Columbine RPG Kickout Has Repercussions

As a direct result of the removal of the Columbine RPG from the Slamdance game competition, two games (so far) have pulled out of the judging process. The Forge has extensive commentary on the first pullout (the game Braid), as well as the removal of fl0w from the competition. From the article: "Regardless of the artistic merit, the facts as I understand them are that Slamdance had actively courted the creator of SCM RPG! to enter it into the festival, which then judged it to be a finalist before bending over for the corporations and shredding their credibility by removing it from the competition. Imagine Dominoes Pizza deciding it objected to the theme of Brokeback Mountain and told the Academy Awards to remove it. Imagine them doing it after it was already a finalist."

Comments

good for them

[spykemail]

Good for them. When you give in to pressure from big business to censor you lose all of your credibility.

Re:good for them

[Shads]

More power to em. Hopefully, the entire competition drops out until they either let Columbine compete or till another year. I may think the game is tasteless, but it has as much business being there as any other offensive piece of artwork. When you start discriminating on which art goes too far because of corporate sponsors, you're no longer being subjective and judging on artistic value you're being a corporate shill... there is no sense of integrity in the competition, its just who is willing to make a stink if their favorite item isn't going to win or disqualify anyone who they don't want to win.

Re:good for them

[westlake]

Good for them. When you give in to pressure from big business to censor you lose all of your credibility.

It depends on your target audience. If your goal to introduce independent gaming to the general public then maybe Columbine: The RPG is not where you want to begin.

It is easy to lose credibility with the Geek.

The eternal sophomore. To whom everything is black and white, all or nothing, 1 or 0.

Much harder to win the respect and trust of those whose primary interests and values are rooted outside his own community.

This is typical political correctness

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

Of course, any game based on something as horrific as the Columbine shooting is at best bad taste, at worst shameless exploitation of the event to get in the press, and people should rightfully be angry, and the game should be pulled out.

But for some reason I fail to understand, there are dozens of games glorifying WW2 combats, or simulating the Iraq war. Millions have died during WW2, and hundred of thousands died in Iraq and continue to do so. Yet nobody finds reasons to be upset when you incarnate a G.I. killing German soldiers in a game. It's all perfectly normal to them.

My grandfather died in WW2, I never knew him. He was fighting for the "good guys" (the allies), but that didn't prevent my dad from crying often when he thought about him. War simulation games make me just as angry as this stupid Columbine RPG, and people who get their pants in a knot over the Columbine game then go play the virtual soldier ten minutes later make me sick, because they're biased, politically correct idiots with short memories...

Re:This is typical political correctness

[spyrochaete]

And what of "America's Army" - an army recruitment game with no restrictions on who may play? The purpose of America's Army is to guide the player through basic training, siphon him into a regiment and specialty, give him a weapon and ship him out to hot zones. The game is as realistic as possible to best portray army tactics and day-to-day life. For all the games critics like Jack Thompson have dubbed "murder simulators", isn't America's Army the most literal definition? Where's the outrage from American taxpayers who fund continued development and distribution of this "game"?

Re:This is typical political correctness

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

In the case of war, the argument can be made that it is morally correct to try and overthrow Nazi's.

That's where you're wrong. War is morally wrong, period. That doesn't mean we shouldn't have gone to war against the Nazis, what I'm trying to point out is that exploiting the human misery that WW2 in a game 60 years later is no more acceptable that exploiting a bunch of kids getting machine-gunned in a school recently. Probably less so: WW2 is a world-wide stain on humanity, whereas Columbine is, despite all its horror, a local event.

Re:This is typical political correctness

[radarjd]

War is morally wrong, period. That doesn't mean we shouldn't have gone to war against the Nazis,

Out of curiosity, does that mean you believe that a morally wrong action was still the correct action to take?

Re:This is typical political correctness

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

WWII was also a horrific event. Do you think that movies based upon it, such as Saving Private Ryan are shameless exploitations of the event? Should they all have been pulled? Should all the war games ever made be pulled? All games in which any person harms another person?

No. I think all these games and movies have a right to exist, including the Columbine game, or even an Al Quaeda simulator if there was such a game. They have the right to exist because if they don't, then at some point or another, some other form of speech will be curtailed, and this isn't acceptable. The whole point of free speech is to accept all speech, including the horrific and shameful ones, for the sake of the others.

