Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Columbine Game Kicked From Slamdance Festival

Posted by Zonk on from the pressure-brought-to-bear dept.

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."'"

22 of 209 comments (clear)

  1. Fools. by Irish_Samurai · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Fools. by Jabrwock · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Magic doesn't work in my presence. My power of disbelief is too strong.
    2. Re:Fools. by Irish_Samurai · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:Fools. by sesshomaru · · Score: 4, Insightful
      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.

      --
      "MIT betrayed all of its basic principles."
    4. Re:Fools. by Jabrwock · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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...

      --
      Magic doesn't work in my presence. My power of disbelief is too strong.
    5. Re:Fools. by MechaStreisand · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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?

      --
      Disclaimer: IANAL. This post is, however, legal advice, and creates an attorney-client relationship.
  2. I say "good" by bilbravo · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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...

    --
    Starmen.net
    1. Re:I say "good" by mdozturk · · Score: 2, Insightful
      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?

    2. Re:I say "good" by irc.goatse.cx+troll · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Pain lasts, kid. Its how you know you're alive. Sometimes I think this growing up thing is just pain management-TheMaxx
  3. Market Pressure == Censorship? by andphi · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  4. Double Standards by MeanderingMind · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Thunderclone: ONE MAN ENTERS! TWO MEN LEAVE! ONE MAN ENTERS! TWO MEN LEAVE!
  5. Re:Balancing the thin line by mdozturk · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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

  6. Re:Taste by Attrition_cp · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

    --
    Touched By His Noodley Appendage.
  7. Re:Taste by Jabrwock · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Magic doesn't work in my presence. My power of disbelief is too strong.
  8. Re:Balancing the thin line by cowscows · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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).

    --

    One time I threw a brick at a duck.

  9. Is PTFG a proper acronym? by gregtron · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  10. Taboo by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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.
    --
    May the Maths Be with you!
  11. Re:Balancing the thin line by Joe+U · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  12. Re:artists statement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    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.

  13. Re:Good for Slamdance by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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/

    --
    When information is power, privacy is freedom.
  14. This game is art in the truest sense of the word by jcruelty · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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

  15. Re:Taste by xappax · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.