eden06

Interesting post, I'm starting to enjoy this discussion. Although stated in the posts I linked up to you, particularly the feature in Kotaku after the Dawson College Tragedy, The game was also meant to satirize the conventions and expectations of video gaming as a whole, and the media's opinions of it, the title of the game was also meant to be part of that.

If you think he wanted to do that your entirely within your right to think so. Had he wanted to create maximum buzz though one would have thought there would be a clear cause within it, instead the game sat there for nearly a year with very little media attention.. One would think if he wanted to create a big old splash he would have externally advertised, tipped off the media or got Max Clifford to do it, instead the game spent it's fist year in relative obscurity. Surely if he wanted to create a big old splash then a forum devoted to gaming, such as this one, would be discussing it 1 and a half years ago when the game was released. Also while we're mentioning sensationalist tactics in naming media about this subject, we could also look at the Play and movie "Bang, Bang your dead". It's a film about school shootings, based on a school play about school shootings. The title was clearly meant to be ironic, as is displayed by the content within the film. The real difference between this and the video game is this was sold instead of available for free. By your definition of Danny Ledonne as a crook just below this statement, since the makers of this film have made the exact same statement about they're film as Danny Ledonne made about his, in that the title was ironic, are they lying? If you don't believe they are then why would they sell it and not make it available for free? Surely they were trying to do the exact same thing, infact, they made money! Clearly though this isn't the case, the film and play have helped a certain demographic (namely teachers and students) discuss an issue that isn't normally discussed in a school.

Your right, Danny has also said this to me one to one, and his attitude backs that up, I still really do reccomend you discuss this with him yourself. I'm going to refer to my old buddy the American Heritage dictionary, it states a crook as "Informal. One who makes a living by dishonest methods." Again Danny Ledonne's game was freeware, so if he was planning on making a living off of it, he seems to have got his methods a bit backwards. Mean while, our old friend "Bang Bang You're Dead" IS making money from doing the exact same thing you claim Danny Ledonne as being a crook for.

1: It has a provocative title.
2: It's artist stated that it was meant to cause discussion on the subject of school violence.
3: It makes money, something that defines a "crook" More so by the standards of the American Heritage Dictionary.

So what's the difference other than perceived monetary value? Well, in BBYD the main character talks of his aspirations to become the next Columbine, Paduka, Springfield, in Super Columbine Massacre RPG the lead Characters ARE from an actual school shooting.
But then in Zero Hour, the dramatization made by discovery channel, the main characters are Harris and Klebold, but again, the creators of that aren't refereed to as "Crooks", even though Harris and Klebold are played in such a way it wouldn't look out of place in a blockbuster movie.

The main difference is it's a film and a play instead of a videogame, which seems to be a primary reason it's escaped the media, and your wrath. This seems to me to be counter productive in the method of bringing videogaming up to be a true form of art like any other, since there are things movies can acceptably portray yet videogamers can't.

Does this mean that video gamers are somehow meant to be perceived as less able to make they're own decisions about what they're playing?

Does this mean that videogames are for some reason perceived as a less important art form, Meant to offer only mild titillation and giggles as in various war sims death becomes more blood strewn and gory?

Well now we're having it again, in a different itteration, as Wolfenstein 3d, GTA, Doom and whatever other name we want to drop are currently now accepted by gamers and the majority of none gamers, there's another type of game, one that promotes thought on situations we're not all comfortable with. It clearly does provoke thought and debate before you say it doesn't yet again, because we're having one right now.

GTA was a simple example, but had there been no wolfenstien there would be no EA war games or Dues Ex games, No GTA there would be no rockstar. Just to dig Up a quote.
If you see it as pushing the envelope just for the hell of it isn't that what Rockstar do nearly every single game they release? And I'm yet to see anyone sink from this debate. Furthermore I find it hard to believe you could really see it as disrespectful to the medium even if it is percieved as pushing the envelope for the sake of it. If you wanted to push the envelope in any other medium, you can, I would say it's disrespectful to not attempt to do the same with videogames, treating it like something that should not make someone think.

There are two rhetorics you can go by on this. If you believe in what the game's doing and believe it's justifiable to push the envelope in this field and on this topic then providing you back up it's creation, as I am doing, as Danny Ledonne has done in the numerous interviews, among many other supporters for this game, and believe in it for what it expresses, then it's justifiable.

