Super Columbine supporters shun Slamdance
by Kyle Orland 
{ Jan 9th 2007 at 1:55PM }
When the Slamdance Guerrilla Game Maker Competition announced it was withdrawing Super Columbine Massacre RPG from finalist consideration, the decision drew some harsh words. But now those words have led to concrete action as the makers of Slamdance finalists fl0w, Braid, Toblo, Once Upon a Time and Everyday Shooter have pulled their games from the competition in a show of solidarity for the controversial RPG.
The game's makers acknowledge that it wasn't an easy decision. Braid creator Jonathan Blow probably put it best, saying he appreciates what the festival has done for independent games but that "the expulsion of the Columbine game sets a precedent in the wrong direction" and pulling his game is "the strongest protest I have the power to make."
Whether or not any of the remaining finalists will follow suit is unclear, but an open letter to the Slamdance organizers on Grand Text Auto is signed by the creators of four of the eight remaining finalists, as well as the creators of three of the games withdrawn so far. Losing over a third of the 14 original finalists to a protest is surely a stinging rebuke to the prestigious competition, but losing more than two-thirds would be a blow nearly impossible to ignore. Stay strong.
[Via Too Much Media Too Little Time, thanks photendoist and Tom]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
the Brayn @ Jan 9th 2007 2:03PM
Hmmm... indie devs pulling their games or sponsors pulling their cash. I wonder who is going to win.
alexanderwales @ Jan 9th 2007 2:16PM
If you're looking for a game to define videogames as art, that game is not it. If I wanted someone to quote me song lyrics, I'd go to MySpace, thanks.
Skwurl @ Jan 9th 2007 2:36PM
I fully support Slamdance in pulling this game.
Sarge @ Jan 9th 2007 2:13PM
Never mind that everyone went bonkers and wanted the Left Behind game pulled from shelves. Now we're showing solidarity for SCMRPG? Explain the logic.
Sarge out.
IAmMatto @ Jan 9th 2007 8:15PM
I don't think that it is that these developers feel that SCMRPG was an amazing title, but that instead that there shouldn't be any censorship in the festival. It's all about principles.
Dave @ Jan 9th 2007 3:03PM
And who gets to decide what "art" is? The point is not necessarily that the game should be judged on artistic merits--but rather it is an issue of censorship. It amazes me how difficult it is to explain to most of my fellow Americans, the basic concept of freedom. You cannot have freedom--freedom of expression, freedom of speech, or freedom of thought--unless you have TOLERANCE of other ideas. You do not have to agree with the point of view of others. You don't have to like it. You don't have to care. All you have to do, is allow others the opportunity to express their beliefs and ideas.
Jau_Peacecraft @ Jan 9th 2007 4:44PM
good job retards, your supporting bullshit. get past the subject matter of the game and you might see the big deal of them pulling it. Slamdance made an erroneous choice due to people within Slamdance; there was/is no obvious evidence they would've lost funding for this game (other than the assumption of the subject matter's supposedly "shocking" value, oh em gee, kids can use guns too, it's 2007, not 1999 people, accept reality). Slamdance, the event itself, shouldn't be criticized, but the people working within it should, and some should get fired for such a piss poor choice; its now piss poor as it's driven other finalists to withdraw their games which equals bad press.
Sarge @ Jan 9th 2007 3:15PM
Unfortunately, I agree. It's distasteful to a fault. But the same people that argue for freedom of speech in "art" are typically (but not always) the same people that want no religious imagery / symbolism / representation in any public forum or arena.
My point with the original post is that if we're going to allow the vile stuff that floats around out there to circulate with no limits, then it better be true for Christianity (and other religions) as well. The main argument I've heard for this game is that it's "thought-provoking". So are most religions. I just thought there was a little irony in this post.
Sarge out.
CitizenGeek @ Jan 9th 2007 3:20PM
I also fully support Slamdance in pulling this game. This game a grotesque strech of deceny. It's distasteful and disrespectful and is a fairly bad 'game' to boot.
Skwurl @ Jan 9th 2007 3:46PM
#5
Explain to me why Slamdance is exempt from the 'freedom' you describe. It's their show. Do they not have the same 'freedom' as the game creator?
With freedom of speech comes civic responsibility - as well as consequences. If Slamdance says the game isn't allowed to be showed, it's not allowed to be showed.
zomboid @ Jan 9th 2007 3:53PM
I fully support anyone yanking anything for any reason. Why do we expect people to sell or represent anything they may not want to? Freedom to me means that a retailer can choose not to sell any item for any reason. It also means that a festival can refuse any entry for any reason. You're still free to seek out and aquire said item, just not from that retailer/festival, etc...
