The Political Game: Industry should distance itself from Columbine game
by Dennis McCauley 
{ Feb 2nd 2007 at 2:58PM }
Each week Dennis McCauley contributes The Political Game, a column on the collision of politics and video games:
Super Columbine Massacre creeps me out.
Maybe that's what designer Danny Ledonne had in mind. If so, mission accomplished. Ledonne clearly wanted to use the game medium to explore the motivations of killers Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold. Whether you like his methodology or not, there's a famous piece of yellowed paper resting under glass in the National Archives that says he's free to express himself however he pleases. But whatever Ledonne's purpose in creating SCMRPG, the negative mainstream publicity surrounding the controversial game is not good for the video game industry. Game publishers ought to be proactively making it clear that Super Columbine Massacre isn't a product of their tribe.
Why?
Because the idea that a game company might be so craven as to profit from the Columbine massacre is hurting the industry. Because non-gaming types simply don't understand the difference between LeDonne's self-made art project and a multimillion dollar commercial game product like, say, Rockstar's Bully.
That was never more clear than during last week's hearing of the Public Utilities and Technology Committee of the Utah House of Representatives. There, confusion reigned as one legislator asked what Bully, "the Columbine game," was rated. A second legislator, the sponsor of a video game bill before the committee responded, "The Columbine game's rated Teen."
Scary, huh?
What's scarier is that every single elected official on that committee accepted that statement as fact until a sharp-witted ESA attorney named Steve Sabey jumped in and corrected the notion. Sabey explained that "the Columbine game" was Ledonne's home brew creation and not a commercial product. To be honest, despite Sabey's efforts, I'm still not sure the legislators got the message.
Now, as gamers, you and I both understand that Super Columbine Massacre is an indie game created by a one-man design team using readily available tools. It's a freebie download, not a commercial product of the game industry, not published by an ESA member company, not rated by the ESRB. But to the mainstream media and the general public, the distinction is frighteningly unclear, as witnessed by the clueless discussion in the Utah House. How many non-gamers understand the difference between industry and non-industry products? I mean, they're all just video games, right?
Utah's collective legislative confusion was due in large part to anti-game attorney Jack Thompson's oft-repeated mantra that Bully is a "Columbine simulator." Great sound bite, even if it is a load of nonsense. Thompson, of course, authored the Utah legislation, which has now been shelved over constitutional concerns. Good call by the Utah politicians, since the bill was based on Thompson's Louisiana bill which a federal judge hit with the unconstitutional stick last November.
The multiple waves of publicity surrounding Super Columbine Massacre RPG have been serendipitous for Thompson, however. Non-gamers read about Ledonne's Columbine game in the paper and then hear Thompson going on about Bully as a Columbine simulator. Is it any wonder things get mixed up?
For its part, the ESA needs to be far more proactive in, well, in just about everything, but especially in correcting the misinformation spread about commercial video games. It also needs to publicly distance itself from games with the potential to cast the entire sector in a bad light -- games like SCMRPG.
Dennis McCauley is the Political Editor for the Entertainment Consumers Association (www.theeca.com), tracks the political side of video games at GamePolitics.com and writes about games for the Philadelphia Inquirer. Opinions expressed in The Political Game are his own. Reach him at
Super Columbine Massacre creeps me out.Maybe that's what designer Danny Ledonne had in mind. If so, mission accomplished. Ledonne clearly wanted to use the game medium to explore the motivations of killers Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold. Whether you like his methodology or not, there's a famous piece of yellowed paper resting under glass in the National Archives that says he's free to express himself however he pleases. But whatever Ledonne's purpose in creating SCMRPG, the negative mainstream publicity surrounding the controversial game is not good for the video game industry. Game publishers ought to be proactively making it clear that Super Columbine Massacre isn't a product of their tribe.
Why?
Because the idea that a game company might be so craven as to profit from the Columbine massacre is hurting the industry. Because non-gaming types simply don't understand the difference between LeDonne's self-made art project and a multimillion dollar commercial game product like, say, Rockstar's Bully.
That was never more clear than during last week's hearing of the Public Utilities and Technology Committee of the Utah House of Representatives. There, confusion reigned as one legislator asked what Bully, "the Columbine game," was rated. A second legislator, the sponsor of a video game bill before the committee responded, "The Columbine game's rated Teen."
Scary, huh?
