- This topic has 42 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 19 years ago by Anonymous.
November 22, 2004 at 5:19 pm #3602AnonymousInactive
Found this under the culture section of Aljazeera no less… (indeed I am a man of international mystery) :)
More to be found at http://www.jfkreloaded.net if thats your kind of thing?!*
November 22, 2004 at 7:51 pm #15942AnonymousInactive
I had a quick look at this today…
there’s not actually a lot of content there, it is in bad taste but this has been lightly camouflaged under the guise of proving the lone-gunman theory correct.
Good publicity stunt for an otherwise unknown developer & “game” though!
November 23, 2004 at 8:33 am #15952AnonymousInactive
Just noticed that “JFK: Reloaded” has escalated unfortunately way beyond its office attachment status… it’s now all over the web, on sky news, BBC news, and Euro News, billed as a video game nasty.
Lovely just what everyone wants, more bad press for the industry.
Nice one Traffic! That little publicity stunt has sort of backfired me thinks!
November 23, 2004 at 10:07 am #15958AnonymousInactive
From a Glasgow company – excellent way of getting attention for themselves.
I looked at the demo. meh.
If *all* it is doing is shooting JFK in a limited manner I want it to have the best graphics I’ve every seen in my life (since they are saving so much on art \processor\AI etc..)
I want to see JFK’s head modelled in superb detail and explode with thousands of minute details and particle effects. I mean really go to town with it.
I dont find it that sick and I ‘like’ JFK….well I never met hm but ya know what I mean.
oh and ban this filth etc.
November 23, 2004 at 10:27 am #15960AnonymousInactive
it’s on the cover of today’s Irish Indo too
November 23, 2004 at 10:29 am #15961AnonymousInactive
“According to Traffic Games managing director Kirk Ewing, the team has “enormous respect for the Kennedy family”, and the game is designed to “re-ignite people’s passion for history.”
November 23, 2004 at 10:52 am #15964AnonymousInactive
Unfortunately I reckon if the boyz had done a pyrotechnic frenzy on it – they would not have had any credibility as a historic simulation me thinks.
But what do I know? :)
November 23, 2004 at 11:00 am #15967AnonymousInactive
> the team has “enormous respect for the Kennedy family”
Who’s betting the camera goes into matrix mode / bullet time, when JFK becomes cereberally challenged.
November 23, 2004 at 11:30 am #15969AnonymousInactive
November 23, 2004 at 11:58 am #15970AnonymousInactive
Supposedly, they’re at length ‘not to call this a videogame, as there was no creative input’ (or words to that effect).
Well, correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems to me if it’s presented on a display, with which you interact and the said interaction is scored – that makes it de facto a videogame!
I’m siding with ian-hannigan on this one… Scotland, eh? Glasgow, to boot? ‘been taking some leaves out of their neighbour’s book, by the looks (DMA, of course. May they have had some dealings with them?).
I’m afraid Scotland’s game industry is not doing itself any favours, when you consider it all.
November 23, 2004 at 12:17 pm #15971AnonymousInactive
November 23, 2004 at 12:32 pm #15972AnonymousInactive
With regard to the scientific angle of the program (I won’t call it a game, as ‘game’ implies fun – in total contradiction with my earlier post, I know, but that was definitional, this is opinion), I’d ask: what is scientific about it?
And, for that matter, what is the purpose of this historical accurate simulation?
Should there be a historically-accurate simulation of the death camps? Would it be acceptable under the same principle(s)?
Don’t think so (and don’t want to think so either).
I can’t agree with or defend this, as I see this program as gratuitous. There is nothing to be gained, educationally, from learning details to the nth degree about a murder, however sensational or historical. It’s happened, it shouldn’t have, lessons may (hopefully) be learned by the powers-that-be to ensure it won’t again, and that’s that. Why didn’t they instead re-create the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand, which sparked WW1, instead? Answer that and you’ll get my point.
November 23, 2004 at 12:37 pm #15974AnonymousInactive
“Stalin said ‘one death is a tragedy, a million a mere statistic’.”
By that logic JFK: Reloaded should have stayed in the concept vault then! No?
November 23, 2004 at 1:00 pm #15976AnonymousInactive
Yep – as I said the taste issue is subjective and I am trying to stay out of that box cos that just leads to dead ends… based on personal perspective, and a whole host of other socio-economic norms and values.
So to deal with the Archduke Ferdinand issue – there has not been any popular (as far as I know) conspiracy theory over his assassination. The hook (and I am clever enough to see it as such) is the fact that the JFK assassination was also a monumental historical event – BUT – most importantly it has been surrounded in mythic tales of Cubans, CIA, Mafia etc. involvement etc. etc. This made a simulation based on the Warren commission findings an interesting exercise (again leaving out taste).
