20243
Post by: Grey Templar
Hey Obama!
I got a drone target for you nobody would mind.
70365
Post by: Gentleman_Jellyfish
If you find it disgusting then why distribute it so more people can see it?
121
Post by: Relapse
The link I provided is one to take down the site.
19728
Post by: liquidjoshi
Hold your horses folks:
The Article wrote:The creator of the game, Sydney resident Ryan Jake Lambourn, claims he wants to draw attention to the fact that “absolutely nothing positive has come out of [the tragedy at Newtown],” and says he supports the reform of American gun laws
Something to think about. As far as I can tell, he's not doing it as a joke but to highlight problems in society. But what do I know?
Edit: Not supporting here folks, just sayin'.
121
Post by: Relapse
 liquidjoshi wrote:Hold your horses folks:
The Article wrote:The creator of the game, Sydney resident Ryan Jake Lambourn, claims he wants to draw attention to the fact that “absolutely nothing positive has come out of [the tragedy at Newtown],” and says he supports the reform of American gun laws
Something to think about. As far as I can tell, he's not doing it as a joke but to highlight problems in society. But what do I know?
Edit: Not supporting here folks, just sayin'.
True, that could be one way of looking at it, but I have seen that type explanation more than once over the years by exploiters of tragedies.
70365
Post by: Gentleman_Jellyfish
Yes, but that take down site also has a link to the game. Would it be fair to say that a lot of negative press around this is just acting as advertisement?
121
Post by: Relapse
 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:
C
Yes, but that take down site also has a link to the game. Would it be fair to say that a lot of negative press around this is just acting as advertisement?
I guess the people put it there so others wouldn't just have what they say to go on in signing the petition.
68355
Post by: easysauce
so anti gunner makes offensive game, because he feels that not enough was done after sandy hook.
so more anti gunners dogpile on, create a bunch of negative press, in hopes that they will drum up more support for anti 2nd amendment laws, by continuing to find new ways to use a tragedy to further an agenda.
looks like more grave dancing to me,
sad, just sad.
4402
Post by: CptJake
 easysauce wrote:so anti gunner makes offensive game, because he feels that not enough was done after sandy hook.
so more anti gunners dogpile on, create a bunch of negative press, in hopes that they will drum up more support for anti 2nd amendment laws, by continuing to find new ways to use a tragedy to further an agenda.
looks like more grave dancing to me,
sad, just sad.
Wait until they find a copy of this game on the next mass shooter's computer.
39335
Post by: commisar rhodes
Seems like the guy is trying to get attention its pathetic.
PS-I would like Ryan Jake Lambourn in the testicles until my foot broke.
121
Post by: Relapse
 commisar rhodes wrote: Seems like the guy is trying to get attention its pathetic.
PS-I would like Ryan Jake Lambourn in the testicles until my foot broke.
You might want to edit that one again. 
10347
Post by: Fafnir
It seems like a lot of people still think that interactive mediums are only meant for entertainment, and not artistic merits.
I could see how a game based on such traumatic events could make for an incredibly impacting artistic piece. Granted, it might just be a cheap joke or attempt to draw attention, but how many of the people complaining about it have taken the time to play it, or even research it past its most basic premise, to actually know?
If videogames are ever going to be appreciated as a true art form, they're going to end up having to go into some sensitive spaces.
54708
Post by: TheCustomLime
Eh, some guy makes something for shock value. Not big surprise. What I am surprised by is that he is for gun control. I always thought those guys at least pretended to respect the tragedies they base their arguments on.
37231
Post by: d-usa
An anti-2nd-Amendment guy is using his 1st Amendment to make a violent game to make some sort of point because he is pissed.
The pro-2nd-Amendment guys are pissed off that somebody is using his 1st Amendment to make a stupid point.
This is why we can't have nice things...
70365
Post by: Gentleman_Jellyfish
 Fafnir wrote:It seems like a lot of people still think that interactive mediums are only meant for entertainment, and not artistic merits.
I could see how a game based on such traumatic events could make for an incredibly impacting artistic piece. Granted, it might just be a cheap joke or attempt to draw attention, but how many of the people complaining about it have taken the time to play it, or even research it past its most basic premise, to actually know?
If videogames are ever going to be appreciated as a true art form, they're going to end up having to go into some sensitive spaces.
I believe it to be a work of art. I played the game after seeing the article and it has some symbolism. The main one is the way the character is portrayed. He is a basic frame with straight pointed limbs, and he's constantly dripping or shedding or something falls from him throughout.
78869
Post by: Shadow Captain Edithae
Which happens to include links to the game itself...Ironically, this outrage will simply serve to increase the games exposure and popularity.
34390
Post by: whembly
 d-usa wrote:An anti-2nd-Amendment guy is using his 1st Amendment to make a violent game to make some sort of point because he is pissed.
The pro-2nd-Amendment guys are pissed off that somebody is using his 1st Amendment to make a stupid point.
This is why we can't have nice things...
Exactly... he's free to do this.
Just as we're free to call him an donkey-cave.
See? Working as designed. 
40024
Post by: SOFDC
I....am forced to agree with d-usa. I feel extremely dirty now.
....But this guy is still a <CENSORED>.
10347
Post by: Fafnir
So if someone makes an artistic exhibit examining any traumatic or heinous event, they are a <CENSORED>, then?
It's like saying that Schindler's List is awful because it deals with the Holocaust.
EDIT: After playing the game, I can safely say that this wasn't made to be a joke. During the short time I spent playing it (it's not a very long game), I couldn't actually bring myself to shoot any of the students/teachers, and felt physically disgusted. And I feel that's pretty much the designer's intention. It showed quite a disconnect, very effectively through the use of an interactive medium, between someone 'normal,' and someone who was so disturbed as the Sandy Hook shooter. It's very much artfully done, and an excellent example of games being used as a way of artistic expression.
70365
Post by: Gentleman_Jellyfish
Fafnir wrote:So if someone makes an artistic exhibit examining any traumatic or heinous event, they are a <CENSORED>, then?
It's like saying that Schindler's List is awful because it deals with the Holocaust.
EDIT: After playing the game, I can safely say that this wasn't made to be a joke. During the short time I spent playing it (it's not a very long game), I couldn't actually bring myself to shoot any of the students/teachers, and felt physically disgusted. And I feel that's pretty much the designer's intention. It showed quite a disconnect, very effectively through the use of an interactive medium, between someone 'normal,' and someone who was so disturbed as the Sandy Hook shooter. It's very much artfully done, and an excellent example of games being used as a way of artistic expression.
We both played the same way. I didn't kill anybody in the school, and I exited when I found out I had to kill myself. Also did you try to see if there was a way to pass killing your mom?
10347
Post by: Fafnir
No, I followed the prompts as they happened, which could actually say a lot, both about game design, and how we react to suggestion and instruction. Compared to the 'option' of whether or not to shoot the students, shooting the mother felt so natural, simply because of the prompt telling you to. It felt very twisted. When I finally got to the school, I didn't want to go any further. Watching everyone run and hide as you entered the classrooms was quite surreal.
Although I did manage pull the trigger on myself.
It's certainly not meant to be an enjoyable experience, and I seriously doubt that anyone decrying it for simply existing hasn't even played it.
8733
Post by: konst80hummel
I played it and it made me feel sick. The artist's purphose was achieved.
5534
Post by: dogma
Fafnir wrote:It seems like a lot of people still think that interactive mediums are only meant for entertainment, and not artistic merits.
So very much agreed.
Relapse wrote:
True, that could be one way of looking at it, but I have seen that type explanation more than once over the years by exploiters of tragedies.
Do you think the creator of the game is making money off of this?
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
The sound in the game, the way he walks and everything, it makes you......feel wrong. I hate pressing every button TBH. IT is sickening. This is not a game.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
In which case I fail to see the point. We all know the guy was a monster and that what happened was horrible.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
Anyone try gun control Mode? Where it wasnt advocating no guns allowed? But proper security of the guns?
51881
Post by: BlaxicanX
How many people have actually played out the entire game?
