I'm one of the game creators and this submission is not mine. I couldn't resist to upvote it though.
As for the game getting boring I really hope you're wrong: most of the players find it very addictive and it will get better if more people will find adversaries online.
This is essentially a computer version except with some complexities like hit points and damage taken from modern computer games.
So I really can't see it getting old quickly since it is based on a successful concept already. Indie game developers are often told to start from these successful concepts since it reduces the user research costs and rewriting.
Gamer's arguments have always been that shooters are artificial environments with no personality involved.
In Counterstrike you're fighting against stereotypical terrorists that are in no way related to your personal life.
Here, you "kill" real people with a face. Objective? Motivation?
Kill him before he kills me?
I'm deeply concerned about this and find it disgusting.
I'm deeply concerned about this and find it disgusting.
As others have pointed out, if this inspires violence in someone, they already had serious mental issues. The larger issue for this game is that it simply doesn't look very fun. I think the idea of involving one's environment in mobile games is good, but this particular implementation doesn't seem very compelling.
What? Why? I think most of us assume people who go on mass shooting sprees have some kind of mental instability.
I see your background is mental health. Instead of just throwing out these cryptic "holier than thou" one-liners, you would do your cause (whatever it is) a lot more justice if you would actually explain your point of view rather than just trying to look like some kind of sage.
People incorrectly link mental illness to violence. Most violence, even spree killings, is not committed by someone with a mental illness. Mental illness is not a predictor of violence. (A previous episode of violence is; a drug or alcohol addiction is, but a mental illness, even a severe and enduring mental illness is not) People with a mental illness are very much more likely to be the victims, not perpetrators, of violence.
By linking mental illness to violence you stigmatize people with a mental health problem. This stigma makes people less able to seek help from professionals or friends or even family. People become irrationally scared of those with a mental illness and don't know how to offer help. Employers are less likely to offer employment to those with mental illness.
> I think most of us assume people who go on mass shooting sprees have some kind of mental instability.
But that's just ignorance caused by people who continue to lazily assume and then state that anyone who is violent is also mad - even if there's nothing to support that.
This is possibly an example of the conjunction fallacy. We see violence and cannot explain it, and so when we think "is this person violent, or violent and has a mental illness?" we end up at "violent and with a mental illness" even though it's less likely than "just violent".
Linking mental illness to violent crime is as lazy and ignorant as Fox news linking violent crime to African Americans, with the same mangling of statistics and undue focus on very rare events and lack of focus on common events.
Tucson: "Loughner had been arrested (but not convicted) once on a minor drug charge[11]" - drug addiction combined with mental illness is the predictor here. The mental illness alone was not predictive.
> Acquaintances said that Loughner's personality had changed markedly in the years prior to the shooting, a period when he was also abusing alcohol and drugs.
Again: drug or alcohol addiction are reasonable predictors of violent behaviour. Mental illness alone is not a reasonable predictor of violence.
Mental illness is common. It would be unusual for there to be no mass murders with a mental illness. All you're doing is lazily ignoring all the very many murders committed by people who do not have a mental illnes o focus on a tiny minority committed by people who do have a mental illness; and then you're ignoring the actual predictors of violent behaviour which are previous violence or drug / alcohol addiction.
That difference doesn't exist when you talk to people about their perceptions of mental illness and violent behaviour. They think that people with a mental illness are likely to be violent, even though that's very unlikely. They think that a violent event will have been perpetrated by a person with a mental illness even though again it's not likely.
That's their problem then, not the problem of the parent author. If you think video games are real life and shoot someone because Call of Duty made you do it, you have a mental illness. No where did anyone here make the claim that everyone with a mental illness would do that though.
I drink tea because I have a cold. Not everyone who has a cold drinks tea, though. I'm guessing that mental illnesses might be a sensitive subject for you for some reason, but being overly politically correct isn't the answer to solving the social stigma. You can't deny that people who have trouble separating fiction from reality have a mental illness.
Spree killings in the US over the past 30 years have killed about 550 people. Regular gun murder has killed 15,000 people per year.
