Columbine Game Kicked From Slamdance Festival

Imaria writes "A Kotaku post has the news that Super Columbine Massacre RPG! has been kicked out of the Slamdance Gamemaker Festival. After reaching the finals, the organizers were forced to remove the game from the running to appease mounting external pressure. According to the post, this is the first time in the Slamdance Festival's 13 year history that they have removed either a game or film due to criticism. From the article: '[Game creator] Ledonne said that he bears no ill will toward the festival, but that the decision to pull the game does raise concerns about freedom of speech and video game development. "I don't want to paint them as the villain in this," he said. "I don't think the real issue is a couple of guys at Slamdance who decided to reject my game, it's the larger pressures placed on them."'"

Comments

Taste

[supersonicjim]

It doesn't sound like a very tasteful game.

Re:Taste

[brouski]

Agreed. But then neither is Grand Theft Auto.

Re:Taste

[1_brown_mouse]

When has taste ever entered into it? Is it cool or have good graphics or fun game play or excellent sound track?

Is GTA tasteful? Good lord.

Re:Taste

[Anonymous Coward]

Neither did BMX XXX, it still got released.

Re:Taste

[Jabrwock]

It doesn't sound like a very tasteful game.

Neither did Elephant, but it won a Palme D'Or at the Cannes Film Festival. Or Zero Day, which also won several independant film awards.

If a movie touches a controversial subject, it's considered avant-guard and the director worthy of praise for daring to tackle such a "hard" issue. If a serious game that uses an interactive medium to try to do the same (SCMRPG is basically Zero Day in RPG form), it's not even worthy of consideration?

Re:Taste

[Atheose]

If a movie touches a controversial subject, it's considered avant-guard and the director worthy of praise for daring to tackle such a "hard" issue. If a serious game that uses an interactive medium to try to do the same (SCMRPG is basically Zero Day in RPG form), it's not even worthy of consideration?

The festival felt that this game would offend more people than it interested, which would be bad for them both in the short run and the long run. It was a sound business decision.

Re:Taste

[Attrition_cp]

I believe the complaints actually come from it being a business decision.

Re:Taste

[supabeast!]

It doesn't sound like a very tasteful game.
 
Neither did Elephant, but it won a Palme D'Or at the Cannes Film Festival. Or Zero Day, which also won several independant film awards.
 
If a movie touches a controversial subject, it's considered avant-guard and the director worthy of praise for daring to tackle such a "hard" issue. If a serious game that uses an interactive medium to try to do the same (SCMRPG is basically Zero Day in RPG form), it's not even worthy of consideration? If Elephant had been named "Super Columbine Massacre" most people would never have considered screening or viewing it. If the game developers really want to convince people that they've produced a game that assists people in thoughtfully examining the nature and causes of school shootings, they should try re-releasing the game with the respect, decency, and gravitas that anything dealing with those events deserves. I see know reason to sympathize with people who claim to be producing thoughtful content but treat it in a way that is inexcusably sophomoric.

Re:Taste

[Jabrwock]

The sponsors felt that this game would offend more paying customers than it interested, which would be bad for corporate PR both in the short run and the long run. It was a sound business decision.

Just felt I had to clarify that. The sponsors basically told Slamdance that they were pulling out just because of the controversy surrounding the nomination. The judges clearly felt that SCMRPG was a worthy selection, or they wouldn't have chosen it in the first place.

Ironically, the author initially resisted the idea, because he forsaw the media circus it would cause. I guess he knew that an interactive quasi-documentary wouldn't get the same respect as a "real" quasi-documentary.

These festivals are supposed to be for celebrating artists who dare to tackle the issue the mob-friendly mass-production studios won't touch. That's the whole point.

Re:Taste

[Thraxen]

There's rather big difference between addressing a tough subject matter and not using a real event or even turning a real event into a movie and turning a real event into a game. I haven't played the game so I don't know how it actually plays, but it really doesn't sound like it crosses a line that should not be crossed. Should it be deemed illegal or prevent from distribution? No. But if I was head of an event like I'd kick their ass out on the street too. That would be MY right just as much as they had the right to create the game. Some of you seem to lose sight of the fact that freedom works for both sides.

Re:Taste

[Anonymous Coward]

GTA isn't based on one real event - its based on police blotters and nonsense. How many people do you see hijacking cop cars and shooting tanks with BFG's?

Re:Taste

[Jabrwock]

I see know reason to sympathize with people who claim to be producing thoughtful content but treat it in a way that is inexcusably sophomoric.

I'll grant you that it may have been a poor choice of title. But isn't it also a commentary on the fact that a) people judge a book by it's cover (would you play "Super Gory Nazi Slaughter Simulator, now with Extra Blood!", aka Castle Wolfenstein), b) people who can't get past the title maybe shouldn't be judging it at all, and c) possibly to make you think about how some games overhype the fact that they are "ultra" violent. It's tongue in cheek, just like Bowling for Columbine isn't really about how Columbine was caused by bowling...

Re:Taste

[Jabrwock]

There's rather big difference between addressing a tough subject matter and not using a real event or even turning a real event into a movie and turning a real event into a game.

Forget game. Try wording it as follows: "There's rather big difference between addressing a tough subject matter and not using a real event or even turning a real event into a movie and turning a real event into a interactive movie."

MTV can tackle the horrors of Darfur through interactive flash animations, why can't an interactive RPG walk you through the events of that day? Why is it less deserving than a movie that does the same? Or is it just that you don't consider "games" as capable of tackling serious issues? Is it just the use of medium that you object to?

Re:Taste

[Anonymous Coward]

Nor would a game about eating Irish babies.

Re:Taste

[EmperorKagato]

How many germans do you see die to RPGs and WW2 assault weapons.

Re:Taste

[Atheose]

Ahhh, thanks for correcting me. I made a few assumptions without reading all the way through.

Re:Taste

[iamhassi]

"the fact that a) people judge a book by it's cover"

of course they do, look at porn titles, usually their titles are exactly what the porn's about.

Re:Taste

[IceCreamGuy]

I'm pretty sure that after elementary school, judging a book by it's cover is not a bad thing. I don't understand why people tout this juvenile, cliche concept in mature discussions. Welcome to the real world, first impressions count here. If your writing a book, make a cover that adequately describes the content, don't just tack on something ridiculous for shock value alone. If the game was a tasteful discourse on the Columbine shootings, and it was named "Tasteful Discourse on the Columbine shootings," that's reasonable, but with a title like that, what else could you expect about the game other than an offensive piece of garbage. Once again, not saying it is one, but from the title and a realistic perspective, that's the impression that I get. A "cover" in any sense of the word, is a window to your content, and people need to grow up and start using them effectively.

Re:Taste

[Lord of Hyphens]

You're forgetting one of the Cardinal Rules of Games: It's always okay to kill Nazis.

[Politics]The left wing hates violence and the right wing hates sex. Take your pick.

Re:Taste

[djasbestos]

It wasn't very entertaining or insightful either. They should have just dropped it because "it sucked". Besides the author's grossly inadequate music selection...Rammstein is not KMFDM. Am I a bad person for having played it? I don't think so...the premise was interesting, the execution (no pun intended) was a colossal failure.

Re:Taste

[fourchannel]

I'm pretty sure that after elementary school, judging a book by it's cover is not a bad thing. I don't understand why people tout this juvenile, cliche concept in mature discussions. Welcome to the real world, first impressions count here. If your writing a book, make a cover that adequately describes the content, don't just tack on something ridiculous for shock value alone. If the game was a tasteful discourse on the Columbine shootings, and it was named "Tasteful Discourse on the Columbine shootings," that's reasonable, but with a title like that, what else could you expect about the game other than an offensive piece of garbage. Once again, not saying it is one, but from the title and a realistic perspective, that's the impression that I get. A "cover" in any sense of the word, is a window to your content, and people need to grow up and start using them effectively. Consider this... The reason that the book is more than one page thick, is because the author cannot convey the message with one page. For you to reduce the author's entire book into a simplistic summation leads me to believe that you're not willing to encompass some expansive cognition. Having a shallow worldview makes you appear very narrow minded. Now, would that be a good first impression that I should think of you, or do you see some fundamental flaw in judgement before review?

Re:Taste

[Broken scope]

Taste only comes into it if the game is meant to be enjoyable or fun. It is a game in the same sense that Saving private Ryan is a movie. It reexamines a terrible and violent event, not for the enjoyment of the viewers but because there is a lesson to be learned.

However last time I said this I took hell for it but so be it.

Re:Taste

[WilliamSChips]

No, most of the censorship efforts in the US come from the right wing too. Then again, there isn't much of a left wing in the US anyways...

Re:Taste

[Irish_Samurai]

I love that essay.

Re:Taste

[ClamIAm]

PTFG

Re:Taste

[IceCreamGuy]

That's really not what I'm saying; the point I'm trying to make is that rather than completely disregarding "covers" as 100% useless, as the parent implies, "covers" can actually be an extremely useful tool, and ignoring them completely or not using them to any effect is pointless and juvenile. Although, it's entirely possible that I have a shallow worldview and that I'm narrow minded.

Re:Taste

[fourchannel]

That's really not what I'm saying; the point I'm trying to make is that rather than completely disregarding "covers" as 100% useless, as the parent implies, "covers" can actually be an extremely useful tool, and ignoring them completely or not using them to any effect is pointless and juvenile. Although, it's entirely possible that I have a shallow worldview and that I'm narrow minded. No, you have a good point there; and I see that my previous response carries a hint of arrogant elitism - unwarranted; for that, I offer my apologies.

I think I see your point now; in that a book's cover, while being only the tip of the iceberg, still gives some insight into the book's purpose/content. To default the cover to insignificance, is foolish - an idealistic view, and righteous claim of keeping an open mind, yet the reality of the situation is that actions based on ideals are the same as biases themselves.

Originally, I mistook your statement to be - those who do not initially judge a book by its cover are foolish and ignorant for not gleaming informaiton from the title.

I must recognize the irony in my remark about keeping an open mind - caused by my own prejudice. Lol, damn. Sorries.

Re:Taste

[LKM]

I think the game's title is part of its concept. It's done in the old SNES RPG style, where many games had titles like that. I think the game's creator intentionally used the game's style as part of his message. Have you actually played the game, or are you just assuming that it's done without respect and decency? Because I would disagree with that assessment.

Re:Taste

[c_forq]

Tipper Gore is not on the right wing. Heavy censorship comes from the left too, don't be blind to it.

Re:Taste

[Panzergheist]

It's the new ranch dressing in the cafeteria salad. You'll get over it.

Re:Taste

[xappax]

If the game was a tasteful discourse on the Columbine shootings, and it was named "Tasteful Discourse on the Columbine shootings," that's reasonable, but with a title like that, what else could you expect about the game other than an offensive piece of garbage.

Anyone who judges the merit of art or political discourse on the basis of whether it's "tasteful" can kiss my distasteful, profane, but ultimately insightful ass.

Re:Taste

[Anonymous Coward]

The American "left wing" is about as left as the rest of the world's center-right.

Re:Taste

[Lemmy Caution]

Tipper Gore would be considered on the right in most of Europe. "Soccer Mom" populism is not the same thing as an authentic left position, just like neo-conservative opportunism is not the same thing as classical conservatism. T. Gore is playing to fearful, insular middle-class soccer moms just like the so-called right is playing to angry, resentful lower-middle class white men.

Fools.

[Irish_Samurai]

If they didn't want to deal with this sort of thing they should have never accepted the entry. But letting it get to the finals and then kicking it out?

Cowards. I am losing respect for almost every aspect of today's society and its dogma propped institutions. If it negatively affects our commercial viability, our image, we must condemn it. Never mind what the game is actually trying to do, move the medium forward by using it as a means to address complex social issues - not just shoot space baddies.

Re:Fools.

[DeeDob]

Arn't there better ways to "address complex social issues" than in a game where people are supposed to have "fun" with it?

If it was an educational game that actually teached something, i'd have less problem with it, but this one was clearly meant for the entertainment value.

Like someone else said: it is of poor taste.

In other news on /.: a game maker is making a game about nazis gas chambers: a simulator of people choking to death and a second game about kidnapping and raping people. When confronted on the controversy of it's games, the game maker said: "it is freedom of speech, it gives me the license to do whatever i want".

Re:Fools.

[Anonymous Coward]

If it was an educational game that actually teached something

I heard it had a level that teached spelling and grammar.

Re:Fools.

[Jabrwock]

Arn't there better ways to "address complex social issues" than in a game where people are supposed to have "fun" with it?

There's a new type of game out there, Serious Games. The flash games MTV sponsored to raise awareness of Darfur are another example. They're not meant to be "fun", they're meant to explore their subject material using an "interactive medium".

If it was an educational game that actually teached something, i'd have less problem with it, but this one was clearly meant for the entertainment value.

Have you tried playing it? Or have you just decided that it's "clearly for entertainment" just because NBC said so? Please don't fall into that trap. As I mentioned in an above comment, think of this as an interactive documentary, with some fictional elements added in (the trip to Hell for one) in an attempt to walk you through the thought processes of the killers. You're not meant to have "fun", you're meant to understand what happened. Demonizing the killers and leaving it at that does nothing to prevent the next crisis. Understanding their emotions, their thoughts, what they were going through, will help you to better figure out WHY.

When confronted on the controversy of it's games, the game maker said: "it is freedom of speech, it gives me the license to do whatever i want".

