Columbine RPG - How Real Is Too Real? 118
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."
Re:Ahh, finally (Score:3, Informative)
Wired beat them to it [wired.com]. But it is a welcome addition to the ranks of reviews that actually try to tackle the game on it's own, without dismissing it outright just because it touches on a sensitive subject.
I always assumed that the Vietnam games failed because they sucked. I've talked to WWII vets who were quite comfortable playing WWII games, it was kinda nostalgic for them. All the excitement without the horror or something like that.
Re:Historical games? (Score:3, Informative)
You mean like this [snopes.com]?
Admittedly, though, they had the idea before 9/11.
mistreatment (Score:3, Informative)
During WW2 most parties adhered to the Geneva Convention and treated prisoners and civilians with some degree of respect. Acts of terror that were undertaken which did not respect this Convention have been rightly viewed with disgust ever since (for example, how partisans/insurgents across Europe were treated if captured). After WW2 the allies, including the Americans, brought the leading Nazis to trial. Publicly recorded, given defence lawyers, given the opportunity to publicly offer their side of the story. People who had committed terrible crimes and killed many thousands of people over long periods of time.
Now, there are people in Guantanamo Bay that the US authorities claim they have the right to keep as long as they like without trial, without access to any outside legal support, and that they can interview under duress (some may say 'torture') whenever the US authorities want to. Some of these people may not have even committed a crime, they might just have been in the wrong place at the wrong time (such as the British citizens who were released claim). Even those interned who have committed crimes haven't carried out acts on the scale of those leading Nazis who were given public trials.
This seems to me to be at the very least putting the USA in a morally difficult position; these actions may not be war crimes, but they are not attractive actions that will win many friends or allow the US authorities to take the moral high ground.