[link] interesting? jfk/oswald shooter game

http://www.jfkreloaded.com/start/

i saw this listed in google news, thought it was worth mentioning for you gaming freaks. unfortunately, it does cost $9.99...

here's the game essentially. you're oswald, you need to get off the 3 shots that killed kennedy (thus, proving he was the lone shooter). There is a $100K competition to come the closest to what was written in the warren commission report. here's a blurb from their site about the competition:

To win the competition, you need to most closely match the shots taken by Lee Harvey Oswald, as concluded in the Warren Commission Report on the assassination of JFK.

Accuracy of your shots (in terms of trajectory and timing) will be judged purely by the JFK Reloaded server, which is programmed to audit each shot for timing and injuries, and thereby arrive at a total score. The higher the total, the closer you are to Lee Harvey Oswald’s actions – and thereby the more clearly you prove that Lee Harvey Oswald had the means and the opportunity to commit the crime.

Your shots will need to have exactly the same timing and cause exactly the same damage as the shots described in the Warren Commission Report in order to score the maximum possible total.

#230662

if u ask me that game is sick :slant:

#230666

Its a historical re-enactment and its a game - I've seen sicker games - infact killing only 1 person in a game would be concidered a bit dull by todays standards.

#230735

If you ask me, I have to agree with Unbe. That's just messed up (and I use that term in place of a less proper term.)

#230746

yeah, games are one thing. you shoot a bunch of pixels. but re-enactment of a murder of a real person is just sick to me :slant:

#230749

Especially if it's an "official game", something that's not made by a programmer with too much free time who makes it stick figures.

Agree, this is sick.

Unfortunately, there's even more disgusting stuff out there.

-NC

#230766

i wouldn't say that it's an official game... an official game would mean that the warren commission released it. now that would be 10x better if they did. if you do well, you unlock a code to get the special "magic bullet". Then, you can shoot the completely opposite way and still shoot him on mark!

it would also be fun if you can find and shoot the guy on the grassy knoll. or kevin costner.

#230779

At first I thought the same as many of you, that this game is demented, however after reading about it and thinking about, it is not really a game. All these years there have been talk about conspiracy etc etc revolving around the killing of JFK. I think what this is, is an attempt to prove (or disprove) that one man could have done this.

Like I said, I don't think it is a game persay. The concept is interesting. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that there is some govt involvment in this. Sort of to put to rest the idea that there was more than one spitter, um I mean shooter (stupid seinfeld)

#230941

Historical re-enactment my a$$. It's just disgusting.

It's a sick GAME where you are in a competition to MURDER someone in the same manner in which the real killer did.

It's not to expose any theory of a government conspiracy, it's to make $$$.

Yes, I believe there was a consipracy, but I believe Oswald was the only shooter.

I've seen the type of gun he used and it's very possible for someone who has practiced with it, or any other type of weapon for that matter, to fire that many rounds at that speed and accuracy.

Heck, my old Delta Elite 10mm was a bear, but after a few weeks, not months, I could keep it within a 3 inch circle at 50 yards. And that's just a hand gun.

With my 30-30, lever action for those who don't know, I can fire all 7 rounds in less than 8 seconds. And I shoot at targets a 100 yards away and hit them center mass all the time.

So yes, I believe Kennedy's murder could have been done the way the report says it was.

But to make a GAME out of it is just disgusting and sick.

That's my opinion on the subject.

#230953

What makes this any different from, say, strategy games where you play as the general of a great Roman army, reenacting battles from history, or a FPS where you play as a soldier in WWII? Real people died in both scenaria then, didn't they?

The only thing that makes this game any more distressing than the prior examples is the fact that the victim is someone to whom millions felt some sense of attachment, because he was their president - he is a household name. Does anyone feel remorse for Joerg Schmidt from Munich (or whoever) when they play BattleField 1942? No.

And, of course, if you're going to say that this is tasteless, then that means that you should consider any medium discussing or portraying murder of anyone, regardless of their status, under the same light.

Until you can, I think it's a bit hypocritical to call this distasteful when we play games and watch movies and listen to music depicting violent, bloody murder, and don't bat an eyelid until it refers to a real person to whom we can relate.

