Ryan Lambourn's Slaying Of Sandy Hook Draws Condemnation

[RJ 17]

Meanwhile over in IGN there's uproar because the website only gave it an 8.5 out of 10.

I'm in two minds about this, at first I thought it would just be a pure exploitation game, but the defence the developer gave actually has me swayed a bit, especially the gun safe bit. It's a bit like satire; creating a piece of imaginary media to deliberately get criticism of for being sick, then point out that the exact same thing is happening in real life, yet we don't do anything to stop it.

Makes you think.

Not looking to get into a big "thing" here, but I just want to point out that if the "gun control" mode really is just trying to get the gun out of a locked gun safe and being unable to do so, that's not "gun control" per say, but rather "responsible gun ownership".

So if promoting gun control was the point of this game, the maker failed at even doing that. Leaving the game as just being bland and offensive.

 

[Pirate Of PC Master race]

You mean besides the fact that the person who made the game clearly stated that he made it for the purposes of pushing gun control?

But the maker of the game claimed that the point is to draw attention to the need for worthwhile gun control laws in the U.S. "Here we are a year after the Sandy Hook shootings in which 26 people were killed, 20 of which were first-graders, and absolutely nothing positive has come out of it," he said. "I'm someone who rarely follows the news, so these updates have been a constant reminder of just how commonplace mass shootings and school shootings have become."

Yeah, clearly there's no message there. I don't know what I was thinking. <_<

And show me the part where he says he made this game to reinforce the message that 'gunz r bad'.

Just because I hate EA doesn't mean I can only make a game biased against EA.

Again: You didn't actually read the article, did you? Even if you want to pull the "it's obviously biased because it's on the Escapist" argument, the guy blatantly says on multiple occasions that he did this to incite a gun control debate. You can't possibly not understand this. He said it was politically motivated, so let's stop being ridiculous and pretending that it's not.

No, 1. I distrust any news source on the internet.
2. Because I did some background checking on this specific news.

the maker of the game may have been politically motivated(and very biased), but the game itself is not.

If someone sees something in the game when there is no context to form such opinion, I can say who is not guilty in the fault. The game maker.

 

[BreakfastMan]

-snip-

Go read my original post. Seriously.

What is with people who just refuse to read the start of the conversation, and just jump into the middle of it, not knowing what was already said? >_>

I read your post. All it contained was an appeal to emotion and arguing against the creator's stated point. You didn't make any compelling points in that post as to why using the setting of a real life tragedy to further accentuated a point is something that should not be done.

 

[A-D.]

And show me the part where he says he made this game to reinforce the message that 'gunz r bad'.

Right, obviously no amount of direct quoting of this guy's own words is enough to convince you that you're wrong.

But you are, and that's the end of the discussion as far as I'm concerned.

You didn't read my original post and had to be corrected as to its contents, and now you're stubbornly refusing to accept the fact that this guy made the game based on his own personal political beliefs. And even if I quoted the guy saying that verbatim, you'd STILL be trying to deny it. This is a waste of my time.

Firstly, let me point out that quoting someone does not infer truth or intent on whoever you are quoting. There is a thing such as "taking out of context" for a reason. Even if you do not do this, you can easily interpret some message, whatever it is, to mean something entirely different by forcing your intent on the person making the statement, forcing your opinion to be his intent all along.

But here's the rub, how many school shootings have happened since columbine? How many of these were high-profile media feeding frenizes? It is a fact that as a society we are a bit sick in that we in some way glorify such tragedies, we give these people who were so disillusioned with reality, so angry at the world that they decided to end their life by taking as many people with them as possible, essential immortality. Why? Because we report on this, it doesnt matter whether what they did was good or bad, they become part of our collective human history. But that isnt the worst part, the moment reporting begins, immediately you have people inferring some intent into why the shooter did it, what motivated him. They dont ask the question, they simply state their reasons for it, they arent interested in finding out anything, they just want to push their opinions, their agendas.

