Just FYI: The Toronto Sun is seen by Torontonians as more of a tabloid than a real newspaper. Not that the rest of our media outlets haven't trudged down the path of linking video games to real-world violence somewhat, but with the Sun you're 99% guaranteed to read material geared towards people who also keep Jerry Springer on TV.

Wait a minute... last I checked, this game was a completely independent effort done without any input or submission to the ESRB. How can you bring them up in this instance?

I'm beginning to wonder if this game is going to be the video game industry's version of Natural Born Killers - in that everyone attaches whatever meaning they want to further their own agenda.

Im from montreal, and i havent heard of any newspaper (or any other media) blaming this game.

#3 - I second that, I am from Montréal and I havent seen any media blame video games. I supose that when you are so close to this kind of tragedy, you find that blaming videogames for such an twisted act sounds ridiculous, at best.

I am insulted that while talking about Grand Theft Auto they couldn't even get the right footage. The first few seconds were right but then it switched over to footage from Bully.

I think the fact that they have music playing the whole time during the interview rocks!!! And is that the best picture they could find of Danny. And why is the news lady blinking so much?

They may not be blaming video games for this in Montreal, but I am in Winnipeg, and a day after the shootings there was a FULL page article in the Free Press about violent video games related to this issue.

I have to commend the game creator in his interview, he came across as sincere and knowledgeable and I think his comments rang true about staying in touch with your kids.

Involved in the ESRB or not, it's a medium as a whole, with all game creators involved, and the more we send the same message (stay in touch with your kids, know what they are doing with their time) the better it will be heard.

I have to agree with my fellow Canadians here. I've seen basically no coverage about the supposed video game element here. The Toronto Sun is the only mention, and the Sun is garbage anyways.

Most of the misplaced media focus has been on goth culture, particularly some MySpace-like website for goths that he was on.

He did a remarkably good, balanced job.

As a Canadian, I also have to say that I don't believe our media has been using this game as "The Scapegoat" as Joystiq so eloquently put it, for what happened in Montreal. Yes, the Toronto Sun mentioned the game in its article, but they mentioned a lot of things. And like has been said already, the Sun isn't exactly considered "media" here in Canada. It's more the American media that's picking this video game link and running with it...

I work at Canoe. The Toronto Sun absolutely is using video games as a scapegoat. I'm not sure about other media outlets, but unfortunately the Sun is extremely tabloid-ish and latches onto whatever is the most sensational angle of a story. In this case, it's the fact that this guy happened to play video games.

I play video games all the time and have never even been in a fight. Does that mean video games should be lauded for being a positive influence on me, showing me right from wrong? No - it shows that I was brought up well by my parents and I have a grasp on reality. This killer from Montreal obviously had serious mental problems. That's not the fault of video games.

I'm from Toronto and I read a number of articles linking this shooting spree with video games. The National Post takes quotes from the gunman's blog entries on vampirefreaks.com where he refers to Postal 2.

I think the problem the media has is trying to explain an unexplainable act in 500 words or less. If they can find a link to a group or groups that are already marginalized like Goths or Gamers, they will latch onto it.

I just want to clarify some information for anyone reading this who does not know what The Sun and Canoe, which both are owned by Quebecor.

Canoe is not a television network it is a web based information site.

The Sun's biggest selling point is their pinup Girls in bikini's then the actual sensationalized "news" stories contained within the paper.

I don't think a video game can make you commit a crime. I do think that it is important to remember that if you are putting more negative images into your head than positive ones it is going to affect you. For all the hours spent looking at and participating in virtual violence, how much time are you giving to positive information entering your brain? Just like food, you are what you eat, you become what you give your time to. Not a popular idea with a company who wants you to buy more product and spend more time on their games. Consider the source.

@mom:

a very good comment and an angle I had not explored before. No one can look at violent games and say it has NO effect on your mind. I know that while finishing the latest Hitman game, my thoughts and moods turned darker. As with any activity, moderation is the key. I hope that mom doesnt get flamed here, because there are some good ideas in the comment.

vilent media isnt going to make you kill someone, but it sure doesnt help if you are sick in the head and have violent tendencies.

