May 16, 2007
As expected, it didn't take long for news of the highly offensive V-Tech Rampage to be picked up by the mainstream media.Today's Roanoke Times has a report on the amateurish web game, which is based upon the recent horrific shooting spree at Virginia Tech. The game was created by an Australian man, Ryan Lambourn.
Virginia Tech spokesman Larry Hincker told the newspaper:
It's so contemptible it's beneath response.
The Roanoke Times piece cites GamePolitics' coverage among its sources for the story.
GP: We certainly haven't heard the last of this one. Let's just hope that media reports accurately portray V-Tech Rampage for what it is: offensive, exploitative, and attention-seeking, and not typical of video games or gamers.
Now would be a good time for the ESA, as the public face of the video game industry - to make a statement condemning - and distancing itself - from V-Tech Rampage.
UPDATE: We note that an Australian newspaper has also picked up the story. The Sydney Daily Telegraph has an interview with the game's creator, who was born in Australia but lived in the United States until he was 14.
UPDATE 2: GP readers note - and we have confirmed - that Lambourn's website is down. Could be bandwidth issues with the host, could be something else...
Comments
@Va. Tech Mom: "Someone better reach out to this guy before it is too late."
Apologies, but the first thing that flashed through my mind when I read your post was someone using a dogcatcher's pole on him... =^_^=
Guarantee if we did the reverse, and say made a game where you're killing Israelites, in Jerusalem, it would be a HIT in America. Now go over seas and ask someone in Israel what they think, and since they are all "involved" in it, they will be disgusted.
All goes back to everyone being WAY to sensitive honestly.
I think you are missing the point entirely. This guy simply made the game to cash in in some way. He pretty much said so much in his interview. You can try to defend this all you want, but as has been mentioned this guy is nothing more than a troll...Whats worse is he is a troll hoping to make a profit off it.
I'd say more like liquid oxygen for the fire.
It's a bit unfortunate that the press is getting wind of this game. Fuel for the fire? More like napalm.
Well said.
you win the internet
Yeah, but I'm selfish :)
Seriously, you're right. And I feel bad for them, to have these horrible things glamourized by some idiot. But lets be honest, if this wasn't a game many of us wouldn't be here talking about it at all. Most of us are too distant from the actual attacks to feel personally offended by the content of this game. We can be disgusted by its nature, but the "offense" to me is in how it affects me personally, how he is tarnishing "my name" (all of our names) just to get a little bit of publicity.
I also just want to say that I'm a bit sick of the "He wasn’t serious about the donations thing it was a joke" argument. If it was just a joke he wouldn't have actually put a PayPal account up. Obviously he wasn't going to get $1000, and if he did he wouldn't have taken the game down, but that's irrelevant. He put that "joke" up hoping that somebody would be stupid enough to take it seriously and give him money.
If you're interested to know, WWII FPSs do get ported to Germany on a fairly regular basis. They just change the art to remove the swastikas, since those are illegal to display on German soil. (Modern-day Germans hate the Nazis just as much as anyone does.)
Now, sure, the media jumps on the wrong things all the time. Walk into any grocery store, and you'll see ten magazines about Angelina Jolie and maybe one with actual news in it. But that's a separate issue from what we're talking about: The issue of tact.
United 93 and World Trade Center portrayed the people involved, accurately, as heroic in the face of extreme danger. There's nothing wrong with that; it's truthful, and it can even be inspirational. (If you haven't seen United 93 yourself yet, you should; it's very well-made, and its about as close as you can get to being there in that plane.) In short, they have a point.
And that's what it's really about. If you're going to talk about a touchy subject, especially a recent and tragic one, have a point. Have something worthwhile to say about it. Think South Park; underneath all the sex, scat, and violence (and its constant prodding of touchy real-life issues), it's a very smart, clever, insightful show, and that's why it's still on. Think Super Columbine Massacre RPG; very similar subject matter to what we're talking about, but built on the premise of, "I wonder what they were really thinking?"
