Muslim Massacre 'Game' Gains Attention for Seeker

'Satire' or 'Attention Seeking'

Posted by Staff
Muslim Massacre 'Game' Gains Attention for Seeker
A game called Muslim Massacre in which you get to play a gung-ho American 'hero' has - unsurprisingly - caused all sorts of uproar on September 11th 2008.

The game is designed by an American chap living in Brisbane, Australia and calling himself, Sigvatr.

The game is apparently:"social commentary" or "I thought it would be a fun and funny game to play, and it was fun to make too. laugh" or "its (sic) still just a fun computer game" or it's a "clever satire" or it is to complete Sigvatr's dream, which is "a game which will stop you from playing games all together."

Phew! It's lots and lots of things for people with PCs. But it's done one thing, gained attention for the lad who has also brought us "competitive spree killing organization". Another thing it's achieved is to enable the mainstream media to do the following:

'Muslim Massacre' video game condemned for glamorising slaughter of Arabs' - Daily Telegraph.

'Outrage over 'Muslim Massacre' computer game' - The Daily Mail.

We could go on with references to the mainstream media having another reason to leap all over video games. We're not going to, but damn it! we've provided more attention by reporting it.

One small piece of perspective on this game's subject can also be found here.


Comments

Showing the 20 most recent comments. Read all 41.
Horatio 12 Sep 2008 15:39
22/41
schnide wrote:

I nevertheless retain the argument that the industry has a responsibility not to put games like Manhu.. okay games of questionable moral worth, so that when games like Muslim Massacre come out we can unquestionably refute them, rather than have a moral fog like this one.
.


In that case, so does other media, like film for example.... so no more rambo sequels.... oh, may as well smack the music industry too.... so no more questionable hip hip (yay)....

Hang on, I'm hearing cries of free speech now? Where is that noise coming from?

Looks to Tim :-P
schnide 12 Sep 2008 15:48
23/41
Horatio wrote:
schnide wrote:

I nevertheless retain the argument that the industry has a responsibility not to put games like Manhu.. okay games of questionable moral worth, so that when games like Muslim Massacre come out we can unquestionably refute them, rather than have a moral fog like this one.
.


In that case, so does other media, like film for example.... so no more rambo sequels.... oh, may as well smack the music industry too.... so no more questionable hip hip (yay)....


I'd love to see no more questionable hip hop - "I live for money and beat ma hoes!" - and somehow that's acceptable? Tim Westwood can open his show with a song that has an endless loop of firing uzi's and that's alright? Actually no it's not alright, but as long as someone's making money out of it then they'll be arguing otherwise - just like Manhunt 2.

Bizarrely, I think Rambo 4 actually portrayed war in a far more responsible fashion than anything like Commando. And of course, who Rambo was killing in that film were the bad guys who'd murdered innocent villagers.

But you can't bring in the argument that Manhunt lets you kill other prisoners who had also done wrong, because you can kill anyone in GTA. So that doesn't wash.

I genuinely think this should be explored as an argument - this isn't for the sake of it. What are we saying is right and wrong to portray in games?
.
more comments below our sponsor's message
Tim Smith 12 Sep 2008 16:05
24/41
Horatio wrote:
Hang on, I'm hearing cries of free speech now? Where is that noise coming from?
Looks to Tim :-P


Look, I am trying to get down to the bloody pub okay, stop reeling me in.

At no point have I called for a ban on any game. Never will. Censoring is really just a convenient way for any organisation to get away with not funding education.

Killing people is - by and large - wrong (I'm of the mind that if someone was to have come at my daughter with the intention of damaging her, I'd kill them).

Thinking about and play-acting killing people is something that we all do. It is much easier to fall over the edge from play-acting and thinking into actually doing if you have a large mob or a powerful authority behind you all supporting that act.

Although open to question in terms of method, the Stanford Prison Experiment, Solomon Asch's conformity experiments and the Milgram experiment all indicate this.

That's my worry about MM.... large mob of bigots and scared people all feeling supported and then pressurising other people into bashing the coffee-coloured people... or Catholics or Jews or Hindus or .... anybody else with an invisible, fantasy friend.

