Epicenter:Iraq's Attack
Community Forums/Showcase/Epicenter:Iraq's Attack
| ||
| Welcome to site of our new war game, called Epicenter:Iraq's Attack! www.epicenter.nm.ru |
| ||
| Looks very good !! May I respectfully suggest that you consider changing the title to either 'Iraq Attacks' or 'Attack on Iraq'. The current title 'Iraq's Attack' is gramatically correct when used in a sentence such as 'Iraq's Attack on Kuwait was unexpected' but sounds strange and ambiguous when used alone as a title. |
| ||
| I agree 100% with what Smiff said. Also, this game has appeared on blitzbasic.com's new page for all to see. Did you ever stop to think that not everyone in Iraq is a complete psychopath and you're going to offend people? Games which promote war against ANY country (no matter how deranged their former leader was), should be banned. As good as it looks, I wouldn't download any blatently racist game such as this. |
| ||
| I agree totally with GFK. |
| ||
| Graphics looks great. Don't understand what the fuss is about - apart from the title, which doesn't really explain anything, and a few screenshots, which don't show a lot - we know sod all about the game. |
| ||
| How about a demo or something? |
| ||
| Will you be able to shoot unarmed civilians and rape people? |
| ||
| GFK, It's not racist. Perhaps some particularly oversensitive Iraqis (or indeed American or English) people could be offended I agree, but racist it is not. Nor is it really all that offensive. We can't really tell until we actually play the game itself, and I doubt that it actually features Iraqi or other people in a derogatory way. It sounds more like a historical type thing to me. Nor did the guy ever even suggest than Iraqis are psychopaths. Some people... |
| ||
| I'm just wondering if you get to the do whole lying your ass off to start a war bit before the war starts in this game - that would be the ultimate in realism. |
| ||
| halo: wouldn't that be a game about iraq attacking iraq? OT: it's amazing, most people think that taking President Slobodan Milosevic out was a great idea because of the genocyde that was happening. Saddam is of the same callibur of person. Geez, it's been two months, give some time, things could have been moved, destroyed or something to the affect and in regards to Bush, he was getting his information from the intelligence departments, could be right, could be wrong. I tend to think that people being more free is a wonderful thing, better to focus on the good, can't change what happened nor am i implying that governments should lie to get what they want if thats the case, but freedom or the brink of it is a good thing IMHO. |
| ||
| I hear the innocent civilains killed and maimed in the war are absolutely loving their new freedom. |
| ||
| "Praise be, my legs now have their freedom" |
| ||
| blatently racist game It escapes me what is "racist" about this game. Judging on the title and the screenshots it is about the war in Iraq; notice that it does not even say anywhere whether you play on the American or Iraqi side. However just to avoid getting this kind of responses (and lack of sales/downloads afterwards perhaps) I would change the title and setting of the game, just like in another thread where someone was wondering about using Formula 1 trademarks in a racing game. Many people don't complain when you make a game about attacking Adolf Hitler and his German soldiers (Wolfenstein) but a war so recent and apparently opposed by many is a different story. |
| ||
| it reminds me of when someone started agame with lemingesque gfx of afghans during the war there. its ok making a humourus game of whack a mole with osama binliner and the taliban but promoting shooting any afghan considering most able fighters were on our side given a choice ... |
| ||
| Something like: Epicenter: conflict middle east Epicenter: the middle eastern conflict ...would be a more approporite title, and can refer to war in general historically. You do not need to name names when you concentrate on a theatre of war. The game will then be judged on it's own merits :) |
| ||
| Rob hit the nail on the head. |
| ||
| dont know dont care if said before people are more open to playing ww2 games over more recent outings as it affected us less directly we may have lost grand parents due to numerous circumstances during the war, but someone who may have lost their father in the first gulf war wont be that keen on playing a more modern feeling game and anyone growing up without a father after this one would in the future probably not play a game set in the nowness of time but a ww2 game or futureistic one may appeal as it detatches itself from reality more than a gulf war game can now. |
| ||
| Hi Folks, @Blodrone: Shouldn't you be running Iraq? Later, Jes |
| ||
