This is despicable

[WeekendLazyness]

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6549265/

What kind of video game company would do something like that? I doubt many people will let this game get released.

[Scauthra]

So......... they made a game with good graphics but a horrible base? Just.. why?

[TranquilNightElf]

That is just ..weird....o_O

[GrassDragon]

Yeah weird is right. Once you've killed JFK a few times though, what do they expect you to do?

[Schwitzer]

Not very tactful. I thought there was a law against releasing movies (unsure about games) within a specific timeframe of an event, to ensure that this sort of thing doesn't get released whilst there are still close friends or family to the subject(s) alive?

[gediminas]

Well, they probably got what they wanted - our attention.
A bit shocking, yet discussed - something that can be useful
for an upcomming game. Plus, it's actually not that horrifying, IMHO.
It can't be as perverted as Postal2, you know...

[Calibur]

Page has expired so I don't know whats going on.
Could some one explain?

[GrassDragon]

It's a game that's a sim of the assassination of JFK. You play as the assinator and get points for doing what "actually" happened. Looked like pretty good graphics, you could zoom in and move the camera around and stuff.

[Seraph_Knight]

-deleted-

[TranquilNightElf]

Technically the controversy is already there and this game seeks to solve that (to a degree ) by "proving" that there was only a lone gunman.
But still I think it's in bad taste especially along the lines of what Schwitzer has said.

[Battlecruiser]

Wow, that is absolutely disgusting. Making a game out of a tragedy. Thats like if someone made a game in which you pilot a plane to crash into the Twin Towers. People who make these games, and play these games seriously shouldn't be living.

[TheGreatBrain]

Well, don't suppose it's any worse than Postal, and that was pretty popular.

[raybAn]

...Yet how come I live, if I shouldn't?..uh..I mean...I don't play those games, I just m...ake them not, I just pl....ay them not, I....nevermind.....

[Dark_Viper]

Hay i was about to say that it sounds like Postal 2... interesting game.. yes i played it and beat it... the worst part(allso the funniest in a sad sort of way) was that you can catch a cat... and shove it on the end of your shotgun and use it as a silencer...

a very gory game...

this sounds alot like postal 2

[raybAn]

Postal II wasn't making fun of any particular tragedy -- Well, uh, except the whole American Nation and it's patriotism (for what, I might ask? Founding a free and independant state derived from british colonies on the bloodshed lands of it's previous inhabitants, the proud and native Indians?), of course ;)

[Seraph_Knight]

-deleted-

[TheGreatBrain]

Postal II wasn't making fun of any particular tragedy -- Well, uh, except the whole American Nation and it's patriotism (for what, I might ask? Founding a free and independant state derived from british colonies on the bloodshed lands of it's previous inhabitants, the proud and native Indians?), of course ;)I don't think this JFK game "makes fun" of anything any more than World War II games make fun of World War II. It's just another bad game idea.

[Battlecruiser]

I don't think this JFK game "makes fun" of anything any more than World War II games make fun of World War II. It's just another bad game idea.
World war 2 games are only reanacting a war. Never in any of those games is a level like Pearl Harbor or anything like that. There are just some things that are just plain tragic, and making a game out of it, is disgusting, immoral, indecent, and outrageous. One of those things happens to be the assassination of a US president, especially one that is very close to many people's hearts.
Made a mistake. Meant to say Hiroshima and Nagasaki instead of Pearl Harbor.
Hey BC, just for the record, I don't think it would be possible to make the game you suggested. I mean, if you cant steer a big 'ol jetliner into a huge f'in tower, then you really should not be playing video games PERIOD. lol.
Haha, good point. But in all seriousness, I wasn't suggesting that as an idea. I was saying that this game is the equivalent of that. I said that because some people may not know who JFK was.

[TheGreatBrain]

World war 2 games are only reanacting a war. Never in any of those games is a level like Pearl Harbor or anything like that. There are just some things that are just plain tragic, and making a game out of it, is disgusting, immoral, indecent, and outrageous. One of those things happens to be the assassination of a US president, especially one that is very close to many people's hearts.http://www.videogamerx.net/gamenews/a002/070/05.jpg

[Battlecruiser]

Ooops I got confused. I didn't mean Pearl Harbor. I meant Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

[Calibur]

Ooops I got confused. I didn't mean Pearl Harbor. I meant Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Now your just changing your story.

