about some massacre, and that saying it's "okay" to make a game about columbine is pretty heinous.
Roph's statement seems to be in support of the latter.
And you're just telling me what I already know, I guess.
I dunno. I don't really care
that much. It'll blow over in no time and we'll all forget about it.
Arg I am saying, weirdos, that ASSUMING IT WAS BASED ON A REAL THINGY THAT REALLY HAPPENED (does that answer your "is sci-fi a bad thing" question?) and it has ALL of the facts untouched (for example you can't re-write ww2's history and make a pro-nazi game in which you claim the nazis were just defending themselves and were actually the victims or something crazy like that) then that's fine
EVEN if the maker was from the "bad side", meaning, even if the maker IS IN FACT A NAZI or supports whatever "bad" event, then he CAN make a pro-nazi game, which will show the war from their side, while NOT throwing out ANY crime they committed, that sort of a game is fine, you can play as a nazi soldier, you can murder people for no reason and think it's awesomezorz and stuff, and you can let the player be the judge of "was it right or wrong to kill so many people just for being slightly different"
it allows the "good side" to step out of the "that's the bad side no matter what" box, see what happened from their point of view and judge for themselves if that's good or bad.
Realizing in the end 1 of the following:
A. omg I never realized just how crazy those nazis were
B. omg I never realized that even the nazis had feelings... for themselves obviously... but yeah...
C. omg I can't believe it's not banned.
of course if you were a nazi and played it, you would see nothing wrong with the picture.
but ask yourselves this:
how many times have you killed nazi soldiers, bashed their skulls, so on and so forth, without giving them a chance to surrender in games you see as "good vs bad".
It's perfectly ok for the "other" side to make games too, you probably won't like them, they might look insane, you might wish to kill the developers, but if they follow the basic rule of telling the truth, IT'S FINE.
now, need I explain it AGAIN?
Quote from: arlen on August 26, 2007, 04:12:53 PMI'm saying there's a difference between a game about some war and about some massacre, and that saying it's "okay" to make a game about columbine is pretty heinous.
But playing simulations of battles where tens of thousands of men were thrown into a meat grinder is perfectly acceptable? I wonder what war veterans think when they see kids laughing and joking as they reenact the horrible deaths of good friends and fellow soldiers.
Quote from: blueXx on August 26, 2007, 08:42:28 PMnow, need I explain it AGAIN?
I think you do. Are you saying that games set in alternate histories are unacceptable? Or are you saying that games with content you don't like should be banned? If someone comes out with a game that depicts good Nazis defeating evil Allies, would it be okay to beat its creators to death? I mean, they had it coming, right?
Quote from: Plump Prince on August 26, 2007, 10:25:47 PM
Quote from: arlen on August 26, 2007, 04:12:53 PMI'm saying there's a difference between a game about some war and about some massacre, and that saying it's "okay" to make a game about columbine is pretty heinous.
But playing simulations of battles where tens of thousands of men were thrown into a meat grinder is perfectly acceptable? I wonder what war veterans think when they see kids laughing and joking as they reenact the horrible deaths of good friends and fellow soldiers.
They'll probably think something like "they were fighting for their own beliefs or freedoms" or something gay like that, but if you don't buy that end here's another one: a war is a fucking battle between two ARMED factions. ARMED factions. i.e. BOTH SIDES HAD GUNS.
How can you people not see the difference between hundreds of thousands of people, most of them over 20, all with guns, shooting each other, and 2 kids shooting an entire school filled with unarmed children?
Also, wars are celebrated and made into games because they stand for something. The day we earned our freedom, fought for our country, etc...etc. And even if you don't think those reasons are as glorious as others think, then you certainly can't think a massacre like Columbine can be held in the same high regard, now can you?
And sure, "just because it was a war and the government said it was okay blahblahbalhblah" is true.
War still isn't okay, but once again, a massacre is EVEN. MORE. NOT. OKAY.
I never condoned massacres. All I'm saying is that people should be able to make video games about whatever they want, no matter how distasteful you or anyone else might find it. Whether or not Columbine or WWII was wrong is irrelevant.
Quote from: Plump Prince on August 26, 2007, 10:25:47 PM
I think you do. Are you saying that games set in alternate histories are unacceptable? Or are you saying that games with content you don't like should be banned? If someone comes out with a game that depicts good Nazis defeating evil Allies, would it be okay to beat its creators to death? I mean, they had it coming, right?
You no readings yes?
Seriously...
If we declare in the game that's not what happened by changing the results and not putting crazy stuff into kiddie brainless mind like: "germany was just defending itself when poland attack it , and then usa got angry and threw nukes at poor germany, and the nazis are the bestorz and everything was made up by usa's goverment and besides you all lie lie lie!!!!" (that is while sounding serious enough for your avg 10-12 years old kid to fall for) then that's fine.
otherwise if we do try to manipulate people into thinking what we want them to think, thus creating a mob of brutal idiots and changing history in their minds, that's not a good thing.
yes, bad.
see?
lies while trying to make people believe in them = bad
truth or fiction = good
I am not going to explain it any slower, there is always a slow student, back in my days we ate those guys' flesh and threw what's left of them to hungry bone eating roaches of doom.
