Super Columbine Massacre RPG - Part 1

By Simon Parkin Published 22 January, 2007

Have videogames gone far enough?

Squeeze the R-trigger and you peer around the seat in front. On either side of a sweet-wrapper-strewn gangway passengers yawn at in-flight movies or snore from beneath grey blankets. Stewardesses giggle huddled and preoccupied ten metres behind you. Tick tock and Carpe Diem: the moment has arrived. You tap A and the seat belt and adrenaline unclasp.

Easing the analogue stick forward inconspicuously inches you towards the cockpit. Select brings up a mundane but deadly inventory. Bic razor equipped you slip through the door, mash the X-button to slit the pilot's throat then hit B to praise Allah for an ideological multiplier. Lock the door and L-click to engage the flight controls. The camera switches to a third-person view following the plane, lens-flared HUD as sparse as your character's emotion. New York's twin towers stand 25 minutes and 100 achievement points away.

Before the Daily Mail staff enjoys a collective brain haemorrhage from outrage/delight, as yet there is no such videogame: to many people the idea of any interactive media that allows you to role-play as a real-life 'villain' recreating historical atrocities is simply taboo. United 93, a film which hired actors to act out the type of roles described above in order to help viewers dissect the events of 9/11 might receive worldwide critical praise and accolade but with videogames think of the children! How on earth could a 'toy' meaningfully comment on or communicate about the darker side of humanity's behaviour?

It's attitudes like this ­- the kind that reveal the disparity between freedom of expression in videogames to that in books and movies ­- that resurfaced last month when the Slamdance Independent film festival announced it was removing one of the most controversial games from its Guerrilla Gamemaker prize short-list. The cutesy 16-bit Final Fantasy style graphics of Super Columbine Massacre RPG!, mask its macabre and challenging content: you play as Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, the two ostracised teenagers who visited their school, Columbine High, on Tuesday, 20th April, 1999 and shot and killed twelve students and a teacher before committing suicide in America's most deadly school shooting.

'Super Columbine Massacre RPG - Part 1' Screenshot 1

The festival organisers blamed the decision on fear that a public backlash against the game's inclusion (it had already attracted acres of negative column space before being short-listed) could scare off sponsors, or even attract a civil lawsuit (as Slamdance upped the ante by amending their official statement to read on Friday), something which could throw the festival's future into jeopardy.

But the Columbine massacre has been the subject of much creative investigation: Michael Moore's Bowling For Columbine and Gus Van Sant's Elephant, films which respectively dissect and recreate the day's events, were awarded the Palme d'Or in consecutive years, not to mention the countless books published on the subject. So what is it that makes a Columbine-based videogame so unpalatable to the media? Does the interactive element of videogames change the parameters of what is and isn't permissible in art? Or is it simply that games are seen as being for children and should leave tough subject matters to the elder mediums? Eurogamer spoke to the game's (until recently anonymous) creator, Danny LeDonne, and Ian Bogost, assistant professor at the Georgia Institute of Technology and a staunch supporter of the game and its importance in the videogame canon, in order to untangle the issues.

LeDonne, now in his mid-twenties, was attending another high school in Colorado at the time of the killings. Confused as to why boys of a similar age, location and situation (he too was bullied) would express themselves in such a destructive manner, LeDonne decided to make a homebrew videogame using the PC program RPG Maker to try to make sense of the events leading up to and during that day. Eurogamer asked Bogost what he thought the relevance of such a game might be to a wider audience. "The game is about the experience of Harris and Klebold before and during the Columbine massacre," he explained. "It's primary purpose is to give the player an experience of the lives these two led, the horrific and tragic acts they perpetrated, and their eventual demise by their own hands.

'Super Columbine Massacre RPG - Part 1' Screenshot 4

"The main point of the game, as I see it, is to provide players with the killers' perspective - their feelings of alienation and loneliness, their withdrawal into an isolated world in which they misused media - including videogames, but also music and books - to rekindle their feelings of alienation. This game is certainly not meant to make us excuse Harris and Klebold, or to forgive them. But it does ask us to empathise with them, to try to understand the situation they perceived themselves to be stuck in."

The plotline follows the events of the day with meticulous detail amassed from newspaper reports and sheriff records. Such attention to minutiae (your characters have the exact same number of bombs and weapons as Harris and Klebold for example) has seen LeDonne described as obsessional, perhaps even glorifying the attackers' acts. So why go to such great lengths? "I felt like if I wanted to make a serious game, I ought to take my subject seriously," said LeDonne. "This wasn't going to be something I'd sink months of time into unless I was going to tell the story the way it happened (while still allowing for an open-ended environment for interaction - a challenging balance to strike). Without the attention to detail, I think SCMRPG would run a much greater risk of trivialising the shooting (as some critics allege) and would undermine the game's primary purpose of showing the player a story they only thought they knew before."

Motivations, disillusionment and rage are all discussed through the lens of the day's events. While the game never shows footage or stills of any of the victims, it does intersperse real photographs of the boys, quote things that they said and, finally, displays a graphic image from the coroner's office of their own lifeless bodies at the scene. What drove the decision to display such a graphical image? "That decision was an easy one: to connect the limited graphical reality of the 'game' with the deeply serious consequences of the game's subject matter. They killed people. They killed themselves. This isn't Mario Bros. This really happened. Here are the crime scene photos to prove it. The player must now account for what has happened thus far in the game. I felt like a documentary approach filled with real quotations and real photos was the best way to confront the shooting on honest terms.

"Videogames often sanitise their violence and thereby shortchange the player in terms of understanding the ramifications of his/her actions. I wanted to challenge that. This is a subject that demanded as much."

'Super Columbine Massacre RPG - Part 1' Screenshot 3

The game was released onto the Internet for download on 20th April 2005, the sixth anniversary of the shootings. For a while it went mostly undiscovered, but when exposed and written about by Ian Bogost on his blog in May last year it began to gain platform and media notoriety. Much of the mainstream US press decried the game for making entertainment out of others' suffering. LeDonne is adamant that this is not the case: "I don't regard this game as entertainment. Many have written about how morally challenging this game is to play. A review in Salt Lake City said: 'I hate this game with all my heart not because it was made, but because the real Columbine massacre occurred'. And, that, I think, is the real point.

"There are moments in the game that push the idea that games can be emotionally difficult, that they can be satire, that they can be critical social commentary. If all people want is entertainment, this isn't a very good choice; the graphics are sub-par at best, the gameplay is clunky and limited, and there is so much reading involved that someone looking for a 'murder simulator' would best look elsewhere. But entertainment aside, is it 'wrong' to make a film that centres on another's suffering? What about a book? A painting? A song? A theatre production? Why are games different? If there are films about the suffering of Christ, why could there not be videogames? Videogames absolutely should be able to approach the same issues other artforms do albeit in the manner that is inherently unique to gaming."

It's this 'inherently unique' aspect to videogames that is the cause of so much consternation when it comes to their depicting sensitive issues and events. While the films Bowling for Columbine and Elephant addressed many of the same issues as SCMRPG, there is a key difference in that here you role-play as the antagonists. Surely the interactivity and participatory nature of SCMRPG neuters any real meaningful comparisons between those films and this game?

'Super Columbine Massacre RPG - Part 1' Screenshot 2

"I disagree with the contention that, because videogames are interactive they must somehow be treated differently to other creative media," argued LeDonne. "This is a dangerous line of argument because of course every medium is in some way distinct from the others. Is film an inappropriate medium for a subject of photography simply because viewers are shown twenty-four photographs per second? Is music too interactive a medium because sound waves actually strike against us? Are books too interactive a medium because they compel us to envision the author's description in our heads?