If you don't believe in this game and believe it's pushing the envelope for the sake of it, then surely it's taking the heat off the games you do like, which can't be counterproductive either. So what exactly is your problem with it pushing the envelope? If you feel it is for the sake of pushing the envelope then you are currently talking to someone who doesn't think that is so, which is why I shall continue to defend this creation as you will try to attack it. This is kinda how democracy works in the first place.

“We” aren't pushing the envelope just for the sake of it, someone is who believes in his right to do that. Just because you don't see this as an important reason to look at the conventions of videogames and they're role in society, doesn't mean nobody else does. If you believe the maker of this game comes off as a jackass then maybe you should discuss that with him if you care about it so deeply, learn about his views and what makes him a jackass. He certainly didn't come off as a jackass to me, and to many others his ideas on the subject have been interpreted in a positive way.

I will use a quote from that review that I really like just because it seems fitting.

"No, this game was not created for the sole purpose of escapist entertainment, nor to glorify the murders. It was written to explore the psyches of two troubled young men in their own language."

You are quite correct. The majority of people within the forums who have played this game and said it has had a positive impact on they're outlook of school shootings have been young people from the ages of 15-20. I can think of five or six off the top of my head who played the game and contacted myself or another member of the forum to discuss it's implications, and how they have been feeling about they're life. This has been seen by me time and time again, just as the original columbine incident had an impact on my life, and Danny's life and our thoughts on the future.

The game is reaching an audience of teenage gamers who play video games and feel there's glory in killing, who feel angry, and a lot of them are coming out thinking about the points it raises, and possible consequences of they're actions. The people who see news reports and murderers faces on Time magazine and imagine themselves as next, who claim these killers to be they're hero's, they play this game, and they talk about it and they very often find someone to talk to about it who has been through the same thing, and come out the other side a healthy, productive member of society. I am interested in the social applications of the columbine game because the columbine tragedy itself, lead me to listen to that voice in my head yelling "think!". It made me resolve that I could make an impact on society without leaving a trail of victims and tv camera's behind me. This is why I'm interested in the incident, this is why I'm interested in the game, this is why I discuss it's implications in the forum and think it's important.

I would have the feeling that the reply to this part of my post will have the "why not become head of a youth group" or some other "constructive" way to help. It's pretty simple, because that's not where potential school shooters will go, that's not where they will be discussing the topic of school shooting, that's not where I can try to help them.

That was not the incident I was speaking of.
Again, I stated to look under the section "Other secondary and post-secondary school killings" In which the first shooting perpetrated by a student is in 1974.

You seem to be looking at the Ma'alot massacre in Isreal, clearly in the section entitled "Infamous School Massacres"

Date: December 30, 1974
Location: Olean, New York, USA
Description : 18-year-old honor student Anthony Barbaro blockaded himself into a third story classroom at his high school and opened fire on those below, killing three people and wounding eleven. He later hanged himself while awaiting trial. A drama was written about the incident entitled Sniper.

Would you like me to read any of my other sources to you or can you cope?

That says more about the people who use the game as a sensationalist scapegoat than the creators of the game as you can clearly see in your own statement. The name is clearly an ironic oxymoron in itself because no massacre is "Super", just like there is no real "Honor" in killing people, unless it's in a war game of course.

Hoewever I shall once again refer to the interview I linked at the start of this post, along with the review of the game, most people seem to have realized that this is as much a satire on the current state of video games and what we expect of them, as it is an exploration of culture.

You can't be serious, MY logic Broke down? I thought you said that the 1974 shooting you found was in isreal yet your clearly aware of who Anthony Barbaro is.

Anyway, let's compare our statements.

Me: Just as certainly as Anthony Barbaro couldn't have been influenced solely by videogames in 1974

You: Barbaro couldn't have been influenced by video games because in 1974 video games were barely even out there. Hell the first home pong system had only been released to the public 2 years previously

Wait? isn't that what I just said? Hold on, I'm yet to see my "Logic Breaking Down" if your repeating what I said as a rebuttal to the same comment, it seems yours is the one who's logic is breaking down.

Me: Eric Houston could not have been influenced by undiagnosed psychopathy or bullying within the school

You:On the other hand an undiagnosed psychopath can be and almost certainly is dangerous and capable of acts such as what Houston did.

I never said a psychopath wasn't capable of what Houston did, Eric Harris proved that, I stated that Houston's case wasn't down to Undiagnosed Psychopathy. As it has been proved it was his anger at not getting a job.

