McChicken Posted June 10, 2005 As I was searching for some news about the nice looking Crash Day racing game, I found a new game developped by the same company : Survivor . Here's the concept : Never seen before game concept:fight for survival in historical disaster scenarios You should be able to play scenarios like Titanic, Hiroshima, Mexico City earthquake and of course 9/11. I don't know what happens during brainstorming sessions at Replay Studios, but someday, something went terribly wrong. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Savage Cabbage Posted June 10, 2005 That's too sick for me to even add my Sammy/SEGA reach-around. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tanukitsune Posted June 10, 2005 How on Earth do you even survive an atomic bomb? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kolzig Posted June 10, 2005 Now that's a sick game. How can a firm go from Crashday to that, I really don't know... There's even talk about adding the Tsunami disaster into the game at replay studios forum. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
toblix Posted June 11, 2005 Assuming the fight for survival is not meant in a literal sense, what's so wrong about this? Nobody would complain if someone made a movie about these things. I'm talking about the concept, of course, of games based on real events like these, and not this particular game, which will probably suck. Is a WW2 game any more tasteful than a titanic game? I agree that it's easy to do this sort of thing in a tasteless manner, but I wouldn't discount the idea right away. ...or would I? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Intrepid Homoludens Posted June 11, 2005 Oops! When I saw the title of thread I thought it was from Tanukitsune. My bad. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marek Posted June 11, 2005 I can think of many ways to do this respectfully, and even more ways in which to piss people off. I don't think the concept itself is inherently offensive, but the execution might be. It depends. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Savage Cabbage Posted June 11, 2005 I think there is a difference between men and women who choose to go to war for their country and die, and innocent people who were flown into a building and jumped rather than face burning to death. Games are designed primarilly for entertainment. It is the reason many can play something like a WW2 game; the 'enemy' is of equal strength and we have a real life means of relating to the attrocities they commited. On the flipside, many were made to feel very uncomfortable playing Full Spectrum Warrior because it was literally like raking down a bunch of inadequate civillians who happened to be pointing guns at your team. Yes, you play WW2 games but would you play a game if it had you torture a young German rookie on the frontline who happened to stumble into your trench? When we play WW2 games, I think we can associate the enemy to that 'type' we all know killed in such terrible ways. But there were perfectly decent German soldiers who knew nothing of the attrocities being commited and fought bravely for their country. I know there are games that have entered these subjects such as Disaster Report, SOS, or Burning Rangers even but I think there is a distinct difference about these titles and this game that looks at very specific events that still affect us all today. Is there an acceptable time to allow for games of this nature? I'm not sure. I just know I wouldn't feel good 'playing' a game like this. I happily play Burnout 3, but I don't want to play a game based on a road traffic accident that actually took place. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
n0wak Posted June 11, 2005 Wow, they've evolved this game. Back when it was first announced (and denounced) in, like, 2002 or 2003, it was *just* 9/11 Survivor. Certainly, at the time, being closer to the actual event it drew a lot of ire. Now... not so much. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Roderick Posted June 12, 2005 Read something in Edge about this. They could certainly pull off a nice scenario-based game I think. At least it'll be something different (possibly). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RLacey Posted June 13, 2005 I'll wait before I just start slagging it off. We don't complain about Omaha Beach levels, now do we? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
netmonkey Posted June 13, 2005 I can think of many ways to do this respectfully, and even more ways in which to piss people off. I don't think the concept itself is inherently offensive, but the execution might be. It depends. Umm.. I bet you, somehow, get a gun in every scenario and start shooting shit around. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tanukitsune Posted June 13, 2005 Oops! When I saw the title of thread I thought it was from Tanukitsune. My bad. Geez, you play a bad game and a couple of impopular ones and you're labeled as the "sh*tty" gamer.... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Roderick Posted June 14, 2005 I'll wait before I just start slagging it off. We don't complain about Omaha Beach levels, now do we? Now there's something to Already Hate Your Game for. Omaha beach. If people still dare to bring out some completely redundant WWII shooter nowadays I say fie to them. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tanukitsune Posted June 14, 2005 If it's going to be a "kill all other survivors to increase your chances of surivival" game then it will the most offensive game ever, but if by "fight for survival" they actually mean surviving, something like Surivival Kids or similar, then it might even be interesting, but I doubt it.. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites