lindalove

Be warned, this is absolutely grotesque on every level. Some idiot decided to make an online RPG about the day of the Columbine High School killings. You play as Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris, and the obvious point of the game is to kill as many of your classmates as possible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_C...e_Massacre_RPG

And the actual game can be found here: http://www.columbinegame.com/

I think it's just twisted. Some people are saying that this is no different than any WW2/army video games, because you're still killing people there.

What do you think?

Willravel

I think that we went to war in WW2 to stop evil. This game promotes it.

feelgood

Doesn't make must difference to me. As far as I'm concern, this game is just one of the many games that are tasteless.

I think you need to look at a perspective of what the developer's intention was. Developers of market-made games that are based on WWII and such, intented to make money and entertain people. It seems that the developer of this columbine game did for the reason of:

That's rather tasteless...

__________________
Looking out the window, that's an act of war. Staring at my shoes, that's an act of war. Committing an act of war? Oh you better believe that's an act of war

aberkok

From the description on the site, it doesn't seem entirely malicious in its intent. Looks like an attempt to break down the idea that there were "bad guys" and "good guys" in Columbine. Certainly looks like it'll get people thinking. I think it would be hasty to judge it as sick and twisted. Whether it is well done is another matter.

I wonder if the programmer couldn't choose something better to do, like raising gun control issues or writing petitions.

__________________
!check out my new blog! http://arkanamusic.wordpress.com

Warden Gentiles: "It? Perfectly innocent. But I can see how, if our roles were reversed, I might have you beaten with a pillowcase full of batteries."

ktspktsp

Apparently, the gunman in Montreal who started shooting at students at a college (and killed one, then killed himself) had listed this game as his favorite internet game...

Elphaba

ktspktsp, I can't tell you how sick that makes me. I had thought about posting in the Montreal thread about a possible wannabe from Columbine, but it seemed so unlikely.

This "game" would also explain the recent "long coat" killing a month or so ago, when a guy kills his father then goes after students at the high school.

This is one of those situations when I am sorely tried on the freedom of speech rhetoric. Where is the responsibility that should be attached to something bordering on hate speech?

aberkok

While I certainly don't approve of this game, I don't think it should be seen as a cause of anything. The "video game violence" debate has been raised before. I did a quick Google and found this article:

http://www.livescience.com/technolog..._violence.html

If this Columbine game should be blamed for something, it should be the bad graphics and obviously poor (from the screenshots) pastiche of gameplay styles.

__________________
!check out my new blog! http://arkanamusic.wordpress.com

Warden Gentiles: "It? Perfectly innocent. But I can see how, if our roles were reversed, I might have you beaten with a pillowcase full of batteries."

Gilda

While they certainly have the right to make and to play the game, I have to say that I find it repulsive.

Gilda

__________________
I'm against ending blackness. I believe that everyone has a right to be black, it's a choice, and I support that.

~Steven Colbert

Elphaba

I agree that responsibility ultimately rests with the perpetrator of the act. I also know that there is no reasonable way to set limits on free speech. But I still believe that games of this kind are guilty of far more than bad graphics.

I hate poor pastiche.

777

The game was made with a game making program. The program is neutral, just like the guns are. It's the wielder that makes the difference.

It's the gunman that pulled the trigger. Not the gun, not the game.

__________________
"I don't know that I ever wanted greatness, on its own. It seems rather like wanting to be an engineer, rather than wanting to design something - or wanting to be a writer, rather than wanting to write. It should be a by-product, not a thing in itself. Otherwise, it's just an ego trip."

Roger Zelazny

Kaliena

I hate it when games get blamed for someone's actions...

I highly doubt that the game itself was the prime and only reason for the recent shootings. I don't support this particular game but I just think it's wrong to sit there and go "IT'S THE GAME'S FAULT! IT ENCOURAGED/LED/MADE HIM DO IT!!"

It makes me feel like I should be hunting witches or something.

__________________
~Beware the waffle~

bookerV

The game is not to be blamed for anyone's actions, it's just a stupid game and what a person does is entirely up to them, no matter their influences. But having said that I think it's a fucking sick game. Columbine, and now Montreal, are absolutely dispicable acts, and any game that in any way glorifies it or trivializes it is not good in my eyes. I can't believe people would play that game...

__________________
"That's why you're the judge and I'm the law-talking guy."

Lionel Hutz

rockogre

How utterly tasteless, useless, and childish is this? Somewhere, some guy is sitting around feeling proud of this effort. I sincerely hope that the next time he farts, it has lumps in it and he's in public.