My statement was simply to show there is no single cause for these things, but a plethora of different causes, obviously you seemed to miss that...or did you?

The columbine game doesn't stop you in any way from making it through the game without killing someone, you stated this as the games primary objective no less than three times in your previous post, which I stated three times it wasn't. Now your asking who plays through a game without killing someone the moment they have the opportunity? Do you enjoy killing people? For the brief time you played super columbine massacre was the first thing you did pump two rounds into some kid because you could? Are you really that mindless when it comes to games that to stop you killing a character the game would have to remove the oppurtunity to kill them completely? If that is the case then the bunker mission on Goldeneye for the N64 must've taken you a lifetime to complete.

And again, to those who actually are interested enough to explore the game, they will realize there is more to it than the title, and that the anti video game lobby have done very little to explore it other than the title. And if your that much against giving the anti-video game lobby ammunition, and yet hate this game, then why aren't you thank full that they're not attacking your favorite games? Us who do care about the rights of video gamers and game creators are fighting in your place.

I'm willing to back up the choice of title as a simple comment on what we expect of games, and a satire on the gaming worlds expectations of games, if you're not then why do you care? Putting Super in the title made you clearly want to kill everything in sight anyway so it's probably best you don't try and justify the title, what with the amount of times the word "Super" will be flying around would probably leave more dead than alive. :P

See above, but yes I do think it's wise, because again it highlights what we expect as gamers, and what the public expects of videog games. To me at this stage your only concern seems to be them attacking games in general. Making a game about a massacre clearly your first impression of it was that the purpose of the game was to kill someone. Putting super in the title clearly makes you think that the objective is to kill someone, so far this says more about yourself, and your gut reaction as a games player, as someone who is just as prejudice towards games as the lobyists, I would think it has done it's job.

If you don't buy it, don't buy it, however again, you don't talk to him on a regular basis, and you haven't spent six months getting to know him. Danny Ledonne, if he is as you believe scamming the world for some inexplicable gain, (I'm not sure what you think his alternative goal could be in publishing a free game with little to no fanfare other than to discuss it), he has managed to get by for 18 months now with the games release without giving anything but consistent answers to all questions, both in his own Forum and in the media circus being whipped up around this. 18 Months is a long time to keep a story straight, especially on the Internet, he must believe in his "lies" very much.

As for his plan backfiring I see the contrary, the Forums he created have 7932 registered users as I write this, the forum contains 4440 articles, he has been interviewed numerous times by gaming and none gaming publications around the world, just this weekend he told me was interviewed for a german documentary about the effect of videogames in society and school shootings. If anything I would say that this is the very definition of discussion.

Just because mainstream media sources in many country are choosing to scapegoat the game and assume it's despicable does not really make me think it's backfired. In my post on the forum entitled the "five tier media" I took the classic example of media coverage, exemplified with this quote:

"the media works in several tiers. There's the immediate story that has little more than ambulance chasing in it... there's the retrospective that looks at larger issues around games, shootings, etc... and finally the deeper examination of our culture and how games like mine fit into it. I much prefer the latter but of course that can't happen until the shock and awe stories occur."

And came to the conclusion that the coverage of this subject has personified to me the media's ambulance chasing tactics, with the national and international media not taking the "retrospective" approach, or the "deeper examination" and cutting the story dead after they've blamed whoever they feel like. They did this very much with columbine in my opinion, and this game and the following of the games coverage has proved this. Showing the Mainstream news sources shock and awe tactics, and leaving the local and specialist news sources to discuss the impact of it's stories while they keep the same views.

This game has been an excellent yardstick for me in the way that the mainstream press use shock and awe stories on a subject to get they're ratings up. I see it as representational on the mainstream media's sensationalist tactics on all subjects, columbine RPG is just the battle ground. Point the finger, cut to commercial, forget about it.

I will not condone the silencing free speech on a subject simply because people say so. An example of this would be the cartoon of Muhammad and south parks episodes in series ten (entitled cartoon wars). They were told not to show Muhammad in cartoon form, something they did in a previous series because since the furore in the yllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy, they were no longer allowed to do this at fear of terrorist threat. They're statement in reply was that if freedom of speech was suppressed due to terrorism then terrorism has worked. There is no place for censorship in a society with freedom of speech, it's either all okay or none of it is.

