Coming to a download near you! The Kennedy assassination game!

The BBQ Pit
41

Now, see, I’d say that shows that a Kubrick movie is more interactive than this game, because it requires more input and effort on behalf of the audience to get returns.

Almost totally incorrect. This is exactly the sort of publicity marketers crave above all others: word of mouth. It’s far more effective than all the paid ads in newspapers, television, radio, and billboards combines. Word of mouth made The Blair Witch Project the most succesful indie film in cinematic history. Word of mouth turned Firefly from a failed half-season TV show into a major motion picture release. And negative word of mouth is the best advertising there is, because if there’s controversy, then people are going to seek out your product just to find out what the big argument is all about. This has been to the enormous benefit of an incredibly diverse selection of movies, from The Last Temptation of Christ to Silent Night, Deadly Night. I guarantee you, when the people who made this game were planning it, they were counting on people expressing shock and outrage on radio call-in programs, letters to the editor, and most of all… on internet message boards.

Now, I don’t care about this game one way or the other. They’re not getting any of my money, but I don’t care how much of everyone else’s money they get. You, I presume, do care. You said you wouldn’t mind if the Kennedy family sued them over this (although I can’t imagine what the complaint would be). If you want this game to fail, the most direct way you have of making that happen is not to talk about it. Treat this game like you’d treat a troll here on the boards. Ignore it until it goes away. Otherwise, you’re just playing into the hands of the people who made this game.

I don’t think a meaningful analogy can be drawn between an incompetent individual seeking employment, and a controversial product being marketed to as many people as possible.

Having played an enormous number of games where you punch someone in the face, and watched an enormous number of movies where other people punch someone in the face, I have yet to see any meaningful difference between the two experiences.

42

It does not require it. It requires that they sit in front of the screen and stare. They can still be entertained and get something (though not everything) out of the film by just passively watching the film.

But in a way, the fact that it is hard to get a complete “return” out of a Kubrick film sort of proves my point. A lot of people would have to scratch their heads to really milk all that there is out of a Kubrick film. I think it would take less effort to get a good measure of return (satisfaction at trying to shoot at JFK, getting points to shoot at JFK) with this game.

But you have yet to prove how my sole contribution to word of mouth has contributed to this in a significant way. If my “word of mouth” were all it took, I’d be able to single-handedly bring all sorts of attention for my artwork, by simply posting a few messages about it on a message board. But so far that’s not happening.

Funny, I haven’t had that experience. Taking aim and shooting at something in a game is far more interactive, and requires more effort (and is often very fun), compared to passively watching someone else do it on the screen. Guess you don’t speak for everyone else, then, do you? :wink:

43

I probably should add to this statement: “A lot of people would have to scratch their heads to really milk all that there is out of a Kubrick film—so they wouldn’t do it.” They can’t interact with it by pushing buttons, taking aim, and so forth, like they can with a game. I’d daresay that some of these games are more accessable for many people. So they’re more accessable in their interactivity.

44

I’m guessing there are several people on this board who wish they really could have pulled the trigger.

No wonder duhbya won.

45

No, this isn’t a partisan issue. And I don’t believe people really wish they could pull the trigger in real life. I just think that they aren’t bothered by tacky tastelessness in regards to the tragic death of a president.

46

I respect your judgement.

47

I hope there are no jumping puzzles.

48

Or pixel hunts.

Chill the fuck out, Reeder. You’re sounding even dumber than usual.

49

I’ve never claimed that you were solely responsible for promoting this title. That would be ridiculous. The whole point behind the concept of “word of mouth” is that there is no one source for the promotion of whatever product is being discussed. It’s people, everywhere, talking about the product to their friends, co-workers, neighbors, or, in this case, fellow posters. I’m not saying that you could singlehandedly bring this software company to its knees by not hitting the “Submit” button. I’m saying, not just to you but to everyone offended by this game, that if you all as a group just ignore it, you’ll do far more to seeing that its makers do not profit from it than you will by making an issue out of it, even in so minor a way as this message board. It’s an “every vote counts” sort of thing.

It seems to me that you may be misunderstanding my motive in saying this. I’m offering advice, here, not criticism. I don’t care if this game succeeds or fails, but it seems that you do. At least, marginally more than I do, at any rate. I’ve been a fan of a lot of other stuff that people have disapproved of, and every single time, the louder they complained, the more the target of their ire met with success. I don’t care that you complain, I’m just trying to point out that complaining only helps the thing you dislike, even if only to the minutest degree. If your desire to kvetch is greater than your desire to see this product fail, then go ahead. Either way, it’s no skin off my nose.