WhatI'm upset about is the people getting angry of the exploitation of an event involving several kids shot up, but completely failing to even take notice of the exploitation of an event involving tens of millions of horrific deaths because the exploitation glorifies the side their countries was on. Just try to make a game where you incarnate a German SS going on a shooting spree, and you'll quickly draw the ire of the entire nation. But when you propose gamers to incarnate a G.I. going on a shooting spree, then it becomes alright.

That's the dual morality system that people have that makes me angry, and the media and entertainment industries that perpetuate this dual morality.

Re:This is typical political correctness

[drinkypoo]

Of course, any game based on something as horrific as the Columbine shooting is at best bad taste, at worst shameless exploitation of the event to get in the press, and people should rightfully be angry, and the game should be pulled out.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. I rather suspect that you aren't either. Your sentence implies that the creation of the game is exploitation of the event. The game was developed in advance of the event and the creators of the event specifically sought its inclusion.

But for some reason I fail to understand, there are dozens of games glorifying WW2 combats, or simulating the Iraq war. Millions have died during WW2, and hundred of thousands died in Iraq and continue to do so. Yet nobody finds reasons to be upset when you incarnate a G.I. killing German soldiers in a game. It's all perfectly normal to them.

Logical fallacy: This is a specious argument. In fact many people find reasons to be upset by WW2 games, regardless of who the hero is.

My grandfather died in WW2, I never knew him. He was fighting for the "good guys" (the allies), but that didn't prevent my dad from crying often when he thought about him. War simulation games make me just as angry as this stupid Columbine RPG, and people who get their pants in a knot over the Columbine game then go play the virtual soldier ten minutes later make me sick, because they're biased, politically correct idiots with short memories...

Well, it's probably good that your family has a sensitive side to it, but I'm not sure that actually says anything about the morality of creating games. In particular Super Columbine Massacre RPG was not created to glorify the actions of the shooters, no matter what you might think - in fact any reasonable examination of the statements of the game's creator, which have been remarkably consistent, would prove otherwise.

Unfortunately, many people are either unwilling or unable to look at the issue dispassionately. While we all know that a decision made on the basis of emotion is illogical and more likely than not to be the wrong decision, many of us are just unable to work based on logic. To you, clearly anything based on a horrific event glorifies it. While that term is directly applicable to many WWII games and the like, it clearly does not apply to SCM RPG.

The simple fact is that the game was made in order to make a statement and point out some things about violence in gaming, and the general hypocrisy in the industry. As you point out, a game about killing some delusional Germans who were tricked into a genocidal fervor (most of them were unaware that a genocidal campaign against the Jewish people was even progressing, mind you) is acceptable in the USA, but a game where some bullied, abused teenagers snap and decide to kill fellow students who were a part of their oppression is unacceptable. Arguably, neither one should be acceptable, but if you believe that, you are part of the problem as regards protecting the first amendment and our freedom of expression, and I would appreciate it if you would move someplace whose constitution doesn't supposedly guarantee such rights. If you don't believe in them, I'd like you to go away, so that only people who DO believe in them live in this country, and we have some chance to take them back. People like you who do not believe in protecting rights until they impact you are the biggest part of the reason why we're losing our rights, one after another.

Re:This is typical political correctness

[MeanderingMind]

I can understand where you're coming from, but I have to agree on several points.

Making any form of art depicting or relating to a horrific event should in no way instantly disqualify it from competition, recognition, or thoughtful contemplation.

For example, Guernica. Picasso painted a well-regarded masterpiece artfully depicting the utter horror and waste that was the bombing of a peaceful, remote town. We could potentially throw this work of art away because of its "exploitation" of a tragedy, or examine it and find that it is in fact itself an outcry at and reminder of the terrible event.

Similarly we can examine the movie "Tora! Tora! Tora!" which depicted the events leading up to Pearl Harbor, as well as the attack itself. It is an important film, reknowned both for the famous Japanese and American actors who gave their talents to it and for the even handed view of both sides. Despite the subject matter being potentially sensitive it should not be ignored or deemed an "exploit" of the events.

I am not arguing that the Columbine RPG is art, but that is the point of the festival. People attempting to create artful titles in plot, story, execution etc. compete. It is arguable that any finalists should be considered art, as they would not be finalists otherwise.

Thus, the great issue here is partially the "bad taste" in which the game was made, but also that those in charge of the event accepted its entry, courted it so that it would be entered, and admitted it as a finalist.

I think that, at best, the Columbine RPG could actually be an insightful and thoughtful examination of the outlook and desperation of the killer's lives, or even a humorous (if black) satire. While dealing with sensitive material requires careful execution, I do not believe that this somehow disqualifies the title as potentially being art.

