ThunderPeel2001

Phaedrus' Street Crew
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content count

    8780

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by ThunderPeel2001

  3. Posted

    I think it's a different case were Valve is suing Vivendi Universal. Valve seem to have won, preventing VUG from selling "their" game in Cyber-Cafes. I had never even heard of that before, though. Maybe someone can elaborate.

    I don't think this has anything to do with the STEAM thing...

  4. Posted

    Mr. Peel, sadly for the effort you put into your last post, no one here is disputing the "proof" that the game offers up. No one is saying there was or wasn't a conspiracy - that really isn't the topic at hand.

    Next time I'll make sure I put "This Section Is Off-Topic" in bold just so you're not confused.

    The program which used they exact same technology, renders, and 'proof' that comes in this cold-hearted poor excuse to turn a profit.

    Yes, I think everyone is this thread has already agreed on that. Why you're telling me I have no idea.

  5. Posted

    By the exact same principle of fun and enjoyment, the JFK game is utterly reprehensible. The enjoyment is based on shooting Kennedy, nothing else.

    I agree.

    The enjoyment though, if there is any, comes from

    a) Pulling off a precise assassination -- NOT neccessarily of Kennedy (as I seriously doubt anybody who buys this game is old enough to actually "hate" him for any reason). A simple assassination a la [/i] Silent Scope, Counter Strike etc. and

    B) Having a piece of history modelling in 3D space to see for yourself what actually happened.

    Of course, if B) was the intended point of the "game" (and not just a cash-in) they simply could have just allowed people to see what actually happened on November 22nd 1963, which to me, would have been much more interesting.

    There is currently a very unlikely theory, which I’ve only heard about third hand and am in no position to argue for or against, that the government had bombs that blew up the World Trade Towers on Sept. 11. To prove the theory wrong, I could use science to show how hot fuel and other elements could lead to the fall. Or I could make a flight simulation game in which the object is to fly into the towers and create the most amount of damage. The most points come when both towers collapse. This is more analogous to “JFK Reloaded” than any combat game.

    Again, I completely agree. Of course nobody (sane) doubts what happened on 9/11. JFK's assassination is unique in its mystery that still fascinates millions of people (myself included).

    For anyone who is actually interested in the truth, here's what most likely happened:

    Firstly, just about everything in the movie JFK was bullshit, sadly (it was a most excellent film aside from that!).

    Secondly, a man called Dale Myers spent something like 7 years of his life remodelling the entire senario in 3D in an attempt to find out exactly what happened. To do this he looked at all the home-films that captured what happened, blueprints of the buildings and still photographs and modelled EXACTLY what happened. Every movement, turn, wave, twist of the body, every second.

    kframe1_pic.gif

    When it was all precisely modelled it was very easy to see that the "magic bullet" in JFK was bullshit!

    This is what they claim:

    bogus4.gif

    But Dale Myer's video conclusively proved that given the placement of the seats (JFK was raised higher than Connaly) and their relative positions at the time of the second gunshot, that the wounds are VERY consistent!

    SOH_1061.jpg

    If you'd like to know more keep an eye out for ABC's documentary "JFK: Beyond Conspiracy". It pretty much debunks every myth you've ever heard about JFK's death.

    Dale Myer's site: http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/intro.htm

    Excellent site: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

    The Flaws in "JFK": http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/jfkmovie.htm

  6. Posted

    Poor ThunderPeel, just wants to make his $9.99 seem justified. Sad, sad fool. He should really read my last post again, and try... TRY to consider that he's wrong. But then again, the rest of America is just upset about this for no good reason. He's defending it for a GOOD reason. ThunderPeel, for your next trick, can you perform a great flourish which justifies the existance of the game Postal? I'd pay to hear that one.

    Hmmm... When exactly have I defended this game?

    - "Just to re-iterate incase I'm not coming across clearly; JFK Reloaded is definitely expoitation!"

    - "It's offensive, it's exploitative"

    - "the only possible redeeming fact surrounding this game is the "mystery" of JFK's death. Not much to hide behind, really."