I disagree. I read it to say "Freedom of speech allows me to discuss controversial issues that would otherwise be banned by the mob." Besides, movies doing the exact same thing (Elephant, Zero Day) got film awards for walking you through the exact same material. Were they "fun"? Of course not.

Re:Fools.

[Irish_Samurai]

Arn't there better ways to "address complex social issues" than in a game where people are supposed to have "fun" with it?

If it was an educational game that actually teached something, i'd have less problem with it, but this one was clearly meant for the entertainment value.

Have you played the game? I have, and let me tell you something - it has zero entertainment value. It's entertainment level is just enough to keep you progressing through it. Also, this is an attempt to move the medium forward. You need to get off the nomen of "game" as it is outdated. A lot of these things aren't "games" anymore. Using your mentality we never should have let the "talkies" move into a training or education tool. We never should have let radiotelegraphy and spark gap transmissions move into the realm of entertainment.

Like someone else said: it is of poor taste.
Poor taste is not a viable criteria for art or education.

In other news on /.: a game maker is making a game about nazis gas chambers: a simulator of people choking to death and a second game about kidnapping and raping people. When confronted on the controversy of it's games, the game maker said: "it is freedom of speech, it gives me the license to do whatever i want".
Welcome to the downside of free speech. Deal with it. Seriously, if you don't like it - don't view it - but the opinion that you should be able to categorize and then subdue some content based on your fragile sensibilities is not only fascist, but downright ignorant. Free speech comes with the requirement that people can self regulate what they choose to consume.

Re:Fools.

[Das Modell]

I face complex social issues in video games every day. Silent Storm presents me with difficult situations: should I sneak behind him and empty my pistol into his back, or should I kill him with a frag grenade? Where should I place this anti-personnel mine to maximize casualties? There are no easy answers.

Re:Fools.

[El Torico]

Poor taste is not a viable criteria for art or education.

That explains a lot about modern society.

Re:Fools.

[sesshomaru]

Mark Ames recently wrote a book, called Going Postal. One of his theories about the phenomenon of "Going Postal" both in the schoolyard and the office, is that there are powerful, institutional forces at work that have a vested interest in people NOT understanding this phenomenon. If they can't get people to drop it with, "they were just kooks," (which becomes difficult when it becomes a trend) they have to come up with an excuse (video games, antidepressants, etc.) to explain the trend without getting to actual causes.

Basically, these events are an inevitable result of certain situations that are allowed to go unresolved, relentless pressure that causes a mental breakdown in certain people in our society, leading to these kamikaze missions. Demonizing these killers is useless, many of them intend to die either by their own hands or at the hands of the authorities. It's not like even the ones who survive get off with light sentences.

The plaintive "Why" at then end of one of these massacres is an important question that needs an honest, rational and thoughtful answer. However, such an answer will lead to calls for reform, which the people who push irrational, demagogic explanations for these events want to avoid.

Slamdance is supposed to be a place for controversial media that is to hot for even Sundance, so being too hot for Slamdance is something of an honor.

Re:Fools.

[Vellmont]

Never mind what the game is actually trying to do, move the medium forward by using it as a means to address complex social issues

I played the game. I never got the feeling I was "addressing complex socal issues", it felt more like the message was trying to somewhat glorify the Columbine nutjobs. I don't think it should have been banned however. Frankly it wasn't a very good game and I'm a bit surprised it was chosen for anything. Then again maybe all the games they selected were crap, and this was just typical crap.

I guess I'm more than a little suspicious of the whole "addressing complex social issue" dodge. Can someone who's actually played the game tell me how exactly it does that?

Re:Fools.

[Jabrwock]

I guess I'm more than a little suspicious of the whole "addressing complex social issue" dodge. Can someone who's actually played the game tell me how exactly it does that?

Did you come away from the game understanding more about what kind of pressures and personal decisions helped shape the events of that day? If so, then the game did it's job.

Simply demonizing the participants does nothing to prevent the next crisis. Understanding the motivations (and remember, that's different from sypathizing with them) helps you to understand WHY. Without WHY, you are only left to guess, and guess motivations leads to solutions that fail to address the actual problem. Solutions like kicking out problem students instead of offering them counseling. Columbine led to a lot of stereotyping and zero-tolerance policies, which completely failed to address the root problems.

Re:Fools.

[EmperorKagato]

I do recall people having fun with an JFK shooting re-enactment game.

You don't pull a finalist. They should have committed.

Re:Fools.

[nomadic]

It was made by a 24 year old film school graduate, a class of people that are not known for their subtlety or artistic refinement, but are known for their healthy opinions of their own abilities. I'm sure he meant it to be social commentary, but he wasn't experienced enough to pull it off.

Re:Fools.

[Vellmont]

Did you come away from the game understanding more about what kind of pressures and personal decisions helped shape the events of that day?

No. I also don't believe that some game developer could know any of that. This isn't a biography of the Columbine nuts, it's just a dumb game portraying them.

Simply demonizing the participants does nothing to prevent the next crisis. Understanding the motivations

Sure, but the game did nothing in terms of that. Frankly I think that's probbably an impossible task. What makes the game developer think he understands the motivations of the Columbine nuts? Maybe by some miracle he does.. but I got zero understanding of them from that game.

Solutions like kicking out problem students instead of offering them counseling. Columbine led to a lot of stereotyping and zero-tolerance policies, which completely failed to address the root problems.

Those are nice ideas, however none of them are addressed in the game.

Re:Fools.

[Jabrwock]

This isn't a biography of the Columbine nuts, it's just a dumb game portraying them. If you remove the interactive elements, and make it (effectively) an animation done in the style of a video game, would it have changed your point of view? Zero Day was pretty much just a re-enactment based on the events, and videos the killers made. Was that movie a biography, or just a dumb reenactment?

Sure, but the game did nothing in terms of that. Frankly I think that's probbably an impossible task. What makes the game developer think he understands the motivations of the Columbine nuts? Maybe by some miracle he does.. but I got zero understanding of them from that game. But what makes people think that he is incapable of trying? There's a difference between saying the author didn't succeed, and pre-emptively dismissing him because he tried. What I get from a lot of detractors is that he shouldn't even have tried to understand the motivations, because to do so would somehow be trying to glorify them or insult the victims. Saying you didn't get the message after experiencing the story, *that* is a valid criticism.

Those are nice ideas, however none of them are addressed in the game. The game wasn't meant to address those ideas. What it was meant to address was the thought process and series of events behind the actions that led to those ideas.

Re:Fools.

[nahdude812]

And just like free speech grants these guys the right to make the game, free speech grants the festival organizers the right to reject the game from their festival. They're not saying the game can't be made, they're just saying that the find the subject matter so distasteful that they're not willing to support it (or at least of the financial supporters of the festival as to pressure the festival organizers in this way), even in such an open festival as this one.

Everyone has a line where they find something so distasteful that they won't endorse it even far enough to let someone else show it at an event sponsored by the former. A lot of art is exploring exactly where this line exists, and pushing it when it's discovered. If it was snuff films of people raping, torturing, and killing children (even if it was special effects but especially if not), I doubt many people would have much objection to the rejection of it. Of course this game is nowhere near that drastic, that example is merely used to demonstrate that such a line exists.

It turns out that the creators of this game managed to find a spot just on the far side of the line such that enough supporters of the festival were outraged to get it banned, but not so far as to make that the overwhelming majority opinion. I'd say that these guys probably accomplished exactly what they were after, at least in the sense of line probing (which is not to say that this was their only motivation, though I strongly suspect it's at least their primary one).

Re:Fools.

[Jabrwock]

Actually the author originally objected to being nominated. Unsure why, probably forsaw the media circus.

The criticism is that the festival first nominated him, persuaded him to change his mind because he'd created "an important work that needed to be acknowledged", and then bowed to sponsor pressure when they figured it would be a PR nightmare. The article mentions that several sponsors had threatened to withhold all funding unless SCMRPG was taken off the list.

So basically a supposedly independant film festival that honors works done by artists no large corporation would touch, were influenced by a large corporation to not touch a work...

Re:Fools.

[Mr. Slippery]

And just like free speech grants these guys the right to make the game, free speech grants the festival organizers the right to reject the game from their festival.

Except that's not quite what happened. They accepted the game, in fact encouraged the creators to enter it. It made it to the finals. It's only under pressure from sponsors and protestors that it was disqualifed.

Do sponsors have the right to pick and choose where they send their money? Yes. Does this raise important questions about how art is funded, recognized, and marketed in our society? Yes.

Re:Fools.

[Irish_Samurai]

And just like free speech grants these guys the right to make the game, free speech grants the festival organizers the right to reject the game from their festival.

Sure it does. But when you court the game to be entered, and then let it climb through the review process until the money threatens to walk out the door, which compels you to promptly kick it out - you can't claim free speech as your scapegoat for behaving that way.

Even the sponsors were well within their rights to pull their money - I never argued that they did anything wrong. But to say that Slamdance is interested in free speech when their behavior clearly shows self preservation is a larger goal than that aspect of their mission makes them suspect.

This one move will probably result in all future entries requiring sponsor approval. That will not only spell doom for the festival's legitimacy, but could eventually result in the full on demise of their existence as they will no longer fulfill the niche that they were supposed to.

Re:Fools.

[Vellmont]

If you remove the interactive elements, and make it (effectively) an animation done in the style of a video game, would it have changed your point of view?

No. It'd still be poorly done as an animation.

Zero Day was pretty much just a re-enactment based on the events, and videos the killers made. Was that movie a biography, or just a dumb reenactment?

I didn't see it, so I can't say anything about it.

What I get from a lot of detractors is that he shouldn't even have tried to understand the motivations, because to do so would somehow be trying to glorify them or insult the victims.

I don't believe that. I just don't think you can understand the motivations of these guys on any level deeper than "People made fun of them, now it's payback time". Sure you could try to make up stuff that's deeper than that, but who's to say if it's true or not?

I can pretty easily see how victims would (and probbably should) feel insulted by a game where the goal is to recreate the massacre. Personally I'd rather see a game that involves how the media hyped all this crap up, got everyone scared of everything, etc. That's a much more rich area to explore than two dumb kids who murdered innocent people.

What it was meant to address was the thought process and series of events behind the actions that led to those ideas.

If that's the intent, the game maker does a really bad job of it.

Re:Fools.

[Vellmont]

Slamdance is supposed to be a place for controversial media that is to hot for even Sundance, so being too hot for Slamdance is something of an honor.

I guess I don't understand why being "too hot" is an honor. Are people who write books denying the holocaust "too hot", and that's somehow an honor? (And no, I don't think this game is the moral equivalant writing a holocaust denial book, I just question the judgement of something being "too hot" automatically being honorous).

I question why it was ever included at all. The game doesn't have much if any artistic or social value.

Re:Fools.

[Fozzyuw]

Welcome to the downside of free speech. Deal with it. Seriously, if you don't like it - don't view it - but the opinion that you should be able to categorize and then subdue some content based on your fragile sensibilities is not only fascist, but downright ignorant. Free speech comes with the requirement that people can self regulate what they choose to consume.

Hmm... interesting thing about 'Free Speech' is that it's name is often misconstrued. Free speech often implies that you can say anything or do (in a creative context) anything you want, which is not true. You are not allowed to lie or make false statements verbally or on paper. That's slander and libel.

Wikipedia's Free Speech has an intersting introduction paragraph where they talk about where freedom of speech comes from and how it's implemented. To summarize, 'free speech' was a 'ideal' that was created long ago and adopted and modified by a variety of governments. Each governments laws are different on Free Speech but they're all based on the original ideal. Specifically, each society has different beliefs on what one can say when dealing with propaganda, hate speech, obscenity, and defamation laws.

The best metaphore I can think of is this... Free Speech is a lot like Cascading Style Sheets (CSS). You have the 'ideal' standard of what CSS should be, but none of the major web browsers support this idea, and instead only implement some or most of the standards. Each browser chooses to implement the standard independently of other browsers and therefor have inconsistent implementations of the standard. Some things work on some browsers, while others don't. So, even if you design a website following the CSS standard exactly, you might be disappointed to find that it might not work on everyone's browsers, and in some cases, even the smallest lack of support can cause huge problems in the rendering of your design.

While 'Free Speech' is an ideal, much like the CSS standard, it is not implemented the same in every country and some countries sorely lack support. (it would be fun to hear what people think what country is which browser, hehe) While it would be nice to just claim that you can say anything you want under free speech, that is just not true. You have to abide by the laws or your land or work to change them. When you go from your land to another land, you have to abide by their laws. You also have to make sure you freedom of speech does not violate someone else's freedom.

Now, regarding a Columbine game. I just read over a review from one of the Columbine students about the game. All I can say is simple, it appears freedom of speech is working just fine. After all, it's like you said...

Seriously, if you don't like it - don't view it

Which is exactly what the game festival did. The game festival (as an entity) decided they didn't want to view it any longer and stopped. It's not preventing anyone else from getting their hands on it and it's still available off their website, they just made a decision that it's not in their own best interest. It's not being censored because it's still available in the public domain. It's just no longer available through that private organization, which is the right of that organization.

Free speech comes with the requirement that people can self regulate what they choose to consume.

True, freedom of speech lets you say

Re:Fools.

[Irish_Samurai]

Overall I agree with your assessment of free speech and what has happened in this specific event. First let me clarify my position on this issue at hand. I do not feel that anyones free speech rights were violated, nor was any party out of line in exercising their freedoms.

I invoked the downside of free speech in response to the tone of the following statement made by the GP: "it is freedom of speech, it gives me the license to do whatever i want". I think people attacking the use of free speech as if it was a cop out by the creator of everything they don't like or find distasteful a misunderstanding of the concept.

Hmm... interesting thing about 'Free Speech' is that it's name is often misconstrued. Free speech often implies that you can say anything or do (in a creative context) anything you want, which is not true. You are not allowed to lie or make false statements verbally or on paper. That's slander and libel.

I don't disagree with your assesement at all, but I would like to state that these laws are not attacking or preventing free speech in any way. They are addressing specific issues with speech crafted for the purpose of causing significant harm. In no way is free speech as a concept being prevented, you can still say anything you want - but if you say a very specific thing for a very specific purpose you will be penalized for such behavior.

The use of free speech as a cover for purposely malicious acts should be penalized.

Which is exactly what the game festival did. The game festival (as an entity) decided they didn't want to view it any longer and stopped.

Yeah, but you can't court the game maker to enter the game, let it climb through the judging process, kick it out because of sponsor pressure, and then claim Free Speech as your reasoning or defense. Sure you can do it, I never argued that you couldn't. You have to take the good with the bad and allow everyone the same rules. My only claim against the festival is that they have no balls and now no street cred in my eyes. I only invoke the Free Speech discussion when someone states that things like this should never get made.

True, freedom of speech lets you say what you want, but it does not give you the right to say it anywhere you want, nor does it guarentee an audience. If I wrote a book, but a publisher won't publish it. Is my freedom of speech being violated?

We are in agreement.

I particularly find it ironic to see protesters storming a party and cutting off a presenter to force their speech upon others, and scream their right to free speech when they're interrupted. Apparently, it only applies to them since they didn't consider the fact they just forced the guy who was talking to stop. I guess his freedom of speech isn't as important as theirs.

I find this an ignorant and brutish way to invoke the idea of free speech. The idea is to let all ideas come out into the open and be based on their merit. Often the orators speaking skill may have an influence, but ideas are eventually weighed by their merit. To attempt to silence anyone is a sign of desperation. A well constructed counter argument that causes listeners to question the original point is much more effective and civil (most of the time).

Of course, I guess that's his right to free speech to have that opinion... or are you trying to subdue his opinion? ;)

I encourage him to voice his opinion. I will also not try to suppress his attempts at speaking his mind. I, however, am not compelled to accept those statements as educated, true, or valid. I also feel required to voice my opinion to the contrary if I feel strongly enough about it.

Ideas cannot harm you, its action that needs to be regulated. These just be words and imagery.

Re:Fools.

[MechaStreisand]

Why is it necessary for some idiot to invoke a conspiracy theory to explain some event that happens on average maybe once a year at most? A trend, you say? You might as well call serial killing a "trend", then. Or people being hit by runaway bus tires. Or people being stung to death by bees! There's no need for any bizarre explanation to explain something as incredibly, phenomenally rare as spree killings. Haven't you noticed that every single time there is one, everyone knows about it and talks about it for weeks? That can make it seem like there are lots of them, when in fact there are thousands of regular murders a year that don't get talked about by everyone in the entire country. Why not care about those instead?

Why is any explanation beyond "they are outcasts who wanted to kill" even necessary to explain something so rare?

What kind of reform would people call for? Banning all guns? Some kind of forced equality to make sure no one can feel bad or cast out? How is that going to work? In my opinion, the only kind of reform that is needed is to make sure people are sufficiently educated to understand just how statistically insignificant this sort of thing really is. If you want to save lives, how about focusing on regular, non-spree murders? On robberies? On rapes? On car accidents? You know, things that actually affect more than 20 people a year?

Re:Fools.

[FLEB]

You know... I hate to pick on the guy-- as from what I recall the whole Columbine RPG was really just a little project that ballooned out far beyond its intended effect-- but I guess I have to agree.

I found the first part of the game to be-- I suppose "insightful" or "inventive" is a good word for it. The go-at-your-own pace "exploratory" nature of telling the story seemed to work well, but once the "Massacre" kicked off, it just got tedious to the point that I put the game down. There was no plot advancement, and I wasn't getting anything at all from the grinding "run into... shoot... kill" cycle.

I'll give the idea points for what ground-breaking it did, but it's rather unfortunate that it ended up being such a dull shovel. Unfortunately, now anyone trying to take such an approach in the future has to deal with the fact that the genre's defining moment was, all in all, rather lousy.

Re:Fools.

[WiiVault]

In other news on /.: a game maker is making a game about nazis gas chambers: a simulator of people choking to death and a second game about kidnapping and raping people. When confronted on the controversy of it's games, the game maker said: "it is freedom of speech, it gives me the license to do whatever i want". Welcome to the downside of free speech. Deal with it. Seriously, if you don't like it - don't view it - but the opinion that you should be able to categorize and then subdue some content based on your fragile sensibilities is not only fascist, but downright ignorant. Free speech comes with the requirement that people can self regulate what they choose to consume. I think there are and should be sensible limits on everything. We arrest people who do immoral things like molesting children or killing people. Why should we not be able to assert that this is also wrong. These people are still alive, it is still very real to them and many others. There is a line- a game about shooting the (current) president in the head would seem a perfect example. I'm very free speech but causing distress to living-victims to make notoriety for ones self is sick and wrong and every facet of society should understand this.

Re:Fools.

[Irish_Samurai]

Sorry, emotional distress is not a quantifiable element.

Child molestation and killing are acts of force. Words are not. This turns into legislating taste, which is absolutely pointless and eventually breaks down into mob rule.

People may be hurt by words, sure - but other people would be able to shrug those same words off. The same is not true of molestation. Either you are inappropriately touching a child or you are not. Same with killing, either you DID kill them or you didn't.

If someone told me I was fat, I wouldn't care. If someone told an anorexic girl she was fat, they most certainly be affected by it. While this act is tasteless and quite rude, any harmful results from it all start with the anorexic. If she decides to take actions that are harmful to her, that is ultimately her responsibility. If someone's feelings get hurt, it is ultimately their responsibility to cope with it.

Now, calling out someone who called the anorexic fat would also be fair game. Feel free to reprimand them all to hell, but to actually try to muzzle them is an act far more repulsive than the words spoken.

Ultimately, responding to words, ideas, and imagery that have no corresponding action behind them with force of any kind is the action of an insecure entity. There is no sensible form of censorship as sensible is subjective. The best solution is to self regulate.

Re:Fools.

[dr.jackal.mr.hydra]

good point. it is difficult enough to engage complex social issues in reality in the current climate of needless polarity, much less in a less-than-discursive format as a FPS, however, the discussion outght not to be predicated on whether or not the game deals with social issues. The issue at hand is whether or not an "indie-type" competition should back down from its corporate sponsors based on projected complaints from angry suburban housewives with so little to occupy themselves that they protest anything that offends their self-manufactured sense of self-righteousness. It's not about whether a game is offensive, it's about whether or not the contest organizers ought to have said "so we decided to make a game about "something people latch onto about to satisfy their sense of self worth because they are unable to find a real cause to get all angsty about and then our sponsors backed out because we picked something too hot for us to touch" this makes the organizers villians in some degree because they either should have A--not picked the game because they knew it would ruffle too many feathers or B--publicized the fact that people can't deal with a little mockery thrown towards their favorite sacred cow. I may just program a flight simulator that offers downtown new york as the only available scenario, just so i too can generate this much moronic publicity over what ought to have been a non-competitor, and a non-issue. having not played the game, i cannot say that it doesn't examine the dynamics of school bullying and the sheer torment that can be poured upon the less popular, but i'm pretty sure it doesn't reproduce the effects of maladjustment at the hands of ones peers.

Re:Fools.

[WilliamSChips]

I do recall people having fun with an JFK shooting re-enactment game. And considering the reports from the people who have actually played this Columbine game, this sets it apart from the Columbine game.

Re:Fools.

[ClamIAm]

I think there are and should be sensible limits on everything. We arrest people who do immoral things like molesting children or killing people. Why should we not be able to assert that this is also wrong.

You can assert anything you want, the hard part is having a solid argument to back up your assertion. That said, your comparison here is horribly flawed. You are comparing violent acts that directly harm human beings with a video game that was designed to force people to think about serious issues.

Also, the fact that you use such emotionally-charged crimes in your comparison sickens me. Appealing to emotion is never a valid argument.

Re:Fools.

[ClamIAm]

Have you played the game? I have, and let me tell you something - it has zero entertainment value. It's entertainment level is just enough to keep you progressing through it.

I've also played the game, and I'd argue that the "entertainment" value, in the "traditional" game sense, is actually negative. Normally, we keep playing because we enjoy something: the game mechanics, the story, the art, or perhaps it is relaxing. In this game, enjoyment of these things is overshadowed by the horrible event it recreates, and the issues it forces you to think about. So if you're looking to have fun, you've picked up the wrong joystick.

Personally, I cannot say exactly why I continued playing; the best I can come up with is similar to the feeling that compels me to continue reading, for example, a challenging essay or watching a disturbing movie.

Re:Fools.

[KDR_11k]

In other news on /.: a game maker is making a game about nazis gas chambers: a simulator of people choking to death and a second game about kidnapping and raping people.

Welcome to Germany and Japan, respectively. Both games have been made and while the first one only enjoys popularity among neo-nazis, the latter is what passes for interactive porn in Japan (and it forms an entire genre there).

Re:Fools.

[LKM]

Why is any explanation beyond "they are outcasts who wanted to kill" even necessary to explain something so rare?

I think you just answered your own question: Because there are people who think that the only explanation necessary is "they are outcasts who wanted to kill."

Re:Fools.

[MechaStreisand]

Why should we care WHY a tiny, insignificant minority of people decide to kill in a manner that happens to fascinate us, but doesn't make an impact at all compared to all the other ways people are killed? The only important thing is that we kill them, or better yet, capture them alive so that we can make them pray for death that does not come. Why give them any thought beyond that?

Re:Fools.

[LKM]

Yes, only a tiny number of people end up killing others. That doens't mean that there aren't many in similar positions, having similar feelings. Most probably end up hurting or killing "only" themselves, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't do something about it. You seem to think that there is no problem, and that there are some insane fucks who just want to kill others, and that we can't do anything about it. None of these three things are true.

Or maybe you're just trolling.

Re:Fools.

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's see. These guys felt an intense animosity to the people at the school - teachers and students alike. Can you think of any reason for that? Believe it or not, people don't go on murder sprees without some kind of reason. Now either these two shooters were conspiracy theorists, thinking that the school had done something they hadn't, or something did happen and they retaliated wildly. Harris and Klebold were not conspiracy theorists.

Were they psychotic? Yes. By all accounts their parents were largely absent from their home lives, and they were bullied at school. If you don't have a home life and your school life sucks, then by definition your entire life sucks. I'm not trying to justify murder here, I'm just trying to say there's a fairly obvious connection. These two kids were ostracized and bullied by their peers; and by all accounts the staff did nothing to protect them or prevent this; most likely they were afraid of these boys. Might as well be; they've immersed themselves in a culture of challenges to authority.

And then they graduate. Suddenly they don't have anywhere to go, no plans, and nobody to make plans with. Moreover, there is no overwhelming authority to challenge. These two people were entirely alone in the world, obsessed with a purpose that was no longer of any use to them. I'd go a little nuts myself - hell, stuck in that sort of situation I would seriously consider suicide.

The Columbine massacre is very much like the World Trade Center attacks. In both cases, the world banded together to comfort those who had lost loved ones. We rallied together against the attackers. We really should have been turning to the people who were in authority and asking, very loudly, "How could you let this happen?"

Re:Fools.

[Eideewt]

"I think there are and should be sensible limits on everything."

I agree. I think there should be sensible limits on how much a person or group of persons is able to limit the freedom of others. Keep your controlling fantasies to yourself

Re:Fools.

[kfg]

Basically, these events are an inevitable result of certain situations . . .

Colloquially refered to as "Too Many Rats in the Cage."

That and the fact that the modern American High School is going to be viewed historically as one of the greatest cases of institutionalized abuse; ever, whose only real function is to try to mold you into a good paramilitary worker bee.

Some of us persist in being mammals, of the larger more predatory variety at that, not bees.

No, I am not speaking out of some personal grudge coming from my own unpleasant High School experience. I did not attend. I have, however, been affected, having watched what it does to friends and loved ones; which ultimately includes all of humanity.

Plus I have to deal with y'all at the Post Office.

Slamdance is supposed to be a place for controversial media that is to hot for even Sundance, so being too hot for Slamdance is something of an honor.

One could, in fact, think of it as the highest award they have to give.

KFG

KFG

Re:Fools.

[feidaykin]

That and the fact that the modern American High School is going to be viewed historically as one of the greatest cases of institutionalized abuse; ever, whose only real function is to try to mold you into a good paramilitary worker bee.

In 1997, in High School, I said almost the exact same thing to a friend of mine. I was talking about how future historians will look upon us as having gone through something so stressful, strenuous, and anti-educational, that they will wonder how any of us survived with our sanity intact. I said it because it was something I had started thinking on the way home from school on the bus I rode. I started thinking why, why am I so fucking miserable here, and how can I make it better, and I came to the answer that I cannot because I'm not happy with the System, and unless the entire System is changed, my disposition will not change. This friend of mine was a bright kid, as smart as me if not more so (He did get better grades, but we know how that goes) but when I told him this, he simply rolled his eyes and said, "Who cares."

Obviously I cared, but I felt disappointed that someone I considered a friend wouldn't see things my way and instead simply dismiss my point of view, mainly, I assume, because the System "worked" for him, he was being a worker bee, and if you do that and do it the way they want you to without thinking too much, High School can be a paradise.

I remember one time in an English class, a teacher asked me, "Why don't you do your homework? You did the summer reading assignments." And I remained silent, like worker bees are supposed to, but what I really wanted to say was "I read the books because they were good. A Separate Peace was a very good book, I enjoyed it. I don't do homework because it's an absolute waste of my time, hinders my actual education, and honestly, threatens my sanity."

Had I said that, I would have likely been labeled a threat to the school, especially had it been my senior year which was right after the Columbine event. By the way, in an art project my senior year, I wrote something like "I do what the voices in my head tell me to" on the project. A teacher called me aside to talk about the project and for a moment I beamed thinking, wow, someone understand the point I'm trying to make with this thing, that's amazing, I thought only I would get it, and it turns out... she was trying to confirm if I really hear voices or not, because in this post-Columbine world, you can't be too careful. I was stunned. Here I am being asked if I hear voices in my head because of an art project, something that I thought was supposed to be a CREATIVE outlet! This time I didn't take the worker bee response. I stared at this teacher, and said "Yes. I hear voices in my head." I did so with only a hint of a smile. I got no reaction from her, and nothing ever happened to me afterward, so I think she understood that I wasn't serious, but for a while, I honestly expected that I'd be called in to the guidance counselor's office.

Looking back on High School, I can see how torn I was... I wanted to learn, desperately, I loved learning, I hungered for knowledge. At the same time, I wanted to be left the hell alone and do things at my own pace, not be forced to mind-numbing busywork at the speed of the lowest common denominator. It has been over 6 years since I finished High School, and even though I did a year of college courses (I only stopped because of a huge financial crisis), I still have nightmares about high school. I often wake up to dreams where everything feels like it was yesterday. This tells me the system was so wrong for me that I don't think I'll ever really recover from it. Granted, I'll admit I'm a 1/1000 case probably, since while most kids hate school, I don't think most really know why, and as the say, ignorance is bliss...

Re:Fools.

[lazyl]

Why should we care WHY a tiny, insignificant minority of people decide to kill in a manner that happens to fascinate us, but doesn't make an impact at all compared to all the other ways people are killed?
It may be rare now, but if you don't understand why it happened then you have no basis to predict that it will be rare in the future. You're just guessing. The conditions in society that promote that type of behavior might be increasing but you wouldn't know that because you didn't bother to figure out what they are.

I say "good"

[bilbravo]

The article didn't give much of an overview of the game (as stated that they did not get a chance to get the storyline), but I'd say "good" from what I speculate the game is about. I'd imagine it's about being the killers, and that is just sick. Everyone hates that video games are "the cause of violence", per certain lawmakers--but this type of game just fuels that fire.

In a very sensitive area of school-related violence, Columbine is one of the biggest--and also happens to have a violent video game associated with it--DOOM.

I'm not against violent video games, I happen to enjoy quite a few myself. But the idea of an RPG where the player is becoming one of these 2 kids is sickening. It's not "too soon", it will never be time for a game like this. I guess it's a double standard to say that reliving WW2 in so many FPS games is the same idea, but to me being a kid going through a school killing your peers is something nobody should WANT to do...

Re:I say "good"

[mdozturk]

I agree it is tasteless, but this kind of thinking is what causes things to eventually be banned. It is never OK to ban creativity because you think that it is "just sick".

I wonder how long it is going to take Clinton to come out and say something about this game?

Re:I say "good"

[Anonymous Coward]

Except you're dead wrong.

The title of the game is somewhat tongue in cheek. Google it, you'll find it actually has somewhat significant literary/artistic merit...

Re:I say "good"

[bilbravo]

I agree, censorship is a touchy area--but nobody banned the game, they just removed it from their competition. It's a slippery slope to say that removing games from a competition is going to lead to them getting banned... but maybe you are correct. Maybe they shouldn't have bowed to the pressure, but I can understand it. Peer pressure is a big deal, don't you remember high school? :-) Just kidding...

Re:I say "good"

[psiclops]

but if i were feeling the frustrations of school life, wouldn't you rather i vented via a game, instead taking my frustrations out on fellow classmates?

Re:I say "good"

[bilbravo]

Actually, I'd prefer you get therapy. I was a geek in high school, and picked on a lot. Some nights I would cry myself to sleep over it (yes, I'm man enough to admit that). However, I never dreamed and/or fantasized about killing my classmates though. Maybe tripping them in the hallway, but not mass-murder!

Re:I say "good"

[projektsilence]

But it's cool to play as the Nazi's in some of those WWII FPS games? Or it's ok to play GTA and kill cops and hookers? Most people don't object loudly to these games because we're relatively desensitized to this type of violence, but when it hits so close to home, something we all read about or saw on the television, then the games is WRONG! I don't know what the game is about so I can't say whether or not it's a game that should be condemned like this. I think it is impressive that someone is pushing an envelope of this nature with the government in the position it's in. How many other people would have the balls to do something like this? I can only imagine the sort of email they get about this game. We do still live in a free country, right?

Re:I say "good"

[mdozturk]

Sadly Columbine is a taboo subject in our society. Banning something should really be whats taboo. We need to shame this contest not for allowing a game like this but for NOT allowing it.

Re:I say "good"

[Anonymous Coward]

You have no idea what the game is about, but you're glad that it has been censored. That's a nice informed decision you're making there. I hope you don't make all of your decisions based on speculation.

but to me being a kid going through a school killing your peers is something nobody should WANT to do... Why did you post it if you realized that it was a double standard? So what you're saying is that you WANT to kill Germans in all of those WW2 FPS games? Why stop there? Why would anyone WANT to kill aliens, or demons, or robots? Did you think Postal was sick when it came out? It is based on sensitive events that occurred.

The "sensitive area" justification is often abused by people who are trying to limit free speech. How many times do we hear "Think of the children!" as justification for EVERYTHING?

Well, you find this game offensive and so you're happy it was removed from the festival.. Well, Jack Thompson finds many games offensive.. if we listened to him all the time, we wouldn't have some of the most popular games out there. The fact that they are so popular should tell you that there are large numbers of people who do not believe the same things you believe.

Re:I say "good"

[psiclops]

yeah but not everyone's you. and few are going to go out and get therapy.

Re:I say "good"

[Atheose]

Those hookers deserved it... bitches need to give daddy his money on time.

Re:I say "good"

[steveo777]

I think the game is wrong. Something like this should never be produced. Never. But you're right that stifling creativity is generally wrong. Usually, people will do that with their $'s. But often times it doesn't work. Often times you get your Tim Robbins and your Susan Sarandons and other relatively mindless do-gooder's trying to save the world promoting crap and the mindless drones that follow them are perfectly happy to accept this too. I only mention Tim and Susan because they scare the shit out of me when they appear together, like Lord Vader (Sarandon) with the Emperor(Robbins) silently standing behind watching. If they ever got elected to office.... woah...

Re:I say "good"

[El Torico]

yeah but not everyone's you. and few are going to go out and get therapy.

Especially since guns are cheaper.

Re:I say "good"

[irc.goatse.cx troll]

Pretty sure it was.

You don't need any sort of "freedom of speech" to agree with the general consensus-- Nobody is ever going to stop you from parroting their views and agreeing with everyone. Hell, at worst you'll just end up being elected to an office.

Now, if you want to actually go against the grain and vocalize something controversial that most people wouldn't agree with or find acceptable, THAT is when you need freedom of speech protecting you.

As for this game specificially, I don't know enough about it to say anything. If it really puts you in the kids mindset by telling the story and really putting you in the experience it could be a great thing to help people understand something few can.
Or maybe it will be a really bad game hidden under the veil of some columbine references. Too early to tell. Think of it like this: Theres a world of difference between what most would consider child porn and Taxi Driver, but "a movie about a 12 year old prostitute" could cover them both and if you immediately discard it based on it being a touchy subject, you'll never know.

Re:I say "good"

[cHALiTO]

I wonder if someone did something similar but relating 9/11. Like going all the way from joining al-quaeda to the final sequence with a flight sim over manhattan.
And I don't mean a simple flash thingy, I mean something serious like this 'game'. What do you think would happen?
(or maybe it already exists and I haven't seen it?)

Re:I say "good"

[bigbigbison]

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but yours is by your own admission an uninformed opinion. You haven't played the game and you say that the article didn't give a very good overview of it and yet you can feel justified in opposing it?

This reminds me of the people who protested against Kevin Smith's film Dogma before it was even screened. I'm not comparing Dogma to this game, but in both cases people were against it without even knowing the details about it. Jack Thompson the anti-videogame lawyer filed a public nusance complaint against the game Bully and denounced it to anyone who would listen that the game was glorifying bullying and he hadn't played it either. There is certainly a big difference between saying that the game is bad and lobying for it to be outlawed, but the both situations start with an uninformed opinion.

Re:I say "good"

[kalirion]

I think this would be more similar to a GTA mod/clone where you are a specific real-life serial killer, and your victims are the real-life cops and hookers killed by that guy.

Re:I say "good"

[Jabrwock]

I wonder if someone did something similar but relating 9/11.

The commission that made the 9/11 report authorized a comic-book version, because the visual medium made some discussion of timelines and events easier to follow...

There is also a "game" where your job is to try to escape from the Towers after the attack. Some missions you "win" by escaping, others you are forced to either perish in flames, or jump. The idea was to illustrate what people had to go through on that day.

Re:I say "good"

[cHALiTO]

Yeah, well, the idea was to 'play' it from the terrorists perspective.

Re:I say "good"

[Jabrwock]

How do you understand the terrorists' perspective if you don't see it through their eyes?

Why is it acceptable to roleplay the bad guy/opposition as a training tool, but not when done through this kind of medium? Is it just the medium that causing all the grief?

Re:I say "good"

[meringuoid]

I guess it's a double standard to say that reliving WW2 in so many FPS games is the same idea, but to me being a kid going through a school killing your peers is something nobody should WANT to do...

So who should want to go to war?

At least the Columbine shooters were killing people they personally hated. I think there's something far sicker about going about killing people you have no personal quarrel with, on the orders of politicians thousands of miles away...

Re:I say "good"

[Aladrin]

From the game's site:

DESCRIPTION: This game delves into the morning of April 20th, 1999 and asks players to relive that day through the eyes of Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, those responsible for the deadliest school shooting in American history. Preview pictures can be found below.

Yeah, you get to play 'the killers'. They feed you a lot of crap about them being instrumental in opening the eyes of the world, but it's just sick.

Re:I say "good"

[jythie]

That, and therapy with teenagers can backfire really badly, esp when the therapists feel they are working for the parents or the school's interests rather then the troubled teen.

I knew quite a few people who DID get therapy for things that were happening to them. About half came out of the experience worse and will never go to a psych again. Some won't even go see doctors anymore.

Re:I say "good"

[Jabrwock]

Yeah, you get to play 'the killers'. They feed you a lot of crap about them being instrumental in opening the eyes of the world, but it's just sick. How is any movie/book that does the same (tell a story through the eyes of the 'bad guys' in order to show you a different perspective) any different?

Edgar Allan Poe wrote part of The Cask of Amontillado as told through the eyes of the murderer Montresor. Is it ok to do so because Montresor was a fictional character? If SCMRPG had changed a few names, would it have been ok?

Re:I say "good"

[cHALiTO]

Precisely.

I have a hard time trying to believe the stereotype of the bloodthirsty religious lunatic that runs up to massacre people just out of pure evil and blind, senseless hate.
I'm not saying they're justified in any way, but it's hard to see just HOW different their line of thought can be from ours, and what the complete path (ie, from the basic education and environment, to the conclusion in 9/11) of these people's lives has been. I've certainly not seen any such analysis in any serious or objective way, and maybe it'd be really interesting to understand more profoundly how a human being goes to these ends.

(I know it's just fiction and not really any serious investigation on the subject, but I really liked how they did something like this on BSG when the people on new caprica start organizing the 'resistance')

Re:I say "good"

[Mr. Slippery]

Actually, I'd prefer you get therapy.

Maybe not, since the most popular therapy these days is "drug them until they shut up". Eric Harris was taking the SSRI anti-depressant drug Luvox, and it's argued by some that this was a contributing factor in the killings.

I was a geek in high school, and picked on a lot. Some nights I would cry myself to sleep over it (yes, I'm man enough to admit that).

High school wasn't as bad for me, largely because I managed to transfer to a different school, outside my neighborhood. But I also was a target for bullies as a kid, and spend a lot of time depressed and tearful. I got into a lot of fights and had a lot of anger; I was never in the place where Harris and Klebold ended up, but I could see it from where I was.

But life gets better. Please, anyone out there going through this now, hear me and believe me. You are not alone, and things will get better.

Re:I say "good"

[Aladrin]

Because I've been raised in society, where killing children is considered infinitely worse than killing adults. That's what I was raised to believe, and old beliefs die hard.