Let’s be honest the JFK Assassination has been constantly in the media (books, films, documentaries) since the event occurred – the simulation is an expansion on this – whereby it faithfully (well it appears as such) reproduces the event and allows you to try to shoot JFK and see if it could be done… now after playing it – I can say – that if I could kill JFK – then I am sure Oswald (a trained marksman) could – so now I believe that there was no conspiracy – thus putting to rest in my mind anyway that question… now to date no book or documentary or film had put that one to rest for me… maybe not lab rat scientific – but highly persuasive and conclusive.
AGAIN NOT LOOKING AT THIS AS A MATTER OF TASTE!!
Death camps existed – no mystery – no hook and no doubt in most sane people minds – therefore does not really fit the comparison I am afraid – but scores high on the ’emotional argument’ – 50 points awarded :)
Re: Stalin – the danger of quoting mad men is that some one always fires it back at you with a twist! :)
Again my point is that the only thing that makes this a raw nerve is the fact that JFK was a person that we all recognize and identify with. This is not excusing it or defending it – but rather getting to grips with the worlds (pretty predictable) reaction to it.
AGAIN SIDE STEPPING A QUESTION OF TASTE!!!
November 23, 2004 at 1:21 pm #15980AnonymousInactive
AGAIN NOT LOOKING AT THIS AS A MATTER OF TASTE!![/quote:4da4e2cc57] you may not be, Mike – but I think many are. For some, that’s actually the heart of the matter…
What, if anything, makes this game/simulation different than ‘Manhunt’ or ‘Postal’?
While I personally enjoyed Manhunt, I drew the line at Postal – pissing and vomiting, albeit simulated, are just not my idea of fun. Where I chose to draw a line was a matter of personal taste…
And while I downloaded the ‘JFKReloaded’, I have yet to bring myself to actually install or play it. If it weren’t for the fact I know someone who was involved in developing it, I’m not sure I would have even downloaded it
my point is that the only thing that makes this a raw nerve is the fact that JFK was a person that we all recognize and identify with.[/quote:4da4e2cc57] which is my point exactly… for many of us, gunning down hordes of faceless digital avatars is one thing; gunning down recognisable (and popular) characters (in digital form) is another
but while i agree that the taste issue is ENTIRELY subjective, I’m not sure that excludes it from the debate
November 23, 2004 at 1:27 pm #15981AnonymousInactive
there has not been any popular (as far as I know) conspiracy theory over his assassination.[/quote:8aa7f53102]
There have been plenty, on the contrary, but they’re not as ‘sexy’ as the JFK instance (who’s interested in turn-of-the-century European aristocracy shenanigans, I ask you?).
It is a ‘hook’ indeed, and you state that you are clever enough to see it for what it is, so why trying to stay out the ‘taste’ box (I think this ‘taste box’ you’re referring to is a bit of a misnomer, myself – you just do not want to be drawn into ‘that’ side of the debate, but what other debate side is there? Was this thead intent on discussing the graphics, the physics engine, what the press at large will say?)
now after playing it – I can say – that if I could kill JFK – then I am sure Oswald (a trained marksman) could – so now I believe that there was no conspiracy – thus putting to rest in my mind anyway that question[/quote:8aa7f53102]
But you are interfacing with a set of programmed rules. You’re not there, nor could you ever pretend to be or have been there accurately, unless you did travel back in time and benefitted from a fairly advanced leve of omniscience. You’ve just played ‘one’ simulated version of multiple possible solutions.
Death camps existed – no mystery – no hook and no doubt in most sane people minds – therefore does not really fit the comparison I am afraid – but scores high on the ’emotional argument’ – 50 points awarded :)[/quote:8aa7f53102]
Not intended for scoring points – but illustrates my point for the gratuitousness of the exercise perfectly, thank you. There is no mystery in JFK’s assassination: he was unlawfully killed. So what if it was CIA? the Cubans? the Mafia? Is it going to change your life to learn it was one or the other? My point is that -because it is a real person- consideration should be given to the family before all else.
Again my point is that the only thing that makes this a raw nerve is the fact that JFK was a person that we all recognize and identify with.[/quote:8aa7f53102]
I don’t particularly identify with JFK. Do you?
November 23, 2004 at 1:28 pm #15982AnonymousInactive
Re: Stalin – the danger of quoting mad men is that some one always fires it back at you with a twist! :)[/quote:6b8b8bcbc9]
Usually another mad man to apply the twist ;] But I still think it’s lessons holds true. It’s the fact that Traffic chose a topic that’s so emotive for so many people that’s assisted the media in this case.
