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

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

Re:good for them

Indeed. I wish I had a game in the competition so I could withdraw it now, and I'd like to go on record as being newly motivated to check out any games by people with enough integerity to stand by their fellow designer and stick to their beliefs even though it means losing a shot at this particular brass ring. That action earns my respect far more than any "I won at Slamdance!" blurb could.

Re:good for them

Looks like 3 more have dropped out as well:

http://braid-game.com/news/?p=21 [braid-game.com]

5 games in total have quit in disgust. Good on em indeed!

Makes me happy.

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.

Re:Makes me happy.

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?

Speaking of Brokeback Mountain

When the hell is that game coming out?

This is typical political correctness

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

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

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

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

dubbed "murder simulators", isn't America's Army the most literal definition?

Killing cops is bad, killing terrorists and nazi's is good! Don't you get it?

Why do you hate America?

Re:This is typical political correctness

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 PacMan, or simulating large scale eating of dots. Millions have died from binge eating, and hundred of thousands died from obesity and continue to do so. Yet nobody finds reasons to be upset when you incarnate a mindless yellow eating machine in a game. It's all perfectly normal to them.

My grandfather died from eating thousands of marshmallows; I never knew him. He was fighting for the "good guys" (fluffy-puff marshmallows), but that didn't prevent my dad from crying often when he thought about him. Eating 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 bulimic ten minutes later make me sick, because they're biased, politically correct idiots with short memories...

Ignorance is not safety

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.

It's bound to surface eventually

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.

Five games, not two

Five finalists have pulled out in protest [watercoolergames.org].

Here's my two cents...

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:Here's my two cents...

The name of the damn contest is "The Slamdance Guerilla Gamemaker Competition." That would be "guerilla" as in "a member of a band of irregular soldiers that uses guerrilla warfare, harassing the enemy by surprise raids, sabotaging communication and supply lines, etc." [reference.com]

It doesn't stop at 2...

Everyday Shooter [everydayshooter.com], Toblo [csnation.net] and Once Upon a Time [wakinggames.com] have also pulled out.

This leaves the number of finalists at 8. leaving only ~60% of the original...

Wrong Market

  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.

MORE pullouts! Slamdance may collapse entirely!

Slamdance originally announced 14 finalists. [slamdance.com] They are currently down to 8 participating finalists. [slamdance.com]

Super Columbine was ejected.
Braid [ironrealms.com] has pulled out.
Flow [thatgamecompany.com] has pulled out.
Toblo [csnation.net] has pulled out.
Once Upon A Time [wakinggames.com] has pulled out.
Everyday Shooter [everydayshooter.com] 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.

-

I'm

STill waiting for the 9/11 RPG.

Does anyone else find this ironic?

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.

Just a note to all critics commenting....

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 [columbinegame.com] Just my 2 cents, stop hating without being educated about what you're criticizing.

1 removed, 2 pulled out.

That leaves 11 finalists.

How many would need to leave before the event was no longer viable?

USC Sponsership Pulled

It looks likes USC has removed themselves as a sponsor from Slamdance. http://interactive.usc.edu/members/tfullerton/arch ives/007203.html [usc.edu]

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.

Why Slamdance should be humiliated

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 ...well.. "edgy".

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.

Re:Dominoes Pizza?

Tom Monaghan: Domino's Pizza Founder [wikipedia.org]

Re:This is not censorship.

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

Re:This is not censorship.

People like to throw around the term censorship, but it's really only censorship if the government is involved.

censor:
"to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable"
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary [m-w.com]

censoring:
"1 a : the institution, system, or practice of censoring"
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Diction ary&va=censorship [m-w.com]

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."

Re:Dominoes Pizza?

By non-standard do you mean something like Brian Mitchell + Wanda Barzee + Elizabeth Smart?

Re:This is not censorship.

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 [everybody-dies.com] 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:This is not censorship.

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/ [imdb.com] http://imdb.com/title/tt0363589/awards [imdb.com] 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.

Re:This is not censorship.

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.