I did. The first time you do it, you play on "Historically Accurate" mode, and yeah, you walk through the school, mowing down all the teachers and children with your assault rifle. And then at the very end the police come and you shoot yourself in the head.
HOWEVER.
Once you play it the first time, you get a prompt telling you to play the game a second time, this time on "Gun control mode". In gun control mode the circumstances are the same, but instead of a handgun you use knives to kill your mother, and when you try to get the AR-15 you can't because it's locked in a safe. So instead of going to the School with a gun, you go with a katana. (lulz)
You do the same thing as before, try to kill all the students and teachers, but it takes soooo much longer to perform the mission because you have to go all the way to the other side of the room to kill people. Also, they can avoid you or run past you faster than you can swing the sword.
When the mission was over, my kill-tally on Gun Control mode was 3, and I was trying my hardest to kill everyone. By comparison, my tally on "historic mode" was 30.
So, the game might very well be "tasteless", but to say that it's attention-whoring is stupid. The man is quite CLEARLY trying to put out a message, that message being: "Look at how things would have been different if the guy hadn't had access to all these guns".
Which is a fair point, I guess.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
It ridiculous that people think "Gun control" auto means "Take all guns"
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
But that is something that is impossible to enforce.
You can't make people keep guns in gun safes.
Gun safes also totally destroy your ability to protect yourself from people breaking into your home, not exactly easy access.
51881
Post by: BlaxicanX
Not really. It's no trouble at all to, say, sleep with a gun within arms reach, and then simply put it in a safe when you go to work.
The point of a safe isn't to keep things away from YOU. The point of a safe is to keep things away other people that aren't you. So if you're home, scratching your nuts, there's nothing wrong with having a gun laying around, sure. The point is to not have a gun laying around when you're gone and your kids are at home or your mentally ill clinically depressed brother is at home.
5534
Post by: dogma
 Grey Templar wrote:
Gun safes also totally destroy your ability to protect yourself from people breaking into your home, not exactly easy access.
How many times has a person broken into your home?
37231
Post by: d-usa
Grey Templar wrote:
Gun safes also totally destroy your ability to protect yourself from people breaking into your home
That statement is so stupid it hurts. When was the last time you looked at a gun safe, 1987?
68355
Post by: easysauce
Grey Templar wrote:But that is something that is impossible to enforce.
You can't make people keep guns in gun safes.
Gun safes also totally destroy your ability to protect yourself from people breaking into your home, not exactly easy access.
thats the law up here, and yes, it did destroy the ability to protect yourself.
we just had a case where a totally innocent man was charged by the government, because he used his .22lr revolver, WHICH WAS LOCKED IN A SAFE, to fire at a group of people who were FIREBOMBING HIS HOUSE, and now this innocent man is in trouble, because the court has charged him with a federal offense of"unsafe storage" of his gun, because the court asserts there is no way he could have stored his unloaded revolver in the safe, and gotten it out/loaded in time to stop the attackers from burning down his house.
we got these messed up laws, because we negotiated and compromised with the gun grabbers in the 90's, and believed them when they touted things such as "reasonable gun control" "we dont want to take your guns, we just want common sense laws"
and now,
we STILL cannot enforce gun prohibitions, the new laws have had 0 impact on crime, except to make paper criminals of lawful gun owners who miss a peice of paper work (you now must PRE ARRANGE every trip to the range, and get written permission from the government for each trip)
you need several licenses up here, training, several references, your wifes permission, even your EX spouses permission, and at ANY time someone can phone the CFO hotline and report you, resulting in either a polite phone call to take all your guns away, or a not so polite boot in the door.
over half of all pistols were banned, lots of rifles too (some are just .22 lr's as well, super dangerous, must be prohibited) no more mags with more then 5 rounds for rifles, the right to carry a pistol in the wilderness, let alone for self defense, was taken away.
yet STILL whenever a criminal is negligent with their ILLEGAL firearm, either through criminal activity, or leaving a gun around for a kid to pick up, they call to ban and restrict even more the legal gun owners.
when lawful gun owners fought against registration, because it leads to confiscation, we were shouted down, ignored, insulted, and demonized. We were flatly promised no confiscation would occur.
when the registry was then used to confiscate things... well, goes to show how good a promise from someone taking away your rights is.
not to mention that when they made the gun registry, it was hacked, and made a great shopping list for criminals. Two billion dollars later, we get rid of it, and its proven to have had no positive effect, and is partly responsible for the deaths of two police officers, who had the registry tell them houses were "gun free" because no lawful owners registered their guns there, yet somehow the crooks still had guns and the officers were shot though the door.
and still, we hear the same old cry that canada needs to enact "common sense" gun control, and have liberals running on campaigns where one of the election promises is to outright BAN them.
It never stops,
every anti gun law made just leads to the next anti gun law, and the next, and the next, and the goal is a complete ban, and saying they just want "reasonable" gun control is a lie.
Otherwise the antis would have stopped bugging canada back in the 90's, when they got their way with everything.
suprise suprise, its still not enough...
5534
Post by: dogma
Are you going to provide evidence, or rant?
121
Post by: Relapse
 dogma wrote: Fafnir wrote:It seems like a lot of people still think that interactive mediums are only meant for entertainment, and not artistic merits.
So very much agreed.
Relapse wrote:
True, that could be one way of looking at it, but I have seen that type explanation more than once over the years by exploiters of tragedies.
Do you think the creator of the game is making money off of this?
I honestly don't know. In my mind, I think publicity was his main goal. I don't often agree with the gun control lobby, but in this instance about the game being a travesty I do, especially since this game is adding to the pain the families of those slain are feeling.
68355
Post by: easysauce
are you going to use google yourself instead of being pedantic and passive aggressive with "citation required" type remarks again?
why not just shout "liar liar pants of fire" at the top of your voice, that has the same effect, and at least then you are being honest with yourself in what "debate" tactic you are using
canadian gun laws are out in the open, as as I have said them, every time I do your google work for you, you then move the goal posts and just keep on trolling.
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/F-11.6/page-1.html#docCont
has all the various "common sense" laws that I outlined above, including 5 rnd mag limits, you needing WRITTEN permission to take guns to the range, and so on and on...
the guy who was charged, with a federal crime, for being able to get his gun out of a locked safe and load it fast enough to actually save his life,
is here http://www.torontosun.com/2013/01/04/ian-thomson-case-firebombers-left-ontario-homeowner-no-choice-but-to-arm-himself-with-gun and here http://www.torontosun.com/2013/01/04/protecting-your-home-family-a-risky-move-in-canada
his name is Ian Thompson, pic and excerpt below
“I wasn’t surprised ... I knew as soon as I used a firearm to protect my life that charges would be laid,” he said. “The Crown seemed to have an agenda to make an example of me and to put the gear into every firearms owner in Canada that you’re not allowed to defend your life in circumstances like I faced.”
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
IF you are going to use Slippery Slope and other fallacies I dont think it is worth listening to you
5534
Post by: dogma
Relapse wrote:
I honestly don't know. In my mind, I think publicity was his main goal.
Publicity for himself, or for an amorphous cause?
Relapse wrote:
I don't often agree with the gun control lobby, but in this instance about the game being a travesty I do, especially since this game is adding to the pain the families of those slain are feeling.
Did you play the game?
10347
Post by: Fafnir
 hotsauceman1 wrote:The sound in the game, the way he walks and everything, it makes you......feel wrong. I hate pressing every button TBH. IT is sickening. This is not a game.
Or maybe games have evolved to be something a lot more than what they were several years ago.
121
Post by: Relapse
dogma wrote:Relapse wrote:
I honestly don't know. In my mind, I think publicity was his main goal.
Publicity for himself, or for an amorphous cause?
Relapse wrote:
I don't often agree with the gun control lobby, but in this instance about the game being a travesty I do, especially since this game is adding to the pain the families of those slain are feeling.
Did you play the game?