What's scarier is that every single elected official on that committee accepted that statement as fact until a sharp-witted ESA attorney named Steve Sabey jumped in and corrected the notion. Sabey explained that "the Columbine game" was Ledonne's home brew creation and not a commercial product. To be honest, despite Sabey's efforts, I'm still not sure the legislators got the message.
Now, as gamers, you and I both understand that Super Columbine Massacre is an indie game created by a one-man design team using readily available tools. It's a freebie download, not a commercial product of the game industry, not published by an ESA member company, not rated by the ESRB. But to the mainstream media and the general public, the distinction is frighteningly unclear, as witnessed by the clueless discussion in the Utah House. How many non-gamers understand the difference between industry and non-industry products? I mean, they're all just video games, right?
Utah's collective legislative confusion was due in large part to anti-game attorney Jack Thompson's oft-repeated mantra that Bully is a "Columbine simulator." Great sound bite, even if it is a load of nonsense. Thompson, of course, authored the Utah legislation, which has now been shelved over constitutional concerns. Good call by the Utah politicians, since the bill was based on Thompson's Louisiana bill which a federal judge hit with the unconstitutional stick last November.
The multiple waves of publicity surrounding Super Columbine Massacre RPG have been serendipitous for Thompson, however. Non-gamers read about Ledonne's Columbine game in the paper and then hear Thompson going on about Bully as a Columbine simulator. Is it any wonder things get mixed up?
For its part, the ESA needs to be far more proactive in, well, in just about everything, but especially in correcting the misinformation spread about commercial video games. It also needs to publicly distance itself from games with the potential to cast the entire sector in a bad light -- games like SCMRPG.
Dennis McCauley is the Political Editor for the Entertainment Consumers Association (www.theeca.com), tracks the political side of video games at GamePolitics.com and writes about games for the Philadelphia Inquirer. Opinions expressed in The Political Game are his own. Reach him at
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
mystyk23 @ Feb 2nd 2007 3:15PM
People profit off of real life tragedies all the time. Hollywood makes billions from them. There have been at least 2 films about 9/11 stories, Titanic, Pearl Harbor, Shindler's List, etc....
I hate hypocrisy.
Anonymous @ Feb 2nd 2007 3:06PM
Holy crap that's scary.
Kesh @ Feb 2nd 2007 3:07PM
Wow finally something on joystiq worth my time.
BTW I don't think this is a freedom of speech issue. I think its plain and simple a liberty issue.
The difference?
When its a liberty issue, you won't have people laughing at you for calling games 'expression'. And do you really believe games are expression anyway?
Change the terms of debate.
Mobat555 @ Feb 2nd 2007 3:07PM
Distancing ourselves from this would only look like we agree with Thompson and his who ha. Lack of correct information will forever be a problem in any industry. Our job should be to help the public understand.
Antonio @ Feb 2nd 2007 3:10PM
I agree with this. I don't dispute SCMRPG's right to be made, but the game casts a bad light on the entire industry. Rockstar really should consider suing Jack Thompson for equating their (mostly) harmless game with Columbine unless they are of the mindset any publicity is good publicity.
It really says something about lawmakers when they cannot get their facts even remotely straight on an issue like this. They're more interested in making a headline that actually accomplishing something.
matthew @ Feb 2nd 2007 3:11PM
"When its a liberty issue, you won't have people laughing at you for calling games 'expression'. And do you really believe games are expression anyway?"
I do, and that you're willing to cower and dissemble out of fear of being laughed at is your problem. Just because most games are vapid, doesn't mean as a medium it doesn't contain great potential for artistic expression.
Its an issue of art and free speech. Whether you think itscrappy art is irrelevant.
Jay @ Feb 2nd 2007 3:11PM
This is stupid ... so, because Lolita was scandalous, authors should be out there screaming, "I've got nothing to do with Nabakov! He's not a REAL novelist, not like me! I write Harlequin romances, these are legitimate works because they don't challenge your mind!"
The problem hear is education ... not the need to distance yourself from all controversial media.
When you run from a controversy that you are on the right side of, it just weakens your position. The gaming industry has more to be ashamed of in it's crap rehashes than it does in an independent game project.
