Sign in to follow this  
jp-30

Kennedy Assasination: The latest Video Game 'outrage'.

Recommended Posts

Story from cnn.com;

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/US/11/21/kennedy.game.reut/index.html

Official Site;

http://www.jfkreloaded.com

LOS ANGELES, California (Reuters) -- A new video game to be released on Monday allows players to simulate the assassination of U.S. President John F. Kennedy.

The release of "JFK Reloaded" is timed to coincide with the 41st anniversary of Kennedy's murder in Dallas and was designed to demonstrate a lone gunman was able to kill the president.

"It is despicable," said David Smith, a spokesman for Massachusetts Sen. Edward Kennedy, the late president's brother. He was informed of the game on Friday but declined further comment.

Kirk Ewing, managing director of the Scottish firm Traffic Games, which developed the game, said he understood some people would be horrified at the concept, but he insisted he and his team had nothing but respect for Kennedy and for history.

"We believe that the only thing we're exploiting is new technology," said Ewing, a former documentary filmmaker and senior executive with Scottish developer VIS, responsible for games like "State of Emergency." He said he sent Edward Kennedy a letter before the game's release.

Ewing said the game was designed to undermine the theory there was some shadowy plot behind the assassination. "We believe passionately there was no conspiracy," he said.

Traffic Games said the objective was for a player to fire three shots at Kennedy's motorcade from assassin Lee Harvey Oswald's digitally recreated sixth-floor perch in the Texas School Book Depository.

Points are awarded or subtracted based on how accurately the shots match the official version of events as documented by the Warren Commission, which investigated Kennedy's assassination.

Shooting the image of Kennedy in the right spots in the right sequence adds to the score, while "errors" like shooting first lady Jacqueline Kennedy lead to deductions.

Each shot can be replayed in slow motion, and the bullets can be tracked as they travel and pass through Kennedy's digitally recreated body. Players can choose to see blood by pressing a "blood effects" option.

Players can view the motorcade from a number of angles, including the perspective of filmmaker Abraham Zapruder and a view from the "grassy knoll" where some conspiracy theorists believe a second gunman was stationed.

The game will be available via download for $9.99.

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 - except of course there are living relatives of Kennedy who probably wouldn't much care for entertainment being made off of his murder.

So I will concede it's in bad taste, and the developers aren't gonna be getting $10 off me.

An interesting point would be whether or not other assassinations will get made into mods for the game.

Will we now see Chapman vs. Lennon? Ray vs. King?...

Somehow I doubt it.

jfkrshot4.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If done right it could be like newsgameing where they make a political point, that the JFK assassination was not a conspiracy put actually a guy shooting a gun and hitting a target. Done wrong and it’s a load of crap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They're not really helping in trying to make gaming more accepted by non-gamers, so I'll say that what they're doing is bad. Unless the game turns out to be really fun of course, but I highly doubt that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the Instant Messenger:

Friend

jesus

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=&e=9&u=/ap/20041122/ap_on_hi_te/britain_jfk_game

Jake

yeah saw that

Friend

why people hate video games include that

people read shit like that and they're like "what the hell is wrong with video games?"

I don't understand why that kind of thing can be made in games where nobody anywhere would be able to get away with it in any other medium

italics added after the fact

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In their attempt to "get the word out" that there was only one shooter, they've gone an F'ed the industry in the A, yet again. One more step towards getting us collectively pissed on by Congress, again. This definately takes the cake.

The worst part is this. Not two nights ago, there was a long program on the History Channel called "Kennedy" - it used the EXACT same game technology to simulate the point, that there was only one shooter. It used the same models, and everything. But why would I watch the history channel when I can kill Kennedy myself?

:shifty:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I don't understand why that kind of thing can be made in games where nobody anywhere would be able to get away with it in any other medium" -Jake's friend

I don't understand this quote.... It would be fine to make a movie of JFK's assasination, or a song or a painting, so if that's what he meant by 'medium' then I think he's very wrong. But if that's not what he meant then there's no other medium, I can think of, where you could make this interactive besides video games anyways....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't understand this quote.... It would be fine to make a movie of JFK's assasination, or a song or a painting, so if that's what he meant by 'medium' then I think he's very wrong. But if that's not what he meant then there's no other medium, I can think of, where you could make this interactive besides video games anyways....

LARP? A stall at a fair?.... "Het little Jimmy, would you like a go on our JFK assassination shy? It's only 10c a pop!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LARP? A stall at a fair?.... "Het little Jimmy, would you like a go on our JFK assassination shy? It's only 10c a pop!"