Well, I’m just stating my opinion. I can do that, right? :wink:

Seriously, and because this is a much more interesting topic to me than the JFK game:

Different mediums are designed to be interfaced with in different ways. Watching someone play a video game isn’t very fun, because video games aren’t designed to be watched, they’re designed to be played. Watching a book is even less fun, because that, too, is not how it’s meant to be engaged. Watching a movie, however, can be more fun than playing a game or reading a book*, because that’s how movies are designed to be appreciated. Playing a martial arts video game is not necessarily any more fun than watching a martial arts movie, nor any more interactive. A game may be easier to interact with, but that doesn’t make it more interactive, as you’ve already conceded. I would actually argue that the level of interactvity is normally inverse to the ease of interactivity.

Now, someone may choose not to interact with a work of art, but that doesn’t make the work less interactive. I’m never going to play the Kennedy game, so as far as I’m concerned, it’s totally non-interactive. On the other hand, if I sit down to watch A Clockwork Orange, I can’t help but interact with the movie, because it’s so strongly visual and philosophically provactive. You might force someone to sit down in front of the screen and look at it until the credits roll, but that doesn’t necessarily mean they’re interacting with it. If they aren’t making the effort to understand and evaluate the nuances and message of the film (or if they aren’t able to do so), it still doesn’t make the movie less interactive, it just means that they chose not to interact with it.

*Depending, of course, on the movie, game, and book in question.

Spot on. I don’t have any desire to play the game, let alone kill John F. Kennedy. As for this being partisan, nothing could be further from the truth: I’m a solid, life-long democrat. Voted Kerry, Gore, and Clinton in the last three elections. Probably would’ve voted for Kennedy too, if I’d been alive at the time.

50

We have a winnah! Kevja, I’m not sure if that’s what you were referencing (I haven’t seen it in a while, so if that was dialogue or something it didn’t ring a bell) but if so, you were first.

51

Yeah, yeah, yeah. In some small, insignificant way, my trivial rants here have contributed to . . . whatever. I’m really not all that concerned about it. Not concerned enough to supress my opinion on this board, anyway.

I understand what you’re saying, and I guess what I’m saying is that I believe that my desire to kvetch is going to make such a minimal impact overall (since I don’t have an inclination to escalate my outrage past this thread), so, you know, I’m not going to sweat over it.

No, really? :wink:

I wasn’t talking about watching someone else play a video game vs. playing it myself. I was talking about aiming and shooting, thinking, calculating, counting up points, etc. is a far cry different than watching someone shoot someone in a movie. Sure, there might be an emotional investment and involvement in watching that person shoot, (grief? surprise? horror? anger? anticipation?) but whatever the emotional reaction or investment, the viewer is not taking aim, trying to use their skill to shoot at just the right time, and keeping track of how many points they earned this time. The viewer is an observer, passively watching and reacting and trying to figure everything out. A player (of the game) is interacting, and changing outcomes through their own decisions and skills. (Hit or miss? Shoot now or later? How many points will they earn* this* time?) It is this difference that I believe is causing the reaction to this game.

I think it makes it interactive in a different way, as I have described above.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know what you’re saying, and I appreciate that you’re being good-natured about it. But I would like to point out that this particular video game is getting a reaction, and people are responding to its concept (shoot the president!) in a negative way, and there’s a reason for that. They are reacting this way because, as I explained above, they know the interactive differences between watching a movie and shooting at targets in a game, and they believe that there are things about the game that are unacceptable.

And another point: “interactive” in these contexts is applied in a certain way, and I introduced the term with this particular context in mind. “Interactive” usually implies some input from the consumer or viewer. An “interactive” web site might be one like this one—it’s got a message board, where we are able to “interact.” Or a site where people can play games, participate in polls, leave feedback, and so forth. In general, a film, book, album or website is rarely considered “interactive” (in the context that I am talking about) if it does not include some input from the viewer. A static web site, for instance, where people read the text and look at the pictures is not deemed “interactive.”

52

They had a huge thing about this in the paper today. I’d just like to say if people didn’t make such a big fucking deal about this stupid game, it would have dropped of the planet and died. The makers were counting on this big stink, and on cue, the media delivered.

Don’t you fools realize you’re feeding the beast?

53

Hold the phone there, pard.

President Kennedy lived and died before I was born.

Being a science geek, I have the utmost respect for his legacy (getting us to the moon).

That I’ve bought the game and find it facinating doesn’t change that.