| Perhaps some particularly oversensitive Iraqis (or indeed American or English) people could be offended What, like my friend's husband (who is Iraqi), who's family in Iraq were killed only a few months ago? If he were to see your game AND be offended by it, does that make him over-sensitive??If a game (or its title) is likely to offend even ONE person, then you need to rethink your strategy. As others have said, apart from the title the game doesn't *seem* to have anything to do with Iraq. Whatever your motives, using events such as the invasion of Iraq to 'promote' a game, is sick. If a game called "Trade Center Bomber" came out of Iraq, you'd all be up in arms about it. Different when the boot's on the other foot. |
| ||
| If a game called "Trade Center Bomber" came out of Iraq, you'd all be up in arms about it. Different when the boot's on the other foot. 1) See "Microsoft Flight Simulator 2001" 2) Judgeing from the picture on the website (a picture of the statue of liberty with overlaid crosshairs) and the title, it was *my* opinion that this was a "what-if" game where the shoe was indeed on the other foot. Here's the scenario I offer. 2004: Religous unrest in Iraq causes USA to back out. Just like it happened before in Iran, the people of Iraq, a majority of which are shia moslems, create a theocratic state. 2008: 4 years later the people of Iraq, again powerful thanks to millions of Euros worth of oil deals to Russia and France, decide that the time is right for a pre-emptive strike against an America crippled by an incompetent administration, to secure the security and freedom of Iraqi citizens from a superpower on the verge of bankruptcy that once again think that Iraqi oil deals will make a difference. Roll on the game. OT: it's amazing, most people think that taking President Slobodan Milosevic out was a great idea because of the genocyde that was happening. Saddam is of the same callibur of person. Yeah. You're right, Slobodan Milosevic was the bad guy, and Nazi sympathizer and Holocaust denier Franjo Tjudsman is a hero. You can chose read about the other side, or chose to continue to believe the what you are being told about some sort of "just cause". Here is a fact for you: Croatia is rich, Serbia is poor. After thousands or years of bloodshed, it all boils down to the same thing. Money. @Blodrone: Shouldn't you be running Iraq? He should be running the world! VOTEbloodyRon today! |
| ||
| @FlameDuck: I agree, your right. Interesting read btw. Thank you. Money moves mountains. |
| ||
| Just put a bit more thought into things. Whether you feel it's offensive, racist or whatever or not, doesn't mean it is or isn't. You can see by the posts on this thread how just a title and screenshot have touched some sensitive nerves. Games are for fun and entertainment. I don't doubt that your game is good and fun to play, but the title you have given it adds an edge that puts a slant on how it is viewed. |
| ||
| What, like my friend's husband (who is Iraqi), who's family in Iraq were killed only a few months ago? If he were to see your game AND be offended by it, does that make him over-sensitive?? If a game (or its title) is likely to offend even ONE person, then you need to rethink your strategy. As others have said, apart from the title the game doesn't *seem* to have anything to do with Iraq. Whatever your motives, using events such as the invasion of Iraq to 'promote' a game, is sick. If a game called "Trade Center Bomber" came out of Iraq, you'd all be up in arms about it. Different when the boot's on the other foot. Firstly it's not my game. Secondly, I personally wouldn't be in the slighest offended by a "World Trade Centre Bomber" type game. Just because a game is set in the real world doesn't mean it should be banned for offending those who don't like the real world. Sure, what's happened in Iraq isn't a Good Thing, but should we solve that by trying to pretend it doesn't exist? Should we ban all games mentioning the name of the country because of it? Should we forget it and never mention the matter again, to avoid offending those who lost friends or family in the fighting? Same applies to the WTC. While a game where you have to fly a plane into the WTC might not be in very good taste, that doesn't mean people should be up in arms about it if one got made. I say the guy can place his game whereever in the world he damn well pleases, and indeed write his storyline however he pleases too. If you are silly enough to get offended by that, don't play the game, simple. Otherwise just play the game and enjoy it for what it is - fictional entertainment. |
| ||
| Games are for fun and entertainment. That doesn't exclude making a political or satirical game (like the Osama thingy Blodrone mentioned, or a game like Ethnic Cleansing). It just means you're restricting your target audience. |
| ||
| > It just means you're restricting your target audience. No matter what you do you will be restricting the target market. In this case the target market is simply one which a number of people here do not like. A number of people did not like the "hunting" series of games, but they still sold quite well. |
| ||
| Basicly, it comes down to this. It is a free society, and you should be able to make a game about whatever you want, with no legal restrictions whatsoever. However, releasing a game about the Iraq War before the rubble has even been cleaned up, is certainly in poor taste. It seems to me like you are cashing in on others tragedy (and while there is nothing illegal about it, and it shouldn't be illegal, it is a bit SLEAZY). |