That's pushing it. If he meant a stall at a fair when he said 'no other medium' then I might just eat my shorts. :mock:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. Unless you were doing it for some sort of artistic reason you'd hardly be able to get it on TV or in a theater, or in a retail store, let alone get funding to make it in the first place.

Conveying his assasination is one thing, but glorifying it for no reason is another. If they have some point they're trying to make, or anything, I'll accept it. I'm not just flatly against portraying the shooting of president Kennedy in game (or other) form, I'm just against the apparent mindless sensationalism and vague sickness of this instance of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. Unless you were doing it for some sort of artistic reason you'd hardly be able to get it on TV or in a theater, or in a retail store, let alone get funding to make it in the first place.

Conveying his assasination is one thing, but glorifying it for no reason is another. If they have some point they're trying to make, or anything, I'll accept it. I'm not just flatly against portraying the shooting of president Kennedy in game (or other) form, I'm just against the apparent mindless sensationalism and vague sickness of this instance of it.

Firstly, just because I like playing the devils advocate, the developers have stated the purpose of this game is to prove that there could have been only one shooter, so they do have a point they are trying to make (I guess, they didn't need to make it into a game, though)....

But anyways, if you did somehow find a way to make a movie or TV show that 'conveyed you as being victorious and a winner for shooting Kennedy' (how in hell would you do that? :blink: ) people definitely would shit all over you, and you wouldn't be able to get on TV or in Theaters, in retail stores, or get funding to make it. But you would be able to make it with your own money and release it online with your own bandwidth. Though you still would get shit on. But wait...this is exactly what has been done with the video game...so I still don't see any point in what your friend said.... ( :nuts: ...Just kidding.)

For the record I'm with all you guys in thinking this is a lame publicity trick to make some quick cash, I'm just in a debating mood. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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.

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the difference between this and the MOH games is in MOH you're playing on the "good guys"...

Though in BF:1942 I always play German.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

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 who died in combat, than to put an anonymous face on the whole thing? ¬ ¬ I don't quite understand.

Maybe it would honor the soldiers of the war if you played as a real person, and when you were killed, you got assigned the name and identity of the next person listed as killed in the line of duty.

Actually that is starting to sound as if it has a point. Few (read: no) war games have any sort of point or message, and as this discussion isn't about how they need one, I don't think that's where you were going with your statement.

Also, as to the person further up who said that the point of the JFK game was to prove that Oswald could have got the 3 shots off in the amount of time... that is the most flimsy excuse ever heard. If you want to prove that, pay an expert marksman or military guy to quickly fire a bolt action rifle, and film it. Making a game where you target JFK in his car and shoot him yourself proves nothing, other than the developers really wanted to make a crazy sensational offensive thing that cashes in on the public's interest in the JFK assassination.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Personally, I don't own any FPS (or strategy for that matter) games based on real conflicts - much for the reasons you've outlined. I simply don't find the scenario entertaining. But nor do I really subscribe to your claim that that playng MOHAA (for example) "dishonours the memories of those killed". Maybe, in a strange way, games like that actually keep the memories and hardships of those soldiers alive and in the consciences of a new generation.

However I do admit to owning and enjoying WW1 & WW2 combat flight simulators. So, colour me a hypocrite...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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!

That's not quite what I said/meant, but anyway, your counterpoint is valid.

However, I will still put forward the possibility that a lot of teenagers know a lot more about (certain aspects of) key historic battles than they would know if they were only relying on school, movies & TV for their information, as in the past.

But as I said, I personally don't find any interest / fun in playing FPS games based on real life conflicts (though I do admit to quite liking combat flight sims).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't MoH:AA have a message at the end of the credits dedicating it to the memory of all the soldiers who died? I remember thinking that it was a nice gesture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jeezurs they could have waited til the half of the country that was completely grief stricken from that event had passed on.

Whats next, recreating the incisions made by jack the ripper to prove it must have been a doctor? Recreating the manson murder of Sharon Tate?

I can see why they did it. They had a wonderful informative website. But that wasn't enough to counteract the Oliver Stone flic. They got a TV show. But still, that wasn't enough. They wanted mass market saturization.

For those who dont see why it is greatly offensive, imagine if your father or father figure was assasinated in a violent and shocking way. And then you realised that heaps of kids, (perhaps your grandkids) were out there playing it as a game where they play the killer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this