Is It Wrong to Assassinate the President in a Videogame?

[IrrelevantTangent]

Honestly I don't feel strongly one way or the other on this. On one hand, one man's murder simulator is another man's unique experimental game, but on the other hand, maybe we should rein in games going along a path such as this, or say, that of the Rapelay eroge games.

I'm willing to bet, though, that there's no way in hell any such new Western mainstream videogame that centers around killing the President will get past the censors.

 

[Amnestic]

maybe we should rein in games going along a path such as this, or say, that of the Rapelay eroge games.

Why?

 

[SilentScope001]

"It is indeed wrong for people to play a video game where you can assassinate Iraqi President Saddam Hussian. This game is in poor taste and needs to be recalled. Presidents should not be assassinated."---Batah Party Press Release

I don't think dictators should fall under the category as "president".

But Saddam Hussian called himself President. Bathaists propaganda called him the President of Iraq. Many dictators call themselves President. Who says Presidents have to be elected in free and democratic elections?

 

[IrrelevantTangent]

maybe we should rein in games going along a path such as this, or say, that of the Rapelay eroge games.

Why?

You can argue that, say, Prototype is just as much of a murder simulator as Manhunt, even though the former isn't as graphic, mainly because you're still 'simulating' killing innocent people, but the difference between Prototype and Manhunt is that the latter is much, much more graphic. That's what got people upset.

And murdering virtual people is one thing, but a particularly graphic rape simulator is another. I suppose you could say that a rape simulator is where most people would draw the line.

Regular games that involve 'killing innocent people', be it Prototype OR Manhunt, have not been proven to cause violence in the people playing it, but you can't really say that the same results will happen for Rapelay or whatever it's called simply because there haven't been that many studies specifically devoted to it, to my knowledge. It hasn't been conclusively disproven yet, IIRC.

Until the idea that Rapelay can increase the chances of the player going out and raping someone- as ridiculous as that sounds- people are still going to be saying, "You can't prove this isn't true."

 

[JWAN]

"It is indeed wrong for people to play a video game where you can assassinate Iraqi President Saddam Hussian. This game is in poor taste and needs to be recalled. Presidents should not be assassinated."---Batah Party Press Release

I don't think dictators should fall under the category as "president".

But Saddam Hussian called himself President. Bathaists propaganda called him the President of Iraq. Many dictators call themselves President. Who says Presidents have to be elected in free and democratic elections?

Me, because I said "I think" or rather "I don't think that..." meaning expressing an opinion. sorry but I don't believe that Hitler, Stalin, Saddam, Mao, and Kim Il Jung or Kim Il Sung should not fall under the same category as FDR, JFK, Ronald Regan, Abraham Lincoln, or Teddy Roosevelt.

 

[titanium turtle]

free speech should apply to everyone

 

[Therumancer]

It all comes down to nationalism and national pride. This is only an issue because Americans no longer have it really. In general the guy who did this game should be rotting in a federal prison somewhere.

Ironically, as a counterpoint to this it shows how borked our morality has become. Like it or not this culture flew a plane into The Pentagon (and the WTC) and has been attacking us in one way or another for decades while we have engaged in measured responses (like sending special forces to try and free people from a hijacked plane, in one of the bigger charlie foxtrots in American history). Yet the way our politics have gone, people are screaming left and right about "Something Awful" making a Muslim Massacreing game (even as a joke, intended to say the opposite of what it was accused of), yet a game about Muslims killing the (former) President is simply raising a question?

The differance between something like "Destroy All Humans" and this game is that one is 100% fantasy, with everything presented in an absurd context. The other is presented in a realistic context, and based on real issues.

Basically if this guy was just some student making an obscure game in another country I'd simply take it as being "meh". But right now (if I understand the creator in context) I believe the guy should be doing some hard jail time. We've had articles about kids being approached by the secret service and such for jokingly talking about killing The President, or sending threatening letters to The White House. This strikes me as being a step up from that especially since we're dealing with an enemy culture that is known for making such attacks, one that we are currently still at war at, AND has caused uncomfortable issues in regards to our ideal of civil liberty by their very existance. Irregardless of what side you come down on with "Muslim Rights" anyone with half a brain realizes the dialogue has been going on for some very bloody good reasons.

