Columbine RPG - How Real Is Too Real?

westlake writes "Washington Post columnist Mike Musgrove offers a rare and balanced view from the mainstream press of the Slamdance Competition and Super Columbine Massacre RPG. Surprised by the effective use of flashbacks and the authentic dialogue of the Columbine game, he goes on to say: 'But when it came time to start creating mayhem in the school's halls, I couldn't bring myself to push the buttons to continue. Odd, I suppose, because I have killed thousands of video game characters over the years. And though the game's chunky graphics are primitive...no game has ever made me feel nearly as queasy. I didn't want to be responsible for the real-world violence that happened that day, even in a game.' Ledonne figures that games will either grow into a medium in which it is acceptable to confront and challenge an audience with titles like his, or will devolve into a stagnant, failed format."

Historical games?

I guess he's never played world war II games and the like.

Re:Historical games?

Too soon, I'm guessing. I thought about it... a Jack The Ripper game wouldn't be horrible to us, because none of us had to deal with it happening in our lifetime. WWII didn't happen in my lifetime, yet I love WWII games, and still study WWII after school.

Re:Historical games?

I think that's right.

Consider the Hindenburg on the cover of Led Zeppelin I [wikipedia.org]. That doesn't seem all that shocking now. Imagine 30 years from now a band putting the World Trade Center in flames on a cover.

Not just time difference

I'm from the UK and I personally don't feel that offended by things surrounding the whole columbine situation. If however there were to be a game surrounding for example, the July 2005 bombings it'd bother me a whole lot more. Perhaps it's just me, but I'd guess if it isn't and this in fact extends to other people then how far you are removed geographically or possibly even from a cultural point of view also is a large factor. I'm pretty sure there's plenty of say, Afghans for example who absolutely would not care about this kind of thing.

Context

I could be wrong, but I imagine that the problem is the context of the Violence/Killing ...

Few people would have a problem with a World War 2 game, whether you're playing for the American, Canadian, British, Russian, Austrailian, German, or Japaneese armies because in the context of war it's kill or be killed; in other words, society in general does not see a problem with killing an opposing soldier when you're a soldier at war.

In contrast I suspect that people would be outraged if you produced a game where you're a german soldier at Auschwitz and you're required to kill jewish prisoners.

Re:Historical games?

Well, then there's maybe the fact that the vast majority of WWII games are about as close to "reality" as Doom with Ally/Axis player skins. Both the people you kill and the people you are fighting beside are anonymous and disposable with no connection outside of whatever you brought to the game with you. And they respawn 30 seconds later anyway.

Personally, his reaction makes sense to me. Like he says, he's killed thousands of video game characters. Yet rarely do they attempt to draw you into understanding your character as the killer, and understanding your victims, the whole scenario surrounding the killing. Rarely do they cover historical events, real murders, with any attempt at accuracy. So when he plays a game that does, it is as disturbing to him as watching a documentary about Columbine that then asks the viewer "So given you were them, would you have shot your schoolmates?" That's bound to create an emotional reaction that no FPS tries to.

Basically it supports what I've been saying all along -- despite all the "conditioning" he's received from playing video games, when the situation even got close to real violence, his natural reactions kicked in. Conditioning only works if you believe you are experiencing real consequences or rewards. The "real" rewards and consequences of an FPS are completely divorced from those of a real life murder spree, and no amount of Doom/BF1942 will forge an artificial connection in a normal person.

Normal people have no problem separating reality from fantasy, and thus no amount of "fantasy" killing will actually train them to kill in real life or be desensitized to real life killing. Only insane people who are incapable of this separation will directly transfer simulated killings into the real world, because for them the difference is blurry or non-existant to begin with.

It's Too Real

Real people scream.

You have your answer.

Ahh, finally

A discussion over whether it is playable as opposed to wether or not it should be legal to play. The game is simply one big shock value gimic. Due to its subject matter, it has recieved far more attention than a game of it's technical capability merits. It's a game everyone loves to talk about and use as political hay, but a game few really enjoys playing. After the shock wears off, it's not that enticing. Why have Vietnam games tanked? People just can't be compelled to play them, no matter how much curiousity is generated by the subject matter and media mudslinging surrounding the game. As a free sppech battleground, the game is valuable. As a game, it's a loser.

Re:Ahh, finally

I played through the game. The gameplay is simplistic, but the developers took the time to incorporate as much media and historical footage into the game as possible. The end result is a fairly well crafted game IMHO. Some aspects of it could use a little work--it follows the tried and true RPG "grind" of leveling up your characters. However, just like the real life version, the good guys aren't really a threat. It's possible to die if you're really sloppy right in the beginning of the attack, but after that you're doing the equivalent of killing rats in the forest for a couple of hours just to level up.

