Saturday, January 06, 2007
Super Columbine Massacre RPG Too Hot For Slamdance
Kotaku is reporting that for the first time in its thirteen-year history, SlamDance (the controversial, irreverant counterpoint to the Sundance Indie Film Festival) is actually PULLING a finalist from its competition because it is too controversial. (The follow-up article is here.)
The culprit? Super Columbine Massacre RPG. The reported favorite game of gunman Kimveer Gill, who went on a shooting spree in Montreal last year. Reportedly, the game's designer didn't pursue the Slamdance competition - it was Slamdance coordinators themselves who requested that he submit his game. It sounds like the game's removal was a purely financial decision. Two of the festival's financial backers had pulled support because of the inclusion of this indie game among the finalists. Removing the game sounds like an obvious move to win back their support. Of course, the official claim is that it was on moral grounds. Slamdance president Peter Baxter claims, "There are moral obligations to consider here with this particular game in addition to the impact it could have on the Slamdance organization and its community"
So where do I stand on this?
I don't blame Slamdance for removing the game. You gotta do what you gotta do, sometimes, to survive. But I *will* say the blame is squarely on their shoulders for other reasons. Read more and I'll explain why.
About The Game
As far as Super Columbine Massacre RPG --- well. A few months ago I said I had no interest in playing it (which was true), and had no intentions to do so. But I was being asked by people about my opinion on the game, and I didn't want to offer one until I tried it for myself. So I downloaded it and tried it out for myself.
Danny Ledonne states that he intended the game to provoke thought and discussion, and to improve understanding of the event and what led Harris and Klebold to do the unthinkable. "The question at the center of the storm was an elusive one: `why did they do it?'... The lingering question—that grand burning query so many have tried to answer—is one I believe this game allows us to at least access in a more honest way," he states. "At the end of the day, the understanding of the Columbine school shooting is deepened and redefined. That is the real object of the game."
Great goals, and I applaud them if that was his true intention. Execution-wise... well. Lessee:
The students and teachers fight back, often with magical spells. Damage taken by the killers in these "fights" can be healed with hamburgers and hot dogs that are "dropped" by enemy students, which act as healing potions. Oh, and they gain levels through rapid succession of endless slaughter through the classrooms (potentially racking up a body count far in excess of the real event, as the police never show up until you are ready to end that phase of the game, and everyone in the school just waits around to fight you). I finally quit the game after the "aftermath montage" of photos and quotes from the real world... when the two boys are transported to HELL, where they get to fight a bunch of demons and zombies, with graphics and music lifted right out of the game "Doom." The boys even make a comment about how cool it is, and that it is just like their favorite videogame.Uh-huh. Yeah. And this is supposed to be a thought-provoking and "honest" exploration into the minds of Klebold and Harris HOW, exactly? Maybe if I'd kept playing, I might have actually found a real answer to THAT question, but by that time I was bored and disgusted. Perhaps Ledonne was attempting to show that the boys lived in a fantasy world, and this was how they saw things and imagined what their demise would be like. But it really just comes off as a very amateurish mishmash of history, fantasy, and stuff pulled out of the air or thrown in because it was an RPG convention (you gotta face magic-users who can heal the enemies, right?). Playing it was about like sitting through a first-time writer's "soul-baring" reading of their Star Trek fanfic. You pray you can come up with a plausible imaginary emergency as an excuse to leave the room before too many others beat you to the door.
So as a game, it's crap. As an accurate depiction of the events at Columbine High School that day, it's pretty far from its mark. If I was to play the game without knowing anything about it, I'd assume it was a product of a high-school student's dark fantasy to relive the massacre as the killers. And as such, I'd say that while it was horrible, it was probably a healthier outlet than some other means of living out those fantasies. But I wouldn't recognize it as a tool for promoting discussion and understanding.
Ledonne claims that it has promoted a good deal of discussion on his website, so maybe the game actually succeeded at its stated goal. Maybe you don't need to hit very close for it to be "good enough." And to Ledonne's credit, he actually finished the game, and it's better than what I've seen from many first-time game developers. And, hey, it was even better than Trespasser!
So How Did It Become A Finalist?
I don't think Super Columbine Massacre was made a finalist on the merits of the game itself. I think it was pursued by Slamdance organizers, and selected as a finalist, purely for the sake of sensationalism and controversy. I don't know what games were submitted, but there were a lot of GREAT (and even thought-provoking) indie games that came out this year that would have been far worthier of the spotlight.
What I think happened was it was made a finalist not because it was good, but for the sheer sake of the fact that it was "edgy" and "controversial." It was a gratuitous bit of "naughtiness" to generate a stir. It would make publicity. It'd give them more of a "bad boy" image.
And it turned out to be too much for them.