I don't particularly care for stories about murder and crime. Most of the stories I read have crime in them, sure, but the focus is not the crime. Having a story meant to explore the crime itself does not entice me at all. Having a story about killing children, to me, is just sick.

This is why I don't watch shows like CSI. Every single commercial I've ever seen for that show is about how someone murdered a mother and kids, or raped a little girl, or... Ugh. There are other shows like Bones and House that have some of these issues in them, but they don't dwell on them. They might be mentioned in a 5-minute stretch or something, but they aren't dwelt upon for the entire episode. No, I've never watched CSI, and maybe it isn't as bad as I think. But they shouldn't make the commercial like that if that's now what the show is like.

So no, to me, it is NOT okay because Montresor is fictional, and no, it would not be okay if they changed the name of SCMRPG and the people in it.

I don't have any problem with Columbine being remembered as a particularly horrid day in American history, and something that needs to be learned from. I have a problem with making a GAME out of it and letting people enjoy the experience of murdering a bunch of highschoolers. I even have a problem with making a movie out of it if it trivializes the murder and tries to paint the murderers as poor, misguided kids. There's no excuse.

Re:I say "good"

[Kelbear]

"but to me being a kid going through a school killing your peers is something nobody should WANT to do..."

But apparently, there ARE people that want to.

I don't think the proper response is to ignore the pink elephant in the room asking "Why?"

Work some google-fu, find out how the "game" is actually treating the subject and you might find that your unfounded guesses about the material might be wrong. But you don't have to, because ignorance is bliss.

Re:I say "good"

[Jabrwock]

At least you're consistent, I can respect that. Most detractors would have allowed a movie about the same subject, done in the same way, but because it's a "game", they feel it's inherently wrong.

Re:I say "good"

[Irish_Samurai]

You know what, you are allowed to have problems with this game being made. You also seem to self regulate the media you ingest - good for you. That's how it is supposed to work. At no point did I hear you mention that you think this sort of thing should be stopped or prevented. I won't make you play this game or watch those shows.

I applaud you as a responsible social citizen who realizes they are responsible for their own actions and are allowed to have opinions.

Now, begin to take a suppressive action and we may have problems...

Re:I say "good"

[KDR_11k]

I think it's because of the us vs. them mentality. Some people do believe in a Hollywood-esque division between good and evil and that of course they are on the good side. They fail to differentiate between factions opposing them (some would think the Axis of Evil is really some form of alliance working together against America) and they fail to analyze their opponent's motivations (or believe reasons as stupid as "they hate our freedoms"). This shows even in politics where it's always us vs. the liberals. No matter what political faction the speaker actually represents, anyone else is a "liberal" and of course everyone else has the same political view and believes in every (often mutually exclusive) belief the speaker attributes to liberals.

Re:I say "good"

[Eideewt]

I'm pretty sure freedom of speech was intended to stop dickheads like you from attempting to sanitize public discourse so much that it has no meaning. Shooting children in a game strikes me as a *very good* way to think about doing it in real life. And that is exactly what we all need to do if we want any kind of insight into people who would actually perpetrate a massacre. Maybe you have no curiosity about things that discomfit you, but other people have a drive to understand the world around them.

Re:I say "good"

[uufnord]

to me being a kid going through a school killing your peers is something nobody should WANT to do...

We obviously went to 2 very different high schools.

artists statement

[rednuhter]

artists statement
http://www.columbinegame.com/statement.htm

excert

  Somewhere between April 20th, 1999 and September 11th, 2001, America entered into a new, terrifying, and desperate era. Citizens can no longer afford to believe the necessary illusions of modern society. In an age when hastily-formed scapegoats and false dichotomies of "good" and "evil" run rampant, SCMRPG dares us into a realm of grey morality with nuanced perspectives of suffering, vengeance, horror, and reflection. In the words of Harris' friend Brooks Brown, there are "no easy answers" to such a socially indicting tragedy. As humanity teeters precariously on the threshold of collapse--politically, ideologically, and environmentally, the days of comatose media coverage and a subservient populace cannot remain. Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, through their furious words and malevolent actions, can be understood as the canaries in the mine--foretelling of an "apocalypse soon" for those remaining to ponder their deeds. With 'Super Columbine Massacre RPG!,' I present to you one of the darkest days in modern history and ask, "Are we willing to look in the mirror?"

Re:artists statement

[brouski]

This subject has been discussed ad nauseum on /., but every time I read that page I gain more and more contempt for this "developer", and I hope that one day he seeks psychological help for his issues.

Re:artists statement

[Irish_Samurai]

What issues would those be?

The content on that page doesn't point to any classifiable mental illness. Maybe you would just like him to go to reeducation camp so he will only touch on things that you agree with.

Re:artists statement

[Anonymous Coward]

So your answer is "no, I am not willing to look in the mirror."

No problem with that, but at least be honest about it.

Re:artists statement

[brouski]

The statement attempts to rationalize Klebold's and Harris' actions, absolve them of much blame, and even portray them as the brave heroes of the story. Fuck that, and fuck him. He should have crawled in a hole and just listened to more Linkin Park.

Re:artists statement

[Irish_Samurai]

He never attempts to rationalize their actions. He never attempts to absolve them of blame either. They are never portrayed as heroes. He does state on that page that we should look at some surrounding factors to see what motivates people to behave in such a drastic manner.

You need a reading comprehension course.

Re:artists statement

[mollymoo]

Implicit in your opinion is the idea that what you do to somebody can't affect the way they behave. The evidence does not support that position. Most notably (though perhaps not most relevant to this case), if you regularly beat a child the chances of them becoming a violent adult are dramatically increased. If you tell people they are worthless frequently enough they will come to believe you; being worthless means you have nothing to lose. The society we live in (I'm not American, but British society isn't that far behind) is creating these people. We have to ask ourselves why. We have to take some respionsibility for creating these killers or more and more will be created. Practically every metric (depression rates, traffic violation rates, divorce rates...) shows that the population as a whole is becoming less happy, less respectful and more angry. If you push the whole curve, those already at the edge of the curve will be pushed over the edge into violence.

Would Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold have been unpopular, antisocial and unhappy wherever they grew up? Probably. Would they have gone so far as to harm others, had they grown up in a more caring, respectful and just society; one in which they were taught 'how to be good' not with words, but by example? I very much doubt it.

Market Pressure == Censorship?

[andphi]

FTA: Ledonne said that he bears no ill will toward the festival, but that the decision to pull the game does raise concerns about freedom of speech . . .

I'm confused. How is the decision by non-governmental entities that something is undeserving of their support or attention a threat to freedom speech?

The game developer did his talking when he made the game. If Congress was directly shutting him down, that would be a problem. Other people deciding that his game is in poor taste or too soon or just plain wrong, and taking their money with them when they leave, is perfectly normal and legal. There is no constitutional right to be heard, only to speak freely. The intended audience can blow the speaker off at will.

Re:Market Pressure == Censorship?

[RingDev]

There is no constitutional right to be heard, only to speak freely.

Even that is debatable. The original text of the constitution was that "Congress shale make no law..."

That doesn't mean you have some inalienable right to run your sock. It means that the government has no right to shut you up. Society as a whole on the other hand, can largely do as the like to promote or bury your words. 200 years of case law have altered the exact interpretation of that line, and I am not a case law expert, but I agree with your general statement that the game getting dropped from a private sector competition is not a constitutional issue.

-Rick

Re:Market Pressure == Censorship?

[Anonymous Coward]

Freedom of speech is threatened by attitudes of the public. Censorship doesn't have to come from the government. Censorship can come from a society who stops believing in freedom of speech and pressures media and commercial outlets into censorship.

The government can either fight it, by educating the public on why freedom of speech is important, or they can condone it- as out government does, which creates a feedback loop that amplifies the societies intolerance for it.

Freedom of Speech needs to be treated like a minority. If someone gets pressured to censor something simply because its content is not politically correct, then it needs to be the same as discriminating based on color or race. If the government doesn't assign such value to ensuring our freedom, they should drop the pretense of a free country and take such nonsense out of the constitution.

Re:Market Pressure == Censorship?

[irc.goatse.cx troll]

I agree fully and hate censorship being thrown around like that, but it does show what the general population's consensus is, and all these people get to vote.

Re:Market Pressure == Censorship?

[Jabrwock]

I disagree that it's censorship in the legal sense. But market pressure can cause "chilling effects", and it's disappointing when the market refuses to support indie artists just because they're afraid of complaints from the mob, most of whom don't even know what the game is trying to do.

Did any of these sponsors equally threaten Sundance financially when it aired/nominated Elephant or Zero Day?

Re:Market Pressure == Censorship?

[Jabrwock]

but it does show what the general population's consensus is, and all these people get to vote.

But did they? They never even got a chance to vote, because it got pulled from the ballot, essentially by PR departments. Isn't that short-circuiting the voting system, by allowing corporate interests to decide what candidates even get to be heard in the first place? I know it sounds hokey, but it's something to consider. If the population truly rejected the nomination, then it should have gotten to the vote, and lost miserably (granted it would have been judged by judges, not the masses, but still, should every Sundance submission be subject to popularity votes with the general public, or rather judged on artistic merit?)

Re:Market Pressure == Censorship?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm confused. How is the decision by non-governmental entities that something is undeserving of their support or attention a threat to freedom speech?

Because the festival, where strange / challenging / non-mainstream titles are supposed to find voice, had to cut the title due to financial pressures from sponsors. Essentially, they were forced to either cancel the game's entry, or cancel the festival due to sponsorship withdrawl. That means that corporate interests get to decide what is shown to the public. Frequently this is the case anyway, but this is exactly the sort of situation an independent festival is supposed to prevent.

Threats to free speech don't just come from governmental organizations.

Re:Market Pressure == Censorship?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're confusing the first amendment, the right of free speech, the constituion, with the CONCEPT of freedom of speech.

The developer isn't concerned about the governament at all with his statements.

Freedom of speech is a good idea despite if it's written in a hundreds year old piece of paper or not.

Re:Market Pressure == Censorship?

[Irish_Samurai]

I have to agree with the sentiment that this is not government affecting free speech.

My problem with this whole thing is that corporations and private interests have the ability to decide what speech is made widely available due to their economic influence. Everybody here was playing by the rules, so I'm not crying foul there.

But Slamdance courted columbin for this game to be entered. Not the other way around. Then, when the money was about to walk - Slamdance not only kicked the game out, but comprimised their own stance.

Either have the balls to stand for your convictions or don't state them at all. The whole festival is now suspect moving forward. Did all the entries this year get sponsor approval before evaluation? If so, how can I take you seriously if sponsor approval is now part of the criteria. Sponsors are usually non human corporate entities with profit as thier motivation.

Re:Market Pressure == Censorship?

[Aim Here]

"How is the decision by non-governmental entities that something is undeserving of their support or attention a threat to freedom speech?"

When the non-governmental entities have the power to prevent your voice being heard, and do so because of the content of what you say, isn't that another form of censorship? When the tiny few who control, say, the Television stations decide that your TV documentary should not be aired because the views expressed in it are too dangerous for the public, aren't you being censored? Sure, you can start up your own TV station, if you happen to be a multi-millionaire. Otherwise you can show your documentary to 3 people and a dog at selected film festivals. Does 'freedom of speech' mean freedom of speech for multi-millionaires? Or does it mean you can say what you want using ineffective means of communication?

And this particular case is more subtle still. What if the broadcasters were happy with your documentary being shown, but the advertisers forced them, reluctantly, to cancel your show. There is an example of something like this happening to documentary filmmakers in the movie 'The Corporation', where Monsanto successfully bowdlerised a Fox documentary on Bovine Growth Hormone.

Is it right and proper that a handful of people or corporations can use their money and lawyers to influence the public discourse in a 'democratic' country, out of all proportion to their numbers? Even if they have the numbers, should a large number of people be allowed to pressure a dissident few into silence, using non-governmental pressure? Do only the rich and (maybe) the many have the right to be heard?

Maybe governments passing laws to silence you isn't the only way you can be silenced - in fact, it's probably quite ineffective, given the costs of policing and the uproar that it generates. Far more effective, perhaps, for a system where the people in charge have vast PR and advertising budgets using the most effective communications machinery going, while the dissidents hand out badly photocopied leaflets in fenced-off 'freedom of speech zones' on street corners.

Maybe that's the 'freedom of speech' issue that this guy was talking about...

Re:Market Pressure == Censorship?

[patternjuggler]

FTA: Ledonne said that he bears no ill will toward the festival, but that the decision to pull the game does raise concerns about freedom of speech . . .

I'm confused. How is the decision by non-governmental entities that something is undeserving of their support or attention a threat to freedom speech?

The game developer did his talking when he made the game. If Congress was directly shutting him down, that would be a problem. Other people deciding that his game is in poor taste or too soon or just plain wrong, and taking their money with them when they leave, is perfectly normal and legal. There is no constitutional right to be heard, only to speak freely. The intended audience can blow the speaker off at will.

It's not about free speech in the legal context of the constitution or government, but this particular festival and the reputation it wants to have. If the game festival wants to run all it's game choices past the opinion of the mob it can do so, while at the same time those who would prefer a more free and independent festival should criticize lapses in their judgement in the hope that they will not be so cowardly in the future or else: the threat not being that the supreme court will say they violated the Freedom of Speech but that we will not pay attention to the festival and game developers will not submit their games or accept awards in protest.