| ||
| RottBott strikes me as the sort of person who hasn't been humbled much by pain in life. |
| ||
| I can think of some games that would REALLY offend we all could but [my non blitzing notwithstanding] I choose not to even bother getting past the first thought. I thought of one reall sick one whilst typing and decided not to even hint about it ... but it would probably be the last SIM game ever "I'f im considered guilty for what goes on in my mind give me the electric chair for all my future crimes" prince/batman |
| ||
| I played a flash game it may have been because of a link from here for all i know it invloved you playing a palastinian suicide bomber in israel trying to get as many civilians as you could befor the timer ran out [or you pushed the button which ever came sooner] i played the game pondered on why wasnt entertained more so wasnt shocked or sickened by it or my couple of goes. I've been desensitized to most horrors of the world by hollywood and CNN et al ... what would have made a film 18, hacked to pieces or banned in the 70's barely rates anything over 15 by todays standards [yet strangely they are still classified as 18]. perhaps a last starfighter "excaliber" test is called for make a game where the sole objective is to find sadam and osama in thier respective hideouts using detailed maps of the area ... and anyone finishing the game withought cheating in anyway gets a real gun and told to go do it again for real. |
| ||
| RottBott strikes me as the sort of person who hasn't been humbled much by pain in life You know nothing about my life. Admittedly I am quite young at the moment, and for the last year or so I have been living a fantastically happy life with almost everything going really well. But it hasn't always been so and I don't take it for granted.However no matter what happens to me (or indeed the person that I love), I will not take it out on other people. I consider GFKs reaction to this and other things to be on a par with the stupidity which we hear about where, say, a flag is condemned as being racist because it happens to be white, and things like that. Where anything bad said about, say, black people, is called racist; even if it is about them personally and nothing to do with skin colour. If he finds it offensive by all means he has the right to say so and to not download the game. But saying it should be banned is not on. |
| ||
| <snip> you're not worth it. |
| ||
| move left no move right click mouse damn only got 3 children with that bomb |
| ||
| I agree a nation name in the game title could be a problem. Humm, as far as I know, Hitman 2 was banned for much less. Better call the game like: "Another Announced U.S.Army Genocide", or: "Free Iraq Now!", this way you will make more happy everyone (J/k) Why do you think the "Desert Storm" war was called like that, and not "Operation Kill the Iraqi" ? Who invent a war, or a war game, should take care of what he/she writes ! |
| ||
| People! Game is not about USA's attack on Iraq! It is about Iraq's attack on USA! I don't know how to explain better(my english far from ideal;-))... The game about "retaliation of Iraq". |
| ||
| RexRhino wrote: "Basicly, it comes down to this. It is a free society, and you should be able to make a game about whatever you want, with no legal restrictions whatsoever." Some people take the whole idea of "Freedom" too far. Hey, why not extend this to not only games but everything - no legal restrictions whatsoever. This is just idealistic nonsense, there should be restrictions on what games are out there. How about a game about paedophilia with real padophile game footage? A war game with footage of real people being killed? No thanks. We have to have some censorship, laws, boundaries and of course there will always be grey areas close to those boundaries, but we should be really carefull about pushing those boundaries - they are there for a reason. If you think about it, freedom is not about being able to do what you want, that's anarchy. |
| ||
| Such maturity, GFK - run off and hide when you run out of nonsense to spout. Ken - personally I think that, say, footage of real people being killed should be perfectly legal to have on sale. Of course it should warn you on the cover. But these things happen, there's no point banning it to try and get people to believe they don't. Furthermore, there should be no restrictions on what children see (I know this will get some people's backs up straight away). Why try to hide the world from kids? They'll see it as it is eventually anyway. Of course parents have to make sure their kids learn not to go around killing people and teach them not to be influenced by everything they see. I don't like *any* censorship. The only laws which I see value in are those about no directly harming other people. No killing people, no sex with kids or anyone non-consenting, no stealing, etc. But literally at that level, no lengthy lawyer-speak nonsense and loopholes. I think simply one Law should be enough - "thou shalt not be an arsehole". If people were a little more sensible it could work. Of course it'll never happen because people are too stupid. Some people take the whole idea of "Freedom" too far. Hey, why not extend this to not only games but everything - no legal restrictions whatsoever. OK, what about the opposite direction? Shall we ban music that mentions war, paedophilia, or any number of other Bad Things that go on as well? How about films while we're at it? Oh and word of mouth in that case - you aren't allowed to talk about things like that either. Hey, I know! Let's have it so it's illegal to even think about it as well! That'll solve it! And then we get into a '1984' situation. |
