Columbine game blocked from receiving Slamdance special jury prize
by Kyle Orland 
{ Jan 31st 2007 at 2:45PM }
When Slamdance festival director Peter Baxter removed Super Columbine Massacre RPG as a finalist in the festival's Guerrila Gamemaker Competition, he probably thought it would be the last time he would have to block the game from consideration for an award. As it so happened, though, Baxter found himself in a similar position last Friday night, when he reportedly stopped the game from receiving a special jury prize from the judges for the film documentary category.
As detailed on Slamdance attendee Patrick Dugan's blog and confirmed by SCMRPG creator Danny Ledonne in an interview with Joystiq, the whole thing began on Tuesday, when Slamdance documentary juror Brian Flemming paused to watch an unofficial demo of the game put on by Ledonne on a laptop just outside the official game competition tent. Flemming, director of "The God Who Wasn't There," had heard about the controversy surrounding the game, and was intrigued enough by the demo to mention the game to his two fellow documentary jurors.
On Friday, the three jurors contacted Ledonne on a conference call and asked him about his game and the motivations behind it. Based on this interview, the jurors decided to award an unofficial special jury prize in recognition of the game's look at the motivations behind the Columbine killers. As Ledonne told Joystiq, Flemming and the jurors were "trying to do something that went under Slamdance's radar," planning to surprise the audience by announcing the special prize along with the film documentary award on Friday night.
It was not to be, though. According to Ledonne, Baxter had gotten word of the the jurors' plan and reportedly stopped Flemming just before he took the stage, saying he could not present the award due to "music clearance issues" (an excuse discussed previously on this blog). According to Ledonne, Flemming tried to hold his ground, but eventually gave in to Baxter's request (Flemming did not respond to a request for comment at the time of this posting).
Ledonne, who's currently working on a documentary about the controversy surrounding his game, told Joystiq being recognized by the documentary judges "would have been a valuable asset to the public's understanding of the game," and would have "re-framed the game in a valuable light ... as a documentary." Still, he respects Baxter's right to control what goes on at his festival, and says he's trying his best to at least understand Baxter's position.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Crono @ Jan 31st 2007 2:57PM
He should have done it anyway.
"Sure, I won't present the award"
followed by:
"And the special award goes to..."
Whats he gonna do? Fire him?
Grunge @ Jan 31st 2007 3:03PM
Man, that game sucked. Also, I don't see how a game where you travel to Hell could be called a documentary.
sheppy @ Jan 31st 2007 5:59PM
It was a sick, sick game with a thinly veiled attempt to hide what this game truly was. A pathetic attempt to rape the corpses of the victims. He can claim he was doing this all as a "way to keep people from repeating previous mistakes" all he wants. But at the end of the day, and if that was truly his intent, why did it take a Columbine survivor to make his identity public?
This guy is quickly turning into a champion of bullshit. Especially considering several of his "accurate dialogue" sections have since been debunked.
He's a controversy whore and that's all this game "designer" is.
Je2037 @ Jan 31st 2007 3:18PM
They messed up when they actually used the word Columbine. Couldn't it have taken place at a fictional school? Or is the specific setting just for disrespectful grasp for recognition.
The ZeroCorpse @ Jan 31st 2007 3:32PM
It's funny how people throw the words "tasteless" and "disrespectful" out there in regards to this game, but these same people were probably first in line to play Wolfenstein 3D. What? The holocaust as a setting for a game isn't tasteless but a school shooting in America is?
Eye of the beholder, baby. What bugs you might not bug me.
Pixelantes Anonymous @ Jan 31st 2007 3:53PM
"They messed up when they actually used the word Columbine."
So you think WW II games should not be played on a virtual Omaha Beach? Instead we should call it something else?
You can't freakin' go making games by trying to avoid offending everyone. Otherwise all you'd be releasing is "Ken and Barbie With No Genitals Having a Grand Old Time Drinking Tea with Other Non-Offensive Friends of Theirs".
