Ryan Lambourn's Slaying Of Sandy Hook Draws Condemnation

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT
 

omega 616:
-snip-

And that's precisely the problem, just as I told you the last time we had an argument.

You're latching a firm grasp on a stance that sounds an awful lot like "stats can be manipulated, therefore it's okay for me to be uneducated when I speak". So, you shouldn't be surprised when people point to the stats and tell you that you're wrong. Because chances are, you're going to be wrong an awful lot more often than you're right.

Again, speaking from a position in which all actual data defies your opinion, and boasting about it as if that makes you "cool", is the stance of an ignorant individual. And it doesn't convince anyone that what you're saying is true. In fact, it actually helps make the case for folks like myself, who take the time to back my arguments with data. Because when the "crazy gun-toting 'Murrican" sounds more educated than you, it not only shatters the negative stereotype you've been trying so desperately to spin, it actually makes your stance all the weaker.

So really, if you want to keep talking, by all means continue. Just know that you're not helping yourself, which is why I encouraged you to drop out of this discussion earlier.

CriticKitten:
snip

I don't think scared and paranoid is a stereotype of America at the moment.

I actually would still be going with the other one but life and memory got in the way but like I said then and now, stats are pretty meaningless 'cos they can be manipulated in so many ways but just like guns, you cling to them. Instead of forming an opinion you leap at stats and let them talk for you.

Basic premise of what I believe in this argument is, as long schools are still being turned into massacre sites then something is seriously wrong with American law. No amount of stats can alter that fact, another fact is Australia had liberal gun laws and had school shootings, they now have strict gun laws and no school shootings ... how is America better?

Maybe doing exactly what Australia did wont work for the US but I believe trying to stop school shootings is better saying "well the stats say different so you're wrong!".

I am embarrassed that my country are such heavy drinkers. If I was an American I would be embarrassed that my government is so passive about school shootings.

omega 616:
I actually would still be going with the other one but life and memory got in the way but like I said then and now, stats are pretty meaningless 'cos they can be manipulated in so many ways but just like guns, you cling to them. Instead of forming an opinion you leap at stats and let them talk for you.

Words can be manipulated far more easily than numbers can be. "Stats can be manipulated" isn't an excuse for flatly ignoring all evidence because it disagrees with your personally held beliefs, which is really what you're doing here. That's just making an excuse for yourself and your argument.

You can keep pointing to the UK and Australia all you like. Both countries are not the same as ours, culturally, geographically, or otherwise. You're comparing apples to orangutans, and that's not going to work. Especially when any attempts to compare the two seem to reflect negatively on those countries, because for as "violent" and "gun-clinging" as America apparently is, our statistics seem to line up pretty damn well with these other countries that are so much better than ours. Even reputable political websites seem to agree on that. The only people who still point to those countries and go "look how much better they are at the guns!" are news pundits who don't know what they're talking about (or worse, know the data but refuse to acknowledge it).

No one in this country is saying that school shootings are somehow "okay". They're not. But taking guns from law abiding citizens is not the answer. When a handful of people fail to follow traffic laws properly and cause multi-car pileups, you don't take away everyone's cars. In nearly every single one of the recent major shootings committed by a teenager, the offender in question had easy access to the firearm and/or a neglectful parent and/or multiple medical conditions. I think those stick out as more obvious problems that need to be addressed before anything else.

CriticKitten:
No one in this country is saying that school shootings are somehow "okay". They're not.

Well, you actually are. School shooting happens, big media frenzy blaming computer games, media frenzy moves on to something else, repeat step 1.

Nothing is being done about it, things get said and one side says "maybe we could put some controls in place" the other side hears "we should ban guns" and replies with "something amendment, something constitution", which goes on till the shock has worn off the media is onto something else.

Nothing changes and by nothing changing you are accepting school shootings. Like I said, I am embarrassed about drinking in the uk and the government have raised taxes on alcohol, people still buy it but they are trying something. It's like a common cold, you get it and it sucks but what can you do? Same with guns, "yeah, another school shooting but what can you do? There is nothing to do".

Look at this headline "31 School Shootings in America Since Columbine, Only 14 in the Rest of the World Combined" ... come on, in 14 years 31 school shootings! (http://www.policymic.com/articles/20843/31-school-shootings-in-america-since-columbine-only-14-in-the-rest-of-the-world-combined)

Compared to Super Columbine Massacre RPG this game is kinda lame. There's no real way to lose, no real feeling of progression (I did kinda suck anyway, there were 15 survivors), no ammo counter. The art style had potential but given how boring everything else was with the slow movement and bad aiming it's just a dull game.