If you have actually played the game and have come to your conclusion that the game is not art or worthy of consideration, then you have formed your opinion from experience and are to be commended. However, if you have written off the game before attempting to understand it, I highly recommend you take a step back and evaluate the game objectively before passing sentence.

It is disheartening that many people do not pause and consider the real world implications of what happens in their video games, but the ignorance they display is not a necessarily flaw in the games but also or exclusively themselves.

Re:This is typical political correctness

[drinkypoo]

War is morally wrong, period. That doesn't mean we shouldn't have gone to war against the Nazis

That's precisely what you just said. The meaning of "morally wrong" here must use the following definition of moral: "Conforming to standards of what is right or just in behavior; virtuous: a moral life." Note the conforming to standards bit. There is no universal morality. There is only what has been defined by society.

Of course, I disagree with you. War is not necessarily morally wrong - if you're the defending side. Not going to war when someone attacks you, and letting your population be destroyed - now that is morally wrong, by the strictest definition of the word.

what I'm trying to point out is that exploiting the human misery that WW2 in a game 60 years later is no more acceptable that exploiting a bunch of kids getting machine-gunned in a school recently.

And what many of the rest of us are trying to point out is that outlawing such games - the natual consequence of people believing that it is wrong, since government (theoretically) does the will of the people - is just one step down the slippery slope leading to the complete loss of our rights. Depending on who you talk to, either the first or second amendment is the most important; regardless, pretty much everyone puts it in the top two. Either you believe in freedom of expression or you do not; there is no middle ground.

Re:This is typical political correctness

[aicrules]

You obviously have no idea what morally even means. It would be morally wrong to not have gone to war to stop the Nazi destruction of Europe. It was not morally wrong to have gone to war in that case. Morality is not based on only one piece of information. It is based on all known information.

Well, okay, morality ends up actually being completely subjective to whatever person is deciding whether a particular thing is morally right or wrong for themselves. But you stated war was "morally wrong, period" as if it were a fact and not an opinion. It would have only been morally wrong to go to war to save Europe and ourselves if there was a way to stop the Nazis otherwise that would have guaranteed less bloodshed on both sides. There were certainly acts committed by both sides during the war that would be considered morally wrong by anybody, but the overall act of going to war was morally right.

Re:This is typical political correctness

[Jerf]

Actually, it is an unreasonable definition, because it basically says (for some circumstances), "everything you do is morally wrong."

Yup, that's where the definition leads. Definitions do things like that.

Remember, definitions don't actually have any power. As long as they are reasonably consistent and everybody agrees with them, you can communicate with them. You can still discuss what is least wrong with such a definition.

Re:This is typical political correctness

[Psychochild]

Of course, any game based on something as horrific as the Columbine shooting is at best bad taste, at worst shameless exploitation of the event to get in the press, and people should rightfully be angry, and the game should be pulled out.

Amen! And, while we're throwing things on the bonfire, let's not stop with just one silly game!

I think we should abhor Goya's Tres De Mayo . It's simply exploitative of Napoleon's attacks in Spain. This painting is simply blood and gun porn obviously intended to appeal to a young boy's interest in violence!

And, let's not forget Picasso's Guernica . Another sicko exploiting the tragedy of WW2 for selfish gain, Picasso should have been ashamed of himself for painting this. And look at that thing! Those graphics suck so bad, it obviously has no redeeming social value. Even the U.S. government agrees with this stance!

And talking about things harmful to the children, I think we need to make sure to purge all copies of Lord of the Flies. That book is a childhood fantasy of violence for violence's sake. Killing pigs and making sacrifices to the Lord of the Flies (yet another name for Satan, mind you!) This book is distasteful, and the fact that I was a pudgy, glasses-wearing kid in school has nothing to do with my opinion. This book simply has no redeeming characteristics that could help us today.

And, let's not forget exploitative films like Saving Private Ryan. That opening scene is simply to violent, and it's disrespectful to show people being killed so gruesomely like that. It could do real harm, because it might make people watching the movie squeamish about fulfilling their duty to their country by signing up for the armed forces! Further, this move obviously exploits WW2 as a crass commercial exploitation of a national tragedy.

So, welcome fellow book burner^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hmoral guardian! Let us purge all those undesirable, exploitative works out from our society! We will truly be free once there is nothing left to remind us of the horrible events in the past.

Re:Makes me happy.