Skwurl @ Jan 31st 2007 3:59PM
#4
Ughh. Not again.
This is probably the most overused analogy I see on this site. Drawing a parallel between Wolf3D/Call of Duty, or any other World War shooter to this stupid Columbine game is just fucking asinine.
The Holocaust as a 'setting' is not bad in itself - It's the interaction that crosses the line.
When game designers begin mapping the 'Enter' key to cook Jews, you'll have a case. Until then, use some fucking common sense.
Rubang B @ Jan 31st 2007 4:46PM
1. Map the Enter key to cook Jews.
2. Profit.
3. ???
Pixelantes Anonymous @ Jan 31st 2007 4:53PM
In every WW II game I've played I'm slaughtering Germans, Russians and the Japanese like cattle. But I guess since them there pixels are representing evil foreigners, it's real different.
No wonder the Syrians are making their own games. And no wonder shooters don't do well in Japan.
Mark @ Jan 31st 2007 5:10PM
@7:
God, I swear, if you're going to use a meme, do it right.
1. Map the Enter key to cook Jews.
2. ???
3. Profit.
...I think you can add another item right before "???" so if you can think of anything else genius, go ahead.
Btw, agreed with #5.
CloroxMan @ Jan 31st 2007 6:20PM
Educate me if I am wrong but I never remember the creator pushing his own image into the public but rather everyone else making talking it up that brought him into public view. I don't recall him making money off this either.
sheppy @ Jan 31st 2007 6:34PM
Excellent question Cloroxman. The answer to this question can of course be found in the story....
"Ledonne, who's currently working on a documentary about the controversy surrounding his game, told Joystiq being recognized by the documentary judges "would have been a valuable asset to the public's understanding of the game," and would have "re-framed the game in a valuable light ... as a documentary." Still, he respects Baxter's right to control what goes on at his festival, and says he's trying his best to at least understand Baxter's position."
Personally, I don't know what his end goal is. But it's obvious that he's an attention whore. Otherwise, wouldn't someone ELSE be making the official documentary on the controversy behind his game? After all, one recent school shooter bragged about being a "huge fan" of the RPG he created to avoid the future events. But one can't help but think, if his orignal stance really was to educate and prevent, why, then, are the "heroes" of this so called game the killers? Wouldn't such a project merely encourage a repeat and glamorize the killers?
After all, you can claim the WWII games hold the same candle but at the end of the day, isn't your role in these games as the perceived "good guys?" And likewise, when you do get to play as the Nazis, it's not like they have the "Execute the Jew" minigames. The game is excessively poor taste and it would be just as poor of taste if your played a terrorist taking over one of the flights on 9/11 and ended the game with a "fly the plane into this location" bonus round.
And no matter Ledonne's claims, he is actually hurting the image of gamers to the nongamers as well as lending credibility to the arguement that gamers actually celebrate real world violence and idolize killers. While I don't agree with that stance as a whole, we've already had one school killer that was "a really big fan" of this game and name one other game where you are placed in the role of recent killers and it glorifies their exploits?
CloroxMan @ Jan 31st 2007 6:50PM
Aw, consider me educated. hehe
Kincyr @ Jan 31st 2007 6:58PM
Where was the controversity when "Bowling for Columbine" came out?
Rubang B @ Jan 31st 2007 6:59PM
@9, hey I know. I did it on purpose. I was implying that you'd make billions off the controversy, and maybe the 3rd step: ??? was to imply that with that kind of scratch the possibilities are limitless!
Ron @ Jan 31st 2007 10:12PM
@9, guess you're not a big South Park fan.
DraGooN001 @ Jan 31st 2007 8:29PM
"After all, you can claim the WWII games hold the same candle but at the end of the day, isn't your role in these games as the perceived "good guys?" ~ sheppy
So it's ok to have blood and murder as long as you're "morally justified"? Furthermore, the "end justifies the means"?
You probably would've made a great crusader.