Videogames are an excellent use of moral panic in the minds of people, most of all people with a narrow mindset. When something happens, humans are not designed to just accept a blunt answer, if someone was to walk up to you and say "Did you read the news? 58 people just died at the hands of a teenager using a golf club!" Would you not wonder why he did it? People begin to wonder why, even if the answer is obvious. "Oh, people have been bullying him all his school career." But, of course, he plays a violent video game in his spare time, it is a scapegoat to the real problem of people being bullied. Do you think people were like "We should find a way to stop or help reduce school bullying!" or "We should finding out who made that game and get a class-action lawsuit ready." I play Gears of War often, but do you think I want to fashion a chainsaw to an assault rifle or smash someones head in? No. If someone is going to storm their school that way, should people blame videogames or the more obvious reason? Shouldn't people look ahead for signs of mental unstability?
what does that have to do with the topic i wonder...
we originally were discussing if it's moral for the "bad side" to have their own video games in which bad things happen.
and you couldn't possibly comment my reply because I was talking about teaching kids false facts, I didn't claim they will go and eat your brains tomorrow for supporting USA in ww2.
so while your reply is true and all... it's also off-topic and such.
A bit, but the aftermath of Columbine went from bullying to video games ; \
Quote from: blueXx on August 27, 2007, 12:36:11 AM
what does that have to do with the topic i wonder...
we originally were discussing if it's moral for the "bad side" to have their own video games in which bad things happen.
and you couldn't possibly comment my reply because I was talking about teaching kids false facts, I didn't claim they will go and eat your brains tomorrow for supporting USA in ww2.
so while your reply is true and all... it's also off-topic and such.
Actually, we were talking about our thoughts on "Super Columbine Massacre RPG". Offering our opinions as to why we believe it's okay, or not okay to make a game like that. You see, I would know what this topic is supposed to be about because I sort of, you know, MADE IT. Yeah. Which means you didn't. Which means you have no authority as to what is "off-topic" and what isn't. I think it's awful for you to be labeling the people/person who made this game as the "bad side", and as much as I love your signature, I feel I must express, that I'm APPALLED at your ignorance. They aren't the "bad side", nobody is the "bad side". This topic is about rather we think the game in itself is okay or not okay for whatever reason. I don't appreciate you trying to pull a topic that you didn't make into the wrong direction.
And I'll have you know that his post had LOTS to do with the topic.
I tried to download it and after like, 5 seconds at the last mb I couldn't take the suspense or guilt of even having it on my computer and stopped it. : \
Super Columbine Massacre RPG is probably the only RPG maker game with any cultural relevance or thematic merit.
It is a mile step in the history of user generated content.
It's also a lame cop out to suggest that "It's not the right time" to debate or explore anything. By the same logic you shouldn't question the legitimacy of a war until long after it's over. it's a poor excuse to avoid blame or to let off making real decisions.
The fact that someone has alone explored the issue of Columbine instead of using it for cheap propaganda it worth supporting it for
If it's some kind of a narration made on RMXP(meaning you only press buttons for dialogues and such) or played from a victim's point of view, then its fine.
The only problem with this game is you play the real-life bad guys, who killed real-life people.
Quote from: Pathbinder on August 28, 2007, 10:23:03 AM
If it's some kind of a narration made on RMXP(meaning you only press buttons for dialogues and such) or played from a victim's point of view, then its fine.
The only problem with this game is you play the real-life bad guys, who killed real-life people.
As opposed to fake life? Many kids play WWII games and not understand why you kill someone, no political reason or anything. Just because they
know that they are the enemy, whether or not have done anything at all. The trigger is pulled, they fall over, some of them try to get away but the stick moves and the trigger is fired, again, they are dead.
I'm not against the whole GTA-esque sandbox styled games, but seeing like, kids under 16 play them is ridiculous.
Quote from: BlackZoneOne on August 29, 2007, 10:00:23 PM
As opposed to fake life? Many kids play WWII games and not understand why you kill someone, no political reason or anything.
Hmm, I didn't see that coming, I might need some opinion-adjusting. :blizj: If that's the case, then the angst of the people will probably fade away in roughly 60 years and so we will be able to play it with little to no objection from other people/ ;8 Just like what happened to WWII and WWII-styled games.
Quote from: Pathbinder on August 28, 2007, 10:23:03 AM
If it's some kind of a narration made on RMXP(meaning you only press buttons for dialogues and such) or played from a victim's point of view, then its fine.
The only problem with this game is you play the real-life bad guys, who killed real-life people.
umm RM2k it was.
anyways, the game was meant to show that videogames are a real medium for projecting thought and not just a shooter in an arcade
it accomplished that goal in my opinion. One of the few games that I've ever played where levelling up was not fun
Ah! I got used to the fact that I kept calling any RPG Maker "RMXP." Don't mind that.
But the creator made money, through donations in his website, or at least that's what I read.
I have a similar question. Is it morally right for bands to profit off of songs about school violence? Youth of a Nation by POD: Let the world knew how he felt with the sound of a gat. And to a lesser extent Jeremy by Pearl Jam: the video even had to be edited due to implied school violence with a gun.
And to a far lesser extent, Columind from Filter.
Quote from: lost on September 10, 2007, 04:33:31 PM
I have a similar question. Is it morally right for bands to profit off of songs about school violence? Youth of a Nation by POD: Let the world knew how he felt with the sound of a gat. And to a lesser extent Jeremy by Pearl Jam: the video even had to be edited due to implied school violence with a gun.
And to a far lesser extent, Columind from Filter.
no its not morally right for bands to make profit from violence, but it is right for bands to promote a point of view through music and fund a charity against the form of violence. but lets take for example pearl jam recording bloody sunday without knowing any background of the incident or helping the inquiry in anyway thats not morally right
I'm majorly against it! Y would you want to play a game where you go around shooting innocent students. Same with grand theft auto and games like that all i gotta say is: RETARDED :mad:
Retarded is not spelling spartan right, and posting in a dead topic, with horrible grammar and spelling, and little input.