Topic: Taking a (misguided) stance on guns in games

[kat]

As a developer, if one is going to take a stance (semi-)politically on the use of guns, or lack thereof, in a games, at least get the facts right - especially if they are to be used as the basis of the argument (or at least try to avoid misrepresenting them though hyperbole);

“Subnautica was being birthed right around the time of the Sandy Hook shooting. This was a particularly nasty shooting, although many people don't realize America has school shootings every day. Every. Single. Day,” the reply explained [emphasis added - source]

Deplorable as it is there be any school related shootings, there have 'only' been around 200 since 2013 (173 to be precise according to this source - which itself appears to misrepresent the numbers cf. links below), not one "shooting every day" as the games creators states. Again it seems certain press outlets are making this something of an (non-)issue (and the only ones to be doing so it appears at time of writing).

Additional Reading
- A Study of Active Shooter Incidents in the United States Between 2000 and 2013 (FBI).
- Resources on School Violence (FBI).
- National Center for Educational Statistic: Fast Facts - School Crime (NCES).
- National School Victimization Survey: School Crime (BJS).
- School-Associated Violent Death Study (CDC).
- Spinning Statistics on School Shootings (Factcheck).
- UPDATED: Comparing Death Rates from Mass Public Shootings and Mass Public Violence in the US and Europe (CPRC).
- Mental Illness, Mass Shootings, and the Politics of American Firearms (NIH).
- The School Shooter: A Quick Reference Guide (DHS).
- School Violence Myths: School Survey Hoax (UV).
- List of school shootings in the United States (Wikipedia).
- 2010s (Wikipedia).

[ratty redemption]

wow, it still amazes me people can blatantly lie or try to misrepresent facts in public. that can easily be checked, and in this case debunked.

personally, i don't have an issue with non violent games per se. and the devs simply stating that as a design choice would have sufficed. but virtue signalling, by making demonstrably false claims, to apparently attract a certain politically leaning demographic, is only going to backfire in the end... pun intended.

[kat]

Certainly if the choice were to foment creative thinking on the player part, perhaps forcing them to use their environment to resolve issues that could cost a life or two. Of course that decision has to be contextualised, to work as a game mechanic the player has to have access to multiple or alternative means to the same end, removing threats, otherwise it just becomes another empty gesture - think "The Thing" and the way Kirt Russel and Co. had to kill the alien monster without significant access to firearms for example (iirc they had a rifle and pistol to defend against marauding wolves at the outpost, but not much else).

[ratty redemption]

agreed.

the portal series is an excellent example of non violent problem solving. that game didn't need to try and guilt trip other people who develop or play cod, or any other game where the main mechanics are killing (virtual) people. i also recently enjoyed watching a playthrough of the indie game fire watch. and that didn't even have any other visible characters in it (only contact with other people was over the radio) let alone combat. and yet, it stood on it's own merits, with a beautiful world, well written story, dialog and had a mystery element. although some gamers say the ending was rather anticlimactic.