The 2nd mode with gun control was actually fun because there are some comedy elements. The way the katana just appears having been bought online and after you kill yourself at the end it adds a failed suicide, a stomach pump, and a court case to your end results.
The last mode is best of all because there's some actual danger, the teachers have handguns so naturally focus on them first. My results there were worse though because 2 teachers shot themselves (the game calls it a killsteal) and some kids played dead.

Overall the last mode called Eagletears is the mode most worth playing, the 2nd mode ends too quickly while the first offers no challenge.

Xan Krieger:
zip

I think you may have missed the point of the game.That is unless you're being sarcastic or trolling.

omega 616:
-snip-

Except that no, I'm not "accepting" school shootings simply because I don't agree with your point of view. Nor is anyone else.

The thing about complex issues like this is that they're complex. They can't be solved simply by changing one thing. The underlying problems that caused that teenager to pick up a gun in the first place? Yeah, those are still there. Taking away the gun doesn't fix that problem.

No one is saying it's okay. No one is just "accepting" it. But part of democracy means that people will disagree, and the unfortunate thing with America's democracy in particular is that our representatives don't necessarily represent "us" and will squabble far more than we do. And because of this country's tendency to vote down party lines instead of voting on the issues....yeah, suffice it to say there are plenty of problems in this country that restrict our government from getting things done as they should. It's not a question of people just "accepting" it and it's not just a bunch of random "gun-toting crazies" keeping anything from changing, it's more the fact that our government is stuck in a highly-gridlocked model because of the two-party system. So nothing changes not because people don't WANT to change, but because the politicians in charge don't want change.

Though, using your logic, one could easily argue that you're "accepting" all of the problems this country has with regards to mental conditions and poor parenting. After all, why aren't you doing anything, even though you have no power whatsoever to change the situation in question? Why don't you fix it already, huh, HUH?!? >_>

CriticKitten:
Though, using your logic, one could easily argue that you're "accepting" all of the problems this country has with regards to mental conditions and poor parenting. After all, why aren't you doing anything, even though you have no power whatsoever to change the situation in question? Why don't you fix it already, huh, HUH?!? >_>

As for the rest of it, I'm bored so hey you win and stuff.

For this part, Firstly my government is trying to curb it by increasing tax on alcohol so they are doing something, the something is ineffective and just another way to make money though. Secondly, drinking in this country is almost universally adored, people will wake up at 8 and go to the pub and sit there all day. People will finish work, go for a few pints and then go home and carry on drinking. They get wasted on Friday, wasted on Saturday and maybe wasted on Sunday.

There are very few people who actually drink sensibly or not at all.

Gun control is more divisive in America, there is a way to have to have the conversation, as soon as scared and paranoid allow the conversation to happen. Shame that the scared and paranoid have their fingers in their ears, loudly saying "constitution. Amendment"

CriticKitten:

omega 616:
I actually would still be going with the other one but life and memory got in the way but like I said then and now, stats are pretty meaningless 'cos they can be manipulated in so many ways but just like guns, you cling to them. Instead of forming an opinion you leap at stats and let them talk for you.

Words can be manipulated far more easily than numbers can be. "Stats can be manipulated" isn't an excuse for flatly ignoring all evidence because it disagrees with your personally held beliefs, which is really what you're doing here. That's just making an excuse for yourself and your argument.

You can keep pointing to the UK and Australia all you like. Both countries are not the same as ours, culturally, geographically, or otherwise. You're comparing apples to orangutans, and that's not going to work. Especially when any attempts to compare the two seem to reflect negatively on those countries, because for as "violent" and "gun-clinging" as America apparently is, our statistics seem to line up pretty damn well with these other countries that are so much better than ours. Even reputable political websites seem to agree on that. The only people who still point to those countries and go "look how much better they are at the guns!" are news pundits who don't know what they're talking about (or worse, know the data but refuse to acknowledge it).

No one in this country is saying that school shootings are somehow "okay". They're not. But taking guns from law abiding citizens is not the answer. When a handful of people fail to follow traffic laws properly and cause multi-car pileups, you don't take away everyone's cars. In nearly every single one of the recent major shootings committed by a teenager, the offender in question had easy access to the firearm and/or a neglectful parent and/or multiple medical conditions. I think those stick out as more obvious problems that need to be addressed before anything else.