"Surely this tired concern about how 'interactive' games are is merely a reaction to their infancy as a medium. I can't think of a single medium that hasn't had a share of controversy for whatever unique expressive qualities it has. The concern exhibited here was actually the very same that was put forward to criticise role-playing games like Dungeons & Dragons in the '70s and '80s: that assuming a character is simply too dangerous a proposition. I suppose the same arguments could be wheeled out against an actor who plays an antagonist (such as Bruno Ganz as Hitler in the 2004 Oscar-nominee Downfall) or children playing cops and robbers.

Bogost agrees: "Interactivity is one of the core features that differentiate games from passive media like film. In a game we play a role. Most of the time, the roles we play in games are roles of power. Space marine, world-class footballer or hero plumber. Isn't it about time we played the role of the weak, the misunderstood, even the evil? If videogames remain places where we only exercise juvenile power fantasies, I'm not sure there will be a meaningful future for the medium."

Picture of Simon.

About Simon Parkin

Simon Parkin is an author and journalist on video games. A regular contributor to Eurogamer since 2005, his work has also appeared in Edge, The Telegraph, Gamasutra and Boing Boing.

Read more articles from Simon by visiting the Simon Parkin archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (114) Latest comment 5 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • Danbojones Verified Senior Staff Writer, GamesIndustry.biz #1 5 years ago

    Play nicely now.....

  • Nova5lag #2 5 years ago

    I actually quite like the idea of playing the anti-hero. Fable I was evil... City Of Vilians made me smile GTA I killed pro's and stole cars. The idea of wielding power in a game is great. However, this doesnt mean Im gonna go and be evil in the real world... the issue is much much deeper that video games being interactive rather than passive. Its the emotions that it stirs up in people.

    Some are unable to draw lines and define their own boundries, these people need help and its society thats failing them not the games industy.

    Just IMO obv.

  • Furbs #3 5 years ago

    Why give it any attention?

    I dont agree with censorship, but giving this crap more publicity than it deserves is a shame.
    Edited by 1 at 22/01/07 @ 14:28

  • rudedudejude #4 5 years ago

    Is there going to be a review of the game?

    I do hope so.

  • Xerx3s #5 5 years ago

    (such as Bruno Ganz as Hitler in the 2004 Oscar-nominee Downfall)

    The English version of "der untergang"?

  • Nova5lag #6 5 years ago

    Agreed that the Columbine boys cant be described as anti-heros however, the article is clearly more about the effect games have on people rather than the actual game itself.

    The Columbine boys played games where they took the role of an anti hero and due to emotional and mental instability they couldnt draw a line between that fantasy and their reality.

    My point is that it isnt the games fault for letting them act out anti hero fantasy its more society's fault for not helping those boys. That is not to mean I understand why they did what they did because its awful and shouldnt happen. Im just saying games do not cause mental instablity.

  • captbirdseye #7 5 years ago

    Very well-written Simon, i am currently writing an academic journal similar to this subject.

  • Azazel #8 5 years ago

    I had to look twice at that title.

  • Furbs #9 5 years ago

    The worst thing about the twats who thought it would be clever to code it (then come up with the lamest justification ever) is they would probably describe themselves as gamers and love the hobby, yet produce the sort of shit that plays right into Jack Thompsons hands.

    If they are genuinely creative, lets hope they mature a little soon.
    Edited by 1 at 22/01/07 @ 14:39

  • AcidSnake #10 5 years ago

    This could be a positive influence to help gamers see the difference between reality and fantasy, but more to the point to illustrate the severe consequences when this difference is not perceived...

    However I can see how a lot of people will be offended by this game, even knowing its intent...

  • Shinji #11 5 years ago

    Have you played it, Furbs? You seem quite vehement about the whole thing - I'm interested to know if you've actually played the game to reach this conclusion.

  • the_dudefather #12 5 years ago

    that 9/11 game sounds fun, like hitman crossed with a flight sim

    (loads up RPG maker) :p

  • LeD #13 5 years ago

    Furbs - have you read the article? It seems you're misunderstanding it or the point of the game that was made by LeDonne, which is unusual coming from you.

    Very strong article I thought, asking the right questions. More please!

  • captbirdseye #14 5 years ago

    Games are fundamentally turning our society into a hyper-real one, where the less stable minded person is perceiving this medium as actual reality.
    Edited by 1 at 22/01/07 @ 14:45

  • TripSkyway #15 5 years ago

    Interesting read.

  • rotj #16 5 years ago

    It's a wierd one though. When I watched Downfall, despite how well acted it was, and so and so, I still felt a lot of contempt for the man. I mean, it's Hitler for crying out loud! It's one thing smiling to yourself as you take over the universe in KotOR, safe in the knowledge that the events aren't real. But could I honestly re-enact what the 9/11 hijackers or 7/7 transit bombers did, and NOT feel dirty/disgusting? I don't know if I could.

    That's where gaming's interactivity works against it, personally speaking. I can stomach a passive movie, even if its shot from the bad guys perspective. But in a game, I'd just feel complicit in their deed. I guess it's all about timing though, because it doesn't really bother me when I'm on the Axis side in an online WWII shooter. Maybe games just require a longer passage of time before the subject matter becomes palatable?

  • captbirdseye #17 5 years ago

    captbirdseye - wow! That's an extremely broad conclusion, and I can't think of a single piece of evidence that could possibly back it up...

    You can have bonus points for using the phrase "hyper-real" though, which is a piece of post-modernist nonsense vocabulary that no-one, but NO-ONE actually knows the meaning of

    Chill out man, im only making an assumption based on the work of Baudrillard and Borstin which i have read and what is exactly wrong with using 'hyper-realilty' as a definition for videogames.
    Edited by 1 at 22/01/07 @ 14:54

  • trevd72 #18 5 years ago

    if i had super powers i would use them for bad and evil, i am sure of it.

    I would be a disciple of the dark side. I am a disenfranchised 30 something and I can totally understand where this game can attract people.

    I have a little switch in my head, like most of us, that stops us carrying out atrocities. So why not have a go in a game as long as its a good game, gotta be better than turning up to work with a bag full of nasty toys and inflicting some real damage. Violence in film, games and music only add a certain artistic tinge to the people without the "switch", in that they may dress up as someone from the matrix, kill someone in a certain way etc. At the end of the day they are mad , bad and dangerous to know and would do it anyway. society created columbine not the media. the jocks, the in crowed, American culture of elitism in general, freedom to own guns created the perfect storm of columbine.

  • posh_geordie #19 5 years ago

    Post deleted at 18:45:04 02-01-2012

  • Eraser #20 5 years ago

    Pulling a game like this up to some morale platform is bullshit. I doubt the game developer's sincerity when they say they want to tell the tale of these two boys and give people insight into what happened. This is the first time I hear about the game, but even when I read this article, I am inclined to think that it's simply about the shock factor of it all.

    Bowling for Columbine was an informative documentary. It was (arguably) only giving facts. It didn't put the viewer into the position where they had to execute the killings. Additionally, I don't think that videogames are the correct platform for something like this. They aren't called videogames for nothing. They're games, nothing more. Yes, some games can be a form of art. They're beatifully constructed and in some ways even extremely graceful, beautiful to look at full of emotion, but I really don't consider it to be a platform for sensitive subjects such as this, certainly not when it's message is wrapped in such an amateurish looking design. This is even more so true when one considers that videogames are already portrayed in such a bad light these days.

    Playing an evil person isn't always a bad thing. A clear "green" area for this is a purely fictional character (Black & White, Dark side in Knights of the Old Republic, Fable, Hitman). A grey area is where you're playing an evil character which is based on a real person. Now it depends on the actions. Playing as a nazi german (maybe even Hitler himself) in a WW2 based RTS game is a different story than an FPS where your goal is to kill as many jews as possible.