Brown @ Feb 2nd 2007 3:12PM
I think it's going to be very hard to get legislators and the media to think about independent games as separate from commercial products. I see the situation as analogous to someone self-publishing a novel versus writing one for a big publisher; wouldn't there have been an equal uproar about OJ Simpsons' book if he had written it himself and posted it as a PDF on the Internet?
wait in the car @ Feb 2nd 2007 3:12PM
What little faith I had left in the governing bodies of our nation went to pieces when Boston all but shut down due to the mooninite invasion.
Jay @ Feb 2nd 2007 3:13PM
And, damn it ... Joystiq should let you edit your posts! Those frelling homonyms! Obviously, I meant "here" and not "hear"
Dave @ Feb 2nd 2007 3:16PM
I agree with Mobat555. If we fail to argue for free expression in all games, then we side with Thompson. You don't have to like something to fight for it to be allowed to exist without impedance.
nintendo fan @ Feb 2nd 2007 3:15PM
I think we should all stand behind SCMRPG and just try and show all the lies for what they are.
illspirit @ Feb 2nd 2007 3:17PM
Ummm, I think in Utah they actually were talking about Bully when they spoke of "the columbine game." The dude from the ESA was probably the only one in the room who heard of SCMRPG. Well, before he said anything anyway.
Nothing scary here at all...
Jabrwock @ Feb 2nd 2007 3:19PM
I think a better approach would be to make it clear that a) SCMRPG is not a commercial product, and b) that Bully is not a "Columbine" game.
To simply denounce SCMRPG merely reinforces the idea that games are incapable of expressing any ideas except those that are palatable to the masses.
Eric @ Feb 2nd 2007 3:29PM
I don't understand why people are more outraged when someone comes up with an idea for a game purely as shock value. It's an explicit insult to anyone's intelligence if they think that this is anything more that some third rate programmers idea at getting some attentions. I say this more to gamers because we as a community should be saying, 'sorry dude, we're not buying the cheap crap that your selling' and leave it alone. We shouldn't be standing behind him, we should be exposing him for what he is...which is a FRAUD!
helava @ Feb 2nd 2007 3:28PM
Well, it depends, right? Should the industry distance itself from Super Columbine Massacre? If they think that videogames aren't a legitimate space for exploring controversial issues, sure. But what THAT message says is that fundamentally, videogames *aren't* capable of being statements about the human condition, or exploring the unsavory sides of our lives.
Alternatively, a publisher can stand up and say that *regardless* of their personal view of the content, this game is as legitimate as any other form of discussion or analysis on the subject. Is the maker of Super Columbine exploiting the tragedy for profit? Not any more than CNN continually plastering headlines of TERROR! over a couple LED advertisements.
Come on - either the industry means something, or it doesn't. Walking away from a game like Super Columbine Massacre is like the comic book industry caving in to the Comics Code Authority. It's craven, it's cowardly, and looked upon in modern days as one of the worst things to ever happen to the comics industry.
Videogames deserve to learn from those mistakes, not repeat them.
aaron @ Feb 2nd 2007 3:33PM
"Its an issue of art and free speech. Whether you think itscrappy art is irrelevant."
So I guess you think if I were to crumple a piece of paper and call it art, I have the right to do so because it's my opinion? As smart-ass as it sounds, it's just not that simple when it comes to games.
Back when movies used to be regulated by only good taste, Hollywood kept pushing the boundaries, only ever so slightly as time when on. Decades later, they get a ratings system that's still being tweaked every so often, with rules that try to ignore opinions of a few. It's not perfect, but movies appeal toward everybody. Games, eh, not so much yet.
Games are still in it's infancy when it comes to being seen as "art", or at least serious entertainment (geared towards adults) like movies and TV. Who's to blame? Legislators in liberal (Mass.) and conservative (Utah) states, poorly educated Gen-X parents, the list goes on. All I'm saying is the industry should stick to winning lawsuits with states (like they have been doing), and the rest will fall into place , like the motion picture.
Man, I'm glad Texas can't afford anything because they can't afford a losing fight with the ESA.
Michael Pavone @ Feb 2nd 2007 3:36PM
I agree with illspirit. Jack Thompson had characterized Bully as a "Columbine simulator" long before this whole SCMRPG debacle hit the news. I suspect the clueless politicans were probably picking up on that rather than confusing it with SCMRPG, though it's possible there was some of that going on too.
Perhaps I haven't been paying enough attention, but I never got the impression that SCMRPG even got much attention in the mainstream press.