I live in the UK and have never even seen a gun, other than in the US (it was undeniably cool but only because I am stupid Limey). On the whole, I find the whole concept of guns abhorrent. However, I had an American girlfriend and chatting to her made me realise that there is simply a different culture in America, not one I am party too and not one I understand, or even like, but you have to accept sometimes people come to different conclusion when asked the same question and offered the same evidence. I would suggest, however, that stronger background check may help. I think the access to weapons in the States is generally too easy (I understand the laws vary from State to State).

Austin Manning:

Xan Krieger:
zip

I think you may have missed the point of the game.That is unless you're being sarcastic or trolling.

I was simply saying how the game plays which is rather poor. The animations are extremely slow, there's 0 bullet spread, and even when the teachers had guns me and one of them were on the same spot and couldn't shoot each other. I know the point of the game, the 2nd one shows if his mother had locked up the guns the deaths would've been far lower. The 3rd mode takes a shot at people who say we should arm the teachers.

omega 616:

You say "I need a gun to defend myself with" so, when are you buying the body armor? What about some self defense classes? Oh, you know they say the best defense is to just run away, you doing some cardio work outs? You got a great home security? Bullet proof windows? Got a little camera to see who is at the door? Panic room? What is the safety rating on your car? Even better what about armor plating your car? You know, gotta be safe! You probably have a zombie plan (come on who doesn't?) but do you have a "America has been invaded" plan? Got your sandbags and barbwire ready? Basement full of tinned food and bottled water?

Sad thing is, some people would answer yes to a lot of that ...

Ah yes. Let's lump all gun owners in one giant category for easy and inaccurate stereotyping. Heaven forbid we dig out facts and raw data. Oh no. That's much too difficult.

Look, you can disagree with the right to own guns all you want. I think it's nuts that people argue it, especially people who aren't Americans as it's a cultural issue here. It literally is in the document that is the basis for our government. You don't have to like it. But you should at least be respectful of what people are saying. Realizing of course that my sarcasm above makes me a total hypocrite on that point. However I have been following your discussion and you're not even giving counter arguments reasonable doubts. You already made up your mind and instead of counter-arguing with facts, you are implying that all gun owners are paranoid, schizophrenic lunatics who constantly see the world as a battle ground. And that is just wrong. I own 3 guns. I hunt. Am I a loon? Why or why not? You simply cannot put people who enjoy the sport of shooting and yes, it is a sport, into the same category as the people who build bunkers in the woods. That would be akin to putting you in a category of rabid football fans who just happen to be in a gang. You can be a fan of the sport of football and of a particular team, but that doesn't make you a hooligan who beats up opposing fans. Do you see the similarity?

Xan Krieger:
I know the point of the game, the 2nd one shows if his mother had locked up the guns the deaths would've been far lower. The 3rd mode takes a shot at people who say we should arm the teachers.

Actually the second mode is supposed to be an argument in favor of Gun Control. However, as some in this thread have already pointed out:

1) It really argues the pro-gun stance of "parents are being irresponsible with their guns and not locking them up properly" far better than any gun control stance.

2) You can still get a pretty high kill count in that mode by picking up a katana and "going to town" on the kids with that. Some people reported that doing so netted them the highest kill count of all three modes.

So yeah, in his attempt to argue gun control, he screwed up big time.

omega 616:
For this part, Firstly my government is trying to curb it by increasing tax on alcohol so they are doing something, the something is ineffective and just another way to make money though. Secondly, drinking in this country is almost universally adored, people will wake up at 8 and go to the pub and sit there all day. People will finish work, go for a few pints and then go home and carry on drinking. They get wasted on Friday, wasted on Saturday and maybe wasted on Sunday.

Er, read the quoted part again, mate.

As for the rest of it, I'm bored so hey you win and stuff.

Good to know that you've finally caught onto the fact that you're not as educated on the topic as you think you are.

Res Plus:
I live in the UK and have never even seen a gun, other than in the US (it was undeniably cool but only because I am stupid Limey). On the whole, I find the whole concept of guns abhorrent. However, I had an American girlfriend and chatting to her made me realise that there is simply a different culture in America, not one I am party too and not one I understand, or even like, but you have to accept sometimes people come to different conclusion when asked the same question and offered the same evidence. I would suggest, however, that stronger background check may help. I think the access to weapons in the States is generally too easy (I understand the laws vary from State to State).

See? This guy has the right idea. It's really not all that hard to comprehend that different countries have different cultures, omega. It's a shame that it took you several pages of posts to realize this.

