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.

 Soteks Prophet wrote:
But shooting the taliban is ok?

As opposed to unarmed kids?

Does the game have a Terminator option - ie the shooter runs into a Iron Warrior terminator and gets chainfisted?

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.

 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.

 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!"

Well now I'm aware of this shooting..........

 gossipmeng wrote:
Well now I'm aware of this shooting..........

To be fair there have been so many that it is hard to keep track...

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 gossipmeng wrote:
Well now I'm aware of this shooting..........

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.

 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.

 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 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...

 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?

 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.

 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.

 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.

 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.

I may have, I may not have. Completely irrelevant. But it is your strawman.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 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 all he's got, so he's gonna circle this thing until the final flush.

 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.

 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.

 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.

 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.

 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.

 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.

 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.

 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.

 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.

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.

 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.

 Frazzled wrote:

Because its sick and perverse. His motive is irrelevant.

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.

 dogma wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Because its sick and perverse. His motive is irrelevant.

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.

 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.