If you want to get right down to it, publicity for himself appears to be the goal, despite what he says. Nope, don't care to play the game anymore than I care to view pornography or use drugs. In this case, what I have read about the game here and elsewhere as well as it's negative impact on the relatives of the murder victims is enough for me.
68355
Post by: easysauce
hotsauceman1 wrote:IF you are going to use Slippery Slope and other fallacies I dont think it is worth listening to you
ah moving the goal posts, what an expected trope!
by your definition, I am not allowed to use the past actions of the anti gun lobby, to predict the future actions of the anti gun lobby...
nor am I allowed to use factual references where they have in fact used the "slippery slope" or "boil a frog in water slowly" tactics to enact one law after another,
so basically, when talking about anti gun lobbyists changing gun laws, I am not allowed to talk about how they have actually changed gun laws.
5534
Post by: dogma
easysauce wrote:
why not just shout "liar liar pants of fire" at the top of your voice, that has the same effect, and at least then you are being honest with yourself in what "debate" tactic you are using
I did not call you a liar, I merely asked you for evidence. Evidence that you provided...after gnashing of teeth.
37231
Post by: d-usa
Now if we could just get people to capitalize and use proper grammar I might be able to read their posts without getting a headache...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
So if we go by your post and the link you provided here, you are actually lying...
Because what he was actually charged for " The cops, however, charged Thomson for improper storage of a firearm because he set the gun down on a table as he waited for the authorities to arrive."
5534
Post by: dogma
Relapse wrote: Nope, don't care to play the game anymore than I care to view pornography or use drugs. In this case, what I have read about the game here and elsewhere as well as it's negative impact on the relatives of the murder victims is enough for me.
So you know absolutely nothing about which you are speaking?
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Grey Templar wrote:But that is something that is impossible to enforce.
You can't make people keep guns in gun safes.
Gun safes also totally destroy your ability to protect yourself from people breaking into your home, not exactly easy access.
The rest of the civilised world outside the USA has made people keep guns in gun safes.
Why can't the USA?
2nd Amendment.
68355
Post by: easysauce
d-usa wrote:Now if we could just get people to capitalize and use proper grammar I might be able to read their posts without getting a headache...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
So if we go by your post and the link you provided here, you are actually lying...
Because what he was actually charged for " The cops, however, charged Thomson for improper storage of a firearm because he set the gun down on a table as he waited for the authorities to arrive."
you are the one lying by only quoting some of the charges. did you even read past the first factoid?
the actual quote is In August 2010, Thomson fired his registered pistol over the heads of attackers before calling police. The cops, however, charged Thomson for improper storage of a firearm because he set the gun down on a table as he waited for the authorities to arrive.
“I’m somewhat relieved, but it still hasn’t sunk in,” the Port Colbourne, Ont., man said late Thursday afternoon.
He had originally faced a count of careless use of a firearm and one count of pointing a firearm
so after they charged him for taking out a gun and pointing it at bad people trying to kill him, and that didnt stick, he was charged for it being out of a safe, which DID stick long enough to put the guy 300,000 grand in debt.
he was charged with improper storage, as I asserted.
D-usa you owe me an apology, dont just read the first few lines of an article until you see what you want to see and go calling me a liar.
why you defend and apologize for the 2nd amendment bashers is beyond me,
why you also think it was the common sense thing to do, to charge this innocent man who just had to defend his life with multiple federal crimes, until one stuck, is also beyond me.
this scenario is common sense, and reasonable to you:
"bad guys try to kill you, you take a gun out of a safe, load it, fire at them, they run away. cops show up, and arrest you, charge you with the pointing of, using of, and storage of, that firarm. the storage charge sticks, you go 300,000grand in debt fighting it, and then its thrown out years later."
yeah... common sense... reasonable.. and business as usual up here
37231
Post by: d-usa
easysauce wrote: d-usa wrote:Now if we could just get people to capitalize and use proper grammar I might be able to read their posts without getting a headache...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
So if we go by your post and the link you provided here, you are actually lying...
Because what he was actually charged for " The cops, however, charged Thomson for improper storage of a firearm because he set the gun down on a table as he waited for the authorities to arrive."
as soon as he loaded the fire arm, he was charged, im not lying, you are the only lying by only quoteing some of the charges.
the actual quote is In August 2010, Thomson fired his registered pistol over the heads of attackers before calling police. The cops, however, charged Thomson for improper storage of a firearm because he set the gun down on a table as he waited for the authorities to arrive.
“I’m somewhat relieved, but it still hasn’t sunk in,” the Port Colbourne, Ont., man said late Thursday afternoon.
He had originally faced a count of careless use of a firearm and one count of pointing a firearm
so after they charged him for taking out a gun and pointing it at bad people trying to kill him, and that didnt stick, he was charged for it being out of a safe, which DID stick long enough to put the guy 300,000 grand in debt.
he was charged with improper storage, as I asserted.
D-usa you owe me an apology, dont just read the first few lines of an article until you see what you want to see and go calling me a liar.
You said he was charged for not storing it properly because the cops said he wouldn't have been able to get it out this fast to shoot it at people if it was locked up. You have presented nothing to back up that statement, so I'm 100% confident in calling that statement a lie. Your own "proof" makes it clear that he was charged for the gun being out on the table after the cops got there, not for "being able to shoot these guys so fast that they decided it wasn't in a safe". Until you provide an actual charge sheet or injunction that states "he stored it improperly or he wouldn't have been able to shoot them at all" I will continue to call your statements a lie.
Them charging him for one count of careless use of a firearm and one count of pointing a firearm has absolutely nothing to do with your claim.
You, however, owe DakkaDakka an apology for refusing to follow the rules and using proper capitalization and grammar on this board.
10347
Post by: Fafnir
dogma wrote:Relapse wrote: Nope, don't care to play the game anymore than I care to view pornography or use drugs. In this case, what I have read about the game here and elsewhere as well as it's negative impact on the relatives of the murder victims is enough for me.
So you know absolutely nothing about which you are speaking?
Exalted.
Schindler's List, Hotel Rwanda, The Act of Killing, and other such great films are also probably not worth watching either, since they probably have a negative impact on the victims of those events too, and are little more than publicity stunts. Although I guess in the case of those movies, the studios actually made money off of those. So that filth has to be far worse.
Artistically speaking, this is one of the most relevant games I've played in a long time.
121
Post by: Relapse
dogma wrote:Relapse wrote: Nope, don't care to play the game anymore than I care to view pornography or use drugs. In this case, what I have read about the game here and elsewhere as well as it's negative impact on the relatives of the murder victims is enough for me.
So you know absolutely nothing about which you are speaking?
Are you suggesting that someone should personaly experience something in order to have an opinion on it?
10347
Post by: Fafnir
Considering how horribly misinformed you currently are, that might help.
It tends to serve you well to know what you're actually talking about before you get adamant about it.
But hey, being indignant feels good, whether it's justified or not.
121
Post by: Relapse
Fafnir wrote:Considering how horribly misinformed you currently are, that might help.
It tends to serve you well to know what you're actually talking about before you get adamant about it.
But hey, being indignant feels good, whether it's justified or not.
Glad to know you think someone should be shooting Heroin or similar activities before they come out against them. That aside, it dosen't take a lot of googling along with other things written about the game to find this gem:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/ryanhatesthis/someone-made-a-video-game-about-sandy-hook-where-you-play-as
I've seen enough with just reading about it to know it repels me.
10347
Post by: Fafnir
Relapse wrote:
Glad to know you think someone should be shooting Heroin or similar activities before they come out against them.
False dichotomy.
So you agree that we shouldn't make movies or write books about tragedies either, right?
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
I tld my mother about this and I tld Her I played it and how it disturbed me. Her reaction? Its wrong and im a horrible persone for playing it
121
Post by: Relapse
Fafnir wrote:Relapse wrote:
Glad to know you think someone should be shooting Heroin or similar activities before they come out against them.
False dichotomy.
So you agree that we shouldn't make movies or write books about tragedies either, right?