Rubang B @ Jan 31st 2007 8:42PM
But it's ok to kill bad people.
sheppy @ Jan 31st 2007 8:46PM
Kincyr, I'll answer your question with another question.
Where exactly did Bowling For Columbine glorify Klebold and Harris's behavior? And, incidently, Michael Moore did catch a whole lot of shit for the movie title. But if you actually watch the movie, it's a documentary that actually examines violence in culture and the whole difference between media violence and what Americans suffer as a cultural violence. It's actually quite biase in many ways (Like I don't approve of putting Charleton Heston on the spot like that, but then again I didn't approve of Charleton Heston making it a big media event when Littleton, Colorado asked him, in respect for the recent tragedy, to possible delay the NRA convention or possibly even move it to a different town and he blatantly disregarded the communities wishes just to make a statement for his organization).
Bowling For Columbine actually had a social worth when all was said and done. It brought some facts to light which many people love to ignore and even if the facts presented were rather one sided (but again, so is An Inconvenient Truth) but it still made people step away trying to decide, why is America the most violent culture on the planet? What makes us so different?
And for a little background on Super Columbine Massacre RPG... here's a brief history of the game in question.
"Ledonne, anticipating a negative reaction to the game, sought to remain anonymous after its debut, using the alias "Columbin" on the few occasions he was contacted by a reporter. His identity was revealed by Roger Kovacs, a 22-year-old web developer who said his search to identify "Columbin" was a response to his anger over the game. Kovacs was a friend of one of the Columbine victims, Rachel Scott."
And now... if you're willing to read it... the story taken directly from Wikipedia...
"The game follows Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold through Columbine High School on April 20, 1999, the date of the Columbine shootings. In the first part of the game, the events unfold as they are believed to have occurred the morning prior to the attack.
Harris is awakened by his mother, and phones Klebold. They meet in Harris' basement to plot the school bombings that would precede the shootings. Photographs are shown from the video that Harris and Klebold made before leaving that morning, discussing their motives for the massacre. The two reminisce about the bullying they experienced at Columbine High, expressing both rage at those they perceived to be their tormentors, and remorse for what they were about to do. They apologized to their parents, told them that they loved them, and asked them not to blame themselves. They collect their guns and bombs, pack up a duffel bag with the weapons, and leave home.
In the next scene they are standing outside their high school. The player must guide them to the cafeteria to plant their timed propane bombs without being detected by security cameras or hall monitors. The timing of the bombs parallels the facts of the actual events, as per the boys' written documentation of their plans. After the explosives are set, the two stop for a moment outside the school on a hill overlooking the city of Denver, discussing once again their philosophies, alienation and hostility.
After the bombs fail to explode as planned, Harris and Klebold decide to go into the school and murder as many people as they can. The player is armed with a Tec-9, two shotguns, a carbine rifle, and many other bombs and weapons: the same weapons the shooters had at the school in the actual event. Their "enemies" are only named as stereotypes or occupations, such as "Preppy girl", "Janitor", "Math teacher", and "Jock", among others.
The player decides whether or not to kill, while making his way from the school cafeteria to the library. Eventually, after the police arrive, Harris and Klebold commit suicide. The actual grisly security photographs of the shooters' bodies are shown, followed by a montage of crime scene and newspaper photographs; finally, family photographs of Klebold and Harris from early childhood to high school are shown.
The game begins its second part at this point, with the player taking control of Klebold alone, as he finds himself in Hell. Unlike the first half of the game, this segment departs from historical accounts, as the player makes his way through Hell while combating demons and monsters from the computer game Doom. After reuniting with Harris, the two joyfully proclaim their excitement at the prospect of living out their favorite video game.
After more fighting, the pair find themselves at the "Isle of Lost Souls", where they meet several fictional characters and dead celebrities, including Bart Simpson, Mega Man, Mario, Ronald Reagan and John Lennon, who regales them with "Imagine". Next, they deliver a copy of Ecce Homo to the soul of Friedrich Nietzsche, who praises Trent Reznor, quoting his contemporaneous song "Heresy" (which itself quotes Nietzsche, in declaring "God is dead"). Continuing on, they encounter and do battle with a caricature of Satan (exactly as depicted in South Park). Upon their victory, Satan congratulates them, rewarding them with a flying dragon for use in travelling about Hell. After locating the two halves of the Satanic Bible and returning them to Satan, the player has completed the game.
