these dev's should have their brains lacquered

[red oct 2]

is it just me or does anybody else think that making a reality game where you asume a role of a powerless civilian who must survive a event based on actual events offensive?

http://www.replaystudios.de/survivor/aboutthegame.php

gee, a bunch of Isrealies got blown up in Egypt recently, they going to include that too? or how about the hostage taking in the Russian school? maybe the Mandrid bombing in Spain? sick bastards

[HellToupee 0]

offensive how? what about ww2 games they based off real life events and so on.

[red oct 2]

those games stuck to the military part of the reality. non of those game included what happened to the civilians. what happened to all the people who died in the events was unfair and really should (in my opinion at least) be treated alot more seriously than this.

[kegetys 2]

I dont see anything wrong in it... Interesting idea however, and might make an interesting game but it'll propably suck just like 99% of all other games today

[edc 0]

I think this is a lot different than the other events you listed Red Oct because: A) Its not people killing people(well, maybe arguably through ignorance, but not intentionally killing people), its nature killing people, and B) the Titanic was a long time ago, people generally don't swell up with tears when people talk about it because unless they're really, really old they weren't even alive when it happened, and even if they were they probably didn't know anybody on it. You may not like it, but atleast its more creative than yet another WWII or Vietnam game. Atleast they're actually innovating and doing something different.

That said, depending on the way they do it, they could disrespect the people on the ship, but just the topic of the game doesn't IMO cause it to be sick.

[stgn 39]

Is its just me or isthis a bit un realistic and boring? 9/11: run down of 10000 stairs and you almost home free, you just have too help the litle girl stuck under a closet, the woman ho has gotten her leg cut off and the man whit burning petrol in his head oh and whatch the bodys droping from the skie when you get out of the building so they don't land on you. I think this is a strange idear for a game cause you can't realy do somthing to avoide the situation or realy help its just survival of the fittest which mean you the player.

And whats up whit Hiroshima? "now kids whe are gona teach you to whidstand a neuclear blast" what will you be able to do? there is nothing lef whitin a 2 mile radious and running isent gonna help you much.

STGN

[korax 4]

Thats why its going to be interesting to see how this game turns out

[GoOB 0]

There was an interesting game for the PS2 released last year or so. It basically had the same principles, but the goal of the game was to escape from disasters that happen naturally (and fictional ones at that). It was quite a good "horror" game as it gave you some adrenaline kicks during the more complicated parts of the stages. That game was good fun to play, I can't see why this wouldn't be fun. It's a bit tasteless to use reallife events directly, but it's basically the same as all the WWII, Vietnam and even the Blackhawk down game released a while back.

But the best "reality game" ever was Mr.Mozkeeto

[Gollum1 0]

Surviving a disaster and probably helping others

vs.

Killing hundreds including civilians as a soldier á la Black Hawk Down

No I don't think it's offensive.

[Ironsight 1]

Hmmm weird game, never saw a concept like this

Well lets see how it will turn out

[Cpt. FrostBite 0]

I find the idea a bit offensive, but we have to wait how it turns out.

If they don't make it a 'fun' game but pay respect to the people that actually died in those disasters than it might be okay.

Give the guys some credit, ok? Also read the designer notes;

Quote[/b] ]Designer Notes:

We do not intent to play down neither the horrors of the events nor the sufferings of the victims. We dissociate ourselves explicitly from any political aims pursued by terror acts.

We remain with full respect towards the victims and their families.

@Gollum

Quote[/b] ]Surviving a disaster and probably helping others

vs.

Killing hundreds including civilians as a soldier á la Black Hawk Down

No I don't think it's offensive.

Good point

[Apollo 0]

I find the idea offensive to ,and somewhat tasteless.

I mean ,what possible actions could you do to survive those disasters?

Titanic: push a few woman and children in the sea to have a spot on one of the few live rafts ,possibly shoot one of the crew men organizing the lines to the raft?

9-11 / Paraguay 2004: Just trample people as you run for the exit?

Hiroshima: Duck and cover?

Earthquake in Mexico/huricane andrew: just shoot the owner of a basement and occupy it yourself?

And what about addon maers then? Some guy creeate's a scenario where you have to survive the holocoast ,better to cooperate with the capo's and and rattle on youre people to incrase youre chances...

Even if this is exgaurated ,how will they possibly make this game fun and most of all replayable for the possible hughe amount of work nessecary to create it? Model the whole WTC for a scenario of 15 minutes ,model the whole of Mexico city or Hiroshima for just one event ,with all the effect's those events need?

And probably not even multiplayer possibilety's.....

[Bordoy 0]

Surviving a disaster and probably helping others

vs.

Killing hundreds including civilians as a soldier á la Black Hawk Down

No I don't think it's offensive.

Do not fire unless fired upon. Yep mistakes would of been made like all wars. But the the "civillians" were carrying guns firing at soldiers so the response is fire back.

[bonko the sane 2]

its 3rd person...whatever the title\objectives of the game it WILL suck.

[red oct 2]

if they wanted to make a game like this why couldn't they have based it on fictional settings? why did they have to choose actual events? only reason i can think of is because of the controversy involved. controversy sells.

Quote[/b] ]Designer Notes:

We do not intent to play down neither the horrors of the events nor the sufferings of the victims. We dissociate ourselves explicitly from any political aims pursued by terror acts.

We remain with full respect towards the victims and their families.

did these developers actually asked the families of the victim's on their input on this? i doubt it. if i had a grandparent who had to suffer from a lifetime of radiation sickness because of the Hiroshima bombing, i would be outraged. wouldn't anybody else? video games are for entertainment purposes. to take tragic events and make it all into a game does "play down" what happened and as i said should be treated more serriously than this. alot of people mourned the terrorist attack in Spain, so would nobody be offended should they decide to make that into a game? how about that school shooting that took place in Germany a couple years ago? maybe have a level where you have to escape a bunch of machette wielding fanatics in the Phillipines? Kenneth Bigley just got his head hacked off by his captors for supposedly trying to escape, wana make that into a game as well?

[Placebo 28]

its 3rd person...whatever the title\objectives of the game it WILL suck.

GTA and Max Payne are both 3rd person

[SpecOp9 0]

those games stuck to the military part of the reality. non of those game included what happened to the civilians. what happened to all the people who died in the events was unfair and really should (in my opinion at least) be treated alot more seriously than this.

What is the difference here?

Civilians dying, soldiers dying, either way they are people dying.

[Blake 0]

C'mon at least it's a fresh idea for a game. But I fear it will be linear, like Call of Duty scripted with one path to save yourself.

[Silent N Deadly 0]

The game sounds abit liner and very short. The screenshots look ok, but the gameplay probaly is about 2 hours of playing. I wonder what the interface will look like.

[Harnu 0]

Sounds intresting, but it will probably need a lot of expansion on the idea for it or I think it would be too linear like you guys have said.

[bonko the sane 2]

its 3rd person...whatever the title\objectives of the game it WILL suck.

GTA and Max Payne are both 3rd person  

i only played MaxPayne with first person Mod

(never did play GTA)

[Placebo 28]

Then you're missing out, well assuming you like random violence, tongue in cheek black humour in a retro stylee (game setting not game engine wise)

[Norris 0]

is it just me or does anybody else think that making a reality game where you asume a role of a powerless civilian who must survive a event based on actual events offensive?

http://www.replaystudios.de/survivor/aboutthegame.php

gee, a bunch of Isrealies got blown up in Egypt recently, they going to include that too? or how about the hostage taking in the Russian school? maybe the Mandrid bombing in Spain? sick bastards

You're surely joking, that's an awesome idea for a game! Though it doesn't look very promising (another one of those 'budget' titles, I guess ). But it's a great idea nevertheless.

[bardamu 0]

I dont see anything wrong in it... Interesting idea however, and might make an interesting game but it'll propably suck just like 99% of all other games today

Unfortunately i totaly agree with this.

But it's a nice concept IMHO,after all it's just a game.

[Tamme 0]

The idea is very good and original, but I fear that it won't be a very good game. Either it will be ruined by crappy gameplay, or it's going to be linear. I hope I'm wrong though.