If we assume that every single spree killing was committed by someone with a mental illness (and that assumption is wrong) we still only have 550 murders by mad people and 450,000 murders by sane people.
But when you look at mass murders you rarely find people with a psychotic illness operating under a psychosis. You find people who have some or no mental illness who also happen to be violent. That shouldn't be surprising - mental ill-health is very common.
> “A consequence if not a driving force of the pendulum swing away from benevolence and toward the protection of others has been increased attention to an individual’s dangerousness, with the operative presumption that dangerousness is often the result of a mental illness. But dangerousness is not always the result of mental illness. Individuals who commit violent or aggressive acts often do so for reasons unrelated to mental illness…. Research, in fact, confirms the error in associating dangerousness with mental illness, showing that ‘the vast majority of people who are violent do not suffer from mental illnesses. The absolute risk of violence among the mentally ill as a group is still very small and … only a small proportion of the violence in our society can be attributed to persons who are mentally ill.’ Violence is not a diagnosis nor is it a disease. Potential to do harm is not a symptom or a sign of mental illness, rather it must be the central consideration when assessing future dangerousness.”
> because only completely sane people go on shooting rampages
You don't understand why they go on a shooting rampage, and so they must be mad? That's the only explanation?
My view is that it's largely about realism. Even in today's first-person shooters with fancy HD graphics, you're usually aiming at a person who pops in and out of a single cover location, conveniently waiting for you to shoot him. Even if you've killed all his buddies, he won't run away or do anything different, but just keep yelling generic insults at you. If you shoot him, but not enough times to kill him, he will start shooting you again after a few seconds, seemingly no worse off for the injury (just like your own character). If you kill him, he will make a generic yell and fall over, but never die any more gruesome way. His corpse may have some blood around it but won't look remotely realistic. Originally this was basically mandated by technical requirements, but today it would certainly be possible to go further; I suspect most games don't do so precisely because players would feel weird being more realistic killers.
That's for FPS. In this game, even though the opponent has a face on their profile, the shooting consists of hitting a button and seeing a health bar go down. It's so abstracted from any reality that it's not even close to a problem.
I've seen the landing page and "watch in action" video. I still have no idea what are this game's rules. I only saw some flashing images of in-game screens, which didn't really explain anything
You are positioned in your location with a simple handgun. 'Debtors' are created around you based on Foursquare and Instagram activity. Other players will also appear nearby. Attack by tapping/long tapping. They will fight back.
Just like crypto, you really shouldn't roll your own phone number validation libraries. Just use Google's libphonenumber[0]. There's an iOS port of it [1].
Played the game for a little bit. Kind of weird to see someone approach you on the GPS and have to kill them.
Impressive design and intro of the app. I really liked the video you guys made at the beginning of the app. I never seen anything like that. Would you mind sharing with us how you did that?
Thank you! Basically it is a series of 2 seconds square videos with a small interaction: you tilt your iPhone to explore the videos. Just like photos in Paper by Facebook.
The videos and transitions were filtered with a combination of destructive After Effects filters. Some of the effects were achieved by using a nice little iPhone app called Glitché.
We intentionally lowered the quality when we exported the videos so that they look 'authentic'.
35 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 84.3 ms ] threadhttps://news.ycombinator.com/showhn.html
This is essentially a computer version except with some complexities like hit points and damage taken from modern computer games.
So I really can't see it getting old quickly since it is based on a successful concept already. Indie game developers are often told to start from these successful concepts since it reduces the user research costs and rewriting.
Using child rapists in your marketing is not good, even for a company called Cheapshot.
Here, you "kill" real people with a face. Objective? Motivation? Kill him before he kills me?
I'm deeply concerned about this and find it disgusting.
If you can't separate fiction from reality, you have deeper issues than violent video games.
As others have pointed out, if this inspires violence in someone, they already had serious mental issues. The larger issue for this game is that it simply doesn't look very fun. I think the idea of involving one's environment in mobile games is good, but this particular implementation doesn't seem very compelling.
I see your background is mental health. Instead of just throwing out these cryptic "holier than thou" one-liners, you would do your cause (whatever it is) a lot more justice if you would actually explain your point of view rather than just trying to look like some kind of sage.