The game returns to outside Columbine High School, where a press conference addresses the tragedy. Much of the dialogue is rendered precisely as it was spoken after the actual event, though some of it does caricature the political forces at work in the aftermath of the tragedy; the exchange references gun control advocacy, religious fundamentalism (in the form of church-state separation), and media scapegoating attempting to implicate Marilyn Manson and video games."
Now... tell me that isn't just hugely inappropriate. He even tried to hide his identity.
Tom @ Jan 31st 2007 8:56PM
Bla bla bla everyone defending this game with pointless WW2 analogies is both a dumbass (WW2 games glorify the brave actions that led to the overthrow of a ruthless dictator, not the shameful and misguided actions of pathetic teenage angst) and an asshole (you have no concept of human compassion). How would you feel if someone murdered everyone you loved and then made a video game about it, allowing millions of people to reenact those exact same horrific actions? I bet you'd be enraged and saddened by it. See, that's how a person with a soul feels about this game. Assholes!
DraGooN001 @ Jan 31st 2007 9:07PM
"How would you feel if someone murdered everyone you loved and then made a video game about it, allowing millions of people to reenact those exact same horrific actions?" ~ Tom
Couldn't that be said about WWII games as well? Or maybe to you, millions of Germans, Russians and Japanese people don't count?
sheppy @ Jan 31st 2007 9:16PM
Actually, DraGooN... apparently you don't know what the use of "quotation marks" mean. Which is hilarious since you just used them yourself.
Notice how I used the term "Good Guys" in quotation marks. It's a commonly held belief that History is merely a reflection of the winners. Japans involvement in WWII, is some basis for debate although very little. The Third Reich, however... the fact that you're defending them is amazing. These are people who were wiping out others because they were "genetically inferior" (and while such a joke is okay on the internet, to practice such a concept in real life is horrifying). They were programming their children to kill and hate. Our only saving grace in WWII is while the Nazis were some pretty fucking evil people, they weren't the best fighters in the world. They made many tactical errors and with the much better trained forces of the Allies, they were fortunately defeated. I mean, hell. You're talking about an army that gave their gunners Crystal Meth (or do you think that's a recent drug?).
And Rubang, honestly... if it was a game reenacting real world events or actual history, I want something a tad deeper than simple "I bang, you dead." In my historical games, I want moral implications to each decision I make. Likewise, I want those effects to have a lasting reaction. I'm very disappointed that most games which brag about long term moral implications, it always equates to wrong or right. The world isn't black and white like that and I want the games that attempt the moral playstyle to remember that.
I would love crime game like GTA to suddenly throw you in the role of either a gang member or a police officer and the amount of force (read: How many you kill, how they die, so on and so forth) to have a lasting reaction to how the game plays. I would love to see this game, as well, actually make it entirely possible to beat the game without killing a single person. I know I'll never see it, but I can still dream.
Personally, read this article and you'll see what I consider a step in the right direction.
http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20070131/adams_01.shtml
t_m @ Jan 31st 2007 9:49PM
but I thought killing americans WAS killingevil foreigners!?!
--
No one is arguing that the leaders behind the Nazi party weren't bad guys. But when you are mowing down 1000s of germans its worth noting that the vast majority of the german army WEREN'T nazi party members... they were just serving their country and keeping their heads down. Same goes for most of the japanese or italian soldiers.
The vast majority of german troops would have had no knowledge or involvement in any atrocities. (at least no more than the average, everyday attrocities that all sides tend to inflict in wars. )
Claiming all germans were evil nazis is ike saying all US troops in iraq are neo-cons.
--
The point of this whole controversy isn't really whether the game has much merit or not. (The organisers obviously originally thought it had some or they wouldn't have shortlisted it.)