But as you say let’s leave taste aside because I too believe it’s ultimately a dead-end.
So to look at it from a design point of view then; well basically at all levels there really is none. It’s lazy conceptualisation and it’s lazy development, If there is a design it’s purpose was to provoke a controversial reaction and generate publicity at best. WOW It’s worked, of course it has!
I’m sure without breaking a sweat we could all suggest something within 5 minutes that would whip the media into a crazed frenzy. To me it’s on the same lines as Postal or something puerile like that. If you believe the developers laughable attempts at explaining this one away then… well all I’m saying is that to me it’s as transparent as glass.
If this throws one thing into sharp focus for me, it’s the way in which the games dev community thinks very differently to the rest of the world and how we can still manage to justify some of the juvenile elements of the industry when others are working so hard to move things forward. At times we seem to be our own worst enemy and all the while the media laps it up ;)
November 23, 2004 at 1:32 pm #15983AnonymousInactive
November 23, 2004 at 1:44 pm #15985AnonymousInactive
November 23, 2004 at 1:56 pm #15986AnonymousInactive
November 23, 2004 at 2:01 pm #15988AnonymousInactive
November 23, 2004 at 2:07 pm #15989AnonymousInactive
Yes Steph – you have every right to hate and loath etc. this application and another application you dont like. I hope I never suggested otherwise. So no arguement there! :) Hurrah!
Not in the least when there is no purpose to it.[/quote:f93496ac64]
My problem with this is that does every game dealing with acts of violence require a clear purpose before it is justified? If so who decides the right purpose? and if so – many games fall into the use of violence with no purpose bin – unless saving planet x45 from an alien face eating zombie is fullfilling a purpose – some say yes some say no – who is right?… this is problematic reasoning for any industry least of all ours.
In the JFK game, what is the purpose, exactly?[/quote:f93496ac64]
I actually don’t see this as a game as such – but rather a historic simulation – its purpose – for me – proves the credibility of the Warren Comission – maybe not earth shattering – but certainly interesting (for me).
We all may think the Hook is transparent and an emotive media tool by the makers – but – upon reflection – having played it – it’s not gratuitous (violence), its not a game, its a historic simulation of a stated view point of a major investigation – which has had its credibility tested for over 40 years – as such – it actually does try to achieve its stated media aim… even though clearly its a publicity tool.
November 23, 2004 at 2:12 pm #15991AnonymousInactive
The guy who did this game worked at Vis a while ago and ‘apparently’ was always talking about making a ‘Murder Simulator’, so I can guess what their next ‘game’ will be.
I have no idea who the chap is, but I wish them well.
November 23, 2004 at 2:17 pm #15992AnonymousInactive
Yes Steph – you have every right to hate and loath etc. this application and another application you dont like.
‘bit too strong, that. I don’t hate and/or loath (emotions reserved for pedestrians/cyclists when I commute :D) this program, I simply disagree with it entirely.
My problem with this is that does every game dealing with acts of violence require a clear purpose before it is justified?
Yes, hopefully – refer the ‘decent moral principles’ observation above, else we’re worst than beasts (and that’s not rethorical).
If so who decides the right purpose?
The context and/or the developer. Note I said ‘purpose’, not right purpose. It’s essentially societal and already (and much better) addressed by Skyclad.
… even though clearly its a publicity tool.
And that’s where the objectionability stems from, mostly.
November 23, 2004 at 2:17 pm #15993AnonymousInactive
Are we talking about the guy who’s gonna be murdered or the guy making the ‘game’? ;)
November 23, 2004 at 2:17 pm #15994AnonymousInactive
I also heard that he ate babies for lunch at Vis – but I kind of felt that one might be down to sour grapes…. but you never know, it’s always the quiet ones you have got to watch!
November 23, 2004 at 2:21 pm #15995AnonymousInactive
It is pretty reliable – I said ‘apparently’ because I did not hear it first hand, just from the lads he used to work with :)
He’s not a psycho or anything.
Nice debate – carry on, ignore my gibberish :)
November 23, 2004 at 2:22 pm #15996AnonymousInactive
what we define as right and wrong[/quote:8a18e0988e]
Dangerous for an industry which believes in freedom of expression and free speech!!
Again this then becomes a matter of public policy…. see where this is going?
“Warning signs warning signs – I hear them but I pay no mind, warning sign of things to come!” Talking Heads.