This is very similar to my views here, if we pull a single video game because some asshole lobbyists say they have the right to censor it then they have won, pretty soon they'll say they don't like bully because it incites school violence, or that we shouldn't be allowed to play Goldeneye because the depiction of Russians offends them. This would not be freedom of speech, and it would not be productive or helpful establishing video games as a form of expression with the same rights as any other.

And I actually answered by stating that that is simply a matter of perception. However the issue of school shootings is clearly not being looked at in a constructive way by the current approach, because they are still occurring with alarming frequency. The example and source I gave was the very conversation we had, I know, clever ain't it? You chose to disregard the game and the things it said, which as I exemplified in my last post, was the definition of ignoring. Just like you originally decided to ignore school shootings as a discussion by blaming it solely on the parents:

A tact you have since changed:

But no longer all of it? Seemingly this game and it's ability to force discussion in which people alter they're views, strikes again.


Again, the language in the title was a Satire on what we come to expect of games.

Define:Satire

Your comparison seems to be flawed, since the cause of this game is not to create equal rights for the killers or victims, it is to talk about the impact of school massacres and gamings role in culture. However, I don't know what you would do to give gay men equal rights to straight men, possibly stop referring to them as “gays” would be a start. As far as I know gay men already have equal rights to straight men. However, as an advocate for free speech and also a gay man, I would have to investigate the game further just out of interest. I would be aware when playing it though, that although I wouldn't necessarily condone what it said, the makers of the game would have every right to say it, as dictated by the conditions of free speech in the first place. Chances are I wouldn't find it any more offensive than I do "Will and Grace" anyway, since I have numerous fantasies of going over him with a chainsaw.

And while we talk about dialog flowing, it's still flowing here, it also flowed in all the other forum posts and interviews I've sourced to you so far.

The stolen laptop from the school is a classic example of something that can be taken many ways, for instance the principal of that school stated "the potential for an 'evil side'...that there was a violent, angry streak in these kids". Had he have had any serious concerns then surely he's responsible too?

This was the second time One of the two had been in trouble for threatening another student, the first time was in 1997 when an affidavit was filed to search Eric Harris house after he threatened Brookes Brown, however this was never fully followed through, so the investigator was also at fault.
The fire created by the two in the dumpster behind the pizza store required the fire department, however there are no sources I've seen that claim the parents were informed of this. Also the fire was encouraged by the owner of the pizza shop, should he not have been in someway to blame for allowing this to happen?

Did not describe THE murder scene but a similar murder scene, which wasn't set in a school but in a tavern, and read more like a scene from "Desperado" or "Once Up on a Time In Mexico" than a detailed plan of the columbine massacre. However I remember writing a story for creative writing when I was 16 about suicide, and when my mother read it and asked me if I really felt that way I told her no, and I was right. She trusted me, an action she was right to take as she trusted her son. Had I of then decided to kill myself I would have been lying to her, a perfectly easy concept for a 15 year old to get his head around, as it is a perfectly simple concept for a 17 year old like Dylan Klebold, to lie convincingly.

I never stated that the parents weren't in some way responsible for there inability to see the signs within they're kids, but it must be taken into consideration that not all kids can be monitored 100% of the time, and that these adolescents are as responsible for they're own actions as the parents were not seeing the signs, the teachers were ignoring them, and Erics anger management therapist was for not picking up his warped interpretation of the world. Clearly you see that your child is a thinking entity and I imagine that if your child feels under any pressure or any form of emotional problems he will come to you as a first port of call and you will listen. This isn't always the case with every parent, a lot of parent's feel that providing they're children aren't playing certain games that give them "violence" like some disease then there isn't a chance they could ever think of doing such a thing, another example the current climate of "scapegoat, repeat, forget" aspect of news coverage is surely lacking, and something we should open a dialog on.

I've never not asked why the hell the parents didn't see it, however they honestly believed, like you do, that they're kid is inherently a "good kid". I never stated that it was simply a shame his parents didn't see it, but a lot of other people didn't do anything within there powers to stop this from happening. Searching his stuff may have been a good answer, but not all parents believe in searching through an intelligent, gifted and seemingly well adjusted 18 year olds stuff, as they have to appreciate some level of privacy. This approach has worked with millions of other adolescents, making sure you are confident as a parent in you're child's ability to think for him or herself, and making sure you look out for potential signs can definitely help, however missing these signs does not mean you have 100% inherently failed as a parent, it just means that a combination of lapses in judgment from a vast number of professionals and none professionals have allowed an intelligent 18 year old to pull the wool over they're eyes for long enough to pull off such a despicable act. Completely removing the opportunity for them to commit independent acts could solve this, but could also lead to resentment within a child of that age, and doesn't allow them the freedom to grow. The key is to find the fine balance between giving the child space, and allowing him to know that whatever problems he is having, he can always come and talk to his parents. This can be difficult enough for trained people to see in a fully matured child, let alone parents. Again I am not saying that there is no blame to be focused on the parents, but I am stating that they are not the sole cause of such stupidity.

