Kotaku 
Enter your username and password.
Denver, 4:46 PM
Sat Nov 14
36 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip us: tips@kotaku.com
Editor-In-Chief:
Brian Crecente
Email | AIM | Twitter
Deputy Editor:
Stephen Totilo
Email | AIM | Twitter
Senior Editor:
Michael McWhertor
Email | AIM | Twitter
Senior Contributing Editor, Japan:
Brian Ashcraft
Email | AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editor, East Coast:
Michael Fahey
Email | AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editor, Oceania:
Luke Plunkett
Email | AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editor, Weekends:
Owen Good
Email | AIM | Twitter
Correspondent, San Francisco:
AJ Glasser
Email | AIM | Twitter
Columnist:
Leigh Alexander
Columnist:
Tim Rogers
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
08/23/09
The lines get further blurred when you stop to consider...we condemn a game that puts us in the shoes of the Columbine killers, but what would we say to a game that allows us to say, go from school to school and gun down the killers at all these schools before they have a chance to shoot?
08/22/09
If you spew terms like brainwashing left and right and expect them to be taken seriously, you have to expect that others will do the same. "Grand Theft Auto brainwashed my kid to stab my neighbor's kid." "Racing Game X brainwashed a 7-year-old to crash his dad's car." And we don't give credit to that kind of journalistic posturing, right? We snort derisively. We say they're reaching. They are.
But why do parents/the media/politicians/interest groups strike those poses? It's defensive. It's a last-ditch effort to avoid admitting what it's emotionally, politically, intellectually damaging to admit: that human cruelty and pettiness and indecency has no level cap. Neither the Jihadi nor its predecessor brainwash anyone. Nor does anything the Army puts out. People come to these games with hatreds and the desire to play them out, and they are given that opportunity. But the games don't create or invite or expand upon the sentiments...they were already there. And the degree to which we can "deal with" games we disagree with probably has less to do with consoles, public personae and publicity stunts than it has to do with the degree to which we can avoid blowing the shit out of each other. Off-screen.
(edit: grammar)
08/22/09
08/22/09
[kotaku.com]
08/23/09
08/22/09
I love you kotaku.
i've found myself growing disillusioned with the way games and entertainment in general have seemed to be heading in recent years. to the point that i've wondered how russians must feel watching movies in which russia is portrayed as some kind of menace (see most early bond movies, and pretty much anything from the 80s)
today, however, in light of this article and the general feeling i've goten from the comments. I have a renewed faith in humanity's capacity, for compasion. and see how so few of us are actually the zenophobic hateful, warmongers. that entertainment tries so hard to convince us we are!
I say again, I LOVE YOU KOTAKU!. Thank you, a thousand times thank you!
Hamzah.
08/22/09
Sorry about the image, couldn't avoid making the association... :P
I think the idea is very valid, mainly because it tries to change this simplistic vision of duality people have about terrorists.
Because it's far easier to label people "terrorists", and treat them as some kind of evil alien race whose only purpose is to exterminate humans life, when in fact lots of said terrorists are only people just like us that, for several reasons believes they are doing the right thing.
And the path to stop their actions is not by creating a state of fear and killing individual freedom and rights, but trying to understand their motives.
Because if there are no other actions, not only terrorists are already winning, but also their actions will never be stopped, and eventually they will find a way of attacking once again.
08/22/09
Part of the reason killing prostitutes in GTA is perceived as being worse than carrying out your assassinations in Hitman is that it is a more mundane sort of violence. It is far closer to the kind of violence that everyday people - not soldiers, not assassins, not cyborg ninjas - might engage in.
The more a representation of violence in art seems like the kind of thing we could ourselves do, the more uncomfortable we are about it. Few people ever find themselves in a position where they would be driven to, or would have the chance to, assassinate the President of the USA. It is fantasy, and is easily dismissed as such.
Baby Shaker, on the other hand, is a frighteningly commonplace situation, and so people are outraged by it. Obviously there are other issues at play (perceived innocence of the victim being a major one), but they are not the sole factors.
[kotaku.com]
I haven't actually played Virtual Jihadi, but my understanding is that it is relatively unsophisticated in terms of narrative development. Again, that helps people to dismiss it.
08/22/09
08/22/09
You can senselessly slaughter foriegn militants, but you can't make a game about being a foriegn militant slaughting your countrymen. His point is that we don't realy get all that outraged at what is effectively a very hateful and violent message, as long as it isn't directed at us.
The game asks us to examine that. Why is it okay to hunt for Saddam, and not hunt for Bush? It's not that there's a moral equivalency either, but that we accept the first without any examination at all. If we don't properly go through looking for the meaning, if we stop looking at each other as human beings, then we create games just like this, but directed toward more "socially acceptable" targets. He's railing against that. And he is completely right to.
08/22/09
A president to me is just a person who makes decisions for the good of the people. Once he stops making those decisions in my eyes, he's just some douchebag in a important chair.
Don't judge a man by his position, but by his actions.
