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."'"

Taste

It doesn't sound like a very tasteful game.

Fools.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I face complex social issues in video games every day. Silent Storm [gamespy.com] 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.

I say "good"

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...

Taboo

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.

Re:I say "good"

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.

artists statement

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

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?"

Market Pressure == Censorship?

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.

Balancing the thin line

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?

Double Standards

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.

Sound business decision

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.

Emulation

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.

Games

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?

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.

Is PTFG a proper acronym?

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.

How Ironic

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.

Editorial Oversite...

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.

Brickbats for Slamdance

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.

Missing the point

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

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.

What about my rights?

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.

Comment from last year's winner

Wow, this is terrible. I'm sure the festival organizers, including Sam Roberts whom we met last year when we competed [grandtextauto.org] 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 [imdb.com], if you haven't already — a movie on the same topic as SCRPG!, which won the top prize [cbsnews.com] 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 [imdb.com]. How many people get "video game designer" in a movie credits?)

This game is art in the truest sense of the word

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

STOP THE PRESSES.

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.

It Has Merit

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

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

Re:Good for Slamdance

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:whatever...

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:Super Columbine Massacre RPG!

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:Good for Slamdance

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/ [columbinegame.com]

Re:Good for Slamdance

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 [slamdance.com] 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:Super Columbine Massacre RPG!

Whoosh!

Re:Good for Slamdance

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:Where is Jon Katz when you really need him?

He's apparently writing about dogs [wikipedia.org].

Re:Why the game was made

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.