Thanks for this excellent early analysis, Ian. Maybe getting this out there from the get-go will encourage the media to take a broader look -- how he used a variety of media to fuel his antisocial fantasies.

Trackback:
http://nongames.blogspot.com/2006/09/on-montreal-tragedy-and-defending-games.html

"(...) If I've previously expressed my concerns about the way we, gamers, often defend our media based on loose evidences, that's because I prefer takes such as Dugan's view on the aforementioned game, or Bogost's latest piece itself. (...)"

Wonderful as always, you're the man to turn to when the media churns out an outrage such as this.

Yes, searching for the truth might save children and prevent murder, but we've got to attract readers, don't we?

What a tragedy. And what a tragedy that North America is more comfortable conflating alienation and mental illness into the easy boogeyman, when a little sincerity would surely, surely save lives in the future: always easier to invent demons than to scutinize one's self, and one's society.

Spot on. I get tired of having to go through the same argument every time someone blames Ozzy/Marilyn Manson/Natural Born Killers/Fight Club/Games for pathological behavior. Yet without someone fighting the good fight and going through it every time, the small-minded people of the world quickly seize the chance to stifle fearless expression. Thanks again.

[opinion] While I think it's wrong to blame this game for this guy's actions, I still don't support this game or buy this claim that it's a "social experiment". It's a shocking game to bring traffic to your site isn't it? Would you support a new game called "Kimveer Gill Shooting Game" in which the player kills a young girl in Montreal? Just because the right to support such games is available, doesn't mean it isn't offensive to people who are touched by these incidents. I have the right to stand outside of church on Sunday morning and shout "Jesus is a homosexual" as people show up. While I might enjoy that on some level, I know that the pain and anger inflicted on others would far outweigh my own pleasure. Think of how the parents of these kids feel to know that there's a game out there in which their deceased children are shot. It seems kind of selfish to keep this "social experiment" going to me. [/opinion]

I agree that it is not sound to say that the direct cause for this event, and others like it, is games. It sounds good to say this kind of stuff, but the argument is not very complete. Countless people play video games; it is practically impossible that Kimveer Gill is the only person who plays this Super Columbine Massacre RPG, and yet he is the only one (that I have heard of) to do this sort of thing. There are countless factors that need to fit into a person’s life before they will decide to going around shooting people, as Ian has already mentioned. To try and say that the one major cause is his gaming habits may indeed sell papers, but it is highly doubtful that this is the true reason behind this tragedy.

Luke, SCMRPG is interested in the forces working on those boys: it will scroll you the lyrics to KMFDM, but it will also give you Nirvana, it will give you Radiohead's Creep, it will give you of course Marilyn Manson.

To prevent the phenomenon, instead of blaming the lyrics, we're looking for the source of those lyrics in society: it doesn't begin with Marilyn, rather he is a product of the same society as Harris and Klebold, as Cobain and Thom Yorke. So too perhaps was Mary Shelley.

Yes, an autopsy is offensive, but it is the press that has invited the parents of the victims to the morgue. In the end, someone's got to perform the autopsy. You can hold your nose and wander away if you like, but your derision seems naive, perhaps even dangerous, from where I stand.

Now, you go to the same outraged parent. You tell them someone's trying to make sure nothing like that ever happens again, and he's created an informational product designed to educate both youth and parents alike. This product asks the tough questions, this product has no agenda, this product holds the whole of society accountable.

Or you lie, and tell them someone made a "game" about killing their boy.

What this project has achieved is to place the event in the history of popular culture, a popular culture in which legends and heros fire upon themselves with shotguns, declare God dead, and observe that each of us is indeed "a creep".

Ultimately, I suspect that it is Reznor who "hurts (him)self today to see if he still feels" so that I didn't have to, as an adolescent growing up with his music. I suggest that this game nearly saved that deranged boy, rather than motivating him; unfortunately, like you Luke, it looks like he didn't really play it, or at best failed to comprehend it.

