Braid ditches Slamdance in protest
“Braid won’t be at Slamdance because of SCMRPG getting dropped,” is the short form. Read on for the details…
As many of you probably know, there’s this game called Super Columbine Massacre RPG!, an oldschool-style RPG about taking the roles of Klebold and Harris, killing kids in school, then dying, going to hell, and coming to some awareness of what they’ve done. The game is pretty divisive — the creator seems serious in his intent to create an artistic response and commentary about the Columbine shootings, but of course many simply find it to be in poor taste.
It’s reminiscent in some ways of the controversy over the “game” that recreated the Kennedy assassination; had it been presented as a “simulation” then likely it wouldn’t have caused nearly as much outrage as it did. Here, a large part of the concern over SCMRPG is that it may trivialize the occurrence, allow people to fantasize about playing the same roles that Klebold and Harris did, and so on. In other words, whether it is in good taste.
The result of this controversy, as has been widely reported, is that the Slamdance competition, whose jury had selected SCMRPG as a finalist, decided to drop the game from the show. N’Gai Croal at Newsweek has pointed out the irony of this game getting dropped when Sundance shows things like Gus van Sant’s film Elephant, which mines much the same territory, though probably more artistically. The conference organizer has stated that he didn’t drop the game due to sponsor pressure, but rather as a moral choice of his own — something which Ian Bogost covers in more detail on Watercooler Games.
Now comes the news that the intensely interesting indie game Braid, a “game fan’s game” about manipulating time to solve puzzles in a platformer context, has chosen not to appear at Slamdance as a gesture of solidarity, even though Jonathan Blow (the game’s creator, and a very opinionated guy) happens to not think very much of SCMRPG as a game.
The game lacks compassion, and I find the Artist’s Statement disingenuous. But despite this, the game does have redeeming value. It does provoke important thoughts, and it does push the boundaries of what games are about. It is composed with more of an eye toward art than most games. Clearly, it belongs at the festival.
Good for Jon.
I found SCMRPG to attempting to seriously engage with the subject – whether it actually accomplished doing so is a wholly separate subject. (Some argue that Van Sant’s film didn’t wholly accomplish it either, after all). I’ve said in the past that the issue with serious games may be that they trivialize — and that this may also be their great strength. Here we see that very issue front and center. Dismissing the game “on moral grounds” essentially argues that it is exploitative; yet we do not necessarily consider clearly issue-driven films or books as exploitative. Rather, the sensitivity of the subject seems to be what is pushing the needle here. Can games, which some allege caused Columbine, then comment on Columbine without being regarded as exploitative?
SCMRPG is no great shakes as a game in its own right. It doesn’t even try to do something new on that front. Instead, it’s incurring controversy based on artwork, content, and most importantly, the medium that it happens to be in. Were its RPG plot excised and written out as a book, would anyone raise an eyebrow? Probably not.
Jon puts in well in his post:
…games should be taken seriously as an art form that can expand the boundaries of human experience. Games can help us to understand situations in a fully-engaged fashion, as participants and co-creators, which the passive media cannot do. As an art form they contain a tremendous power to shift perspective and to heighten wisdom. For the art form to achieve these potentials, game developers need to explore the space of possibilities in earnest. But if games are denied their appropriate level of societal recognition, growth of the form will be very difficult, and human culture will be the lesser for it.
If left unchallenged, the expulsion of the Columbine game sets a precedent in the wrong direction.
Exactly. And while there may be discomfort as we get the games that seriously tackle uncomfortable issues and fail at it, hopefully we will also see those games that do so and succeed, and thereby open new horizons and justify all the discomfort. Discomfort’s just a daily fact of life; new ways to make art and get more insight into ourselves, those come along but rarely.
For what it’ worth, I’ve written a response to Slamdance’s decision that both (a) includes a bit more detail than the Kotaku posts listed here about the actual motivations that led to Slamdance’s decision and (b) covers my perspective as a two-time Slamdance games exhibitor.
Argh, actually, I meant to link to your post as well as N’Gai Croal’s. Dammit. Editing now.
“I found SCMRPG to attempting to seriously engage with the subject”
I haven’t played the game and only read bits of its past press coverage, but nothing suggested that it was a serious attempt at anything. The name alone would probably be seen as unacceptable by most media editors. The controversy is important for the debate and public awareness that it is creating, but I fear that the next time, when a game actually deserves this kind of defense (not because of what it achieves, but because of what it TRIES to achieve), people are not going to take our arguments seriously.
Why oh why couldn’t the game be called simply “Columbine”?
Actually–I think it has considerable merit. As I argue here:
http://www.manifestogames.com/node/3048
And while we’ll continue to support the Slamdance competition, in response we’ve put up a permanent page for the game, and will host it, here:
http://www.manifestogames.com/node/3040
“I haven’t played the game…but”
If I had a quarter for EVERY time I saw this. Jesus.
And if I had a hundred, a thousand, a million dollars for every comment I’ve seen from every person who has actually played the game to the end — including a survivor shot repeatedly by Harris and Klebold — and still think it lacks redeeming value, I’d be broke.
But no. “It was made with RPGMaker. It’s valueless. It’s got that title. It’s valueless. I know.”
You don’t know.
Austin, I made it very explicit that I haven’t played the game, that I’m expressing how the whole issue feels from the outside, and that I ultimately don’t know. I’m not afraid of being wrong due to my incomplete knowledge of the game.
I guess I’m just particularly sensitive (and naive) in my lack of appreciation when it’s a controversy that ignites the elevation of a piece of work into the realm of “art”.
What is the difference between a Columbine RPG and a Vienam FPS or a WWII FPS or a “Kill Them Evil Terrorists” FPS. The “cause.” In wars innocent people get killed, yet when people make a FPS that glorifies a war, nothing is said.
Over 4 million Vietnamese were killed in the Vietnam conflict, is it moral to make a video game that glamorizes it?
In WWII, tens of millions of people were killed, is it right to glamorize that?
Personally, I am an anarchist: if people want to make a videogame about what ever subject, then they can do so. But, morally, I will never buy a game that glamorizes WWII, the Vietnam War, nor any incident where lives have been lost.
It is morally wrong to make a game that glamorizes an event in which people lost their lives.
An Open Letter to Organizers of the Slamdance Film and Game Festival, from Last Year’s Grand Jury Prize Winners
http://grandtextauto.gatech.edu/2007/01/07/an-open-letter-to-slamdance/
Ok, I played it so I have an opinion on the game in addition to my opinion on the phenomenon. I think the game is crap, both as a game and as a reflection of the events. What’s worse, it fully embraces the idea that meaningful content in a game has to be conveyed through non-interactive means. It’s the gaming equivalent of a badly written, misspell-ridden article that includes some facts about the shooting but is mostly filled with philosophical leftovers and plain garbage. Just because it has created controversy doesn’t mean that it’s meaningful, in the same way that me punching you in the face wouldn’t be a worthy contribution to a debate about violence.
Before playing the game, I thought the author just wanted to make a debatable piece of work but somehow managed to hit some interesting strings. After experiencing it myself, I’m leaning more towards the opposite view: the author wanted to make an insightful piece on the events (and put a lot of work into it), and despite failing to achieve that goal, he’s jumped on the controversy and exposure bandwagon. Kudos to him for trying, and let’s pray that the controversy doesn’t end up with more people convinced that games are intellectually irrelevant after seeing this supposedly insightful game themselves.
What is the difference between a Columbine RPG and a Vienam FPS or a WWII FPS or a “Kill Them Evil Terrorists” FPS. The “cause.” In wars innocent people get killed, yet when people make a FPS that glorifies a war, nothing is said.
Are you familiar with the quotation by Stalin? Paraphrasing: One death is at tragedy; a thousand is a statistic. I’m not saying I agree with it, but it’s an explanation.
@Jare: Not everyone who plays it likes it, but I’ve noticed in reading comments that most people who dis it haven’t played it and most people who’ve played it think its got something. Some who won’t play it stand behind it, and some, like you, have played it and still think its rubbish. That sort of dynamic is what free speech in the public sphere is all about.
Almost everyone concedes its only a baby step toward addressing social dynamics with interactivity, but whats at stake here is the funding and/or distributed acceptance of a title that tackles similarly taboo issues with higher production values and more robust play.
It really doesnt matter whether the game is crap or not. The real issue (at least in my mind) is the discrimination and backhanded censorship. I haven’t played the game, and have no intention of doing so, even with all the controversy, but I do think it deserves the right to be judged with its peers. Censorship is a crutch for those who want to hide from things that make them uncomfortable or that they simply dont understand.
Free speech? I thought there were sponsors footing the bill.
I think you meant: “Public sphere? I thought there were sponsors footing the bill.”
>> It really doesnt matter whether the game is crap or not
It matters when this is the game that created the controversy, and therefore the game that many people will evaluate when they dive for the first time into the question: “Can games be a meaningful vehicle for artistic and intellectual expression?”
Patrick, I think if you look closely you will find that most people who played it and didn’t like it, don’t bother commenting much on it. Add to this the fact that condemning Slamdance’s decision gets easily confused with defending the game itself. This lends credibility to the idea that “the industry” thinks this is a good example of art in games, and reinforces my concern about what they will think of said “industry” when they see it for what little (I think) it is.
I guess I’m in the minority when I consider games like GTA (Hot Coffee included) or Shadow of the Colossus more meaningful and interesting pieces of work.
Since it’s not in the public sphere, I don’t think ‘Free Speech’ applies. If Mr. Koster moderates my comment into the bit bucket, he hasn’t infringed on my right to ‘Free Speech’. It’s his soapbox, not mine.
Free speech applies wherever you want it to. The medley of capitalism and democracy is precisely that you can vote with your dollars to say, “Free speech or bust.” They don’t have to give you free speech; and you don’t have to pay them. In this specific case, that’s not exactly how it works, of course, but it’s close enough that I think my analogy is okay.
It’s still consent of the governed, in a way.
I don’t think it works that way, but I’m certainly no human rights maven. 😉 I’m a big fan of the medley you point out. If Slamdance did something that people and companies find objectionable then companies can pull their games and individuals can not attend.
Update, there is a panel discussion on the controversy set for January 21, @ 5 p.m. at Slamdance. I just confirmed with SCMRPG creator Danny LeDonne via phone that he will be on this panel at Slamdance. At this point, he said he thought that the other panelists (still not named publicly) will include a) an attorney and b)Slamdance’s Peter Baxter and c) another developer — Danny didn’t know if that will be one of the developer’s still in competition or one of the developers that pulled their game in protest. The panel is mentioned in the Slamdance statement on their — it’s actually included in the statement itself. I’ve blogged about this stuff too at http://www.hollywood2020.blogs.com and would like your input about whether you think is is really a slam to freedom of expression etc?