To test our engine we''re planning on making a game based simply on mass destruction. This will take place in genric, non-identifyable cities. (there are no airplanes crashing). Just sensless destruction on a grand scale. Are people still to sensitive to have a game based on destroying cities.. and each other? (9/11 would be the reason people might be sensitive).

Popping bubbles is too violent for some people, because it's destroying something pretty.

At the same time, I could understand anyone's resistance to mass destruction games, especially in light of the terrorist attacks.

HOWEVER... if your universe is alien enough and the weapons aren't quite similar to ours, plus if, say, the attacks were from planet to planet such that the action was viewed from so far away, that would be something that I don't think people would mind. I wouldn't, anyway.

It really depends on how you present it.

I wanted to make a game that when you finally destroyed a building, the inside would explode, the windows would blow out, and even flaming people would go flying out before the building finally topples over and explodes massively. But I decided against that in light of New York. The buildings still explode, but they will do something different. Spectacular, but different.

You will get resistance no matter what (my mother and sister hate seeing games with guns, and almost every game has them nowadays). It might be a challenge coming up with a mass destruction game that doesn't offend too many people. Then again, done right, you could end up with a very entertaining game.

- Waverider


Edited by - Waverider on March 8, 2002 3:56:46 PM

yes, they are.
i would recommend making it as un-9/11-esque as possible, as even a small and accidental similarity might start a riot... but it is only because of the impact the terrorist thing has caused lately that i say this.
generally speaking, i''d say "screw the oversensitive bastards!"

Has anyone here played Nuclear War? it''s an old game for the amiga in which the goal was to bomb your enemies extinct (i really mean it. Basically you dropped nukes on them, used propaganda to get other nations people to move to your cities and you could also emply anti-nuke protection if you feared for enemy nukes.

Hehe... The victory scene was simply hilarious! The character you played as jumping happily in the nuclear wasteland and calling out "I Won! I Won!" :D Talk about irony...

Don''t get me wrong. The events of September 11 were a horrible tragedy. It was terrible that people could make it their life''s goal to kill so many innocent people. That said, I hope I don''t offend people too much by this post. I think we need to move on, and stop walking on eggshells. If continue to censor ourselves to the degree where we can''t even put buildings in our games because there were buildings involved in the Sept 11 attacks, we are helping them a little bit, and we are helping the enemies of free speech from within. I don''t know, I just dislike it when people are censored from outside sources or from themselves. I like people to express themselves freely. It''s what makes our country the greatest. I can say "George Bush sucks" all day. (Of course there are limits to our free speech but if there weren''t there would be some anarchy, like the screaming fire in a movie theater example) I think that putting nuclear destruction in a game is an okay thing! =D I don''t know there are some limits to what should be done, but we all will know if we cross them(people will let you know! =D). Of course doing case studies (if it''s a commercial product) is a very good idea. Ask people what they think. (which is what you''re doing =D)

Basically I''m of the opinion that it''s ok! And I''d hope more people would stop walking on eggshells here. It was terrible what happened, but the best way to fight terrorism(as the ad for the red cross goes) is to live life the way we always have.

-=Lohrno

I generally concur with the opinions expressed. I for one am annoyed and insulted that the Twin Towers are being removed from the Spiderman movie; frankly I consider that an insult to all those who lost their lives and loved ones. How dare we now behave as if such a significant icon in our nation''s history never existed?!

Screw the oversensitive. Deploy nukes now! (in the game, in the game...)

[ GDNet Start Here | GDNet Search Tool | GDNet FAQ | MS RTFM [MSDN] | SGI STL Docs | Google! ]
Thanks to Kylotan for the idea!

good good. I agree whole heartedly with people being oversensitive and that censoring everything is in a way, letting the terrorists win even more. However, if we pusblish I still want to be able to sell a copy or two. And I did consider the alien thing.. I think just putting it 100 years in the future would work as well, assuming that we make the buildings look futuistic.

Today I say a shirt that said

Computer Games don''t affect our children. If games affected up when we were kids, then we would be running around in darkened rooms, eating candy, and listening to repetitive music.

the original quote:

"Computer games don''t affect kids, I mean if Pac man affected us as kids, we''d all be running around in darkened rooms, munching pills and listening to repetitive music." - Kristian Wilson of Nintendo, Inc. in 1989

something also to consider about sensitivity of the us audience. a british female going for a spot in parliment (ie in great britan) decided to strip to wearing nothing but the lower half of a bikini. they showed this on the news, naturally censored. though how they censored is what made me laugh. the women was wearing a shear dress and no bra. this mean you could clearly see everything, except the lower half becuase it was covered by said bikini bottom. this was NOT censored, and only after she removed the shear dress did they mosiac the top half of her body to cover the breasts you could clearly see (albeit, slightly discolored due to the red shear dress). confusing me completly on why they even bothered to censor the removal of the shear dress. since she neevr removed the bikini bottom.

for those that dont know, nudity in europe is less feared then in the us. so seeing upper frontal nudity on tv is not super special. also a little fyi, in the usa, a women technically does not have to wear a top. being that the indecency laws (well in most states) only apply to the lower half of the body.

as to limits in games. personally i think if its explicitly stated on the game box that the game contains extreme scenes of graphic violence clearly. as well as does the old, no suitable for children under 17 deal (a la movies), its alright. let the parent decide (as they should).

and one last note. i am not usre how many of you heard of state of emergency for ps2, but my local software etc (selling used copies only at $45) is actually checking id when ppl purchase the game (actually has a "check id" sticker on the box).

in the end, as long as the target audience enjoys the game, anything goes. if the game hits mainstream and is in stores however. be careful of what is contained in the game since moronic parents tend to allow the kids to by whatever they want, and complain after they see the game is graphic instead of making sure their kid dont play it to begin with.

millions played doom, yet we dont have tons of Murder Death Killers.

Thanks for the source.