Living Game Worlds III: Playing with Controversy: The Case of Super Columbine Massacre
Also on the panel, entitled Playing with Controversy, was GT Assistant Professor and founder of Persuasive Games Ian Bogost and USC Assistant Professor Tracy Fullerton, whose Interactive Media Division withdrew sponsorship following Slamdance's decision. GT Assistant Professor and game theorist Celia Pearce served as moderator.
Portion of the SCMRPG trailer was shown to begin the discussion. In it, video of the game is shown over audio tracks showcasing the mainstream media's reaction to the game. The choice quote, from unknown source: "I see no way that you could, in any way, create the mindset that this was anything other than a really bad attempt to make money." The game was created by aspiring filmmaker Danny LeDonne using RPG Maker and was released his website for users to download free of charge.
Pearce providing the purveying theme for the session: "Why is it that you can make a film by Columbine but not a game?"
Bogost said that film is more understood by older generations and therefore there is a greater feeling of sophistication. "What we're hearing is that you shouldn't [make a game like SCMRPG]," he said.
Roberts talks about why Slamdance pulled the game. "I think Ian's exactly right, this is an issue about in most ways media literacy," he said. While there is no internal policy or prejudice, the decision was made by management because after talking to lawyers, we made decision that keeping the games would be detrimental to the future of Slamdance.
"Public understanding of a game on this content is different than public understanding of a movie on this," he said.
A sign of solidarity
Fullerton provided her perspective of events. "We're a small program, we don't have a lot money to go around sponsoring things," she said. USC students had gone to Slamdance the year prior with a game that no one complained about because it wasn't controversial. Meeting with other developers inspired them to give back to the festival that gave them such a great feeling.
"I would argue with the notion that you were protecting the ability to show provocative work by pulling the very type of work you were showing. I think that's a huge contradiction in approach ... by protecting one's ability to show this kind of work, we invalidate this very mission we're trying to achieve." Citing a perceived hypocrisy, they pulled sponsorship. Kellee Santiago, former USC student and co-founder thatgamecompany, instigated the pullout. Santiago, part of the team who brought flOw at Slamdance this year, called Fullerton about what was happening.
Fullerton and Roberts quickly traded words, with Roberts agreeing that the decision to pull SCMRPG was "inherently shortsighted," while Fullerton shared a conversation she had with Slamdance President Peter Baxter, where she said he stated proudly to her that "this has never happen before." Roberts said he was happy to see games like flOw and the six others from pulling out as a show of solidarity.
Pearce asks if the Gamemaker Competition's relation to the film festival -- as a unit contained within Slamdance -- had influenced management's decision.
"If this was a standalone game event, this would not have happened," said Roberts. Different expectations were cited. He gave some of what he considered positive aspects of being part of the film festival. "Films and independent films have been doing this for 40 years, they've figured ot how to make it work and train media literacy," he said, adding that these are "huge resources that could help game makers."
"Filmmakers could not understand someone taking point with legitimacy of their medium," he said. Yet this is one of the problems facing the gaming medium.
The Special Jury Prize
Despite being kicked out of the competition, Super Columbine Massacre RPG was still shown in the lobby. LeDonne brought his game and caught the eye of at least one person, Slamdance juror and filmmaker Brian Flemming (The God Who Wasn't There), who managed to convince two other jurors to honor the game with an honorary award, "Special Jury Prize" for Best Documentary. The efforts were stopped at the last minute by Baxter.
"The objection from Slamdance was that this was a game and we don't feel like it's proper giving a film award to a game," he said. However, was the award for Best Documentary or Best Documentary Film? Fullerton and Roberts go back and forth over this.
"I don't think we handled this very well ... this was poorly execution, from start to finish, how we dealt with this," said Roberts.
Moving forward
Bogost posed an interesting question regarding the future of the Gamemaker Competition. "Next year," he said, "you get the pedophilia game, what do you do?" The question was repeated by a member of the audience during the Q&A session, who used the white supremacist game Ethnic Cleansing as example.
Roberts explained that each game is submitted to judges for approval, and that perhaps some games would be shown only in private screenings.
