Online game lets RWs fantasize about hunting down "Obama and the renegade Cong"

Maus_Magill · October 20, 2009, 7:32pm

And if you get hit, you have to apologize.

YogSothoth · October 20, 2009, 8:19pm

There is no moral equivalent here people, let’s not get bogged down in the desperate rush to be “fair” that we miss what reality is.

If a game like this came out about Bush it would have been good because Bush committed war crimes and deserved to be thrown out. Obama has not. Obama’s actually a good and decent man and president. Thus people SHOULD be mad about this game, but a hypothetical Bush game where he is killed is perfectly fine.

BrainGlutton · October 20, 2009, 8:44pm

Weeelllll . . . I would say Bush deserved to be impeached. Not assassinated.

Biggirl · October 20, 2009, 8:45pm

Outrage over a game, outrage over a movie-- both are wasted outrage. Now, the game “developer’s” inability to seperate the game from real life? That’s something to worry about.

mswas · October 20, 2009, 9:13pm

Man the right really felt left out with the Bush hate gestalt and now I guess we’re going to get the idea that every President is going to anoint themselves King from now on. Maybe we always have amongst a certain set.

YogSothoth · October 21, 2009, 2:52pm

Impeached in real life, but killed in a game and movie. That’s why this game with Obama is a travesty, stupid, and hateful. The worse one could say about Obama is that he continued some Bush policies and didn’t push the Democrats’ agenda hard enough. That’s it.

It would be like if the KKK came out with a game like this and said it had nothing to do with his race at all. There’s no moral equivalency

BrainGlutton · October 21, 2009, 5:06pm

DKW:

I found out about this on SadlyNo (it’s a few days old, you have to scroll down for it). Lengthy discussion on this with some very good points.

I dunno. Just doesn’t strike me as a very interesting game. The right wing has already gotten the big victory; all you’re doing is taking out the leftovers. I always thought the whole point of roleplaying was delving into the unknown and facing challenges. You’re faced with outcomes that are not certain and adversaries that you are not guaranteed of defeating or even surviving, and you have to work to prevail. If you do prevail, great, ad victor spolarum and pass the XP. If you flee with your tail between your legs, you’re still alive to fight another day, and you can come up with a better strategy or superior equipment to help even the odds. If you’re obliterated, well, at least you gave it your best, and you can always roll up a new hero and give it another go. The whole point isn’t “winning”, it’s playing; the treasure and titles are just a bonus.

Now, how this could work is as a Romance of the Three Kingdoms-esque conquest/diplomacy game, with lots of factions with widely varying goals and ambitions. With the left wing vanquished, the once-unified Republican coalition has given way to petty squabbles and bitter vendettas. You have the old-school conservatives (y’know, the guys who actually believe in small government, minimal taxes for all, and proper benefits for war veterans), the Bushite neocons who want to party all night at everyone else’s expense, the hardcore war hawks, the fundies, the talk show cult, the militant Southerners, etc. You’re thrown right into the middle of an impending civil war. What is your cause? Whose side are you on?

Think of the possibilities. Go the Great Unifier route, reconciling the disparate factions and restoring the red white and blue. Go for cold-blooded conquest, crushing your pitiful rivals one by one. Support three or four powerful factions that can coexist peacefully. Be against all flags, plundering and exploiting all you see, then making a break for it before reinforcements show up. Use espionage and covert operations to undermine your foes and eliminate troublesome leaders. Start a peace movement and win the good citizens to your side. Or simply rule as a petty tyrant, living the good life, and having a nice, fast jet ready when the revolutionaries storm the gate.

Now THAT’S a game. I mean, what’s the damn point of some dumb fantasy that just reinforces your prejudices? If that’s all you want, write crappy fanfiction like everyone else.

I think you’ve got a moneymaker there!

Argent_Towers · October 21, 2009, 10:04pm

I will say it again: the game’s objective, as stated on the website, is to capture Obama, not kill him.

This is a pretty huge distinction. Ask any prisoner of war.

Captain_Carrot · October 21, 2009, 11:26pm

You know, as I was writing that, I thought “Wait, was it him who eagerly voted for McCain, or did he reluctantly vote for Obama?” Sorry. And despite how nasty that sounds (I’ve been having an exceptionally bad day), I am sorry.

YogSothoth · October 22, 2009, 5:48am

The point of the game should be to give him a trophy, not put him in jail.

DKW · October 22, 2009, 7:35am

Brainglutton - Oh, I’m flattered, but I’m no game designer. Too many details, too many bugs that can creep in. Like I said, I just took the concept behind Romance of the Three Kingdoms and similiar multiple-faction strategy games.

I predict that this will go the way of Liberality For All. Remember, that weird comic about Chelsea Clinton becoming President and enacting a bunch of dumb policies and a trio of talk show pundits donning armored suits and mobilizing to stop her, or something? It’ll raise a lot of hackles and gain a loyal following for a year or so, whereupon the players realize that simply wishing for a perfect neocon nation isn’t satisfying at all (not to mention replaying the same fait accompli scenarios over and over, high scores or no) and give it up.

Airman Doors - I’ve seen your insights in the past. I know you’re better than this. You are by far one of the wisest and most thoughtful conservatives we have (if not the wisest and most thoughtful), and we want you to stay that way. Please, step away from the computer for a while and calm down. (Hey, if I can do it, how hard can it be?)