Is It Wrong to Assassinate the President in a Videogame?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT
 

swaki:
whats the deal whit that guys jaw?

He kills presidents with his chin clearly.

The president thing is interesting, people joked week in week out and killing or at the very least removing GW Bush. Obama however has a much more popular (at the moment) so imagine there'd be more uproar and probably some racist accusations.

That being said killing a specific person who defiantly exist seems a little wrong, Bush is being targeted because this guy disagree's with him. It's like being rendered in pixels then blown up for your music taste. (not exactly the same I'll grant you). Should've just used a generic president or Nixon (let's face it he's pure evil)...BRANNIGAN!

Abedeus:

Mornelithe:
Actually, I think I'd be pretty psyched about a game that focuses on assassinations (Hitman?). I Don't see any problem with it.

Come to think of it, Hitman has already killed the president. Fact is fact, it was a phoney one, but still.

Agent 47 of the Hitman series always kills those who "have it coming".

You never see him kill charitable CEO's or the police chief who plans on cracking down on crime. Its always sinister targets...and for that, there is a disconnect from the cruel people hired killers really are...

It may seem totally silly but there was a great game... Stubbs the Zombie in Rebel Without a Pulse! In that game the only reason you come back to life is because american civilisation has expanded onto your grave. (sure there might be something to do with radioactivity and shit) Basically, however you are fighting back against 'city hall' because what was meant to be your own peacefull place to 'sleep' for the rest of eternity became a hive of floating cars and democracy. Now, compare this to real world. Yes, its so bloody weird and its not exactly 'presidential' standard assassination but where is the TRUE difference apart from the dark comedy? These 'terrorists' are fighting against people who they believe have violated them in one way or another.
Take it or leave it but please dont be an idiot about this. It's just my opinion. These games are already way out there. Ya just gotta look harder for them.

Dyp100:
Hmmm, if you put Obama in one of these games I'm sure you'd get someone complaining at killing the president and how it was racist. xD

You wouldn't get that far, he'd go all Incredible Hulk super president bad-ass on you and punch you into Nicaragua.

I dont care. So long as the game and the motives are presented well to the player, it's all an experience.

I think that it's a cool concept.

As long as you don't do it in real life it shouldn't matter.

Well they made a game based on the JFK assassination so I'm going to say no its not. Personally if it were part of the story in a game I would have no problems with it, however the president in question (if it were based on a real president) would have to sign off on it before it could happen in my opinion. Otherwise its kindof not cool, especially to the hardcore patriot types like most of my relatives.

I don't think it's inherently immoral in real life. Depends on the president in question.

F-- the masses kill the president

There I said it will you hate me now?

Anachronism:
What's the big deal? Everyone who's played Destroy All Humans! has already killed the President. And taken his place afterwards.

Ok, I realise that's not as topical and/or controversial as this has the potential to be, especially since DAH was meant to be a comedy game, but I still think frying the President alive with your trusty Zap-O-Matic is worse than shooting him with a sniper rifle. Besides, nobody seems to care about the games where you assassinate Middle Eastern political leaders, so why should killing the President be any different? I would have thought a lot of people would want to play a game where you get to kill Dubya, to be honest.

Maybe it's just me.

Thats what I thought when I saw the thread, but I think I used the disintagrator.

it becomes wrong because you are putting a real face and real name on the receiving end of that bullet. The Presidency is also a symbol of American power and culture two things that messing with will offend many people. The assassination of a president has also always been a very sad and drawn out affair more so than than wars because in order to be elected you have to get a large percentage of voters to like you as apposed to starting a war you just need a congress to say okay.

Here's my personal thought on it. The JFK Assassination game was not made with malicious intent, in fact it was made as a physics simulator attempting to prove/disprove the Single Bullet Theory. That is fine. The problem is that, contextually, people will get offended by that. And offended they were (especially the Kennedy family). Even I'm a bit offended, and it took a hilarious Let's Play of the game where the people playing played a modified version of Horse (doing things like trying to only hit the First Lady's hat and nothing else) to make me lighten up on it a bit.