So what is wrong about some dude who makes a game about this? Nothing. It doesnt matter whether he "capitalizes" on a tragedy. Human history is ripe with tragedy, and yet we make exceptions as to which are fine to be turned into games and movies and which are not? In a statistic, all school shootings, worldwide, combined pale in comparison to wars, ancient and modern that we have as a species fought against each other. In those wars and their aftermaths, more people, more children died than any fucked up serial killer could hope to achieve.

I will agree that he could have made a better point if he had instead focused on the aftermath, rather than giving you control of the shooter. Mocking the media and its sensationalism in the wake of such events, the knee-jerk reactions, that would have been a better idea. But as it stands, why are some "tragedies" exempt and others arent? What is the difference between those events, other than "too soon"? Why are some people exempt from being mocked in the same manner when they push their political agenda the moment shit like this happens? Why was it fine to demonize and vilify video games after sandy hook, but it isnt okay to mock the idea of arming teachers?

Why is it wrong to point out that there is a need for a better gun control system by using a recent tragedy as a example of what could have been prevented?

 

[Something Amyss]

The National Rifle Association described The Slaying of Sandy Hook as "reprehensible" but refused to comment further in order to avoid giving more attention to "this despicable excuse for a human being."

I could see why LaPierre wouldn't want the competition.

But the maker of the game claimed that the point is to draw attention to the need for worthwhile gun control laws in the U.S. "Here we are a year after the Sandy Hook shootings in which 26 people were killed, 20 of which were first-graders, and absolutely nothing positive has come out of it," he said. "I'm someone who rarely follows the news, so these updates have been a constant reminder of just how commonplace mass shootings and school shootings have become."

Absolutely nothing positive. Except for numerous gun laws in numerous states including some of the biggest changes in the state where the shooting happened, Connecticut. Except for a level of awareness that has not been raised on the issue since Columbine (And probably even stronger, because of the number of victims who were little children). Except for a turning of opinion on the NRA and the sociopaths running it who would rather let terrorists and murders (but not black people) have guns than be mildly inconvenienced by a background check or an optional trigger lock.

Nothing good has come out of this.

 

[BreakfastMan]

-snip-

Er, your original post was not asking me to explain why using a tragedy to make a political point was bad.

It was asking me why I felt that it was okay to do the same thing in movies or books....and I had already said that I didn't think sensationalizing wars via movies and books was any better than this. Which indicated to me that you hadn't read my original post at all, and prompted the response you received.

That isn't exactly what I was asking you. I was asking more along the lines "what makes Sandy Hook different from WW2". If you have the same problems with, for instance, Saving Private Ryan, fair enough, but from my experience, most people don't.

Also I love how you're whipping out "appeal to emotion" as a fallacy in a discussion about the circumstances of several deaths in a mass shooting (which is absolutely an emotional event for many people), as if it makes the least bit of sense. Would you really say to the faces of the families involved in this event that they need to stop being so sensitive and let their children be used as your political bargaining chips? Gods, I would hope you'd have more dignity than that. Sorry, but this isn't a "rational" discussion where you can strip out any sense of the human element, this is a discussion about dead children and how their deaths shouldn't be used as political tools to push an agenda. If you want a rational discussion about the idea of gun control, fine, but leave these things out of it.

Except I don't get why the reactions of some people are relevant to this piece being considered "legitimate art" or simply "sick exploitation"? The personal is political, fine, I get and accept that. Their emotions are legitimate and there is probably some good discussions about whether or not the game got its message across right. What I don't get is your argument that people getting offended at a setting is enough for the game to be classified as "sick filth".

 

[A-D.]

-snip-

Read. My. First. Post. I'm getting tired of having to repeat myself.

I have said countless times already that I don't think it's okay to use any tragedy as an excuse for any political or profitable gain. So I'm clearly not saying that it's okay in one case and not in another, I'm saying it's not okay PERIOD. Stop suggesting that I've said anything otherwise, as it's incredibly frustrating.