In terms of freedom of speech, well, calling 'Fire!' in a crowded theatre when there isn't a fire still strikes me and Oliver Wendell Holmes as a dodgy idea.

Now, is it okay if I go to the pub and start a fight yet?

-------- Tim Has Attained Total Pomposity! Tim has Attained Total Pomposity! ----
Tim Smith 12 Sep 2008 16:21
25/41
schnide wrote:
I genuinely think this should be explored as an argument - this isn't for the sake of it. What are we saying is right and wrong to portray in games?


Okay! I've opened my Newcastle Brown and Absinthe at my desk.

The portrayal of anything at all is acceptable in video games. There we go, I've said it.

Criticising is too.

So is not buying it.

So is boycotting it.

What is unacceptable is not educating people to the extent that they are able differentiate between thought and deed. I love American Psycho, Goya's The Disasters of War, Kill the Poor by the Dead Kennedys, Jonathan Swift's A Modest Proposal, Syndicate, Canon Fodder... everything from rape, cannibalism of babies, murder, warfare and calls to kill large groups of people are in that lot.

By showing our darker sides and enabling us to question them, all these things can be of positive use.

The subject matter isn't often the issue here. The reasoning is.

Did anybody see the perspective link we put at the bottom of the original story?

Cheers

Tim

------ NEW POMPOSITY RECORD ACHIEVEMENT!!! -----
way 12 Sep 2008 16:21
26/41
...........................
way 12 Sep 2008 16:21
27/41
Hey, his sig looks familiar from somewhere on the Internet (and even his programming partner sounds and looks familiar, I used to live in Brisbane).

http://www.indiegames.com/blog/2008/01/interview_linkdead_developers.html
Tim Smith 12 Sep 2008 16:25
28/41
way wrote:
Hey, his sig looks familiar from somewhere on the Internet (and even his programming partner sounds and looks familiar, I used to live in Brisbane).


Yeah, he's at Transhumandesign but why give more publicity than... well, I decided to.

Having lived in NSW for nearly a decade, I have to withdraw from any comments on what being in Qld can do to a person.*

(I also lived in Darwin... so, go figure).

Cheers

Tim

*Mad as cut-snakes all of them.
Reorte 12 Sep 2008 16:40
29/41
Did someone say "cake"?
Twoozle 12 Sep 2008 16:44
30/41
Reorte wrote:
Did someone say "cake"?


I love cake! wheres cake?

(can we talk about video games aswell or will that upset the folks in the phillosphy librerary???)

Hugz to schnidey!
way 12 Sep 2008 16:51
31/41
;) Yes, being in Queensland will send you sensible, or maybe just conservative left wing, unlike Darwin, or NSW, where did you say you lived last? He had to be an American (though I do know somebody of the same last name in Brisbane). Not the sort of thing a more normal local would do, more what somebody from the alternative sex side of Sydney, or just from Melbourne, would do.

I am not aiming to download it, but looks like a satirical take from the anti-bush bunch. Must admit, the graphics style is similar to one of my favourite games, Bio-Menace.

Tim Smith wrote:
way wrote:
Hey, his sig looks familiar from somewhere on the Internet (and even his programming partner sounds and looks familiar, I used to live in Brisbane).


Yeah, he's at Transhumandesign but why give more publicity than... well, I decided to.

Having lived in NSW for nearly a decade, I have to withdraw from any comments on what being in Qld can do to a person.*

(I also lived in Darwin... so, go figure).
Tim Smith 12 Sep 2008 17:00
32/41
way wrote:
;) Yes, being in Queensland will send you sensible, or maybe just conservative left wing, unlike Darwin, or NSW, where did you say you lived last?


Erm... last place was Surry Hills actually in Sydney, Crown and Campbell Sts... sort of the Alternative Sex Side. :-)

Ahem...

Cheers

Tim
Koji 12 Sep 2008 22:46
33/41
Achtung!! This is Joji. My login is having a fit, so for now, I'm my doppleganger, Koji.

