Sounds like File Crasher from Gunstar Super Heroes. Except in this case, the game's not joking.

This reminds me of "Doom the Operating System" which kinda had the same idea, except with processes. "Killing" a zombie would "kill" a running process. (And yes, they did shoot back at you!)

I agree that this program should be labeled as dangerous. Maybe not illegal, but most certainly dangerous. Just because you know exactly what something does doesn't mean it's not dangerous, because you aren't everybody.

I once installed a keylogger onto my own computer to capture somebody's password and scare the crap out of them with a prank when they used my computer without my permission. The keylogger was very well-labeled and documented when I downloaded it, with readme files and everything on how to use all of its advanced features. And I even desired its function. You think all that means spyware / virus scanners are not justified in labeling it as a threat? Heck no, if I had a keylogger running on my machine that I did not install, I would certainly want a scanner to find it.

It's not what people should do with software that counts, it's what they can do with it.

edited 6th Nov '09 3:23:34 AM by CAD

This reminds me a heck of a lot of SDI's Inner Space Except, you know, evil, because you actually DO blow up/tokenize those programs&icons http://www.sdispace.com/content/is.htm I wonder however.... There is a virused computer where I work at. I'm going to look at this and if you can see what file you're blowing up, then I can try to use it to unconventionally get rid of that virus!

Ahahaha see, it even makes itself sound virusy and schmucky! Enabling Secret Codes The "codes" are key combinations that will do unusual things in the game, some of which could be harmful. To enable all the secret codes or key combinations, first press the DELETE key while playing the game.

You will be able to tell that secret codes are enabled because the score will appear white as opposed to its normal orange. Secret Codes will be enabled until you start a new game. Note: Your score will appear blue when your ship has invulnerability enabled. "Could be harmful" "Enable with DELETE key" "Game takes place using your file system as game levels" WHAT COULD POSSIBLY GO WRONG?

edited 6th Nov '09 10:03:24 AM by Shiralee

I'm going to assume these files are un-recoverable.

This isn't a game, this is someone's stupid idea of a 'artistic' concept. Yes it's clever, but only if you're 15 and frequently steal shopping trolleys.

However marking this game as a trojan isn't going to get anywhere. People will still install the game despite the warnings, and as a Mac user - will have no protection against the potential threat.

... I wonder what happens if you play the game from inside your home folder... maybe the game will delete itself when all other files are gone, or if it chooses it at random. ... no I'm not trying.

Reminds me of "Free Will: The Game", which is hosted on Newgrounds Yes, it only lets you play once. Trying again would actually be fun remove your character's free will.

This guy isn't making a statement, he's being a stealth dick. And it's kind of hard to place this under the protective umbrella of "artistic expression." See, if he wanted to make a statement, he could have had the game hide the files, or scramble and change the names. Then when you start shitting yourself thinking you deleted your hard drive, and try to uninstall the game, a message comes up with the author's intent, and a button to rearrange all the files the way they were. I don't buy the artistic expression bit, because the very ACT of enjoying the game causes damage. This isn't like a picture of a naked woman, or a glass of wine, where it's there, and it's your responsibility to keep them away from minors and not abuse them, but you can enjoy them in any number of ways. The sole function of this game is to delete files on your computer. You cannot reasonably play this game without damaging your computer. This is a conscious bait and switch: the author claims that his intent was to get people to ask themselves why they assume they have to use a weapon in a game if presented with it. If this fool were to wire C4 to the gas pedal of a new car, and then upon the ensuing explosion, blame the driver for assuming that gas pedals in cars are to be pressed, he would be in jail. However make a computer program that does something similar to your computer...never mind that there are other games that have better ways of dissuading you from shooting at everything all the time, or using a bonus just because you have it.

I agree, the game should be classified as a trojan, and the author should be arrested and prosecuted accordingly.

I (partially) disagree. The game tells you exactly what it's going to do, and so should not be considered a trojan. Malware yes, trojan no.

There should be a law and order episode based around this.

but

Instead of a game that deletes files on your computer in the name of art wankers who think they're being deep and thought proving it's a trojan disguised as a game that lets the programmer hack into your computer and steal your identity and pilfer all the gamer points from your Xbox 360.

He starts using his stolen identities to get away with crimes like murder and sodomy through Law and Order's misunderstanding of how things like this work.

So the L&O team talks to a hooker, intimidates a few innocent people to get the info they need and get ready to make the arrest.

The hacker is hacking away on his computer when a pair of big cartoon handcuffs appear on his computer screen and lock around a pair of non-existent wrists, then the police bust in and say "You've been put under virtual arrest, now its time for a real arrest" (The handcuff thing actually happened on one of their episodes, I saw it yesterday, it was about this black lady cop who was killing drug dealers of something through hacking, wtf was with the handcuffs? it looked possibly realistic until they popped up).