By linking mental illness to violence you stigmatize people with a mental health problem. This stigma makes people less able to seek help from professionals or friends or even family. People become irrationally scared of those with a mental illness and don't know how to offer help. Employers are less likely to offer employment to those with mental illness.
> I think most of us assume people who go on mass shooting sprees have some kind of mental instability.
But that's just ignorance caused by people who continue to lazily assume and then state that anyone who is violent is also mad - even if there's nothing to support that.
This is possibly an example of the conjunction fallacy. We see violence and cannot explain it, and so when we think "is this person violent, or violent and has a mental illness?" we end up at "violent and with a mental illness" even though it's less likely than "just violent".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conjunction_fallacy
Linking mental illness to violent crime is as lazy and ignorant as Fox news linking violent crime to African Americans, with the same mangling of statistics and undue focus on very rare events and lack of focus on common events.
Here's some further reading with cites: http://depts.washington.edu/mhreport/facts_violence.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Aurora_shooting
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Tucson_shooting
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Tech_shooting
Tucson: "Loughner had been arrested (but not convicted) once on a minor drug charge[11]" - drug addiction combined with mental illness is the predictor here. The mental illness alone was not predictive.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jared_Lee_Loughner
> Acquaintances said that Loughner's personality had changed markedly in the years prior to the shooting, a period when he was also abusing alcohol and drugs.
Again: drug or alcohol addiction are reasonable predictors of violent behaviour. Mental illness alone is not a reasonable predictor of violence.
Mental illness is common. It would be unusual for there to be no mass murders with a mental illness. All you're doing is lazily ignoring all the very many murders committed by people who do not have a mental illnes o focus on a tiny minority committed by people who do have a mental illness; and then you're ignoring the actual predictors of violent behaviour which are previous violence or drug / alcohol addiction.
I drink tea because I have a cold. Not everyone who has a cold drinks tea, though. I'm guessing that mental illnesses might be a sensitive subject for you for some reason, but being overly politically correct isn't the answer to solving the social stigma. You can't deny that people who have trouble separating fiction from reality have a mental illness.
If we assume that every single spree killing was committed by someone with a mental illness (and that assumption is wrong) we still only have 550 murders by mad people and 450,000 murders by sane people.
But when you look at mass murders you rarely find people with a psychotic illness operating under a psychosis. You find people who have some or no mental illness who also happen to be violent. That shouldn't be surprising - mental ill-health is very common.
http://journalistsresource.org/studies/government/criminal-j...
> “A consequence if not a driving force of the pendulum swing away from benevolence and toward the protection of others has been increased attention to an individual’s dangerousness, with the operative presumption that dangerousness is often the result of a mental illness. But dangerousness is not always the result of mental illness. Individuals who commit violent or aggressive acts often do so for reasons unrelated to mental illness…. Research, in fact, confirms the error in associating dangerousness with mental illness, showing that ‘the vast majority of people who are violent do not suffer from mental illnesses. The absolute risk of violence among the mentally ill as a group is still very small and … only a small proportion of the violence in our society can be attributed to persons who are mentally ill.’ Violence is not a diagnosis nor is it a disease. Potential to do harm is not a symptom or a sign of mental illness, rather it must be the central consideration when assessing future dangerousness.”
> because only completely sane people go on shooting rampages
You don't understand why they go on a shooting rampage, and so they must be mad? That's the only explanation?
That's for FPS. In this game, even though the opponent has a face on their profile, the shooting consists of hitting a button and seeing a health bar go down. It's so abstracted from any reality that it's not even close to a problem.
Level-up, get better guns, chems and equipment.
[0] https://github.com/googlei18n/libphonenumber
[1] https://github.com/iziz/libPhoneNumber-iOS
Impressive design and intro of the app. I really liked the video you guys made at the beginning of the app. I never seen anything like that. Would you mind sharing with us how you did that?
The videos and transitions were filtered with a combination of destructive After Effects filters. Some of the effects were achieved by using a nice little iPhone app called Glitché.
We intentionally lowered the quality when we exported the videos so that they look 'authentic'.