Here we have a fictional assassination with a fictional character that's an Alternate-Universe author avatar of the game designer. Is he working out a possible fantasy? I doubt it, but others might not. And really, I hate President Bush Jr. as much as the next person with a working brain that doesn't believe in Fox News, but even I wouldn't go as far to make a game where a version of myself tries to kill him. Partially because I believe he should be tried for the crimes he committed (open to debate) and partially because I don't see the point in killing him. It's not like it undoes anything.

And, just as a counterpoint. In the first Soldier of Fortune game, John Mullins (player character) encounters Saddam Hussein and gets him in his sights but cannot shoot him because of various gameplay mechanic reasons (like the game taking place in 1990 before we realized it was a bad idea to sell weapons to that lunatic, thanks a lot, Reagan), so that sorta puts a spin on things given how ultraviolent SoF was.

I mean you don't see any games where assassinations of other world leaders are re-enacted, right? I mean yes Hitler gets his a lot in games like Wolfenstein but those aren't very realistic. What I mean is you don't see "Archduke Assassination 1914" or "Rabin: Rigal's Revenge" on the shelves/available for download now do you.

You know what if the Iraqi guys want to compete with our gaming industry that is fine and dandy. But making a mod for a good game that then makes it suck is not making a game its making a crappy mod.

So yes you can make a game where you convince 7 year old's to strap a bomb on and chromite suicide ( I have seen it done in Halo where you get the youngest player to be a suicide dummy on capture the flag. ) and yes you can have special moment where you kill a political leader. (lets not forget Assassins Creed lots of political killing.) Yes you can make a game where you kill the solders of your own nation ( I remember a game where you fought as a Nazi during WW2 being made a while back and lets not forget the Enclave in Fallout series.) Yes you can fill it with religious propaganda ( I remember a bible game on NES and on the gameboy at one time.) even if its against your target consumer. Thing is you need to make it good, original, and of your own making not a bloody mod.

But Wafaa Bilal you need to make your own game make it believable and don't have your main guy have balls on his face. But make your OWN GAME not a bad MOD!

I am not sure how I feel about this. I guess I don't think it should be a real President, whether they're still in office or not. I think this guy was looking for media coverage and that's why he made the pres. Bush. Only things got out of control and he got censored...

My 2 plat,
-Cym

Ph33nix:
it becomes wrong because you are putting a real face and real name on the receiving end of that bullet. The Presidency is also a symbol of American power and culture two things that messing with will offend many people. The assassination of a president has also always been a very sad and drawn out affair more so than than wars because in order to be elected you have to get a large percentage of voters to like you as apposed to starting a war you just need a congress to say okay.

Haha what? No no no. You misunderstand american politics. You don't have to be liked, you just have to be disliked less than your opponent. I have no memory of being alive at a time when a majority of people voted for a guy because he was better. They only vote because he's less bad.

It sucks, and I don't like it, but it's the way it is.

Edit OT: This really isn't that big a deal in and of itself. People just want something to complain about. Let them be stressed over nothing. If we don't respond, maybe they'll go away. You can't say it's wrong to kill a named person. We killed hitler, stalin, and a bunch of other people in video games. Sure, some of them were bad. Did the Nazi's all think that Hitler was bad? No. But we kill him in games.

Do Americans all think Bush was bad? not *all*. Let people kill him in games.

I'd like to be able to kill Americans more

hansari:

Abedeus:

Mornelithe:
Actually, I think I'd be pretty psyched about a game that focuses on assassinations (Hitman?). I Don't see any problem with it.

Come to think of it, Hitman has already killed the president. Fact is fact, it was a phoney one, but still.

Agent 47 of the Hitman series always kills those who "have it coming".

You never see him kill charitable CEO's or the police chief who plans on cracking down on crime. Its always sinister targets...and for that, there is a disconnect from the cruel people hired killers really are...

Yeah I never really got that, he won't take jobs to assassinate good people but he will slaughter hundreds of innocents to get to his target, (well the player does anyway, I like to arrange the bodies to spell my name :D)

But too many games are fine with letting you kill Middle eastenres/Nazi's or Russians but shrink at the idea of shooting Americans.