And then you have V-Tech Massacre, which the author crapped out without anything to say beyond, "Hey, look at me! I'm an asshole! Please notice me!" Really, is it any wonder people have responded to him the way they have?
Reminds me of the people who are selling the stickers and wristbands for the troops. I get the concept I support our troops but I don't feel the need to make some company a profit.
I think this flash game was bad made from a child who thinks he is righteous. His comments to other people on other sites and in emails to me just proves he is in no way part of the gaming community or makes games as a way to better him self.
If he had made this flash game and your role is to stop cho I still would feel the same.
The one thing I'd add is that I'm not as pissed off about the effect it will have on the games industry as it will have on the people who suffered through the horror in the first place.
It sucks for my industry, but that pales in comparison to what actual people have gone through.
@Grombar : What 1 person has a problem with content, another would not. You think Call of Duty fairs over well in Germany? We're making German people look like monsters in it. Ask anyone outside of the US what they learned in history class about the USA.....bet you'll be suprised at the answer. And again I'll state....it's a VIDEO GAME.....if you cannot distinguish a video game or any piece of media / created art from reality, then who really has the problem?
My main argument is that the media is going to bite at any little thing that they can use to spark a rise. *yes kind of like this guy did creating the game*. They are praying off the fact that people have seriously become sensitivity freaks over the years, and any little issue becomes HUGE to them. *need I say anything more about Paris hilton going to jail?....is that REALLY important?*.......If I sit here now and say your mom is fat....is that REALLY something we should all be up in arms about?
Context matters. Treatment of the subject and attitude matter. Class, for lack of a better word. You get the idea.
You're paying too much attention to the wrong posts. There ARE people here who are saying he didn't have the right to make it, and this worries me. It scares me even more that 34% of the visitors voted that it should be taken offline, according to the front-page poll. That means 34% of people here want to do EXACTLY what we condemn Jack Thompson for doing.
HOWEVER
Many of us GP regulars aren't saying that at all. Many of us are just saying that this was poor taste, with poor timing, and made by a person of questionable intelligence for pure shock value. He had every right to do it, but that doesn't mean we can't be pissed that we now have to deal with the political mess he is feeding. His 15 minutes will cost us a whole lot more, and that DOES piss me off.
He had every right to do what he did. And I have every right to publically denounce his piss-poor judgement and call him a selfish attention whore.
How is this ANY different from the current media we have? 9-11 was a horrible act. Do you have ANY idea how many movies came out from that "tasteful or not" and made money from it? Someone decided to take a tradgety and exploit it and make money from it. I can expand this to a WIDE number of examples.
Then you hear the argument, "well it's hard for the people that have just gone through it, or a similar shooting because they can relate". So does a woman that got raped have any legal suit againt the Lifetime Channel????? They make PLENTY of movies that are tasteless. Heck I know movies that make FUN of rape.
Shoot you can aim this at any FPS War game and say they are making money off of "glorifying war".....
THAT is my point sir. I'm not straw-maning anything.
"For that matter, I honestly believe most of you bashing this are complete utter hyprocrits. If you bash this….then bash moves like United 97….bash “World Trade Center”….bash the movie “Pearl Harbor” *more than it is already bashed for bad acting*…..Heck I could go on an on about profiting off of a tragedy. But OHHH NO….those were tasteful…those were wonderful movies…showing how the tradegy was in a “heroic” way………Just more words to say “I am a hypocrite”."
See, that's called a straw-man argument: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman
I'm not denying there's hypocrisy in the world, but you want to prevent some stronger evidence that it's taking place here.
For that matter, I honestly believe most of you bashing this are complete utter hyprocrits. If you bash this….then bash moves like United 97….bash “World Trade Center”….bash the movie “Pearl Harbor” *more than it is already bashed for bad acting*…..Heck I could go on an on about profiting off of a tragedy. But OHHH NO….those were tasteful…those were wonderful movies…showing how the tradegy was in a “heroic” way………Just more words to say “I am a hypocrite”.