Adding to this hot debate, I really have to agree with Schnide.

Games should be allowed to do all those things other media do (this is exactly why I disagreed with the Fallout 3 censorship crap a few days ago, as it goes back to this same principal thing). This game will be frowned upon, because games are only supposed to be fun and nothing more, right (or so many believe)? This is wrong, and if it was ever true, is no longer the case.

If this chap creates this Muslim Massacre game, while I disagree with its poor taste, i do agree with its right to exist as an independant game and the creation of a person out there, (no matter how sane or warped that person may be). And just like cartoons about prophets, you can disagree with it, but it should still be allowed to exist. Our choices are simple, agree or disagree.

You don't agree, then create a christian slaying game in response, then the stakes will be even and everyone content. I do think that its more likely this chap is gunning for more social commentary or satire than just plain hatred and racism. Either way, just like the twin towers space invaders art, it exists to create a response, positive or negative. And hey, how we are responding here is great, don't you think?

I'd vote for a Monty Python's Spanish Inquisition torture game, just to show that all ideologies, and human beings in general, can be as messed up as each other, and we love most of the crap that makes up really f**ked up. All of us should not be beyond critique, good or bad.
Horatio 12 Sep 2008 23:35
34/41
Koji wrote:
Games should be allowed to do all those things other media do (this is exactly why I disagreed with the Fallout 3 censorship crap a few days ago, as it goes back to this same principal thing). This game will be frowned upon, because games are only supposed to be fun and nothing more, right (or so many believe)? This is wrong, and if it was ever true, is no longer the case.


They do, they are. But then the boundaries start to be pushed a little further, as in this case. When was the last time you watched 90 minutes of a one man crusade where he slaughters every single Muslim for a bit of a laugh? The game is frowned upon because of its content, not because of what gaming is supposed to be.

Koji wrote:
If this chap creates this Muslim Massacre game, while I disagree with its poor taste, i do agree with its right to exist as an independant game and the creation of a person out there, (no matter how sane or warped that person may be). And just like cartoons about prophets, you can disagree with it, but it should still be allowed to exist. Our choices are simple, agree or disagree.


But this isn't in the same league as newspaper cartoons lampooning a phophet. If this were a story, with a narrative explaining the character motivations, delving into his psyche, then it would be acceptable. If this were a piece of art with an american soldier gunning down a middle eastern muslim family, it would be social commentary (I think?). But this is interactive entertainment designed with the specific aim of making it fun for your American character to be a racist, the point of the game is not to learn about why the character is doing what he is doing and it has nothing to do with social commentary.

Koji wrote:
You don't agree, then create a christian slaying game in response, then the stakes will be even and everyone content. I do think that its more likely this chap is gunning for more social commentary or satire than just plain hatred and racism. Either way, just like the twin towers space invaders art, it exists to create a response, positive or negative. And hey, how we are responding here is great, don't you think?


Really? I can make a game, so are you saying that my response to this should be to go and make 'Kill a Christian'? If we keep upping the stakes, perhaps we can have ourselves a proper war eh?

Koji wrote:
I'd vote for a Monty Python's Spanish Inquisition torture game, just to show that all ideologies, and human beings in general, can be as messed up as each other, and we love most of the crap that makes up really f**ked up. All of us should not be beyond critique, good or bad.


Ah now y'see, a Spanish Inquisition game wouldn't be so bad... it would be recreating a historical event and would probably deliver an interesting experience.

Perhaps all this is just a matter of perspective. My moral compass tells me that killing is bad, racism is bad, stoning women in public is bad, and yes, games like Muslim Massacre are bad. Yet, I don't seem to have a problem with the likes of Manhunt and others which probably makes me a little messed up.

Anyways, I'm off to make a game about the stoning of women :-)
schnide 13 Sep 2008 13:32
35/41
So the concensus seems to be that this game has the right to exist, depraved as it may be considered, and we have the right to criticise or, even better, ignore it and let it inevitably fade away.