The second half of the game gets a bit more interesting gameplay wise, but the storyline really peters out. There's an island where you can talk to other characters for viewpoints on god and a final boss battle that still isn't very difficult. I have to admit that the second half of the game felt a bit tacked on.

... and then there's something called Bad Taste...

I don't believe there should be a ban on this game, but I do believe that it's one of the worst ideas of a video game. One can only imagine the reaction (and thus consequencly the publicity) a game would provoke and receive if it was about the ascention of Hitler or Mussolini through the eyes of a supporter. Like I said before, I don't think there should be a de jure ban on the game, but there is definately going to be a de facto ban on the game.

Probably way out of line when . . .

It probably gets out of line when you mash up a Columbine-type game with Remote Control Hunting [outdoorlife.com].

I'm just sayin'.

Slamdance

I played this game, and while I didn't find any problems with the violence, I couldn't get past how boring the game was. My character had all the guns and my enemies were unarmed. The "real-world violence" that day was, well, not challenging. I'm not sure why this game is up for awards. To me, it was a boring RPG grinder. Gaming should be challenging, not an excuse to make the gamer read dialogue and look at pictures.

Question

How does everyone think a WWII vet would react if you strapped some headphones on to him and made him relive the D-day landing ala Medal of Honor?

Either we accept violent games as a legitmate pastime or we don't. Selectively barring certain game titles because they "hit too close to home" is about the worse solution possible.

a game that makes a point

this is a conceptual game, in the same way that there is conceptual art. It makes it's point but is often only appealing in that sense, not in a greater aesthetic one.

Certainly I don't think it should have been pulled from slamdance and I'm with any independent game developer who pulls out of slam to protest this. Censorship is never the answer. Arguably it shows a lack of concern for all those involved in what happened in columbine (I stop short of using the word tragedy, i hate the word).

However having been one of those kids on the outside of school culture when younger when I watched columbine originally unfold and afterwards, I found that no lesson had really been learnt, especially by parents as to their personal responsibility and culpability for what happened.

While people ignore the way people who are 'outsiders' are treated as children in schools I think reminders like this are needed.

I think we as a geek community have proven that animation is not only for kids. Can games be for adults and deal with adult themes too? Perhaps Columbine rpg is not the greatest example as it is a shock title, but the point still stands.

The reality test...

If the game makes you sick to your stomach, you crap your pants, and your moral compass is screwy as a real compass in the Bermuda Triangle, then the game is too real. You should stop playing that game and go back to playing mine sweeper.

Interesting effect....

Maybe this game has a more "profound" effect on people that one would think. if certain people have to stop and think whether they can push "that" button and go on with a re-enacted set of killings (albeit very SNES/16-bit like)... maybe the game has pulled off the intended effect the author was looking for? (that is besides, getting some sort of media attention... pre-meditated or not)

Reminds me of the Beslan incident

I was browsing for some new Rainbow Six maps a while ago and came across a forum post that claimed that somebody made a hostage rescue map based on the Beslan school. My first reaction, without reading (or even opening) the thread was that it could be interesting to see. So I clicked the thread in hope of a link, but there was none! The original poster provided no links, screenshots, or anything else besides the baseless claim.

Nevertheless, it was enough to get everybody pissed off and write a few pages of insults, directed at the unknown author of the map which doesn't even exist. Inhuman, immoral, evil, you know, the standard stuff used in such cases. There was only one post in the whole thread that questioned the existence of the map, but it didn't even slow down the flames.

They claimed that it was disrespectful to those involved in the event, but I don't see how it could be (if it was done properly, but since it doesn't exist we'll never know). If it actually was a single player R6 map, you'd be playing the CT units trying to rescue the hostages and kill the terrorists. It could help remind people of what happened there, and allow them to look at the events from another perspective, and not just from the news cameras which were far from the events, but close to the dead bodies.

the video game equivalent of Lolita?

There are a lot of people who have already done this soul-searching in the literary world. One fictional example is that of the book, Lolita. The movie adaptations are a pale shadow of the psychology involved, but if you've seen any of them, you can probably understand my point.

Even if you're in no way a pedophile or pederast, it can be a very challenging read. In that story, you are in the mind of a fictional character who IS a pedophile. The first half of the book is just his anticipation in his desires, his plotting and scheming, his self-loathing yet determined goal-seeking behaviors. This is uneasy enough to absorb for the reader, whether you're a parent, a real-life victim, or neither. The second half of the book, once he "consumates" his desires, is another whole exploration into the mutual consequences that both parties face.

Yet somehow the book of Lolita has gone from a sick idea, to a banned idea, and back to a respected and deeply studied piece of high literature. The author Nabokov is no longer immediately assumed to be of the same mindset as his character Humbert: there is a presenium, a barrier between the author and the character, as well as between the character and the reader.

The creators of this Columbine RPG didn't just go out on a lark splashing gore on the screen and laughing at the jock victims. From all I've seen about the game (haven't played it), they took an approach that MADE the player squirm with empathy, that defied the player's logic and made them squirm DESPITE the graphics, DESPITE the gameplay issues itself. What is highlighted is the psychology that led to the events from all parties: cruel clique objectification and lack of adult-guided social nurturing at a critical point in the adolescent mind. I don't mean to sound like a Jon Katz here, but we've already discussed this, but this work appears to have legitimate merit which should be recognized, instead of assuming that it's a depraved training manual for mayhem.

Here's my 2 cents... change goes in the penny bowl

I haven't played it. I don't want to play it. I don't feel any desire to emulate Klebold and Harris, and I have no particular desire to find out what it's like to gun down children in the halls. (Mind you, there was a time or seven hundred in my youth that I might have, but not any more.)

Having said that, I agree that censorship is the absolute wrong thing to do. I can deal with unpalatable games far better than I can deal with someone saying, "This is taboo, you may not show it."

It's a case of the cure being worse than the malady.

so you're saying it will be really popular?

"Mind you, there was a time or seven hundred in my youth that I might have

So you're saying - big potential audience amongst school aged kids?

Clive Thompson's Article in Wired

Clive Thompson has an artical in Wired on this game. He has a permanent link to it http://www.collisiondetection.net/mt/archives/2007 /01/i_barrel_into_t.html#001615 [collisiondetection.net] in his blog that I found quite interesting.

I am not AT ALL interested in playing the game but I like his write up on it.

Call me sick...

But I enjoy games like the one in TFA...not because I want to go on a murderous rampage, good lord no. I am quite sane and can differentiate between "right and wrong" and "real and fantasy" I think it is because I accept and acknowledge that I have a sadistic side. I enjoy seeing people in pain. ::shrug:: I can't help it, I do. I love gore for the sake of gore movies, the whole "torture horror movie" movement going on...hell, Men Behind the Sun is one of my favorite movies despite the appaling part of history that it covers.

I love games like manhunt, where you stalk your prey. Games like The Warriors where you can beat someone until they puke. I love ultra-violence, the more realistic the better. I have been watching Faces of Death since I was 8. I have perused ogrish.com (before it changed to an "uncensored media resource") for countless hours. I love watching videos of real death, destruction, and violence.

In real life? I would never hurt a fly. I hate hurting people, either physically or mentally; purposly, or accidently. I don't like being mean to people. I like helping people. I like helping people recover from trauma, be it physical or mental. In my every day "real life" persona, I am a great guy that will give 20 bucks to a stranger so he can eat a nice meal.

But I also have a dark side to me. Thankfully I have a playground for those dark desires. A place where I can go without harming anyone or anything. Now, I'm not saying that if I didn't have video games that I would harm people; All I need is my imagination and I'm fine...ever read JTHM from Jhonnen Vasquez? In interviews with him, he says that he draws the things he always wishes he could do to people but never personally could.

I have a sick and twisted mind. I know this. I do not deny it. But I also do not supress it; I allow it to come out in a controlled, harmless, and entertaining manner. Don't get upset reading this; deep down inside you is the same dark little monster inside everyone else.

The question is, are you able to accept that and move on, or do you continue to deny it until one day you actually do something stupid and kill a bunch of people like at columbine?

Here's a good question...where's JT?

Where the heck is Jack Thompson now? The guy was screaming to ban Bully from his state (if not the world) because in his mind it was a Columbine simulator (which it isn't, hell it's T for Teen), harassed the judge when he didn't get his way and got himself a contempt charge, and pissed on the gaming industry as a whole in an attempt to kill the first amendment. Now we actually HAVE a Columbine simulator and he's gonna sit there and thumb his ass?

Oh wait, that's right, it's not a Rockstar game. Doesn't matter if the hot coffee company isn't involved.

I certainly don't support him, but he's sure doing a half-assed job of being an asshole.

Kill the Nerd

I'm waiting for an RPG game where the player, a jock, racks up points for killing, maiming, and otherwise torturing nerds... maybe even Slashdot readers specifically. Get points by shoving the nerd's keyboard up his rectum or overwriting his Linux laptop with the ProJock version of Windows -- maybe shaking nerds down to pay off the principle to look the other way? The end game ought to be piling the dead nerd bodies on the football field and setting them on fire, with cheerleaders egging you on the whole time.

That would be a *really* good way of finding out how open-minded the /. community is.

We seem to be glossing over something here.

Most games are sold as pure entertainment, they may have a historical theme, but usually that's just to add colour and to bring with it an implied back-story.
When somebody sits down to write a game called Columbine RPG, they're doing something different - they're provoking people. Provocation isn't good or bad though, basically just makes people think.
Now I don't know if this was the intention of the games author, but is has made people think a lot more about the content of their games. Germany bans a game for blood and we ridicule them. We spend an evening slaughtering thousands of 'space aliens' or 'WW2 germans' and we shrug it off, it doesn't register what we're doing represents. We are jaded by it all
A game like this gives us a kick up the back-side and makes people feel uncomfortable. We have to explain why we think one thing is right and the other isn't (and people seem to be having difficulty with this). This is a good thing. This is art.
Games whatever people might wish to think aren't even touching emotional depth. Oh we may all post about how we felt when Aeris died, but ffs, compare this to literature and it's nothing. The emotional peaks in games are so few, that we trumpet every single mediocre one of them. Well here's another one, just as valid, just a different type.

I heard they nerfed the shotguns.

Too many people were complaining in multi-player mode that the shotguns were "gay". That and the pipe bombs didn't work. Basically the game sucks.

Another excuse for more control

Our wars are fought far away by those that have, at least temporarily, been removed from society. What happens in war has come to be viewed as a grim necessity however the war itself might be viewed. When the violent deaths of people much like those we know happen so close to home there is much greater emotional charge. We are separated from the horrors of war but not those tragedies that happen to those much like ourselves so the response is understandably greater. While I support the right for these games to be created, regardless of the outcry, and feel that any rejection of them should be done with our wallets I am concerned that this game, and others like it, will likely be used as an excuse for legislation to further control just what we are allowed to say and do.

Wired reviewed it too...

Contrast the Washington Post's review with this very positive one [wired.com] from earlier this week. Looking at it as art, Wired suggests that it is a well-researched game that explores issues of bullying, responsibility, blame, and video games themselves.

I found this very telling from the WP article:

Ledonne, who turns 25 today, says he was bullied as a kid and might have headed down a road in life similar to Harris and Klebold's had he not found other outlets. "I wanted to explore who they really were, and I didn't have the funding to make a film," he said.

It's clear to me, based on this and other things the author has said, that for him the game is a mode of expression, much as a film might be, and a medium for exploring issues related to the tragedy. The game isn't being exploited financially (it's a free download), the artist/author has taken a personal hit for making it (at least according to the web site)... and it's not like it's a 1st person shooting "simulator".

I was also interested in reading that nearly half of Slamdance's other video game authors [slamdance.com] decided to pull their games in protest of the festival's decision.

Seems the game is much more artistic social commentary than it would appear at first.
 

It's not about how real something appears...

it's about if people can distinguish reality from virtual reality. If people can't then they have a problem and they should be helped.

censorship is never the answer

Censorship is pointless, if something is horrible and no one likes it, no one will buy or play it. Free market is self governing.

Is it art?

My hope is that games like this will help legitimize video games as an art.

Yeah maybe that's a bit far fetched, but think about it: if every movie created was a simple action film ("Snakes of a Plane") or low-budget porno, nobody would consider movies an art form. It took films like "Birth of a Nation" (a highly controversial film, for good reason) before people took film seriously.

Exploiting Outrage

We all knows how the recipe works:

1. Create a sub-par work of "art" that is intended to promote outrage from the general public.

2. Paint yourself as a victim of censorship or intolerance when the art flops, or when people find it in bad taste.

3. Watch people rally around your otherwise unremarkable work as a counter-reaction.

This game is crap. It is not a very good game. It is not very compelling as art. I am not offended by the game because of its "controversial" subject matter (I would have no problem with a well-crafted and well written RPG about Columbine being presented as art), I am offended that the Slamdance Contest would promote something that they damn well know stinks in order to score some cheap publicity for the Slamdance contest.

Re:What next?

How about "9/11 Survivor". It's an indie project where they tried to recreate what those trapped in the towers were experiencing. Some missions you can't beat because there's no way out. So it's either burn to death or jump.

Games aren't just for fun. Serious games try to convey a message, or pass on info. SCMRPG was like a documentary of the events, in detail. While on the way taking jabs at the gaming industry, the killers themselves, and anyone who might try to think this was somehow a game to train the next round of killers...