08/22/09
08/22/09
You know who thinks that way? White people. And no one else. And those white people are wrong.
Anyway, neither Night of Bush Killing nor Virtual Jihadi is any more offensive than Quest for Saddam or America's Army.
What's really offensive is the idea that there's one set of rules for 'us' and another set of rules for 'them'.
08/22/09
08/22/09
That comment right there could easily be construed as racist.
08/22/09
And to clarify, I don't like the subject matter of the game, but I don't mind it existing either. Censorship should never be tolerated, no matter if the subject is one you do not agree with.
08/22/09
08/22/09
08/22/09
I really do wish more people thought this way. But the same people I speak of are too busy trying to get rid of whatever offends them.
I believe the idea is, if we got rid of everything that someone disliked, we would have nothing. :)
08/22/09
08/22/09
RPI is a private college run by their own alumni and benefactors. They choose not to give space to an exhibit of questionable content. It's their money. The case is this: If you don't like it, go see another art exhibit.
A state institution funded with public dollars would have been in a different situation entirely. But in this instance, RPI owns the stage and they can choose to display or not display whatever they want. How are they any different from our mega media corporations who choose what and what not to report on? No one takes them to court for not reporting what they want to see reporting... they just watch something else.
Now a state organization, like if this was up the road at SUNY Albany, may be in a different situation. There is legal precedent for forcing a public institution to represent the interests of all groups... every time they take down the 10 commandments outside an public building, this happens.
08/22/09
08/22/09
Wasn't this glaringly obvious? The only gamers I've seen who defended or approved of Quest for Saddam where frat-boy troglodytes.
06/10/09
06/10/09
08/22/09
06/09/09
Why instead of changing the plot to killing Bu$h as the directive which was inflammatory and stupid and I say that as someone who did not like our president nor vote for him, why not think and choose your message carefully? Off the top of my head, this artist could have made a bigger impact by creating a the player character as a child in the game and show us how his parents and family are killed and he is displaced and how there is nothing left for him. Nothing left for you to do but be a spectator to a gruesome war. This is where you end the game. The end. This would have amplified how screwed up war truly is.
We do not need to see him become a uni-bomber for Al Queada. And without angering so many americans. I don't care if you didn't agree with or vote for Bush just as I didn't but when the president of the U.S. is made into a target for violence and the player is given the choice to join Al Qaeda to kill him, thats inciting people to anger which can lead to violence. I have to say FUCK OFF to this artist. How dare you create such a game.
Al Qaeda killed 5 thousand innocent american people in hours with 2 airplanes, how fucking dare you. 9/11 was the Pearl Harbor of our generation and for you as a creator to trivialize what didn't affect you personally is irresponsible and lazy. As an artist you are a failure and an insensitive piece of garbage. You can bet theres going to be people out there you are going to upset. I'm glad his art show was shut down and I hope this guy is punished for lacking foresight, sensitivity and intelligence.
06/10/09
That's like looking at the logo on a packet of angel food cake mix and saying that they got it all wrong, this will be a terrible cake, and you could do it so much better.
08/22/09
You have to realize he is not advocating the death of President Bush. In fact, he is going as far to say that it is completely wrong...but you know what else is wrong? Quest for Saddam. They both are subversive and their need to exist is questionable, but the artist knows and admits to this.
How do you think the Iraqi people feel about a game like Quest for Saddam? Most Americans didn't like Bush but I hardly think we'd find a game about his death tasteful. Same goes for Saddam. He was truly a horrible person, but do you think making a game out of his death is going to make the citizens of Iraq like our country more? Fuck no.
Bilal's art has a great message: that these games fuel hatred. America has never really been on the losing side of a war, and so we get to write history and say who was wrong and who was right.
Our country has a horrible problem with apologizing for it's actions. So I'll try and apologize now, on behalf of you.
Hey world, we're kinda fucked up. So sorry to all the innocent people who have died in order for us to spread freedom. We are huge hypocrites, often abandoning our values on peace and kinship in order to spread our values and freedom elsewhere. We do bad shit, but you do too. Yeah, Japan, you need to apologize for Pearl Habor. We're sorry for killing almost 200,000 of your people with atomic bombs. Whoop! My bad.
06/09/09
/3drenderingjoke
06/09/09
06/09/09
06/09/09
Also: he could put an eye out with that chin.
06/09/09
"I think Mr. Mellish is a traitor to this country because his views are different from the views of the President and others of his kind. Differences of opinion should be tolerated, but not when they're too different. Then he becomes a subversive mother. "
-Bananas
06/09/09
Republican =/= conservative or freedom-suppressing all the time, it's just the vibe that the oh-so-wonderful Fox News and Bill O'Reilly have given that particular political party.
Now, were you to call out on conservatives you'd have been able to make yourself seem like something other then a completely mindless tool, but you didn't.
Please, act like more like the tool you are and be silent.
06/09/09
06/09/09
06/09/09
06/09/09
Yes, that is a pair. How fugly. ^_^