Not at all false, those were your own words. You raise a good and fair point about movies. Movies like Schindler's list and others of that nature portray the humanity of the victims and give them voice, different from what is portrayed in this game, where it is viewed by many more people than myself as a dehumanizing of the children.
10347
Post by: Fafnir
Relapse wrote: Fafnir wrote:Relapse wrote:
Glad to know you think someone should be shooting Heroin or similar activities before they come out against them.
False dichotomy.
So you agree that we shouldn't make movies or write books about tragedies either, right?
Not at all false, those were your own words.
You don't have to be Ceasar to understand Ceasar, but you sure as hell better know about Ceasar. Heroin is a chemical that has serious, measurable physical and psychological effects on the body and mind. I don't need to do heroin to know that it has a very good chance of messing me and my body up.
The Slaying of Sandy Hook Elementary is a piece of art (it could even be argued that it's performance art, with the player themselves acting as the performer) that takes its audience to a very dark place, but conveys its meaning incredibly effectively. There's a very big difference between that and hard drugs.
You raise a good and fair point about movies. Movies like Schindler's list and others of that nature portray the humanity of the victims and give them voice, different from what is portrayed in this game, where it is viewed by many more people than myself as a dehumanizing of the children.
If you played the game, you'd definitely be thinking considerably differently. Granted, I could show you a bunch of gore shots of Schindler's list, and if you were to go in knowing nothing what I showed you there, and refused to view it after that point, you could cultivate the exact same opinion.
hotsauceman1 wrote:I tld my mother about this and I tld Her I played it and how it disturbed me. Her reaction? Its wrong and im a horrible persone for playing it
That's really a shame. This is the kind of thing that people should play, and should talk about how terrible it makes them feel (if you don't feel terrible after playing it, there might actually be something wrong with you).
That said, I'm going to assume your mother is of the same mindset that assumes videogames are all about kill counters and high scores, and would never consider them as an artistic medium.
It doesn't take a genius to understand that art isn't supposed to be about enjoyment or entertainment, nor does it take one to understand that this game is not something meant to be enjoyed, but rather experienced. You gain a whole new appreciation for just how over the edge the person doing the Sandy Hook shootings was, how deranged to the point of being even sub-human they were.
19728
Post by: liquidjoshi
I'm with Fafnir on this one. The moment you refuse to evaluate someone based on some sort of objective or first-person perspective (as opposed to simply evaluating something based on second hand opinions), you forfeit any right to a valid opinion on it.
Having played the game myself, yes it's disgusting. It is an apauling game.
But the message is what is important.
121
Post by: Relapse
It appears the creator of the Sandy Hook game made the same type of game within a week of the Virginia Tech shootings and offered to take it down if he got paid. He later tried to say he was joking. This guy is a true piece of gak.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-Tech_Rampage
10347
Post by: Fafnir
And Morrissey's an donkey-cave, but he still makes good music. Just because the author might be an donkey-cave, doesn't rid his work of its artistic merits.
121
Post by: Relapse
Fafnir wrote:And Morrissey's an donkey-cave, but he still makes good music. Just because the author might be an donkey-cave, doesn't rid his work of its artistic merits.
I think you and I could talk this subject in circles and not agree.
10347
Post by: Fafnir
Then you must end up cutting yourself off from a lot of good art and media in general, because you'll find that regardless of your personal beliefs, there are going to be a lot of artists out there with ones that differ greatly from you, or have flaws that you might find reprehensible. People tend to be highly complex, and to write the artwork they create and the merits of it off just because their views might not appeal to you is quite short-sighted.
121
Post by: Relapse
Fafnir wrote:Then you must end up cutting yourself off from a lot of good art and media in general, because you'll find that regardless of your personal beliefs, there are going to be a lot of artists out there with ones that differ greatly from you, or have flaws that you might find reprehensible. People tend to be highly complex, and to write the artwork they create and the merits of it off just because their views might not appeal to you is quite short-sighted.
What you consider good art and what I consider good art vary in this regard. It's funny you call me short sighted for writing this man off the way you are writing me off. Based off what I have read about this man, he is not much more than an attention whore that repeats himself and tries to use blackmail to make profit from his trash.
45234
Post by: Void__Dragon
35 on Historical mode, 19 on Gun Control mode.
The game was fairly interesting, but the message was unrealistically conveyed. The PC moves so sluggishly (And, in historical mode, swings his sword so sluggishly), that sometimes people escape simply because your character is so slow and through no effort on their own, and indeed their survivals felt cheapened in that regard. Also, the hitboxes were pretty wonky, often I'd try to shoot or stab one of the cowering children, only to impale the corpse of one of their friends.
The controversy on the game itself is very overblown, it's pretty obvious that this was a pretty carefully constructed game meant to prove a point, although the subliminal intent of the creator due to his past work could be called into question.
Anyway, it was okay, but nothing to write home about. 6/10.
78869
Post by: Shadow Captain Edithae
Relapse wrote: dogma wrote:Relapse wrote: Nope, don't care to play the game anymore than I care to view pornography or use drugs. In this case, what I have read about the game here and elsewhere as well as it's negative impact on the relatives of the murder victims is enough for me.
So you know absolutely nothing about which you are speaking?
Are you suggesting that someone should personaly experience something in order to have an opinion on it?
To have an informed opinion, yes.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
Fafnir wrote:Relapse wrote:
hotsauceman1 wrote:I tld my mother about this and I tld Her I played it and how it disturbed me. Her reaction? Its wrong and im a horrible persone for playing it
That's really a shame. This is the kind of thing that people should play, and should talk about how terrible it makes them feel (if you don't feel terrible after playing it, there might actually be something wrong with you).
That said, I'm going to assume your mother is of the same mindset that assumes videogames are all about kill counters and high scores, and would never consider them as an artistic medium.
.
No, She just thinks im a horrible person sometimes. I say I think abortion should stay legal? Im a horrible person. I think that my cousin should rush to her daughters school all the time when the daughter wants her too? Horrible person. Her favorite thing to say is "I cant believe I raised someone like that"
34242
Post by: -Loki-
hotsauceman1 wrote:No, She just thinks im a horrible person sometimes. I say I think abortion should stay legal? Im a horrible person. I think that my cousin should rush to her daughters school all the time when the daughter wants her too? Horrible person. Her favorite thing to say is "I cant believe I raised someone like that"
Your parent actually tells you that you are a 'horrible person', in those words, for having a differing viewpoint to them? Wow. Just... wow.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
Yup. Im used to it and just drown it out. Although he has mostly stopped when I cried so hard about it and nearly killed myself on accident.
45234
Post by: Void__Dragon
Have you tried punching her in the face?
51881
Post by: BlaxicanX
M-metaphorically speaking?
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
Yes, because Im going to punch a 60 year old women in the face.
45234
Post by: Void__Dragon
Frailty is no excuse for rudeness.
51881
Post by: BlaxicanX
Diomedes would agree.
34242
Post by: -Loki-
hotsauceman1 wrote:Yup. Im used to it and just drown it out. Although he has mostly stopped when I cried so hard about it and nearly killed myself on accident.
One would think that would make her completely stop.
Sorry, I really feel for you. Emotional and verbal abuse from someone who is meant to be your parent is absolutely terrible. And also illegal.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
Yeah it sucks. But she is a good mother and she has stopped alot of the stuff she used to do when I told her how unchristian it was. And I dont know how much Im saying is lost. She is very christian and just worries about my immortal soul. She does care, just in a weird way.
Now though she is trying to put curfews on me, a 21 year old.
121
Post by: Relapse
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:Relapse wrote: dogma wrote:Relapse wrote: Nope, don't care to play the game anymore than I care to view pornography or use drugs. In this case, what I have read about the game here and elsewhere as well as it's negative impact on the relatives of the murder victims is enough for me.
So you know absolutely nothing about which you are speaking?
Are you suggesting that someone should personaly experience something in order to have an opinion on it?
To have an informed opinion, yes.
You missed a few posts, haven't you?
7075
Post by: chaos0xomega
So I played the game... the first time through I felt sick to my stomach playing, and as soon as the option to kill myself came up, I took my life, after killing 2 teachers and 14 students...