| ||
| > "thou shalt not be an arsehole". RottBott it appears that you have broken your only law! :-) > OK, what about the opposite direction? Shall we ban music that mentions war, paedophilia, or any number of other Bad Things that go on as well? There's a difference between making a comment on war, paedophilia etc. and the actual act. Of course there is a danger in going too far the other way, but I feel that your stance is just as bad. > Why try to hide the world from kids? Because kids are very impressionable and learn mainly by copying and roleplay. I'm from a town where a baby was kidnapped and brutally killed by two young kids after watching horror movies. > The only laws which I see value in are those about no directly harming other people. Showing kids this kind of stuff can be deemed as harmful. > I don't like *any* censorship. I agree that there should be no censorship on information. But it is necessary to a certain degree to prevent anarchy. |
| ||
| > Why try to hide the world from kids? Because they are simply not yet ready for all of it. Children are not just little adults. |
| ||
| Such maturity, GFK - run off and hide when you run out of nonsense to spout Rottbott,For your information, my post which I saw fit to remove, contained a fairly candid opinion of you (which still stands although I prefer to keep it to myself). Since I don't want banning even if it is for calling a spade a spade, it seemed to be in my best interests to remove it. Furthermore, there should be no restrictions on what children see I pity your children. I also pity the people who are going to be living in a future with a government run by your children and others like them. I think simply one Law should be enough - "thou shalt not be an arsehole". If people were a little more sensible it could work. Of course it'll never happen because people are too stupid. What an utterly stupid, pointless and shallow comment. And you dare to call others 'stupid'?? Of course parents have to make sure their kids learn not to go around killing people and teach them not to be influenced by everything they see. The obvious point you've clearly missed, is that many parents nowadays don't give a rat's ass what their kids are getting up to. You're the one who, not so long ago, started a thread here (which has since been deleted for obvious reasons) asking if your opinion was correct - that it is 'OK' to kill someone. Is that what you're going to teach your children?I don't believe there is any point in discussing this further. |
| ||
| Furthermore, there should be no restrictions on what children see... *Sigh*... |
| ||
| footage of real people being killed should be perfectly legal to have on sale. Of course it should warn you on the cover. I'm sure the loved ones of the deceased will *love* that - not to mention think 'Oh that's nice, they put a warning on the cover' - Tsh |
| ||
| @rtur: People! Game is not about USA's attack on Iraq! It is about Iraq's attack on USA! I don't know how to explain better(my english far from ideal;-))... The game about "retaliation of Iraq". It is still a sleazy idea and in poor taste. Why not make a game about Christopher Reeves running the marathon circuit? Or make a game about Jews sending Germans to a concentration camp? It is a sick joke, at the expense of the Iraqis.(sarcasm)Yeah, I am sure that it will be a real comfort for every Iraqi to know that while they are struggling for years to rebuild their war torn land, some guy is making money selling some hateful fantasy to resentful dweebs and doing it in their name!(/sarcasm) |
| ||
| This is just idealistic nonsense, there should be restrictions on what games are out there. How about a game about paedophilia with real padophile game footage? A war game with footage of real people being killed? No thanks. A pedophile game with real pedophilia footage should be illegal, not because it involved pedophilia, but because it requires one to perpitrate pedophilia to make it. And a war game with footage of real people being killed is fine, provided that it is historical footage (and the programmers didn't go out and kill someone to make the footage) of some historical significance and that it belongs in the public domain. For example, the Axis and Allies computer game features, in its intro movie, real WWII footage of soldiers storming the beaches of normandy, and of Germans dropping bombs on london. Because it was historical, and done in the context of a WWII game, and done years after the war when most of the wounds have healed (I don't think that the British still hate the Germans for bombing London... and certainly London isn't still in rubble from the conflict). I am pretty sure that the soldiers who stormed Normandy in WWII don't hold any particular grudges against the German people. So it seems OK. |