One of the reasons later given for SCMRPG's exclusion (and the primary one cited for its denied Special Jury Prize) was that it did not necessarily have legal permission for all the music in the game, which were crude MIDI representations of actual songs. Roberts, however, stated that the game "did not have explicit legal issues."
"Every film festival in the country regularly screens movies that don't have their rights in order," he said. By merit of the attention it garnered, SCMRPG had brought legal issues to forefront.
"Now, films will not be shown unless all rights and clearances and locked away," he said.
As to the extent which the Slamdance festival will discourage highly controversial topics in gaming, Roberts said that the organizers "did not want to be that test case about whether games should tackle these issues." He predicts a game that has a negative agenda will make a case that reach the Supreme Court.
"[Can a] game conflict with the life and liberty of another? Most people in this room would say that is ridiculous, but we are in the minority," he said.











Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
ZenGaijin @ Apr 2nd 2007 8:35AM
So a movie about the World Trade Center (an event in which thousands die) and thats a work of art, but a game about a smaller tragedy is made and its offensive?
chriseth @ Apr 2nd 2007 8:41AM
i think this game is an amazing attempt to further the genre from that of purely entertainment and give it weight enough to be received as a social commentary. unfortunately with any revolution in the way a medium is used, those who don't either agree with it, or take it seriously will denounce it. i am pleased that the genre is finally taking a more serious look at society.
sheppy @ Apr 2nd 2007 9:22AM
"So a movie about the World Trade Center (an event in which thousands die) and thats a work of art, but a game about a smaller tragedy is made and its offensive?"
I've ranted on this subject in the past so I won't even get into SCMRPG other than saying people easily swallow and believe some pretty heavy bullshit. But find me one person who thought the world trade center movie was art. Even Ebert bashed it. If your only exposure to the film world is going to see the latest Bruckheimer crapfest with your Nascar fan buddies, yeah, it's about as artsy fartsy as your ilk will go. For everyone else though, it was considered a tasteless cash grab.
Champloo @ Apr 2nd 2007 9:30AM
This is a tricky subject. While people outside of the gaming fandom and industry *do* need to see games in an equal light as movies, TV, etc... there may be a line that shouldn't be crossed. Now I'm not saying that I know the answer, merely giving a perspective.
In other mediums like film, seeing a story based on true events is like watching a documentary, it's to be observed. However, in gaming, it's somewhat different. When you "kill" an NPC character in a game, it's a nameless faceless group of polygons that never existed in the first place. But if you were to create games based on true events (as in the case of SCMRPG), then games stop being harmless escapism and start being virtual life simulators. Or at least, that's the negative stigma attached to it.
I think the big problem is that (uninformed) people think to themselves "what kind of a psychopath wants to relive someone else's atrocities!?". But people also don't understand that the human mind is a curious thing. People love to watch "Saw" gore/horror films, but I bet said viewers don't want to be the victim of a serial killer themselves. We drink in what hasn't happened to use. You're driving down the highway, you see an accident, 9 out of 10 people will slow down and try and get a good look. Why? Because it's happening to someone else. The average person plays/watches/etc these things to see what they're like without *actually* having to experience it.
In truth though, I think that these kind of reality-based games *can* exist, but that there is a time frame that should be observed. People play WWII war sim games all over the world, but the thing is... those events were over half a century ago. By now most of the people who lived through that era are dead and forgotten (no offense to that generation intended). At this point in history, events from so long ago don't quite feel real to our era. We know they happened, but because they didn't happen to *us* it's no different than reading a fictionalized war story.
This is the situation: the columbine massacre (and other recent tragic events) happened only a handful of years ago. It's still real to people, it's still fresh, and that's why people can't handle it. I don't know anyone who fought in WWII, but I bet if I walked down the street I could bump into a parent of one of those kids, or a student from that school. There needs to be a cooling off period, and 8 years isn't enough.
The bottom line: there's a time and a place for movies/shows/games based on tragic events. A grace period is what's needed. A couple of decades is ideal. This would probably be a whole ongoing series for people in the year 2045.
Finally, try and get in the mindset of being a victim of 9/11, or the columbine massacre... it's been (lets says ) 3 years since it happened to you. Now imagine you're going to the movies, or see an advert on TV for a hot new game... based on the tragedy you lived through. That would be horrifying. Ah yes, there's nothing quite like reliving the worst moments of your life in widescreen 1080i.