#230964

^ well said, my thoughts exactly... if you don't like it, just go play your GTA and gun down some hooker without blinking an eye.

i honestly didn't think people would react with such horror to it. bunch of housewives and little girls... and by the way, this was released by a scottish company. another good blurb from a news story:

"After playing JFK Reloaded for a couple of hours, I have to give Traffic credit for the game's unbelievably precise physics. Every bullet bounces around with a super-realistic trajectory, behaving in the incredibly complicated way that bullets do. Sometimes I'd hit the back of the limo and the bullet would careen forward, smashing the glass; other times it would embed itself in the metal. After each round, the game lets you view the scene in a dozen different ways, including the classic Zapruder film angle or even from the perspective of a camera mounted on the limo. Then you get a 3-D model of the limo that you can rotate however you want, with the bullet trajectories traced in freeze-frame. As a physics simulation, it's remarkable."

"While the game's ostensible purpose is simply to re-kill Kennedy as accurately as possible, you can perform any number of alternative scenarios. Shoot the driver first, and the motorcade comes to a halt, allowing you to pick off anyone you want. Or sometimes the driver dies with his foot on the accelerator, driving the car off the road and into a lamppost. You can, if you wish, kill Jackie instead."

#230997

There's a big difference between a fictional character in a video game or movie and what this is doing. And yes, I find a lot of todays music, movies and games tasteless.

And yes, I do believe that most movies an TV shows go way overboard on the whole blood and guts thing. I don't need to actualy SEE someone get their head blown off or their throat cut. They only do this to make up for the lack of good writting.

It's like "do we have a good story to tell... no." So let's throw in some long, totaly unrealistic car chase or like the intro to Swordfish were they blowup a hostage.

Did we need to actualy SEE the person explode, or would a different camera angle say from inside the bank or coffe house been just as good. BTW... I got about half way through that movie and turned it off... waste of money. The story line, or the lack of one, was a complete joke. But I guess the general public probably couldn't follow a movie that required the use of your own imagination to fill in the things you didn't see. I think that makes a story or movie or even a game much more interesting.

OK.. I've rambled off topic long enough. But I think my point was made... I think.

#231000

There's a big difference between a fictional character in a video game or movie and what this is doing. And yes, I find a lot of todays music, movies and games tasteless.

And yes, I do believe that most movies an TV shows go way overboard on the whole blood and guts thing. I don't need to actualy SEE someone get their head blown off or their throat cut. They only do this to make up for the lack of good writting.

It's like "do we have a good story to tell... no." So let's throw in some long, totaly unrealistic car chase or like the intro to Swordfish were they blowup a hostage.

Did we need to actualy SEE the person explode, or would a different camera angle say from inside the bank or coffe house been just as good. BTW... I got about half way through that movie and turned it off... waste of money. The story line, or the lack of one, was a complete joke. But I guess the general public probably couldn't follow a movie that required the use of your own imagination to fill in the things you didn't see. I think that makes a story or movie or even a game much more interesting.

OK.. I've rambled off topic long enough. But I think my point was made... I think.

I'm not, however, saying that this particular game is a work of art, but gratuity of sex and violence is very much in the eye of the beholder. And yes, some artists do use "shock tactics", but more artists than you would think use tactics that may be deemed shocking - art (in any medium) is not typically created to express nothing in particular, to act as wallpaper, if you will. Art, as many among us will know, is created to express one's feelings, whether these be aggression, passion, or anything in between, and these can all, in their own way, be shocking.

I think, personally, that to dismiss a work merely because it doesn't conform to your expectations is a little naive and conceited.

Do you really think the opening scene for Swordfish would have been anywhere near as effective in conveying the feeling of anxiety and terror had they replaced the graphic scene depicting blowing up a hostage with someone saying "oh no, they blew up a hostage!"?

I see your point that yes, there are many needlessly gratuitous works in modern society, but to write off an entire generation of popular culture is rather a senseless waste, and belittles those people who obviously did what they did for a good reason, in most cases.

I could get into this much more aggressively (in terms of further expressing my point of view, not in terms of this turning into a flame), but I really see no need in further drawing out a topic which won't change anyone's minds.

