This is even more disgusting. How can a man who has said games are just as important as film effectively censor a game, no matter what its context?

I'm suddenly shaken in my approach to making a similar game. Even if I approached the subject with great care, making a great game in addition to succesful art, would it be similarly segregated?

I'm a bit frightened with Simon's words "that far out" it seems to suggest that social meaning in games is good, as long as you respect an ambigously defined set of taboo subjects.

Really disgusting, I feel like there is not a single venue for truely unbound expression in this medium. That needs to be challenged immediately.

As it becomes more clear that Mr. Baxter made this decision for reasons other than loss of sponsorship, I think the public would do well to introspect as to where we want videogames to go from here. We are the audience for Slamdance, for IGF, and for the game industry at large but I think my videogame shows that we can also be the CREATORS. If half of America plays videogames, that half needs to wake up and roll up its sleeves so the other half will take notice.

I want to stress that one controversial game made by one vilified individual can only get us so far. History always seems to paint the impetus for change as being that of “leaders” when it fact the underlying sentiment of the large majority is nearly always the true cause of progress. If we collectively want videogames to be more than mere objects to distract us, it’s time to think about how that progress toward gaming as a true artistic medium can be made. If we only want plucky entertainment, then games like “Super Columbine Massacre RPG!” will be tossed down the memory hole, forgotten, and a scant few of us will talk about a revolution that almost happened but never was. It’s up to us.

My new conspiracy theory (which I don't really believe): The entire series of events was a publicity stunt by the Slamdance organizers. I recall seeing the list of finalists back in November and being shocked that SCMRPG was included (I was shocked that they would pick such a controversial game). Since then, I've played the game (and written a review of it), and I thought I understood why they picked it (because it is very good). According to Danny Ledonne (that game's creator), the festival approached him and asked him to submit his game. Try searching Slashdot for the word "Slamdance". There has been nothing posted about it since 2004. Well, now that they've yanked SCMRPG, there's something posted on Slashdot about Slamdance. There's tons of stuff posted about Slamdance all over the gaming web... but before yesterday, Slamdance publicity was dead. So, the distilled theory: Invite a super-controversial game to the festival, nominate it as a finalist, leave it listed as a finalist for more than a month, then yank it at the last minute as a pre-festival publicity stunt.

I like your theory, Jason... if only because there is some truth to the fact that no publicity is bad publicity (an axiom I am an expert on, unfortunately).

However, it's hard for me to imagine this story being a positive one for Slamdance. I could be wrong but I think Ian's GGC tombstone is prophetic.

If Baxter renigs, brushes off the fallout (or dandruff) of flame backlash, and Slamdance returns to being conducted as before, it would effectively close a very productive publicity cycle and restore the compromised integrity of the Slamdance festival at large. Whether the (probably) less than weeklong cycle was a planned fabrication or an honest tug of opinion is irrelevant, the publicity is generated either way, thats how publicity works.

Like Raiden and Solid Snake in Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons of Liberty, our crusade is playing right into the well-defined roles of a prescribed scenario. Hopefully this time the ending will at least make sense.

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/

I have followed this case with interest for the past few days, and I have to admit, I�m not entirely sure if I agree that this game is the expressive and challenging piece of work that it has been labelled since (and before) the decision to remove it from Slamdance. I completely agree that games have the potential to be expressive and meaningful. But they have to be so on their own terms. Surely this is currently one of the main issues facing video game studies? To develop a means for discussing and analysing video games as containers of cultural value alongside books, theatre, cinema, etc? It certainly is the theme of Unit Operations... It seems to me that it has been taken at face value that because this game portrays a controversial subject, it must be worthy of praise. I have not yet read any close analysis of the game that defends it as an expressive piece of art. Surely subject matter is not enough? The game has been compared with Gus van Sant�s Elephant, yet there also exist rather horrid, exploitation-style films of the same character that would never garner any praise. The reason Elephant won the Palme d�Or was because of the way it knowingly used the medium of film in order to express meaning (in the context of the subject matter, of course). Lingering single-shots of students in corridors, extremely slow camera pans, etc, all contributed to creating a highly self-aware piece of cinema-art. It did not simply deal with a difficult subject matter, it did so in a highly stylized and contemplative way.
As far as I�m aware, this was not the case with SCMRPG. Ledonne, I believe, is not a game designer (and my sincere apologies if this is wrong), and created the game using a program called RPG maker. Nothing inherently wrong with that, but it does mean the game plays rather conventionally, as opposed to say Gonzalo Frasca�s minigames like Madrid and September 12th, where meaning is located in symbolic gameplay. Ledonne would have had little impact on his game beyond determining story and subject matter. (I notice Ledonne has commented above, if you�re reading this, it is really not intended as an attack, although it maybe comes across as such. My apologies.) Another instance, last years winner Fa�ade was highly innovative in terms of technique, story and gameplay.
As I said above, I�m not entirely sure what my opinion is on this game, and I�d happily be persuaded of its merits. But I would like to see some arguments as to why this game is worthy of a place among what is supposed to be highly innovative and meaningful independent games, based on analysis of gameplay, technique, etc., and not only on subject matter? If we want games to be taken seriously, we need to begin by taking them seriously ourselves.

Read the Costikyan analysis, and Jason Roher's analysis as well. They both do a good "close reading" of the game.

I wrote the following on 1/7/07 but had some difficulty posting.

---------------------------------------------------

It's refreshing to find that there are some amongst us that haven't lost our moral compass. Apparently Newsweek's Croal isn't one of them.

I'm glad that you quoted Croal and his disdain for this "hypocrisy." Here's his take on "JFK: Reloaded."

"What makes it disturbing is not the simulation; after all, ABC's Peter Jennings hosted a TV special last year based around a computer simulation of the same event. But by presenting it in the form of a videogame, complete with a profit motive and a cash prize, the 'game' clearly trivializes an American tragedy." http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6543127/site/newsweek/

Only schoolkids are acceptable targets in Croal's world?

Shame on Croal.

This "game" was at best a half-baked attempt at 15 minutes of fame at the expense of other's misery. The creator wants to be a filmmaker but apparently lacks the talent to be recognized on his merits. He states "SCMRPG was a very important contribution to the festival/game competition directors at Slamdance for a reason: it was uniquely compelling."

It would also be "uniquely compelling" to get on a stage and defecate on a pigeon - that doesn't make it art. That doesn't make it festival-worthy. That just shows that the "artist" in question lacks the raw talent or vision to create something that can stand on its own merit.

All whining psycho-socialbabble aside, there is no justification for this snuff-game. It's about time that any further legitimization for this repugnant re-creation was put to a halt.

Shame on Ledonne.

And for you kiddies that are *dying* to play the game. Go for it, it IS a free country. Just remember that every one of the people killed at Columbine were living, breathing and thinking people that were just as valid and real as you in every single way. They STILL have friends and family that mourn them and think of them daily.

Shame on you.

Kotaku's fluff interview piece with this filmmaker-hopeful was repugnant. I've already told Kotaku what I think of their providing a soapbox to the hack that created this tripe. And here's the irony: my brother is the editor of Kotaku; his niece (my daughter) was in high school when she was murdered last February by a former classmate.

Shame.

Drew Crecente, Director
"Jennifer Ann's Group"
http://www.JenniferAnn.org

ps. although I disagree with his underlying premise, Greg Costikyan's analysis is well worth reading http://www.manifestogames.com/node/3040