The trial is lost because the hackers lawyer uses the Chewbuca defense and the cast takes this as an excuse to whine about the courts for three minutes.

Then the credits roll and a sidebar appears to remind you of the new episode of House where he yells at his co-workers, makes an old lady angry, and cures a man with AIDS and cancer but at a great price: House catches Swine Flu and now has two useless limps! (Three if you count his dong! OH SNAP ICEBURN!)

^^^ Now, that my friends is art.

That thing is really misnamed. It ought to be called "Replay: The Game" or "Simon Says: The Game."

Yeah, is anybody else getting sick of all the You Bastard games out there? Part of the reason people play videagames is because they take place in a consequence-free environment, where they can shoot stuff with impunity. Adding consequences for following the given objectives makes for an interesting piece of art, but I can hardly call it a videogame.

Is that the same as ICS's "FreeWill" referenced in the But Thou Must page?

This post is mostly a response to castaghast, though also to everyone else who's arguing against this being art or being good.

First off, why do you assume that you have to play this game to "enjoy" or "appreciate" it. I haven't played it and won't play it (even ignoring the obvious, it's for the Mac), but by watching videos, reading up on the concept and the specifics of what he did and most importantly reading the author's explanation, I've got a greater appreciation for it than I would have if I'd downloaded and run it. You don't have to do a color-by-numbers to appreciate a painting.

As for the message, the longer we talk about it the more interesting the it seems. You all seem to be missing the main thrust of the game's message. This game does NOT just wake up and delete files on your computer. Actions in the game have consequences. If you do not fire your weapon, the game will not do anything to your computer, except delete itself when your luck runs out. I checked, the ship that kills you doesn't get destroyed in the crash. It's merely your inherent assumptions about videogames that make you mentally translate it to "If I play this game it'll mess up my computer." If you downloaded a game that didn't have the "delete your files" gimmick and were explicitly told that firing your weapon even once would automatically get you the bad ending, and you only win by surviving nonviolently, you would still test out your weapon on the first few enemies you saw, then restart and do it right. I would. The symantec guys in the link in the OP did. Hell, those guys are ESPECIALLY missing the point. Just check out this quote: "Each file of your home directory appears only once, and the author seems to suggest that not destroying any ships may end up with positive consequences. (We were unable to discover if this was the case, as the game crashes before reaching the end.)" They mention during the video that their guess is that the game crashes because it tries to delete something it can't, but they don't even make the mental connection that not shooting anything would let them sidestep that, that if they followed the author's advice and pursued the good ending the game would have no reason to crash or to ruin your hard drive. I'm assuming you didn't either. The degree to which they've missed the point is epic; they even accurately paraphrase the damn thing without realizing what it means. To be fair to them, of course, it wasn't really their job to get the message, just to explain what the game is and why it's dangerous, and they did that quite thoroughly and effectively. We don't have such an excuse.

As I said, the instinct to experiment and kill the stuff onscreen is very thoroughly ingrained. If I were handed the aforementioned hypothetical "normal" pacifist game, I would try out my weapon once or twice before doing it right. When I tried out the "Free Will" game linked to on the But Thou Must page (just a few hours ago, after seeing your post), I intentionally picked all (and I mean all) the "wrong" choices the first time through just to see what the game would let me get away with (wrong as in the ones that your gut reaction is to avoid, not wrong as in the ones the game tried to steer you away from). When I play Iji as a pacifist, I relish every opportunity to beat up an assassin since I can do so without consequences, even though the risk to health incurred in doing so is greater than the tiny bit of nano they drop and fleeing is so much easier; and that's on the runs where I'm not trying to bend the rules and trick the enemies into killing themselves and each other so I can collect their nano for a fleeting statistical advantage that I know I don't really need. And I still blew everything to smithereens on my first playthrough, on purpose, knowing (or as the case may be, believing) that this would lead me to a "bad" ending, just so I could savor my pacifist run better when I went through the game a second time, and even now only play the game as a pacifist half the time. I didn't even really think about any of this until I was mentally formulating this post, so I really do have to thank you for keeping this argument going for long enough for me to fully consider and appreciate the message. Am I going to change my videogame playing style? Probably not. It's more fun, and there's not any consequences in most videogames. But it's interesting to step back and take a look at your underlying assumptions about the medium and how you treat it. And his message definitely does not ring hollow.

edited 7th Nov '09 12:11:54 PM by Brickman

@ Brickman

Where do I begin with that post? You're telling me about my assumptions. First of all, what makes you think that I or anyone on here just randomly fires their weapon or anything in a game? Is that as bad as assuming a weapon in a game is to be used, and if so, should you have files on your computer deleted?