The point is that the competition organisers caved in to advertising pressure and censored one of their entrants. These are the same organisers who have set up a fund to defend movies from similar pressure.
This simply re-enforces the idea that games are for kids and aren't as worthwhile an artfor as movies. And while that idea holds sway they'll nver break out of their current 15-year old buy mentality.
DraGooN001 @ Jan 31st 2007 10:12PM
"The Third Reich, however... the fact that you're defending them is amazing." ~ sheppy
I'm not sure how you managed to equate what I said as to supporting the holocaust, but that seems to be a pretty big jump. Since you like to be such a stickler for details, maybe you should remember that the Germans were undergoing a depression. So common folk, who then most likely became soldiers, had to back the Third Reich in order to survive, regardless of whether or not they approved of the Third Reich's ideas, or of the disastrous actions against the Jews that they did not participate in or knew of. So then for those who were too poor to live otherwise, and obviously must be Nazis because they supported the Third Reich, it must've been ok to kill them then?
Tangent aside, I'm not sure if the gameplay is being questioned, or if it's using Columbine as a theme is being questioned. I know definitely though, that the question deals with whether or not an event as major as Columbine is ok to be used for a theme. And your approval for WWII games is not appropriately answering that.
reppy @ Jan 31st 2007 10:40PM
It's unfortunate that a guy that made the film "The God That Wasn't There" is also pimping out a shamumentary. Why? Well, it only furthers the notion that all atheists/agnostics are evil.
This new wave of atheism is like a militant atheism. Kind of scares me. Although I do believe it is a reaction to the militant religious ideology that exists on the right wing (extremist Jewish, Christian, and Muslim). Now we're seeing the atheists that sound like Pat Robertson: "If only all the world believed EXACTLY like I do, the world would be free of war!" Yeah, right. The reason people kill each other at soccer matches is because of religion.
Went off on a little bit of a tangent there, but these extremists atheists are annoying. They're as intolerant as any religious bigot you'll meet.
Kinsman @ Jan 31st 2007 10:47PM
Sheppy done a whole lot of writing in this thread, to the point that debating it all would take more time than I have right now. I'll pick the important points:
"But it's obvious that he's an attention whore. Otherwise, wouldn't someone ELSE be making the official documentary on the controversy behind his game?"
Others have been - in magazine articles and TV shows. He himself is a student of journalism, so in making a documentary himself (which adds on to the rest (why do you call it the "official" one?)), he's just following his craft.
"After all, one recent school shooter bragged about being a "huge fan" of the RPG he created to avoid the future events."
This is a strange sentence to begin with; when I see the words "after all" I expect the sentence to expand on the previous one somehow. What's this got to do with whether he should be making a documentary or not?
"He can claim he was doing this all as a "way to keep people from repeating previous mistakes" all he wants. But at the end of the day, and if that was truly his intent, why did it take a Columbine survivor to make his identity public?"
Oh hell, another one - "But at the end of the day", and then you move on to an unrelated point.
As for this point about the second shooter, we've heard a lot about this game from the creator - it's a straw man to try and make "preventing future occurrences" his central point, and then try to knock it down with an event that he's talked long and deeply about in more than one interview.
Based on what I've read, bringing understanding about the situation was his more important motivation.
"And now... if you're willing to read it... the story taken directly from Wikipedia..."
To hell with you and your drama - we've all *played* the game. Have you?
"Now... tell me that isn't just hugely inappropriate. He even tried to hide his identity."
AGAIN. "He even" - and then you wander to an unrelated point!
Once he realized that someone wanted badly to know who he was, he's been just fine with going to interviews and talking publicly about the game. That's bravery - not "attention whoring" as you try to frame it.
In fact, all your arguments are just attempts to frame the truth in an unflattering way.
"A pathetic attempt to rape the corpses of the victims."
A self-righteous ranter, who in the end, for all his drama and banner waving, is no better than a troll.
Tom B. @ Jan 31st 2007 11:58PM
I've read valid premises on both sides: either Danny Ledonne is a visionary documenter who creatively explored the possibilities of the video game as a literary medium; or he's a closeted sociopath, enacting his latent adolescent fantasies within a format that's already misunderstood, enshrouded by phony controversy, so that people who speak against it do so because they just don't get it. Artist? Exploiter? I can't decide.
For this reason, I find the game deeply troubling. I tried playing it, but I confess I lost interest very early (I couldn't get past the hall monitors). Having read the story synopsis, it seems the second half sends a confused message to players. The boys paid for their sins and were sent to hell... to have a really great time? This is supposed to discourage repeat events?
I understand the decision to make the murderers the protagonists. I wouldn't call them "heroes," sheppy, but I share your concern that their depiction in the game is a bit too flattering. Contrast this with a movie like Monster, a similar examination of serial killer Aileen Wuornos. In that film, we empathize with the poor woman as she struggles to escape the cruel life she finds herself in. Each murder is ugly, and we agonize with her as she realizes what she's become. But as moviegoers, we can only watch as her life falls apart.
In contrast, as gamers, we expect to control our fates. And yet, SCMRPG presents the player with the hope of preventing violence while contrarily forcing him to reenact the massacre.
Still, I applaud Ledonne for using an underutilized medium to tell a serious and topical story. Could video games go in this direction? Should they? Or is there is some fundamental limit to the medium's ability to speak to us on a profound level?
Still, even if it raises deep questions that the industry will have to face before it can mature, SCMRPG suffers the same symptoms of so many games before and since: relying on melodrama and cliche' to stir (or rather, only slightly perturb) the player's emotions. There are some intriguing ideas there, but it fails in its execution.
DannyLedonne @ Feb 1st 2007 1:14AM
The matter of public perception is a complicated one, indeed. I have found that there is almost no one I can sit with for more than ten minutes that finds me to be an unlikable fellow. For those in cyberspace who dislike me or my creation, any action of mine is deplorable. I choose to publish the game anonymously and I’m a “coward.” I choose to work with the press in covering my game (press that will write articles whether I participate in them or not) and I’m now an “attention whore.” Generally speaking public opinion is probably best left as the tumultuous indecision it so often proves to be. No one can make everybody happy all of the time.
Brian Flemming wanted to give the film a documentary prize because as he stood there watching the game being played at Slamdance, he said that he “learned more about the shooters from the game than from all the press coverage of the event.” Incidentally, Brian struck me as a very mild-mannered fellow and if you watch his recent appearance on Fox News opposite John Kasich it is clear who is really “angry.”
While “the second act of SCMRPG takes place in Hell prevents it from being a ‘documentary’” is a worthy objection, such creative liberties are regularly undertaken by Michael Moore, Errol Morris, and others who see the genre of documentary as more than a feature-length version of 60 Minutes. The point is that this videogame doesn’t seem to fit very neatly anywhere in the traditional canons of discourse; even people who really support the game are hard-pressed to say that they “enjoyed” playing it or “have fun” while doing so. In fact, those who DO “enjoy” playing it may want to check in to a mental institution before they become the next Kimveer Gill. I can’t imagine people “enjoying” ‘Schindler’s List’ or ‘Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer’ but these are films that nonetheless belong on the store shelves.
Regarding the choice to make a documentary film about SCMRPG and the future of videogames, it is clear to me that all this press (none of which was my intention, ergo the anonymous publication and free download of the game) signifies a general public interest in this story; below almost every article on SCMRPG is a litany of debating comments longer than the article itself (such as this one). As a filmmaker, it is clear to me that this is the stuff of a really good story because people are engaged in the issues and if I’m not going to tell this story, who could I really expect to tell it for me? I’ve done so many interviews in which other people ask me questions that I think it’s about time I get off the phone, pick up my camera, and start asking some questions of my own.
