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.Warachia said:
Ryan Lambourn's Slaying Of Sandy Hook Draws Condemnation
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
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.CriticKitten said:
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.
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).CriticKitten said:
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.
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.AldUK said:
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.
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.
Don't blame people for what you wrote.CriticKitten said:
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.
Ehh, sorry. I was tired and reading quickly. In fairness your closing sentence begins and ends with moneyed terms.CriticKitten said:
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?
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".lacktheknack said:
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.
Except that it's not really that smart when that's been the common mantra pretty much ever since the Sandy Hook shootings; especially when the mantra ignores the fact that "getting attention" is only a small part of the puzzle.Thoralata said:
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.
Oh, come, ON! Seriously? Sigh.CriticKitten said:
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?
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 said:
Yet you still replied. Interesting.CriticKitten said:
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.
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.CriticKitten said:
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".
Fine, if the only response I'm going to get out of you is "Nuh uh!" I'm not bothering either.CriticKitten said:
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.FireAza said: