Slashdot Mirror
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."
Good for them. When you give in to pressure from big business to censor you lose all of your credibility.
Haiku for you!
I know most people think that SCMRPG is in horrible taste, I disagre (I view it as documentry/commentary on a horrible event in video game form). Flow standing up against this is good of them in my mind.
I don't think that the SlamDance guys are bad for caving to the preasure (they do need corporate backers), however seeing a company that is gettign LOTS of recognition standing up against something like this still makes me happy.
as a note, if you havn't played around with Cloud (their other game) I deffinatly suggest it.
Do Or Do Not, There Is No Spoon, There Is Only Zuul. Everything in the above post is probably opinion.
When the hell is that game coming out?
The following replies are posted by unwashed nerds.
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...
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
The problem I have with JT... well firstly he can't engage in any kind of discussion or be at all diplomatic... but in a broader sense its the belief that keeping the public in the dark with as many issues people may make judgements on is the "safest" thing to do. Personally I think a lot of things "promoting" badness are just showing it, and letting the user decide whether its sensible, or far fetched, or whatever.
And I think thats totally wrong. Although I view the Colombine killers as assholes, putting them in a game isn't going to swap peoples minds if they know all the facts. If the media didn't preach bullshit maybe people would see reality as it is, and there wouldn't be as many cop killings, like JT says their are.
Give it 20 more years and the general public will feel just a bit more detached to accept this game, or something to its liking, anyway.
Tom Monaghan: Domino's Pizza Founder
"MIT betrayed all of its basic principles."
Five finalists have pulled out in protest.
Why is it improper for them to have decided they don't want that RPG included in their competition.
Because, as already noted, they invited it and then declared it among the elite of the entrants before throwing it out?
KFG
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.
Strike while the irony is hot! -- The Freethinker
Everyday Shooter, Toblo and Once Upon a Time have also pulled out.
This leaves the number of finalists at 8. leaving only ~60% of the original...
1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcf
violence depictions based on real-world events need a certain buffer to be forgiven. war/battle sims, movies and lots of other artistic content constantly invade/avoid such a buffer. 9/11 was "off-limits" until the softest, most congratulatory touches began - or hack comments about ethnicities, etc.
The buffer is time, or social distance, or satire versus sympathy (Borat movie comes to mind), etc.
These days, you can re-enact or view depictions the scenes from some major historical moments - many quite violent and offensive if there hadn't been that buffer.
"to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable"
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary
censoring:
"1 a : the institution, system, or practice of censoring"
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictio
Censorship can refer to goverment censorship, but doesn't have to. Anyone who has any power (including companies, contest judges, etc.) can censor.
As Carlin says "Try to pay attention to the language we've all agreed on."
Slamdance originally announced 14 finalists. They are currently down to 8 participating finalists.
Super Columbine was ejected.
Braid has pulled out.
Flow has pulled out.
Toblo has pulled out.
Once Upon A Time has pulled out.
Everyday Shooter has pulled out.
With nearly half of the finalists already gone, just a few more pullouts could cause a complete collapse of Slamdance this year.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
By non-standard do you mean something like Brian Mitchell + Wanda Barzee + Elizabeth Smart?
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.
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.
In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
STill waiting for the 9/11 RPG.
The maker of Cultivation has this tagline on the of bottom of his page, but has yet to pull out of the competition:
For those who do not fear sacrifice:
your souls will burn bright trails in the night sky.
I can totally tell that none of you have played this game and you're totally bashing on it. You're doing exactly what the media does with games like Grand Theft Auto, etc. This game glorifies nothing about Columbine, but gives insight into what happened that day. Also, the game costs nothing, you can go ahead an download it for free. http://www.columbinegame.com/download.htm Just my 2 cents, stop hating without being educated about what you're criticizing.
Good karma sticks to me like velcro on a piece of plexiglass.
Move along, citizen.
That's a poor analogy. It would be like Domino's pizza objecting to a movie that glorified the two kids who went on a rampage at that school. And I would fully expect that such a movie would be pulled from such a competition. You are obviously ignoring the Elephant in the room and the awards it recieved. http://imdb.com/title/tt0363589/ http://imdb.com/title/tt0363589/awards This may suprise you, but valid artistic works that deal with tragedies and otherwise distasteful events get made all the time, and are often good enough to get awards.
A college town + no condoms...
Yeah, THIS will end well... stupid bastards...
That leaves 11 finalists.
How many would need to leave before the event was no longer viable?
If you're not going to read the article, at least read The F'ing Summary:
It's not as if Slamdance was "stuck" with something they found distasteful, they initially chose this game to be a finalist, before caving to pressure from sponsors to kick it. Obviously the Slamdance organizers did like the game to begin with, or at least thought it had artistic merit, or they wouldn't have nominated it as a finalist in the first place. For them to do a complete about-face and remove the game afterward, based solely on the pressure of corporate sponsors, completely destroys any appearance of integrity they may have had, and reduces this once "independent" games festival to nothing more than a corporate marketing platform.
And while I'm on a rant, it needs to be pointed out to many people that, while you may find something distasteful and even patently offensive -- which in itself is certainly your right to choose what you like or dislike -- that does not give you or I or anyone else the right to silence those offensive statements or works of art. The whole point of the First Amendment is not to protect speech that you like, but to protect speech that you don't like, whether it's a social viewpoint or political commentary or an artistic endeavor, or, as is most common today, artistic endeavors that provide an avenue for controversial statements. Just remember: If someone's voice can be silenced because you don't like what they say, then yours can be silenced because someone else doesn't like what you have to say.