    - "It is of VERY little value in terms of gameplay"

    Why on earth you think I want to make my $9.99 purchase justified to bunch of strangers on a game forum is beyond me! I quite happily spent money on this "game" so I could make my own mind up. If you're interested in what I think of it you should read some of my earlier posts.

    So you can show outrage at WW2 based FPS's claiming they're abhorrent for desecrating the memory of those who fought and died in wars, but when it's bought down to a one-one-one level you can cast all that aside and support a game glorifying the assassination of a real individual?

    Huh? Here's what YOU said about this game:

    - "Me, I'm totally "meh" over the outrage of the whole thing. I mean it's fine to simulate wars in video games and kill thousands of virtual people, so I guess this isn't a whole lot different"

    Here's what I said about WW2 based FPS's:

    - "This is definitely murky waters, but it's no different that the "ultra realistic" WW2 and Vietnam first-person shooters out there."

    - "they're exploiting the deaths of millions of people. But for the sake of entertainment we all turn a blind eye (myself included)"

    - "let's not pretend that it's not satisfying to go on a killing rampage in Call of Duty and GTA"

    When have I ever shown "outrage"? It seems like we were both making the same point... or have you forgotten what you wrote? :nuts:

    I'm off to play Call Of Duty! (Maybe I'll squeeze in a few goes of JFK Reloaded along the way, too!)

  8. Posted

    You're not actually confused. You're just being argumentative to listen to yourself talk.

    Oh, do sod off. I actually think this is an interesting topic of discussion and it's nice to be able to discuss it outside reactionary media.

    There's been games like Soldier Of Fortune where you were awarded points for killing Iraqi civilians in the most brutal and explicit way the technology would allow at the time.

    The programmers of JFK: Reloaded have just taken a common trait of computer games a single step further, a step that was most likely inevitable. If this step was so clearly in bad taste then it makes you wonder what separates it from games like GTA where you can (must I say it?) have sex with prostitutes and then kill them to get your money back.

    Just as GTA hides behind "hey, it's not real, y'know" and CoD hides behind "hey, this is historically correct, y'know", both are really just games that allow you to go around killing people. We all know that, so let's not pretend that it's not satisfying to go on a killing rampage in both, ok?

    The only difference between taking a sniper-rifle to someone's head in Half Life 2 and taking a sniper-rifle to Kennedy's head in JFK: Reloaded is the abreiviation "JFK" in the title.

    Is it just the fact that we're now "killing" a recent, well liked, historical figure the problem (instead of unknown people in Vietnam)?

    Anyways, the only possible redeeming fact surrounding this game is the "mystery" of JFK's death (and that's already been exploited to hell and back in every other medium). Not much to hide behind, really.

    Whether you like it or not, I am confused! :finger:

    Question: Who has actually played it?

  9. Posted

    The flip side is that if it was Hitler, would it still be offensive?

    If it was Ceasar, would it still be offensive?

    If it was Alexander the Great, and you had to beat him in sword fight, culminating in his beheading... would it still be offensive?

    How are any of the above any different?

    Also: Why is taking someone's "fake" life in a game not as bad as taking someone's "real" life?

    Surely if this "game" was called "Kill The Fascist Dictator" or even, can you imagine, "Kill Osama bin Laden", then everyone would go whoop-de-doo over it?

    It's offensive, it's exploitative, it's of slight educational value (this is how it actually happened, kiddies) but there's a lot of other games that fall under the same banner... I'm confused.

  10. Posted

    That's an interesting point, Walter, it's a murky situation. I'm not sure there's a clear-cut answer.

    Anyhow, if anyone is going for the $100,000 prize, here's some tips for you I've thrown together! :)

    1. Shoot just after the Limo turns and after it comes out from behind the trees.

    2. The first shot missed... so aim above the car and you should get maximum points for it (50, depending on your timing).

    3. The second shot hit Kennedy in the right shoulder/towards the back of the neck:

    concl5_pic.gif

    Note: Oddly enough you can get awards points for hitting other parts of his back and neck, not sure why.