[Battlecruiser]

Now your just changing your story.
Your joking right?

Guess I better explain myself. I meant to say that no World War 2 game had you piloting Enola Gay (Or whatever the name of the plane is), and dropping the Nuclear bomb onto Japan killing so many innocent people.

[Calibur]

Look the whole point of TGB's statement was the video game companies tend to take advantage of tragedies such as pearl harbor very frequently, and even though that doesn't make it right denying it will not change anything.

Edit: Oh and the deaths of hundred of thousands of soldiers was less of a tragity you say???

[Battlecruiser]

Look the whole point of TGB's statement was the video game companies tend to take advantage of tragedies such as pearl harbor very frequently, and even though that doesn't make it right denying it will not change anything.
Look, I said this in 3 posts. Its not Pearl Harbor. I just got confused. And I don't see how anyone could have fun sniping a president while he is in a car. Especially JFK. Arrgh, I hate it when I see people disrespect something like that.

Edit: Oh and the deaths of hundred of thousands of soldiers was less of a tragity you say???
It was an attack. From Japans perspective, it was successful. From ours it was tragic because we were cought off guard. And I don't want to go into an argument about World War 2. If you do, then create a thread, and we can discuss it there.

[TheGreatBrain]

It was an attack. From Japans perspective, it was successful. From ours it was tragic because we were cought off guard. And I don't want to go into an argument about World War 2. If you do, then create a thread, and we can discuss it there.Yes, and Nagasaki and Hiroshima were both attacks. From our perspective it was successful. From Japan's perspective it was tragic because thousands of innocent civilians died.

But my point is not about World War II. My point is that games portray horrible events all the time, and what is disrespectful and what is not is often just a matter of perspective.

[Battlecruiser]

But my point is not about World War II. My point is that games portray horrible events all the time, and what is disrespectful and what is not is often just a matter of perspective.
Yeah, I guess your right. Basically nothing can be done, because of the first amendment. Unless someone could argue that the game somehow is promoting violence, and may encourage an attack on the president, which I believe is illegal. But that will be hard to do.

[raybAn]

I don't think this JFK game "makes fun" of anything any more than World War II games make fun of World War II. It's just another bad game idea.Heh! You DON'T, eh? Well, lookie here, sunny; 'this JFK game' (were obviously talking of two different things here) does indeed make fun of something, not anything, and sure as hell not 'makes fun'. But what do these WWII games so-called "do"? Sure they might plagierize (spellcheck?) and excaggartely with an irony act-after the war, but never have I seen a game taken the taunting, sarcastic and heavy critic to the war. It was potrayed as noble and tragedic. Take Medal of Honor f.eg, or Call to Arms.

Sure, they might have humoristic elements BUT THEY ALWAYS STAY RESPECTIVE TO THE SOLDIERS WHO GAVE THEIR VERY LIVES FOR US TO LIVE...stop bitching, RECOGNIZE THAT FACT and get in a war somewhere, anywhere, or something. Make a man aut'cha self... Goddamn hippies taking up the place of where REAL men should be, not this nancyboy shit. Bad game ideas? Boo hoo hoo! Must be really ruining your day, harassing you and ridiculing you. Tip; Don't play 'em and don't complain about 'em. There will always be 'good' and 'bad' game ideas, so shut up. Bah! A waste of time from your side :rolleyes:

[TranquilNightElf]

My point is that games portray horrible events all the time, and what is disrespectful and what is not is often just a matter of perspective.
True but if there was a game about Nagasaki/Hiroshima that was similar to this JFK one, one that would give you more points if you explode the bomb just right i.e the more persons fried, the more points you get, would you not say that was in bad taste whether a Japanese looks at it or an American ?

[hammocksleeper]

Wow, that is absolutely disgusting. Making a game out of a tragedy...People who make these games, and play these games seriously shouldn't be living.WWII wasn't a tragedy, it was a cause for celebration! :rolleyes:

Edit: Oops, after reading the rest of the posts, I see someone else has already mad this point. Anyways, I agree with TGB (I do this a lot :))

[Seal]

redirection limit for that url exceeded.
direct link please.

