Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

And there's a problem with artists profiting for their work and creativity?

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.

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.

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?

 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?

 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?

 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.

 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.

 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...

 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!

 Frazzled wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 Spacemanvic wrote:

Irrelevant, but then again:

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.

 Spacemanvic wrote:
Empirical evidence

I don't think you know what that word means.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Spacemanvic wrote:
strawman.

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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

I don't see why a liberal anti-gun lobbyist group thinks this has something to do with gun violence. Pick your battles.

 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?

 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.