    4. The third (and final) shot hit the back of Kennedy's head.

    concl20_pic.gif

    5. Only fire three shots, never more; You'll be heavily penalised for extra shots (-100 points!)

    6. The status of the four people at the end should be:

    First Lady: Unharmed

    Governer's Wife: Unharmed

    Governer: Injured

    Kennedy: DEAD

    You'll get 400 points if they end up like this, so it's very important.

    7. You're aiming to get a maximum of 1,000 points, but it might be possible to get a little more with "timing" bonus points (where you do something at precisely the right moment).

    See here for a step-by-step break down of the shots: http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/concl1.htm

    8. The shots occured at the following frames in the Zapruder film:

    1: ~157

    2: 223/224

    3: 313

    The camera Zapruder was using was shooting at its maximum rate of 18 frames per second. That means that there should be a 3 1/2 second pause between the first shot you fire and the second, and nearly 5 seconds between the second and third.

    The Mannlicher-Carcano rifle takes a minimum of 2.3 seconds to reload. I imagine this is what the game-designer's used in their timings.

    9. The further away your target, the higher you must aim as the bullet follows a curved path to the ground (thanks to gravity).

    Not really a tip: 10. When you get bored turn the setting to "Chaotic" and shoot the limo driver... he'll careen right over the hill and everyone will fly out! :)

    Good luck!

    PS - Can anyone get anti-aliasing to work?

  11. Posted

    Using actual names in a war game would require a pretty fundamental shift in what they are, which is currently more akin to Saving Private Ryan than, say, any war documentary. Not to say that wouldn't be interesting, er, if it actually was interesting, that is, and not wholly depressing or boring.

    Don't get me wrong: Using names would be wrong, I definitely agree! But in games like "Call Of Duty" where you get "meaningful" quotes about the "seriousness" of war in between each level does very little to hide the fact (from me at least) that they're exploiting the deaths of millions of people. But for the sake of entertainment we all turn a blind eye (myself included) because quite simply, there's little point in pretending we even want to know how horrible their experiences were!

    To the guy who mentioned something about how games like "CoD" and "MoH" keep the memories alive of the hardships soldiers had to endure... Gimme a break! :) The "bad guys" get killed with one shot, you have an energy bar. You can restore yourself to full health by picking up a "medi-kit". You can save and restart from scratch and most importantly of all: You don't lose anyone you actually care about nor do you run the risk of actually dying! No game can ever do justice to the memories or experiences of War veterans because in reality war isn't fun! And a game with no fun isn't a game! :)

  12. Posted

    Er wait... You're implying it's better - more honorable - to have a game in which the player's objective is to systematically re-enact the killings of specific real soldiers hwo died in combat, than to put an anonymous face on the whole thing?

    Of course it's more honorable to mention those who actually died... however it's still deplorable! Would it not be better to an invent an entire senario from scratch? Would it not be better NOT to use real-life wars and battles for fun? Of course it would! Which makes we wonder about such games and the people who play them (us) -- hence my point.

    Edit: Ah, I see you got my point. Never mind :)

  13. Posted

    Of course in those games the individual in-game soldiers aren't based on real life individuals. If young Bobby Briggs actually died on Omaha beach, and there he was with the correct name, rank, attire.... even physical likeness in the next Battlefield game, I think we'd all be horrified and the surviving next-of-kin of Bobby would be mighty put out.

    Hmmm. The fact that the people who fought and died in the Wars that we merrily re-enact aren't mention is a good thing? What can perverse history more and do more dishonour to the memories of those killed, than to reduce a thousand of people's deaths to a bunch of NPC's in a level in a computer game?

    One death is a travesty, a thousand is statistic? Just because we don't see the name and rank of the tons of NPC's killed in the Omaha Landings level of Medal of Honour makes it ok?

    I find both this, and the JFK game, similar, personally.

    So, just because John Kennedy was a public figure, he's open to exploitation in a way we'd never tolerate if an actual 'ordinary' person's death was simulated for entertainment? Why is that?

    We exploit the deaths of millions of 'ordinary' people in order to turn them into exciting "historical" levels in games like Medal of Honour, Battlefield Vietnam and Call of Duty. In fact, the more "realistic" and fact-based the better!