Although I do agree with this in the case of most children, you have to remember that Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold were not a typical example of kids. One had Psychopathy disorder and is very likely to have killed or committed violent crimes at some point in his life, and a very advanced in his ability to deceive, one was depressive, something that's hard to perceive during puberty because a lot of the symptoms, mood swings, feelings of social inadequacy, shyness, are also apparent in typical puberty. Again, I'm not saying that the parents aren't in some way responsible for not spotting this, but they certainly were not whatever it was that caused the two to act out the massacre, and lie about it.

You never hid anything from your parents? Wow, no offence but your teenage years must've been dull as hell. I can't imagine how boring my teenage years would have been without a little sex, drugs, beer, rock and roll and a little self discovery.

But, you said that bad parenting was all about keeping your kids on a leash, searching through they're stuff, rummaging through they're private things and if you don't that makes you a bad parent. So now it's not just they're failure to notice he was building an arsenal that caused problems but overall failure in parenting style? Again, if that was the case then surely ALL children of the Harris and Klebold parenting style would have to be involved in columbine, for it to be solely the parents fault.

Your next sentance was a reitteration of what we've discussed already, so I'm just going to take the things you said that were new, since this is already reaching 6 and half thousand words.

Again, you've changed your tune since you stated that blaming anyone other than the parents would be idiotic. Definately all parties involved dropped the ball in this case, I have to agree with you here.

I would say that the cocktail effect still has it's effect more so than simply the parents. As I say, the parents should have spotted this, as should have alot of other people these kids came into contact with. But they're parenting wasn't the cause of they're childrens actions, had it have been then all they're children would have committed such attrocities. Labelling all the places where people should have listened to what these two kids are saying is something that the game, the current dialog we are engaged in and anyone with a common ounce of sense is trying to do. The “single cause” scapegoat tactics if the mainstream media isn't working.

There is no indication that the parents, or any other strong influences on they're lives ever knew about this situation.

Use of phrases and words like "probably" and "I bet", as well as your confrontational attitude when asking for my take on it gave me the indication that you were yet to play it, and were still knee jerking.



I'm not surprised at all when people get pissed, to be honest I hope they get so pissed that they spit up in they're coffee, like I do when I watch them blame DOOM on my TV, or Marilyn Manson for the actions of two complex, but fucked up people and then advertise too me. It's like they're making money by spreading lies, it ignores the full depth of the issue, completely disrespects the real issues at hand (the full width of cultures influence on them, and the failings of many people who knew these two troubled boys) and is counter productive too the one possible good cause that could come out of such a tragedy (Making sure it NEVER happens again). And then after they've pissed themselves and cleaned up the mess, I hope they play the game, or better yet come into the games forums so I can rip apart they're sensationalist, bigoted scapegoating.

Again, the title of this game is the definition of satire, it not only ridicules standard video gaming conventions, but also the idiots who can't see further than it being a video game with an inflammatory title.

I would say that squirming out would probably not being able to justify his creation too himself, which he has done, and slinking away like so many other people. Instead he has tried to reply to every critique, is contactable on his website, and clearly truly believes in what he's done, something that a lot of other people, myself included, believe in too.

Again, this isn't what I have seen, this online war at the moment seems very quiet, considering this is possibly the first discussion I've had about this game in a few weeks. The war ended around three months ago, peaking on may 17th when his website had over 200 people logged in at once, since then he has committed himself to several interviews on the subject of violent video games, defending our right as responsible gamers to play and create them. In most places we seem to be entering the “Reflection” period.

I will again refer you too "Bang Bang Your Dead", A film about the same subject with an equally shocking satirical title, of which the play iteration has been performed in over 10,000 youth groups around the world. I'll direct you to the definition of satire again.

You can't be serious? If he was trying to create something about his own interpretation on a subject, he would have committed the research himself and come out with his own ideas about such data, which he did. One of the main messages he has tried to throw out with the game is "make something, don't think that art has to be dictated by conglomerates".