    I think this game crosses that line where it turns from that grey area into the area marked with a great big "NO". In the end, I really question the sincerity of the authors in this. If you really wanted to explain what happened, other mediums are a far, far better way to express your views, ideas and to inform people. If your main goal is to inform people, then choose the best medium suited for that. If your goal is to make use a medium (any medium) to portray a controversial subject, then videogames are better than documentaries, because of their non-acceptance by the media when it comes to controversial subjects.

  • smoison #21 5 years ago

    I don't think you can consider Video Games an Art and then decide to censor the ones you don't like.

    I'm glad games like this are being made . Its the only way we can get Video games recognized as a form of Art.

  • goz #22 5 years ago

    bcolter: The game might be crap and the idea might be crap but the issue that it brings into the spotlight is incalculably 'worthwhile' and, whether you like it or not, will have a direct bearing on the kinds of games we may or may not be playing in the future.

    Personally, I find Super Columbine Massacre interesting because it’s one of the few games that gamers don’t instantly know what to think of. With Bully we say: ‘The tabloids never played it. It’s handled sensitively. Besides, it’s not for children”; with the Hot Coffee mod we say: “Why are we so happy for maiming acts of pixel violence but when it comes to romance and sexuality we freak out? Besides, again, it’s not for children ‘.

    But here, where we’re asked to take on the roles of murderous, dysfunctional teenagers and re-enact the massacre of actual school children the stock apologetics don’t flow so freely. We actually have to engage with freedom of speech, censorship and whether we believe there’s any kind of ineffability in art. In short it’s an actual uncomfortable videogame with real uncomfortable subject matter and, for all the incendiary headlines and hot-aired, political wrangling surrounding most violent videogames, truly difficult games like this come along very rarely. We should talk about them when they do.

  • Eraser #23 5 years ago

    "This could be a positive influence to help gamers see the difference between reality and fantasy"

    So is this game real or fantasy?

  • el_pollo_diablo #24 5 years ago

    I hope Uwe Boll does the movie of the game.

  • captbirdseye #25 5 years ago

    I hope Uwe Boll does the movie of the game

    It cant be any worse than Van Sants version .
    Edited by 1 at 22/01/07 @ 15:04

  • Eraser #26 5 years ago

    "I don't think you can consider Video Games an Art and then decide to censor the ones you don't like.

    I'm glad games like this are being made . Its the only way we can get Video games recognized as a form of Art.    "

    I'm not sensoring anything. I just simply don't think that taking any controversial subject turns a game into art.
    I consider a game like Twilight Princess or Metal Gear Solid to be a piece of art. Not because of it's contents, but because of the dedication and genuinity of the developers, the superb cinematic feeling to them, the absolutely undeniable level of skill and creativity involved with them.

    A game like this columbine game is no art. I don't see much creativity or innovation. I don't see any real dedication from the developers to make it a really intruiging and emotional experience. I don't see any genuinity from the developers. This is not art.

    Videogames aren't art per se, some videogames raise themselves to the level of art. Most of them are simply games, nothing more.

  • rotj #27 5 years ago

    Thing is, I'd only find this game 'informative' and of artistic merit, if it was looking at the causes behind the massacre, and not just charging you with popping off as many students as you can for points! If the developers had researched the lives of the two killers, gone into the project with a passion to document the cause of the effect, I think I'd find a Bully-style game that sought to let the players 'understand' worthy of greater merit than just plonking you down in the school with an AK in-hand, charged with fragging away.

  • Carpathian #28 5 years ago

    Simon/EG +1

    Eraser +1

  • goz #29 5 years ago

    rotj: that's absolutely not what the game does.

    It's interesting that when Jack Thompson campaigns against a game he's clearly never played, the gaming community is up in arms. He says he doesn't need to play it - that the synopsis is enough to judge it as inappropriate content/ subject matter for an interactive game much to our scorn and disdain.

    Then a game like SCMRPG comes along which is shocking in its synopsis and gamers are only too quick to treat it in exactly the same way.

  • Royal Fool #30 5 years ago

    I don't think there are many American gaming websites that would dare tackle this subject. Not many game websites at all, period. Bravo.

  • MrAtheist #31 5 years ago

    Thing is, I'd only find this game 'informative' and of artistic merit, if it was looking at the causes behind the massacre, and not just charging you with popping off as many students as you can for points! If the developers had researched the lives of the two killers, gone into the project with a passion to document the cause of the effect, I think I'd find a Bully-style game that sought to let the players 'understand' worthy of greater merit than just plonking you down in the school with an AK in-hand, charged with fragging away.

    You havent played it have you?

  • dufftownallan #32 5 years ago

    when i watched bowling for columbine, and saw the cctv footage of the actual attrocities taking place, i cried my eyes out, it obviously effected me powerfully on an emotional level.

    i think one of the most pertinent questions regarding this topic is; would playing this game illicit the same response?

  • AcidSnake #33 5 years ago

    So is this game real or fantasy?

    Excellent question...I'd say that that would be the point of the game itself...
    It walks the thin line between them and shows the (possible) consequences of doing that...

  • captbirdseye #34 5 years ago

    Birdseye - the fact that its meaningless, just like everything Baudrillard and Boorstin ever wrote, said or thought about.

    Kudos for a good wikipedia search, but your argument (such as I understand it) is bizarre and counter-intuitive. Post Modernism would have NO problem with this game, and there is no "hyper-reality" in it, as the creator of the game has gone out of his way to prevent any kind of imaginary world for the player to exist in, the game repeatedly and deliberately reinforces to the player again and again that this is a game, and actively prevents the creation of any kind of internal universe.

    In short, the concepts you are throwing around willy-nilly have no relevance what so ever to this debate, and your short burst posts only

    I am on about the links that should be made between hyper-reality and videogames (and no i didnt use wiki) because Since the introduction of 3D graphics and CGI into the public realm. There has been a huge drive from the computer game industry and Hollywood toward a notion of hyper-reality, a reality that is more real than the one in which we exist for instance computer manufactures and games companies are continually informing consumers that their products are literally pushing the boundaries of technology to present us with huge worlds of imagination and representation. That function on the basis of reality like, realistic car handling, realistic damage and realistic weather. The idealistic notion of the real that these industries tell its consumers can not be made more obvious with videogame titles such as Gran Turismo: the real driving simulator and Real world golf 2007 everything about this entertainment medium continually relates back to realism.

  • Hog-lumps #35 5 years ago

    notion of hyper-reality, a reality that is more real than the one in which we exist

    Okay Morpheus, in that case I'll take the red pill.

  • absolutezero #36 5 years ago

    I mulled this over when it was in PC Gamer some point last year.

  • malteaserhead #37 5 years ago

    dubious muslim = terrorist opening paragraph

  • Furbs #38 5 years ago

    Shinji - I've read quite a few comments about the game from its target audience - the "ZOMG THIS IS TEH AWESOME GAMEZZZ I GET TO SHOOT INNOCENT PEOPLE" crowd, and whilst they predictably get off on playing the stars, they are all united in their opinion that its utter bollocks in terms of quality as a game. So I'm not coming from a "dont know anything about it but will condemn it anyway" position. I certainly wouldnt waste my precious bandwidth on something so shit.

    Regardless of content matter, if you're making something which is all about causing offence and shock, ahead of quality, regardless of how you try to dress it up, I think it makes you look a bit of a twat. Coming up with a "shock game" and then building up a "well it has its merits" argument after the event is lame in the extreme (I'm talking specifically about the devs here).

    Its an interesting article, but like when Ellie did the "racist game" news article last year, I really dont see the sense in giving these immature attention seekers front page coverage, anymore than if back in Acclaims heyday they'd offered to let Pat take pictures of a live animal sacrifice to promote some shitty game.
    Edited by 1 at 22/01/07 @ 15:44

  • MrAtheist #39 5 years ago

    Better pass me that shovel Furbs, before that hole you are digging yourself in gets any bigger.