BUT - when the goverment makes it ILLEGAL for someone to create or distribute a game like Columbine - THEN we have a real problem.
See the difference?
Sarge @ Jan 9th 2007 4:17PM
Good point, 8 and 9. Not illegal, but Slamdance does have that right. Just as Wal-Mart, if they so chose, could pull the Left Behind game.
Sarge out.
MaX PL @ Jan 9th 2007 4:09PM
why is there a polish solidarity symbol shown?
i didnt read the text, just thought it was about some kids makinga columbine game.
FSK405K @ Jan 9th 2007 4:33PM
Most games are bad. How many get reviews of greater than 80% on most review sites? Being bad shouldn't be a strike against a game that is trying to do something different, new, innovative, or controversial. Have you seen Grand Theft Auto 1 or 2? They suck.
Skwurl @ Jan 9th 2007 4:48PM
#13
Stay in school.
Christian @ Jan 9th 2007 10:20PM
I do agree that the government cannot make it illegal to make such a game because of our rights to freedom of speech.
However, for everyone else, we do have a right to stop or promote such a game. What I really want to know is why we would ever want to support a game that is based on the massacre of American lives?
RobotRock @ Jan 9th 2007 6:01PM
#9 "It also means that a festival can refuse any entry for any reason."
Yeah, that's great, but not at all what is going on here. They accepted the entry (fully knowing what it was), then pulled it out when they were threatened by financial supporters.
Personally I think SCMRPG is a poorly made game that really isn't fun. It had close to no chance to win. If they let it compete they at least would have had their credibility. Now they have nothing.
MrBlank @ Jan 9th 2007 5:38PM
Good for them! It's nice to see indie developers supporting each other.
Slamdance, it's this kind of shit that keeps "video games" from becoming "interactive media" and transcending the kiddy association. It's a tough battle as it is -- just look at the struggle of graphic literature.
PrimeCupEevee @ Jan 9th 2007 5:39PM
@8 and 9
The main problem with this whole thing is that SCMRPG was already made a finalist by a panel of judges. If it didn't become a finalist, then there's no issue. But it did, and then the founder of the festival (Peter Baxter) decided that his decision was more powerful than that of the panel, which thwarts a main principle of this competition. In addition, on the main webpage, the festival hopes that "[pulling the SCMRPG game] will never have to be made again," implying that video games were never meant to me more than mere child's play, and that they cannot give a message of some sort.
Moogle @ Jan 9th 2007 5:39PM
If the game was terrible and didn't make a good point, then why not just let it do poorly in the awards? Nope, Slamdance made a statement, whether they meant it or were goaded into making it. The other participants have the same right to withdraw that Slamdance exercised in blocking it.
I applaud the ones that withdrew - they're automatic winners in my book.
Also, Sarge, I think there's a salient point in the difference between this action and some people's reaction to religious material.
The Ten Commandments in front of a courtroom is a big F.U. to anyone who doesn't believe that particular version of history. The presence of that symbol is encouragement and shelter for believers (for example, police, judges, and jury) to act out their prejudices against others.
People complaining about Walmart carrying a "Christian" game are exercising their own agenda. It happens a lot, it's kinda lame, it's not going away. It's probably not all that many people, they're just loud and insistent.
People complaining about religious artwork being paid for and representing certain government bodies are defending themselves and their fellow man from becoming second class citizens to prejudiced fanatics.
There is a difference in who these groups are petitioning, and the importance of each. Walmart only has some customers to lose. The government has an obligation to prevent itself from facilitating religious intollerance.
James @ Jan 9th 2007 5:53PM
Uhm, the game is made on RPG Maker so how could it really be qualified for an award anyway?
That's like a free "cut and paste" google webpage winning an award because its got some sensational idea!
I played the game and really...it's not put together very well, it's RPG Maker 2000 if I ever saw it, and it's quite difficult to play as far as just even playing it. And all the images used are entirly grainy because thats what RPG Maker 2000 does.
Plus aren't there copyright issues with that program?
ciachopl @ Jan 10th 2007 11:21AM
Why polish solidarity symbol is here and has nothing do to with the article ???
Mischa @ Jan 9th 2007 6:04PM
I guess that's what happens when you google search for the word "solidarity". Solidarnosc is a Polish trade union by the way. Just thought I'd add that.