| ||
| > And a war game with footage of real people being killed is fine, provided that it is historical footage. I have a real problem with war games/films that are based on recent history, especially where people are still around who were actually there or lost loved ones during those conflicts. It is true that there can be an educational/historical element, I do feel that there is something wrong in using actual attrocities of real war situations as pure entertainment. People really died in these wars for God's sake, it's not something to take lightly. It would be interesting to hear from anyone German what they think of games based around WWII, I personally find them uncomfortable at best. I suppose what I'm saying is, does the game lose anything from being set in a fictitious conflict, maybe loosly based on reality? If not then why does it have to be based on a real conflict? |
| ||
| This topic became into offtopic...:-((( |
| ||
| I don't think it's off topic, it's still relevant to your game. It's just become a bit more general. |
| ||
| @rtur, the game looks really cool, everyone else, in my oppinion contraversial games are not a good or a bad thing they just are. Tonnes of games have been contraversial, gta 3 being one example. @rtur has obviously worked very hard on his game and there is no reason to critisise him because you think that the topic he chose is inapropriet, obviously he doesnt... appriciate the gfx of his game for what they are even if you dont like his choise of topic. And what about games like Comand and Conquer: Generals, that game had (you) as terrorists launching bio wepons at the rest of the world, should we ban it. |
| ||
| I don't know how to explain better(my english far from ideal;-))... The game about "retaliation of Iraq". I told you so. A war game with footage of real people being killed? No thanks. So let me see if I get this right. Making a game which shows footage of real people getting killed in a war (or indeed shooting the footage in the first place) is wrong, but *actually* participating in the war, and *actually* killing someone is okay then? There's a difference between making a comment on war, paedophilia etc. and the actual act. My point exactly. The invasion of Iraq is in much worse taste than a game, movie, song, speech or thought about the invasion of Iraq. You seem to have it the other way around. I'm from a town where a baby was kidnapped and brutally killed by two young kids after watching horror movies. Yeah blame it on the movies. You're from a town where a baby was kidnapped and brutally killed by two young kids with *irresponsable* *parents*. All the horror movies in the world didn't make a damned difference. But ofcourse it's nice to blame Hollywood because it's easier to be mad at Hollywood than it is to some real investigation into why kids commit murder. Showing kids this kind of stuff can be deemed as harmful. Walking accross the street could be deemed harmful. That doesn't mean you should stick to the sidewalk, it just means that you have to take precautions before you do it (like make sure you're not stepping out infront of a bus). We teach our kids these things. Would it be any more difficult to teach them to not go around killing each other? I agree that there should be no censorship on information. But it is necessary to a certain degree to prevent anarchy. Why? I pity your children. I also pity the people who are going to be living in a future with a government run by your children and others like them. and The obvious point you've clearly missed, is that many parents nowadays don't give a rat's ass what their kids are getting up to. You should pity those children instead. Idiot. Very argumentative. Just because you disagree with someone elses opinion doesn't give you the right to insult him. I'm sure the loved ones of the deceased will *love* that I suppose that depends. If you where killed storming the beaches of Normandy, would your "loved ones" as it where prefer to have you remembered as a hero who valiantly gave his life for what he believed was right, so that other might have a chance to live in freedom, or would you rather they just forget all about you, and moved on with their lives? I have a real problem with war games/films that are based on recent history, especially where people are still around who were actually there or lost loved ones during those conflicts. I don't really understand this position much for the same reasons I mentioned above. In my experience the people who where "actually there" (that is fighting in WWII) are outraged how quickly their sacrifice has been forgotten by the next generation, taking their lives, freedom and high standards of living for granted, as if they themselves have ever acheived anything that is comparable to the horrors or WWII, as if they simply by the event of being born, are entitled to all these things without the slightest regard for other peoples wellbeing. |
