Video Game Tests the Limits. The Limits Win.

[Mr. Happy]

I felt that this belonged more in Serious Discussion rather than Gaming Chat due to the nature of it. MOD's feel free to move it if you disagree.

This may be old news.

I just read an article in the newspaper called "Video Game Tests the Limits. The Limits Win." It talked about the 'Guerilla Gamemaking Competition' and one of the entry's, 'Super Columbine Massacre Role Playing Game!' This game, the premise of which is obvious, was originally a finalist in the competition before protest, anger, hate mail, and, probably, mothers against everything cool, cajoled the competition organizer, Peter Baxter, to overrule the judges and have it pulled.

In response to this seven other games dropped out in protest (one came back as it was by a group of DigiPen students, and thus owned by the school).

This begs the question, "are video game art?" and "how far can they go?"

Mr. Baxter said "Absolutely I think games should be judged by a different criteria than film. I just don't accept a direct comparison." Although I agree with this, I dont agree that some content should be off-limits. For example, if someone made a game based on United Flight 93 there would be outrage, while the film was a major success and received critical acclaim.

I believe that games have a greater capacity to invoke emotion and thought than film, and that they should not be censured in this way.


What do you think? Should there be limits? Are games art or not? Is the role-playing aspect of a video-games story (not just RPG's) make difficult content too hard to bear, or distastefull? Would you play Super Combine Massacre Role Playing Game!?

Super Columbine Massacre Role Playing Game!

p.s. I will scan the article from 'The New York Times' if anyone wants.

[RSX WHEEEEEE]

looks crappy. same deal w/ narc. controversial, but crappy.

[DeathProdigy]

yea i just watched the google video they had imbedded in there page. i probably wouldn't play that as games like that (pooy graphics and ripping off other games (doom final fantasy pokemon)) as they don't really interest me too much, if they made an fps like jfk reloaded i'd play that

[Jest@]

Mr. Masden's take in the issue

Meh, In fairness I can't really support it. There are still limits, even for games...generally they're misconcieved IMO (more Mr. Masden here), but they're still there. You say there'd be outrage at a United 93 game - only if you played as a hijacker. EG I wouldn't want to see GTA:Central Africa, where you cruise around in a landrover shooting innocents to keep the others in line, then raping all the women until you get AIDS, upon which you enter a bonus round and infect as many people as possible before you die..it would just be too too much. Freedom of speech has always had some restraints - which should be kept as few as possible, of course, and preferably the restraints wouldn't be needed cos there'd be no audience for or misinterpretation of far-out views. But till that day we have to accept there are always limits, to everything.

and so ends my annual trip into the Serious Discussion forum.

[dragonfliet]

Video games have the POTENTIAL to be art. It could be argued that they are, but they are at best low art, I'm sad to say. Of course, I feel the same way about alot of crap such as the Britney spears giving birth sculpture thingyjig.

Even should vidogames be widely ACCEPTED as art, the question is a value of how far should something go. Seriously, comparing UF 93 to SCMRPG is beyond silly. While UF 93 deals with a very touchy subject, it does so with balance, reason, empathy and skillful direction. SCMRPG is absurd, devoid of subtlety, empathy, balance, etc. The sole purpose of the game is to make light of a tragedy. This is the reason it's a controversy. It's not about it being art, it's about it being hurtful and disgusting to people.

Games DO have a great capacity to evoke emotion, but I disagree that it's any greater than film or literature or paintings, etc. It's simply different. For example, I have never cried from a videogame.( I swear to god if anyone mentions FF7 I will kick your ass. Perhaps if I had played it when I was 10, but it is a silly game with far too exaggerated drama and has a story that wouldn't have gotten a nod for subtlety in a soap opera awards ceremony) This isn't because videogames are incapable of having that much emotion, it's because they simply haven't. They haven't yet been made with the skillfulness and intelligence necessary to elicit such a response. On the other hand, I've cried both times I've watched Children of men. When games are full of such moving sacrifice and beauty, then they will command respect.