Then I saw the "gun control mode" and played that... I actually found it easier to play, and made it through the entire sequence, racking up an impressive body count of 6 teachers and 24 students... not sure that the designers intent was really met there...
Then I played it a THIRD time in "Eagletears" mode, trying to figure out just wth it was... no idea what my bodycount was, because my computer suddenly crashed on me, at which point I actually felt disappointed that I couldn't finish my "wet work" and it was at that point that I was grateful for said computer failure, because I want nothing to do with something that desensitizes me to that sort of violence.
45234
Post by: Void__Dragon
you only got a score of 16?
Might want to work on that.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
^ and that is why people will not take this seriusly
27391
Post by: purplefood
chaos0xomega wrote:So I played the game... the first time through I felt sick to my stomach playing, and as soon as the option to kill myself came up, I took my life, after killing 2 teachers and 14 students...
Then I saw the "gun control mode" and played that... I actually found it easier to play, and made it through the entire sequence, racking up an impressive body count of 6 teachers and 24 students... not sure that the designers intent was really met there...
Then I played it a THIRD time in "Eagletears" mode, trying to figure out just wth it was... no idea what my bodycount was, because my computer suddenly crashed on me, at which point I actually felt disappointed that I couldn't finish my "wet work" and it was at that point that I was grateful for said computer failure, because I want nothing to do with something that desensitizes me to that sort of violence.
Eagletears is supposed to have the teachers with guns...
Didn't make much of a difference tbh...
32955
Post by: Coolyo294
It was far easier to get kills in eagletears because the teachers would try to attack the player rather than get the kids out of the scholl. And in both of my playthroughs, there was a little section in the final kill tally titled "killsteals" for all the students accidentally killed by teachers.
5534
Post by: dogma
Relapse wrote:
Are you suggesting that someone should personaly experience something in order to have an opinion on it?
No.
I am suggesting that a person who can experience a thing, which will not materially alter their life, should err on the side of curiosity.
121
Post by: Relapse
dogma wrote:Relapse wrote:
Are you suggesting that someone should personaly experience something in order to have an opinion on it?
No.
I am suggesting that a person who can experience a thing, which will not materially alter their life, should err on the side of curiosity.
As a father of 4 children, my curiosity was more than satsfied by the articles, screen shots, and comments I read about the game and the man behind it.
5534
Post by: dogma
Relapse wrote:
As a father of 4 children, my curiosity was more than satsfied by the articles, screen shots, and comments I read about the game and the man behind it.
So, if you're willing to go to those lengths, why not just play the game?
68844
Post by: HiveFleetPlastic
I gave it a try. I have to say, anyone who thinks that game is made for fun rather than as art either hasn't played a video game before or hasn't played the game at all. It's very clearly made to provoke thought rather than to entertain.
The article in the OP is a bit misleading, too. For "recreating the murders in graphic detail" I expected a bit more than pressing the up key, then pressing the S key.
There's room to argue this interactive-art (game is a misnomer) is insensitive or inappropriate, but not that it's obviously exploitative and wrong.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Looks like the guy is from Australia, so he's already been punished by Life ( TM).
77757
Post by: Soteks Prophet
But shooting the taliban is ok?
121
Post by: Relapse
dogma wrote:Relapse wrote:
As a father of 4 children, my curiosity was more than satsfied by the articles, screen shots, and comments I read about the game and the man behind it.
So, if you're willing to go to those lengths, why not just play the game?
We go back to the point in our discussion about not needing to personally experience something to have an opinion of it. I despise pornography and drug use, also. It doesn't mean I am going to look at that trash or use drugs to suppliment what I have learned by reading about either or hearing what people have to say about it.
36184
Post by: Alfndrate
I actually liked that the game gave me the option of getting out early, and artistically that the shooter didn't have red blood like the rest of the characters in the game.
The game does some things well to unnerve the player (whether this unnerves you or not is a personal matter), the walking sounds that the character makes sounds unnatural for the sounds of walking. This immediately made me feel out of sorts, unlike other games that try to provide realistic sounds to immerse you in the game. Next were the backwards controls, I could be the weird one here, but I'm used to WASD being my movement in games, so having to stop and slow down to get 'acclimated' to the arrow keys was another way to make me feel odd about the game. Those things, along with the colors, the backdrop, the using the interact key twice to open doors just made the game difficult to play, which I think was part of the message the creator was trying to make. I still think that Gun Control mode would have just forced the player to search for the keys to open the gun safe and then proceed as historical mode, but that's asking for too much when I know that his message is that a few more obstacles between a person and their weapons might slow them down, should they choose to commit an atrocity like Sandy Hook.
4402
Post by: CptJake
As opposed to unarmed kids?
221
Post by: Frazzled
Does the game have a Terminator option - ie the shooter runs into a Iron Warrior terminator and gets chainfisted?
5534
Post by: dogma
Relapse wrote:
We go back to the point in our discussion about not needing to personally experience something to have an opinion of it. I despise pornography and drug use, also. It doesn't mean I am going to look at that trash or use drugs to suppliment what I have learned by reading about either or hearing what people have to say about it.
I am not contesting your right to hold an opinion. I am wondering why you seem content to deny yourself information on which to found it.
Playing this game* is not illegal, nor is it likely to affect you physically (which is why the drug use analogy is bad) so just play the game. It isn't going to turn you into Adam Lanza any more than seeing porn is going to turn you into Jenna Jameson.
*I use the term loosely. I agree with HiveFleetPlastic that it is a misnomer.
221
Post by: Frazzled
dogma wrote:Relapse wrote:
We go back to the point in our discussion about not needing to personally experience something to have an opinion of it. I despise pornography and drug use, also. It doesn't mean I am going to look at that trash or use drugs to suppliment what I have learned by reading about either or hearing what people have to say about it.
I am not contesting your right to hold an opinion. I am wondering why you seem content to deny yourself information on which to found it.
Playing this game* is not illegal, nor is it likely to affect you physically (which is why the drug use analogy is bad) so just play the game. It isn't going to turn you into Adam Lanza any more than seeing porn is going to turn you into Jenna Jameson.
*I use the term loosely. I agree with HiveFleetPlastic that it is a misnomer.
And none of that has any impact upon whether the game is disgusting and in poor taste, which is the point of the boycott and the thread. Try harder.
5534
Post by: dogma
 Frazzled wrote:
And none of that has any impact upon whether the game is disgusting and in poor taste, which is the point of the boycott and the thread. Try harder.
"Hey, let's all boycott this thing that I'm bringing to your attention!"
72490
Post by: gossipmeng
Well now I'm aware of this shooting..........
17349
Post by: SilverMK2
To be fair there have been so many that it is hard to keep track...
36184
Post by: Alfndrate
 SilverMK2 wrote:
To be fair there have been so many that it is hard to keep track...
I mean... he didn't join the site until like 4 months after the attack, so it's okay that he didn't see the giant gak storm that the original event started here on Dakka.
68844
Post by: HiveFleetPlastic
Frazzled wrote: dogma wrote:Relapse wrote:
We go back to the point in our discussion about not needing to personally experience something to have an opinion of it. I despise pornography and drug use, also. It doesn't mean I am going to look at that trash or use drugs to suppliment what I have learned by reading about either or hearing what people have to say about it.
I am not contesting your right to hold an opinion. I am wondering why you seem content to deny yourself information on which to found it.
Playing this game* is not illegal, nor is it likely to affect you physically (which is why the drug use analogy is bad) so just play the game. It isn't going to turn you into Adam Lanza any more than seeing porn is going to turn you into Jenna Jameson.
*I use the term loosely. I agree with HiveFleetPlastic that it is a misnomer.
And none of that has any impact upon whether the game is disgusting and in poor taste, which is the point of the boycott and the thread. Try harder.
The URL actually talks about "glorifying atrocities as entertainment." I don't think that's something it's really possible to claim the interactive-experience does unless you either haven't played it or haven't ever played a video game.