  • Hog-lumps #40 5 years ago

    Furbs, the way I interpret your argument is ‘if we don't talk about it then the bad games will go away’.

    Surely you dont mean this?
    Edited by 1 at 22/01/07 @ 15:50

  • Furbs #41 5 years ago

    No, its more "if you dont give publicity to bad games just designed to shock, the programmers might move on to something better, or even better, get a job outside the industry".

  • AcidSnake #42 5 years ago

    You can have bonus points for using the phrase "hyper-real" though, which is a piece of post-modernist nonsense vocabulary that no-one, but NO-ONE actually knows the meaning of.

    You should use wikipedia, because what you think "hyper-reality" means, isn't what the word ACTUALLY means.

    So does it have an exact meaning or doesn't it?
    Just pointing it out, not saying anything about your comments...

  • PlugMonkey #43 5 years ago

    Furbs - But what if this game wasn't just created to shock? What if it was created to give a harrowing new perspective of a real-life tragedy and to push the envelope of the medium? I think I might play it to find out and then praise/condemn it rather than do so on the basis of my preconceived ideas about it...

  • Schiraman #44 5 years ago

    Good article, makes some interesting points.

  • Biggles #45 5 years ago

    Furbs, I think forming an opinion based purely on one group of people's comments is a mistake. The group you mention are certainly not the target audience. As a piece of gaming, yes, it is rubbish. As a piece of social commentary, doccumentary and even, yes, art, it has merits.

    The 'devs' are one person who has never made a game before and has stated he has no intention of making any more. This very much tackels the subject matter head on, it does _not_ merely apply a columbine skin onto another game and say 'hee hee, isn't this cool?'. even though it may appear so at a first glance.

  • haowan #46 5 years ago

    I've done this debate in several places on the internet already so I'll just summarise my position here:

    1. Yes it's perfectly possible to make adult, serious, challenging, video games, to such an extent that they might no longer be called games, rather something else, such as interactive documentaries

    2. This particular specimen isn't the correct vehicle to champion the way forward for this type of product.

  • Furbs #47 5 years ago

    If its not designed to shock, whats with the "ZOMG DEAD KIDS HEHEHEHE" name? Mix in some cartoon graphics and its blatantly a piss take, and targeted at completely the wrong crowd.

    Personally, I think forming an opinion based on the opinions of people who its aimed at is perfectly valid. Its why I trust the opinions of my peers on the forum when it comes to say, impressions of a new game.

  • haowan #48 5 years ago

    Precisely Furbs; the name is the first thing that's wrong with the game, but far from the only thing by many accounts.

  • polymorph #49 5 years ago

    Im not getting into this debate.


    Great article. Thought provoking stuff.

    More like this please.

  • goz #50 5 years ago

    Furbs: So, here SCMRPG is a way in to talk about the wider issues of censorship and free speech in games. This is not a review - it's a feature. The piece is not critiquing the game but rather using the wider implications of its content (as well as last week's decision by the Slamdance festival to ban the game from their competition) as a springboard to talk about the bigger issues.

    It's not about giving a bad game platform and publicity. Rather it's about giving an under-investigated topic (one that's crucial to videogames' maturing as we depict scenarios and environments with ever more clarity and realism) some platform and publicity. And this is a topic that has been cast under the media spotlight by the game in question. The fact that the game's creator and supporters are generally thoughtful and can talk eloquently and helpfully on the subject is a bonus.

  • superdelphinus #51 5 years ago

    gr8 article

  • Hog-lumps #52 5 years ago

    Personally, I think forming an opinion based on the opinions of people who its aimed at is perfectly valid.

    But how do you determine the target audience without speaking to the creator of the property?

  • malteaserhead #53 5 years ago

    I thought the article was muddled, lob-sided, lacked direction and about as thought provoking as a quorn sausage. But there is another part (at least) to come...
    Edited by 1 at 22/01/07 @ 16:14

  • a.d.venturer #54 5 years ago

    Good article but it is bringing up one of the false myths of the Columbine massacre: that the perpetrators were "two ostracised teens". As the following Slate article notes (http://www.slate.com /id/2099203/), the FBI established that Eric Harris was a psychopath who manipulated Dylan Klebold into a state where he was capable of taking part in the massacre.
    Edited by 2 at 22/01/07 @ 16:17

  • Bezzy #55 5 years ago

    A. Great read. The more I hear from the creator, the less I'm inclined to believe that the game is provocative for the sake of provocation, which was my previous concern. It seems more thoughtful than that, though.

    I liked Bogost's review of it, also.

  • haowan #56 5 years ago

    There's a game, which was released far more recently than this, that deals with the difficult issue of surviving in a harsh area of Africa - that sort of thing is more the way forward for intelligent, serious games.

  • goz #57 5 years ago

    haowan: It was Sudan.

    http://ww w.eurogamer.net/article.php?art...

  • haowan #58 5 years ago

    That's the bunny.

  • haowan #59 5 years ago

    There's this one too.

  • Svecke #60 5 years ago

    Well-written and thought-provoking article. It is stuff like this that keeps me coming to Eurogamer. I can't wait to read Part 2.

  • Nobuo #61 5 years ago

    We don't know if games can succeed at retelling a true event from the villains point of view because hardly any games have tried it. The only common attempt at this is warrior vs. warrior in war games, and that's not really an attempt at all because you can only kill faceless, blameless soldiers no matter what side you're on.

    Until a talented, creative developer gives it a go I don't think anybody's in a position to judge. This game doesn't count because it's crap.

  • Psi #62 5 years ago

    what will these tw@t's come up with next, not just these guys but the sick little minority they are part of.

    i know! a pedo dating sim! or a fred west game! shipman would be another.

    they should be ashamed.

  • haowan #63 5 years ago

    Why not make a game examining Shipman's mental state over those years? Many like yourself would find it tasteless, but as long as it wasn't a hack job (like some claim this is), it would be a perfectly legitimate production, morally speaking.

  • marilena #64 5 years ago

    To be honest, I'd say that the author makes a pretty good case for the game in this article. And he seems pretty literate.

    Furbs, I don't see your point at all. Your idea, that a game you haven't played and never will, with a subject that you dislike, should be simply erased out of existence in spite of the fact that others feel different, has no merit at all.

    Also, at least, as far as I can tell, it's a free game. What exactly would publicity do for it? It doesn't bring any money. And there are no 'programmers', or 'industry', either. There's just one guy, who made a game in RPG Maker.

    Of course, without playing I can't make a very good argument either. As far as I can tell from comments, the game's quality in terms of graphics and actual gameplay mechanics is not great, but it does work in terms of the emotional impact it targets. Even if it doesn't, though, it's a little unfair to say that the game is bad because the developer only wanted to shock and didn't want to make a good game. Maybe he wanted to, but failed. It's still notable that he tried.

    Edit: About 20 post where made between the moment when I started writing and the moment when I submited it.
    Edited by 1 at 22/01/07 @ 16:51

  • TheRealBadabing #65 5 years ago

    If a film were to be directed in the first person, allowing you to see Columbine (or any other tragedy) through the eyes of the perpetrators, it would probably be praised for it's gritty realism and win awards.

    If that film were made using the quake engine (even as a non-playable rolling demo), it would be banned.

    Discussions like this remind me of when I went to see Saving Private Ryan at the cinema. As always, there was the bunch of chav wankers shouting, throwing popcorn etc. After the first 2 minutes there was a silence which lasted until well after the credits had rolled. The opening scenes and what followed made even those idiots pause for thought.

    If a game can, one day, have the same effect is that not a good thing?

    I think that is what the creater of SCMRPG (and the author of this article) is trying to say. Whether it is a crap game or not is irrelevant. In my opinion, games like these need to be made for the industry to evolve and one day produce an experience that can make people think about more than just where the next health pack is.

