A hell of a story, and most illuminating. The game's creator comes across as a most intelligent, sincere person, and seems to be standing up to the backlash with no small amount of dignity. Kudos to him.

I recommend a quick look at the messageboard on the game's official site for some of the most amusing/depressing flaming I've seen on the internet for some time.

I agree Ian: the knee-jerk reaction proves we have a long way to go as far as public perception of games. But it only makes sense that the first games to push the envelope would be caught in the ugly middle ground while we wait for the public at large to "get it" -- if they ever do (I hate to say that, but it may be true).

Troutio - I spent more than an hour and a half looking at the SCM forum (not posting), and it was incredibly fascinating and depressing. Except for the game's creator and a couple of others, there's rampant flaming and general moronic arguments going on there. Those looking for the intelligent debate that Ledonne hoped to foster with his game will find anything but on his forums -- and it's as much the fault of supporters of the game as the detractors.

Mike: You're right that these games are going to get caught in the middle public perception being what it is. But no matter the topic, we need to push hard on the press when they report on a game without even attempting to play it. What would we think of a White House correspondent who didn't attend press briefings, but merely stood outside and imagined what was being discussed?

Excellent writeup, and eeeagh, arg, sigh.

I will confess, though, that I'd rather see this sort of expressive boundary-pushing discuss something meaningful that isn't centered around the theme of violence. Not that topics involving violence aren't valid or should be censored, but it seems like that's one area that we've already covered pretty thoroughly by now.

It does seem strangely appropriate for a game to reflect back on the sad truth of a situation which was shallowly blamed on videogames at the time, though. And for the popular media, which lept on the videogame association in the first place, to have a problem with that - well, too bad.

Ian: Yes, they should be playing this game and ANY controversial game they report on, even if it's just for 45 min. to an hour. Take the time. I didn't mean to suggest an excuse, only that this is a natural growing pain.

I am a professional jouranlist myself, though I don't write about games. I'm playing through SCM right now and want to write about it on my personal blog. It seems everyone (except for you and some others you've pointed your readers to) is spouting off without taking a deeper, critical look at the game.

So far, I am not that impressed with game itself and haven't seen the dialouge that it's supposed to foster truly emerge. But I do respect the effort and Ledonne's right to make the game, even though I'm conflicted and even queasy when it comes to the subject matter. But, as you said, no one said playing such a game would be easy.

Wow, this balloned to much greater scope than I anticipated.

Based on the general response regarding the content in the context of its medium, rather than the content on its own, I'm even more resolved to make a storyworld on this subject that deals in nuance and compassion and really takes advantage of interactivity. Maybe that'll change things. It'll also be playable through a browser, so journalists won't have an excuse.

What if I told you that the e-mail I sent you a month ago was all part of my master plan to gain infamy? Mwaha, hahaha!

It's not the medium (in the sense of "the digital medium") that bothers people when they hear about a Columbine video game. It's specifically that this is a video game. Few people would be troubled to hear there there's a Web site or CD-ROM about Columbine.

To look to another medium, people wouldn't generally be disturbed by a Columbine TV news report. They would be more bothered by a made-for-TV movie, and would probably be very troubled by a reality-based TV show about Columbine.

What disgusted me the most was the TechNewsWorld's inference that Ledonne was profiting from the massacre, since he asks for $1 in donation to keep the site up and running. The entire section of the article is labelled "Violent Profits", and ends with a quote from "End Youth Violence":

"We do see video games that are based on actual events. Unfortunately, when it comes to school shootings, it really drives home the point that there are a lot of people that are out there to make money of these awful tragedies."

Nick: I intended "medium" in the sense of "artistic medium" not "digital medium", so we're on the same page.

Though, considering how the two get confused, it might behoove me to start using another word, though "art form" sounds a bit pretentious.

A columnist with the Philly Daily News has a more careful examination of the situation. She understandably explores the initial shock of the thing, but actually called Ledonne and let him explain. I wrote her to commend her for at least thinking it through before writing a knee-jerk reaction piece.

http://www.philly.com/mld/dailynews/14645201.htm

That's a very interesting post. I find it interesting that when condemning a game (or movie, or whatever) like this, that people invoke the victims. Someone I was close to was murdered, and once it happened, other people who were in similar situations as myself warned me to expect friends, co-workers, journalists, and others to treat me inconsiderately and that sympathy would be short-lived.

I found that I did receive a lot of sympathy, at first. But soon enough, people were tired not just of hearing about my problem (which I rarely discussed) but tired that it existed at all. They were tired of my continued need for time off to attend legal proceedings, funerals, and trials, not to mention the strain of the period before the killer was caught and after the killer escaped from electronic surveillance. I started to notice that movies, television, books, and other forms of media seemed obsessively interested in killers, and rarely interested in the victims. I thought that it looked like people were afraid of the victims. It seemed to me that people are afraid of the victims because they are afraid to think that it might happen to them.

At the trial, the prosecutors warned us that jurors tend to be sympathetic toward the killer and rarely toward the victim. On Law and Order, which I thought was somewhat realistic, the D.A. has to remind the jurors about the pain of the murder victim.

I think that people naturally sympathize with killers because it's easier to sympathize with someone that they view as in control. They're afraid to sympathize with the victims, because they are afraid that they might become one, some day. In this context, I wonder if people condemn this game because it goes too far to betray their own sympathies for the killers, and their own lack of concern for the victims.

On the other hand, this was a school shooting, and the victims were children, so it might be that in this case, adults are genuinely sympathetic to the victims and genuinely horrifed by the killers. This would be a special case, similar to terrorism in that people do reject the killers and establish a narrative of deadly sociopath murdering innocent victims. In this context, maybe people honestly object to the sympathetic portrayal of a murderer, and strongly object to the muddied portrayal of students who were bullies. They would object to that because it challenges the narrative they've established for school shootings with innocent, child victims.

If this game had been about some other type of serial murderer, one with adult victims and a white American (and possibly female?) murderer, I wonder if the reaction would have been different.

Interesting discussion. I'm curious if part of the negative reaction to this video game is coming somewhat from it's presentation. The website that it's hosted on is done in black with red text and the top image on the page is a security camera shot of one of the boys brandishing a gun. That same image is a rollover link.

Had this same game been hosted either here on a website discussing the value of interactive art, or perhaps on the website of an art gallery/museum, I'm certain that there's a strong chance that the public's reaction would have been different.

So that's what it comes down to, isn't it? Someone creates a game that is trying to be provocative. Personally I think that's a good thing. I get the feeling though that the website is playing up the reaction that we're discussing here. One of the system requirements listed is "a killer instinct. The front page quotes the killers several times.

Perhaps the video game is an insightful deliberation on violence, youth and America (I can't play the game until maybe tomorrow, it's not Apple compatible). That said, the author isn't really selling it as that on the web page. We all recognize that video games are in that uncomfortable (and possibly long) transition period from new medium into recognized art form.

I guess my only thought on this is that either the author is purposefully trying to make people inflamed to gauge their reaction before they even play the game (the link to the discussion board hints at such, as do the other links and some of the text on the page). Even the artist's statement seems to be part grandstanding and part recognition that the subject itself is highly controversial. If he wanted news stories that spoke of an art project video game that's trying to deal with the issues of Columbine he could have at least tried to present the game that way, instead of playing off the fears of those who first approach the page.

I think the difference between a game and books, movies, documentaries, is that (people's perceptions of) the goal of a game is to entertain. It's what the word means (Answers.com has the first definition of "game" as "An activity providing entertainment or amusement; a pastime: party games; word games.").

While one could argue that books and movies are also forms of entertainment, there's a clear divide between novels and text-books, between M:i:iii and "An Inconvenient Truth". Books and movies can be purely instructional, whiles games can't (in those people's opinions).

Sure games can also be informational but it is not seen as it's primary objective, so putting Columbine into that setting implies there's something enjoyable about Columbine, and that kneejerk reaction, which I can understand but disagree with, is what people are seeing.

Bu.. bu... but games are for fun only!

And that's the problem. There's a perception that the main purpose of games is to provide fun. That's the association we make with the word, and that's the right thing to do IMHO.

Super Columbine Massacre RPG only follows some stablished forms of expression commonly found on "games". But I don't think it is, at least not in the way we use to think about games, ie: fun.

Also, of course, it's the interaction. The presupposition is that having to think about what to do, planning ahead and taking action creates more susceptible kids than "simply" watching movies (kids in superman tights jumping from buildings), listening to music (rituals) or reading (bible, religion and its wars).

We need more "games" like Super Columbine Massacre RPG. Just like there are a lot of games about WWII, which I bet some germans aren't happy with it (since, well, Americans go there and bomb their houses).

The gaming medium needs to be stablished as a valid form of expression, and for that, we need to piss off a lot of people. And this day will come, if the developers persevere.

I like WW2 games. So I can kick an American British or Russian ASS.*G*just fun
hail to Call of Duty!

The German

So now that the ARTFORM has helped feed the mindset of another killer in Montreal, what is your defense?

What an insightful response Paula. You know what, you're right! Let's ban all black clothing, rock music, videogames, television, movies, history books, newspapers, and the internet, and then there will NEVER be another random act of senseless violence again! You've really figured it all out, haven't you?

I think the real problem with satire is that MOST people who are exposed to it either:

a) flat out don't get it, or
b) are too lazy or narrow-minded to make make the effort to TRY to get it.

Anyway, I won't attempt to go any further with this post because I have yet to play the game. It's a shame more people AREN'T reserving judgement. But, that's how the world has always been, and will always continue to be I suppose...

Readers, including Paula, may want to refer to my follow-up on the Montreal gunman, here.

I'm not able to get to the game, maybe the site was taken down due to bandwidth problems.