Mobat555 @ Feb 2nd 2007 3:37PM
It appears some of you didn't do any research into this subject. So I am happy to inform you that SCMRPG is a free game, the programmer made no profit on it.
ALSO on the front page of SCMRPG the publisher clearly states and I quote:
"NOTICE: Though this game is independently published, it is in the creator's estimation that it would be rated "M" (Mature) by the ESRB."
Dave @ Feb 2nd 2007 3:38PM
So who gets to define what "art" is? You? Thompson? Freedom and intollerance CANNOT coexist. There's a simple strategy for dealing with things you find distasteful--avoid them.
Mobat555 @ Feb 2nd 2007 3:41PM
First they came for the Communists, and I didn’t speak up, because I wasn’t a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up, because I wasn’t a Jew.
Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn’t speak up, because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak up for me.
LunarDuality @ Feb 2nd 2007 4:06PM
It has already been said before me but I must emphasize the point.
If we allow ourselves (as a gaming community) to let the ignorance of others determine the direction of the community we will never be taken seriously. The problem of ignorance (or mis-education) is the real problem here. If we ever want games to be considered more than just vapid entertainment with no merits then we must welcome the most challenging and controvertial members into the fold. That way we can make leaps and bounds forward instead of crawling on our bellies and apologizing for ourselves the whole way to mass acceptance.
Let's get a backbone!
GamePolitics @ Feb 2nd 2007 3:50PM
It's important to understand - if I did not make this clear - that I don't advocate banning SCMRPG, nor do I dispute Danny Ledonne's right to create the game.
However, Ledonne is in the business of making art, or a statement. The game industry is in the business of making games, but they also exist in a market, and have to make money to survive.
That's why they need to differentiate themselves.
Marty @ Feb 2nd 2007 3:54PM
Games are defined by law as art - they are an expression. This is no different than a violent movie with focus on sensitive content facing discouragement from the government, FCC, or the industry. If you do not view video games as art, then where to you draw the line? I have seen many interactive audio and video works of art in galleries... would those be outlawed / banned for their subject matter too?
Is making a game about Columbine callous? Rude? In poor taste? Yes... but it's protected free speech, and that is the important thing. If you let the government put restrictions on games like this, then sooner or later you'll see other, more high profile games receiving similar restrictions.
Jonathan Tran @ Feb 2nd 2007 4:00PM
This is damn scary how they can mess up something so simple to us.
Want to know what's scarier? That the same guys and gals who can't tell SCRPG from Bully are the same ones who have to make laws about nuclear power, war, pharmaceuticals, education, and food quality standards.
Be afraid. Be very afraid.
Patrick @ Feb 2nd 2007 3:58PM
Best article I've seen on Joystiq in a while. Very thoughtful.
EricC @ Feb 2nd 2007 3:59PM
I have to disagree with this article. This line, "Ledonne clearly wanted to use the game medium to explore the motivations of killers Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold" obviously shows that it deserves some sort of merit. If Ledonne had made the game to "creep out people and hurt their feelings," than there would be a clear difference. If we look at other forms of art, there are numerous instances in history where some work has been declared "obscene" later to be declared a masterpiece. Alan Ginsberg's "Howl," for example, went on trial for obscenity due to its content which caused it to sell thousands of copies and be critically acclaimed. We must also keep in mind that during this time and beforehand there were hundreds of books that were socially accepted that contained racism, misogyny and other forms of interlarance.
Dave @ Feb 2nd 2007 4:00PM
I see what you're saying, Dennis--but are you suggesting then that the game industry self-censor itself and outlaw controvercial titles? I can see your argument--but you will run into the same problem: if there is a line, where exactly is it? Who gets to draw it? How can you clearly define it? The game industry has a ratings system that seems to work. Going further will surely limit the creativity of commercial titles--which is arguably already quite limited.
Captain Obvious @ Feb 2nd 2007 4:07PM
@21. Mobat555
What does that have to do with anything?
Jake @ Feb 2nd 2007 4:05PM
I hate this topic. 13 of the nations 14,000 murders that year were committed by two white kids at the same time in a school. That's 6.5 each. We are trying to make such a big deal out of it, yet standard murder gets I swear less real attention.
Even if we somehow stop another columbine murder from ever happening, we will still only decrease the amount of people that are murdered in our country by a negligible amount. We should be focusing on "black on black" crimes and things that cause a significant amount of deaths.