It's not made for entertainment. It's not a fun interactive-experience, and it doesn't attempt to be.
4374
Post by: Spacemanvic
d-usa wrote:An anti-2nd-Amendment guy is using his 1st Amendment to make a violent game to make some sort of point because he is pissed.
The pro-2nd-Amendment guys are pissed off that somebody is using his 1st Amendment to make a stupid point.
This is why we can't have nice things...
Im SURE you know this, but it case you missed it:
The game's "author" is from Sydney Austrailia. Last I checked, they hadnt sent a delegation to the Constitutional Convention to ratify the US Constitution for Australia.
That being said, he doesnt have a First Amendment right to exercise.
But like others on the internet, he does have the freedom to post stupid stuff. This "game" is pretty damn stupid.
221
Post by: Frazzled
 Spacemanvic wrote: d-usa wrote:An anti-2nd-Amendment guy is using his 1st Amendment to make a violent game to make some sort of point because he is pissed.
The pro-2nd-Amendment guys are pissed off that somebody is using his 1st Amendment to make a stupid point.
This is why we can't have nice things...
Im SURE you know this, but it case you missed it:
The game's "author" is from Sydney Austrailia. Last I checked, they hadnt sent a delegation to the Constitutional Convention to ratify the US Constitution for Australia.
That being said, he doesnt have a First Amendment right to exercise.
But like others on the internet, he does have the freedom to post stupid stuff. This "game" is pretty damn stupid.
Spacemanvic nails a 3 pointer...
5534
Post by: dogma
Spacemanvic wrote:
But like others on the internet, he does have the freedom to post stupid stuff. This "game" is pretty damn stupid.
Did you play it?
4374
Post by: Spacemanvic
dogma wrote: Spacemanvic wrote:
But like others on the internet, he does have the freedom to post stupid stuff. This "game" is pretty damn stupid.
Did you play it?
Irrelevant, but then again:
....So not surprised.
5534
Post by: dogma
I'm asking a very simple question. Did you play the game?
I mean, while I don't consider Relapse's position to be commendable, he did at least admit that he hadn't played the game and would not do so.
221
Post by: Frazzled
dogma wrote: I'm asking a very simple question. Did you play the game? I mean, while I don't consider Relapse's position to be commendable, he did at least admit that he hadn't played the game and would not do so.
The question is irrelevant. I don't watch snuff films either (just cooking porn) but I can still call them horrid and an abomination.
4374
Post by: Spacemanvic
dogma wrote:
I'm asking a very simple question. Did you play the game?
I mean, while I don't consider Relapse's position to be commendable, he did at least admit that he hadn't played the game and would not do so.
I may have, I may not have. Completely irrelevant. But it is your strawman.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: dogma wrote:
I'm asking a very simple question. Did you play the game?
I mean, while I don't consider Relapse's position to be commendable, he did at least admit that he hadn't played the game and would not do so.
The question is irrelevant. I don't watch snuff films either (just cooking porn) but I can still call them horrid and an abomination.
It's all he's got, so he's gonna circle this thing until the final flush.
5534
Post by: dogma
Frazzled wrote:
The question is irrelevant. I don't watch snuff films either (just cooking porn) but I can still call them horrid and an abomination.
But you know what a snuff film is. I would argue that you don't know what this game is.
Admittedly this may be a generational problem. I've been playing video games since I was 5, so I've got 22 years of experience with them. Everything about this game, from the stilted animation of Lanza (juxtaposed with the fluid animation of the kids and teachers) to the awkward controls, resonates with me.
221
Post by: Frazzled
dogma wrote: Frazzled wrote: The question is irrelevant. I don't watch snuff films either (just cooking porn) but I can still call them horrid and an abomination.
But you know what a snuff film is. I would argue that you don't know what this game is. Admittedly this may be a generational problem. I've been playing video games since I was 5, so I've got 22 years of experience with them. Everything about this game, from the stilted animation of Lanza (juxtaposed with the fluid animation of the kids and teachers) to the awkward controls, resonates with me.
You type it like its a good thing... But i think we can all admit the sudden appearance of some Iron Warriors Terminators would liven anything up.
37231
Post by: d-usa
Frazzled wrote: Spacemanvic wrote: d-usa wrote:An anti-2nd-Amendment guy is using his 1st Amendment to make a violent game to make some sort of point because he is pissed.
The pro-2nd-Amendment guys are pissed off that somebody is using his 1st Amendment to make a stupid point.
This is why we can't have nice things...
Im SURE you know this, but it case you missed it:
The game's "author" is from Sydney Austrailia. Last I checked, they hadnt sent a delegation to the Constitutional Convention to ratify the US Constitution for Australia.
That being said, he doesnt have a First Amendment right to exercise.
But like others on the internet, he does have the freedom to post stupid stuff. This "game" is pretty damn stupid.
Spacemanvic nails a 3 pointer...
He's a US citizen, regardless of location.
5534
Post by: dogma
Spacemanvic wrote:
I may have, I may not have. Completely irrelevant. But it is your strawman.
See, ordinarily I would assume that your argument is that the existence of this game is offensive on its face. But since you're basically a conservative pastiche I find it more likely that you object to the creator's stance on gun control.
221
Post by: Frazzled
dogma wrote: Spacemanvic wrote:
I may have, I may not have. Completely irrelevant. But it is your strawman.
See, ordinarily I would assume that your argument is that the existence of this game is offensive on its face. But since you're basically a conservative pastiche I find it more likely that you object to the creator's stance on gun control.
I don't know about him but I find it prima facae offensive.
5534
Post by: dogma
Frazzled wrote:
I don't know about him but I find it prima facae offensive.
Why?
I'm legitimately curious because, as far as I can tell, the guy isn't making any money. I mean yeah, he's gaining publicity, but so does anyone that makes any public comment about any tragedy.
And yes, the creation of a game can be a form of commentary.
221
Post by: Frazzled
dogma wrote: Frazzled wrote:
I don't know about him but I find it prima facae offensive.
Why?
I'm legitimately curious because, as far as I can tell, the guy isn't making any money. I mean yeah, he's gaining publicity, but so does anyone that makes any public comment about any tragedy.
And yes, the creation of a game can be a form of commentary.
Because its sick and perverse. His motive is irrelevant.
36184
Post by: Alfndrate
dogma wrote: Frazzled wrote: I don't know about him but I find it prima facae offensive.
Why? I'm legitimately curious because, as far as I can tell, the guy isn't making any money. I mean yeah, he's gaining publicity, but so does anyone that makes any public comment about any tragedy. And yes, the creation of a game can be a form of commentary.
When I went to play the game, I was given an advertisement that I could not skip and said that part of the money by viewing that advertisement would go towards the creator of the game.
4374
Post by: Spacemanvic
dogma wrote: Spacemanvic wrote:
I may have, I may not have. Completely irrelevant. But it is your strawman.
See, ordinarily I would assume that your argument is that the existence of this game is offensive on its face. But since you're basically a conservative pastiche I find it more likely that you object to the creator's stance on gun control.
Just today, several of my ARs stayed asleep in my safe. That's because they are inanimate objects. The stupidity of gun control and its adherents fail to grasp that fact.
The existence of the game is prima facae offensive. Empirical evidence points to the creator looking to garner attention if not financial gain from making this dreck. He's an immature, sociopath class A schmuck. That he is also anti-gun (no surprise coming from Australia), doesnt make him or his trash any less offensive as I find the gun grabbers offensive. Id expect no less from a psychophant progressive. He is exactly the kind of person who would carry out a massacre as he lacks empathy as well as intelligence and a very weak will. He seems to attract the like minded. That there is an uproar against his effort gives me a measure of hope about humanity.
39827
Post by: scarletsquig
All I saw was the sentence "Remove .... from the internet" and shook my head.
Not gonna happen. Not even physically possible.
I work as a flash game developer and there is no way in hell the game is only on those 2 sites, those are just the ones with the most traffic (it would be newgrounds, but they already removed it).
There are a *lot* of flash game portals out there. Lots and lots and lots and lots.