    JFK's death is arguably different that most in that every second from 12:30PM onwards of November 22nd 1963 has been hotly contested to such a degree that anyone can have an opinion on what happened. The JFK game, while a thinly disguised peice of exploitation, does at least allow people who have an interest in the assassination, to fully appreciate the work of Dale Meyers (the man who first figured out how to take all the footage and photographs from that day and place them in a 3D model, proving once and for all that JFK WAS killed from bullets from the Book Depository building: http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/concl.htm ).

    IMHO: The JFK game is interesting in a historical way (perhaps moreso than CoD, B:V and MoH are...?) as the hotly contested events can be witnessed by all, for once and for all. I would have much preferred a "Historical Option" so you could watch the actual events of the day from any angle, like Dale Meyer's conclusive animation showed, instead of the, ahem, "game" they've created, but it's still interesting.

    For those who haven't play it: The idea of the "game" (but let's face it, it's not really a game, that's just something they've tacked on) is to assassinate JFK. You blindly shoot him whenever you feel like it, but you'll get higher "points" if you manage to emulate Lee Harvey Oswald closely. In reality it's just a repeating senario where you can point and click at things and see what happens. It is of VERY little value in terms of gameplay, but is interesting to anyone who has wondered what actually happened during that fateful day.

    I find it a less disturbing than those REALLY sick games that allow you to "re-enact" the Dunblane massacre etc.

    Edit: Just to re-iterate incase I'm not coming across clearly; JFK Reloaded is definitely expoitation!

  14. Posted

    If there was a movie or a TV series that conveyed you being victorious and a winner for shooting Kennedy three times in twice as many seconds (however you'd convey that), people would shit all over you.

    Huh? That doesn't make any sense.

    What type of format of movie or TV series could someone be shown as being a "winner" for shooting Kennedy? The only way that could possibly be conveyed is if it was an "anti-Kennedy" piece, which tried to show (somehow, I don't know how) that he deserved to be assassinated.

    (In fact there was an episode of Red Dwarf where that precise message was put across, oddly enough. In that particular episode (which was far from being great) Kennedy shot himself from the graddy knoll to spare the world from the tyrant he would become in later years.)

    The truth is: There's already a massive amount of "pro-Lee Harvey Oswald" stuff out there, constantly being repeated on the History Channel or whatever, claiming conspiracy for our enjoyment. The movie "JFK" did a great job of selling the conspiracy theory to us, and we gobbled it up, despite the pain it caused the Kennedys, who had long since come to terms with their bereavement, on top of the fact that it's been shown, beyond almost all shadow of a doubt, that Lee Harvey Oswald was the killer.

    No other medium can possibly convey what you're talking about.

    This is definitely murky waters, but it's no different that the "ultra realistic" WW2 and Vietnam first-person shooters out there.

    Re-enact with painful precision the horrors of the Omaha Beach landings or the nightmares of the Vietnamese jungle for your enjoyment. It doesn't sound that different to me.

  19. Posted

    The game I didn't mind not being able to skip the cutscenes was Final Fantasy VII (can't explain why), but most of the time (if they're not important and not done well) they're quite annoying.

    Although I agree with you Thrik re: MGS -- I used to play it on my lunch break when I games tested and I'd get a little way through and a massive conversation or something would occur and I'd be forced to turn it off before it ended and thus losing what I did so far - argh! (Still, great game when you have the time! :))

  23. Posted

    "Pigdog"?

    Anyway, I don't know if it's possible to go further off topic, so let's find out! 2001 was a clever and well made movie, but the one thing it lacked (for me) was personality. All the people in it are like robots, it left me cold.

    I still get goosebumps when I watch the first bit though.... duh.... duh.... dun-duhhhhhh!!!

    Great stuff.

  24. Posted

    i'm tired of mj-discussions, because i had them so many times, but to keep it short (and friendly):

    mj doesn't deserve anything of what you write about him.

    so hopefully nobody will ever open a mj-discussion-thread.

    Sounds like the start of an MJ discussion to me! Let's start right here! :D