These school shootings are because of detatched kids, crappy parenting, too many guns, bad sperm, and the fact that we have 300,000,000 damn people in this country. I would be shocked, actually, if this didn't happen again in the next year with so many people, guns, dumbasses, etc. end rant.
Jabrwock @ Feb 2nd 2007 4:06PM
The trick is to distance themselves so people know the difference between Bully (aka "Only Called The Columbine Game Because a Hack Lawyer Made A Soundbyte"), and Super Columbine Massacre RPG (aka "The REAL Columbine Game").
If they go about it the wrong way, they risk denouncing SCMRPG by implying that they would never have something to do with such "garbage". Which in the end would only hurt the medium's chances at ever being taken seriously as more than just a kids' toy.
They need to firmly and clearly (but politely) remind people that SCMRPG is a non-commercial, independant work of ART, and was not produced by the video game industry. And that despite a certain lawyer's claims, no industry producer has a "Columbine" game. [Insert description of Bully here]
By doing so, they make it clear the two are not the same, while reinforcing the idea that LeDonne work has artisic merit. (to those who disagree that it's art, you failed english class, art isn't just what's pretty, it's the expression of an idea through a medium, and yes, offending you is a message too...)
Lampbane @ Feb 2nd 2007 4:09PM
I'm going to have to chime in with the people who say that the committee weren't even talking/thinking about SCMRPG when they said "the Columbine game."
Aside from Slamdance and the occasional short article, I don't think there's been any really public controversy talking about SCMRPG. Most of those legislators have never heard of it, and I think I'd like to keep it that way.
Retro Otaku @ Feb 2nd 2007 4:14PM
The industry shouldn't shy away from SCMRPG. Instead, it should throw its support behind the game and send a message to politicians that they won't be pushed around. Giving in to pressure and only supporting games that are acceptable by all will only led to more and more politicians forcing their will down the throats of the people through unnecessary and restrictive legislation.
Jabrwock @ Feb 2nd 2007 4:18PM
@Lampbane
"I don't think there's been any really public controversy talking about SCMRPG. Most of those legislators have never heard of it"
The Washington Post (and the Toronto Star, the CBC, Rocky Mountain News, etc) had an article about it. So I imagine at least some of them saw the words "game based on Columbine" and connected it with Jack Thompson's assertion that Bully is "Columbine Simulator". Connect that with the description of SCMRPG from the WP, and they end up thinking that Bully features all the stuff from SCMRPG, and is sold in Walmart under a "T" rating... At that point you can understand their outrage, misdirected as it is.
Kesh @ Feb 2nd 2007 4:20PM
@ matthew
'Its an issue of art and free speech. Whether you think itscrappy art is irrelevant.'
The point I was trying to make is that to paint this as purely an issue of artistic expression is to misrepresent what is actually going on. Lets be clearer with 2 scenarios. The first conforms to your version, the battle between censorship and expression:
1) Game maker makes controversial game about politically explosive topic. Motives are unclear, s/he may be doing so to share an opinion etc, or may be be doing so just to provoke. Legislators attack, censorship and curtailment of freedom of speech follows.
I think we can all agree that this version would be a free speech issue, and that free speech should be upheld.
Now the reason I would like people to stop laughing at us is not because of 'fear'. It is because they are laughing at what they see as a misreading of the problem. This is the scenario that most people see:
2) Game makers produce blockbuster game tailored to the young audience's desire for violence, sex, empowerment etc. Parents fear some vague link with mental health and behavioural disorders. Legislators attack. If they win, then we are all denied the pleasures of such games, and games of better content.
Now I put it to you that both cases are gross violations of liberty, and video games can be defended on both counts. But why are you trying to conflate the two scenarios in order to make a better case? By doing so, I believe you actually weaken the case for preventing a ban, because scenario (1) looks implausible when the subject is scenario (2). Yes there is a spillover, a ban on less artistic games may affect artistic games too. But by retreating that far, you are passively admitting that certain games ARE worthy of a ban.
We need to admit that some games have crap all to do with artistic expression, and we need to defend them none the less.
Judd @ Feb 2nd 2007 4:20PM
It's all a matter of ignorance. Imagine if you will, if they brought up Stanley Kubrick(when he was alive) to Congress to discuss Eyes Wide Shut. And then the legislators believed that since on the internet there are movies where people have sex with old people, midgets and animals, they are the same thing. Oh well, they are all films so they're basically all pornography.