Video games reach a different audience than that. Harris and Klebold played video games, and video games are very much they're language. There have been numerous documentaries on the subject (Zero Hour for example) that have charted the course of the day directly. So many newspaper columns penned that I could probably use them to mop up pigeon shit in Trafalgar square for a year, and who the hell reads Blogs anyway?

The game reaches people who normally wouldn't get in contact with content on the subject, and be able to really look at columbine and reflect on it, possibly the people most effected by school shootings and the administrations proposed "solutions" to it, teenagers. Potential school shooters. Jeff Weise being a classic example of this, had the game been out when he was feeling low in january 2005 when he was making flash animations and journal entries about how he felt, and decided to check it out, he may have entered the forums and if he had then Danny, myself and Others could have tried to help him. Of course, he might not of, but there are others I do know who did.

If one parent decides to go onto that website to verbally abuse Danny or the players of that game and finds out more about the school shooting problem in America and the world...if it causes them for ONE SECOND to realize that this could happen anywhere, to anybody, including they're child...If it causes them to take FIVE MINUTES out of they're day to sit with they're child and make sure they are okay, and nothing is bothering them...then this game has done it's job.

It's all the things that will attract the people who need to be playing the game, who need to be finding out about school shootings and thinking about the consequences of they're actions. It has happened before, it has caused teachers to say "I want to raise the subject with my class" and people to say "this forum has given me a place to talk about school shootings." As far as I'm concerned, I'm willing to defend anything that has done that, just because the title causes agenda pushing biggots to launch a tirade on videogames, I don't give a crap, if it wasn't this game it'd be Bully, or GTA, or Goldeneye, or....stop me if this is all looking familiar.

He should try to do whatever he wants to justify his art, he made it, at least he feels it's for a valid reason he can justify to himself, and a fair amount of others, I can't say that about every creation in videogaming history. (E.T. Comes to mind) A lot of games designers will create something clearly for controversy, and then pull it down with a frank apology (hot coffee anyone?) however Danny Ledonne stands by his creation, and his stated beliefs for creating them as much now as he ever did, for that I can't see how he can be faulted, no matter what you perceive to be perfect or imperfect about this game.

Regardless of what you perceive his motives to be, his stated motives are clearly working, through this discussion we have discussed Columbine, the nature of video games and our own perceived view of they're place in society, all things that were his stated intentions, all things that were bought about by you saying this game couldn't/didn't do.

It seems your one real concern with this is the implied perception on you as a gamer by others who may associate your hobby with this game. You seem to be worried about the people who will somehow want to ban all video games you do like for this one you don't like, which I think is sad. Your real thoughts as a gamer don't seem to be FOR free speech, but FOR the free speech people will deem acceptable by societies standards. You don't seem to want to defend your right as a gamer to chose what is acceptable for yourself and what isn't acceptable accounting to your tastes and interests, just keep your head down and hope it will go away. Quite frankly the Tipper Gores of the world haven't even lived an hour of my life, who the hell are they to tell me what is and isn't appropriate for me to play?

The only person who decides what games I should and shouldn't play is myself, and I will defend my right to play this game, or any other, no matter how much I don't agree with it's content. Anything other than that would be admitting that I couldn't make my own decisions pertaining to what I can and can't play because I'm somehow lacking in morals. I don't feel anyone has a right to say what people play, or anyone has a right to say what games people should make.

Well this conversation has been doing well, since we have been discussing this, the youth violence problem, the roll of videogames in society, and neither us nor anyone else who have partook in this conversation so far have stated that "Video games are evil!"

I've played it, have you? I think we're both pretty responsible people, and would both like to help ourselves and others find a workable solution to school violence.

Again, I'm yet to see a blizzard of anti videogame rhetoric in this forum as a result to the release of this game, we seem to have had a fairly good discussion about the issues raised in this game without turning it into a flame war. And if anyone wants to really abuse gaming as a whole they will probably avoid forums full of gamers, and go to the forum for the game itself, where myself, and the other users, the creator of the game included happily step up to the plate and defend the medium we love to death. If anyone hates all games, then it's good that this is here to keep the focus off other great games, like manhunt, GTA, or Mario Kart (okay, maybe not Mario Kart, they seem too have left that one alone). Even if you think it has no potential value other than that, then it's done some good.