What initially attracted me to this article was that it took place in Montreal, since I have family members there. Upon further reading, the topic piqued my interest because it reminded me of an article I read in my Computer Ethics class last year. It was about a man who shot at two policemen and stole their guns. Upon investigation, it was discovered that he was obssessed with the Grand Theft Auto games. He made statements along the lines of "Life is a game, and I plan to beat it." Naturally, everyone immediately questioned the influence of video games on society. However, in the article I read a year ago, the article attacked video games as a negative effect on one's psychology.
This article intrigued me because it actually defended the influence of video games on the mentally unstable. An interesting point that was brought up in the article was the wide variety of media that is suspected to have influenced Kimveer Gill mental background. Naturally, the press manipulates the information to attack the video games that he is interested in rather than concentrating on all forms of media. It seems that the press generally concentrates on video games as a rationale for one's mental peculiarities since it is an interest that isn't widely indulged upon. A large fraction of the general population enjoy watching movies. However, people rarely become fantics over movies in the way that some obsess over video games. People are generally more likely to agree on the the biased towards video games since they are less likely to relate to it. If the press accused movies of being the cause of Gill's actions, people would be less likely to agree since a lot of people watch movies.
Video games have often become a scapegoat explaining the actions of those who are mentally unstable or anti-social. Rather than simply defending video games, Bogost also provides further explanation behind Gill's actions. Murderers kill because of more deep-rooted issues from their past rather than just their interest in violent video games. Other possible influences include a neglected or abused childhood and anti-social tendencies. You cannot decide that because someone plays a particular video game, they are autmotically characterized as a murderer. If this case were true, then what about everyone else who plays said video game?

I completely agree that the blame being placed mainly on video games is ridiculous. I, along with millions of other people, play video games, and my favorite games are the ones on the more violent side. But I don't go killing people. And almost all other people who play games don't kill people. Based on these facts alone, you can't place even half of the responsibility on video games.

Another valid point is the fact that video games make great news stories. This point makes me think of some very popular ideas. The first of which is that people fear what they do not know. The second is a lot like it: People fear change. I believe that it is because of these two ideas that it is so easy for people to target video games. Unlike other forms of visual arts, video games are relatively new in the scheme of things. So, this new medium is easy to attack, and therefore provides society with a safety mechanism against change and all they do not know.

But don't get me wrong. I am not saying that video games play no part. I don't believe that at all. I just believe that society puts to much emphasis on the role of video games.

I completely agree that the blame being placed mainly on video games is ridiculous. I, along with millions of other people, play video games, and my favorite games are the ones on the more violent side. But I don't go killing people. And almost all other people who play games don't kill people. Based on these facts alone, you can't place even half of the responsibility on video games.

Another valid point is the fact that video games make great news stories. This point makes me think of some very popular ideas. The first of which is that people fear what they do not know. The second is a lot like it: People fear change. I believe that it is because of these two ideas that it is so easy for people to target video games. Unlike other forms of visual arts, video games are relatively new in the scheme of things. So, this new medium is easy to attack, and therefore provides society with a safety mechanism against change and all they do not know.

But don't get me wrong. I am not saying that video games play no part. I don't believe that at all. I just believe that society puts to much emphasis on the role of video games.

With the rising of every media, a group made of members of older more “conservative” generations will invariably call into question, mock, and blame that media for current problems within society. This was true for rock and roll and especially true for video games. With the introduction of an interactive media, players could get deeper experiences than from movies or television. As graphics improved, games such as the classic Doom, emerged and the cry rang out from “concerned” parents “won’t someone think of the children?!” Somehow the idea spread that by experiencing violent material in game consumers will be desensitized and be led to commit violent acts exponentially easier than by seeing it in a movie. When cases such as Kimveer Gill or the columbine massacre appear proponents of this argument cry out, “see? We told you so!” What do proponents of the argument suggest society do? They insist that offensive video games be censored if not out rightly removed from shelves, which thankfully in the United States at least falls under a 1st amendment protection, saving us from such a ridiculous plan. (An idea which in my opinion is just a method for parents to be lazy and rather than assume responsibility for their children and control what their children consume.)