Not that it was part of the mission but you could kill the president in Perfect Dark Zero. My brother and I emptied a whole Cyclone clip each into him with combat boost on. Made for a bloody spectacle. That will teach him for questioning whether I had evidence on whether people were trying to assassinate him. The evidence is right here baby! BLAM!

Personally, I think that any simulation where you kill a real living person is at the very least distasteful.

sounds bloody good to me.

JWAN:
Its a game, but if it was Obama or Al Sharpton or Oprah there would be blatant racism and it would all be instigated by far right wing terrorists who only eat red meat and read bibles and watch fox news with guns.

Anyone else it would be just fine.
----------------------------------
The differences Ive noticed is that Bush would call it democracy in action. Pelosi would call them names and act like a giant whiny toddler.
----------------------------------

Finally my opinion is that it may be a game but its still not something I would play or own. If it involved killing terrorists I'm OK with that because they make it their goal in life to try and kill me.

If it was Bush while he was still president, and you were an American citizen you'd be looking at Gitmo without a lawyer. Seriously have you seen some of the fucked up reasons (or lack there-of) they put people there for?

I didn't like Bush (hated him), but I'd still feel better if they made it some "faceless" i.e not real president. Just like the iraqi politicians killed in games aren't usually real, or are complete dicks by anyone's standards.

Frizzle:

Ph33nix:
it becomes wrong because you are putting a real face and real name on the receiving end of that bullet. The Presidency is also a symbol of American power and culture two things that messing with will offend many people. The assassination of a president has also always been a very sad and drawn out affair more so than than wars because in order to be elected you have to get a large percentage of voters to like you as apposed to starting a war you just need a congress to say okay.

Haha what? No no no. You misunderstand american politics. You don't have to be liked, you just have to be disliked less than your opponent. I have no memory of being alive at a time when a majority of people voted for a guy because he was better. They only vote because he's less bad.

It sucks, and I don't like it, but it's the way it is.

Edit OT: This really isn't that big a deal in and of itself. People just want something to complain about. Let them be stressed over nothing. If we don't respond, maybe they'll go away. You can't say it's wrong to kill a named person. We killed hitler, stalin, and a bunch of other people in video games. Sure, some of them were bad. Did the Nazi's all think that Hitler was bad? No. But we kill him in games.

Do Americans all think Bush was bad? not *all*. Let people kill him in games.

well i was taking the idealistic approach that was the intention of our founding fathers when they wrote the constitution and its early amendments but still some people will like you and to date most of the assassinated presidents have been very well liked ie Kennedy and Lincoln

George144:
I'd like to be able to kill Americans more.
But too many games are fine with letting you kill Middle eastenres/Nazi's or Russians but shrink at the idea of shooting Americans.

You know, from a few of your posts, I kind of get a feeling you don't like Americans very much.

On topic: Well, I guess this does fall under free speech, and I can appreciate the intent of showing the hypocrisy of propaganda and warfare. But there is something that makes me uneasy about being an al-Queida killing US soldiers and the president, even if it's Bush, although I guess that's the statement of hypocrisy is about, I guess.

Of course it's just a game. Everyone on The Escapist knows that. At the same time, games have the potential to be used as propaganda, and I don't like that idea at all. That's why I'd never give a cent to the developers of America's Army (who are funded by the US Defense Force), or anyone from any other nation doing the same. That means I'd never, ever, support a real person being the target. That's a hate crime.

MaxTheReaper:
Wait.

There's a game where you can assassinate Bush?
Holy shit I'm going to kiss this dude.

Man, there's actually a whole lot of those games. Go search for Flash games on Newgrounds about Bush. You'll see what I mean. People hated him at that site. I suppose to them such games are just a type of therapy.

Nothing wrong with it at all. In fact the mod in question is actually pretty tasteful in the reasons of why it was made. It's not simply a "rawr we hate America lets kill Americans" thing. They are trying to show people a different point of view for things.

ShadowKatt:
When did it become wrong to assassinate the president in real life? I'm pretty sure the constitution gives us the right to grab a rifle and tear out the entire presidency, cabinet, and congress when we feel they're no longer listening to us. We're not too far from that happening again either.

And before you flame me, just don't. I know there's a passage in the constitution that supports this, I just don't want to find it. I think it was Jefferson.

