[font="Times New Roman"][size="4"]Hello, I would like to ask everyone to at least read this post before they vote to ban it.

I was thinking of a story idea, and I suppose my title gave the spoiler away: it is an over the top first person shooter in which the enemy is the Westboro Baptist Church (WBC). I do have story lines and different plot points in my mind--but first I would like everyone's opinion on the nature of the topic. I realize some may find it obscene, but I think if it is done in the right style some may enjoy the absurdity or find it humorous. The concept also interests me because I think it may test what this country defines as free speech under the first amendment. If a proper backstory is inserted, it may provide a humorous attempt at explaining the irrational hate that group displays. Nazis, Zombies, and even Castro have been targets of video game violence. I believe that WBC is a modern day hate group more vicious than the meanest Nazi-Zombie-Castro could ever be.

I have another question that I would really like answered. After that, I will provide a very rough draft of the story line and I would appreciate it very much if you would continue on to critique it--however, if that is too exhusting I would appreciate your response to the first two.

My second question is if I wanted to attempt to actualize this game, how would I go about doing it? Who should I talk to? How should I begin?

On to the story (again please remember this is a very rough draft, with a much greater potential for depth--story expansion):

The involvement of the WBC is meant to be a surprise, so congratulations for the spoiler . The game begins with a solider in combat. You follow the solider for a short time until he is killed in action. The game then moves to the funeral of the solider, and the gamer occupies the perspective of his brother. There would be a short cut scene at the funeral where the prescence of the WBC actively protesting it becomes known. The player would then be tasked with fighting the WBC, who is attacking with signs and other weapons. The player is allowed different weapons, from a fist, to a gun, to his vehicle.

Then the play follows the protagonist to the compound in which there is more fighting mixed with cut scenes in an attempt to explain the motivations driving the WBC. In this area, the more absurd the better. This serves two purposes. The first is to remind the person playing the game that this is a joke and that while the organization is real, the individuals are caricatures of their actual selves. The second purpose is more pragmatic: to fight off potential suits claiming libel.

The protagonist would then inevitably kill Fred Phelps.

Finally, in what I believe one of the potentially funniest part of the game, the final level shows a court room in which the people who designed the game are being sued by the WBC. The designers then win this battle for free speech.

As I said, there is much more to this simple plot. If you would like to know more, please contact me. I assume though that the issues I raised are enough to keep you readers busy responding for awhile.

Thank you so much. I hope everyone keeps an open mind and has as great a sense of gallow humor as I do. Thank you for you thoughts and critiques. [/font]

Zombies have the notable advantages of not being real and also being poorly organized politically, so they can't protest their portrayal in video games.

That just gave me an awesome mental image.


Anyway on back on topic. There are a couple of general issues i see with the game. First being your limiting the number of people who would want to play your game. Not through it being crass or unpalatable, not saying it is mind you, but because people outside of the USA wouldn't have a clue what the game is about. I am British and wouldn't have a clue who the WBC is, even though i try and stay on top of American politics, if i had not just Googled them. I would guess a lot of people would have the same issue.

The other issue is that the whole story seems a bit disjointed; this may be due to it being in its early stages, the motivation of the character isn't really described to the player. The reaction also seems to be very OTT. It also seems that you’re trying to just provoke a reaction and have chosen this topic because it most likely would. This would not only get under the skin of the WBC but also those people who have a legitimate reason to oppose the WBC. I'm not saying you don't have a legitimate reason but it just comes across that way from the current state of the story.

If you are trying to comment on a serious issue i don't think a FPS game is the best way to do it. Why? Because from what i just read and what Khaiy said earlier they are not a "violent" group. You would inadvertently make the "good" side the "bad guys" and the "bad guys""good". An adventure game would maybe be the best way to go, something that isn’t necessarily violent but can put a meaningful story across.

In any case i would strongly agree with Khaiy's idea of making the game about a fictional group. They could be very similar to the WBC but at least then you can handle the subject you want to without getting sued. Your target audience will still know what you are on about BUT with any luck the WBC or any other homophobic group could not do a thing about it. Also there would be the added bonus of being able to look at homophobia in general and not just in the context of the WBC.

You also need to remember that the average game takes nearly 3years to make;even the most basic games can take a long time to make. This makes topical games quite hard to do, simply because the topic would have moved on before the game was released.

Honestly, I kind of like the idea of a game ending with a court battle involving the developers. In general though, I don't think the Westboro Baptist Church is really important enough to make a game about. And I don't really think this is the kind of controversial game idea that would have people really thinking about anything important, everyone already thinks they're kooks and I don't think you could do anything to sway opinion any further against them. If anything it could generate some sympathy for them as the public in general aren't big fans of media that incites violence towards specific individuals. Not to mention with them being lawyers it would probably generate more trouble than it's worth if your project got any kind of real attention.