Well, games truly are art now. They have DaDa after all.

CriticKitten:

Xan Krieger:
I know the point of the game, the 2nd one shows if his mother had locked up the guns the deaths would've been far lower. The 3rd mode takes a shot at people who say we should arm the teachers.

Actually the second mode is supposed to be an argument in favor of Gun Control. However, as some in this thread have already pointed out:

1) It really argues the pro-gun stance of "parents are being irresponsible with their guns and not locking them up properly" far better than any gun control stance.

2) You can still get a pretty high kill count in that mode by picking up a katana and "going to town" on the kids with that. Some people reported that doing so netted them the highest kill count of all three modes.

So yeah, in his attempt to argue gun control, he screwed up big time.

omega 616:
For this part, Firstly my government is trying to curb it by increasing tax on alcohol so they are doing something, the something is ineffective and just another way to make money though. Secondly, drinking in this country is almost universally adored, people will wake up at 8 and go to the pub and sit there all day. People will finish work, go for a few pints and then go home and carry on drinking. They get wasted on Friday, wasted on Saturday and maybe wasted on Sunday.

Er, read the quoted part again, mate.

As for the rest of it, I'm bored so hey you win and stuff.

Good to know that you've finally caught onto the fact that you're not as educated on the topic as you think you are.

Res Plus:
I live in the UK and have never even seen a gun, other than in the US (it was undeniably cool but only because I am stupid Limey). On the whole, I find the whole concept of guns abhorrent. However, I had an American girlfriend and chatting to her made me realise that there is simply a different culture in America, not one I am party too and not one I understand, or even like, but you have to accept sometimes people come to different conclusion when asked the same question and offered the same evidence. I would suggest, however, that stronger background check may help. I think the access to weapons in the States is generally too easy (I understand the laws vary from State to State).

See? This guy has the right idea. It's really not all that hard to comprehend that different countries have different cultures, omega. It's a shame that it took you several pages of posts to realize this.

I get the gun control mode but the katana was the most fun weapon. Sadly they locked the gym door so I was kinda screwed.

I think my wish for these kind of games (like V-Tech Massacre and Super Columbine Massacre RPG) is that they'd be more fun. Sadly that is usually an element that is lacking.

Xan Krieger:
I think my wish for these kind of games (like V-Tech Massacre and Super Columbine Massacre RPG) is that they'd be more fun. Sadly that is usually an element that is lacking.

This game was not supposed to ever be fun. If anyone had fun playing it, I'd be concerned. And that's the point.

Just another gun control nut doing what they do best. Capitalizing on tragedy to push their agenda.

AldUK:

Xan Krieger:
I think my wish for these kind of games (like V-Tech Massacre and Super Columbine Massacre RPG) is that they'd be more fun. Sadly that is usually an element that is lacking.

This game was not supposed to ever be fun. If anyone had fun playing it, I'd be concerned. And that's the point.

That is pure bullshit right there. Call of Duty No Russian level? Lots of people had fun playing that. Another section I found personally troubling, shooting down at people and vehicles from an AC-130 gunship, many people have lots of fun playing.

A game can be fun independently of its theme.

WhiteTigerShiro:

Andy Chalk:
"I'm just horrified. I just don't understand, frankly, why anyone would think that the horrible tragedy that took place here in Sandy Hook would have any entertainment value,"

And that's all the proof I need to know that she isn't nearly informed enough on video gaming as a medium to make any kind of educated decision. Video games have long-since established that they are not always about "entertainment" (though sadly, and obviously, this isn't mainstream knowledge yet). Honestly, I could take her quote and argue how I don't understand how World War 2 could "have any entertainment value" to argue why several movies shouldn't have been made, yet they get mass appeal for being "artful" and "thought provoking".

As for the NRA, I don't even care enough to read their quotes. They're basically dead to me with the way that they threw video games under the bus pretty much the instant people started talking about gun control after the tragedy.

The NRA effectively said "Stop giving this guy attention" which shocks me incredibly. Who gave the NRA permission to say something smart?

CriticKitten:
snip

I'm going to guess you never played the game, yes it was made to get a political statement across, so what? Why can't people make games that have a point? and your entire argument about that statement in the declaration of independence is entirely pointless since they've never said otherwise, and you just assumed what they didn't say.

Amir Kondori:
Just another gun control nut doing what they do best. Capitalizing on tragedy to push their agenda.

