A rant and a review
I see where the people pleading with us not to judge this guy are coming from – I certainly don't know the circumstances of what happened – but I still find such a request somewhat bizarre. How many of us can say we knew Adolf Hitler? Yet most of us judge him for what he did. Similarly, a lot of people (including the person in question) have judged George Bush for his invasion of Iraq (and Afghanistan). I think that as soon as somebody takes another's life, they are no longer exempt from criticism. In fact, I don't know whether anybody ever truly is. I mean, we are perfectly happy to deem those we don't know to be good; why is the opposite not the case? I agree that a lot of people here who are basically using this review section as a forum for screaming their outrage are missing the point, but the idea that a person who condemned the killing of innocents in Iraq and then went on to kill others himself (presumably he would not class them as innocent, but that's not really the point) is beyond criticism is frankly somewhat absurd. I suspect he did have a difficult life, and I feel sad for him, but I cannot have complete sympathy for someone who partook in such wanton violence. Anyway, for the sake of not using this review solely as a soapbox I shall now give a brief analysis of the animation itself:
By the author's own admission, this is just senseless violence. If, as he says, it was just a test, that's all well and good, but it cannot be expected to receive gleaming reviews. In retrospect it is painfully ominous that he should choose such violent subject matter for what, as a test, could essentially have been anything, but had I seen it at before the event I would have judged it as nothing more than the childish fascination with all things gruesome which so many here (and everywhere) possess, including myself to a degree, I must confess. As for the technical aspects of the piece; I found the graphics to be, whilst not bad, not especially original or outstandingly implemented. The police car was a bit rubbish. What sounds there were were fine, although I found the use of stereo a little distracting and unneeded. I never know what to put for violence, because I find the implicit claim that violence alone can be a positive quality to be somewhat bizarre. But violence there is, and if that's what you're after it's ... well, there, so it gets an average grade. Interactivity and humour get nothing for obvious reasons. Style would have gotten an alright grade, as I found the minimal and matter-of-fact approach to be fairly effective, but it's not especially original so it loses a point, and it's completely lacking in plot or meaning or purpose (none of which have their own scores, strangely), so I've knocked off a few more points.
In a way I feel a bit strange marking this thing. For one thing it could be deemed as pointless, but then, how often do the authors actually read an individual review, anyway? I'm sharing my thoughts with the rest of you, and I don't think the actions of the author should impede this any more than Roman Polanski's history of paedophilia accusations should restrict the appreciation of his films (or lack thereof). Still, it would be foolish to suppose that the things the author has done cannot have influenced my conception of this work, and as such it's a bit strange. But there you go.