Quote from the article: In some of the blog posts responding to this action, reference is made to requests or pressure from "backers" to remove Super Columbine Massacre RPG from the festival. We wish to clearly state that, as sponsors, we neither made any such request, nor were we consulted about this action prior to it being taken. On the contrary, our requests to re-instate the game were denied and our discussions with Peter Baxter over the reasons for the removal of the game leave us unconvinced that it was either a necessary action or one that is in line with the vision of the festival as a place to celebrate independent game making.
I'm amazed... I managed a score of 0. I've noticed that it's strictly taboo. I've noticed that it's strictly taboo to even remotely criticize anything related to games on Slashdot. I bet my post would have been deleted if it had been possible, which is kind of ironic considering the nature of the discussion.
Having seen the game for myself I stand by my argument that the game was created for no other reason that for it's shock value. And not seeing anything particularly merit-worthy, gameplay-wise I don't see how the game even ended up as a finalist. I can only assume the justification was to make a statement or because of the aforementioned shock value. Perhaps I haven't played the game enough to appreciate the original standing; it's entirely possible.
Very sensitive subjects have been touched on in literature and art for ages. And I've got no problem with that at all. But it all depends on the context and how it's depicted. I can think of several ways I could have depicted to Columbine murders in a disturbing manner, giving you insight into those two kids without having made it so shockingly offensive. There seems to be this tendency to deem something praise-worthy merely because it creates a stir by offending people.
Back to the censorship issue. I can't go into your house and force you to watch or play something you don't like. Isn't the common argument when people see something they don't like on television to change the channel? So if a private organization decides to remove a game from their competition, regardless of their initial acceptance, why shouldn't they be free to do so? Must people no be forced to acknowledge anything and everything regardless of whether or not they find it offensive simply because other people insist on it?
Isn't that how this country works? If people are unhappy, they have other means of protesting. They pull out of this competition and take part in another where such games are given the kind of recognition they deem worthy. Jeez, this is so elemental that I'm honestly shocked there was such a reaction to my first post.
And mind you, I never said that the game should be banned in general. Those guys are free to distribute that game to their heart's content. I'm simply expressing my own opinion on the matter. So much for my karma, not that I much care.
You don't have to CAVE to sponsors. I understand completely that without money you don't exist. That is NOT the same thing.
While I would have zero disrespect for someone who said "we're going to have the wholesome game awards" to get more sponosors - even if he and all the judges thought games with mature themes were better - you have to do that BEFORE the competition. And you have to be honest with your sponsors and yourselves. And if you WERE honest with them and they get cold feet in violation of your agreement, you have to have balls.
You're missing the other side of the puzzle. At the risk of sounding like the bubble, if your awards are worthless you have no marketshare, and if you have no marketshare you ALSO have no sponsors. (Unless you're one of those "competitions" that have a big entry fee and give an honorable mention to everything that enters, to pad the things they can put on the box.) If you have a big marketshare and publicity, sponsors - SOME sponsors - will beat a path to your door.
In this case I think they've traded for short-term sponsorship and publicity by giving the long-term popularity of their awards.
If you decide to make "The Wholesome Game Awards" because you'll get more sponsors, more power to you. If you move way out to the edge for the "ultraviolent game awards" then you won't get traditional mainstream sponsors. Maybe you'll get a sponsorship from the Ultimate Fighting Championships or something. Porn game awards would only get porn sponsors. Etc.
Choosing to be mainstream enough to have sponsors is VERY different than what this competition did - caving to sponsors after the game was a finalist. Unless the sponsor has a contractually set veto over the judging process, the right answer is to offer to a) add disclaimers about the sponsor not sponsoring the individual games, etc. and other such concessions if the sponsor will go for them or b) telling the sponsor they can pull out of future sponsorships if they want, but you're keeping the money they already promised for THIS competition, thank you very much.
And if they STILL behave badly - like they withhold money they promised you for this competition or they threaten to sue you for going through with it - then you publicize the heck out of the situation. Include publicizing how this game was in the list of entrants, so the sponsor was ALREADY sponsoring it. You'll get some combination of a) them backing off to stop the continuing press coverage about it and b) a ton of press and name recognition, netting you the ability to get other sponsorships. Get that fact into as much of the press as possible.
Btw, I've never seen the game in question, and the little I've read doesn't make me think highly of it. But the fact that it was a finalist means it was very much exactly what this competition was looking for, whatever that is.
Looking for freelance Actionscript (Flash/Flex) or ColdFusion work and/or freelance developers. Email me, put Slashdot
For a festival that's supposed to be "on the edge" this is turning into one enormous embarassment.
First off, its censorship, plain and simple.
Secondly, banning a game for being too violent removes all possibility that video games
have the potential to make an artistic statement. Afterall, when Cronenberg makes a violent film
the critical response always runs along the lines of: Yes, its violent, but its art.
If videogames are not afforded the same latitude by the festival, then the festival is by nature
denying their potential to be art. Needless to say -- this is a bizarre platform for a
festival promoting the genre.
Thirdly, Slamdance is supposed to be "on the edge". Its supposed to be the festival that
is what Sundance 'once was' -- before the big studios, corporate overlords and big brand
sponsors stepped in. Banning a game whose subject matter runs contrary to family values
is hardly
What will be left in the wreckage of this festival (after all those with any artistic
credibility leave) is a group of game-makers who:
a) Have no artistic credibility
b) Are selfish
c) Are morally high-handed sorts like the Christian Right and the Family Values crowd.
End Result?
All I can say is "nice festival guys". You could have become something important in the gaming world.
Anyone who stays in the festival should be profoundly embarrassed.
I sure wouldn't want to win this year.
------ The best brain training is now totally free : )