I also don't see why a "fictional character" such as a soldier involved in D-Day is any different from this, aside from the fact that the people who survived D-Day were likely far more traumatised than JFK or Oswald by seeing the event that killed their best friends re-enacted on screen (Saving Private Ryan) and in video games (lots).

#231006

I understand your point. Perhaps I was generalizing a bit much.

I wasn't attempting to "write off an entire generation of popular culture".

Just trying to point out that there comes a time when you just have to say "wait a minute". This particular piece work, in my opinion mind you, has crossed the line.

Yes, it's a cool game with great graphics and technicaly accurate effects, but I find the subject matter in this particular case offensive to me.

As an American I find this very disturbing to see a very dark time for our country turned into a "for profit contest". To see who can kill a former president in the same fasion as he was killed in the past.

It's just wrong.

I'm just glad that Jackie and JFK Jr. are not alive to see this.

Again, just my opinion.

#231019

I understand your point. Perhaps I was generalizing a bit much.

I wasn't attempting to "write off an entire generation of popular culture".

Just trying to point out that there comes a time when you just have to say "wait a minute". This particular piece work, in my opinion mind you, has crossed the line.

Yes, it's a cool game with great graphics and technicaly accurate effects, but I find the subject matter in this particular case offensive to me.

As an American I find this very disturbing to see a very dark time for our country turned into a "for profit contest". To see who can kill a former president in the same fasion as he was killed in the past.

It's just wrong.

I'm just glad that Jackie and JFK Jr. are not alive to see this.

Again, just my opinion.

I take the point that yes, it could be seen as tasteless to say "try to win money by re-enacting the murder of our former president", but again, I put it to you that this is no more or less tasteless than playing BF:1942 at a professional gaming tournament, or making a multi-million-dollar film about said president's death, or whatever.

Also, as has already been mentioned, there exist far more tasteless things in this world than this... Take the snuff porn (murder porn) industry (yes, an industry of sorts does exist), or sites like Rotten et al. - I'd consider these far more worthy of distaste than this game...

#231022

...there exist far more tasteless things in this world than this... Take the snuff porn (murder porn) industry (yes, an industry of sorts does exist), or sites like Rotten et al. - I'd consider these far more worthy of distaste than this game...

Makes me afraid to think of what life is gonna be like for my daughter when she grows up. She's only two right now and I can't imagine this getting any better.

I will not let her watch regular TV at all, only educational childrens videos.

I want her to grow up knowing that murder and violence are things that should frighten her. I want her to be shocked by those types of events. Not be seen as something cool or neat.

Anyway... I drifted off topic again. It's just when does it end? Where do you draw the line? When do people realize that none of this is cool, it's sad.

Killing a person is a last resort thing, not something to be trivialized.

There is no reset button or rewind, once your dead, your dead.

Remember the A-Team... millions of bullets flying around and cars blowing up, but everyone walked away. NOBODY DIED!!! I think there was only one episode where anyone got shot and you saw blood.

You got to see good stunt work, some cool effects, although cheezy at times, but they never had to resort to killing anyone on screen.

And they were on the air for years and longer in syndication.

It just proves that you can entertain and have lots of action without resorting to gratuitous blood and gore.

#231031

people do try to revive the past like battlefield 1942 or age of empires and other historical games. but this? is totally off the boundary of so-called good history games. one, it's uneducational. i do learn quite a lot from age of empires like who exist, who in the world joan of arc is (during that time, i was 8-9 ) so i don't know much like that until middleschool. but trying to be the best murderer and that is just as good as stickdeath.

rjohnstone, you are perfectly right. that's why i will never buy a bb gun because i was shot by one (gas gun pumped high) by an idiot and it hurts like @#$%^& so it is not cool, fun, or even entertaining. people should realize the fact that guns and killing and suicide is not fun.

lets get back on topic. that game is stupid and dumb.

#231963

If a major TV network were to air an advertisement tomorrow for a new documentary on Kennedy’s assassination, nary an eyelid would be blinked. Ditto if they promoted that “through state of the art technology, we have been able to simulate the precise conditions of that fateful day, and prove that Oswald could have been the killer.” Ditto if said simulation involved a 3d fly-through of the trajectory of each bullet.