This seems like an extreme example but that's what it really is. If a video game is a columbine simulator, then all violent games must be columbine simulaters. Idiots.
Spirit @ Feb 2nd 2007 4:22PM
Dang. I know the game is about Columbine and all, which was a terrible event, but I can't believe all this media has gone crazy over an RPG MAKER game!
The media wouldn't go "cuckoo-bananas" over maybe a Columbine blog post or something, but when its in the form of a game... well we get what we had here. Of course the industry would stay away from a game made with probably an illegally downloaded copy of RPG Maker 2000 and no coding skill at all.
All you people, go download RPG Maker and make a game on a controversial subject. It'll get you on the news... and it'll only take maybe a month or two.
illspirit @ Feb 2nd 2007 4:25PM
"It's important to understand - if I did not make this clear - that I don't advocate banning SCMRPG" -GP
No, of course you don't. That would be silly! It would be much easier to just find an easy target, stir up (or in some cases initiate) controversy, then turn around and demonize the target in an attempt to divide the industry and/or coerce them to capitulate and self-censor. I mean, if that's what you wanted to do. It's not? Is it? :x
Chuma @ Feb 2nd 2007 4:31PM
I personally think the best way to distinguish between SCRPG and Bully would be for Rockstar to file a lawsuit against Jack. This isn't to profit and they should give him the opportunity to retract his statements and apologise as publically as he has slandered, but to make it clear that it most certainly is NOT a columbine simulator.
Short of taking the fight to those who seek to create this sea of misinformation, I don't see another way of changing non-gamers perceptions.
Carl @ Feb 2nd 2007 4:47PM
"However, Ledonne is in the business of making art, or a statement. The game industry is in the business of making games, but they also exist in a market, and have to make money to survive.
That's why they need to differentiate themselves."
The idea that that profit and expression are mutually exclusive goals poses a much greater threat to the game industry's image. If this business is seen as a money-making enterprise only, few people will have qualms about regulating it. If the public can be made aware of those developers who have vision and also make money at what they do, I think they will take notice.
SCMRPG and games like it serve to bring the power of this medium to the fore. If the professionals disparage difficult(and unprofitable) games like SCMRPG, their claims of artistic expression will seem like the weak excuses of an irresponsible industry.
Pixelantes Anonymous @ Feb 2nd 2007 4:34PM
Rather than distancing themselves from the game, I think the gaming industry should try and proactively educate the clueless about the industry. The lobbying after Thumper's swooped into the state and drafted some alarmist crap is too little too late.
I find it infinitely more scary that these legislators are contemplating passing bills based on information that's downright clueless, if not completely false, than that someone happened to make a game where you can shoot students at Columbine high school. Just imagine what other kind of laws are these people passing without knowing anything about the issues?
That truly is scary.
Persepolian @ Feb 2nd 2007 8:04PM
I think it's a mistake to walk away from something like SCMRPG.
Now I understand the argument. The industry is in its teenage years, trying to validate itself in the public eye. It's really easy for us to sit here and arm-chair philosophise that we need to distance ourselves from any bad press, even if it's someone that uses our medium as a source of personal insight.
But the fact is, walking away from it hurts us. It far to easy for us to say kick this under the rug, while Ledonne's game is used to ostricize the industry. I highly doubt that, by distancing the industry from SCMRPG, or games like it, that we will be free from those kinds of "games-equal-death" connections.
We must think more teleologically, and understand why he made it, and make people understand. Because otherwise what's the point? What's the line between an idea we are willing to express and one we are willing to express in secret?
GamePolitics @ Feb 2nd 2007 4:58PM
@Dave - at some level the industry does self-censor. Almost any mass consumer business does.
Think about the extreme end of the spectrum. Would the industry publish a rape game, for example? Or a KKK game? Obviously not. In addition to any other considerations, it would be commercial suicide.
Jabrwock @ Feb 2nd 2007 4:56PM
@Carl
"The idea that that profit and expression are mutually exclusive goals poses a much greater threat to the game industry's image. If this business is seen as a money-making enterprise only, few people will have qualms about regulating it. If the public can be made aware of those developers who have vision and also make money at what they do, I think they will take notice."
An excellent point.