Oh, and on the issue of religious imagery in public, that is completely different than allowing this kind of thing in an awards ceremony. If "left behind" had been pulled from the slamdance awards ceremony, then I would be equally opposed to it, and just as happy to hear that there are so many developers pulling their games in protest. We're not asking people to have monuments of SCMRPG out in public (IE, like the 10 commandments), that's a completely different argument. You're comparing apples and oranges. When the *state* displays such images, and condones such images, like in the front of a courthouse, then it's not about freedom of speech anymore, it's about others who don't agree with such things feeling persecuted by it.
I have played SCMRPG and I personally thought it was brilliant. Great job protestors! Solidarity forever!
Xian! @ Jan 9th 2007 6:27PM
I can't believe what I'm reading. You commentors SUPPORT the decision to remove this game from finalist consideration? Are you KIDDING?
Okay, so you think the game is vile and tasteless. What if I told you that your opinion had no merit and should be removed from this thread? You would tell me to go fuck myself, and rightly so!
Super Columbine Massacre RPG is a video game based on real (and tragic) events, but that shouldn't disqualify it. Grand Theft Auto is based on real (and tragic) events, too. So is every World War II shooter crowding the store shelves. How about Leisure Suit Larry?
All objectionable in their own way, and there's always somebody trying to tell you that you shouldn't--or worse, CAN'T--play them. When you say you support the removal of an independent game from an independant games competition, you aren't speaking against violence or immorality--you are speaking FOR the corporate sponsors (and, indirectly, politicians) who use their clout to censor games they deem objectionable on your behalf. You are giving them permission to filter the world for you.
I wrote my letter to Sam Roberts (through the Slamdance website) expressing my deep disappointment with their decision, and I hope others will, too.
cybereality @ Jan 10th 2007 9:25AM
With all this controversy surrounding this game I just had to play it. Let me just say that this is the first game I have ever played that actually forces you to think about serious issues. The creator of the title has went through a lot to give meaningful insight into the actions of the perpetrators unlike anything I've seen on TV or papers on the subject. Unlike the mainstream media, who is quick to lay blaim on DOOM or Marilyn Manson, this game actually attempts to answer the ultimate question. Why?
Its rather funny that it did get pulled because that was just about the best thing that could have happened for a title like this. It just highlights the publics general misunderstanding of what the interactive medium represents.
ZS @ Jan 9th 2007 6:43PM
Jack Thompson would be proud of several of the commentators here.
Jeramy @ Jan 9th 2007 11:20PM
@ sarge
you are fucking amazing. i want you to be the godfather of my children.
okay, so i guess it wasn't incredibly profound, but that's one of the wisest things i've heard in a long while.
S_DOG34 @ Jan 9th 2007 10:38PM
@ MrBlank
You couldn't be more wrong...if anything, a game like SCMRPG will make it HARDER for "video games" to become "interactive media." Maybe if they would not use an ultra-controversial event and supremely stupid name as a hook and rely instead upon gameplay/story we would get somewhere. Any non-gamer who reads anything about the game will draw the same conclusion that they have drawn in the past - that "video games" are not sophisticated or responsible enough to deal with mature topics in a mature way. Thus we continue down the path of them being stereotypically "kiddy".
Brodie @ Jan 9th 2007 10:42PM
First off, let me download and play the game so that I am not shooting my mouth off. IT WON'T INSTALL. I give it an F for poor coding.
By the way, Sarge, you're quite irritating. I think Christians would be horrified and outraged if that stupid Left Behind game was slightly altered so that it was Muslims converting or killing everyone else, so just think for a second.
Also, I think an NPR report on Left Behind summed it up best: "It's not a really good game, so it will be a moot point in a few months." That same phraseology might apply to this Columbine game
Censorship always annoys me, mainly when it matters (which doesn't apply so much here) because it limits the way that individuals think and makes certain viewpoints unavailable after too much censorship. Neo-nazis, Robert Maplethorpe, rappers, they can all speak their damn minds, and I can disagree or agree along with them.
ZS @ Jan 9th 2007 11:19PM
This whole incident has nothing to do with rights, so I don't see how talking about freedom of this and that pertains to anything. It's simply a group of individuals who disagree with the way Slamdance is handling the situation and the censorship of a entrant to begin with. No one involved in the situation, on either side of the issue, is claiming that their legal rights are being infringed upon. Therefor, governments, religions, and legality don't have any say in this, so there's no point in bringing it up.
As an aside, it appears to be getting worse for Slamdance as USC is pulling their sponsorship because of the censorship: http://www.boingboing.net/2007/01/09/usc_cancells_slamdan.html.
adf2006 @ Jan 10th 2007 11:15AM
If this game is what it sounds like, playing though the Columbine massacre as a game... then yes, I support the decision, I don't know more about the game.