I'd estimate more like 1000 current hosts for the game with the number rising every time a new article gets posted drawing attention to it.
If there aren't ads or external links in the game (haven't played it and don't intend to, someone else can check), I can confirm that no money is being made by the developer.
70365
Post by: Gentleman_Jellyfish
Spacemanvic wrote:Just today, several of my ARs stayed asleep in my safe. That's because they are inanimate objects. The stupidity of gun control and its adherents fail to grasp that fact.
Amen  About sums up every gun argument I've seen.
5534
Post by: dogma
Right, so you find the existence of this game offensive, I get that. Using words which mean essentially the same thing does not clarify your position.
 Alfndrate wrote:
When I went to play the game, I was given an advertisement that I could not skip and said that part of the money by viewing that advertisement would go towards the creator of the game.
I used Rusty Arcade and didn't get an ad, but it seems there are ads on Game Jolt.
Spacemanvic wrote:
Just today, several of my ARs stayed asleep in my safe. That's because they are inanimate objects. The stupidity of gun control and its adherents fail to grasp that fact.
If they're inanimate objects, how were they able to sleep?
Spacemanvic wrote:
The existence of the game is prima facae offensive. Empirical evidence points to the creator looking to garner attention if not financial gain from making this dreck. He's an immature, sociopath class A schmuck. That he is also anti-gun (no surprise coming from Australia), doesnt make him or his trash any less offensive as I find the gun grabbers offensive. Id expect no less from a psychophant progressive. He is exactly the kind of person who would carry out a massacre as he lacks empathy as well as intelligence and a very weak will. He seems to attract the like minded. That there is an uproar against his effort gives me a measure of hope about humanity.
Actually, he's from Texas.
But yeah, of course he was looking to garner attention, that's usually why people make public statements. The guy made the game in order to attract attention to himself and the cause (gun control) he has taken it upon himself to represent.
221
Post by: Frazzled
dogma wrote:
Right, so you find the existence of this game offensive, I get that. Using words which mean essentially the same thing does not clarify your position.
I think that clarifies my position quite clearly.
121
Post by: Relapse
dogma wrote: Frazzled wrote:
The question is irrelevant. I don't watch snuff films either (just cooking porn) but I can still call them horrid and an abomination.
But you know what a snuff film is. I would argue that you don't know what this game is.
Admittedly this may be a generational problem. I've been playing video games since I was 5, so I've got 22 years of experience with them. Everything about this game, from the stilted animation of Lanza (juxtaposed with the fluid animation of the kids and teachers) to the awkward controls, resonates with me.
Maybe that's the gist of it. Being a father who feels quite protective of his children, I have quite a bit of empathy for the outrage from the parents of Sandy Hook and find it quite easy to put myself in their shoes. At some point it will not surprise me to find this designer trying to profit from this like he attempted with his Virginia Tech creation.
10347
Post by: Fafnir
And there's a problem with artists profiting for their work and creativity?
38150
Post by: Dark Apostle 666
I think it's more the idea that he's profiting off the death and misery of others - Personally, I've no opinion, there's nasty stuff on the internet, so what - but I can see why people are upset by first the creation of this game, and then the idea that he's making money from it.
121
Post by: Relapse
It would be interesting to see the percentage of parents that favor this game as opposed to those parents who are disgusted by it and compare it to what those without children think of it.
62229
Post by: Minx
Relapse wrote:It would be interesting to see the percentage of parents that favor this game as opposed to those parents who are disgusted by it and compare it to what those without children think of it.
Why would you believe there's a difference?
10347
Post by: Fafnir
 Dark Apostle 666 wrote:I think it's more the idea that he's profiting off the death and misery of others - Personally, I've no opinion, there's nasty stuff on the internet, so what - but I can see why people are upset by first the creation of this game, and then the idea that he's making money from it.
There are people who make money off of movies and books based on the misery and death of others all the time, and to excessively larger scales. Why is that not offensive?
37231
Post by: d-usa
Fafnir wrote: Dark Apostle 666 wrote:I think it's more the idea that he's profiting off the death and misery of others - Personally, I've no opinion, there's nasty stuff on the internet, so what - but I can see why people are upset by first the creation of this game, and then the idea that he's making money from it.
There are people who make money off of movies and books based on the misery and death of others all the time, and to excessively larger scales. Why is that not offensive?
Every single news organization profits from tragedy. The reason they put the crying devastated parent holding their dead child on the news isn't out of sympathy and pure journalistic integrity, shocking images get ratings and those equal profit.
Do people boycott the news?
121
Post by: Relapse
 Minx wrote:Relapse wrote:It would be interesting to see the percentage of parents that favor this game as opposed to those parents who are disgusted by it and compare it to what those without children think of it.
Why would you believe there's a difference?
It stems from something Dogma mentioned about age possibly being a factor determining who lis or is not offended by the nature of this game. His comment initiated my interest.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
Fafnir wrote:And there's a problem with artists profiting for their work and creativity?
See, I think for a game to be considered art it would still have to be first and foremost a practical game meant to be played for enjoyment while also having artistic merits.
Art can be offensive or thought provoking, but it can't be obscene. I think this "game" crossed that line.
Of course Obscenity has always been impossible to define and its played out in art circles before.
I think this crossed the line because it is quite insensitive to the victims. Its puts the player in the position of the killer. Now games exist where you can and do do what we would consider horrible atrocities. The difference is those are works of fiction. There is a total disconnect from reality.
This game is about an actual event who's victims are still recovering. And its made a million times worse because children are involved.
27391
Post by: purplefood
d-usa wrote: Fafnir wrote: Dark Apostle 666 wrote:I think it's more the idea that he's profiting off the death and misery of others - Personally, I've no opinion, there's nasty stuff on the internet, so what - but I can see why people are upset by first the creation of this game, and then the idea that he's making money from it.
There are people who make money off of movies and books based on the misery and death of others all the time, and to excessively larger scales. Why is that not offensive?
Every single news organization profits from tragedy. The reason they put the crying devastated parent holding their dead child on the news isn't out of sympathy and pure journalistic integrity, shocking images get ratings and those equal profit. Do people boycott the news?
This is actually a pretty good point. Actually if you think about it the news is almost worse... A lot of people mentioned how absurd the circus surrounding Sandy Hook was. It's things like that which encourage some mass murderers...
4374
Post by: Spacemanvic
Grey Templar wrote: Fafnir wrote:And there's a problem with artists profiting for their work and creativity?
See, I think for a game to be considered art it would still have to be first and foremost a practical game meant to be played for enjoyment while also having artistic merits.
Art can be offensive or thought provoking, but it can't be obscene. I think this "game" crossed that line.
Of course Obscenity has always been impossible to define and its played out in art circles before.
I think this crossed the line because it is quite insensitive to the victims. Its puts the player in the position of the killer. Now games exist where you can and do do what we would consider horrible atrocities. The difference is those are works of fiction. There is a total disconnect from reality.
This game is about an actual event who's victims are still recovering. And its made a million times worse because children are involved.
EXACTLY!!! Yes, thank you!
68844
Post by: HiveFleetPlastic
Frazzled wrote: dogma wrote:
I'm asking a very simple question. Did you play the game?
I mean, while I don't consider Relapse's position to be commendable, he did at least admit that he hadn't played the game and would not do so.
The question is irrelevant. I don't watch snuff films either (just cooking porn) but I can still call them horrid and an abomination.
It's like saying Schindler's List is a snuff film, horrid and an abomination.
45234
Post by: Void__Dragon
I don't think you know what that word means.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Nor this.
Also, I'm personally not a fan of the hamfisted attempt at dehumanizing Lanza. This is not to say he wasn't an evil, horrible person, but attempts to make people, even horrible ones, as less than human (Like how people do with Hitler, for example), are IMHO disingenous.
60582
Post by: erick99
89% Eagletears, 43% Historical, 41% Gun control (+14 wounded)
The 'game' certainly makes you realize the Sandy Hook shooting was awful, but if you needed this game to figure that out...
