Wednesday, October 06, 2004

Bad Taste Gaming: Survivor

Survivor
SURVIVOR is a 3rd-person Disaster Survival Game designed for all platforms (PC and consoles). Anyone who likes to know how it feels being aboard the Titanic after she hit the iceberg, could go for a try.

Enjoy GTA - like player freedom and experience the most dramatic disasters of the 20 - 21th century in independent game episodes.

Okay, sounds interesting...
Scenarios:
1999: Hurricane Andrew
1912: Titanic
2001: 9/11
2004: Paraguay: Fire In Shopping Mall
1985: Earthquake In Mexico City
1945: Hiroshima

Ah. 9/11? Fire in Shopping Mall?
Rather poor taste, what? Still, people posting stuff like this gives them lots of free publicity... ooops...

7 comments:

mmChronic said...

At what point in time is the bad taste line drawn? ie is recreating the 2001 WTC attacks any more distasteful than recreating 1999 Hurrican Andrew? And is that in turn any more distasteful than recreating the sinking of the Titanic?

There's been a similarish argument re shooters recently - WWII is considered fair game, Iraq less so. There are a number of FPS games which are quite clearly based on Iraq but are in some fictional middle east country. No such beating around the bush with WWII - you can shoot Germans till the Kühe come home.

Dogs said...

Last Sunday I was mostly playing Call of Duty: United Offensive online (Merg: I agree - nice smoke effects)

Anyway, you can be a German if you want and shoot Brits and Yanks. Seems ok so let's have a game based in Iraq where you play the part of a suicide bomber or how about Escape from Abu Ghraib?

mmChronic said...

Yay for Ultimate Jihad Simulator. Can you get to the end of the game and earn 72 grapes?

And if anyone wants to hand out a fatwa - that was Bungers idea. Probably.

Merg said...

Y'know, mC, I knew you'd raise this, so I've been thinking about it.

Thing is, it's not about logic, it's about perceptions.

The passage of time is a major factor. I think the biggest difference, though, is that recent civillian disasters are a lot "closer to home" for most people than military-related stuff.

I think a game which was set in a WW2 concentration camp would still be in bad taste, yet CoD et al don't bother me.

And yes, I think the 1999 Hurricane Andrew is also in bad taste, I just didn't feel like listing them all --
I actually think they're all in bad taste to varying degrees though.

So yes, I think the whole game pretty much is in poor taste.

Perhaps the fact that WW2 is considered, at least by us and the Americans to be a victorious military campaign, where as stuff like 9/11 is a huge disaster is also part of it.

Funnily enough, I've had this discussion before, long before games could be as realistic, but last time it was about the "Hungerford Massacre"...

Merg said...

Oh, yeah... I forgot to mention that I think the "tasteless" factor is indeed diminished somewhat by time -- perhaps because new wounds are the rawest...

The fact that lots of relatives of the dead from a number of the afore-mentioned tragedies is perhaps a major part of it too...

mmChronic said...

It's a hard line to draw. But if it comes down to offending living relatives we would all be playing Napoleonic musket based FPS. Which would be shit. Although aliens are fair game, at least until we actually meet some, so rocket launchers will still be available.

That one is definitely on the wrong side of the line though. But as you said in the original post it's so far on the bad taste side that it will guarantee lots of media coverage. Manhunter, GTA et al certainly didn't suffer from negative press. I really can't see them being crass enough to actually include a WTC level though because as you say it's only just happened and is still raw. But just the announcement of it's inclusion at this stage will do the desired trick in terms of publicity.

I can't see there being much gameplay in the Hiroshima level. The only winning strategy is to arrange to be a few hundred miles away when the bomb drops. Unless there are power up pills that can make you outrun a nuclear firestorm.

BTW if anyone is having problems commenting try IE. FF is just taking me (and bhell13) to the login screen and no further.

Merg said...

Comment via FF, btw.

As I said... I think there's a dif between wars/battles and civillian disasters, which is why WW2 is more "fair game". Again, the concept of a game where you are in a WW2 Nazi Concentration Camp would still be pretty taboo...

I had the same thought on Hiroshima, btw. I can't see a strategy there. In fact, I can't see much of a strategy for any of them that would make interesting gameplay.

Let's ignore 9/11's utter tastelessness for a second... you're sitting in an office, the plane hits... you... run downstairs? Take an elevator?

So far I don't see any compelling game-play there...

At least GTA was somewhat controversial but had a good game behind it. Manhunter was pretty meh... and this, I suspect, will be pants. (but then, reading the side, it sounds like a concept they're looking for a company to write and publish it...)

That's one thing about Rome: TW -- there's definitely no immediate family still around to complain, AND it's a top game to boot!