Ryan Lambourn's Slaying Of Sandy Hook Draws Condemnation

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6
 

I think this game is brilliant if it makes people think about gun control. No, if this can save a life. I'm all for it.

CriticKitten:

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, come, ON! Seriously? Sigh.

I didn't misread. I quoted the exact words you wrote and explained why I disagreed - something you haven't addressed at all. As I said before I'm more than happy to accept that you simply failed to accurately convey what you meant, but I'm not about to say I "misread" something when I, and others, didn't. Ask yourself: how many people does it take to "misread" something you wrote before you consider that maybe you mistyped?

CriticKitten:
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.

Yeah, except that isn't what you typed, and I already explained why. Again, I'm sure that's what you meant, but that's not what you typed. Of course he made the video game to draw attention to his cause - that's the whole point! But I don't believe he did it for fame, or money, or to bolster himself in any way like you claimed (and continue to claim)... jeez, I'm having deja vu. I could have sworn I already said this to you. If you listen to the recording he put in the credits he explains exactly why he made the game: nothing has improved since Sandy Hook, and many people were asking him to make another game to bring the issue back to the media's attention. If he was just "capitalizing" on Sandy Hook, don't you think he would have made the game back then?

CriticKitten:
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.

Yet you still replied. Interesting.

No, I'm not going to admit to an error I didn't make. Whether or not it was your intention, your writing implied he made the game for the sake of gaining fame, money, and or brownie points from progressives. This is a point I disagree on, and have explained why. It sounds like others have disagreed with that point as well. Now, if that wasn't the point you were trying to make (although, judging from this post it sounds like it is... so how did I misread exactly?), you're free to say "That's not what I meant, I actually meant X," but don't accuse everyone of "misreading" because they replied to what you ACTUALLY wrote rather than what you MEANT to write.

NoeL:
-snip-

Except that you did misread it, because I pointed out what it actually said. Right now, you're merely making excuses for yourself as to why you misread it, rather than owning up to it.

Which is why you are getting the response you got. And why you'll continue to get this response every time you reply to me.

CriticKitten:
snip

Your sentiment is one that is relatively commonly seen, but I have a bit of a problem with it. The problem is that it takes away people's ability to discuss these issues. Yes, in an ideal world society would rationally discuss everything and fix things up before any tragedies arise, but that's not how it happens. We discuss embassy security after bombings, storm preparation after natural disasters, and gun policy after shootings. Those who say that we should not discuss politics in the wake of a catastrophe like this take away society's ability to change anything, and so while it may not seem like a political argument it does indeed have a political effect, one in favor of the status quo.

On the game itself, you should give it a try. It's something that really shows our current vocabulary surrounding these things is rather lacking, as I would hesitate to use the word "game" to talk about it or "play" to describe our interactions with it. This has a message, yes, but there are many bits of messages in there and most of them are well imparted. A big message that I got is just how long eleven minutes is, and just how much damage someone can do with that amount of time.

However, these are the sorts of things that you can't really experience until you've "played" the "game".

The Slaying of Sandy Hook, a game based on the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre created by the maker of V-Tech Rampage

Aaaaaaand there's your answer right there. The creator of this game already has a history of making games based themed around real world gun massacres, so it's pretty clear he's trying to stir people up.

CriticKitten:

NoeL:
-snip-

Except that you did misread it, because I pointed out what it actually said. Right now, you're merely making excuses for yourself as to why you misread it, rather than owning up to it.

Which is why you are getting the response you got. And why you'll continue to get this response every time you reply to me.

Fine, if the only response I'm going to get out of you is "Nuh uh!" I'm not bothering either.

FireAza:

The Slaying of Sandy Hook, a game based on the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre created by the maker of V-Tech Rampage

Aaaaaaand there's your answer right there. The creator of this game already has a history of making games based themed around real world gun massacres, so it's pretty clear he's trying to stir people up.

Apparently he only made this game because he got a ton of requests to do so. How many were from people that are passionate about gun control and how many were people that just like stirring the pot, who knows.

Bunch of unimaginative conservative dullards. Its very clearly meant to convey a message and isn't "glorifying" anything. Also why is a game about something terrible worse than a movie or a book about it.

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," Newtown First Selectman Pat Llordra told CTPost.com. She said she's turned matter over the the local police and FBI for investigation.

This is probabaly the most ridiculous part of the story. Investigation for what? Exactly what crime was the creator involved in?

RafaelNegrus:
-snip-

And in pointing this out, you've highlighted my core problem: this shouldn't be a game.

1) I'm not necessarily saying that politics can't be discussed after an incident, merely that I think it's disgusting to use a tragedy as a political soapbox. Using a video game to make this statement only adds fuel to the fires of people who claimed that video games were the reason that he committed the shooting in the first place, because people won't educate themselves and will just see "sick gamers make shootings into games", which is all the evidence they need to start slapping down restrictions.

2) This "game" has been described by many as "not fun", which is the primary reason I play games and the entire reason that we call them "video games" to begin with. They are created for the purpose of entertainment. Certainly, games are capable of more than just "fun", they can tell stories and make interactive artistry and all sorts of other things. But the core of what makes a video game is the "game" part. Games are supposed to be fun, so when you're using the medium just to make a political statement and are going to great lengths to take the element of fun OUT, that should tell you that perhaps a video game is the wrong medium for delivering the message in the first place. It's like creating a novel by pasting together a bunch of pictures....the pictures may be damned impressive, but it seems relatively obvious that you weren't actually trying to make a "novel" in any traditional sense and are employing the wrong medium to express your narrative.