Apparently the concept of respect for the dead is entirely foreign to most Escapist users. Which disturbs me in all sorts of new ways. Leave tragedies in the past and let the families grieve in peace. That's not to say you can't learn from those tragedies, but different people will take different lessons from these situations, and there's really no reason for anyone to come out and say that what they learned is "wrong" and what you learned is "right". Which is exactly what political grandstanding on these issues does: it interprets a tragedy as a statistic rather than a human event. It removes any sense of the human element from the event and turns it into a set of data points X, Y, and Z that, if fixed, will totally get rid of such tragedies forever, or so the politicians promise us.

I'd much rather discuss the topic of gun control in a forum where the focus isn't on pointing to Sandy Hook and going "See? That wouldn't have happened if you didn't have guns!", which is basically what the game creator is trying to do. And it's my personal opinion that he's a jackass for doing so. You obviously don't agree. Whatever.

I. Have. Read. Your. Entire. First. Post.

We done with periods for emphasis? The only point adressed specifically to you was the first paragraph, the rest is generalized on the topic, i am sorry for not making it more obvious but i figured people notice when i specifically point to something someone in the thread said that didnt come from them first. Which implies you havent read most of the posts in this thread.

 

[Chris Moses]

I hate to say it, but both sides of the debate say things that are right. And statistics don't prove anything ever, so that really just needs to stop. All you can do is express degrees of right or wrong, it's not a black and white issue like pretty much everyone seems to think it is. Fact: guns take lives. Fact: guns save lives. Fact: Murderers use guns. Fact: people defend themselves from murderers with guns using guns themselves.

My suggestion is to give everyone a handgun and carrying one mandatory. An infant to 112 year old woman(and their dog). Everyone in US would have equal rights to defend themselves. Only then America will be truly achieve fairness.

I don't know if you are being sarcastic or not, but if you aren't...

Force me to carry a gun and I will shoot 5 or more people and then myself.

I will be dead and you can all choke on the irony of your "safety measure". Maybe I cant say this will happen with 100% certainty but it will be a thought that will cross my mind multiple times with me having all too easy access to carry it out.

I VOLUNTARILY and of my own initiative got rid of my guns after my first brush with suicide involving them, and thanks to the gun nuts we do not and will not have sufficient background checks to keep guns out of the hands of people like me. You just have to trust that me having the barrier of going out to buy another gun and then abiding whatever cursory waiting period and/or background check (I don't have a record of criminal activity or involuntary psych-ward commitment so I am sure I'd pass) is enough to keep that from happening.

Scary isn't it?

Your solution is a ideological fantasy that is just as likely to cause more gun deaths than prevent them. Every fist fight or potential fist fight will turn into "I felt threatened by him so I shot him."

I have no problems saying that it would have been better for George Zimmerman to have a broken nose (and even a concussion, as it's rather hard to beat a person to death) than to have a dead Treyvon Martin. And I would much rather live in a world where people are free to enter into fisticuffs without having to worry about getting shot or shooting back.

 

[ThreeName]

"Outrage" is hilarious.

People get "outraged" at things they can willingly avoid with minimal effort. Sort your fucking lives out.

 

[Flunk]

If this stupid crap is getting his name other there he's doing something right. I'm almost temped to try this myself. Would anyone here be insulted if I created a game where you had to step into Hitler's shoes and plot to take over the world? Or maybe torture people? What level of controversy is necessary to sell my poorly designed garbage games?

 

[Pirate Of PC Master race]

I don't know if you are being sarcastic or not, but if you aren't...

Force me to carry a gun and I will shoot 5 or more people and then myself.

I will be dead and you can all choke on the irony of your "safety measure". Maybe I cant say this will happen with 100% certainty but it will be a thought that will cross my mind multiple times with me having all too easy access to carry it out.