Balancing the thin line

[Ozzeh]

I think this game was rightfully taken out of the competition, it's just taking it a step too far. I'm a big supporter of freedom of speech, but people tend to abuse the term to justify about everything. What if I wanted to make a Hitler RPG, would that be freedom of speech?

Re:Balancing the thin line

[CheechWizz]

Yes.
If freedom of speech was easy, they'd use it everywhere.

Re:Balancing the thin line

[mdozturk]

What if I wanted to make a Hitler RPG, would that be freedom of speech?

Yes. There are tons of content (movies, songs, etc) that feature Hitler. Some even don't portray him as a monster

Re:Balancing the thin line

[mwvdlee]

Depends.

The Columbine game did not glorify the violence that occured there, instead it does the opposite.

Would your Hitler RPG glorify him? Besides, isn't any WWII game in a way about Hitler too?

One question that the Columbine game raises is whether games can only have value as entertainment or whether it can be an art-form, able of dealing with non-entertaining subject matter. You seem to be thinking the former.

Re:Balancing the thin line

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes.

Re:Balancing the thin line

[Anonymous Coward]

What if I wanted to make a Hitler RPG, would that be freedom of speech?

Yes, any other questions?

Re:Balancing the thin line

[cowscows]

There's no real freedom of speech argument to be made here, because no one has stopped these guys from making the game, no law was passed to restrict or bury it, and no one has been arrested for being involved. The developers have been able to make their statement, and another group of individuals has decided that they don't want to help the developers spread that statement. Your freedom of speech does not require that I, or anyone else, or even the government help you spread your message. Only that the government cannot stop you from expressing that message yourself (with a few sensible exceptions).

Re:Balancing the thin line

[Anonymous Coward]

"What if I wanted to make a Hitler RPG, would that be freedom of speech?"

Look it up kid, I think you'll be surprised to find people have freedom to do many things here in America that you might find disgusting/repulsive/evil/etc....

Re:Balancing the thin line

[Joe U]

I figured I would take the time to correct your statement.

The developers have been able to make their statement, and another group of individuals has decided that they don't want to help the developers spread that statement by threatening a third party financially to stop the game creators.

Putting it simply:

I don't like what you're doing.
I can't take action against you because I have no direct involvement with you.
I am, however, involved with someone who also is involved with you.
I pressure that third party to stop supporting you or I'll ruin the third party.

Now, lets come up with a hypothetical scenario:

I'm Intel, I don't like AMD.
I can't take action directly against AMD.
I can pressure Dell, by telling them Pentium chips will now cost twice their normal price if they continue using AMD.
Dell drops AMD.

Granted, it's not quite the same, but the point is made.

Back to the original case, there is a freedom of speech issue here, but it's not a first amendment issue. As you correctly pointed out, this doesn't involve the government.

Re:Balancing the thin line

[Irish_Samurai]

I think this game was rightfully taken out of the competition, it's just taking it a step too far. I'm a big supporter of freedom of speech, but people tend to abuse the term to justify about everything.

Feel free to say whatever you want as long as you don't offend me. You cannot abuse free speech.

Re:Balancing the thin line

[arbarbonif]

Offense is not abuse. Otherwise you could never say that blacks are human beings, since it would offend some KKK member. Nor could you say that they are not human beings, because that would offend me. So you basically can say almost nothing at all.

You can't threaten someone. You can't cause physical harm to someone. You are pretty limited in what you can say that is not actually true (or more accurately provably false). Other than that, offend away.

Re:Balancing the thin line

[ClamIAm]

I think this game was rightfully taken out of the competition, it's just taking it a step too far.

You fail to state:
A) That you have actually played this game, and
B) Your thinking as to how this game "takes it a step too far".

Come back when you have a real argument.

Re:Balancing the thin line

[patternjuggler]

There's no real freedom of speech argument to be made here, because no one has stopped these guys from making the game, no law was passed to restrict or bury it, and no one has been arrested for being involved.

It's not Freedom of Speech as protected by the first amendment, it's about whether the festival wants to be seen as supporting daring and controversial works or passing all decisions past their sponsors. If they do the latter then the whole festival is a sham and no self-respecting game maker should submit their game or accept their award.

Re:Balancing the thin line

[Anonymous Coward]

but people tend to abuse the term to justify about everything.

Fuck yeah, we do! Free Speech does not exist simply to protect what we already find acceptable. If that were the case, mob rule would work just as well.

Good for Slamdance

[visionsofmcskill]

I know all our immediate reaction is to say "censorship!" and "oppression!", etc...

But the truth is, these guys have made a truly offensive game that is super deliberatly made to be offesnive/controversial... and/or heartless. Note that these descriptions are all my "feelings" / opinion... and therefor the government should have no place or right to ban such items... as that would be a transgression of free speech.

But that doesnt mean i have to listen to or play their game, and it doesnt mean slamdance has to admit their game or allow it in their contest.... and it also means slamdance can at their descretion change their minds on the admissibility or PR of a game.

If someone made a game called "nigger killer" that placed the gamer as a Klan leader... or Jew Burner where you follow the exciting role of a Nazi Furnace operator... guess what... chances are no matter how well developed that game was... 99% of people wouldnt want anything to do with them... and free/private gaming organizations would likely reflect those views by choosing not to entertain those games.

Its the devlopers free speech right to make the game, and thankfully its slamdances right to choose to axe it... and my right to choose to think slamdance did the right thing.

THAT is free speech and freedom.

Re:Good for Slamdance

[mdozturk]

Its the devlopers free speech right to make the game, and thankfully its slamdances right to choose to axe it... and my right to choose to think slamdance did the right thing.

Cool. It seems like you understand where your rights end. Some people take another step and try to stop me from playing it.

Re:Good for Slamdance

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

But the truth is, these guys have made a truly offensive game that is super deliberatly made to be offesnive/controversial.

More "truth" from someone who hasn't even tried the game.

How the hell do you know the truth when you haven't even experienced the truth? Why do you think it is OK to go around spouting off about things you have no understanding of? Sure its your right to make a fool of yourself, but in what warped universe is it personally a good thing for you to actually preach from ignorance? Is that how you make decisions about everything else in your life?

What's worse is that there is no reason for you not to have found out the truth yourself - the game is freely available from the author's website:

http://www.columbinegame.com/

Re:Good for Slamdance

[drinkypoo]

But the truth is, these guys have made a truly offensive game that is super deliberatly made to be offesnive/controversial... and/or heartless.

If you could spell deliberately or offensive correctly, I might take you more seriously.

If you don't accept the author's assertion that he made the game as social commentary, then you simply have to accept that regardless of how it makes you feel, it is still a valid statement.

Its the devlopers free speech right to make the game, and thankfully its slamdances right to choose to axe it... and my right to choose to think slamdance did the right thing.

What you are apparently missing is that the slamdance festival actually chose to include the game in the competition but they disqualified it when it appeared that it might actually win. (The above link currently goes to a page that lists the Super Columbine RPG among the entrants.)

What this says to me, and IMO to any person willing to think logically, is that they included the game so that they would have the appearance of supporting freedom and free speech, but they are quite simply and literally hypocrites because they were unwilling to actually stand up with the courage of their convictions and keep the game in the competition. They were afraid that if it won, their reputation would be ruined (they'd be dragged through the mud for "glorifying the killers" as so many ignorant idiot slashbots have been saying here) and they were not actually willing to stand up for free speech.

Or in other words, they don't actually believe in the freedom of speech, and they are deserving only of our contempt. Of course, I've never actually heard of them before, so from my point of view they were pretty much irrelevant anyway.

In other news, you know about as much about art and social commentary as the pandas at the zoo, and you might as well go hang out with them and eat eucalyptus leaves all day.

Re:Good for Slamdance

[bigbigbison]

Unfortunately, the truth is they didn't kick it out because they didn't like it. If that were the case it wouldn't have made it to the finals. The truth is they kicked it out because sponsors were threatening to pull out their financial support if they didn't kick it out.

So the real issue has nothing to do with the game. The real issue is corporate control over a film festival/game competition.

Re:Good for Slamdance

[Anonymous Coward]

And that's a point well missed. The game reached the finals - by definition, it is one of the best games submitted to the contest. Clearly the game was reviewed before reaching the finals, probably multiple times, and the subject matter was not considered a problem. If you don't like it I don't have to care, what I want to know is which game submitted to Slamdance is judged to be the best. If SCMRPG is one of the best, but it doesn't get endorsed, I consider that a free speech issue on the part of the Slamdance organisers. Free speech isn't just about the law, you know.

Re:Good for Slamdance

[Anonymous Coward]

I suppose eating eucalyptus leaves won't deprive the pandas of their bamboo diet. The koalas might be pissed, though.

Double Standards

[MeanderingMind]

I find it interesting that when a hyper violent game was made to poke fun at Jack Thompson, it was widely applauded here on Slashdot despite begind grotesquely violent and rather lacking in artistic merit. Meanwhile, someone else's attempt to confront us with the horrible but murky truth of Columbine is labeled as "just sick" and "going too far".

I wonder how many of us here played either game.

Re:Double Standards

[jonnythan]

The Jack Thompson game was purely fictional.

This is a recreation of actual events.

Re:Double Standards

[Vellmont]

Meanwhile, someone else's attempt to confront us with the horrible but murky truth of Columbine is labeled as "just sick" and "going too far".

Ha! The thing is it's not a very good game, and nowhere did I see it "confront us with the horribly but murky truth of Columbine". It was a poorly conceived game that has no real redeeming artistic, entertaining, or social value. Maybe if it was better made it could have somehow done those things, but IMO it fell completely short.

I wonder how many of us here played either game.

Obviously from my comments I did. I think the only redeeming value of the game is it shows how afraid of a dumb game some people are. Are people really afraid that kids are going to turn into the Columbine assholes just because of a game?

Re:Double Standards

[Anonymous Coward]

The point is, a game about Jack Thompson is pure fantasy and therefore acceptable. A game based off of a historic event, where you commit the atrocity(ies), is not acceptable. /NT

Re:Double Standards

[Irish_Samurai]

I'll tell you what. I have read your comments on this issue and would like to applaud you for stating a subtle, yet important, perspective on the game.

1. You played it. Bravo for having a first hand opinion on the content.
2. You didn't like it. Completely acceptable. Opinions are welcome.
3. You stated that you didn't like it because you feel it didn't manage to convey anything you considered educational or addressing social issues. Awesome, a legitimate critique on delivery.

You seem to be able to separate the idea from execution. Your criticism of execution in relation to content is well received.

Re:Double Standards

[Sigma 7]

I find it interesting that when a hyper violent game was made to poke fun at Jack Thompson, it was widely applauded here on Slashdot despite begind grotesquely violent and rather lacking in artistic merit.

Jack Thompson proposed the plot for that game. The proposal was an attempted satire - since it backfired. The game I'm OK! showed that the protagonist was simply some crazy dude incapable of handling the fact that his son was killed (and at the same time, showed the games-cause-violence as bull).

While the so-called "modest proposal" was the most ridiculed thing, I'm OK was the best in the ridicule.

Meanwhile, someone else's attempt to confront us with the horrible but murky truth of Columbine is labeled as "just sick" and "going too far".

Isn't that the point of games where you play the villain?

Granted, I haven't played the Columbine game (yet), but there's much worse video games to complain about - as well as better ways to complain about the game in question.

Re:Double Standards

[WilliamSChips]

*BSD is for People who Love *nix; Linux is for People who Hate Windows

Linux is for people who love *nix; BSD is for people who love pain.

Sound business decision

[Atheose]

The festival felt that it would offend more people than it interested, and would push away more visitors than it would attract. This is a private game festival making a sound business decision about one of the entries. It has nothing to do with free speech.

Re:Sound business decision

[j00r0m4nc3r]

You're right about it being a business decision, but it is ironic that the very thing which contributed siginificantly to those killings (social alienation) is then used again on the game about those killings.

Re:Sound business decision

[Atheose]

Yeah, funny how that works isn't it?

Emulation

[Saburo]

I personally agree with the fact that it may not be "tasteful", but that may be only something personal, cultural.. whatever. The real point, I think, is that a responsible "adult" behaviour could be just to "reject" the idea of impersonating one of the two kids. But the opposite reaction, indeed not responsible and not "adult", could be to "give emulation a try. I know it is probably a very remote (and sick) chance, but still I think it could be extremely dangerous, no? "Weak" minds may sometimes confuse reality with games and it is unfortunately too easy (and Columbine really teaches this) to get our hands on a real weapon. Finally, I do not completely agree with the comparison with violent movies (which I do not like either), as in games, even if only virtually, you pull the trigger yourself.

Re:Emulation

[Anonymous Coward]

The game itself extremely stresses what the repercussions of their actions at Columbine... ... if anything, it ought to dissuade people from doing it.

Re:Emulation

[Anonymous Coward]

You assume the person(s) playing the game are rational to begin with; to some specific individuals, this could be a fantasy played out. People can come up with some sick "logic" in their minds.

Re:Emulation

[Jabrwock]

You assume the person(s) playing the game are rational to begin with; to some specific individuals, this could be a fantasy played out. People can come up with some sick "logic" in their minds. And they can come up with equally sick logic after watching an episode of "Friends". Mental instability should never be used as an excuse for saying that some subjects shouldn't be touched on. Where does it end? Is it ok to publish a book documenting a crime? Because you know it might give someone ideas!