AldUK:

Xan Krieger:
I think my wish for these kind of games (like V-Tech Massacre and Super Columbine Massacre RPG) is that they'd be more fun. Sadly that is usually an element that is lacking.

This game was not supposed to ever be fun. If anyone had fun playing it, I'd be concerned. And that's the point.

That is pure bullshit right there. Call of Duty No Russian level? Lots of people had fun playing that. Another section I found personally troubling, shooting down at people and vehicles from an AC-130 gunship, many people have lots of fun playing.

A game can be fun independently of its theme.

Call of Duty was meant to have fun gameplay though, this was intentionally designed to be clunky and hard to use to try and make sure people didn't have fun playing it.

The game was a poor attempt to get across a message using a biased set up

My Playthrough,

Game 1: Killed about 12 people at the school, couldn't get through the end door as it was blocked by a corpse after I fired through the door when I couldn't kick it down.

Game 2: First off, how many gunsafes actually use a combination rather than keys? All my gunsafes have keys. If anyone had stabbed me to death they would then have access to my guns and I live in the heavy gun control UK. So ignoring the pretence that means gun control automatically includes electronic number pads on gun safes...
I killed twice as many people with the sword as I did with the gun. They all just ran towards me as I stood by the door swinging the sword (and you can swing a real sword much faster than in the game) or cowered on the floor so I could walk up and stab them. No corpses behind doors either so I got to the whole school. Why didn't I run when when trying to get other people with the sword? Why did I take pills rather than stab myslef at the end?

Game 3: Walked into the first classroom and started shooting the children. I didn't see the teacher behind me then heard the pop of her gun and looked back. Found her deliberartely shooting to miss me. I waited a few seconds to see what else she would do. She fired a few more delilberate misses while saying "Threat of violence", the rate of fire of her semi automatic pistol was much slower than my semi automatic rifle for some reason. Then she ran away. I left the classroom, another teacher ran up to me, stood waiting for several seconds and then also deliberately missed me repeatedly before running away. So I stopped at that point because it was clear that there wasn't even lip service being paid to the idea that an armed teacher could stop me.

CriticKitten:
Okay then, since everyone else up to this point is saying "yeah, he has a point" and is ignoring the fact that this guy made a video game out of a national tragedy, and even worse, he did it purely for political points....then fine. I guess I'll be the first to call him sick and demented, and to reject his idea.

And my reasoning is rather self-explanatory, I would think. I must repeat, he made a video game out of a tragedy to underline his own political beliefs. That's not creative or thought-provoking, it's disgusting. I feel the same way about people who write books, movies, etc about other tragedies and who made big bucks on it. Capitalizing on someone else's tragedy is just all sorts of dirty and wrong, whether for politics or profit.

Except he didn't make any money out of this, and provided links for people to contact the government if the people were so inclined. You're acting like he made the game for the sake of his own ego, rather than as a catalyst for change. Missed the mark entirely.

OT: I just played the game... felt it could do with a HD remake. In all seriousness, the controls were super clunky and "Eagletears" mode was a joke. I can understand making the teachers reluctant to shoot you, but it's completely unrealistic and undermines his message if they NEVER shoot you. I agree with his views that the US needs to implement stricter gun control but his game kinda sucks.

Warachia:

Amir Kondori:
Just another gun control nut doing what they do best. Capitalizing on tragedy to push their agenda.

AldUK:

This game was not supposed to ever be fun. If anyone had fun playing it, I'd be concerned. And that's the point.

That is pure bullshit right there. Call of Duty No Russian level? Lots of people had fun playing that. Another section I found personally troubling, shooting down at people and vehicles from an AC-130 gunship, many people have lots of fun playing.

A game can be fun independently of its theme.

Call of Duty was meant to have fun gameplay though, this was intentionally designed to be clunky and hard to use to try and make sure people didn't have fun playing it.

You are exactly right. It was designed not to be fun. The person I quoted was incorrect, as he stated that the subject was made the game not fun to play.

CriticKitten:
Actually the second mode is supposed to be an argument in favor of Gun Control. However, as some in this thread have already pointed out:

1) It really argues the pro-gun stance of "parents are being irresponsible with their guns and not locking them up properly" far better than any gun control stance.

2) You can still get a pretty high kill count in that mode by picking up a katana and "going to town" on the kids with that. Some people reported that doing so netted them the highest kill count of all three modes.

So yeah, in his attempt to argue gun control, he screwed up big time.