Uh no that would be treason. You can't just take up arms against the government.

Section 3 - Treason Note

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

This is Section 3 of Article III of the U.S. Constitution. The Constitutional definition of treason is

Treason
treason n the offense of attempting to overthrow the government of one's country or of assisting its enemies in war

So no, you don't have the constitutional right to pick up arms and overthrow the government. In fact Treason was one of the first issues the Continental Congress discussed when forming the original consitution. They sure as hell didn't want people rising up and trying to overthrow them. Especially because at the time they really didn't have the full support of the entire population. And as far as

We're not too far from that happening again either

The +50% approval rate of the current administration begs to differ.

Irishhoodlum:

JWAN:
Its a game, but if it was Obama or Al Sharpton or Oprah there would be blatant racism and it would all be instigated by far right wing terrorists who only eat red meat and read bibles and watch fox news with guns.

Anyone else it would be just fine.
----------------------------------
The differences Ive noticed is that Bush would call it democracy in action. Pelosi would call them names and act like a giant whiny toddler.
----------------------------------

Finally my opinion is that it may be a game but its still not something I would play or own. If it involved killing terrorists I'm OK with that because they make it their goal in life to try and kill me.

If it was Bush while he was still president, and you were an American citizen you'd be looking at Gitmo without a lawyer. Seriously have you seen some of the fucked up reasons (or lack there-of) they put people there for?

I didn't like Bush (hated him), but I'd still feel better if they made it some "faceless" i.e not real president. Just like the iraqi politicians killed in games aren't usually real, or are complete dicks by anyone's standards.

There were people threatening to kill Bush all the time even some Canadians made a movie about it. None of them were sent to Gitmo. All you have to do is LISTEN and you will understand that Bush believed in freedom of speech and he never called the protesters Nazis or a screaming minority like Pelosi or Reed are doing now. Just listen to their interviews and you can learn what kind of people were elected. I am an American citizen look at my profile. Usually carrying a jacket laden with enough plastic explosive and ball bearings to take the constipation out of every camel owned by the local Sheik was a good enough reason. Please tell me where you found this source of information about the lack of information on the detainees at Gitmo, why would we waste our time picking up random people, shipping them off to Gitmo to throw in a cell and continue to waste money on them if we had no evidence in the first place?

Bigeyez:
Nothing wrong with it at all. In fact the mod in question is actually pretty tasteful in the reasons of why it was made. It's not simply a "rawr we hate America lets kill Americans" thing. They are trying to show people a different point of view for things.

ShadowKatt:
When did it become wrong to assassinate the president in real life? I'm pretty sure the constitution gives us the right to grab a rifle and tear out the entire presidency, cabinet, and congress when we feel they're no longer listening to us. We're not too far from that happening again either.

And before you flame me, just don't. I know there's a passage in the constitution that supports this, I just don't want to find it. I think it was Jefferson.

Uh no that would be treason. You can't just take up arms against the government.

Section 3 - Treason Note

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

This is Section 3 of Article III of the U.S. Constitution. The Constitutional definition of treason is

Treason
treason n the offense of attempting to overthrow the government of one's country or of assisting its enemies in war

So no, you don't have the constitutional right to pick up arms and overthrow the government. In fact Treason was one of the first issues the Continental Congress discussed when forming the original consitution. They sure as hell didn't want people rising up and trying to overthrow them. Especially because at the time they really didn't have the full support of the entire population. And as far as

We're not too far from that happening again either

The +50% approval rate of the current administration begs to differ.

Okay, first off, you're right, Obamas approval ratings are above 50%. He's setting records.
http://www.gallup.com/home.aspx

And secondly, you're right, aside from the second ammendment, there is nothing in the constitution that says you can assassinate the president. It was one of the people that wrote it that said it:

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is a natural manure." Thomas Jefferson in a 1787 letter to William S. Smith.

And since he's sitting in an office backed by a one party congress and unelected, presidentially appointed czars to rule over the country without mediation, I'd say that's the closest to a tyrant since the colonists wanted to make Washington the King of the United States of America. And yes, of course this is 'treason'. It was 'treason' when Stalin executed his own people in masses and instituted his gestapo police state.