Of course there are limits. People are free to break them, but there should be no surprise when it pisses people off. The role-playing aspect of a game has an amazing capacity to elicit emotions, and yes, it could make something hard to bear I imagine, but that could be played to a good cause.

No, I have no desire to play SCMRPG, as the gameplay is tired and the concept is simply stupid. I have no need to play reactionary dribble like that. Hell, I barely have time to play all the games I enjoy. Go play Cloud, then come back and talk about games as art.

~Jason

edit: Jest@, don't forget raping infants when you get AIDS to cure yourself.

edit2: Just read the article (dur) and I wanted to respond to the criticisms of a lack of freedom of speech. The advertisers pulled support because they do not support games like that. I think this is good. Vote with your wallet, which this company did. Good for them. Then the organizers decided that the game was less important than sponsorship given by these people. Again, this emphasizes their belief in the game. While some will get grumpy, I don't see this as a problem of freedom of speech, in fact, I see it as a perfect example of it. He's free to make his game, there's nothing wrong with distributing it, but hey, there is no freedom of speech vacuum where people must accept your work no matter what, and as a result it's not in the festival. I think that's a beautiful thing. Agree with the people, disagree with the people, it doesn't matter. That's how it works and I support that.

[Mr. Happy]

Err....U.S.C pulled their support because and after he kicked out SCMRPG: "We became sponsers because we wanted to be part of a contest that stood for certain values having to do with freedom of expression and creativity. And when it didn't anymore, we had to pull our support."

Maybe he was just going for shock value, I dont know. Still art is any creative expression. Which I believe all games are. As much as you AND I ALSO disagree with the game's style and portrayal of the shooting, I still have to accept it as a valid expression of the way he viewed it. Personally, I am disgusted by ten-foot by five-foot photographs of a woman's vagina swen shut and her clitoris removed, still it is art. Seperate from that, who am I to say whether the artist thinks the procedure is the right thing to do or not? They are simply protraying it in a way that shocks people, and draws attention to it. Which this game is also doing.

I think a game where you play as a Sudanese fighter could explore it contemplatively. Maybe you join the militia because you want to establish the government that you think they believe in, and become disgusted with your commanders and fellow fighters, doubtful it would happen in real life but still....

Something that just came to mind is Splinter Cell: Double Agent. There is a part where you have to choose whether or not to shoot a totally innocent hostage in the face. This is complicated by the fact that you are, a double agent, and this is something that undercover's encounter all the time. In the game the camera is shaking, there are lots of effects that convey Sam Fisher's emotions. Thus they have turned a despicable act into a difficult choice for the player. I honestly had a hard time shooting the guy, and only did it because I realzed I had to.


You may call it terrorism, they call it jihad and believe it is the right thing to do. Would a game that showed the recruiting, training, and indoctrinating/brainwashing process be offensive? Is jihadism actually immoral? No. Is it unethical? Yes, but only to some.

I dont think there is any subject that should be taboo in any media, I guess my point is that no matter how its portrayed games usually are judged outside the lens of artistic freedom.

[Athlete{UK}]

The problem you have with this topic is you bring up and old age question. What is art? Even long standing artists and lecturers can't fully agree. What is an art form?

Does a difference between design for functionality and freedom for creativity make them two things?

My feeling is Art is what makes us unique as a species on this planet.

Other creatures make marks, songs or even dances (see bees) but none of them do it with any creative thinking. It's ALL there to be functional.

A computer games main purpose is to be a functional piece of software. You do however need art to go into a computer game. That doesn't automatically make the whole thing art just certain aspects.

But i've never seen a game which was just functional. There has had to have been some creative thought gone into the process somewhere. Even pong must have had that abstract idea of. "Hey lets use these pixles and make something fun." Look at spore. That's certainly not just a functional piece of software.

So this means that games can be an art and that most are just to varying amounts. I mean even clones have their own designs.

People like to put Art and Design into their own section but as far as i'm concerned they can co-exist in a piece and even intermingle so the art is part of the design and the design is part of the art. Being a "low" or a "high" art however doesn't depend upon the medium. It's more then possible for games to become "high" art. It would just take someone with the flare and ideas to do this.

How far can they go? How far can we go? Whilst I do believe generally that everything is OK or nothing is. Sometimes the statement gets a little blurry. TO be fair I think unless the game was absoloutly stupidly making fun of the people that died pulling it out was fair enough but whilst I can't understand what the mothers must have gone through nor do I hope I ever will there has to be a point at which you let go of this stuff. But I agree with Dragon fillet on this the game was retarded.

All art is subject to moderation in someway though.

P.S. I went from ICT technician to fine art student in 6 months. Fuck me I already sound like a pompus twat.

[BaRRaKID]

"Games don't make me violent, stupid people do!"

This is when I feel happy to live in a country where freedom of speech (or intellectual / artistic freedom) actually means freedom of speech. You don't see anything censored here in Portugal; you could make 10 games like that that no one would give a dam.
I bet that the families of the victims wouldn't think twice if a big Hollywood studio gave them a few bucks to create a movie about the massacre. But games are always the underdog; they are looked at as being evil, maybe because they are much more effective in transmitting a message then a movie. What you see in a movie is almost never the reality, it’s a soft sized version of it. They bring all those special effects, and cheesy scripts, which most of the times are used to increase the nationalist feeling in America (like a Nazi propaganda movie, but with a billion dollars budget), which are what really makes kids think that killing everyone that hates you is the solution.
A game on the other hand doesn't fit inside those boundaries; games go wherever they want to go, because we know it’s not real. They give you a chance to experience that reality in the first person, they can show you how things really happen (except for non realistic games), and it’s the parents job to educate their kids to understand and evaluate that experience properly.
Besides if I ever died I would love if someone made a game about it, it would be the greatest homage ever. I also think that those who died wouldn't give a fuck if someone made a video game about them, in fact they would probably be proud.
Its not like the authors of the game are exploiting the massacre to get profit, I look at it as a political statement; they are saying "this is what really happened, and we shouldn't forget it".
But people are to narrow minded to understand these concepts and it’s easier to point your finger at the other then it is to educate people on the subject.

[dragonfliet]

"Games don't make me violent, stupid people do!"

This is when I feel happy to live in a country where freedom of speech (or intellectual / artistic freedom) actually means freedom of speech. You don't see anything censored here in Portugal; you could make 10 games like that that no one would give a dam.
I bet that the families of the victims wouldn't think twice if a big Hollywood studio gave them a few bucks to create a movie about the massacre. But games are always the underdog; they are looked at as being evil, maybe because they are much more effective in transmitting a message then a movie. What you see in a movie is almost never the reality, it’s a soft sized version of it. They bring all those special effects, and cheesy scripts, which most of the times are used to increase the nationalist feeling in America (like a Nazi propaganda movie, but with a billion dollars budget), which are what really makes kids think that killing everyone that hates you is the solution.
A game on the other hand doesn't fit inside those boundaries; games go wherever they want to go, because we know it’s not real. They give you a chance to experience that reality in the first person, they can show you how things really happen (except for non realistic games), and it’s the parents job to educate their kids to understand and evaluate that experience properly.
Besides if I ever died I would love if someone made a game about it, it would be the greatest homage ever. I also think that those who died wouldn't give a fuck if someone made a video game about them, in fact they would probably be proud.
Its not like the authors of the game are exploiting the massacre to get profit, I look at it as a political statement; they are saying "this is what really happened, and we shouldn't forget it".
But people are to narrow minded to understand these concepts and it’s easier to point your finger at the other then it is to educate people on the subject.

This is kind of a silly Rant. This game has not been censored, it has not been deemed illegal, it has not been banned. It was pulled from a videogame competition because the sponsors didn't like what it stood for. This is their right. Why should they not have a say what their money is going towards? But it wasn't even that, they simply pulled support, and then the contest organizers tossed out the game.

This is not censorship, this is advertising. It pisses me off when people get all pissy about freedom of speech, but they don't think for a second that the advertisers were simply using theirs.

On top of that, it's a game that's built to inspire controversy, and it did. Some people make Jesus out of Elephant Dung, some people make columbine RPGs. I think both are shit, personally. But they were both allowed to be made, neither was censored (though the elephant dung almost was, stupid Mayor)

As for games being more effective, I have no idea what you're talking about. Games are great, games have a bright future, but they're not particularly effective at conveying messages. They lack subtlety and effectiveness. Movies so far have best delved into the human conscious, they make us laugh and cry and feel jealousy and hurt. Games, not so much. SCMRPG on top of that is simply silly. The "getting inside the killer's heads" was silly, non-informative and the message of how they were also a victim of columbine was heavy handed and ineffectual at best.

You scoff at movies not being reality, of course not! We KNOW they're not reality. It's not their job to be reality. It's their job to work from reality, to create a new world with new characters that we can relate to. Hell, Elephant was controversial as hell when it came out, and it's actually smartly made. (For those that don't know, it's a fictional movie about Columbine) This game doesn't even deserve to snivel at the feet of that movie. I'm sorry, it's just crap

This game is not being made for a profit, you're right, but it's still exploitative. It's a bad RPG, with bad writing (I don't care if they "ripped" the killers own words into the game), lame gameplay mechanics, silly, over the top moralizing, etc. Yes, they're making a statement, but it's not about educating people, it's not about bettering humanity, it's Look at what I did, this is a touchy subject for people. Being controversial does not make something art.

On top of that, I'm sick of people standing being shit games like this and trumpeting the "art" of videogames. Find something good before you put your message of art behind it. Hell, Façade tries to be art (it's not great, but it's interesting), it deals with relationships and how a third person in an argument can swing it. Why not trumpet it? I'm a proponent of the idea that games are art as well, and on their own terms, but it's silly when junk like this gets hoisted onto reactionary gamers shoulders as some sort of king. This is why people don't take it seriously. The only thing that they see being proclaimed art is garbage. Seriously. If the only movie I had ever seen was Glitter and you proclaimed that film was art I'd look at you like you were crazy too.

~Jason is annoyed by this

[Mr. Happy]

The sponser (U.S.C.) pulled their support because the organizer overruled the judges and pulled the game because of hate mail he received. Pulling the game from the competition had nothing to do with money.

'We wanted to be a part of a contest that stood for certain values having to do with freedom of expression and creativity.' she said. 'And when it didn't anmore, we had to pull our support.'

They pulled their support, after the game was pulled.

[dragonfliet]

The sponser (U.S.C.) pulled their support because the organizer overruled the judges and pulled the game because of hate mail he received. Pulling the game from the competition had nothing to do with money.

'We wanted to be a part of a contest that stood for certain values having to do with freedom of expression and creativity.' she said. 'And when it didn't anmore, we had to pull our support.'

They pulled their support, after the game was pulled.

My mistake. It still works. People voiced their opinions and the organizer listened to them. Then the sponsor got pissed and pulled their support. Either way, you have people saying what they want to say, acting how they think is best, etc. Freedom of speech lives, in all of its imperfection. Thanks for clarifying for me. I had thought that sponsors had prompted the pulling. Must have read that wrong.

~Jason

[Grantax]

All of the replies were too long for me to read.
Anyway, I thought it was Combine Shooting Massacre, so I was about to download until I saw the boring screens. :/

There are SOME limits, yes, a game like this may affect some of those who had much to do with the massacre, but I've never heard about it..

[Nav]

"I believe that games have a greater capacity to invoke emotion and thought than film, and that they should not be censured in this way. "

I don't believe so, I always feel much more emotional after watching a serious movie than game... I rarely have strong emotions after or during playing a game unless it's really good..

[Kelikan]

...they allowed someone to submit an RPG Maker game?

[Kev_Boy]

Video games have the POTENTIAL to be art. It could be argued that they are, but they are at best low art, I'm sad to say.

Games DO have a great capacity to evoke emotion, but I disagree that it's any greater than film or literature or paintings.

What a load. The only reason you say this is because it's the 'new' kid on the block, but modern games far exceed drawings/paintings.