  • Pho-Zoon #66 5 years ago

    But what if this game wasn't just created to shock? What if it was created to give a harrowing new perspective of a real-life tragedy and to push the envelope of the medium?

    To be honest, this really doesn't seem the case. In fact, I'm quite ashamed of EG for pedalling this sort of mentality, since in the majority of cases gaming is purely a hobby (and an industry) which cannot be compared with films and literature.

    If EG's writers want to claim that games can be used as a moving, challenging and expressive medium then they should at least choose a better example. Simply replicating the Columbine Massacre on-screen and letting the player control these events is hardly an intelligent approach to the subject matter, and in no way comparable to Michael Moore and Gus Van Sant's films.

    What's more, the conclusion this article draws is ridiculous; the issue here is not that people aren't allowed to act out or empathise with a wrongdoer, rather that in doing so publicly they must exercise some degree of sensitivity. Arguably the game in question is intended mainly to shock, hence the controversy.

  • AcidSnake #67 5 years ago

    @ManicMinerUK:

    Ok :)
    I was just a tad confused that's all...

  • goz #68 5 years ago

    pho-Zoon: 'Simply replicating the Columbine Massacre on-screen...(is) in no way comparable to Michael Moore and Gus Van Sant's films. '

    That is literally all that Gus Van Sant's film does.

  • Biggles #69 5 years ago

    From another interview.

    ""Super Columbine Massacre RPG!" is, from the title on, a satire. It is a
    satire of how the media came to view the shooting but ALSO a satire on the
    conventions of video gaming itself. I wanted to deconstruct what a video
    game could be about while still using many of the conventions available in
    gaming."

    Oh, and a.d.venturer, thanks for the link, v. interesting. The game may not present every side of the arguments involved, but it does open up the discussion. I now know an aweful lot more about what happened than I did before. At least that's something, eh?

  • marilena #70 5 years ago

    @a.d.venturer
    Very interesting article. I hadn't heard about that.

    @hawoan
    The Darfur game is poor too :p.

  • Furbs #71 5 years ago

    "Furbs, I don't see your point at all. Your idea, that a game you haven't played and never will, with a subject that you dislike, should be simply erased out of existence in spite of the fact that others feel different, has no merit at all. "

    Please tell me where I said that. My very first post said I dont agree with censorship. What I dont understand is giving something this shit and harmful to the gaming community a platform. If people want to claim this is in anyway an insightful commentary on the events leading up to, and involving Columbine, then I'll look forward to them saying GTA:SA is a mature accurate depiction of the struggles faced by an disadvantaged black kid living in Los Angeles.

    For everyone saying "its not meant to be controversial", ask yourself if we'd have heard of it if it wasnt. Its cheap publicity, driven by ego, and has then had a "well its actually social comment" disclaimer bolted on it.

    Cheap humour, and crap quality doesnt mean you can get away with claiming its satire.
    Edited by 2 at 22/01/07 @ 17:30

  • tiddles #72 5 years ago

    Who's actually played this game? Is it in fact a thought-provoking piece of art or a tacky exploitative piece of crap?

  • marilena #73 5 years ago

    @Furbs
    I see what you mean. But just look at the reaction to the game. Even though many people haven't even played it, it still sparked a lot of interesting debate, so I'd say it certainly has a social effect. As for the intentions of the developer... I don't know, you may be right, you may be wrong. Unless you can read minds, there's no way to tell.

    @tiddles
    This is going to be the most discussed game no one's ever played :p.

  • AaronTurner #74 5 years ago

    Don't worry about Furbs, he reads The Daily Mail.

    Honestly he does.

  • old_skool #75 5 years ago

    Fahrenheit is pretty close to this, though it isn't based on real events...

  • Rambaldi #76 5 years ago

    Tom and Jerry sanitised violence in my mind long before Rambo and GTA did.

    That said, a game based on two sick fucks venting their pathetic little fantasies on innocent civilians IS taking it too far.

    'Entertainment' like this is created and 'enjoyed' by turds who have no personal understanding of the pain that events like Columbine inflict upon communities.

  • mouthofyoureye #77 5 years ago

    Furbs, go on the website and read the forum. the guy didnt just make it because it was controversial, you believe that because of its quality. i think that's a rash conclusion and i think you should listen to what the guy has to say.

    and even if, going along with your idea that he created it purely because of the controversy. then that makes him incredibly similar to the people he has created this game about.

    the difference then (still hypothetical as it ISNT a shallow controversial scrounge to fame) is that he created a video game about something destructive, they went out and shot a load of innocent people. exactly the same subject, different context.

    i think it is a very thought-provoking demonstration of the line between gaming and reality.

  • Furbs #78 5 years ago

    On the website/forum does it contain comments from when he first started writing it when he was in high school? If so I'd be interested to see them, so if there are, I'll pop along. If its all from more recent times when he's had a chance to reinvent it as docu-game then I'll not bother thanks.

    Personally, both from personal experience, and knowing people of high school age, I really struggle to believe the "as a 16 year old I wanted to make a game to help address the underlying causes of the Columbine Massacre and hold up a satyrical mirror to reflect its origins" line ahead of what I suspect really happened and "Hey wouldnt it be cool to make a game out this rofl!!!". If he's mature enough to want to the former, I cant see why he's not mature enough to show a little more sensitivity, both with the naming, and his game design (even allowing for him not being an out and out coder).
    Edited by 1 at 22/01/07 @ 19:14

  • secombe #79 5 years ago

    Very interesting article, raised some pertinent questions, especially regarding why video games are treated so differently to other forms of entertainment.

    Looking at it in a completely different way, would a 'Sim City' type game where you have to balance the needs of the population with actually caring for the environment be a suitable idea for a game?

    It would be dealing with an issue which allegedly will kill millions of people sooner or later. To take it a step further what if this game graphically depicted the deaths caused by drought etc? Would you then consider your actions (in game, but potentially in the read world) more seriously?

    My point, on the one hand games can be easily (right or wrongly) singled out due to the interactive nature of them, but what if the benefits of interactivity were 'exploited' to actually do some good.

  • trevd72 #80 5 years ago

    @TheRealBadabing

    look for a movie called elephant.....columbine inspired and very ver powerful. its almost as it happened.

  • Krun #81 5 years ago

    Interesting defence, but ultimately it looks like a poor game that's using shock to get noticed. Without this shock, I doubt anyone would have even written as many words about this as I have in this comment.

  • old_skool #82 5 years ago

    Hands Furbs a Wiimote

  • Veldaban #83 5 years ago

    First, well done Eurogamer for discussing the issue and not hiding it in a corner of the website either. One of the gamesindustry.biz articles the other week proclaimed the games industry is doing enough to be taken seriously, while I find very little evidence of this, especially in the gaming press. I was surprised to see no comments from Eurogamer on either Slamdance or the pulling of SCMRPG from the competition, but very good job on writing such a lengthy article and interview on the subject (though I would've liked a little more focus on the implications of pulling a previously admitted finalist based on alleged sponsor pressure; kind of destroys the entire credibility of that gaming festival).

    As for the game itself, one of the problems is that it seems as much an attack on OTHER videogames and how THEY trivialize violence and the point is made painfully well. The game in no way glorifies the murders, the "irony" displayed throughout is blatantly obvious (irony which admittedly might not be entirely appropriate for its subject matter but again, DOES serve to illustrate the stupidity of some mainstream games).

    Anyway, I have to admit not having played the game myself, but I did watch the video walkthrough of the entire game (interestingly, a linear medium rather than interactive like the videogame, but still pretty powerful). I'd say, at the very least watch some of this before commenting on what an awful game it is:

    [link url=http://video.google. com/videoplay?docid=2179150900926491833&q=super+columbine+ma ssacre&hl=en
    ]http://vi deo.google.com/videoplay?docid=...[/link]

  • anver #84 5 years ago

    Oh yes, can't have enough publicity for a free game.