[Battlecruiser]

WWII wasn't a tragedy, it was a cause for celebration! :rolleyes:

Edit: Oops, after reading the rest of the posts, I see someone else has already mad this point. Anyways, I agree with TGB (I do this a lot :))
Its a war. I don't see how it is a tragedy. Especially World War 2. Even though people died, many good things resulted from the war also, looking at the long run.

For the first time, I think I agree with most of Rayban's post. Well atleast the first part, and some of the second. Look at that for more information.

[Calibur]

It not a tragedy you say, try going back in time and telling that to the mothers who lost their sons. Or the wives who were made widows and the little kids who would never see their fathers again. Their has never been a just war, and in the long run all it fuels is even more war. If you disagree with me then look at Irael and Palestine who even now continue to fight.

I will not deny that war does have its brightsides for example the defeat of Hitler but as I said before all War does in the longs run is fuel more War.

[TheGreatBrain]

Heh! You DON'T, eh? Well, lookie here, sunny; 'this JFK game' (were obviously talking of two different things here) does indeed make fun of something, not anything, and sure as hell not 'makes fun'.Sunny? Is that like "sunshine"? If so, I'll take it as a compliment.
Anyways, perhaps I'll give you a little English lesson to make the wording of my post a little clearer for you. After making an error with quotations, forgetting your apostrophe in "we're", and using "talking" instead of "speaking", I think you really need it (if you had wanted to use "talking", you should have used "talking about" and not "talking of"). Now, without further ado, let's move to your first complaint.

make
v. made, (md) mak·ing, makes
v. tr.
1. To cause to act in a specified manner: Heat makes gases expand.

In this case of course, we modify the given example to fit my sentence. Instead of "heat makes gases expand", we have "this JFK game makes fun of anything" (which can be treated as a complete sentence). Which brings us to the next bit of our lesson.

"this JFK game makes fun of anything"
"Anything" is an appropriate word for this situation, as illustrated by one possible definition of the word:

an·y·thing
pron.

Any object, occurrence, or matter whatever.

The correctness of this word can be illustrated by inserting the given definition into the sentence in question: "this JFK game makes fun of any object, occurence, or matter whatever".

Now I hope you gained something from this, but I am a little pressed for time, so we will have to move on. If you have any other areas of grammar where you are uncertain, feel free to ask me.
But what do these WWII games so-called "do"? Sure they might plagieraze (spellcheck?) and excaggartely with an irony act-after the war, but never have I seen a game taken the taunting, sarcastic and heavy critic to the war. It was potrayed as noble and tragedic. Take Medal of Honor f.eg, or Call to Arms.
While I don't have time to give you another lecture (making up words like "excaggertely" and "tragedic" is particularly worrying), I am confused by your placement of quotations around "do", as this word appears nowhere in the post of mine you quoted. Nevertheless, I'll move on. I never disputed the quality of any World War II game. In fact, reading more carefully, you may have discovered that I was actually saying that I believe World War II games do not make fun of World War II. In fact, I believe most have a fair deal of integrity.
Sure, they might have humoristic elements BUT THEY ALWAYS STAY RESPECTIVE TO THE SOLDIERS WHO GAVE THEIR VERY LIVES FOR US TO LIVE...stop bitching, RECOGNIZE THAT FACT
I am very grateful to all of our serving men and women for making the ultimate sacrifice for all of us. In the two-sentence stretch of my post, I never "bitched" about the integrity of our armed forces. In fact, I don't believe I mentioned them. But as I said, I love each and every soldier willing to serve this country.
get in a war somewhere, anywhere, or something. Make a man aut'cha self... Goddamn hippies taking up the place of where REAL men should be, not this nancyboy shit.
I'm not sure where you got all these ideas about me, having only read two sentences that I wrote. But I have the advice of my father who served in the Air Force and greatly encouraged me not to join the armed forces, and instead to go to college and start a career. I love him, and trust him absolutely, and I am inclined to follow his advice.
Bad game ideas? Boo hoo hoo! Must be really ruining your day, harassing you and ridiculing you. Tip; Don't play 'em and don't complain about 'em. There will always be 'good' and 'bad' game ideas, so shut up. Bah! A waste of time from your side :rolleyes:I'm confused, bad game ideas cannot harass or ridicule me, as they are abstract concepts and not people. Secondly, I believe you misunderstood me. I was saying that the JFK assasination simulation was a bad idea for a game, not World War II games. I did not think that it (the JFK game) was mocking or making fun of the assasination, I thought that it was simply a not very bright team of men coming up with a not very bright idea. You might want to read posts a little more carefully, as you seemed unable to grasp even the most fundamental ideas in my two sentences of dialogue.