This isn't a war where people sign up to fight, it was innocent children murdered. To make a GAME for FUN out of that seems nearly demented to me, why? How? It only recently happened as well, 8 years later, people are still coping with the deaths of their children.
If a person is running an event to promote independent games, it's their freedom to choose what games they want. If they're running it, paying for it, whatever, then yeah, panel of judges be damned. I don't care how fun the mechanics of the game are, exploiting the murder of children is sick and perverse and ugh, I can't see how anyone can find that shock value worth it. My best friend was murdered for no reason when we were sixteen, and if someone was exploiting it in a GAME for shock value, yeah, I'd be VERY upset. To take all that time to make a game, what possible motivation except greed and exploitation is there?
It's sick, wrong, and the game festival made a good choice.
Again, though, I don't know anything about the game other than what was said in this article, if I'm wrong about it, my bad.
Xian! @ Jan 10th 2007 3:57PM
@ adf2006:
The thing about "shock value" is that it often brings up topics of conversation that are important to processing information and events. Super Columbine Massacre RPG isn't meant to be "fun" or to provide "entertainment" (and, according to reviews, it does neither), and even if it was, the results would be the same: The game makes you THINK.
When the Columbine shooting took place there were a LOT of knee-jerk reactions and precious little insight, deep-thought analysis of the events that had transpired. Nobody wanted to face the possibility that the shooting may not have been as "senseless" as the politicians and media portrayed it. That's too complicated for most people.
If somebody made a game about your friend's murder, it would at least make people stop and think: What was your friend's situation? What was the killer's? Why did it happen? And how can we stop it from happening again?
When the Columbine shooting took place, most people gave over-simplified answers to these questions. "They were heartless." "They played violent video games." "They listened to violent music." "They wore trenchcoats." Very few people wanted to face the root causes of the killings.
This game, by way of controversy, attempts to make people think harder. We don't see the Columbine Shooting in the news anymore; it's old news, boring, been-there-done-that. We think we've processed it as much as we need to, but this controversy proves us wrong.
This game is keeping the questions alive and refuses to let people sweep those tragic events under the rug of time. Think of it as an interactive documentary. And when somebody makes a 9/11 Flight Simulator (if they haven't already), we'll go through this all over again. Controversy is a sign that something important is taking place and needs to be looked at closer; otherwise it would not be controversial.
The game is important. It deserves to be a finalist. (Due to poor game mechanics, however, it doesn't deserve to win.)
Sarge @ Jan 10th 2007 2:13PM
Moogle:
The only problem with your statement is:
1) Despite attempts to rewrite history, this nation WAS founded on Judeo-Christian values, and the vast majority of the founders WERE Christian. As a historical context, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the Ten Commandments in the courtroom. It certainly isn't a hearty FU as you seem to think.
2) How in the world does any of this make non-Christians "second-class citizens"? And I take extreme umbrage at the idea that Christians are "prejudiced fanatics". You only show your prejudice against Christians by making such an absurd claim. I know quite a few atheists, Hindus, Muslims, and Buddhists, and some are nuts, and some are awesome. But we all suck in the end, it's part of human nature. Christianity in my case just helps me deal with it a little more easily.
By the way, if you run across a pious Christian, please, slap them for me. We have no right to be, we're human like everyone else, and all fall short of what we should be.
Sarge out.
MrBlank @ Jan 10th 2007 2:16PM
@ adf2006
You have absolutely no idea about what you're talking about. Do you actually have a brain or has it been washed by media sound bites? Until you actually go through the game, you have no position to criticize it.
Bah, you just reinforce what S_DOG34 said about the game's subject matter and shocking title making up people's minds about it before they even look at it.
An about the game not being fun and not having innovative gameplay: Jesus H. Christ, people! He made it with RPG Maker! What do you expect? The point was retelling history, not to be the best RPG ever.
adf2006 @ Jan 10th 2007 3:46PM
MrBlank:
As I said, I didn't play the game, so I can't criticize that. But when you name it "Super Columbine Massacre?" That's exploitative in and of itself.
No, I'm not going to take the time to play the game to see if the criticisms against it were fair, and yes, I am just reading the media coverage. That's the point of the media, to inform people on issues.
At least I'm admitting that yeah, the game itself might be okay, but the subject matter is not to be handled lightly and the game's title is bad enough, I can't imagine the content being much more serious or thought-inducing.