    Whatever the creator's original intentions were, I think the game does raise some very interesting and important questions. I won't judge whether it does so in a tasteless/immoral/depraved manner before I play it, though.

  • Scimarad #85 5 years ago

    "It didn't put the viewer into the position where they had to execute the killings."

    I agree with this. There is no reason videogames shouldn't have darker and more serious themes but it's one thing to play some OTT cartoon villain and another to play some cold blooded realistic psychopath. I think playing a character who is the target of such people is more palatable but still a somewhat uncomfortable prospect.

    Still, I'm more inclined towards playing positive and/or heroic characters anyway.

    -edit-

    "I'm sure I'm the same as many of you in that when I start to play an RPG I don't think twice about the morality of my actions"

    I'm sure this makes me a supremely sad bastard but I actually tend to;-) I only ever attacked one thing that didn't attack me in FFXII and I felt guilty about that!
    Edited by 1 at 22/01/07 @ 19:51

  • djchump #86 5 years ago

    Good article - thanks Simon.
    Interesting subject - hopefully as gaming matures as a medium we'll get more interesting "discussion piece" games.
    I'd be interested to read an EG article about the other educational type games going on - like that "Darfur is Dying" (which I've only jsut noticed that article is also by Simon Parkin :-))

    All in all... interesting!

  • Veldaban #87 5 years ago

    @secombe

    What you are describing sounds very much like Chris Crawford's Balance of the Planet (see: http://ww w.mobygames.com/game/balance-of... He's said that he didn't really intend it to be a "fun" game (per se, anyway). While, for example, the ultimate goal in Civilization is fun rather than anything that even remotely tries to simulate the rise and fall of civilizations, the intent of Balance of the Planet was to make players think about action and consequences, cause and effect with regards to the planet's ecology in a semi-realistic manner; the focus lying more on provoking thought on the subject rather than having fun.

    Unfortunately since then he's left the games industry, with few people left to replace him, and by now it's been firmly embedded in our minds that games should first and foremost be "fun". We seem to have forgotten that they can also be "entertaining" or "engaging" like some films can be; even many top-grossing movies in the cinema are not always intended to be "fun".

  • suicida #88 5 years ago

    Without focusing on the one specific game mentioned in the article (the Columbine one) what about the wider aspects of 'playing games as the villain'???

    It's all based on your perception as to who the villain actually is... I'm sure to the majority of the Arab world games like 'Americas Army' or 'Conflict Desert Storm' are just as offensive as the 9/11 simulator mentioned at the start of the article would be to "us"...
    Edited by 1 at 22/01/07 @ 20:32

  • heflys #89 5 years ago

    Yeah, I was disgusted when he stated " we should emphasize" with the group. WTF? Emphasize with a group of a sadistic killers who randomly chose their victims, despised the weak, and idolized Hitler? What kind of BS is that? I lost all respect for the game, in an artistic sense, when I read that crap. Emphasize my arse! I assume the killers are more important than their victims........BS.

    I believe the developer intentionally possessed ulterior motives when he designed this, hell, he even tried to hide his identity; but that's simply my opinion.

    Nothing but shock value as far as I'm concerned.

  • Azazel #90 5 years ago

    Surely there are smarter (read: better) ways of 'making an artistic statement' than this?

    Maybe I just completely don't get it or something and need to WIDEN MY MIND MAAN.

    Possibly.

  • Biggles #91 5 years ago

    Probably.

    Personally, if I was going to make a 'shock' game of the columbine massacres, I wouldn't have bothered:

    a) Spending the first half hour or so going over the characters actions earlier in the day, without any 'fun' shooting.

    b) Spent quite so much time researching police reports to make sure the dialog was as accurate as possible.

    c) Made the shooting quite so mechanical and detatched and un-'fun'.

    d) Shown real photographs of the school, the victims, and ultimately the dead murderers. Who wants to feel bad about their gaming?

    That's just me, I'd have been too lazy to pay quite so much attention to all the details. But then I would have been making a shoddy and un-defendably ignorant and tasteless piece of shit entertainment.

    And I certainly wouldn't have bothered sitting down and talking to all the angry teenagers who found me through the game to offer them support and councelling for the problems they were facing, which this guy claims to do.

  • Biggles #92 5 years ago

    Also, while the title and cartoony style seem outwardly lacking in compassion, it really does help to juxtapose the content matter.

    On the other hand, it certainly does have its faults. A lot of the commentary is overly preaching and one-sided (for example, it's very anti-religion). Also, while it doesn't try to take the blame away from the killers, it certainly pushes the angle that it was their environment and the people around them which drove them to it.

    Gah, it's hard to discuss this with people who haven't played it and won't even consider doing so.

  • a.d.venturer #93 5 years ago

    Biggles etc. "Oh, and a.d.venturer, thanks for the link, v. interesting." No problem. Ironically, the only way I found this article was following the links around this game.

    Generally impressed with the Eurogamer response. A lot of other web forums seemed to degenerate into personal attacks on the guy who wrote the game. Sure, what he says is a bit of an auteur wank-fest, but at least he's trying to be thought provoking, and not e.g. selling in-game advertising, or charging for downloadable content, or even running ads on the original website.

    Now, I'd much rather be interested in a Eurogamer article on "I have no mouth and I must scream", but that game's a little harder to get a hold of. Oh well, back to the Escapist...

  • Ali #94 5 years ago

    More stuff like this please.

  • Furbs #95 5 years ago

    Biggles, to be honest, the photos and police reports thing that you've just described there is exactly what a teenager who thinks a high school slaugher is cool would do.

    Its the whole reason places like Rotton and Ogrish exist. Is it really only half an hour of game time showing/explaining their movitivation for the killings? That to me says he really didnt give a shit about showing that side of things.

  • heflys #96 5 years ago

    """"""a) Spending the first half hour or so going over the characters actions earlier in the day, without any 'fun' shooting.

    b) Spent quite so much time researching police reports to make sure the dialog was as accurate as possible.

    c) Made the shooting quite so mechanical and detatched and un-'fun'.

    d) Shown real photographs of the school, the victims, and ultimately the dead murderers. Who wants to feel bad about their gaming?

    That's just me, I'd have been too lazy to pay quite so much attention to all the details. But then I would have been making a shoddy and un-defendably ignorant and tasteless piece of shit entertainment.

    And I certainly wouldn't have bothered sitting down and talking to all the angry teenagers who found me through the game to offer them support and councelling for the problems they were facing, which this guy claims to do.""""'''

    Yep, and I'm also sure that you would have incorporated a level where you go to hell to be employed by the devil. That sure sounds fun, don't it!? True to actual accounts also.

    Misconstrue actual facts, helping other students in the early segements for instance, which is interesting since they, supposedly, despised weakness. Ironic really....

    Provide a detailed account of particular weapons and how they were utilized.

    Showing the despotic teens , whom after perishing, having fun in hell since the experience resembles their favorite pastime; Doom.

    Label some of the victims as Jocks and Preppies; excellent display of class there.

    Attempt to mask your identity as the developer, particularly if your intentions were pure.

    State people should emphasize with the murders who, instead of seeking help or killing themselves in privacy, decide to vent their frustration on a school full of innocent victims (not even their tormentors); young lives cut short. Then there is the nice touch of Hitler advocacy. Yep, I emphasize with them greatly.



    Edited by 1 at 22/01/07 @ 23:14

  • zephyrtron #97 5 years ago

    I've registered simply to comment on this brillant, brain-engaging and thought-provoking piece.

    The fact that some of Eurogamer's users are bemoaning the game, the creator, even the fact that the article was written at all is pretty depressing, though.