But I am glad there has been some debate over it…
November 23, 2004 at 2:25 pm #15997AnonymousInactive
I KNEW IT!!!! See I told you clowns ARE evil ;)
November 23, 2004 at 4:00 pm #15999AnonymousInactive
November 23, 2004 at 4:07 pm #16000AnonymousInactive
They’re evil – ’nuff said.
November 23, 2004 at 4:16 pm #16001AnonymousInactive
Well Ian & Steph…
The wild tangent of the moral issues surrounding Clowns and their supposed evil nature – even though it flies in the face of the recent findings of a leading edge simulation have well and truly killed this thread.
Thus I would like to conclude by saying – Brussel Sprouts taste of dead people!
November 23, 2004 at 4:54 pm #16003AnonymousInactive
It obviously isn’t ready for maturing yet – great! I was fearing for the “mature development” of the medium…
November 23, 2004 at 5:44 pm #16007AnonymousInactive
Well just in case we forgot what we were talking about…
November 23, 2004 at 6:00 pm #16008AnonymousInactive
I have to refer to Mal’s original observation here:
“Who’s betting the camera goes into matrix mode / bullet time, when JFK becomes cerebrally challenged.”
November 23, 2004 at 6:22 pm #16009AnonymousInactive
Originally posted by Grifmike
What we define as right and wrong
Dangerous for an industry which believes in freedom of expression and free speech!!
I wasnt talking about us as games developers here, but rather society as a whole.
For us, it seems morally objectionable to recreate a historical event in which a famous western personality died. However, it does not seem morally objectionable to write a game based on a war where 15 civilians die for every western military loss. If the game was instead about assassinating Saddam Hussein, would there be the same level of furore?
I do think this kind of game has a place. It has long been known that interactive education is the best teacher. What if this game came along with another 100 quick clips detailing other significant episodes in US history. Within a few years it would become the norm as an educational tool.
We must desensitize ourselves from the fact that this is simply the first time that there is an interactive version of an event that has been covered in dozens of documentaries, films and books, often equally graphically, sometimes worse, and embrace it as a new direction in which we can develop content.
November 23, 2004 at 6:26 pm #16010AnonymousInactive
Well they messed up a bit – it wasn’t a Security guy in the seat in front of Kennedy – it was Texas Governor (the guy in the hat)
November 23, 2004 at 8:45 pm #16013AnonymousInactive
Correction: He is there Ivan – just crouched down as a reaction to the shot! :( The car has 3 rows of seats – front row: security, middle: the governer and wife and rear: – JFK and Jackie….
November 24, 2004 at 9:12 am #16018AnonymousInactive
He obviously knew the shot was coming! I smell a conspiracy!
November 24, 2004 at 9:58 am #16019AnonymousInactive
Correction: He is there Ivan – just crouched down as a reaction to the shot! :( The car has 3 rows of seats – front row: security, middle: the governer and wife and rear: – JFK and Jackie…. [/quote:24dcf1a730]
See how pictures can be made to tell only one side of the story!
I am still right – the govenor doesn’t have his hat on (maybe it was shot off by the first sniper ;) )
November 24, 2004 at 11:16 am #16021AnonymousInactive
November 24, 2004 at 6:01 pm #16028AnonymousInactive
November 24, 2004 at 9:34 pm #16032AnonymousInactive
I do think this kind of game has a place. It has long been known that interactive education is the best teacher. What if this game came along with another 100 quick clips detailing other significant episodes in US history. Within a few years it would become the norm as an educational tool.[/quote:ee57c57655] agreed
We must desensitize ourselves from the fact that this is simply the first time that there is an interactive version of an event that has been covered in dozens of documentaries, films and books, often equally graphically, sometimes worse, and embrace it as a new direction in which we can develop content.[/quote:ee57c57655]
agree with this too… My issue is not with the freedom fo speech (which I think Mike has eloquently covered already), but with the lack or responsibility shown by the developer
what do i mean?
the ridiculous justification they provide is just farcical for a start. it’s a cynical cash-in and no more. they released on the anniversary of the man’s death, for feck’s sake!! You could at least respect them for what they’ve done if they came right out (as the developers of Postal 2) did and said: “we’re just doing it for the money… and the rakes of free publicity”
given that in the contemporary media, video games are the bete noire du jour (somewhat similar to the VHS video nasties debacle in the early 80’s) I find it difficult to defend their right to free speech and/or self-expression.
The media also have a huge responsibility for this state fo affairs – in the same issue of the Indo, buried on page 9 they had a story on a game in real life schools that’s actually endangering the lives of 9 yr olds! That gets buried on page 9, while JFKReloaded gets the frontpage, a headline and two full colur pics!! Sensationalism at its worst
- The forum ‘General Discussion’ is closed to new topics and replies.