In general I see no real problem with bashing Muslims the way we used to bash the USSR in fiction. We're at war, duh!. If the war was over and you had seen a progressive regime installed for 10 years or more it would be differant, but that's not the case.

If anything the Muslim world (abroad and domestic) should be puckering up trying to convince us that we're wrong, not creating games about killing the US president. I can pretty much take the existance of such a game, and if questioned about what is wrong with the current war, and America in general point a finger at it and say "basically that".

Honestly, I've read articles during the election about the secret service running all over the place chasing stupid kids around, and I think at least twice we've had arrests based on totally idiotic threats. I find it a surprising dual standard that something like this can happen and the guy has NOT been arrested.

Chances are if some 100% all american kid who is Christian, Atheist, or Agnostic did a game about killing Obama as publically, he'd have the secret service crawling all over him.

Plus again, as I pointed out, the outcry over games like "Seven Days In Fallujah" and the Something Awful game make this even more of a "WTF" occurance, and show a disturbing and self destructive double standard.

For those not familiar with my referance to the "Something Awful" game I found a link (apologies for the length and rambling):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_Massacre:_The_Game_of_Modern_Religious_Genocide

 

[Amnestic]

maybe we should rein in games going along a path such as this, or say, that of the Rapelay eroge games.

Why?

You can argue that, say, Prototype is just as much of a murder simulator as Manhunt, even though the former isn't as graphic, mainly because you're still 'simulating' killing innocent people, but the difference between Prototype and Manhunt is that the latter is much, much more graphic. That's what got people upset.

And murdering virtual people is one thing, but a particularly graphic rape simulator is another. I suppose you could say that a rape simulator is where most people would draw the line.

Regular games that involve 'killing innocent people', be it Prototype OR Manhunt, have not been proven to cause violence in the people playing it, but you can't really say that the same results will happen for Rapelay or whatever it's called simply because there haven't been that many studies specifically devoted to it, to my knowledge. It hasn't been conclusively disproven yet, IIRC.

Until the idea that Rapelay can increase the chances of the player going out and raping someone- as ridiculous as that sounds- people are still going to be saying, "You can't prove this isn't true."

I'm a bit tired and my eyes aren't focusing exactly, but what you're basically saying here is that since we 'know' that games in which you kill innocents don't cause murder they're fine, but because we don't 'know' sex/rape games don't cause an increase in sexual offences, they're not?

That doesn't speak to me that we should rein them in, that speaks to me we should do more studies. Fun factoid: America has about 16/17 times more reported rapes per 100,000 people than Japan.

In general I see no real problem with bashing Muslims the way we used to bash the USSR in fiction. We're at war, duh!

Oh yes, because that's certainly the best way to find a peaceful ending.

 

[IrrelevantTangent]

maybe we should rein in games going along a path such as this, or say, that of the Rapelay eroge games.

Why?

You can argue that, say, Prototype is just as much of a murder simulator as Manhunt, even though the former isn't as graphic, mainly because you're still 'simulating' killing innocent people, but the difference between Prototype and Manhunt is that the latter is much, much more graphic. That's what got people upset.

And murdering virtual people is one thing, but a particularly graphic rape simulator is another. I suppose you could say that a rape simulator is where most people would draw the line.

Regular games that involve 'killing innocent people', be it Prototype OR Manhunt, have not been proven to cause violence in the people playing it, but you can't really say that the same results will happen for Rapelay or whatever it's called simply because there haven't been that many studies specifically devoted to it, to my knowledge. It hasn't been conclusively disproven yet, IIRC.

Until the idea that Rapelay can increase the chances of the player going out and raping someone- as ridiculous as that sounds- people are still going to be saying, "You can't prove this isn't true."

I'm a bit tired and my eyes aren't focusing exactly, but what you're basically saying here is that since we 'know' that games in which you kill innocents don't cause murder they're fine, but because we don't 'know' sex/rape games don't cause an increase in sexual offences, they're not?

That doesn't speak to me that we should rein them in, that speaks to me we should do more studies. Fun factoid: America has about 16/17 times more reported rapes per 100,000 people than Japan.

In general I see no real problem with bashing Muslims the way we used to bash the USSR in fiction. We're at war, duh!

Oh yes, because that's certainly the best way to find a peaceful ending.