    There's no reason to play this game if you don't want to. And no one would be asking you to enjoy playing it - that would raise some pretty pressing questions on its own - entertainment isn't the the point. Even if you're sure that's all that games can provide.

    Understandably, some people might not want their toys taken away and replaced with a powerful, emotional and important media. But that doesn't have to happen, surely.

    Can't entertaining games and challenging games live together? You know, like other mainstream artforms like books, films, music, TV, theatre...

    We all have to grow up sometime. Even videogames.

  • heflys #98 5 years ago

    When did the purpose of videogames revolve around filling people with rage, and possessing atrocious gameplay? If that involves growing up, I'll pass.

    And aren't games meant to be fun? If not, what other purpose do they serve?

  • GregorV #99 5 years ago

    For crying out loud (and I am not even a native speaker), it's "empathise", not "emphasize".

    Saying that games should only be about fun is similar to claiming that any good movie should have a happy ending.
    Edited by 1 at 22/01/07 @ 23:48

  • heflys #100 5 years ago

    """"Saying that games should only be about fun is similar to claiming that any good movie should have a happy ending."""
    Well considering that the definition of game is:

    ''A game is a recreational activity involving one or more players. This can be defined by A) a goal that the players try to reach, B) some set of rules that determines what the players can or can not do. Games are played primarily for entertainment or enjoyment, but may also serve an educational or simulational role. '''

    I find it interesting that games are now developed to initiate social controversy, whilst genuinly exhibiting not too many "enjoyable" characteristics. I'm glad people have reached such a logical conclusion. I wish more developers would follow suit.

  • Tomo #101 5 years ago

    Good comments thread guys. Well done. Just imagine if this was a console game. Deary me.

    I'm not quite sure where I stand on it yet tho. I'm leaning towards Furbs' point of view - it seems like a needless game to me. If there's no fun to be had in actually playing the game, why not just watch Bowling For Columbine instead since that's already been done? Ok, so that may not focus so much on the killers' side of things, but personally, I don't think there is any need for "empathy" with them - they do not deserve it at all.

    At the same time tho, perhaps this is the kind of game that would drive gaming forward to the next level of maturity, but as haowan pointed out - this isn't the game to do it.

    Good article, tough debating.

  • heflys #102 5 years ago

    Can't believe I was using "emphasize". A travesty on my part.

  • NegativeZero #103 5 years ago

    I think games like this are important, not because the games themselves are good, but because the ensuing discussion actually makes you think about things a bit. Why is it that in a lot of games, slaughtering hordes of enemies is not only allowed but encouraged, yet no one bats an eye. Very few games ever pay any notice to the idea of consequences. There's very rarely any games where while playing you stop and think to yourself "is what I'm doing really the right thing?" In this case, because the game is built around real-world events, we know what the consequences are, and we know that while playing the game we're doing the wrong thing. The extra grounding in reality helps calibrate our moral compasses. It's interesting that while we're attempting to make our games more and more realistic, graphically, we don't seem to be improving the reality of the more emotional aspects of the production to match, and I think this game illustrates this weakness. The question is not really 'is this evil?' so much as 'why do we perceive this to be more evil than other games?' and I think it's significant because of that.

    Really, it doesn't matter if the author of the game intended to provoke the thinking that he has. What counts is what people get out of it. That's the whole point. That's what makes it art. Art is subjective.

  • heflys #104 5 years ago

    Well, I look at it like this. Most games aren't based on real events, or are based on real events loosely (in most cases); this game, whilst some incidents are loosely based, is based on actual events. Events which traumatized millions, and left families scarred. And, unlike a majority of games based on controversy, focuses entirely on the side of antagonist. Its story then delves into serving the devil (willingly); few games have reached such levels of questionable mannerisms. In terms of current games, and their impact on society, I don't know too many guys who can take 20 bullets from a rifle with nary a sign of injury (other than a health bar); jump 20 stories without breaking a bone; crash vehicles at excessive speeds, yet walk away with no damage, and, essentially, generally defy all sensible logic in terms of believeability.

    Why someone would enact, or take such silliness seriously is beyond me. Either they already suffer form psychological issues, or are easily impressionable/naive. Can' ever say I regretted blasting aliens in HL 2, sorry. :) People have been killing each other before games, and will be doing so long afterwards. Easy conclusion.

    If you want to take it literally, then, yes, this is art. And can be critiqued.

  • Fishtank #105 5 years ago

    quote by furbs:

    Shinji - I've read quite a few comments about the game from its target audience - the "ZOMG THIS IS TEH AWESOME GAMEZZZ I GET TO SHOOT INNOCENT PEOPLE" crowd, and whilst they predictably get off on playing the stars, they are all united in their opinion that its utter bollocks in terms of quality as a game. So I'm not coming from a "dont know anything about it but will condemn it anyway" position. I certainly wouldnt waste my precious bandwidth on something so shit.


    Furbs, it's absolutely clear that you have no idea what you are talking about. Essentially the game was made by academics for academics. An assistant professor for christs sake. Its an artifact of game research whose horisons are obviously far further than you will ever be able to see. The fact that a few pre-adolescents have played the game and missed the point is meaningless. The generation of this very debate is the point of this game. And i might add that reading a few ten year olds forum posts does not amount to "knowing anything about it". You most certainly are condemning it with the most fragile justification.

    Fishtank

  • Caspar_Esq. #106 5 years ago

    Totally brilliant article, this is what makes Eurogamer unique (can hardy imagine an American site taking the same approach).

    I think its fair enough that the game was made - I saw a play on the Rwandan Massacre at the NT and that was hardly a pleasant experience (in the same way that this game may not be) but now I am better informed. The way the game encourages the player to think about their actions adds a moral debate to it too. I say more of these types of games, provided they are done with the correct atitude and not glorifying the events, can spread awareness and debate, which are always good things. Hopefully over time society can come to have less knee-jerk reactions to such topics.

    (I haven't actually played it, so the above is based on the comments of those who have.)

  • heflys #107 5 years ago

    """"""Totally brilliant article, this is what makes Eurogamer unique (can hardy imagine an American site taking the same approach). """""

    This was already reported on American game sites a while back.


    You need to play the game also. See it for yourself.

  • Krun #108 5 years ago

    Games Toys Politics

    Can you spot the odd one out?


    ALL NEW FAMILY BOARD GAME!
    PIMP MY HO,
    Earn money from your bitches, Sell em crack and bribe those police officers. But watch out for the serial killers. 10 plastic hookers, 4 pimps, 1 psycho and 50 cards.
    Published by hosbra.
    2-4 players Ages 9-90 . $49.99
    Fun for all the family.

    answer : apparently toys is the odd one out.
    Edited by 1 at 23/01/07 @ 04:09

  • 3william56 #109 5 years ago

    Excellent article, and a welcome change from the usual Xbox/Sony/Wii vitriol. Cheers EG.

    My view: there are perhaps two issues here. One is whether the subject matter is appropriate, the second is the presentation in this particular example.

    My personal view (not played it) is that the presentation in this case is a huge issue from square one, and fatally undermines the justification of serious art. Why "Super...", a clear link to child-orientated or *fun* orientated Nintendo output? Not respectful at all, and guaranteed to cause outrage, which IMHO blows the justifications out of the water. Whereas Darfur is Dying (not Super Starvation Simulator or Starvin Marvin's Race for Cake for example, though that too would have garnered more media attention) is presented from the outset as serious and respectful to the suffering it portrays, even in limited visual style.

    The same goes for movies. If Elephant had been a Charlie Brown style cartoon or called "Dylan and Eric's Excellent Adventure", it would have been rightly slated. In dealing with a difficult subject, presentation and style *is* paramount.