I believe I said in my original post not to flame me. You chose to ignore it. I'm not stupid and I don't need to be quoted laws and articles. So I'd advise you to just shut up and consider it, or you can PM me and we can duke it out in private.

somekindarobot:

George144:
I'd like to be able to kill Americans more.
But too many games are fine with letting you kill Middle eastenres/Nazi's or Russians but shrink at the idea of shooting Americans.

You know, from a few of your posts, I kind of get a feeling you don't like Americans very much.

On topic: Well, I guess this does fall under free speech, and I can appreciate the intent of showing the hypocrisy of propaganda and warfare. But there is something that makes me uneasy about being an al-Queida killing US soldiers and the president, even if it's Bush, although I guess that's the statement of hypocrisy is about, I guess.

Was it the bit that said "I'd like to kill more Americans" it was wasn't it :D. But no I've loved all the individual Americans I've met its just the collective mass of America and its government that's annoying.

ShadowKatt:

Okay, first off, you're right, Obamas approval ratings are above 50%. He's setting records.
http://www.gallup.com/home.aspx

And secondly, you're right, aside from the second ammendment, there is nothing in the constitution that says you can assassinate the president. It was one of the people that wrote it that said it:

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is a natural manure." Thomas Jefferson in a 1787 letter to William S. Smith.

And since he's sitting in an office backed by a one party congress and unelected, presidentially appointed czars to rule over the country without mediation, I'd say that's the closest to a tyrant since the colonists wanted to make Washington the King of the United States of America. And yes, of course this is 'treason'. It was 'treason' when Stalin executed his own people in masses and instituted his gestapo police state.

I believe I said in my original post not to flame me. You chose to ignore it. I'm not stupid and I don't need to be quoted laws and articles. So I'd advise you to just shut up and consider it, or you can PM me and we can duke it out in private.

First of all proving you wrong isn't flaming you...it's proving you wrong. You stated something that was incorrect and I corrected you by showing you the facts.

Secondly, one party congress? When did the republicans and independents get kicked out of congress? So when Dem is in office with a majority of Dems in congress he's a tyrant but when a Rep is in the same situation he isn't? Oh the hypocrisy.

CZARS? We have had CZARS since the 1940's...let me say that again SINCE THE 1940'S. The most popular or well known Czars were the drug Czars appointed in the 1970's for the "War on Drugs". Oh and you know CZAR isn't even an official rank right? It was invented by the media and the name just stuck. It's just the nickname for the highest ranking official in a certain field, for example Drug Czar, Cyber Security Czar, Counter-Terrorism Czar, etc. Not to mention that presidential appointments have been around since George Washington so I'm not sure what your getting at with the unelected line. Presidential appointments are also lined out in the consitution so again I'm not sure what your trying to get at with that line.

Calling this adminstration the closest thing to tyrany since colonional times is one of the most ridiculous statements I have ever heard. You don't have to like Obama but please, PLEASE, don't make outragous claims like that. Your just as bad as the people who seriously compared Bush to a mentally retarded person.

I also never called you stupid. Again you stated something and I corrected you on it, period.

Edit: And I'm ignoring the Stalin line because I'm hoping and praying your not comparing Obama to Stalin. God, please don't be one of those...

It is offensive to Americans that Middle Eastern people would virtually assassinate the President because the generalized 'American' is under the impression that they can dish out anything against anyone, but tehy can't do it back because it's mean/offensive.

It makes me think of the little kids you used to play with that either needed to win the game of tag/it/somethingorother or quit because they are 'unfair'= i.e. have a chance of losing. You know the ones?

No ultimately it isn't offensive.

absolutely not. The american public has their own points of view, and if they wanna pop a virtual cap in obama's digital @$$, I say let em'!

Personally I think we should have more games in which we assassinate a President. It just makes you feel bad-ass.

It's only as wrong as killing any enemy, and in my opinion, it's MORE acceptable, since the aforementioned target (I.E. Mr. President) is a politician.

As opposed to killing hordes of other people in video games?

No? I suppose as long as it's The President, and not a representation of an actual person. That's kinda dick. And not just the president.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here