In any case the idea that violent games encourage more violence seems bunk to me with the lack of statistical evidence. If it did encourage wouldn’t violent crimes increase? Yet according to the U.S Department of Justice “The violent crime rate decreased 2.2% from 2003 to 2004. From 1995 to 2004 the rate fell 32.0%,” just around the time video games came into their own. Of course correlation does not prove causation, but numbers such as these doesn’t help their argument at all.

Well it turned into a bit of a rant, but basically I agree whole heatedly with your analysis, especially that “But a headline that reads "Killer loved Braveheart" probably would not sell any newspapers.”

Videogames always seem to get the bad rap these days. As cliche as it may sound, the media is overhyping the relationship between games and violent actions. A while back, when I still had time to play it, Kingdom of Loathing ( or KOL; www.Kingomdofloathing.com) was in the news. It was mentioned in an offhand comment in an article( http://www.forbes.com/home/feeds/ap/2006/04/16/ap2672923.html_ )about a murderer who had planned to try out cannibilism, among other things. Apparently, he kept an online journal--the journal had a few mentions of KOL in it.

KoL is full of funny pop culture references, but it's about as violent and twisted as Super Mario Brothers. There was literally no point in mentioning the game. The article even describes Kingdom of Loathing in an inaccurate, unprofessional fashion. It's kinda like someone looking at Zork and saying "You type stuff, and stuff happens."

What people fail to realize is that sometimes seemingly normal people aren't "normal" at all. Just for an argument about corellation v. causation: Did the killer eat bread often?

The murderer from KoL went to his job with a carved up body in his bathtub. Who cares what videogames he played, it doesn't make what he did right, it doesn't explain his actions, and it certainly doesn't mean that videogames causes such deviant behaviour.

Most Americans were devastated by the event at Columbine. In fact, to glorify the senseless murders that took place on April 29, 1999 is ridiculous. The actual game (Super Columbine Massacre RPG) may be well-thought out, and free of technical error, but the ideas behind it are thoughtless. Do not get me wrong, there is no excuse for Kimveer Gill's actions. I agree it isn't reasonable to blame a video game for Gill's rampage. The media simply makes correlation between violent video games and the actions of the people who play these games. Though there is a strong correlation between violent video games and violent people, it is definitely NOT a cause-and-effect relationship. A person who plays Super Columbine Massacre RPG is blatantly apathetic to some of the most sensitive and salient issues of today. On Gill's VampireFreaks.com profile, he declares, "I think I have an obsession with guns ... muahahaha" (CNN.com). A game like Super Columbine Massacre RPG only fuels an obsession with guns. Gill didn't only like Super Columbine Massacre RPG, but "it was his favorite game” because it stroked his emotionless fascination with guns and death (CNN.com). No, the violent video games did not initiate Gill's feelings and obsession with death, but they certainly embraced them.

side note:

http://live.canoe.ca/TheShow/Archives/2006/09/14/1839452.html

from the article i read its an interview of the Super Columbine Massacre RPG creator defending his work, cant access the actual page though. apparently he does a good job *shrugs*

Some really good points here. Most people will consume popular culture and not act on the fantasy-like activities either represented or simulated. And, as someone said, the media tend to focus very narrowly after events like these and blame a particular title and then the medium as a whole. But at the same time, some people lash out in such ways like Gill and they are attracted to these kinds of violent representations/simulations and consume them or interpret them in very different ways. I think it would be more productive to talk about the nature of violent imagery and ho w some stereotypes (violent, masculine) are so pervasive and celebrated in popular media and culture... often in very banal and simplistic ways. I must admit that some of this imagery has me wondering at times when we talk about media influence. How might the overly romanticized and glorified imagery of war in films, books, and video games contribute to their general ideas about war and even specific conflicts?