I found this hilarious honestly. Was the V-Tech shootings horrible? Absolutely. Can I separate reality from a videogame? Yes I can. Were you to make a game about me, or my family, and make us look stupid or die….I would laugh..and be honored…know why? It’s media..it’s entertainment..it’s fiction. We have WAY too many sensitive people in this day and age. He is poking fun at a memory….a historical event….he’s not actually HURTING the people who were involved.
I heard a funny quote on XM Comedy today on my commute to work that I believe relates to this. When Janet Jackson showed her tit on TV….the entire world freaked out………..but change the channel to any of the other 20 main channels *abc, nbc, fox..etc*….and you will see someone shot right in the head, and more violence than you can count your finger at that doesn’t get near the amount of attention. Personally? I’d rather my kid look at a titty. Just goes to show how damn sensitive and hypocritial people are today.
You really haven't been reading any of the posts have you. most of us are saying he has every right to make it. but we are also saying he was an asshole for making it. he has all the right to say what he wants and do what he wants. but hell if I'm going to push my free speech to the side all because he is using free speech as well. you're twisting what we are saying into something it isn't.
most of us view this as additional cannon politicians will use against the game industry. no one should be petitioning to shut it down unless the creator realises what he has done. what is sad is he does realize what he has done and knows it all too well. he has phrased that well enough on his website. he is doing it for attention, and it's very obvious. Don't judge game politics by assumption.
Too much tolerance, indiscriminate tolerance, and you get the opposite: Social anarchy. People get the idea that whatever they do is okay, and that there aren't any real consequences (or if there are, there shouldn't be). Under those circumstances, many people become inconsiderate and lazy.
In essence, too little tolerance makes the people in charge assholes. Too much tolerance makes whoever they're in charge of assholes.
I'm completely agreeing with you o that, believe me. My only concern is how much this game is going to be dragged around by the media and how much blame will be thrown at the game industry for it. Look at what happened with SCMRPG. and that was actually an attempt at an artist's perspective of the situation, made by someone with a pretty solid line of reasoning to back up his case. This VT game falls short on many levels.
"GamePolitics.com is just one more group that I have to keep a watch out for."
Nice massive generalisation there - kind of takes the edge off your moral high ground.
Some people need to calm the hell down.
So yes, I support his right to say whatever he wants. Even if it reveals him to be a shallow jerk.
Pressuring advertisers isn't a loophole in free speech. It's exercising our own free speech. Advertisers have the right to decide what sort of content they will support and they make these decisions based on consumer reaction. His right to free speech doesn't give us some obligation to patronize him.
Similarly, if his host wants to drop him, unless he has a contract that doesn't allow them to do so, they have every right. If some other host wants to carry him, that's their right. People have the right to say and make what they want. The rest of us don't have to pay attention or give them a forum.
tldr
Haha just kidding. Anyway, why do -you- think he made this game if not solely to get attention or just to piss people off? And do we not have the right to condemn him as a dick or an assmunch if we believe that the work he's created is morally reprehensible?
To you people, the first amendment and all the other free speech laws in the world are just technicalities - something to obey to a minimum, but if you don't like what's being protected, try to find some kind of loophole in. "Maybe we can pressure Newgrounds' advertisers!" "You know, if he used copyrighted materials, maybe the DMCA could be used against him!" "If he's Australian, is he *really* free..?"
Free speech isn't just some technicality. It's a philosophy, that expands into "free speech and tolerance" - and I don't see much tolerance in the criticism at this site. PiGPEN may have been tactless, and aloof to the feelings of others, but it was a neutral tactlessness; he could have done the same to any recent tragedy, and he has before, in other projects.