Hi. Just going to chime in here, as I was one of those people who reported getting my highest kill on the "Gun Control" mode.

I really don't think the dev screwed up at all and without meaning to cause any offense to yourself, I think you should give the game a try (and play all three modes.) The game definitely has some messages that each mode conveys, but they are not as black and white as you think they're going to be. Each mode generally questions the main views on gun control from various political viewpoints, but definitely does not try to give an answer to them or say what is right or wrong. I believe the fact you can get a Katana and still go on a killing spree is a more direct reference to the fairly popular train of thought that the people that commit these atrocities are going to do what they do anyway, guns or no guns.
I saw you debating at the start of the thread with someone over the fact that this game was created to push the devs political opinion, and I agreed with you despite the fact I thought the game was doing something fairly positive (and you thought the opposite.) However after playing the game my opinion has vastly changed. There are political messages in there sure, but they're a collection of everyone's. Even the song used, as teen-angst and immature as it is, is a collection of 3 verses, each one bashing the other two's arguments.

CriticKitten:
Okay then, since everyone else up to this point is saying "yeah, he has a point" and is ignoring the fact that this guy made a video game out of a national tragedy, and even worse, he did it purely for political points....then fine. I guess I'll be the first to call him sick and demented, and to reject his idea.

And my reasoning is rather self-explanatory, I would think. I must repeat, he made a video game out of a tragedy to underline his own political beliefs. That's not creative or thought-provoking, it's disgusting. I feel the same way about people who write books, movies, etc about other tragedies and who made big bucks on it. Capitalizing on someone else's tragedy is just all sorts of dirty and wrong, whether for politics or profit.

I can appreciate where you're coming from, though I noticed one entry you omitted from people making money off of making political points off tragedies are perhaps the biggest vehicle: news media and journalists (perticularly those off large, syndicated TV networks, but to a lesser extend internet sites relying on click thru ad revenue).

Anyway, despite being distasteful, I don't think the creator is actually making bank off this flash game (except, perhaps, a wealth of negative identity capital). So, if you remove money from the equation, is making a political point via a free videogame worse than making a political point through a paid column or book worse?

Understand I'm not trying to challenge your reaction, since by in large I agree with you. I'm just trying to flesh out my own perspective.

---

Anyway, I played through the flash game, in its different modes. It reminded me of PETA's Mario Tenuki thing, to be honest, albeit covering something much closer to home for most people. The problem I have with both of them, beyond being poorly produced, is that both basically have a single political message they want you to buy into by shocking you. Both are propaganda at it's most tasteless, irrelevant of the medium. I don't hate documentaries or books that look at bad events, but what makes them worthwhile is the ones that ask questions, as opposed to shouting answers, to me.

I have to say I am getting horrendously sick of this dismissing assumption of the medium as a whole. Hell, one of these days I'd like to see a victim of one of these tragedies make a game about it, much like how some Holocaust survivors wrote novels about their experiences. That way, at least when the pundits and politicians attack it, we can throw it back at them and destroy their credibility.

As much as I would want this game to be taken down... it got me thinking- why is it that 12 years a Slave, Schindler's list, along with books in regards to the holocaust, slavery, and other events in human history are okay but a video game expressing the event of Sandy Hook is unacceptable to the degree the creator is a monster?

Don't get me wrong, I think the way Ryan set the game up with the mechanics is the wrong way to go. But, the message is in fact there... we cannot simply pretend this never happened nor try to erase anything to dare speak/remind us of it. That would be like if people demanded that any movie/book/game that mentions the Rape of Nanking should be removed.

History cannot be dealt with unless we've learned from the past.

But in this case, perhaps Ryan could of designed his game differently, perhaps having someone 'save' the kids from Sandy Hook and the message would be all the same. Or a game that helps kids learn what to do when people like that invade the school.

Amir Kondori:
You are exactly right. It was designed not to be fun. The person I quoted was incorrect, as he stated that the subject was made the game not fun to play.

Except that anyone could of taken my post to mean it was not designed to be fun. But since you clearly just wanted to be confrontational here, I'm guessing that's an irrelevant point.

AldUK:

Amir Kondori:
You are exactly right. It was designed not to be fun. The person I quoted was incorrect, as he stated that the subject was made the game not fun to play.

Except that anyone could of taken my post to mean it was not designed to be fun. But since you clearly just wanted to be confrontational here, I'm guessing that's an irrelevant point.

I'm sorry if you think I am trying to be confrontational here, for the record I am not, but what you apparently meant is not what you said.

II2:
-snip-

NoeL:
-snip-

Aaaand file two more under "did not read the post properly".

I'm just going to quote myself and ask you to read it again, with bold for emphasis:

Okay then, since everyone else up to this point is saying "yeah, he has a point" and is ignoring the fact that this guy made a video game out of a national tragedy, and even worse, he did it purely for political points....then fine. I guess I'll be the first to call him sick and demented, and to reject his idea.

And my reasoning is rather self-explanatory, I would think. I must repeat, he made a video game out of a tragedy to underline his own political beliefs. That's not creative or thought-provoking, it's disgusting. I feel the same way about people who write books, movies, etc about other tragedies and who made big bucks on it. Capitalizing on someone else's tragedy is just all sorts of dirty and wrong, whether for politics or profit.

Sheesh, people, is it really that hard to understand? I mean, I don't mean to be rude, but every single person who has quoted this statement to date has completely misread it as "he made this game to make money" when that's obviously not what I said. I just don't understand why so many people are having trouble understanding two short paragraphs. Are you just seeing that "profit" bit at the end and jumping on it? I'd hope not. -.-;

Bug MuIdoon:
-snip-

Appreciate your take on this, but honestly? It's a game about killing children, something I don't look forward to doing in any game no matter how removed from realism it is. Games are escapism for me, and I'd rather not play anything front-loaded with political messages.

It's while reading some comments on this thread that I realized something that hadn't occurred to me before: Video Games are hindered as an art form most especially by the terminology. I know that seems like a silly concept, but consider for a moment how alien it must seem to someone from the outside when something that uses words like "game" and "play" tries to do something serious like this.

How could they think it was meant to be anything but entertainment when the internal terminology consistently labels it as such. Even one commenter early on in this thread criticized the "gameplay" of the thing. What they meant is the mechanics were horrible, much like a film critic would criticize the directing, but the term itself makes it immediately sound like it's all...fun and games.

I know it doesn't quite add anything beneficial to this conversation, but it is something that makes me realize that this medium has a unique hurdle to jump before it can safely approach serious subjects like this one. Had someone made a film about this event, the community would criticize its quality and its timing before criticizing its right to cover the subject. But as it is now, there's too much baggage from the words and the history to really make something remotely like this without it appearing to be a ghastly horror created by fun-obsessed sociopaths.

CriticKitten:

II2:
-snip-

NoeL:
-snip-

Aaaand file two more under "did not read the post properly".

I'm just going to quote myself and ask you to read it again, with bold for emphasis:

Okay then, since everyone else up to this point is saying "yeah, he has a point" and is ignoring the fact that this guy made a video game out of a national tragedy, and even worse, he did it purely for political points....then fine. I guess I'll be the first to call him sick and demented, and to reject his idea.

And my reasoning is rather self-explanatory, I would think. I must repeat, he made a video game out of a tragedy to underline his own political beliefs. That's not creative or thought-provoking, it's disgusting. I feel the same way about people who write books, movies, etc about other tragedies and who made big bucks on it. Capitalizing on someone else's tragedy is just all sorts of dirty and wrong, whether for politics or profit.

Sheesh, people, is it really that hard to understand? I mean, I don't mean to be rude, but every single person who has quoted this statement to date has completely misread it as "he made this game to make money" when that's obviously not what I said. I just don't understand why so many people are having trouble understanding two short paragraphs. Are you just seeing that "profit" bit at the end and jumping on it? I'd hope not. -.-;

Don't blame people for what you wrote.

1) He didn't do it for "points" - that implies he made the game to garner the favour of progressives or something. No, he did it to make a statement about gun control in the USA.
2) He's not "capitalizing" on anything - he's not making any money or seeking personal fame or what-have-you. Again, he did it to draw attention to an issue he's passionate about. It's not about him.

So no, I didn't misread your post at all - and I'm betting the others that "did not read the post properly" are in the same boat. Ironically, you seem to have either misread MY objection, or you mistyped in your original post and didn't properly convey what you wanted.

CriticKitten:

II2:
-snip-

Aaaand file two more under "did not read the post properly".

I'm just going to quote myself and ask you to read it again, with bold for emphasis:

Okay then, since everyone else up to this point is saying "yeah, he has a point" and is ignoring the fact that this guy made a video game out of a national tragedy, and even worse, he did it purely for political points....then fine. I guess I'll be the first to call him sick and demented, and to reject his idea.

