"NRA Assault" would be a series of games focused around fighting the NRA. One would be a RTS featuring two sides, the NRA vs vigilante gun control proponents. The other game would be a 3-D shooter in which the object is to assasinate key figures in the NRA. Players would have in their arsenal every weapon previously banned under the Assault Weapons Control Act.
I'm not claiming ownership of this idea -- consider it released to the public domain -- but I'd like to see it implemented.
I'd like to see games made around the following plot
Sounds too political to ever be viable save as propaganda game, and those are um, kinda 'niche'.
All of us would like to see ideas that we have implemented. Moreover probably most of the posters on the creative side have suggested ideas or given ideas as input into other's projects. Pretty much all of them have been thrown into the "Public Domain" as such.
In the case of your ideas whilst they can conceivably be made into games and even include the irony of gun control proponents using illegal weaponry to fight the NRA, I have to ask why you would choose this particular time and content material given recent tragic events. Which leads me to the surmise that this is less about the story idea and more about making a political or emotional statement. By all means, you have the right to suggest any idea persay, but do you truly consider that suggesting these types of games given recent events is truly a path to healing?
Too many (smaller) games have been made that profit on the abuse of a celebrity or a "just cause" and in an environment where video games do at times suffer intense criticism over subject matters relating to violence, abuse and other issues. I would have much preferred an idea suggested by you that sought to create a game that actually created a socially responsible solution (that was fun to play) to the existing real life differences contained in a gun control debate.
I thank you for your idea and always welcome new ideas, but on a personal level I truly don't wish to see it implemented, on the grounds of my own morality and ethics. My heart goes out to those affected by the recent events but I truly do not see creating a game such as this as being a valid "cause celebre".
In the case of your ideas whilst they can conceivably be made into games and even include the irony of gun control proponents using illegal weaponry to fight the NRA, I have to ask why you would choose this particular time and content material given recent tragic events. Which leads me to the surmise that this is less about the story idea and more about making a political or emotional statement. By all means, you have the right to suggest any idea persay, but do you truly consider that suggesting these types of games given recent events is truly a path to healing?
Too many (smaller) games have been made that profit on the abuse of a celebrity or a "just cause" and in an environment where video games do at times suffer intense criticism over subject matters relating to violence, abuse and other issues. I would have much preferred an idea suggested by you that sought to create a game that actually created a socially responsible solution (that was fun to play) to the existing real life differences contained in a gun control debate.
I thank you for your idea and always welcome new ideas, but on a personal level I truly don't wish to see it implemented, on the grounds of my own morality and ethics. My heart goes out to those affected by the recent events but I truly do not see creating a game such as this as being a valid "cause celebre".
Author
Yeah I guess not. I guess this series would just make the NRA grab onto their guns even tighter. The natural response of NRA affiliated persons to violence is to load their guns, after all. I thought it might make them stop and think, but I guess I misjudged their rationale for wanting guns. It's not just to defend against crazies... it's to defend against their critics as well.
Sounds too political to ever be viable save as propaganda game, and those are um, kinda 'niche'.
Why? Who says it can't sell?
Of course, the person with the idea has to care about the game idea enough to actually make it, and finish it. Nobody's gonna do it for them. It's good to explore whether one is just contemplating a "debating outburst," or one has the energy, enthusiasm, and depth of subject to make an entire game out of it.
I have to ask why you would choose this particular time and content material given recent tragic events.
Why not? We have a First Amendment in the USA for a reason. Speech is often intended to offend somebody, to shake up their thinking. There's always going to be some bad / inappropriate time according to someone's point of view. Such points of view are irrelevant. In the USA we are free to speak if we want to. We just have to accept the consequences of our speech, that people may say bad things about us. On the other hand from a promotion standpoint, some people believe there's no such thing as bad publicity.
My own question about recent events in Colorado, is why in such a gun friendly state, with its "Make My Day" law and so forth, didn't anybody in the theater shoot back? I'm guessing that very few people in urban areas actually carry guns.
I say it can’t sell because games so blatantly political generally don’t. Retailers are going to stay away, which will counteract any free publicity it will get from being controversial. The NRA especially has a very competent legal/publicity organization that will pretty much guarantee that.
I think you could make an effective propaganda game around the gun control debate, but I don’t think the game ideas as originally presented are very effective. I couldn’t even understand whether they were pro-gun control or anti-gun control.
For example, a pro-gun control game could (satirically) have the player as a criminal trading in guns to illustrate how having it easy to obtain legal firearms translates into criminals with guns. In contrast, an anti-control game could have a gun safety tutorial, gun-range training, and a series of simulated situations where the player has a gun in a life threatening situations and saves the day by shooting a criminal.
I think you could make an effective propaganda game around the gun control debate, but I don’t think the game ideas as originally presented are very effective. I couldn’t even understand whether they were pro-gun control or anti-gun control.
For example, a pro-gun control game could (satirically) have the player as a criminal trading in guns to illustrate how having it easy to obtain legal firearms translates into criminals with guns. In contrast, an anti-control game could have a gun safety tutorial, gun-range training, and a series of simulated situations where the player has a gun in a life threatening situations and saves the day by shooting a criminal.