I prefer that aloofness to the inflamed, ugly hatred here. It seems to be a trait of many politically-oriented sites, I guess - people trying to belittle and dump on their opponents in order to make them easier to deal with. Yes, you're all using your own free speech to insult him as "desperate", "attention-seeking", "a loser", "scum", psychoanalyzing him in the most pessimistic way, twisting his intentions about why he ransomed the removal of his game, wishing him to be shot or run over.. but nobody can call it tolerant to take the criticism beyond his work, and make it personal. Nobody can call it tolerant to try and bring down his website. Nobody can call it tolerant to take up mob justice.
You know, I'm going to make a lot of games in my life. Some of these games are going to be nice little trivial things; but I can't guarantee that all the games I make are going to be "safe". I might make a game in the future that, for whatever reason, gets a shitstorm of protest delivered to my own door.
And at that time, when I could really use your help, you're going to be the guys trying to get my website shut down.
I'm a game artist. And now, GamePolitics.com is just one more group that I have to keep a watch out for. Because you've all shown me, that I can't trust you - you'd sacrifice me, and the subversive, fringe side of gaming, on the altar to make sure GTA4 comes out.
Maybe not the literal document, but as a citizen of a democracy, Lambourn is entitled to at least some rights to create things some people may find offensive. I know Australia isn't as good with those rights as most democracies, but if he hasn't be arrested and sent to a reeducation camp yet, I think it's erroneus (sp?) to say he has no free speech rights whatsoever.
In any case, the fact that he is in another country means we don't have the authority to completely silence him, so we shouldn't be acting like that's the case. I know we're all angry about this, but free speech-in any truly free society-cuts both ways.
Unfortunately for Lambourn, he isn't nearly as articulate as Ledonne, if his comments on this board are any indication. Maybe that's the real reason he won't speak directly to the press. Perhaps it dawned on him when he was developing this game that he couldn't come up with a better reason to justify it than "1st Amendment," which, by itself, won't sit over too well with the general public. He will get roasted like a pig when CNN, Fox News, and the like get a whiff of this. The worst part is, we'll probably suffer just as much as him.
What's funny and sad about this whole episode is that the killer who is "portrayed" (for lack of a better term) in this game also sought to get attention for his actions. I suspect the irony is lost on Lambourn.
P.S. For the record, I do support his right to create what "art" he wants. Contrawise, I also support the right of everyone here to say he's a attention-seeking fruit loop who has the emotional maturity of a 10-year-old.
try it sometime its no fcking joke,try being disabled or have people issues or phobias its real fun to talk to the voices all day >
nice try. but that's no excuse for what he says and what he's done. but nice try making some of that stuff up. you almost fooled me... oh wait. no you didn't.
I think there needs to be a distinction made. And perhaps there will be discussion at the narrowest of levels.
A "host" should not be forced to carry someone's opinions.
A "speaker" should not have their Right to free speech denied.
A "listener/reader" should have the choice to listen/read or not.
Now, if the "speaker" provides their own forum, then their Rights are upheld.
If one or more "hosts" provide a forum for the "speaker", then the Rights of the speaker are upheld.
If one ore more "hosts" chose not to provide a forum for the "speaker", while not preventing the "speaker" from speaking elsewhere, the "speaker's" Rights are still upheld because even if one "host" doesn't provide a forum, the "speaker" still has alternatives to spread their message, wanted by "listeners/readers".
If the "speaker" is prevented from speaking or even prevented from seeking a forum, then the "speaker's" Rights may have been violated.
In this last case, one might open a pretty heated discussion. Can ISPs deny a "speaker" access to the internet to prevent speech on any forum?
Can a court deny an average citizen the right to own a computer to block their ability to write software, among other formats, thereby preventing them their method of speaking their opinions?
But definitely a difference between "hosting" the material and preventing the "speaker" from offering the material to be hosted or even preventing the "speaker" from even creating it.
Nightwng2000
NW2K Software
"I don’t remember that Franco was that bad of a dictator as Hitler, oy."
Very nearly. He was quite ruthless in trying to stamp out any opponents. He just didn't have the benefit of an easily-identifiable minority to single out while doing so...