__________________
Only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you,
Jesus Christ and the American G. I.
One died for your soul, the other for your freedom

aberkok

Back in my high-school days, we referred to this phenomenon as "a three-dimensional."

__________________
!check out my new blog! http://arkanamusic.wordpress.com

Warden Gentiles: "It? Perfectly innocent. But I can see how, if our roles were reversed, I might have you beaten with a pillowcase full of batteries."

Jinn

By suggestion of this thread, I downloaded it and played it. It's not bad.

It's a 2D isometric game, similar to games like Final Fantasy II or III - it looks like it was made with RPG Maker.

Whomever made it (Danny Ledone, as I've found out) did a great deal of research into Columbine and loaded the dialog with a fair share of satire and inside jokes. One that made me laugh was when you're walking around you see a broken pipe. If you click on it, Dylan says something to the effect that it's a shame the repairman is going to be mistaken for the third shooter (something he would clearly not know).

When you're loading up on CO2 bombs and guns at the beginning of the game, there's a Marilyn Manson CD you can pick up. I thought it was funny because when you select it, it says:

"Even though I'm not really a huge fan, the mainstream media will probably jump all over this guy for what happens today..."

You find Marilyn Manson CD!

And you can actually equip it as an "Accessory" on either Dylan or Eric. The same goes for the "Doom 3D" game, and it boosts your accuracy with all of your guns by a great deal.

The game is well composited and flows seemlessly, but the instructions are relatively vague. When you're tasked with placing the bombs in the cafeteria, it doesn't mention that you've got to get them out of Dylan's trunk first. I kept getting to the cafeteria and I couldn't figure out how to place them. Little did I know, I didn't even have them yet.

The music is well composited, and certain tracks fire up at key moments. Du Hast fires up when Dylan pulls the fire alarm, You're all so Fucking Special when you get your guns, etc. Although it is MIDI quality sound, it is very well timed and suceeds at making the game more immersive.

A few tips that I saw:

Trying all of the different attacks available to the two is novel at first, but it becomes tiring eventually. You'll soon switch to Auto Combat mode just because it's tiring to select your rifle over and over again. Be warned, though, that you can get jumped by up to 3 janitors at once when you're heading towards the library. The first time I almost died to them - use Napalm or the Tec9 because they both hit multiple targets at once.

The Jocks are the hardest, and can actually often dodge your attacks. You're best to use a Propane bomb or use the rifles of both boys. When you encounter the group of Jock Boy / Preppy Boy / Church Boy and Black boy, make sure that you also use your area-effect attacks.

Make sure you kill the nerdy girls when you see them, as they drop Luvox, an antidepressant and an effective heal potion.

Even with it's tiringly repetetive combat system, Columbine Massacre RPG does pretty well - nicely timed music and a very solidly researched story. There are quite a few snippets of the past (flashbacks) and dialog between the two characters that lets you see the "Massacre" from Dylan and Eric's side. Much of the dialog and video clips from Dylan and Eric are reminiscent of fight club - the strongest survive, this is the new generation of humanity, etcetera. Unfortunately, the game is rather short and only ended up being an hour or so of play time.

At the end you're shown quite gruesome pictures of Dylan and Eric after killing themselves, and you're presented by a monolog by one of them... it begins "In this very last moment, many things run through my mind - maybe it could've all been different somehow.."

I'd give it about a 7 out of 10. Amusing, controversial perhaps, but nothing altogether special.

I recommend you play it, just for giggles.

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

EDIT: I also found a neat article about "Richard Castaldo, who was last paralyzed from the chest down after being shot in the arm, chest, back and abdomen by Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold during their attack on Columbine High School, emailed me recently about our post on the Super Columbine Massacre RPG."

http://www.kotaku.com/gaming/feature...rpg-171966.php

__________________
"I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel

Carno

I love the United States.

__________________
http://how-to-spell-ridiculous.com/

sharpnova

I think the general response to this game is pretty close-minded and biggoted.

goddess_otu

That's disgusting. The makers of this game are essentialy profiting from the murder of innocent schoolchildren. It fulfills a sick fantasy, and changes an actual massacre to "entertainment". Once again: Disgusting.

Halx

Profiting from tragedy? Sounds like a news broadcast.

__________________
You have found this post informative.
-The Administrator
[Don't Feed The Animals]

CyCo PL

Some kid made this game in his mom's basement with RPGmaker. It's either a joke, or a cry for attention.

hunnychile

...but it's better that this stupid kid sits around making weak-ass games - instead of getting a rifle and going to a school and killing someone. Right?

BTW - Our government has hundreds of IT guys (listed and nonlisted)designing war & battle simulation "games" that are quite advanced in technology & realism. I wonder if there's a correlation there??? /she scratches her head/

__________________
"I need compassion, understanding and chocolate." - NJB

Jinn

It's still relatively difficult to kill the group when you get attacked by Jock Boy / Preppy Boy / Church Boy and Black Boy.. I think propane bomb is the most effective. Has anyone tried other methods? Just shooting the hell outta them with the Tec9 does almost nothing..

__________________
"I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel

eden06

First off I'm glad too see this issue creating discussion somewhere. I'd like to address a few issues regarding the game "Super Columbine Massacre RPG".

Danny Ledonne, who I've come to speak to quite regularly since this new scapegoat was found, has numerous projects completely unrelated to this game, this game being one which he submitted at his own expense for no profit, as can be seen on the homepage of the game itself. Therefore the "profiting from tragedy" debate is a none starter.

Whilst talking about the influence of media on killings, one has to wonder whether finding a comfortable scapegoat for the school shooting "upsurge" is really the answer.

"This "game" would also explain the recent "long coat" killing a month or so ago, when a guy kills his father then goes after students at the high school."
"Hate Speech"? Played the game? what an informed oppinion one must have!

I personally, think this view is a little one dimensional to be honest, and raises the chicken and the egg conundrum, before this game came the shooting itself, which was blamed on video game Doom and controversial media whore Marilyn Manson, although when, on September 15th in 1959 when Paul Orgeron walked into Poe Elementary school detonating six sticks of dynamite concealed in his suitcase, killing himself and five other people, including his son, there was no video game to scapegoat, there was only the perpetrator and his interpretation of the world around him that was at fault.

In between then and 2004 when Danny released that game there were 20 High School massacres worldwide, increasing density and severity. One cannot say that a game about a previous school shooting was the soul inspiration for all school shootings after that, it would be the same as saying that chickens didn't know they could lay eggs until they saw a documentary in which a chicken laid an egg, a paradoxical concept that makes no sense.

One has to ask more importantly whether the "real criminals" here are the people who make none profit video games created to raise discussions out of they're own pocket, the people who name scapegoats after an extensive shock and awe coverage so you can forget about the issue once they've made your mind up for you, and cut to commercial, the idiots who don't know when to listen to that voice that says "THINK" as they walk into a room and end not only existence as they know it, but the same for others, or a mixture of more elements than that.

When Elephant, the Basketball Diaries and Zero Day hit the film market, were they “profiting off tragedy” too? Or are they acceptable mediums for profiting off tragedy, where as not even free video games can make you think about a subject without doing just that?

The Columbine Massacre wasn't inspired by bullying, The Dawson College shooting was, The game wasn't inspired by money, the Poe Massacre wasn't inspired by the media, but the media was inspired by the ratings, and the revenue the simple answers give them.

But, this is just my opinions, of course, if you want to scapegoat this game, then it would probably a good idea to play it first, otherwise you've not actually made your mind up about anything, you've just made a shock and awe decision, one that your meant to make, before we cut to commercial. After all, we perpetuate the problem by not talking about it, so that next time, there's more scapegoats, more ratings, more money to be made by those who feed you opinions.

Of course, I have my own view on this matter, as do millions of others, I find that the minority opinions seem to come from those who played the game, discussed and researched the game and it's maker, instead of falling for the shock and awe scapegoat trap once again.

Cut to commercial.

To discuss this issue with the maker of the game, or for people who want to delve deeper into this game and it's impact, along with actual possible motives, I recommend the free forums, no commercial interruptions, the right to talk openly in a dialogue, instead of following what the news anchor expects you to think.

They can be found here

The question is, do people who dismiss such a thing want to join the debate? Or Just skip to the scapegoat?

3, 2, 1, Action

Speaking of profiting off tragedy, did anyone play that new, ultra realistic [insert money making war game here] with blood and guts and.....you get the picture.

CyCo PL

Yeah, I agree... I was basically just saying that it's silly to be offended by something like this, it's just an RPGmaker game somebody made on his own time. Video games don't cause any violence, people just don't want to take responsibility for their own actions and blame it on whatever they can.

jt6879

Not impressed, no matter how low quality the game itself is, thats just tasteless. I've played all sorts of games, and have been doing so for years, even played the two turd postal games.. But to me in gaming, there is nothing more low class then killing kids.

This kind of game speaks volumes about the creators integrity and value to society. Its a complete abuse of the "Freedom of speech"

Until Americans put a stop to some of this stuff, people will do it just to see how far they can push it.

__________________
Just remember this my friend, when you look up at the sky, you can see the stars and still not see the light..

eden06

Well, I have played the game, and have spoken to the creator, maybe you should too if you believe it's as low class as you say?

My big question is, have you played it? One can go through the game without killing a single kid so it's not as if that's the soul purpose. Hollywood makes movies about killing kids, the scream series was nothing but that, as were Zero Day, Elephant, and Biographical pieces about columbine itself such as the Zero Hour discovery channel production, in which the two killers Harris and Klebold came out looking like cultural icons, speaking of cultural icons, the two killers made the front page of Time magazine Twice. So what's the difference between these things and that game?

Money? The game was free, unlike the aforementioned productions.

Saying that one form of "freedom of speech" on a matter (IE extended news coverage, or Micheal Moores raping of the tragedy for the sake of money under the pretense of "gun control") Is correct and then saying that if a game even tries to approach the issue it is "abuse" of that freedom is completely debasing video games as a medium and video gamers who play them.

What says a movie can be about something but a game can't? The columbine game has a clear cut objective from the start, to make one think about the school shootings, they're impact on society, the plethora of causes for such incidents and there being no clear cut answer to who's to blame. Why can't video games be more than a medium for simple entertainment like everything else?

With the 9/11 film coming out and passing children died in that, does that count as tasteless? They took 3000 deaths and turned it into a shitty love story and then charged us to have to see it. Is that tasteless?

Saying that "Freedom of speech" has limits is saying that you don't really understand the concept of freedom.

Saying that Hollywood can release 2 movies, news channels can scapegoat person after video game and bands for ratings, numerous books and documentary's can be made for profit, but a videogame can't be released on a relevent yet uncomfortable issue says to me you don't think video games have value as either tools of social commentary or as a legitimate form of art.

Super Columbine Massacre RPG does not feature any of the victims of the massacre, and was none profit. It is no different than a cultural blueprint of that date, and the way it impacted the media, and the media impacted it.

"Until Americans put a stop to some of this stuff, people will do it just to see how far they can push it." I thought what defined America WAS freedom.

Although I don't agree with what you say, I would defend to the death your right to say it.

Eden06
Member of The Columbine Forums

CyCo PL

Of course they didn't play it, people become uncomfortable when it comes to remembering tragedies that happened in the past. Anything that reminds them is tasteless, I assume people would just rather forget so they can live in a carefree happy world until history repeats itself.

As people have already said before on this thread, the game in no way glorifies or profits off of the columbine shootings, it is merely one person's satirical point of view on the whole situation.

People may not realize this, but the Columbine shootings changed a lot more peoples' lives indirectly than it did directly. Parents and high schools all over the country became scared and ramped up security everywhere, violating the kids' freedom and privacy. I was a freshman in high school when this happened, and I noticed the changes immediately. Students' cars were being searched without warning or permission, certain "suspicious" students (i.e. students who wore black clothes) started being pulled aside and asked questions by teachers or security guards. People being singled out like this only makes them feel more like an outcast, it doesn't help at all. I wore metallica shirts and jeans in high school, and for the first week after columbine happened, a security guard would follow me from the cafeteria to my fourth hour class. I didn't have anything to be worried about, but I felt insulted that I would be singled out just because of how I looked. I was far from an outcast in high school, I had plenty of friends, but this even alone made me *feel* like an outcast.

Peoples' fear is the biggest threat to our freedom in this country (and the world for that matter), because when one bad thing happens, rather than people learning and educating people about the situation, people just elect to take the easy irresponsible way out and just eliminate any factor that may have led to, or even been associated with, the problem. Politicians target video games and music because it's kind of a niche market, and most of the people affected by it are probably too young to vote. They seem to forget that millions of other people played the same video game, or bought the same album, and turned out perfectly fine. (Note that movies rarely take any blame, because it would probably piss off a lot more potential constituents.)

As for freedom of speech... this game is an example of true freedom of speech. It needs to be pushed. If it is limited, how is it freedom?

shakran

well, if you start outlawing various speech because you say it's "hate" speech, which means it is negative speech directed at a particular group, then you get on a real dangerous slippery slope. That definition means that your comments could be interpreted as hate speech as well, since they're clearly negative and clearly directed at the guys who made this game. Should your speech be outlawed too, lest it offend them, or should we only make it illegal to offend you?