Je2037 @ Apr 2nd 2007 9:38AM
@1: Exactly. They try to say that movie is done respectfully, yea f'in right. Can't believe theres a Nicolas Cage move about that already.
fffunfarm06---xbl @ Apr 2nd 2007 9:39AM
all i can say is that more people should play that game. i hate the people trying to bash a game that someone worked hard at. its just a game guys. fucking chill out. i just downloaded it right now and i hope that its the right file so i can play it on my psp. its not like this game is gonna stop these 13 kids that died back to life. for real. they died. no really. they're dead.
LaughingTarget @ Apr 2nd 2007 10:11AM
While I haven't played it myself (don't have and probably never will have the urge to), what I have not seen discussed was HOW SCMRPG was presented. Did it "reward" the player for committing the crimes or did it discuss the mentally disturbed nature of the two and attempt to show you what was going on through their eyes?
The answer to the "is it wrong" question comes down to the presentation. Even the White Supremecist game above could be a positive title if it properly shows just how screwed in the head those people are.
Duncan @ Apr 2nd 2007 10:40AM
@4 Champloo:
Your points are good, but if this game were to be published 50 years after Columbine, it isn't really a social commentary anymore. I understand that this game is far more inflammatory, than, say, Bowling for Columbine, but it is essentially the same idea.
Heliophage @ Apr 2nd 2007 10:47AM
Hey, we're on Joystiq... Go Jackets!
The reality of the matter is that people will find the game apalling because they think they're supposed to. It's a form of media no different (okay, well, slightly different) than a documentary about the tragedy that doesn't censor itself, nor does it hold back from viewing the consequences of their actions.
People associate the term 'video game' with the gamut of Mario to GTA, when this form of interactive media could be useful for so many other purposes than raw entertainment.
Grant @ Apr 2nd 2007 11:46AM
the simple reality is, there are a large handful of people who never want to deal with anything uncomfortable, even if they need to, to understand it.
people also still don't take video games seriously enough, they don't associate emotions, they don't consider it quality enough to tackle such subjects.
I think the fact that this was made with RPG maker helped force people to deal with the topic, and not focus on the graphical violence, which was an important step towards taking games more serious.
While things like hyper bloody saving private ryan were ok because they were trying to set the mood and mimic what war is, games just aren't there yet without being viewed as murder simulators.
First we need people to stop and think of the topic, look at the theme, and then judge it, rather than just judge it from blood spattered Screen cap after then next.
one day games will be accepted, but sadly it seems the people who didn't grow up accepting them is eclipsed by those who don't understand, tolerate, or are willing to take that first step out of their ignorant tunnel vision.
S_DOG34 @ Apr 2nd 2007 1:20PM
I've said it before and I will say it again: if you want to address the Columbine murders in a videogame and want to be taken seriously, you cannot name it "Super Columbine Massacre". This whole situation would be different if they had not given the game such an incredible inflammatory and ridiculous name. People have brought up the movie "World Trade Center" and the debate about whether or not it's art is immaterial. Would that project have made any money or even been given the green light for production if it had been called "Super World Trade Center Explosion"?
People are not taking the game seriously because the designers gave it a stupid name in an effort to maximize its exposure.
Psaakyrn @ Apr 2nd 2007 3:25PM
to #11 S_DOG34
And yet Snakes on a Plane did quite well. Maybe it's the content that is more important, perhaps?
But on a more serious note, the game is named that way for a reason, just like why it's a game instead of a movie, to begin with. The murderers treated it (the massacare) like a game, but if it was a game, the mechanics is absolutely horrible, as emulated by the game (SCMRPG) itself. Similarly, the game is named to sound "awesome", when you know it isn't. The name itself is a commentary to begin with.
anonymous rant @ Apr 2nd 2007 6:19PM
@ fffunfarm06---xbl
"all i can say is that more people should play that game. i hate the people trying to bash a game that someone worked hard at. its just a game guys. fucking chill out. i just downloaded it right now and i hope that its the right file so i can play it on my psp. its not like this game is gonna stop these 13 kids that died back to life. for real. they died. no really. they're dead."
Well, aren't you a naive and heartless bastard. Just a game? Just a game that happens to depict a cold and senseless massacre. This isn't a form of art or escapism. These are jackasses trying to get attention and make a name for themselves for stirring up controversy. And anyone that says otherwise needs their head examined because they've obviously lost touch with reality.
World War 2 games aren't even comparable. They depict heroes in key events telling our worlds history while giving you a chance to experience what our brave young men and women endure to give your sorry ass the very freedoms you enjoy today.
What possible good is going to come out of making a game based on one of the most brutal and inhuman acts ever recorded at a public school. F-ck curiosity. There is a point in where lines "have" to be draw. And F-ck you people that promote this kind of senseless trash. What kind of message are you trying to send.. that we should live in a world were there are no bounds including good taste?
And why do you think movies like World Trade Center get made? Because people don't have the good sense to not buy into the product and say, "we don't want you feeding us this garbage." It hits too close to home.
We are not just talking about a game. We're talking about bullsh-t excuses that morons who walk this Earth find to try to justify their rights under the first ammendment. I'm sure that's way our founding father wrote it so long ago... so that JOE NOBODY could make is name in the news.
Get a clue people. Use your common sense. There is nothing tricky about this topic at all. If you can't see through the B.S. then maybe you need to endure a tragic event in your life to knock some sense back into you. Fiction is one thing, and while I don't agree or support all games made.. this isn't the same thing. This is tasteless garbage trying to make a buck.
Jeremiah Wood @ Apr 2nd 2007 6:31PM
Wow. Are people really this stupid?
"So a movie about the World Trade Center (an event in which thousands die) and thats a work of art, but a game about a smaller tragedy is made and its offensive?"
Ok, was the movie about the World Trade Center praising the terrorists for what they did? No? Ok then, there's a difference. This game clearly praises two little punks (I can think of much worse words to describe the poor excuses of human beings) who selfishly murdered other students in cold-blood. There is most definitely a complete lack of morals today, and it seems that most people are more convinced that evil=good and good=evil; this is a fantastic example of that.
Why not create a game with atheists killing Christians (or vice-versa), Nazis killing Jews, homosexuals killing heterosexuals (or vice-versa), or Jack Thompson killing video gamers? Seriously: Give me a break. If any of you can praise garbage such as a Columbine RPG, I really despise you and question if you're human (and if you are, you're either insane or deranged).
S_DOG34 @ Apr 2nd 2007 7:48PM
"And yet Snakes on a Plane did quite well. Maybe it's the content that is more important, perhaps?"
*sigh*. Snakes on a Plane was MEANT to be stupidly named over-the-top camp that should not be taken seriously. SCM is supposed to be "art" that "deals with serious issues" yet has a preposterously inflammatory and ridiculous name. In this thread and threads in the past posters have been whining about how the game should be taken seriously. So which is it...to be taken seriously or over-the-top camp not to be taken seriously?
Also, I would really like to see you qualify how Snakes on a Plane "did quite well". The movie grossed $34 million domestically and cost $33 million to produce. Next time try doing a little research before mouth off.
"The murderers treated it (the massacare) like a game"
And you know this how? Did you have a chat with them during the planning phases of the event?
"Similarly, the game is named to sound "awesome", when you know it isn't."
Huh?
"The name itself is a commentary to begin with."
No, the name itself is meant to be controversial in order to gain maximum exposure for their "game". It worked in terms of generating exposure but now the creators will bear a scarlet letter wherever they go.
Rubang B @ Apr 2nd 2007 10:14PM
@anonymous rant, so it's OK to play WW2 games because you're playing as heroes who are killing bad guys, right? So if it's only OK to kill bad guys, why is GTA OK but SCMRPG is not? Where do you draw the line?
Rubang B @ Apr 2nd 2007 10:22PM
@S_DOG34, By the end of its theaterical run, Snakes on a Plane generated approximately $59,377,419 worldwide. While this might make it a "bomb" by some standards, that's $26 million profit off a wacky nutjob movie, and they could easily make a sequel or a video game now. I'm sure the DVD's fattening their wallets too.
And if this game didn't have a ridiculous name, I would never have heard of it and we wouldn't be having these important debates.