Since when do human beings lose their free will and become animals when a piece of violent stimulus crosses their path? Even if anyone wanted to mimic something they saw in a movie or a video game, there is always a motive behind why they do it. Beyond that they always make a choice whether to do it or not. At Columbine there was something, and in Montreal there probrably was too; and they made the choice to carry out the actions they did. Those who have absolutely no motive for their actions other than "I copied what I saw in a video game, for no reason" are demented. There is something fundamentally wrong with their personality that should have been apparent to their parents, family members, or friends lightyears before any type of volatile situation could occur.

There is preventative action that can be taken against people like this, and that's getting them psychological help, and keeping them from any and all types of influential material. If your kid has a violent personality, don't let him play violent games. If your kid has a social disorder, don't feed his weakness. It's that simple.

There shouldn't even be dialogue as to whether violent games, movies, or books should be illegal. Not only is there absolutely no correlation between them and violent crime, but even if there were it'd be such a small anomaly that we'd have to discuss banning cars, and planes first. Games like Super Columbine Massacre RPG offer more to people than "let's kill people in school lol", and what the author of the game says about it being art is totally true.

Just because people are uncomfortable, or afraid to open a dialogue about certain topics is no excuse to delete them from existence. Society needs to open up and understand what place these kinds of games hold in society (The GTAs and Bullys included) and respect the authors right to create them.

If you don't like what certain media portrays, don't buy it for yourself or your kids. Things that are made for adults are expected to be played by adults, and there is only one governmental body that should be expected to uphold that: Parents.

We need to hover back down to earth and stop acting like our kids aren't our own, and don't live under our supervision.

No matter the publication, I think if you're going to make a game centering around the killings at a school, you're ASKING for it.

This is just my personal opinion, obviously, but Danny Ledonne is a fucking asshat who DESERVES to be a scapegoat. It's not his fault that some twat went out and killed people after playing his game, no. It's not his GAME'S fault. But if you pay any attention whatsoever to how this industry and its product are treated whenever something like this happens, then YOU KNOW that a game like 'Super Columbine Massacre RPG', independent product or not, is not going to go over well with the media at all. That's not even talking about how ignorant the program was to begin with.

I think, as gamers, we need to pick and choose our battles, instead of uniting with every nut out there who makes a game like this simply because they speak eloquently. Again, this is just my personal opinion, but I think SOME people in this industry, in this business, in this hobby, need to be held accountable. And I feel this is a prime example.

I am a gamer and I do not endorse this moron OR his game.

It IS a very good point brought up by "mom", but I think what she says is actually incorrect.

Having played video games for nearly 25 years now, I can honestly say that the amount of positive information entering my brain far overwhelms any negative information. Granted, I do not play games like Grand Theft Auto or any FPS's that are being targeted, but I doubt I would be any different today if I did. I'm a huge fan of Fighting Games like Street Fighter, but I've never fought anyone in real life. Ever. But that's because true gamers transcend their games to another level, as corny as that may sound. And they do it because games are exactly that: games.

Have you ever watched experts play, for example, Geometry Wars? Do you think they are playing a game where they are using a space ship to destroy hostile objects in space? No. All they see are holes to escape through, danger areas, and their current location. Their brains are constantly processing information, deciding which areas they need to head towards to survive. Same thing for Fighting Games. When I play Street Fighter, I do not see two characters fighting. To simplify it a lot, I see areas of the screen which my opponent control, and the sections of the screen where I may be able to break my opponent's defenses. It's very abstract.

So I don't view games as pumping in negative information into a person's mind. Quite the opposite, games provide huge positive information. Learning how to overcome puzzles, seemingly impossible situations, outsmarting your opponent, and solving/discovering things on your own is a great feeling, even to this day for me. I'm sure most gamers can recall a situation where they accomplished something in a game that made them so pleased with themselves that they were in a good mood for a long period of time.

Games have helped me learn how to think outside the box to solve real world problems. They've helped me learn how to be persistent and to really try to "defeat" problems. And, thanks to the large amount of Fighting Games I've played in public, it's even helped severely placate my temper problem, learning how to become a better sport after losing so often.