GamePolitics @ Feb 2nd 2007 4:59PM
@Carl - I never said games were a money-making enterprise **only** or that making a profit and making art are mutually exclusive. But the games biz *is* a biz and there are pragmatic considerations afoot. In fact, a healthy games biz provides a lot of opportunity to the creative types to do their thing and make a living at the same time
Mr Khan @ Feb 2nd 2007 5:00PM
damnit, had a good one, but it got shunted
What i stated was that we the hardcore, who care about the health of the industry, are vastly outweighed by they the casuals, and they who don't play at all, don't care, and don't want to be educated
Their opinions will decide our fate, so long as democracy holds (hell, 9/10 dictatorships would probably rule against us as well)
obo @ Feb 2nd 2007 5:48PM
"I think we should all stand behind SCMRPG and just try and show all the lies for what they are."
I agree.
Let's start with the one where SCMRPG is a good game.
Its graphics are unlicensed, copyrighted sprites made by Enterbrain. Its gameplay - in and out of combat - is overscripted, dull and pointless. The story is pandering, pedantic and built to offend - not to spark discussion about Columbine, but to make the player feel unconstructively disgusted.
This game is the videogame equivalent of the most MSM stories about videogames - inaccurate, sensationalist, poorly made, borderline plagiaristic and completely missing the point.
The only constructive discourse that's been had regarding this game has been about Slamdance pulling it - if it hadn't been pulled, it'd just be known as an exploitative, poorly made piece of shit made to generate publicity.
Mobat555 @ Feb 2nd 2007 5:21PM
@31. Captain Obvious
"Mobat555 What does that have to do with anything?"
Captain Obviously its a statement that if we do not stand up for everyone’s rights, the no one will stand up for our rights when they come into question. As stated by a 15th century priest. We should stand by SCMRPG as we would Bully and Super Mario brothers, if we do not stand by them then SCMRPG will be banned followed by Bully and eventually Mario.
AssemblyLineHuman @ Feb 2nd 2007 6:08PM
I don't know if, ideologically, the industry should try to separate itself from the Columbine game. As a video game enthusiast, I would like to see the industry try to embrace the game because it would set a new standard for media-based industries. Instead of creating a fine line between the business part of the industry and the for-the-love-of-games part of the industry, we could allow the two to blur together -- or at least live harmoniously. If I were working near the top of a game company, yes, I would recommend trying to put the company outside of the realm of the Columbine game because of its negative public perception. After all, when you're a company like the vast majority of big players in industry, it's all about the bottom line.
Father Time @ Feb 2nd 2007 6:34PM
Father Time Says:
February 2nd, 2007 at 7:27 pm
I think distancing ourselves is a not such a good idea, if we distance ourself it is like saying “we would NEVER make a game about columbine never not in a million years” and that is a form of self-censorship in a way. Exactly what is wrong with super columbine massacre anyway it wasn’t the first web game to deal with school shootings and i doubt it will be the last. the game is NOT a mindless shooot em up blow em to bits kind of game. However people lie about the game and say it is a shoot em up mindless violence game but hey they already say there’s rape in gta so why should we be surprised. He made columbine as a way to talk about the event using videogames.
I say we take it a step further and produce a real, console, esrb rated game with the follwoing basic premise. What if the columbine kids had been succsessful in a. blowing up the cafeteria b. killing more people c. what if there were more than just the two of em and d. what if it happened after a school shooting with as much of an impact as columbine itself.
It could have you play as the school shooter, it’ll start long before the school shooting (and before the preperation as well) when the main character is miserable bullied and clearly psychotic (if this was not the columbine boys maybe it could be a parody of columbine). where you play as thme avoiding bullies making preparations etc. Then after the gruesome shooting it goes into the real story as to what the world would be like today (or shortly after the shooting) is all that happened. Maybe any teenager who expressed even the casual interest in violent video games, guns, what happened etc. would be sent to a camp similar to the ministry of love and the parents are considered instantly suspicious. GTA is very violent and controversal but it ripe with satire and barely takes itself seriously for the most part. I am talking about a game that is grim dark and full of hidden meanings that relate to the current climate. If anyone would succsessfully produce such a game (look at rockstar) then i think that would take games up to new heights, unfortunately no such game exists and the closest thing is super columbine massacre and I see no reason why we shouldn’t embrace it. (people will confuse the two and continue to demonize the industry whatever we do).