That sounds sarcastic and snippy, and it is, but it's to prove a point. Everything you could possibly say WILL offend someone, no matter how bland you may think it is. If we start outlawing speech based on the fact that it offends someone, this country will soon be very silent. So we have to accept speech that offends us in order to be secure in our right to say things that might upset someone else.


So now let's look at this specific case.

We have a tasteless game made by some dumbass - a game that probably isn't very much fun (I bet he doesn't have the resources to make a decent game like Rockstar or EA does) and wouldn't get much attention except for its subject matter.

That offends people, so what do these people do with their offended sensibilities? They shout the game's existence all over the internet. Inevitably a newspaper or TV station will glom on the story on a message forum like TFP (ahem) and may then run a story on it, giving the game even more exposure. Soon people are grabbing the game just to see if it's as "shocking" as what they saw on the news tonight.

Wouldn't it be smarter to ignore idiotic crap like this so that it just goes away?

eden06

Shakran, I do agree with some of what you have said, however not all of it.

Has anyone thought that maybe the purpose of a game about a killing isn't meant to necessarily be fun?! Could it not just provoke thought on a subject like a book or film can? Or do the people here in this supposed "gaming" forum really have as much disdain for games as a medium as the general public? Has nobody here ever played a video game that made them think?

"We have a tasteless game made by some dumb ass"...Tasteless, nobody I know of who's played the game has called it that, only people who haven't played the game yet. Upon playing it first I was shocked to learn that instead of being something that approached the killing with a "aren't Eric and Dylan awesome!" approach, it came off as more truthfully than that, a horrible situation that we're all responsible for in some way.

"Wouldn't it be smarter to ignore idiotic crap like this so that it just goes away?"

I agree that if someone doesn't want to know about the game, or can't comment on it because they're yet to play it, then they should probably just ignore it, since it's idiots like that who created this negative media attention in the first place, which does nothing but stifle the debate it was supposed to create.

However, the reason this game exists, as Danny has said countless times, is because he wanted to create a dialog on Columbine, School shootings in general, Video games and The Media scapegoat tactics. Just ignoring the game will probably cause it to go away, but people have been ignoring the issue of school massacres for over 40 years now, and THEY HAVEN'T.

It's a funny comment on society as a whole when a videogame based on the events surrounding a school shooting sparks more controversy than actual school shootings. Was the actual massacre not enough of a wake up call? Or is this game just reminding us of the Elephant in the middle of a room everyone is desperately trying too ignore? Why should we ignore it, like people ignore the people who died at columbine and others?

To be honest if I'd been shot in the face and killed I'd be wanting people to create anything that tried to create discussion on why the hell I'd been shot in the face.

Super Columbine Massacre RPG does not condone the killing of innocent people, nor does it's creator, it forces dialog on a very real problem in America and as recent events in Germany have reminded us all, anywhere in the world.

I am going to quickly post two quotes from an interview with Richard Castaldo On this game, who was paralyzed from the chest down after being shot in the arm, chest, back and abdomen by Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold during their attack on Columbine High School.

"It seemed like the purpose was to expose people to what happened in a unique perspective. There are probably a lot of people that would find it and play it out of curiosity. And find out more about Columbine than they usually would have were it not in game form. And in this process learn that what they did was not glamorous in any way."

"It probably sounds a bit odd for someone like me to say, but I appreciate the fact at least to some degree that something like this was made. I think that at least it gets people talikng about Columbine in a unique perspective, which is probably a good thing."

Maybe you SHOULD look at the specific case.


Discuss the game, the shootings, and they're impact on society as a whole, at the Super Columbine Massacre RPG forums.

shakran

OK, then enlighten us. How does a game in which you play Dylan and Klebold and the object is to shoot up your classmates educate you? How does it make you think? Describe it to us.

I'd like to see your source on the idea that the creation of the game was supposed to foster debate.


Then he really is an idiot. Ignoramuses across the country are busy blaming childhood violence on video games and TV and anything else but where the blame actually goes -the parents. What in hell gave Danny the idea that creating a game like this would make them take a step back and think about what they're saying? He's just tossed a whole crapload of gasoline on the fire. Hell I'd be more inclined to believe that he was secretly working FOR the videogame banners, because this game sure as hell isn't going to hurt their case.