And I'm going to repeat a theme I said all along - if we'd all been less ready to accept Manhunt 2 instead of insisting it get published even though it was never going to garner massive sales or push the boundaries of gameplay, then the games industry wouldn't have to get on the defensive so much.
dilekk 13 Sep 2008 20:52
36/41
See The Real Islam In Quran : www.quranic.org

For The Miracles In Quran : www.quranmiracles.com
way 14 Sep 2008 05:33
37/41
dilekk wrote:
See The Real Islam In Quran : www.quranic.org

For The Miracles In Quran : www.quranmiracles.com


I am not commenting the game as it possibly might even be illegal to download and posses under some obscure law here, and because I think it is probably a satirical take (plus I don't have time to read the thread).

However, I read the Quran over 20 years ago, twice, with the notes on commentaries, links to the origins of the stories and have other background information on it (important as there is a claim of new information that was not previously known). I also did some other background studies. The truth is that like Christianity, a lot of external sources have been used to justify differing views from what it says. That a number of commentators have added comments on it in order to clarify it, in ways that are contradictory to it's basic reading. The commentaries are virtually taken to be important than the book itself (which is really a bit contradictory considering the claim that it is the end of Revelation), In Christianity this was also a problem before the reformation period, and after, and with cultist that claim to be Christian. I remember one item, forget wherever it was a commentator or has an actual passage, but think it was a passage, that says something along these lines: like Christianity has split into 70 different forms, and only one is true, that Islam would also split into 70 different forms and only one would be true (by which you can be saved, and hence there are factions out there fighting to prove they are true and saved, and treating other factions as Infidels).

However, the truth is that a religion has it's basis in it's divinely revealed text, from the start and as things develop. So, despite what subsequent people say or teach (falsely) about the religion, somebody can come along and point to the original text and say that it is more authentic and sway people back. So, the most authentic view (or fundamental) needs to be taken into consideration rather than relying on subsequent re-interpretations that can be ignored and rejected by their followers. However, I fear we have fundamentalists in the world still following some alternative commentators teaching, that is not truly authentic and fundamental. And Islam is different from what people are portraying it as in the media to appease.

Christianity on the other hand has a different basis, a loving relationship with God, a representative people with a relationship with God for a particular place that replaces bad populations before. The betrayal by those people, and their temporary replacement by people that believe in God and have a relationship with him. The relationship through a sacrifice to purify people (Jesus Christ) because God loves people who don't deserve better. The relationship is a loving responsible relationship, if people decide to go their own way they get away with it (free will) for now. The relationship is loving and responsible to other people, Christian or not. Wars and such forth are external aberrations to the way, deviations, but also state responsibility to keep things right. In this, stopping bad tyrants and warmongers, and evil, is part of it for the state. The misuses of war is not, another deviation.
schnide 14 Sep 2008 11:31
38/41
Now look, we can all have a generally sensible discussion on here with license to take things to extremes now and then - but if someone's really going to start claiming that God exists then things are just going to get silly.
mark 14 Sep 2008 19:40
39/41
Nobody would complain if the muslims invented a game called christian massacre or jewish massacre...No, that would be classed as a prank or high jinks....Stop feeling sorry for them because they dont care one bit about us....remember 9/11
Horatio 14 Sep 2008 19:48
40/41
mark wrote:
Stop feeling sorry for them because they dont care one bit about us....remember 9/11


That's an idiotic thing to say. Did the entire Muslim community plot to take down the twin towers? In fact, are we even certain that those responsible caused 9/11 in the name of a god?
OptimusP 15 Sep 2008 12:29
41/41
Horatio wrote:
mark wrote:
Stop feeling sorry for them because they dont care one bit about us....remember 9/11


That's an idiotic thing to say. Did the entire Muslim community plot to take down the twin towers? In fact, are we even certain that those responsible caused 9/11 in the name of a god?

Indeed, it is very easy to deduce 9/11 to a attempt of capitalims destroying capitalism to create even more capitalism so it can destroy a even bigger part of capitalism.

Let's see if anyone knows enough history to make any sense out of that!
Posting of new comments is now locked for this page.