Of course, in the eyes of those who respect me, this is seen as “brave” and “innovative” whereas in the eyes of those who deplore me, it only furthers how “attention-mongering” or “exploitive” I am. One thing I’ve learned over the past six months is to stay true to one’s vision and message. If these are compromised, one stands to lose those who believe in him and surely won’t win back those who already dislike him. My advice to those who think I’m a deranged attention-whore: don’t give me another minute of your time; I probably won’t miss you.
Rubang B @ Feb 1st 2007 6:05AM
Wait, what if you made a game where you got to play as Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold and you get to kill millions of Jews, homosexuals, communists, gypsies, and atheists? Oh wait, nobody likes Columbine or the Holocaust, so mixing and matching the two would piss twice as many people off. You can't do things that piss people off. But in that case it would be fiction, so would that be OK? Would the game be "OK" if you just changed their names and the name of the school? Is killing kids in a video game OK if their names aren't familiar enough to trigger very painful emotions?
I don't care what the game's about. People should be allowed to make a video game where you rape and eat 5 year olds to grow stronger and you kill Iraqis to use their skulls to rebuild your spaceship so you can fly back to Heaven because you're Jesus.
Right now I can play flash games online where I'm Bush, Cheney, and Condoleezza Rice, and we're killing "terrorists" who are invading the White House. Now I find that game and others like it to be more sickening than SCMRPG, because they're politically motivated to trigger a healthy combo of patriotism and racism, and I think they might want to sell me ringtones or something, which is even worse. Did you guys know all terrorists have beards?
I haven't played the game yet, but I'll get around to it some day. Even if I don't like it, I'm glad it was made, because it got all of us talking about all these issues regarding art, censorship, and the perception of video games as a serious storytelling medium. In fact, I'm only thinking of good things this game has done. If the only bad thing this game has done is piss people off, then it's not that bad at all.
Crumb @ Feb 1st 2007 11:17AM
"I don't care what the game's about. People should be allowed to make a video game where you rape and eat 5 year olds to grow stronger and you kill Iraqis to use their skulls to rebuild your spaceship so you can fly back to Heaven because you're Jesus."
HAHAHAHAHA! But seriously, I'm in this camp too.
Skwurl @ Feb 1st 2007 8:27AM
"I don't care what the game's about. People should be allowed to make a video game where you rape and eat 5 year olds to grow stronger and you kill Iraqis to use their skulls to rebuild your spaceship so you can fly back to Heaven because you're Jesus."
Good Lord.
Do us a favor and go run with some scissors, will ya?
Ibere @ Feb 1st 2007 9:50AM
"People should be allowed to make a video game where you rape and eat 5 year olds to grow stronger and you kill Iraqis to use their skulls to rebuild your spaceship so you can fly back to Heaven because you're Jesus."
This is the best game idea ever. You should probably send it to Rockstar!
Je2037 @ Feb 1st 2007 10:34AM
WWII was A World War, which pretty much makes it EVERYONES BUSINESS and fair game for public comment, satire, gaming, whatever. Columbine was a very isolated, very recent, very personal tragedy and NOT this dude's business to be using as material for a game's plot. Out of respect alone Columbine should not be made the theme in a game. Find something else to make a game about, or use a fictional school and tweak the plot. Again, this is about respect, not black and white right or wrong. Of course, people should be allowed to have no respect, but people don't have to put up with it, and can ban it from a competition.
Je2037 @ Feb 1st 2007 2:08PM
Tell your camp to get out more.
Tom Randall @ Feb 19th 2007 12:43AM
Ok now alot of people are bitching about this but being someone who was loosly connected to Eric I have to say the game is well thought out and a must play. Though the game is baised on the tragic events of 4/20/99 it still happened and though people had to experiance this horror for real,the game was well intersting. While playing it the horror part of this game pulls you in. You become engulfed in this game and wonder just what the hell was going through the minds of Eric and Dylan and ask your self how could it have been provented. So play this game and just remember, it all could have been prevented so easly but was over looked on every level. Sad point about reality is its our nightmare, much more frightning than a damn game.