You can’t package that simulation for everyone, though. Democratise the documentary so that anyone can attempt the reconstruction themselves (offering a prize for the person who comes closest to proving Oswald could have done it), and pundits will be calling for your heads.

Because it’s a computer game. Kids play games.

This, of course, is the key problem - people associate computers with children's toys. Take my job - I'm a professional web architect; I advise people on their web systems (systems which cost millions of millions of dollars in both hardware and software), and people often sum this up by saying that I "spend all day playing with computers". Note the word "playing", implying that what I do is neither an adult activity, nor is it really work, and yet I routinely work with equipment costing far in excess of what others will earn in their entire life, in an effort to save, in the space of one day's web traffic alone, an average employee's salary (if not more).

But, of course, this is all worth nothing because what I do is just "playing with computers". Like my dad says, "it's not like do real work, is it?"

That, of course, sums up what everyone criticising this "game" feels, despite the fact that it requires a credit card to buy, thus limiting it's players to those over the age of 18, because they, at their core, dismiss digital media as something a child would play with.

Add to that the fact that this "game" attempts to simulate something already controversial, and you have the furor with which people oppose this.

Oh, and steelfist, if we were talking about "the best murder", people would buy one of the "Hitman" series of games - this is more about precisely mimicking the way that JFK died, in some attempt to prove or disprove the possibility.

It is nothing more than an interactive simulation. Were this simulation controlled by inputting values for trajectory and so forth, rather than "controlling" Oswald, then people would likely not object anywhere near as much.

The problem, of course, arises when people are asked to empathise with a killer - it disgusts them to bring themselves to believe that there is, in the grand scheme of life, nothing seperating them from someone capable of murdering a figure of national reverence in cold blood. This is a fairly normal reaction in most people, but one which is, in it's very essence, hypocritical - we are all, as a species, no better or worse than one another, and we simply cannot bring ourselves to believe this - we like to fool ourselves into thinking that we are better than people who kill others.

Further, my point still very much stands that, to appreciate titles like "Battlefield 1942" and "Age of Empires", and then discount this as "off the boundary" is utterly hypocritical, and, frankly, an insult to all those who died in World War II, and all the wars recreated by the likes of "Age of Empires".

Having re-read the last few posts in the thread, I also feel that I should add the following:

rjohnstone, if you shield your daughter from the real world in this way, it will, in the long term, only serve either to alienate her from you, or make her grow up to be very naive and, ultimately, get hurt. You've got to let your children learn things themselves, as well as teaching them what you know. I know that this goes against every parent's instincts, but it's something that you have to do. If you don't, your kids will almost certainly resent it in the long run.

Further, if you teach her well, and respect her ability (when she's older) to choose right from wrong, rather than treating her like a child, she'll invariably choose the things you want her to, and make you proud.

steelfist, the point of most forms of entertainment where people (mistakenly) think that the portrayal is "guns/war/suicide is cool/fun" is not, in fact, this. Rather, the point is often one of illustrating the bad in the world. Forgive me if this all sounds rather trite, but I'd rather see this sort of thing - and realise that the world isn't such a happy place after all - than be spoon-fed some happy-go-lucky "isn't the world such a happy place", only to walk out my front door and be mugged by someone after a heroin fix.

As for the A-Team, it was campy '80s trash. No-one really watches that and believes it. Scarface, however, people believe. Why? Because the A-Team, whilst fun, portrayed too perfect a world to be believable.

I'm sorry if this all conflicts with people's desire to see the world as a generally nice place, but that's just the way I see things...

I'd also say that we couldn't have stayed any more true to the topic.

How is what we're saying "off-topic"? We're discussing the ethics and morality of modern media, in the context of the JFK simulation.

2>

I've seen the type of gun he used and it's very possible for someone who has practiced with it, or any other type of weapon for that matter, to fire that many rounds at that speed and accuracy.

Sorry, couldn't resist...

3>

#231983

2 cents:

regarding the part about being possible for someone to fire with the accuracy as oswald reportedly did, i did see a documentary a while back in which military personnel with a higher degree of gun training oswald had when in the military were not able to reproduce the same amount of shots with anywhere near the accuracy. (using the same type of gun he used)

#232022