[spyrochaete]

I don't think that the SlamDance guys are bad for caving to the preasure (they do need corporate backers)

Slamdance invited SCRPG to participate in its event, voted it to be worthy of status as a finalist, and then kicked them out. That's irresponsible. Why pretend to host an objective contest when votes are for sale to the highest-paying sponsor?

Re:Makes me happy.

[Thansal]

If you don't cave to sponsors, you don't exist. I know it sucks, and I really hate that it is true, however something is better then nothing in my mind, and we do need more outlets for indy devs to get some recognition.

My hope is that because they caved and this flare-up is now happening we will see something come of it. Either SlamDance will lose all of their credibility (very possible), or they will rally and specificly state rules reguarding removal of contestants (guidlines that have to be followed, and do not include "well, or sponser doesn't like it").

Here's my two cents...

[Captain Sarcastic]

First off, I'm not angry or upset about Columbine Massacre. If I find something to be tasteless / offensive / not my cup of "Hot Coffee" <grin>, then I just don't buy it. Seems simple enough to me, so I'm not interested in "how can you judge it without playing it" arguments.

However, I see the organizers of Slamdance as trying to have their cake and eat it, too. They courted the makers of the Columbine RPG primarily for shock value... and the publicity. Then they found out that some of their sponsors objected, and planned to do their objecting with their sponsorship of Slamdance, and decided to remove the game from the competition, meanwhile loudly blaming "outside pressures" for "muzzling" games.

And that is what bugs me about Slamdance. If they were willing to seem edgy with their inclusion of Columbine Massacre, then they could have accepted the consequences of their sponsorships getting yanked. But they didn't, so they shouldn't.

Re:It's bound to surface eventually

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't tell me what I can and cannot put in my game.

How about an ultra-violent, gory game about a psycho gun nut who tries to assassinate a politician while having a relationship with a 12 year old hooker? That's pretty disgusting and wrong.

But a movie about it...now that's completely different. Taxi Driver is widely credited with having launched Robert DeNiro and Jody Foster's careers. It was nominated for 4 Academy awards, and, while it didn't win any, at least the Academy didn't disqualify it for fear of the sponsors.

Likewise, perhaps a game could bring a new way of looking at the Amish shootings tragedy. We'll never know if even suggesting one, let alone actually spending time and money on it, is blasted by the public as somehow twisted and wrong.

Re:This is not censorship.

[The One and Only]

It would be like Domino's pizza objecting to a movie that glorified the two kids who went on a rampage at that school.

Have you played the Columbine RPG? I have, and it doesn't glorify them at all. If anything it's an attempt to help you to understand them, but it doesn't really succeed at that, except perhaps by asserting that to the two shooters, the massacre held the same unreality as a video game does to us.

What if I decide to make a game where the player is a rapist? The player earns experience by going around raping women and children. Or worse, how about a game where the player works at a Nazi concentration camp massacring innocents?

It probably wouldn't be that enjoyable to most of us, but rape and genocide have been addressed in literature and film--I don't see why video games wouldn't be an appropriate medium. The game Defcon simulates mass murder by nuclear exchange, and from what I've gathered from those who play it, it communicates the chilling and almost unreal nature of nuclear war as effectively as any other artistic expression of that topic. I could easily imagine a Holocaust simulator where the player manages a slave labor camp to optimize efficiency, balancing extermination demand with production quotas and food costs. It wouldn't be that fun, but it would illustrate the banality of evil and help us to gain some understanding of the people who did such things in life. You are right in one thing--such a game would completely abandon entertainment in favor of artistic expression--but it would be a worthwhile exercise.

Re:Makes me happy.

[jlarocco]

I also hope they seak new financhial backing and dump the one(s) that threatened to walk. However I still can't really say that they are BAD people, they were in a hard situation (Stand up, take the bullet, and die. Or run away to live and fight another day).

They chose wrong. I'm not a big gamer, so I had never even heard of this contest before. But right now, the only thing I know about the event is that it's controlled by corporate sponsors. In other words, it's pointless. Who wins? Who loses? Who gets thrown out? Whoever the sponsors want. No credibility at all.

On the otherhand, if they had told the sponsor to go to hell, they'd lose sponsorship, but their losing sponsors would also make it onto the front page of Slashdot. Except then, I'd know that it's actually a fair judge of game quality. A game doesn't win just because a corporate sponsor says it should. It wouldn't be the last contest. They'd have less money to spend on next year's contest, but they'd still be around.

Now they have the money, they just don't have any credibility. Which makes having an event next year seem like a waste of time.