| ||
| FlameDuck > Yeah blame it on the movies. You're from a town where a baby was kidnapped and brutally killed by two young kids with *irresponsable* *parents*. All the horror movies in the world didn't make a damned difference. But ofcourse it's nice to blame Hollywood because it's easier to be mad at Hollywood than it is to some real investigation into why kids commit murder. I didn't necessarily blames it on the movie and I can't comment on the kids' parents, but it was shown that they re-enacted scenes from a movie they had recently watched while killing the baby. My point was that children are influenced by what they see and that certain levels of censorship are necessary, whether it be banning a film, cutting scenes or restrictions on age. > So let me see if I get this right. Making a game which shows footage of real people getting killed in a war (or indeed shooting the footage in the first place) is wrong, but *actually* participating in the war, and *actually* killing someone is okay then? Nowhere did I say that war was OK. I only believe it is justified only if you are defending a country against direct aggression and you have exhausted all other avenues, but it is still not a good thing. I don't know why you don't get my possition, I think that if you don't like war you shouldn't like it being glorified for purely entertainment's sake. I have known many people who faught in WWII and have a great respect for the job they did, I don't think that I could have done what they did. It is right to remember their sacrifice, but I don't believe the means to do that is through entertainment. |
| ||
| @rtur, the screenshots of your game look really good. Maybe you should consider changing the title (and story) as proposed earlier, so that the game is not about "Iraq against America" anymore. It will still be as good as it is now, and you will avoid many angry reactions. It would be sad and a waste of a lot of work if every time you say something about your game you get only negative responses because of the title and background story! |
| ||
| My point was that children are influenced by what they see Ofcourse they are. Everyone is influenced by what they see. How do you think commercials work? That wasn't as much the point... that certain levels of censorship are necessary, whether it be banning a film, cutting scenes or restrictions on age. But who should make these restrictions? The government or the parents? Whoever makes the restrictions are the ones we're going to blame when the poo hits the fan. So who should be most responsable for a childs upbringing, the government and the corporations whose ultimate responsabiliy it is to abide by the government rules and regulations? Or the parents? Sure it would be nice if you could just dump all that responsability on Teachers and Hollywood, and continue living the carefree life you had before you had children, but you'd better be saving up some bail money... I only believe it is justified only if you are defending a country against direct aggression and you have exhausted all other avenues, but it is still not a good thing. I agree wholeheartedly. I think that if you don't like war you shouldn't like it being glorified for purely entertainment's sake. Because it doesn't have to be that way. I consider games an artform, and a means of expression like books, movies, plays etc. And like these other forms of expression you can use it for entertainment (anything by Tom Clancy / Quake) or to provoke thought (All quiet on the western front / Operation Flashpoint is the best I can think of off the top of my head) or as political tools (Stupid White Men / Ethnic Cleansing). A game about war doesn't nessecarilly have to glorify it. Amiga Power once ran an article to this effect called "Why war isn't Hell enough", unfortuantely I'm probably the only person to have ever read it. It is right to remember their sacrifice, but I don't believe the means to do that is through entertainment. How then? The movies "Saving Private Ryan" and "Big Red One" does alot to remind people that war is not glorified or dignified, but about poor young men killing each other, because they don't know any better. Even if it is entertainment. |
| ||
| > Ofcourse they are. Everyone is influenced by what they see. How do you think commercials work? That wasn't as much the point... What do you mean by "That wasn't as much the point..." If you read the whole thread, not just my response, my response was to someone who believes it is OK for kids to see absolutely anything. Also, children are much more influenced by what they see than adults and they don't have as fully developed sense of morality. On your other points you should read my points more thoroughly. My point was that I believe it is wrong for PURE ENTERTAINMENT in the context of A REAL WAR IN RECENT HISTORY. Some of your examples either have a deeper message about war, are set against the backdrop of a war (but not necessarily about the war) or are fictitious situations. So in essence we actually agree. :-) |