And before this becomes someone else's Out-Of-Context quote, NO, I'm not saying I expect my child killing game to be super fun. But when the very first descriptor of your "game" from most players is that it's not "fun", it begs the question of why use video games as a medium when "fun" is their specified purpose to begin with. Why not a video or other form of media that can be just as easily distributed and is probably less work to make?

CriticKitten:

RafaelNegrus:
-snip-

And in pointing this out, you've highlighted my core problem: this shouldn't be a game.

1) I'm not necessarily saying that politics can't be discussed after an incident, merely that I think it's disgusting to use a tragedy as a political soapbox. Using a video game to make this statement only adds fuel to the fires of people who claimed that video games were the reason that he committed the shooting in the first place, because people won't educate themselves and will just see "sick gamers make shootings into games", which is all the evidence they need to start slapping down restrictions.

2) This "game" has been described by many as "not fun", which is the primary reason I play games and the entire reason that we call them "video games" to begin with. They are created for the purpose of entertainment. Certainly, games are capable of more than just "fun", they can tell stories and make interactive artistry and all sorts of other things. But the core of what makes a video game is the "game" part. Games are supposed to be fun, so when you're using the medium just to make a political statement and are going to great lengths to take the element of fun OUT, that should tell you that perhaps a video game is the wrong medium for delivering the message in the first place. It's like creating a novel by pasting together a bunch of pictures....the pictures may be damned impressive, but it seems relatively obvious that you weren't actually trying to make a "novel" in any traditional sense and are employing the wrong medium to express your narrative.

And before this becomes someone else's Out-Of-Context quote, NO, I'm not saying I expect my child killing game to be super fun. But when the very first descriptor of your "game" from most players is that it's not "fun", it begs the question of why use video games as a medium when "fun" is their specified purpose to begin with. Why not a video or other form of media that can be just as easily distributed and is probably less work to make?

1)a) You have a point, but I think we reach that level of acceptability by just making those kind of games and being criticized. Otherwise, what are we going to do? Wait until a generation raised on Call of Duty comes to power, while their entire impression of the medium will be the extremely violent stereotype that we have to put to rest?

b) Also, I am of the mind that anytime the major message of the work boils down to a phrase involving should or shouldn't (i.e. people should lock up their guns, we should implement more gun control laws) then it becomes political. Politics is the process by which we decide how society should operate, and as such is basically just how we think people should live their lives. To take the politics out of it is to take any chance at garnering meaning out of it.

2) Books originally only had a purpose of titillation, television was initially only for cheap entertainment, cartoons only intended to precede actual films and so on. Mediums add more functions as they mature, and that's okay. That doesn't mean fun games won't get made, but I think we should recognize that fun is not what separates games from every other medium. The biggest difference is actually the role of the player. The fact that you interact with it and are not simply told it is what sets games apart, and as such makes them incredibly powerful. Honestly, I think this could only be done as a game, and that any other form of presentation would make it feel too heavy, too didactic. This way gives it more nuance, and leaves the audience with a far different reaction. Because we can't distance ourselves the same way due to the fact that we are playing, not just observing.

If it was made as a movie then it would just be HIS message, but instead we get to have some say. It is entirely possible to get the message that the kid is just messed up. The style clearly indicates that he is insane, and we are forced to do every action, not provided a rationale for why he might do something so grisly and then choose that path as opposed to something else. You can also get a gun control message out of it, that this is a terrible situation when people have so much destructive power and that power should be limited. One could also read in the message that police response times need to be better, especially for schools.

However, once again, you need to play it to get these messages and possibly many others. It only takes 33 minutes to play through all three modes, which you've undoubtedly spent more time on here responding to people's opinions on a piece that you yourself have not experienced.

So I would check it out, because none of this is the issue itself, only our opinions of it. So right now you have only developed an opinion of people's opinions of the game, which is a very different thing.

Uh, wow. I'm floored. I thought this game creator was just another sick trolling douchebag, poking fun at horrific real world events solely for the sadistic thrill of upsetting innocent people, but his defence really surprised me. At first I thought "oh, he's just talking bullshit to try and excuse his inexcusable behavior" but then I saw this bit:

after having completed the game in the "Historical" mode, others open up, including a "Gun Control" mode in which the player must remove the AR-15 from a locked gun safe - and cannot.

And I thought: "Score."

If you need further proof that he's on the right track, he apparently pissed off the NRA. Anything that pisses off the NRA has to be a good thing. Cockmongling douchebags that they are.

RafaelNegrus:
-snip-

Technically, no, I've formed an opinion based on my own opinion of the concept of the game.

I understand full well that people think I can't judge a game without playing it and I respect their opinions as such, but this is still a game about a national tragedy which claimed the lives of several children, and I'm not the least bit comfortable playing a video game reenactment of that, especially not one that's designed to push political agendas of any sort. Sorry, I'll just have to stay blissfully ignorant of the creator's "genius", I guess.

You know those little kids who just want attention so badly that they'll misbehave if it means they'll get some?

I'd lump Ryan Lambourn in with having not outgrown that habit.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6

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