And my reasoning is rather self-explanatory, I would think. I must repeat, he made a video game out of a tragedy to underline his own political beliefs. That's not creative or thought-provoking, it's disgusting. I feel the same way about people who write books, movies, etc about other tragedies and who made big bucks on it. Capitalizing on someone else's tragedy is just all sorts of dirty and wrong, whether for politics or profit.

Sheesh, people, is it really that hard to understand? I mean, I don't mean to be rude, but every single person who has quoted this statement to date has completely misread it as "he made this game to make money" when that's obviously not what I said. I just don't understand why so many people are having trouble understanding two short paragraphs. Are you just seeing that "profit" bit at the end and jumping on it? I'd hope not. -.-;

Ehh, sorry. I was tired and reading quickly. In fairness your closing sentence begins and ends with moneyed terms.

Anyway, I quoted you to learn how you felt about news media, specifically - big syndicated networks, or internet journos profiting financially or using incidents to promote a political position? Do they get a pass because it's their job (moreso than creators of creative media or creative non-fiction), or would you like to see them handle matters differently?

NoeL:
So no, I didn't misread your post at all

Except that you obviously did, and are now forced to pick through the wording with a fine-toothed comb to find excuses as to why you can't read. Which, really, makes me no longer willing to humor you.

Oh, and....really? You don't think he made a school shooting video game out of Sandy Hook and Virginia Tech to draw attention to himself and his political views? If he had just made it out of a fictional setting, no one would know or care about his games or political views. So he purposely chose those settings to make them eye-catching, and he admits himself that he knew people would explode over it....which tells me that he chose those settings because it would grab attention. How is that not "fame-seeking" exactly? It was very much intentional and he knew it would happen, which is all the more reason I'd rather we all moved on and gave him no more attention than he's already earned on his corpse-constructed soap box.

Just admit to your error and move along, now, I have no more time or patience for you. I've wasted quite enough just responding to that one massive error in your logic.

II2:
Ehh, sorry. I was tired and reading quickly. In fairness your closing sentence begins and ends with moneyed terms.

Anyway, I quoted you to learn how you felt about news media, specifically - big syndicated networks, or internet journos profiting financially or using incidents to promote a political position? Do they get a pass because it's their job (moreso than creators of creative media or creative non-fiction), or would you like to see them handle matters differently?

Apology accepted and appreciated. It's a peeve of mine when someone quotes a post of mine and then interprets it utterly differently from how it reads, and usually when I point out to folks that they clearly didn't interpret it properly, they just try to cover their ass and make excuses as to why they misread it (like the guy quoted above). So it's refreshing to see someone admit to an error. Props to you.

As far as your question goes: no, I don't think the media should get a pass, either. I actually stopped watching a lot of news media because their bias stinks up the place something fierce and it's just hard to get a proper view of what's going on. It's pathetic that we have to read multiple news outlets' stories on the same thing (one from each political leaning) just to get a proper picture of what actually happened. I'm pretty heavily against any sort of faction that uses the power of a medium to force their political views onto others.

I was a horrible event. We should be made to face up to it and learn lessons from it. Lessons that obviously haven't been learned. The correct reaction is "This is horrible". Some random person has to do this (not particularly well) because no one better equipped has the balls.

lacktheknack:
The problem is simple: He made it about a school shooting that happened recently.

The game is very emotionally injurious to those directly affected by the massacre, as it's still fresh in their minds. There's a reason that we generally don't like people who "piggyback" on tragedy to make a statement. It's disrespectful and painful.

Sure, the message wouldn't have quite the same effect if he made it about a fictional school shooting, but that's just too damn bad. Cry me a river.

It would be much more disrespectful and painful to ignore the event, to sweep it under the rug, so that history can repeat itself and more people needlessly die. It's always best to examine tragedy rather than to ignore it by excuse of "disrespect and pain".

About any topic a game can either be exploitative or it can be sincere. From what I hear this game is the latter, and therefore it's beneficial to everyone, but perhaps especially to the victims of the tragedy, as the game communicates to others the reality of the experience.

I wonder though if a game would be more effective from the standpoint of the victim. Survival horror games do this, but how about playing a game where you're injured during a school shooting and need to manage blood loss and make choices while dragging your dying body around? Then when you die you can transfer your consciousness into other victims, some dead, some not, with gameplay differing based on the extent of the injuries which your current "possessed host" has.

This would not only be completely innovative (as far as I'm aware) but it could be very interesting, with a good deal of potential variation in gameplay.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here