My view is that satire and political debate is best done with a cool head. Done in a kneejerk fashion it could just confuse, offend and alienate. What's the point if it pushes people to your opposition's side? The first amendment thing is irrelevant to me. I don't come from the US, we have no first amendment. Yes, I think that free speech is good, but within limits. If someone like the Westboro Baptist Church protested at a family member's funeral, I'd want the police to kick them out.
I vaguely recall some games that made good political points, e.g. an educational game on gerrymandering in elections, some game about killing terrorists spreading terrorism, etc. I don't think the genre is a money spinner, but by all means make something. Just keep it small and keep your goals in mind. Often timeliness is of paramount important. A AAA game about a political situation that has months/years ago moved out of public awareness may not achieve much.
I vaguely recall some games that made good political points, e.g. an educational game on gerrymandering in elections, some game about killing terrorists spreading terrorism, etc. I don't think the genre is a money spinner, but by all means make something. Just keep it small and keep your goals in mind. Often timeliness is of paramount important. A AAA game about a political situation that has months/years ago moved out of public awareness may not achieve much.
Retailers are going to stay away, which will counteract any free publicity it will get from being controversial.
You don't need retailers to sell a game nowadays.
Seems kind of silly to make a game about gun violence when presumably your opposition to the NRA would be rooted in your belief that their existence contributes to actual gun violence, don't you think? If you want to criticize or undermine their stance there are more mature ways to do it.
Personally I'm very much against additional gun controls beyond what we already have, because I believe that every citizen in good standing (meaning, hasn't proven they shouldn't be trusted with a weapon) should have the ultimate right to defend themselves, their loved ones, and their property, using effective means. Law enforcement is great and all, my younger brother is a cop, but they can't always be counted upon to respond quickly enough, or even at all in the case of a widespread or long-lasting emergency situation. In short, by opting out of the ability to protect your own interests, you opt in to the possibility that you might find yourself in a situation where no one can or will protect those interests for you. In the event of a home-invasion, riot, mass panic, Red Dawn, or zombie apocalypse, I'd certainly want to be able to defend myself.
With that, I'll step down from my soap-box. I just wanted to point out that anti-control folks are not all redneck militiamen or irresponsible fools who think it's cool to own a grand-fathered automatic weapon for show. Most anti-control folks are rational people making a very rational decision, even if the scenarios they might cite in justifying their stance might seem only a distant possibility.
Personally I'm very much against additional gun controls beyond what we already have, because I believe that every citizen in good standing (meaning, hasn't proven they shouldn't be trusted with a weapon) should have the ultimate right to defend themselves, their loved ones, and their property, using effective means. Law enforcement is great and all, my younger brother is a cop, but they can't always be counted upon to respond quickly enough, or even at all in the case of a widespread or long-lasting emergency situation. In short, by opting out of the ability to protect your own interests, you opt in to the possibility that you might find yourself in a situation where no one can or will protect those interests for you. In the event of a home-invasion, riot, mass panic, Red Dawn, or zombie apocalypse, I'd certainly want to be able to defend myself.
With that, I'll step down from my soap-box. I just wanted to point out that anti-control folks are not all redneck militiamen or irresponsible fools who think it's cool to own a grand-fathered automatic weapon for show. Most anti-control folks are rational people making a very rational decision, even if the scenarios they might cite in justifying their stance might seem only a distant possibility.
[quote name='Some Idiot']
Yeah I guess not. I guess this series would just make the NRA grab onto their guns even tighter. The natural response of NRA affiliated persons to violence is to load their guns, after all. I thought it might make them stop and think, but I guess I misjudged their rationale for wanting guns. It's not just to defend against crazies... it's to defend against their critics as well.
[/quote]
I'm a member of the NRA. I own three guns: a handgun, a rifle and a shotgun. I hunt elk, when I get lucky enough to draw a tag and have the time to do so. I have never had the inclination, desire, or even random thought to draw a weapon on another human being. I could conceivably do so in defense of self or family, but such a thing would not be done lightly, if at all. I have far too much respect for the potential destructive power of firearms, and the necessity of using them responsibly. But, yeah, all of us NRA members are crazies. Just a bunch of dumb rednecks, just itching for an excuse to shoot somebody. You, sir, seem to have fallen victim to propaganda, and I truly feel sorry for your lack of critical thinking skills or basic ability to reason for yourself. Sorry you're dumb, bro. Maybe you'll get better.
Yeah I guess not. I guess this series would just make the NRA grab onto their guns even tighter. The natural response of NRA affiliated persons to violence is to load their guns, after all. I thought it might make them stop and think, but I guess I misjudged their rationale for wanting guns. It's not just to defend against crazies... it's to defend against their critics as well.
[/quote]
I'm a member of the NRA. I own three guns: a handgun, a rifle and a shotgun. I hunt elk, when I get lucky enough to draw a tag and have the time to do so. I have never had the inclination, desire, or even random thought to draw a weapon on another human being. I could conceivably do so in defense of self or family, but such a thing would not be done lightly, if at all. I have far too much respect for the potential destructive power of firearms, and the necessity of using them responsibly. But, yeah, all of us NRA members are crazies. Just a bunch of dumb rednecks, just itching for an excuse to shoot somebody. You, sir, seem to have fallen victim to propaganda, and I truly feel sorry for your lack of critical thinking skills or basic ability to reason for yourself. Sorry you're dumb, bro. Maybe you'll get better.
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement