Super Columbine Massacre- Colubine Highschool massacre Game

[SlappyBag]

Don't like it? Don't play it.

[Needles-Kane]

However much you argue that video games are "another form of expression", they are not yet advanced enough to deal with such heavy subject matter in the way that films and books are. I mean, can you imagine if American History X was a game? It wouldn't have nearly the same impact.

I disagree. They are different forms of expression; American History X was an excellent film that really did hit hard. It wouldn't work in a game simply because it wasn't designed to be a game.

Games are good at putting you in the action. In a good horror game, for example, you never know what is going to happen; because it will be happening to you. Your actions will change the course of the game. If you panic, it could easily end in your death.

Neither books nor film have this attribute. You may empathise with the character; but your feelings, emotions and state won't change the outcome of the movie or book.

This is why FPS games were such a huge hit.

[Zyggy]

Games are good at putting you in the action. In a good horror game, for example, you never know what is going to happen; because it will be happening to you. Your actions will change the course of the game. If you panic, it could easily end in your death.

Neither books nor film have this attribute. You may empathise with the character; but your feelings, emotions and state won't change the outcome of the movie or book.

but does that actually help someone to understand what they are going through? A video game uses two of your senses, sight and sound, so does a film. A book uses all of them though, through description.

Video games are also pretty linear, you can change the outcome slightly but not fully. Video games do not make moral judgements and do not force you to do so if they choose to remain ambiguous, like all good films and literature do.

Also, the threat of "death" in a game can't be compared to real life at all. The most you might lose in a game is a few hours of your time, not your life.

[Persol]

Video games are also pretty linear, you can change the outcome slightly but not fully. Video games do not make moral judgements and do not force you to do so if they choose to remain ambiguous, like all good films and literature do.

That isn't a downside. You can still tell a story via a game. You can also use all senses in a game, through description.

I think that there's a line you can cross with glamourising violence. Even WW2 games raise some ethical issues with me.

I really wish people who haven't played it would stop saying that. It's an arguement from authority that doesn't really exist.

You can talk about a horrible event without being maudlin. In all honesty, this should make you unconfortable. It should make you uncomfortable in the same way that 'Flight 93' makes you uncomfortable.

However, people seem to take much more offense to this. Why? Several reasons I can think of:
1) They killed kids (7 kids were killed on 9/11 as well)
2) They were kids (so?)
3) Their 'targets' were innocent (I'd argue that the the majority on 9/11 were too)
4) They were cowards (would you argue they are more cowardly than 9/11 terrorists?)
5) It was without reason (They had there own reasons, as inconsequential as they may have been)

So, it makes you uncomfrotable, for whatever reason. And that's a GOOD THING. But trying to say a game shouldn't be made, or is in bad taste, simply because you aren't comfortable with it is bullshit.

It's another way of integrating an event into reality, and looking at it from a different angle. It doesn't matter if you think that angle is worth looking at... the author did.

If anything, I'd argue that this game is MORE tasteful than 'Flight 93', 'Bowling for Columbine' (possibly, I need to actually watch it to decide), 'Team America', 'Path to 9/11', etc.. There aren't millions of dollars of profit behind a 1980's style video game.

[MercX]

The main reason this game is causing issues is probably because of it's name: "Super Columbine Massacre" and the idea of a school shootout game in general. It makes people hate it from the start. After reading more about it, it turns out that the game actually deglamourizes the deed by the end, using real quotes and actual video footage.

I still don't like it, but I can't say it is worse than the things Persol mentioned.

[Dead-Inside]

Just because a guy who was there seemed to give the game a positive opinion, doesn't mean it was right.

I think that there's a line you can cross with glamourising violence. Even WW2 games raise some ethical issues with me.

I'd rather watch a well-crafted documentary if i wanted to see what happened at columbine, or watch a movie like saving private ryan if i wanted to see a film about ww2.

However much you argue that video games are "another form of expression", they are not yet advanced enough to deal with such heavy subject matter in the way that films and books are. I mean, can you imagine if American History X was a game? It wouldn't have nearly the same impact.

But at the end of the day, you choose what you watch not the ones who made the film, book or game.

The object also isn't to educate, it never has been. There is only so many games that are 'educational' and most of these are for smaller children learning simple language, math and the likes with easy to handle images. The object is to entertain. If you are not entertained then you should find something else to entertain you.

Saying someone can't play a game about Columbine because you think it's wrong is like saying someone can't play with a ball because you don't like the round shape.

[Hyp-R]

Gah,
I heard about this
and http://www.vampirefreaks.com
all having to do with the montreal shooting.

[Persol]

Gah,
I heard about this
and http://www.vampirefreaks.com
all having to do with the montreal shooting.

As someone on another site said (paraphrased), "When I play tetris, it makes me want to throw squares at the floor. Mario Kart makes me want to throw things at cars in front of me."

Video games are this generations 'Catcher in the Rye'. In 50 years people will see this debate for being as stupid as it is.

To be honest, the real issue here are gun control laws and societal views. Current gun control laws are not enforced, and not enough 'good' people have guns.


Consider for a minute if everyone capable of passing some absic criteria had a gun. Unless you think that most people are not inherently good, the world would be a safer place from the crazies among us.

[Mango]

Dictators agree: gun control works.

[dragonfliet]

Games are good at putting you in the action. In a good horror game, for example, you never know what is going to happen; because it will be happening to you. Your actions will change the course of the game. If you panic, it could easily end in your death.

Neither books nor film have this attribute. You may empathise with the character; but your feelings, emotions and state won't change the outcome of the movie or book.

but does that actually help someone to understand what they are going through? A video game uses two of your senses, sight and sound, so does a film. A book uses all of them though, through description.

Video games are also pretty linear, you can change the outcome slightly but not fully. Video games do not make moral judgements and do not force you to do so if they choose to remain ambiguous, like all good films and literature do.

Also, the threat of "death" in a game can't be compared to real life at all. The most you might lose in a game is a few hours of your time, not your life.

What kind of bs argument is this? A book only uses one sense: sight. You don't FEEL the characters, you don't smell the food, you don't hear the speach. YOu imagine it. The difference is miles apart. A book is great, but don't somehow argue that describing the dinner spread as bursting with smells, cranberryt and roasted almonds soothing the senses someone is the same as an actual dinner. bah.

Video games are pretty much the only medium that allow for you to very literally change the outcome. Games like Deus ex come to mind specifically, though there area many, many different games that have this built in. Also, of course video game make moral judgments. ESPECIALLY linear ones. Like a book, you are helpless to change the outcome and you are bound down the path of the character. All the things you do are weighed agains the things you don't do. For example, let's use HL2 shall we? Gordon Freeman (the player) really DOES only contribute destruction. His goal to overthrow what Breen has been doing is an act of uninformed malice. Infact, Freeman is opporating under the silent but manipulating hand of the Gman. And for what? When the citidel topples, there go the protections around the city, just because they thought it was the right decision and because a mysterious force made him do it. There's nothing there? There's no ambiguity? There's no questin of right and wrong? I beg to differ my friend. The fact that you can't see the subtleties does not mean that they don't exist.

To Further my point. What ambiguity did Die Hard Have? More recently, what did you learn from Crank? Nothing? Wow! You mean that not ALL movies are "art", some are just for fun! Don't bring snobbiness to bear against games, as that same eye can be turned to any other form. Like The DaVinci Code really meant anything.

Anyways, this get's off topic a bit, and is a rant, but seriously!

On topic: Yes, the game is distasteful but harmless. If the creators were performance artists, they could say that the game is a divining rod, finding hypocracy in those that defend gaming, routing out silly arguments, bringing about jusitifications. It questions our ideas of free speach, what should be allowed, what are we willing to supress for decency? Wow, look at that, that little game just provoked more thought than your little head could contain.

~Jason

[Dead-Inside]

Games are good at putting you in the action. In a good horror game, for example, you never know what is going to happen; because it will be happening to you. Your actions will change the course of the game. If you panic, it could easily end in your death.

Neither books nor film have this attribute. You may empathise with the character; but your feelings, emotions and state won't change the outcome of the movie or book.

but does that actually help someone to understand what they are going through? A video game uses two of your senses, sight and sound, so does a film. A book uses all of them though, through description.

Video games are also pretty linear, you can change the outcome slightly but not fully. Video games do not make moral judgements and do not force you to do so if they choose to remain ambiguous, like all good films and literature do.

Also, the threat of "death" in a game can't be compared to real life at all. The most you might lose in a game is a few hours of your time, not your life.

What kind of bs argument is this? A book only uses one sense: sight. You don't FEEL the characters, you don't smell the food, you don't hear the speach. YOu imagine it. The difference is miles apart. A book is great, but don't somehow argue that describing the dinner spread as bursting with smells, cranberryt and roasted almonds soothing the senses someone is the same as an actual dinner. bah.

~Jason

I love you for that, and the rest of the post. You are my hero. Of sorts.

[Zyggy]

What kind of bs argument is this? A book only uses one sense: sight. You don't FEEL the characters, you don't smell the food, you don't hear the speach. YOu imagine it. The difference is miles apart. A book is great, but don't somehow argue that describing the dinner spread as bursting with smells, cranberryt and roasted almonds soothing the senses someone is the same as an actual dinner. bah.

I would still argue that it is more intense than in a movie or videogame. If you see a plate of food in a video game, or you walk down a dank alley, it doesn't occur to you to think what it would smell like. In a book it will say "the alley smelled of damp." This makes you think of that smell. The action in a book takes place through the narrative so that sensory description can be interweaved. There is no narrative in a video game, you can compare it only to a play. So we have dramatic action, but not a narrative. So there can be sensory description but never as much as in a novel. You can argue my point all you want, but i'd challenge you to find a single play, movie or videogame where the characters are constantly telling you what things smell like.

You can also use all senses in a game, through description.

The same challenge applies to you.

I really wish people who haven't played it would stop saying that. It's an arguement from authority that doesn't really exist.

You can talk about a horrible event without being maudlin. In all honesty, this should make you unconfortable. It should make you uncomfortable in the same way that 'Flight 93' makes you uncomfortable.

Don't accuse me of being maudlin - but what happens when we can no longer cry? I'd rather find these events upsetting than have no emotion at all. Do you want us all to be cold and tough or do you want us to feel? I know which one i'd choose.

Also, I've already said that films have much more emotional impact than video games. Yes a film would make me feel uncomfortable. A video game would not because the focus is on completing a task and not on the message itself. That would distract me from the central message.

But trying to say a game shouldn't be made, or is in bad taste, simply because you aren't comfortable with it is bullshit.

I never said it shouldn't have been made.

Saying someone can't play a game about Columbine because you think it's wrong is like saying someone can't play with a ball because you don't like the round shape.

with all possible respect, this is completely different. I understand the implications of free speech are that everyone is welcome to release whatever material they want to, whether i agree with it or not. However i don't agree that it is in anyway akin to playing with a ball - i cannot think of a single moral or ethical issue that bouncing a ball would raise. The fact that it is round is a superficial judgement. I am more worried about the deeper impact of a game like this being made. My real question is, what have we got left that is sacred?

Video games are this generations 'Catcher in the Rye'. In 50 years people will see this debate for being as stupid as it is.

Debate is not stupid if it is over an issue such as this. If you think it is stupid, you can choose not to take part. In a democratic system debate is the only way of deciding things.

Video games are pretty much the only medium that allow for you to very literally change the outcome. Games like Deus ex come to mind specifically, though there area many, many different games that have this built in. Also, of course video game make moral judgments. ESPECIALLY linear ones. Like a book, you are helpless to change the outcome and you are bound down the path of the character. All the things you do are weighed agains the things you don't do. For example, let's use HL2 shall we? Gordon Freeman (the player) really DOES only contribute destruction. His goal to overthrow what Breen has been doing is an act of uninformed malice. Infact, Freeman is opporating under the silent but manipulating hand of the Gman. And for what? When the citidel topples, there go the protections around the city, just because they thought it was the right decision and because a mysterious force made him do it. There's nothing there? There's no ambiguity? There's no questin of right and wrong? I beg to differ my friend. The fact that you can't see the subtleties does not mean that they don't exist.

I quite agree, but unlike a book the game never asks this question. There is no analysis inside a video game. The character does not think, you must do the thinking. Therefore you will never come up against any opposition of a meaningful, moral type in a video game. Nobody ever stops you to ask, "is it right to do this?" and even if they do you will be back shooting soldiers mindlessly to get through the game to the end, because you know that is what you have to do. You cannot choose not to shoot them. A video game is linear even if you can choose the outcome - because you can't choose anything, you have limited options. Any "subtleties" that i "can't see" have been imposed on the game by you yourself.

To Further my point. What ambiguity did Die Hard Have? More recently, what did you learn from Crank? Nothing? Wow! You mean that not ALL movies are "art", some are just for fun! Don't bring snobbiness to bear against games, as that same eye can be turned to any other form. Like The DaVinci Code really meant anything.

I didn't say every movie meant soemthign at all. This is simply a straw man argument.

On topic: Yes, the game is distasteful but harmless. If the creators were performance artists, they could say that the game is a divining rod, finding hypocracy in those that defend gaming, routing out silly arguments, bringing about jusitifications. It questions our ideas of free speach, what should be allowed, what are we willing to supress for decency? Wow, look at that, that little game just provoked more thought than your little head could contain.

Firstly and frankly, how dare you insult me in this way, especially after accusing me of snobbery.

Secondly, i think this discussion is entirely healthy. I never said i wanted to silence anyone. Only as i said before,

However much you argue that video games are "another form of expression", they are not yet advanced enough to deal with such heavy subject matter in the way that films and books are.

Please do not assume that i am stupid or that i want to restrict freedom of speech. If you read any of your subtleties into my first post, dragonfliet, you can see that i raised many of the issues that are too big for my little head to contain. Just because you can't see them, doesn't mean they aren't there.

[zombie@computer]

What kind of bs argument is this? A book only uses one sense: sight. You don't FEEL the characters, you don't smell the food, you don't hear the speach. YOu imagine it. The difference is miles apart. A book is great, but don't somehow argue that describing the dinner spread as bursting with smells, cranberryt and roasted almonds soothing the senses someone is the same as an actual dinner. bah.

I would still argue that it is more intense than in a movie or videogame. If you see a plate of food in a video game, or you walk down a dank alley, it doesn't occur to you to think what it would smell like. In a book it will say "the alley smelled of damp." This makes you think of that smell. The action in a book takes place through the narrative so that sensory description can be interweaved. There is no narrative in a video game, you can compare it only to a play. So we have dramatic action, but not a narrative. So there can be sensory description but never as much as in a novel. You can argue my point all you want, but i'd challenge you to find a single play, movie or videogame where the characters are constantly telling you what things smell like.

You gimme one example of a book that has the smell of every object written about in it.

I am more worried about the deeper impact of a game like this being made. My real question is, what have we got left that is sacred?

Why should anything non-personal be sacred?

I quite agree, but unlike a book the game never asks this question. There is no analysis inside a video game. The character does not think, you must do the thinking. Therefore you will never come up against any opposition of a meaningful, moral type in a video game. Nobody ever stops you to ask, "is it right to do this?" and even if they do you will be back shooting soldiers mindlessly to get through the game to the end, because you know that is what you have to do. You cannot choose not to shoot them. A video game is linear even if you can choose the outcome - because you can't choose anything, you have limited options. Any "subtleties" that i "can't see" have been imposed on the game by you yourself.

Is HL2 the only game you ever played? There are tons of games where the player can experience inner moral. Personally, when attacking the enemy in a game, i will try to do that with as less casualties as possible. God-sims have these a lot, but there are also war-simulators where you gotta keep those friends alive. Did you never try to save barney from an imminent scripted death from a few barnacles (hl1:residue processing, barney runs right into a few barnacles after killing a headcrab; saving him from the barnacled death is in fact possible). Offcourse it doesnt go much further than that, but why should it be, its a friggin game?

[Sorrow]

I saved barney once! I had to crowbar his head to pieces to get his weapon though


-oh sorry that was quite inappropriate

[dragonfliet]

I quite agree, but unlike a book the game never asks this question. There is no analysis inside a video game. The character does not think, you must do the thinking. Therefore you will never come up against any opposition of a meaningful, moral type in a video game. Nobody ever stops you to ask, "is it right to do this?" and even if they do you will be back shooting soldiers mindlessly to get through the game to the end, because you know that is what you have to do. You cannot choose not to shoot them. A video game is linear even if you can choose the outcome - because you can't choose anything, you have limited options. Any "subtleties" that i "can't see" have been imposed on the game by you yourself.

Firstly, yeah, I was an ass. Sorry about that.

Next, to adress the quote. Did you ever read fightclub? Does he ever stop and think, hey, maybe what I'm doing is wrong? No. It's implied. Books where someone stops and thinks, oh, is this the moral, are called bestsellers. Fluff. Where the "revalation" has no real impact. Literature poses questions peripherally, every silence, every moment of speach means something greater. Video games can do this as well.

Also, doesn't mindlessly shooting through soldiers mean something? People can argue all day long that Dawn of the Dead (never saw the remake of it) is just a hackfest zombie film. It says nothing, it's just scary. That doesn't make them right. It never says: Hey, those zombies are drawn to the mall because it is a symbol of the consumerism rampant in our society, and the only way to live, to escape is to flee the mall that the main characters are trapped inside. You have to watch it, take what you have seen and extrapolate. It's called art. It's a difficult thing, but not seeing it doens't mean it isn't there.


If you see a random plate of food in a videogame, yes, it's not intense. Why? Beause it isn't important. Likewise a book would descibe a passing meal as a meal (unless it's by Tolkien, in which everything is described in mind-numbing detail). If a game wanted to emphasize the meal they would show it in splendor, high poly models, focus the light, have a character comment on it, perhaps sweep the camera around. The same in movies.

Also, of course there's a narrative in a videogame. Hell, look at Max Payne. We have a simple, first person voice over chronicling a (maudlin, yes)noir story. Style, inner thoughts, a narrator, etc. I'm not going to argue that there's any movie or play or videogame that's contantly TELLING YOU what things smell like, and I certainly as hell hope the books you're reading aren't like that either. Yawn. Seriously. The picture is painted, through setting, through atmosphere, through emphasis. To argue that one form of art is greater than another form of art is a hubris too big to really discuss. No-they're not the same, in fact, they're different. Film does things that books can't, books do things film can't, the same for plays, the same for videogames. YOu cannot translate between them without losing ALOT in between. I could name about 453,980,294 books that are absolute crap, not worth reading, painful, boring, containing little interesting description, painful dialogue and insipid points. Does that mean books are bad? You having a few dozen games on hand that don't inspire you doesn't prove anything.

Not to mention half the point of a game is to be fun. Did you bother getting Advent Rising for it's awesome story? No, because it's only a 'meh' game (I did enjoy the story quite a bit) Have you played Dreamfall for the interesting Narrative? When's the last time you went for a spin through Deus Ex? How about Jade Empire? People seem to hate KOTOR 2 for some inexplicable reason, but I've yet to find a better example of interaction with characters. There is such a range (of course inside crappy animations and so so graphics, but still) in that game it almost hurts. Not to mention how natural the prestige (or influence or whatever it's called) mechanism works. That's not art? Somehow Citizen Kane is better than that? I beg to differ.

~Jason