I VOLUNTARILY and of my own initiative got rid of my guns after my first brush with suicide involving them, and thanks to the gun nuts we do not and will not have sufficient background checks to keep guns out of the hands of people like me. You just have to trust that me having the barrier of going out to buy another gun and then abiding whatever cursory waiting period and/or background check (I don't have a record of criminal activity or involuntary psych-ward commitment so I am sure I'd pass) is enough to keep that from happening.

Scary isn't it?

Your solution is a ideological fantasy that is just as likely to cause more gun deaths than prevent them. Every fist fight or potential fist fight will turn into "I felt threatened by him so I shot him."

I have no problems saying that it would have been better for George Zimmerman to have a broken nose (and even a concussion, as it's rather hard to beat a person to death) than to have a dead Treyvon Martin. And I would much rather live in a world where people are free to enter into fisticuffs without having to worry about getting shot or shooting back.

I am partially sarcastic(mainly because I don't actually living in US, or just because I want to see nation engulfed in the greatest game of battle royale), And I understand those situation. I would come very close to shooting one person if I have to carry a gun around.

But that would at least disprove that NRA claim that guns are making America safer, right?

If this stupid crap is getting his name other there he's doing something right. I'm almost temped to try this myself. Would anyone here be insulted if I created a game where you had to step into Hitler's shoes and plot to take over the world? Or maybe torture people? What level of controversy is necessary to sell my poorly designed garbage games?

Hitler is soo thing of the past. I recommend something that has to do with feminism.

 

[BreakfastMan]

That isn't exactly what I was asking you. I was asking more along the lines "what makes Sandy Hook different from WW2". If you have the same problems with, for instance, Saving Private Ryan, fair enough, but from my experience, most people don't.

I wasn't aware that Saving Private Ryan was trying to push a particular political agenda. Perhaps you could enlighten me?

The message of much of Saving Private Ryan is "war is hell and very bad". Same with other famous war films like Platoon,
Full Metal Jacket, Slaughterhouse 5, and others. The message that "war is bad" is very much a political message.

Except I don't get why the reactions of some people are relevant to this piece being considered "legitimate art" or simply "sick exploitation"? The personal is political, fine, I get and accept that. Their emotions are legitimate and there is probably some good discussions about whether or not the game got its message across right. What I don't get is your argument that people getting offended at a setting is enough for the game to be classified as "sick filth".

It's not so much the fact that people got offended is "enough" to shove the game down a toilet and flush, it's more the fact that this game exists solely to push the creator's political agenda in favor of gun control. The use of deaths as political fodder is just wrong and thoroughly repulsive to me.

So, a game exists to convey a message, and uses a real life tragedy to help ensure the message hits home. Not sure why political messages are the wrong ones to use? That is not to mention, pretty much every message conveyed by a piece of fiction could be considered "political" on some level.

 

[Bluestorm83]

Yeah, nobody in the Media will every notice that this game... isn't a game. It's not fun. There's no objective, struggle, reward, or even any gameplay really. It's not a GAME. It's an interactive piece of social commentary.

I am not for stricter Gun Laws. I AM for more Personal Responsibility. This sick fuck who killed these people killed his mother with a gun that she left where he could get it. AFTER she already was worried that he may be dangerous. This was the fault of his psychosis and HER being horrendously irresponsible. Every single human being needs to be responsible for their own possessions and actions. Enough of this "Legislate it, quick!" attitude. We all need to be better than comes easy.

 

[The_Echo]

"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.

Well here's the problem.

People hear "someone made a Sandy Hook game" and they think it's something that's supposed to be entertaining.

I played it; it's most certainly not. The atmosphere and animations are dark and unsettling, and the endscreen tells you the exact numbers of the massacre (and the ones you caused in-game). Hell, the first thing you do in the game is shoot your mother in her sleep (and then again, and again, and once more "just the be sure").

I think anyone getting up-in-arms about this game hasn't taken the time to play it.

 

[weirdee]

I feel like some of the things people are claiming are just projecting onto things they see, rather than things they know.

That's all I'm going to say here.