I have to disagree with his gun control message (because I disagree with it and because it was poorly represented in the game), and without that, there's not much to the game beyond reminding me that the shooting was a tragedy.
_e
55600
Post by: Kovnik Obama
This is pretty much the first time I load one of those games and do not feel rage at the creator. This is a game, in the sense that an interactive play is a game, but this isn't a shooter. And as far as an interactive recreation of a massacre, this works. To follow the story, you are forced to commit actions which almost anyone would loathe, and the game doesn't really have replayability, at least not in my opinion. I won't go for the high kill score, because the game just gives you the creep and the mechanics aren't that good.
I'm not sure why something like this would be such bad taste that it requires censorship, but something like Elephant wouldn't?
I'm also quite tickled by all the libertarians in this thread who seems to have suddenly and conveniently forgotten their core values.
53595
Post by: Palindrome
Its almost as though games are little more than toys for children.....
WIll people be this upset about the inevitable made for TV films that will be covering the same subject matter?
5534
Post by: dogma
Relapse wrote:It would be interesting to see the percentage of parents that favor this game as opposed to those parents who are disgusted by it and compare it to what those without children think of it.
I think you would also have to consider the significance of experience with video games within either category, as there are plenty of people older than me (27) who grew up with video games and have kids. Hell, in truth, there may well be more that are younger than me.
72133
Post by: StarTrotter
The controversy on the game itself is very overblown, it's pretty obvious that this was a pretty carefully constructed game meant to prove a point, although the subliminal intent of the creator due to his past work could be called into question.
Anyway, it was okay, but nothing to write home about. 6/10.
I did better with the katana... The game itself was interesting but...it was a bit ham fisted to say the least. The PC moves inhumanly with each step being slushy and horrific. The sword is swung at such a deliberately low at such a horrid arc that you can quite frequently miss (even when it looks like the hit box works).
Now, the game itself has a message it is trying to convey, whether that message is good/bad/uncreative/or has some sleasy origination behind it, doesn't matter it had a point whether you like it or not. I don't like the material and take no pleasure in the game from the bloody sounds of walking, to what you do in the game, nor do I enjoy the ham fisted manner of the anti-gun mode, the fact that the creature specifically tries to dehumanize the murderer (somebody might be mentally screwed up, damaged, psychologically unstable, and do things that morally and even generally in the entire world might do something revolting or deplorable but that doesn't mean they deserve to be treated as sub human), but that doesn't deny it has a purpose.
Also, it shouldn't be censored. To me, at least, nothing should be censored. We can't shelter individuals from realities and if somebody wishes to make a game about you playing as a terrific nazi slaughtering jews, so be it, people should rule with their wallets and do what they please ignoring or punishing what they dislike. Also, art is art no matter how disgusting, revolting, insulting, etc.
Also, if we criticize him making money off of it, turn on your local news station and observe the horrors they advertise
39768
Post by: Captain Fantastic
I don't see why a liberal anti-gun lobbyist group thinks this has something to do with gun violence. Pick your battles.
45234
Post by: Void__Dragon
 StarTrotter wrote:The controversy on the game itself is very overblown, it's pretty obvious that this was a pretty carefully constructed game meant to prove a point, although the subliminal intent of the creator due to his past work could be called into question.
Anyway, it was okay, but nothing to write home about. 6/10.
I did better with the katana... The game itself was interesting but...it was a bit ham fisted to say the least. The PC moves inhumanly with each step being slushy and horrific. The sword is swung at such a deliberately low at such a horrid arc that you can quite frequently miss (even when it looks like the hit box works).
Now, the game itself has a message it is trying to convey, whether that message is good/bad/uncreative/or has some sleasy origination behind it, doesn't matter it had a point whether you like it or not. I don't like the material and take no pleasure in the game from the bloody sounds of walking, to what you do in the game, nor do I enjoy the ham fisted manner of the anti-gun mode, the fact that the creature specifically tries to dehumanize the murderer (somebody might be mentally screwed up, damaged, psychologically unstable, and do things that morally and even generally in the entire world might do something revolting or deplorable but that doesn't mean they deserve to be treated as sub human), but that doesn't deny it has a purpose.
Also, it shouldn't be censored. To me, at least, nothing should be censored. We can't shelter individuals from realities and if somebody wishes to make a game about you playing as a terrific nazi slaughtering jews, so be it, people should rule with their wallets and do what they please ignoring or punishing what they dislike. Also, art is art no matter how disgusting, revolting, insulting, etc.
Also, if we criticize him making money off of it, turn on your local news station and observe the horrors they advertise
Your post is eerily similar to my posts.
A-are you t-trying to imitate me, only to kill me once you are able to perfectly emulate my persona?
72133
Post by: StarTrotter
 Void__Dragon wrote: StarTrotter wrote:The controversy on the game itself is very overblown, it's pretty obvious that this was a pretty carefully constructed game meant to prove a point, although the subliminal intent of the creator due to his past work could be called into question.
Anyway, it was okay, but nothing to write home about. 6/10.
I did better with the katana... The game itself was interesting but...it was a bit ham fisted to say the least. The PC moves inhumanly with each step being slushy and horrific. The sword is swung at such a deliberately low at such a horrid arc that you can quite frequently miss (even when it looks like the hit box works).
Now, the game itself has a message it is trying to convey, whether that message is good/bad/uncreative/or has some sleasy origination behind it, doesn't matter it had a point whether you like it or not. I don't like the material and take no pleasure in the game from the bloody sounds of walking, to what you do in the game, nor do I enjoy the ham fisted manner of the anti-gun mode, the fact that the creature specifically tries to dehumanize the murderer (somebody might be mentally screwed up, damaged, psychologically unstable, and do things that morally and even generally in the entire world might do something revolting or deplorable but that doesn't mean they deserve to be treated as sub human), but that doesn't deny it has a purpose.
Also, it shouldn't be censored. To me, at least, nothing should be censored. We can't shelter individuals from realities and if somebody wishes to make a game about you playing as a terrific nazi slaughtering jews, so be it, people should rule with their wallets and do what they please ignoring or punishing what they dislike. Also, art is art no matter how disgusting, revolting, insulting, etc.
Also, if we criticize him making money off of it, turn on your local news station and observe the horrors they advertise
Your post is eerily similar to my posts.
A-are you t-trying to imitate me, only to kill me once you are able to perfectly emulate my persona?
*smirks* Why never~ Now then, I'll need a picture of you, a voice track, and you to come over late at night when nobody is looking so I can kill you and replace you I mean have a party with cookies.
In all seriousness, xD wow that is close. In all seriousness though, just odds I guess? Everyone was playing it up and, due to curiosity, I opted to try it out. I get what it's attempting, the inhumane movment, the sloshing with each step, the way the character is entirely different in animation, the purposefully sluggish manner of the blade.... It's all done for a reason (arguably two). Reading through some of the earlier, it was mentioned that he has had some... previous games where he said he'd remove it if he got paid which, whilst I can't really judge him, is something that would often be considered low and scummish. Seriously, I'm not joking when I said I did better with the katana. Then I wished to argue against the claims that it isn't art. Is it high art? TO me at least, it isn't... yet that does not mean it isn't a form of art any more than a painting/game/etc of any sort. Especially since it has a meaning behind it all. It's not just shoot the children to shoot them, it's shooting them to argue for the cause of gun control whether one likes it or not. From there, I wanted to talk about censoring it or not. Perhaps it is foolish, but I regard it as a fine thing to create whatever you wish. If you want to make some terrible re-enactment, go for it, just watch as people speak out in rage and you don't make anything off of it. And of course, I don't like people calling others less than human. Nobody, nobody in this entire world deserves such a treatment, such disdain, such disregard. It's devastating, mentally crushing, and can take its tole upon somebodies sanity until theyare degraded until the point where it seems to be a fine and dandy thing if they would just disappear forever, gone from what is a hellhole of a life to them for, if not, all you are is a monstrosity, an abomination that is unfit to live in this world.
|
|