    As for the subject matter, the important thing is whether the art in question brings any new information to the wider audience (like Bowling for Columbine) or provides insight into the people themselves (like Downfall), or just repeats the events for "entertainment". Having not played, I can't say, but it appears to err on the side of repeating (albeit in admirable/creepy, take your choice) detail. That's not enough.

    There is also the limitations of the medium. A movie or book can develop character and insight in ways games still can't, as they just aren't sophisticated enough, particularly homebrew. Schindlers List should not be done as a kid's school play for the same reason. Darfur could do it, as the emphasis was on the mechanics of food and evasion, not on the justification of the rebels or the politics of the situation. This game is not sophisticated enough to achieve the stated aim, so will inevitably seem a parody to many.

  • Furbs #110 5 years ago

    "Furbs, it's absolutely clear that you have no idea what you are talking about. Essentially the game was made by academics for academics. An assistant professor for christs sake. Its an artifact of game research whose horisons are obviously far further than you will ever be able to see. The fact that a few pre-adolescents have played the game and missed the point is meaningless. The generation of this very debate is the point of this game. And i might add that reading a few ten year olds forum posts does not amount to "knowing anything about it". You most certainly are condemning it with the most fragile justification. "

    Fishtank, according to what I've read, it was started by him when he was in high school. If you want to call him an academic for that reason then fine, but I'm afraid I wont agree with you. If you'll also go back and read the EG article, you'll notice the Assistant Professor has nothing to do with its creation, but it merely a supporter of it from a theoretical point of view. Now either the article has it wrong, or you ought to be careful throwing around "you dont know what you're talking about" comments.

    With regards to "a few ten year olds", I dont believe I'd stated where I'd been reading the debate about the game? Its certainly on a par with the usual level of comments on the front page of EG, so again, its you thats jumping to conclusions without having a clue beyond the interpretation you want to apply to fit in with your argument. I never played Rise of the Robots. Does that mean that I cant reach the conclusion that its a stinking pile of shit and without merit when every comment I've ever read about it says otherwise?

  • Biggles #111 5 years ago

    By my understanding, he didn't finish it until some time in '04 or '05, which would make him about 21 -23 at that point, depending on where birthdays lie, etc. Perhaps he did start in high school with the intention of idolising the killers and shocking everyone. Some of that remains, but there are multiple layers to it, some less obvious than others.

    The way it challenges videogames in particular I think is effective. Shortly after having a good old think about this discussion I watched a trailer for a gangter game, i think it was 'made man' or something and was instantly struck by just how much killing is involved. Practically faceless mobsters shot one after another with little in the way of remorse or consequence. Normally I wouldn't bat an eyelid, but I think SCMRPG leads you to question your perceptions due very much to its grounding in real events. In real life, when you shoot someone to kill, they die and leave behind a wake of mourners. So few games even give this aspect a second thought.

    As for the second episode in hell, that's harder to defend. On one level, it's clearly an attack on the church and the whole concept of there being a single god whom if you do not worship you will go to hell (for example, you meet a character named 'ug' who bemoans the fact god hadn't even been invented until after he'd died, along with a few other unexpected souls). It's also clear early on that far from being hell for the two boys, it is in fact their idea of heaven: they get to play their alleged favourite computer game 'for real' and meet their favourite people, such as nietzche and the devil, who obviously share their views on everything, down to the extent that nietzche quotes from his 'favourite song' by nirvana (* may be wrong, can't remember the exact band). This is obviously rediculous.

    I think you do need to seperate the voices of the narrator, the characters and the author. While the first two may seem to glorify the events and ridicule the 'establishment', there is certainly a third and more powerful strand encouraging the player to consider these things in a more serious light. In fact, the apparent trivialisation in the title and the presentation serve further to make this distinction between narrator and author, between 'serious' and 'game'.

    Lastly, as to the deliberate shock tactics, I'm not sure I believe him when he says it wasn't meant for wide public release. But with seemingly nothing to gain financially from it all, why would you bother? A lot of artist would say simply 'to be heard' or 'to say what I have to say' and I think that's probably as good a reason as any. I agree the title is an effective shock tactic, but the distinction is that I don't think shocking people is the end goal here. There are definitely things he's trying to say. Whether those things are worth discussing is more difficult, especially due to the nature of the medium.

    Phew, that was long enough.

    Btw, thankyou furbs for being a good debator and sticking to your guns. It's by no means clear cut, but I do still think the game has some merit, and certainly deserves attention.

  • laserlasse #112 5 years ago

    First of all - excellent article, EG. Now, some comments. English is not my native language, so please excuse any grammatical errors :)

    1. 3william56 --> "There is also the limitations of the medium. A movie or book can develop character and insight in ways games still can't, as they just aren't sophisticated enough, particularly homebrew."

    And then I ask the question - WHY, in your opinion, are there such limitations in this medium (games)? What are these limitations, and why can't they provide character and insights like books or movies? What about text-based adventure games? Could your qualify these limitations, or provide some (other) grounds as to why "videogames" lack in sophistication? I'm not saying that this is not the case, but your personal opinions arent really strong arguments to this. What makes "videogames" different from movies or books? Please elucidate :)

    2. Eraser --> "Additionally, I don't think that videogames are the correct platform for something like this. They aren't called videogames for nothing. They're games, nothing more. "

    WHY aren't "videogames" the correct platform? What are the characteristics of "videogames" that make them unsuitable for such commentary? Is it anything with the medium itself or its interactivity that makes them unsuitable? Or is it in the name; that 'video*game*' implies that it should not be taken serious? Why should this medium be limited to fun/recreation/escape from reality, and not more serious matter? Can you (or somebody else) provide some of your thoughts concerning this?

    If we are willing to let "games" mature and become accepted as a medium along with books, movies, theatre(stage?), comics and som on, will this harm the medium in any way? Will this take away the fun/recreational/whatnot aspects? Has this happened to movies? Even if we have movies like "Bowling for Columbine" or "Der Untergang", we still have extremely silly comedies and a lot of ther genres. Why should the medium called "videogames" be limited?

    I think that if (when) "videogames" are accepted as a mature medium, along TV, movies, whatnot, we will face a lot less heat from the likes of Jack Thompson. As long as 'the public' regards videogames as childrens toys, JT and his collaboraters will find fertile ground for their idiotic claims..

  • Bitkari #113 5 years ago

    "Have videogames gone far enough?"

    Not yet, keep going!

  • willpower #114 5 years ago

    I agree that this is an important development for videogames to allow it to be taken seriously in the general media. Videogames are continuing to show beneficial aspects, highlighted by the BBC to create its own MMO, CBBC World. However, I feel again that an opportunity has been lost in the sphere of videogames with this project due to Danny LeDonne's need to give it the name of Super Columbine Massacre RPG! Why? This just adds fuel to the fire; that basically videogames only empower individuals through violence. Super? Think of a better name next time, Danny.

  • zephyrtron #115 5 years ago

    I can't remember the last time I survived a bout of forum reading without being sure that the world was being taken over by monosyllabic arrogant adolescents with inferiority complexes and severe insecurity issues.

    The fact that I actually took time to read several posts - and found my own thoughts mirrored, challenged and intelligently questioned - is enough to convince me that whatever you think about this game, it has value.

  • hiddenrose #116 5 years ago

    this game makes me sick to my stomach!!!!!!! have the makers no consideration for the victoms and their families????? why on earth would somebody make this?? i am disgusted to think that there are people out there so sick-minded that they would even play this game!!!! what this game does is exactly what Harris and Klebold wanted. to be known forever and to have movies and videogames made to glory them!!!! ergh i dont know what to say i am shocked and revolted that these people have given those two boys what they wanted!!!! what they did was wrong and it was violent games that influenced them to carry the massacre out!!!! what the game doom did was promote violence. and now this game has come out i just dont know what to say. to answer the question YES video games have gone far enough, infact in this case they have gone too far!!!!