Unfortunately, now we have a precedent set. If someone actually creates a GOOD game dealing with a uncomfortable / difficult theme, it will probably not be accepted because of the threat to pulled funding. And this may end up applying to film, as well.
Is it time to get an alternative-alternative indie festival? Probably not. But it's definitely a time for Slamdance to hunker down and figure out exactly what they are offering and why, and make sure their sponsors (and the public) understand this.
(Vaguely) related thought-jumbles for your descrambling:
* Indie Game to Get Blamed for Shooting Spree
* Airport Security Parody Game
* Why Are There So Many Violent Videogames?
* Do Games Matter?
.
Labels: Politics, Roleplaying Games
- posted by The Rampant Coyote @ 7:09 AM (Permalink)
Comments:
Links to this post:
<< Home
I'm glad you played it, but I thought it was a really well done work. Yes, its far from realistic, and it verges on parody of game industry conventions (and itself) in the third act, but this is the work of a film-maker (not a professional game designer) using a limited tool (RPG Maker, I know you can make pro games like Aveyond with it, but its not a robust character AI engine). You have to assess it in context of its creation and publication. I think it pushes its particular tool well to the limits and sets a challenge for professional designers to step up and make something better, if only slightly less bold.
I'm not sure that you have to assess a game based upon the skill level of the developer, the tools, or even the budget. While I certainly give some amount of leeway to indie games based on that, the bottom line is that they must meet their goals, and meet my goal as a consumer / player.
It's very difficult comparing Aveyond to Oblivion. From a technical and content perspective, it's no contest. But as a gamer participating in the interactive experience of both games, I have certain needs or desires that get filled by both games. Both set out to place me in a fantastic world and an interesting story that is jointly created by the game developer and my own imagination. Aveyond gives me many hours of fun play - well worth the money.
So even though the two games differ drastically in some areas that gamers may value, from my perspective, the game gives me value. I can see good (if far more modest) production values and storyline, and at the end of the day, I've had a good time and the game has succeeded in entertaining me. And maybe making me think.
SCMRPG, on the other hand, lacks a level of focus and competence in execution that would allow it to meet it's supposed goal. While many elements stand on their own and would actually be worthy on their own, they were thrown together poorly and the message became muddied.
Is the game supposed to be a parody of gaming conventions? Fine. Juxtaposing it with a more realistic subject matter or setting could be very effective. In fact, it's been done very well in another medium. But something as inflammatory as the Columbine Massacre was a poor choice subject matter, as the message will get completely lost.
If, on the other hand, it is as it is stated to be - an exploration of the event from the disturbing point of view of the killers - then including a parody RPG conventions and the embarrasing third act only weakens and saps credibility from the core message.
Would it have been possible to combine the two in a way that didn't create something that was the weaknesses of both with the strengths of neither? Was that even the author's intention? (Yes, I know you aren't supposed to judge art based on the intentions of the artist, but I find it hard to avoid)
To me, it felt more like an attempt by a very inexperienced designer to get something off his chest. He may have succeeded in getting it off his chest, but the message was lost in communication.
Post a Comment
It's very difficult comparing Aveyond to Oblivion. From a technical and content perspective, it's no contest. But as a gamer participating in the interactive experience of both games, I have certain needs or desires that get filled by both games. Both set out to place me in a fantastic world and an interesting story that is jointly created by the game developer and my own imagination. Aveyond gives me many hours of fun play - well worth the money.
So even though the two games differ drastically in some areas that gamers may value, from my perspective, the game gives me value. I can see good (if far more modest) production values and storyline, and at the end of the day, I've had a good time and the game has succeeded in entertaining me. And maybe making me think.
SCMRPG, on the other hand, lacks a level of focus and competence in execution that would allow it to meet it's supposed goal. While many elements stand on their own and would actually be worthy on their own, they were thrown together poorly and the message became muddied.
Is the game supposed to be a parody of gaming conventions? Fine. Juxtaposing it with a more realistic subject matter or setting could be very effective. In fact, it's been done very well in another medium. But something as inflammatory as the Columbine Massacre was a poor choice subject matter, as the message will get completely lost.
If, on the other hand, it is as it is stated to be - an exploration of the event from the disturbing point of view of the killers - then including a parody RPG conventions and the embarrasing third act only weakens and saps credibility from the core message.
Would it have been possible to combine the two in a way that didn't create something that was the weaknesses of both with the strengths of neither? Was that even the author's intention? (Yes, I know you aren't supposed to judge art based on the intentions of the artist, but I find it hard to avoid)
To me, it felt more like an attempt by a very inexperienced designer to get something off his chest. He may have succeeded in getting it off his chest, but the message was lost in communication.
Links to this post:
<< Home