Games do not put people into dark moods, not the majority of the players I know. The closest thing that happens is that a difficult game might cause anger in someone, or being defeated in a competitive game can cause disappointment. But the majority of the time, it makes you strive to do better and to play smarter. No one goes mental over these things. And if they do, it probably means they were mental already, before games. Losing at checkers would cause them the same anguish.

jchensor worded it beautifully. When you play a game like, say, Unreal Tournament, you don't play it to watch people die. You play it to better your opponents. You play to earn respect. You don't play to watch the gibs fly... and if you do, it's generally just to see how bad to can humiliate another player.

It's the people who get a kick out of the violence for the sake of the violence that need to be watched. It's like comparing R-Type to Fantasy Zone. If it's fun, I don't care how it's delivered to me, because I'm not in it for the blood and gore. Those who are... they're the problem.

One of the big reasons why all these folk-devils (video games, D&D, rock and roll, marijuana, etc.) survive so long in the public consciousness is that people always forget that correlation is not the same as causation.

It's very easy to find a significant correlation between people with a yearly income over $100K, and people who use opera glasses on a regular basis. This does not mean that using opera glasses on a regular basis will have any effect on your income.

It makes sense that if you have someone who is confused in such a way that killing people seems like a good idea, then this person would also enjoy forms of art which portray that kind of violence. I mean, wouldn't it seem kind of odd if this killer from Montreal had an *aversion* to violent video games?

The many and varied effects of (video) games on human beings is valid and worthwhile area of inquiry, which is precisely why it's such a shame when the discourse is muddied by this kind of idiocy.

Wow, I have to say that was an excellent interview/debate. Danny Ledonne responded to everything perfectly. Personally, I'm still shocked that he was able to keep his cool and respond calmly and without a single flaw in logic that I can recall throughout that whole segment.

AssemblyLine dude, I was gonna write the same thing. Good on this Danny guy.

Today was the day Dawsome students went back in class. The pictures in today's Metro and 24 Hours (free newspapers in the Montreal subway) show front page pics of mourning messages left by other students, and one of the most prominent one reads "Life is not a video game, there is no second level, you only have one life". Certainly striking in this context. Still, I can't believe some people are so mentally fragile as to not be able to intrinsically understand this and not be in a mental institute. Previous actions should have been taken, notably by Kimveer's parents and entourage, who are the top guilty people here.

As for blaming videogames, this may have been said a thousand times before, but they are no different than any other form of media. Someone could have made a fan-flick of the Columbine shooting and it would have had the same influence.

"And why is the news lady blinking so much?"

"She blinks when she reads a story that's not true," - Evie/Natalie Portman in V for Vendetta. Heh, you just reminded me...

But anyways, extreme kudo to the Columbine creator. It's sad that he is perhaps the most intelligent and well-spoken pro-game speaker I've heard on the subject putting those a-holes who interviewed Jack Thompson, or most other "games journalists" who jump at these sort of things usually are. +1 strike to stupid collegy agish kids are ignorant ;).

hahahah... dawsome == dawson in my text... so used to writing Awesome every other sentence, I guess.

I agree with that - Danny Ledonne argued his case amazingly well there. If, say, Jack Thompson managed to sound even half as convincing we would be facing a hell of a lot more problems in the games industry today.

I will agree that violent video games probably do not cause real life violence, but they can amplify what violent tendancies are already in a person. That's fine if Ledonne wants to make a game like this, but why does he have to put "Columbine" in the title? To me, that's being really insensitive to the real life event, a tragedy that would best be honored through solemn rememberence, not through imitation for the sake of entertainment. How must the parents of those who died be feeling about this? Ledonne is nothing more than a well-spoken prick.

Your serial spinner here, Dennis McCauley of GamePolitics, is presently reporting at 5pm on Tuesday, September 19, at his own vanity site, that the important American Psychological Association Report of August 2005 states that there is only correlation between violent video game play and increased aggression in teens, not causation.