Games

[Ravengbc]

I am not a huge gamer, but I do play some. Even violent games. I am not one to think that violent games are the cause of violent actions in kids. I think that the games can potentially add some fuel to violent actions in kids, but I think the root cause is f***ed up parenting. With that said, the thought of a game based off of that tragic event at Columbine is a gut turning, sickening thought. Who in their right mind would want to play it? Chances are, and I may be jumping to conclusions here, the only people who would want to play it are people who are already messed up in the head and not far off from doing something similar. Sure, there are a lot of WWII games out there, and seems like more and more are coming out. There are also a good bit of Vietnam games out there. The difference between the WWII and 'Nam games vs. the Columbine game is that the WWII games especially, and the 'Nam games to a degree, are based off of tragic wars in our history that had a very significant meaning to them. I say this more so for the WWII games. The Columbine game, on the other hand, is a bad attempt to make money off of a tragedy. There are not many things that I take a strong stance against. But that game would be one of them. I took major insult at the true event, even though I live in the Southeastern US. I have been one to wear a trench coat for some time now, not because of the 'trench coat mofia' but because I like the style, yet, I still got criticized for wearing a trench coat. I still get odd looks to this day when I walk into a public place during the winter, because I usually tend to wear all black and one of two black trench coats. Again, not because of anything other then the fact that that is what I prefer to wear. There are two things that usually get people to lighten up a little- they see the Cross and Crucifix I wear openly to show my faith in God and Jesus, or they actually talk to me and find out I'm a pretty nice guy. If these game makers were able to release this pathetic attempt at a game, I would join in with Christians, and others to protest it. I don't see how any good can come from a game like that. Bad taste on their part.

WTF?

[Turn-X Alphonse]

I want to know how a shitty RPG maker based game even got to the finals, it looks terrible and I doubt it plays any better.

Re:WTF?

[WilliamSChips]

The same way it got kicked out. From what I understand it's a crappy game which is only anything more than a footnote because it was controversial. Ah well, live by the controversy, die by the controversy.

Super Columbine Massacre RPG!

[Anonymous Coward]

Was there a need for the exclamation mark at the end? Makes it look like: "Super Hyper Fun Fun Happy Columbine Massacre RPG!!"

Re:Super Columbine Massacre RPG!

[Jabrwock]

Was there a need for the exclamation mark at the end? Makes it look like: "Super Hyper Fun Fun Happy Columbine Massacre RPG!!"

That's the point. It's poking fun at the fact that game titles hype up violence. It also pokes fun at the fact that some people are unwilling to get beyond the title to serious look at the game, essentially judging the book by it's cover...

Re:Super Columbine Massacre RPG!

[jfodale]

Whoosh!

whatever...

[Anonymous Coward]

...no, it's not really an issue of free speech, nor is it an issue of censorship. It is an issue of cowardice. If the game was good enough to make it into the competition and place in the finals, taking it down because a bunch of people are "offended" by the content doesn't really seem like a good reason to remove it. Generally, if something offends you personally, the thing one does is respects the other person's right to be a jackass and go about your business. Instead, pressure has been exerted upon a private forum to change their "offensive" behavior. If someone had formed a group to ban rock music that was deemed offensive, and pressured companies to stop making the product they found to be distasteful, this forum would be full of angry listeners decrying the music companies in question for cowing to a bunch of whiny ingrates.[oh, right. somebody DID do that already.] Why have a sacred cow? Because we looooove the children. Of course we do. We love them so much that we don't look at the underlying problems that created the situation we find so horrifying, we simply ban videogames that offend our sensibilities. I have no particular love for the perpitrators of the Columbine massacre, nor have i any specific spite for the victims. i don't really enjoy violent video games, nor do i think this game has much to say about the why and how of the tragic event,[that is, it isn't making a "statement" other than "hey look how offensive we can be"] but i don't think that backpedaling in the face of whiny mothers with too little to do is a noble thing. If the game was offensive, it should have never been allowed into the competition, but it was, which means that the judges didn't find it offensive until someone told them that they should. That is bullying, and it is less than admirable to cower in the face of bullies, even if they claim some moral authority that may or may not exist.

Re:whatever...

[Thraxen]

Meh... as others have said it was a sound business decision and has nothin to do with cowardice. Music labels drop bands everyday for lots of different reasons, or simply never sign them, and no one cares.

Re:whatever...

[Anonymous Coward]

however, those reasons generally are not "because a bunch of people whined at us." and as far as not getting signed, that's not what happened here, the festival "courted the developer" as the article says, which means they KNEW DAMN WELL that this game wasn't really a good idea, but grabbed it to be "edgy." All i'm saying is, if you're gonna be "edgy," stick with your guns, otherwise you look like a chump when you have to backpedal out of the mess you CHOSE TO MAKE. You're right, lots of bands get dropped every day, but rarely is that because someone has told the record company that those bands are offensive, more often it is because those bands don't make money. Economic rationale are usually based on actual market forces, not someone's feel-good-about-pretending-to-care-false-empathy-B S.

Re:whatever...

[Irish_Samurai]

Not all sound business decisions are good decisions.

If you are in the business of promoting independent works, bowing to corporate sponsors kinda kills your street cred.

Is PTFG a proper acronym?

[gregtron]

The major problem I've encountered with the replies above is that no one seems to have actually played the game before labelling it as an afront to morality.

I found it to be insightful, in the least, and at points disturbing. It didn't glorify the actions of anyone, but went great lengths to take information that most people have become jaded to, and present it in a light that inspires us to avoid the sort of finger-pointing that wrongly accused Marilyn Manson and ID Software of corrupting our youth.

If we can't use certain media to portray catastrophic events in a way that helps us gain better understanding of why we do the things we do, then what good are they? This type of thinking reduces video games to neat electronic parlour tricks, not the viable form of entertainment and and education that it could be.

Re:Is PTFG a proper acronym?

[bateleur]

Well to start with, if the game maker wanted to make a serious point he could have chosen a better title. I haven't played the game, but I have a lot of sympathy for the idea that Slamdance needed to do something simply because of the impression the title gives.

Re:Is PTFG a proper acronym?

[gregtron]

It seems like giving the game a properly distressing title would've cheapened the overall effect. Like I said, PTFG.

Taboo

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

I guess it's a double standard to say that reliving WW2 in so many FPS games is the same idea, but to me being a kid going through a school killing your peers is something nobody should WANT to do...

Yes, it is a double standard because the reality is, being a kid going through a school killing your peers is something quite a lot of people would like to do.

There's a lot of posts in this thread about how this game is tasteless, has no merit, has only shock value. That no one would want to play it. Is that really tue? Think about it. There are people who think about doing this kind of thing everyday. So how is this game any more wrong than street racing simulations or computer generated pornography? What's the essential difference?

I tell you exactly what the difference is. Debate on Columbine is taboo.

Stray outside the accepted interpretation and you are "dishonoring the memories of The Children(TM) who died". Just ignore the fact that the average second level school is closer to The Lord of the Flies than normal society. Just ignore the millions of young people who waste their time day in day out in an institution they loathe. Just ignore the fact that the institution most closely resembling secondary schools is public prison. If you dare to highlight such things, you're "no better than the killers".

So, no; running through the corridors of Columbine High School killing your fellow students is not really much more morally repugnant than killing American or Chinese soldiers in BattleField 2, or launching nukes on cities in Civ 4. It's just more politically incorrect, because that is how the media have decided to treat it.

If Slamdance wants to follow the media/party line, that's their business. But they should stay off the moral highground when they do. That's for people with actual beliefs and integrity.

How Ironic

[spiritraveller]

Slamdance was created partly as a response to Sundance, when a lot of people felt that they couldn't get their films into Sundance because they were too edgy.

This was caused by the growth of the Sundance Film Festival, and no doubt influenced by their acceptance of donations from large sponsors.

Now Slamdance is rejecting a piece because it's too edgy, and their sponsors are putting pressure on them. So much for the "independent" scene.

Re:How Ironic

[sesshomaru]

More irony, people are complaining that the game is called "Super Columbine Massacre."

No one is complaining that the festival is called Slamdance.

Not that they should be complaining about either one, but the name of the festival is just as offensive and irreverant as the name of the game.

Re:How Ironic

[spiritraveller]

Not that they should be complaining about either one, but the name of the festival is just as offensive and irreverant as the name of the game.

I agree that they shouldn't be complaining about either. But I can understand how people would be offended by the name of the game while not being offended by the name of the festival.

I have slamdanced before, but I have never done a super columbine massacre.

Re:How Ironic

[ClamIAm]

We just need a festival called "fuck-shit-piss-motherfuckerdance" or something so that they won't ever have to deal with uppity financial sponsors.

Re:How Ironic

[spiritraveller]

that is the best idea I've heard all day!

RPGMaker 2000

[Anonymous Coward]

Does anyone know if he is using a licensed version of RPGmaker2000?
I doubt it since it never came out in the US, unless the creator can read japanese.

Concerns about freedom of speech?

[Anonymous Coward]

Did the government suppress this game? Sounds like a private entity doing it within the confines of their own contest, so it's hardly suppression of free speech. This has got to be one of the most misused terms ever.

I've actually played this game

[Anonymous Coward]

As someone who has actually played this game, as opposed to everyone else who seems to have posted so far. I can say this game should definitely be considered. It spends a lot of time exploring what happened the morning of the shooting, before they got to the school. In their houses, in the park, in the parking lot. I admit I didn't finish the game, I got distracted and moved on right before going upstairs in the school, but from what I saw, killing people was actually rather secondary and only there because it is a necessary element. Every bit of this game seemed to be focused on understanding the abuse, the hatred and the personality of the killers, whether fictionalized or not I can't say.

Sorry, I'm at work so I can't actually login right now.

Where is Jon Katz when you really need him?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, the humanity!

"Would you like fries with that?" - Jon Katz, 2007

Re:Where is Jon Katz when you really need him?

[WilliamSChips]

He's apparently writing about dogs.

Editorial Oversite...

[RexRhino]

How is exercising editorial oversite a "free speech issue" again? If the New York Times refuses to print a picture of my naked ass on the front page, is that also a "free speech issue".

I am sure the guys who created the Columbine game wouldn't mind if someone put a billboard advertisment on their front lawn... after all, we don't want there to be a free speech issue.

Re:Editorial Oversite...

[ClamIAm]

How is exercising editorial oversite a "free speech issue" again? If the New York Times refuses to print a picture of my naked ass on the front page, is that also a "free speech issue".

Compare this with

How is exercising editorial oversite a "free speech issue" again? If all news organizations refuse to print the truth on the front page, is that also a "free speech issue".

When media refuse to allow uncomfortable and/or unpopular speech, you start down a very scary path.

Re:Editorial Oversite...

[uufnord]

How is exercising editorial oversite a "free speech issue" again?

I'll use your example to help explain it.

I am sure the guys who created the Columbine game wouldn't mind if someone put a billboard advertisment on their front lawn.

If they agreed with the sentiment, they may very well want it there. If someone puts a "JESUS IS L0RD" billboard on the front lawn of some crazy Christian zealot, then, well, yeah, the nutbag Christian asshole might very well approve of it, because it doesn't go against his beliefs. He wants it there.

The creators/editors/whatever-the-hell-they-are wanted SCMRPG in the finals. They wanted it so much, that they made the game a finalist. In the end, they claim that they were forced to remove the game from the competition against their own wishes due to, as was said, "larger pressures placed on them".

They WANT to say something, and they are being prevented from saying it. They are not free to say what they want to say, and that makes it a free speech issue.

That's kinda obvious to anyone who spent two seconds thinking about the issue.

If the New York Times refuses to print a picture of my naked ass on the front page, is that also a "free speech issue".

If you want a picture of your ass on the front page of the New York Times, that's fine. You are free to use GIMP or Photoshop and mock-up a New York Times with a picture of your ass on it. I don't think anyone is stopping you from doing that. The New York Times probably doesn't want a picture of your ass on their front page, so I doubt they're going to do it for you. You'll need to do that yourself, if that's what you want, and you are free to do so. So, no, that's not a free speech issue.

Now, if the New York Times really did want a picture of your giant Rhino ass on the front page, and someone stepped in and said "we're taking all these newspapers off the shelves and burning them", then, yeah, there would be an free speech issue there. Since it's probably not the case, I don't think it's something we need to worry about.

I tried to lay it out for you as simply as I could. I hope you understand what everyone is talking about now.

Brickbats for Slamdance

[Captain Sarcastic]

From the article:

"I don't feel like (Baxter and Roberts) ought to be vilified in this, I think they had the best of intentions to showcase this game."

I disagree with this statement. Given that Baxter and Roberts actually courted this game, I think that their soi-disant "best intentions" were for the best publicity possible for Slamdance. I also think that, once they started getting bad publicity, they decided to pull the plug. In short, it strikes me that Slamdance used the game and the game designer.

Now, having said that, I would like to point out the following:

"Freedom of speech" does not guarantee "popularity of speech." If enough people were put off by the game's material, they have a choice not to buy it. If companies are offended enough to not want to be associated with the game, they have the option to pull their advertising from someone who is putting the two together.

If a governmental entity (Federal, state, or local - take your choice) had come in and said, "STOP! We have placed this game on the 'Games Known To Be Tasteless' list, and demand that you cease at once from doing anything with it!" there would be a hue and cry - and rightly so. That is prior censorship, and that is what the framers of the Bill of Rights wanted to prevent.