That's essentially my point. It's not that I feel this way, per se- while I don't personally think Rapelay and the like is a good idea- I'm merely speaking for those that would most likely be offended by this game. And I honestly don't completely know what they think.

 

[GloatingSwine]

I dunno, I assassinated the vice president a couple of times in Hitman: Blood Money.

He was evil though, so he pretty much deserved it.

 

[Nalesnik]

The difference is most games involving presidents is that they are fictional people(ei, not based on real life people) Once you start to include real life persons into a game, it creates a very sticky situation, and may have legal consequences; slander/libel.

And I'm pretty sure if an American developer wanted to create a game that involves murdering the prophet Muhammad or Venezuelan prez Hugo Chavez, I would bet $1000 that it would not be approved by the ESBR or the publisher.

 

[DeathChairOfHell]

why would it be? it's not happening in real life, and they will probably not have you kill a president that exist, if were talking present time.

 

[JourneyThroughHell]

And I'm pretty sure if an American developer wanted to create a game that involves murdering the prophet Muhammad or Venezuelan prez Hugo Chavez, I would bet $1000 that it would not be approved by the ESBR or the publisher.

The Godfather II has you attempting to assasinate Castro. Alright, you don't kill him, but he is wounded and that raised zero controversy.

 

[Cherry Cola]

Not that I think this is wrong, I couldn't care less, but why are people claiming that the Muslims and Arabs are evil in games? In Modern Warfare, it was terrorists who assassinated the President of an Arabic country that was evil. Terrorists. Terrorists are the bad guys, not every Arab in the world.

But of course, because they are Arabic, this means that all Arabs are evil in the eyes of Modern Warfare.

 

[theultimateend]

There is absolutely nothing you can do in a video game that is wrong. It is entirely fantasy. Until thought crimes become a real and literal thing this sort of discussion should be moot.

Anyone easily motivated by activities such as gaming, movies, or entertainment in general are going to end up motivated. No amount of work to sterilize their environment will stop them from the inevitable poor choices they will make.

This is an unfortunate reality when so many people are born into families that didn't have the proper training to be parents (whose parents likely didn't and whose parents likely didn't and so on).

I just wish people wouldn't treat games like a reality. You could butcher a dozen babies with a soup spoon and it wouldn't be wrong. Because those babies don't actually exist nor are the feeling entities.

And I'm pretty sure if an American developer wanted to create a game that involves murdering the prophet Muhammad or Venezuelan prez Hugo Chavez, I would bet $1000 that it would not be approved by the ESBR or the publisher.

The Godfather II has you attempting to assasinate Castro. Alright, you don't kill him, but he is wounded and that raised zero controversy.

Hypocrisy is a meal that many American's eat on a daily basis. (I'm going to assume that since I'm American I can say this without getting in further trouble.)

 

[Nalesnik]

And I'm pretty sure if an American developer wanted to create a game that involves murdering the prophet Muhammad or Venezuelan prez Hugo Chavez, I would bet $1000 that it would not be approved by the ESBR or the publisher.

The Godfather II has you attempting to assasinate Castro. Alright, you don't kill him, but he is wounded and that raised zero controversy.

Oh snap, I stand corrected. Good thing I didn't shake on it, otherwise I would have lost $1000. =p
Still, I can't imagine a game about Muhammad being published in this current climate.

 

[Killian Kalthorne]

I don't find it offensive at all. I rather have people assassinate a person in a video game than do it in real life. Its less bloody and doesn't stain the carpet. Frankly I think that war would be a whole lot less bloody and damaging if we set all sides in a conflict in a PvP zone in a MMO and let them go at it. In a world filled with rage, frustration, and injustice, some people just need to vent and play out that anger. It is better they do it with pixels than with blood.

 

[4play002]

As a Canadian, if any chance for me to kill a yank in a videogame presents itself(the President being at the top of this importance ladder,) I jump at the opportunity.
If the murder of one person in a video game is acceptable than who that person is should hold no bearing. You can't slaughter one group of people without question but then get offended at the same treatment of comparable people.
The simplest way for me to sum this up is this: Just because they're American doesn't mean that they're special. Killing the American President is no different than killing any other one enemy (of the, I'm sure, hundreds that one kills in your average action game campaign)