| ||
| I pretty much agree with everything Flameduck has said. Now GFK. I'm not an evil horrible person. I just have some rather "different" philosophies/principles, whatever the right word for it is. And I have trouble explaining how they work to other people, especially over the internet. But I promise you it does make sense. Have you ever read any Robert Heinlein books? Especially "Stranger In A Strange Land" and "I Will Fear No Evil". He thinks pretty close to how I see things. Try just trying to understand what I'm saying for a bit. Anyway... Yes, kids get influenced by what they see. This doesn't mean we should hide the world from them! Instead we should show them Bad Things openly but make sure they learn from them rather than imitating them. This is the job of the PARENTS and the bad teaching of moronic parents should not be a case for censorship and other stupidities. Can you (anyone) understand where I am coming from here? my post which I saw fit to remove, contained a fairly candid opinion of you Probably best you removed it then, since your opinion of me as a person is rather irrelevant, especially since you have never actually met me that I remember. I pity your children. I also pity the people who are going to be living in a future with a government run by your children and others like them. If *I* had children, I would show them things as they are. AND TEACH THEM HOW TO MAKE IT BETTER. The obvious point you've clearly missed, is that many parents nowadays don't give a rat's ass what their kids are getting up to. No. I didn't miss it. I never miss a point. I think the point that YOU have missed is that just becomes some parents are useless doesn't mean we should censor everything, or anything. Instead we should try to correct those who were unfortunate enough to have such parents. Currently we just lock them up. Also, children are much more influenced by what they see than adults and they don't have as fully developed sense of morality. Best not get me started on morality because I find it almost impossible to explain to anyone else how my mind works here. Basically I don't have morality. This is what GFK is referring to when saying I started a thread on it being OK to kill people. What I was trying to explain there was in fact that there is no "universal wrong" - that 'Wrong' is not a universal constant but that morality is merely a tool for teaching the stupid to behave sensibly. What I have is commonly called enlightened self-interest and works out to much the same thing (no killing, no stealing, because it is bad for society as a whole, which is bad for the individual). So, children. They are indeed more influenced by what they see, which is why parents should be teaching them to be suitably cynical and sensible. See above.Anything else I've said that needs clarifying to show that I'm not a loony? |
| ||
| i started to skim on one of flames more recent posts [will read it later i just needed to type some drivvel first] if you are on about james bulger afaik they never did see childs play 3 that was the media blowing it out of all proportions to sell papers. [like hungerford and the fact that he never saw rambo "blamb hollywood"] but you have to wonder about their metal well being and general upbringing [including their parents] if at a young age they are able to do such an act. there is a DVD called faces of death that is basically a snuff movie compilation afaik none of the footage is fake nor just corpes from CNN cutting room floors but numerous executions. if you want these freely available [allbeit 18 certificated] then you are promoting snuff and would it be a crime if i distributed video's of your death for profit [befor being caught and spending a very long time in jail?] because snuff is a very general term ... numerous hangings filmed by sadam would last god knows how many hours would you really want to watch after the first few deaths? i can be classed as sick and insensitve many times in the day but i dont get any kicks watching people die even under some misgueded "we shouldnt have anything kept from us" mentality and you cant spell mentality without mental which seems rather apt. ok shall i go out and mug a granny with a camcorder touting co hort and sell the footage to tarrant on TV under these new abolished watersheads? think not dont you. ... back to the game as this thread is long over due a lock/deletion edit: thank you SimonH as the gfx and game play goes its probably not a bad game regardless of who is on what side it could be purple elephants vs green zebra's for all i care ... its just that the general stance is something along the lines of "bad idea going down the road you are on" back up a little bit and go down a different rout. forget trying to make waves off the war and just make a game that is fun to play even if we are killing indiscriminantly [which we have been doing since the first coin activated spaceinvaders et al] |
| ||
| Hmmm...that Epicenter game - anyone remember that? |
   |