Companies and business owners, though, are NOT governmental entities (regardless of how much they might wish to be). They do not have police powers, and do not have armed force backing them up to impose their will. Slamdance could have easily (well, honestly, easily-for-me-to-say) bit the bullet on principle and declared, "Boycott / pressure / threaten what you will, this game is still in the competition!" Instead, the organizers went with a half-rattling "Here it is... oh, wait, I guess if people are going to bitch about it, then we'll take it out."

I have a sneaking respect for the audacity of the creator of Columbine, if not for his taste. Slamdance, though, lost whatever respect I had for it with this whole fiasco.

What I really want to know is...

[Stoned Necromancer]

Who exactly are those sponsors that pulled the "plug"?
Because I surely will not give them MY money - never ever.

But since this info is not available, at least yet, I choose to boycott all the sponsors until futher notice.

The sponsor list can be seen here:
http://slamdance.com/2007/festival/sponsors.asp

Missing the point

[bigbigbison]

Those of you that are saying that the game is horrible and that it was a good think they kicked it out are missing the point. Slamdance wanted the game in the competition. They encouraged the creator to submit it. They selected it as a finalist. If they thought it was offensive or not in good taste, they simply wouldn't have selected it as a finalist.

What has happened is that at least one of the corporate sponsors threatened to pull out their financial backing if the game was in the competition. So the real issue has NOTHING to do with the content of the game or the game itself. The real issue is corporate sponsorship controlling the outcome of a competition.

Discussions about the game are a good thing, but let's not overlook the real issue here.

what ppl don't get about freedom of speech

[ILuvRamen]

Questions about freedom of speech, huh? Okay, I can explain it! Freedom of speech means you can make any video you want. Freedom of speech also means that if people are extremely offended by a video game, they can freely tell the game makers that. Since the decision to remove it was made internally, not forced by external people, I don't see a problem here because nobody's having their rights infringed.

Re:what ppl don't get about freedom of speech

[danzona]

Since the decision to remove it was made internally, not forced by external people

I didn't RTFA, but you didn't even RTFB. It specifically states that the game was pulled because of external pressure.

Re:what ppl don't get about freedom of speech

[ILuvRamen]

no no no, outside people bitched but the gov didn't step in and say take it out or go to jail. Someone at the festival made a decision to have it pulled from the competition, NOT the gov so it's not a freedom of speech then, it's just someone caving under external pressure.

What about my rights?

[VagueX]

Sure, he has the right for free speech yada yada... (and does the right to free speach actually cover digitally recreating the massacare of children so that you can play one of the murderers?) but I should also have the right to put my foot up his @ss for trying to profit from other people's misery. It's one thing to make a shooter based in a school, antoher thing to actually call it Columbine. His actual reasons for this are pretty transparent to me, despite what he may publically say his intentions were.

Re:What about my rights?

[Anonymous Coward]

technically, no, you don't have the right to put your foot up his @ss [as you so delightfully put it]. and since when is profiting off the misery of others such a big deal? i mean, billions and billions of dollars are made from the production of cluster bombs and handguns, and you're not threatening to do bodily harm to them? What about movies based on WWII or vietnam? those films capitalize on the suffering involved...hmmm. sounds like you just want to get mad because someone decided to make something you personally didn't think appropriate.
  also, perhaps you should look into what exactly "speech" means, since you seem to interpret it as the right to do malicious physical harm to another person. Freedom of speech means you have the right do disagree publically and vocally with the makers of whatever it is that's crawled up your @ss this week to get your sense of righteous indignation in a tizzy.

Re:What about my rights?

[Anonymous Coward]

does the right to free speach actually cover digitally recreating the massacare of children so that you can play one of the murderers?

Yes.

Next stupid question, please!

Re:What about my rights?

[Anonymous Coward]

You do realize this game isn't for sale, right? It's freeware. So how could he be profiting from it?

A similar, non-digital experience

[Anonymous Coward]

I was in high school when the Columbine attack happened. One of my classes that year had what was called a Demonstration of Mastery at the end of the year: groups of students would teach the class for two days about one particular subculture. One group asked to use the Columbine attackers as their subculture, and it was approved.

The first of their two days was essentially a constructed nightmare. There were excerpts of journals on display, huge swastika banners on the walls, and an excerpt of a school shooting from "The Basketball Diaries" on continual loop in one corner. The room was dim, as all windows had been covered to prevent anyone from accidentelly looking in. The class was told that anyone was free to live if it became too intense for them. Several people did.

The second day, with the room back to normal, a discussion took place. People talked about the emotions those images and writings evoked, and the people who had been reduced to tears or felt the need to leave talked about what the exhibit had done to them. In short, it was an in-depth discussion of the causes and effects of a true atrocity. But if those windows had not been covered up, you might have all seen the headline "Class Openly Displays Nazi Imagery In Columbine Tribute".

Powerful symbols can cut down to the most uncomfortable parts of the mind, and can stimulate honest, helpful discussion. I can't speak for the game, as I haven't played it. But I did experience that was, at least, similar in intent and execution, and I regard it as one of the better responses I've yet seen to that tragedy.

Comment from last year's winner

[andrewstern]

Wow, this is terrible. I'm sure the festival organizers, including Sam Roberts whom we met last year when we competed there, are devastated by being forced into this. They courted SCRPG! for the festival, but in hindsight, it was a little too risky. Sam is a good guy who wants to push on the frontiers of gaming; he must be very disappointed. But he should be proud he had the guts to originally include it in the festival, I hope people realize it was against his wishes to pull it. It would have been unfair to the other finalists to have not pulled it, leading to the festival being cancelled.

It's unclear how much this will tarnish the reputation of Slamdance, or the broader game industry somehow, but hopefully this event will lead to more debate and discussion about games as a medium for serious expression. Although school shootings are a very incendiary topic, I think it's a better tool for debate than, say, the more puerile controversies over the right to have prostitutes and hidden soft-core sex in the Grand Theft Auto games.

I also recommend everyone rent Elephant , if you haven't already — a movie on the same topic as SCRPG!, which won the top prize at film's most prestigious festival, for crissakes! The irony is thick here.

(Trivia: My local Portland game developer meetings are sometimes organized by a guy named Corwin Light-Williams, who made the videogame parody footage for Elephant by programming an actual custom videogame, which allowed players to shoot at Gerry . How many people get "video game designer" in a movie credits?)

This game is art in the truest sense of the word

[jcruelty]

I played it a while back and was really blown away by it. It bugs me when people criticize it without having played it. it addresses topics like - the nature of evil - first does evil even mean anything, - bullying & the hell that high school can be (you have final-fantasy style battles with jocks, nerds , etc; also illustrates what the world-view of someone alienated would be like; viewing everybody along these narrow strata) - nature vs nurture, what made these kids snap whereas other kids didn't - delves into their hopes & fears, incidents in the past - you uncover back story like in any other rpg - media - what effect do games like doom and music like NIN have? (you can pick up marilyn manson cds which "create a violent rage", improve your stats) - the drugs that the kids were on - in your inventory is the anti-depressant Excellent use of 8 bit rpg aesthetic. MIDI version of Smells Like Teen Spirit sends chills down my spine. rpgs - good for exploring characters seeing dialog in video game format ("..." press a button "...") distances you from it pretending to be somebody else makes you think about who they were inventory sez hey he was on drugs it risked a lot it was deeply personal

Why the game was made

[Anonymous Coward]

The game was made because the author is 5'2" tall. And he's an elite-East Coast Liberal Arts college-attending pseudo-anarchist establishment poseur.

He's pissing in society's soup as a weak rebellion against the privileged social class that he is inescapably part of and on which his livelihood depends. As a punk from Colorado, what could be better than a game reliving Columbine?

Frankly, a better way to do it would have been for the game to not include weapons at all, and to just be an endless experience of being hassled by other students. That'd demonstrate to the player the mounting frustration of the high school social untermenschen, subjected to abuse and hazing, without any way to respond. At the end (which the player doesn't know is the end), maybe the player could choose to pick up a gun, and doing so would be a losing move, but a message could ask the player if he understands why a kid *would* reach for a gun.

A game where you shoot other Columbine students is just cheap sensationalism with a thin veneer of artistic pretense.

Re:Why the game was made

[Eideewt]

Your version has two problems. First is that picking up the gun would be a losing move. Are we trying to make people think or are we trying to tell them what to think? You're delivering your moral too early and in too ham-fisted a way. Picking up the gun can't be the end because it wasn't the end.

Second, you've got all this provocation without any release. If people are worried about violent games stimulating real-world violent behavior I'm ten times as worried about taking the experiences that have pushed people towards the edge and putting them the context of a school massacre. Think about it. Anyone who played your game would know about the Columbine shooting. They might very well know that the solution to their problems is to go out in their very own little blaze of glory. The last thing the world needs is a game to remind them of that then end with "No you may not pick up that gun." In the real world there's no one to say no -- you just sneak it in and open up.

If you're going to push players toward the edge then it's your responsibility to bring them back again. I don't know how to do that, but I know it needs to happen. My version would be Doom style (for extra relevance points). It would start like your game and wind the player up. Then you would get the gun and start shooting. There would be a lot of pleading and crying and bleeding. If the first part of the game went right, the player would be incensed enough not to care. The player would always have the option to suicide. Once they did, the "look what you have done" phase would begin. Perhaps you would get to see a kill breakdown showing what each of your victims had done to you, and what you had done to them. I would like something more though. Most of these victims would have done nothing to you, of course. At this point the player calms down and reflects, hopefully thinking about the hell they created and its justification. If they never wanted to create it there would be no point at all to the game. I don't think we can understand insanity without becoming temporarily insane ourselves.

Re:This game is art in the truest sense of the wor

[Anonymous Coward]

"you can pick up marilyn manson cds which "create a violent rage", improve your stats"

That's not art, that's trite bullshit.

Yeah, the high school years are full of Final Fantasy-style fighting with nerds. Right. He sure nailed *that*.

OK, I'll bite

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's the difference between some fucked up idiot killing your best friends at school and a war where your best friends die because of ideals / fucked up politics. The fucking difference is that the fucked up idiot pops out of nowhere and shoots defenceless young people. A war is usualy brewing for some time before it starts, and if you know what you're doing, you can get out of it alive, and get your loved ones out of it alive. Now do you get it? A school shooting is as tragic as any public place shooting, only more so, because the people who die there are really defenceless, and have no choice but to be there and die because of some random idiot going nuts, and they are too young to die. Do you fucking get it now? And yes, I DO play Doom. And I hate when the Columbine freaks are associated with computer games. But the sad question is: why the hell are young people killing other young people (fuck, why girls?) when they should be thinking about life and sex? I remember my high school years, if anyone did anything to anyone of my friends... Man, I would be the one to rip them apart with my bare hands. Imagine the 300 trailer or something. Good thing such things don't happen where I come from. Or maybe my highschool was too elitist for having one of those people.

STOP THE PRESSES.

[finalbroadcast]

Wow, this kid is still milking his one video game made. For someone who tried so hard to avoid attention he sure attracts a lot of it. His spotlight leanings aside, what the hell is wrong with everyone? We make games about car thieves, and murders as the hero, and we condemn Jack Thompson for speaking out against it, but when it's about Columbine it's somehow exempt from the protections. Listen this kid is a shock rocker with out a guitar, if nobody cares he'll slink back to film school in shame. If you don't believe me, his only student film is based off one of the Unibomber's stories. So guess what, he wants controversy, and he gets it, not only from the piss ant festival organizers, but from the press, and the hours of discussion on /. Free speech ocassionally mean that you have to deal with unpleasant ideas, but you don't have to call attention to them, you can ignore this failed little art student like you do the rest of them. Just becuase he uses a stupid video game doesn't make him any different than the fat girl who takes B&w pictures of her cats and wonders why she can't get a gallery deal.

Torrent

[Anonymous Coward]

For those who want to see for themselves what this is all about, and not just follow the pros and cons that others are stating.

http://thepiratebay.org/tor/3590657

How long before

[Anonymous Coward]

9/11 video game will make the news next?

interesting, eh?

[entendre entendre]

There is a group of people who liked the game, or at least the idea behind it.
There is another group of people who think that it was tasteless.
What's interesting about the fact that people from both groups post on Slashdot?

You say there's a double standard. If you noticed any of the same usernames posting both opinions, you'd be right. I'm sure if you look hard enough you'll find examples of that. But, trolling has been happening on Slashdot since the beginning so I still wonder, where's the interesting part?

Not a sound business decision

[lawnsprinkler]

The festival felt that it would offend more people than it interested, and would push away more visitors than it would attract. This is a private game festival making a sound business decision about one of the entries. It was not a sound business decision at all because they just compromised their brand. This is a festival that was partially inspired by the courage of the creators of South Park & whose entire reason for existing was to provide an outlet for artists rejected by the mainstream film community (symbolized by the Sundance Film Festival). These values are what has attracted participants and viewers to the festival.

A festival built on the motto "By Filmakers, For Filmakers" that sacrifices an author's work for an audience makes itself obsolete.

It Has Merit

[costik]

I have made the game (permently, unless the author withdraws it) available here: http://www.manifestogames.com/node/3040

Same page explains why I think the controversy is wrong-headed, and why this game has merit.