Dr. Brad Bushman, who is one of the members of the APA Committee which issued that study states to me that that is utterly false, and that the APA study found causation.

If you go to the study itself you'll find that it speaks repeatedly of causation, not correlation.

There goes your Dennis the Menace again. Why you have him do a "column" here is beyond me, what with the above nonsense at which he has been caught.

Several points here...

First, my apologies to the rest of the world for jumping into your off-topic comment here.

Next, I stand by my story **AND** I'm willing to discuss it, take questions and hear alternative views. You ought to try that some time.

Third, the two people I contacted -and quoted - for today's story on the APA article are the listed APA contacts for the study. They are Dr. Dorothy Singer of Yale, and Dr. Elizabeth Carll, co-chair of the committee that issued the report.

Fourth, I e-mailed you about this issue for your comments a day before posting the story but you didn't reply:

From: Dennis McCauley [mailto:dxxxxxxx.xxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, September 18, 2006 10:19 AM
To: 'Jack Thompson'
Subject: FW: Media inquiry on Aug. 2005 video game report
Importance: High

Fifth, I'm fine with hearing from Dr. Bushman and have an e-mail into him. If he has a different view that's fine, but it will need to be reconciled with what the other APA professionals have already told me. Apparently Dr. Bushman is one of your expert witnesses in the Alabama law suit.

Sixth, you paint me as a game industry spinner, which is ludicrous. Even this article you are bitching about refers to the APA's other negative conclusions regarding games.

"Dr. Bushman is one of your expert witnesses in the Alabama law suit."

And therein lies the reason that Doc Bushman would say causation and not correlation: he's a paid plaintiff's witness--and that's the FIRST thing any good lawyer attacks a paid expert on during cross-exam. Doctors Singer and Carll say correlation to clear up a point; Dr. Bushman says causation because that's what the plaintiff's attorney tells him to say.

Way to hijack a thread that makes no mention of the APA study, scootiepuff. I think I'll pull up PACER again and read about how you left your latest lil' suit against the Florida Bar with your tail tucked between your legs.

I would hesitate to make any such leap concerning Dr. Buhsman or anyone else. Lots of experts provide "expert testimony". Although it's often painted in a very negative way in the adversarial court process, it *is* a necessary part of that process.

I'd really like to hear what Dr. Bushman has to say about this issue. If it is as Mr. Thompson describes, we'll need to go back to the APA and see how all of this reconciles. Perhaps Bushman is a dissenting member?

All I know is what Yale's Dr. Dorothy Singer and APA's Dr. Elizabeth Carll said: "No direct causal link"

"I would hesitate to make any such leap concerning Dr. Buhsman or anyone else. Lots of experts provide "expert testimony". Although it's often painted in a very negative way in the adversarial court process, it *is* a necessary part of that process."

I'd say that it is somewhat presumptive, if in fact Dr. Bushman isn't part of the Strickland litigation. However, of the many persons who provide "expert" testimony at trial, the vast majority of them do indeed receive remuneration from the party putting them on the stand. It's an obvious point of bias, but it's also a double-edged sword (i.e. my expert says X, theirs says Y, but each are being paid to say so). I just know that, of every case I've ever been involved with, the expert testimony didn't come free.

Put it in perspective, however--at least from the point of view of the average, reasonable person: of three expert professionals speaking on the subject, two of them--neither of which (that we know of) has been hired to give expert testimony in a lawsuit--say "no direct causal link." The remaining expert--a possible expert witness for the plaintiff trying to prove a causal link--says (allegedly, as we've only heard this from Miami Jack and not from Dr. B himself) "direct causal link." If those facts play out, one side is obviously more discredited than the other.

I'm interested to see what Dr Bushman says, he doesn't sound like the sort to confuse the two results.

Here's hoping he gets back in contact with GamePolitics, if nothing else, it should spark an interesting debate, it's not often that professionals differ in their interpretation of the results to such a wide degree.

Though, considering Dr Carli, the Chairman of the Media Comittee also confirmed GP's claim, I would say the ball is very definately in the court of 'Correlation' for the time being at least.