The entire argument that the author is trying to teach someone a lesson does not hold water. As stated before, there are less destructive, equally effective ways to get a user's attention. Renaming or hiding the files, or changing a setting on your computer, as dirty as it may be, would suffice to prove the point. This is the difference between the hacker who scribbles "improve your security" on a page he has broken into, and the hacker who steals 2000 credit card numbers, empties out their accounts, and then says that he was trying to get the company to improve their security. No, he was just trying to get rich and got caught.

Furthermore, why do you assume that assumptions are bad? The author says that he was trying to teach a lesson: I say that not every lesson needs to be taught, or is worth teaching. Do most people assume that firing a gun randomly in a game is OK and without consequence? Yes. Is that bad? Well, when you get up in the morning and go to the bathroom, you assume that there will be water available to take care of your business. You assume that said water won't be poisoned or rancid. When you eat, you assume that the food you have cooked is safe for ingestion. You assume that the appliances you use will not automatically shock you or fail. You assume that your car, bike, or whatever will not have major unexpected failure while using it. I could go on, but I trust you see my point: we assume many things everyday, even though we could question all of them. The world does not instantly fail, and we do not die, because we have not intensely questioned whether the law of gravity that was valid 5 seconds ago is still as valid now, or whether this cheesburger, which looks, smells, and feels like it's fresh, isn't spoiled or infused with poison. Contrary to popular belief, assumptions are not always bad, and leave our minds free to deal with things that require actual critical thinking.

That said, the author doesn't make a convincing argument that the assumption that shooting randomly in a game is bad, and that it's so bad that he has to resort to destroying files on a computer to prevent this activity. When playing games, most people have the reasonable assumption that playing the game will not automatically damage their computer in and of itself. Assuming that the game is compatible with their system, most people reasonably expect that mere usage of the software will not destroy their system. Indeed, that's just good software design period: if you make a program that purposely breaks other programs and files on users' computers, don't expect much repeat business. Given that most software doesn't destroy people's computers through simple use, it's not a bad assumption for someone using a piece of software to assume that an action in the software that is considered standard won't have permanent effects on the system. One can use Open Office and be confident that typing "X" in the word processor will not damage the computer: typing is a standard function in word processors, so it's a reasonable assumption that people would type in the OO word processor, just as they would MS Word. It would be stupid to say that a user is stupid for assuming that the word processor in OO is for typing and they should be punished.

However, this person made a shooter, and then set it up so that people who participate in shooting, are punished, and says that it's our fault, for assuming that we should shoot. Can anyone name a shooter where you shouldn't shoot? At all? Maybe this guy should have answered his own question: people assume they should shoot in shooting games, because virtually every shooting game out there, requires you to shoot. If 99.99999999999999999% of the time, you are required to perform an action, it's not an unreasonable assumption that the remainder of the time, you would be required to as well. Virtually all light switches do not shock you when you touch them. If you get shocked by one, does that mean that that 1 time out of a million, you were a dumbass for not putting a multimeter on it before touching it?

Another telling thing to ask ourselves is, what did this person intend to be done with his work. Most game creators want their work to be viewed, and participated in to the fullest extent. The people who made Geometry Wars want you to shoot at shapes on the screen. That is the object of the game, and they give you the tools needed to accomplish it. Not taking advantage of them leads to defeat. The makers of Street Fighter want you to make well timed button presses and joystick motions: the game rewards you for doing this, and it is the only way to proceed through the game. Not doing so results in defeat. The maker of Lose/Lose wants you to...sit back and do nothing in the game. Not doing so results in the destruction of your computer. Doing so allows you to win. However you also wind up not participating in the game. The optimal way to win, designed by the creator, is to do nothing. So, why would anyone put the game on their computer? If the goal of the game is to do nothing, I can just as easily accomplish that by not even getting the game. In fact, not getting the game has the same effect as getting the game and playing the optimal strategy. You can't say this about the other games I've mentioned. Now if the author wants people to play the game optimally, then he doesn't want them participating in the game, which is the same as not getting the game. This makes no sense, because why would he make the game if he didn't want them participating in it. No, he wants them to lose, because as mentioned before, he's being a stealth dick, he knows that for all of the people who read the warnings and go the other way, there are those people who will assume it is a harmless shooter, and delete their own files. Then he can say that he was just trying to teach the unwary a lesson. People will buy into the bullshit and think it's art, and he gets popular over openly making malware.

No, I didn't miss the point: it just wasn't a valid one.

edited 7th Nov '09 10:23:03 PM by castaghast

I forget, did I read that monster post? It's all a blur.

Ouch, loooooong posts hurt the Anonymous in me.

The only concern about the game I have is that someone malicious will try to steal the deletion codes and abuse them.