I hope this was a satisfactory explanation, and please excuse me for totally destroying your argument.

EDIT:
True but if there was a game about Nagasaki/Hiroshima that was similar to this JFK one, one that would give you more points if you explode the bomb just right i.e the more persons fried, the more points you get, would you not say that was in bad taste whether a Japanese looks at it or an American ?True, but this is a double standard. Many very popular games give you points for slaughtering more people. And whether or not these games are distasteful as well is, as I said, a matter of perspective.

[Battlecruiser]

Ok, so you just agreed with me. So I don't see why you were arguing against me.

[TheGreatBrain]

I've never changed my opinion. What I have been saying was that I do not believe that this JFK game was intentionally made to mock anything, I simply believe it is a bad idea for a game. Also, I was saying that many games portray horrible events, and even reward the player for doing horrible things, and calling one game distastful while holding other fairly depraved games as being perfectly fine is a double standard.

[raybAn]

True but if there was a game about Nagasaki/Hiroshima that was similar to this JFK one, one that would give you more points if you explode the bomb just right i.e the more persons fried, the more points you get, would you not say that was in bad taste whether a Japanese looks at it or an American?
More if you're American than Japanese, perhaps, since the Japanese saw it as an honorful deed for your country but the Americans saw it as an atrocity and a horrible tragedy, (as compared to the "Enola Gay" project?) but the game whould suck cock anyways, since the game would end as soon as you've....'hit your target' :P

[TranquilNightElf]

True, but this is a double standard. Many very popular games give you points for slaughtering more people. And whether or not these games are distasteful as well is, as I said, a matter of perspective.
But then those other games don't focus on one single act of horror and that too a very specific true to life incident.They might have it as a part of a mission of a game that you would need to execute effectively to win. To that end any world war game would include such events and I think some of them to be very well made.
But when you have a game that is made for the soul purpose of depicting that true to life gratituous act of violence,the winning of which depends on maximizing the carnage on the maximum number of people then that is bad taste especially when you have an option that asks you "would you like to see normal violence or would you like to see extra skin peeling off and more blood bleeding from the eyes". There are no double standards here.




the game whould suck cock anyways, since the game would end as soon as you've....'hit your target' :P
That too :P

[TheGreatBrain]

But then those other games don't focus on one single act of horror and that too a very specific true to life incident.They might have it as a part of a mission of a game that you would need to execute effectively to win. To that end any world war game would include such events and I think some of them to be very well made.
But when you have a game that is made for the soul purpose of depicting that true to life gratituous act of violence,the winning of which depends on maximizing the carnage on the maximum number of people then that is bad taste especially when you have an option that asks you "would you like to see normal violence or would you like to see extra skin peeling off and more blood bleeding from the eyes". There are no double standards here.While I think you're mistaken about this game rewarding you for killing more people (if not about "maximizing carnage"), and while I would argue that many popular games also reward you for maximizing carnage, this is just splitting hairs. While other games may not focus on any one specific killing, they still focus on killing. Whether or not they are less distasteful than the JFK assasination simulation is irrelevant. If the JFK game is distasteful for depicting acts of violence and encouraging you for inflicting greater violence, then so are many other games for doing the same, despite depicting less specific acts of violence.

[TranquilNightElf]

Getting rewards for maximizing carnage, that was directed towards a hypothetical game of nagasaki/hiroshima. The one for JFK rewards you with more points for getting as close to what "really" happened not for "maximizing carnage". With that I agree

I don't think that the JFK game is distasteful for depicting acts of violence,I think it to be so due to the nature of the topic and how they have handled it.If anything it would surely be a source of great disturbance to the surviving family. They shouldn't have to experience the whole mess of the controversy over again .Again you can tell me, "that too is a matter of perspective" but seriously it goes past that and courtesy should have been shown and to that end I'm saying that it was a bad idea to make this game.

I should say that my initial reaction inolved my being perturbed because I consider JFK to be one of the better Presidents of the US and didn't like seeing the assasination of a good man again. That was just a matter of perception . Other than that, I have no qualms about the level of violence in this game or any other.