Let's get a few things straight here. Columbine was vastly different from those 40 year old previous massacres. The Bath bombings of '27 were carried out by an adult schoolboard member, not a kid. The Poe attack was perpetrated by an adult with a briefcase full of dynamite. In fact the first year in which a student carried out a school shooting was 1997. So I'm not sure where you get your 40-year-ignore idea from.

And once again, how exactly does a game in which you try to kill as many schoolchildren as possible convince people that video games are not to blame?



You have a funny definition of "more." Columbine was covered nationwide for WEEKS and is still referenced routinely today. I have yet to see much at all about this game in any of the mass media.

No one is ignoring school massacres. Cite your sources or don't make the claim. The trouble is that people are coming up with boneheaded ideas regarding the massacres. Crap like "it's anything's fault but the parents who didn't know the damn kid was building an arsenal."

You're either vastly uninformed on this issue or you're posting flamebait here.



Well I suppose the next step is to create a game called "Kill the Jews" in which you play Hitler and get points and in-game rewards for killing as many jews as you can. That's bound to spark discussion about the idea that persecuting groups is wrong. /sarcasm.

eden06

Okay, I will happily do that. The first 20 minutes of the game are spent observing the influences in and around Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris, there is very little shooting involved. Infact the game explores the things they enjoyed, various quotes from diaries and music they were interested in, as well as events in they're life, some seemingly trivial, such as memories of a girl Harris liked, to seemingly none trivial, such as the general culture within the school, and within they're families.

Philosophy is discussed by the two in a park before the cafeteria bombs go off, and Erics narcistic tendencies and warped interpretation of various ideas, along with Dylans vulnerabilities and easilly influence able nature are both alluded too.

When the shooting begins, there are never any captions stating the "shooting up classmates" is a primary objective. As you walk around the school various different cues and dialogs are unlocked, some hearsay, some references to the day.

After the shooting scene the player is presented with various images of the day, showing the result of the students inexcusable actions. The main themes explored in this are first off debunking simple scapegoating tactics, the emotional state of the boys, they're relationship with each other and they're peers, and they're warped interpretations of the world around them.

Of course, I can only describe it too you, if you really wanted to have an oppinion that wasn't knee jerk, maybe you could play the game yourself, then draw your own conclusions, as some people have

The maker of the game is under the username "Columbin"

http://columbinegame.com/discuss/viewtopic.php?t=3

Also there are these interviews, one in audio form, one in written form where he states his intentions on making the game.

http://live.canoe.ca/TheShow/Archive...4/1839452.html

http://www.kotaku.com/gaming/top/col...ked-175942.php

First to talk about you blaming the parents, it is again another case of scapegoating, however I shall talk about that later in my reply.

This game is forcing debate on videogames and they're roll in society, such a discussion it prompted, can be seen here. Or even the one we're having right now. What prompted him to make the game has been answered within the forums by Danny Ledone in numerous places, including the places I have already sourced, in the interviews seen above and the forum posts by Danny himself in the games forums.

The "gasoline on the fire" can only really be a good thing in my opinion, had GTA not done just that in the 90's gaming wouldn't be the same as it is today. To assume that as gamers the appropriate thing to do in this instance would be to sink into the cracks and not explore where our favorite medium can go is giving these people the right to censor free speech in the first place. If we don't explore the medium in new and different ways, and just play and create “acceptable” games because that appeases the public, then we are not giving the medium our honest respect as a medium comparable to any others. The majority of gamers, like all other fans of all other mediums have as much right to art on any subject as they like, just because some people don't think of gaming as legitimate an expression as any other does not mean as gamers we should bow down and let them effect us. If that were the case they have as good as won.

Another thought is that there will be some people who had never given the massacres a second thought have played the game, and it has opened they're mind to a dialogue and idea they would not normally be exposed too.

My statement was one of school massacres in general, which are the overall problem, since killing is killing no matter who perpetrates it, however, an extensive list of school shootings and massacres can be found here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_massacres

Notice the section entitled "Other secondary and post-secondary school killings" In which the first shooting perpetrated by a student is in 1974. Although school shootings seem to be on the increase, one has to assume that something within these students, or the climate within which they have been raised, have caused a cocktail effect making them go out and commit these crimes. Just as certainly as Anthony Barbaro couldn't have been influenced solely by videogames in 1974, Eric Houston could not have been influenced by undiagnosed psychopathy or bulling within the school, and Eric Harris wasn't influenced by his inability to get a job.

I reply once again, when the games shooting section begins, there are never any captions stating the "shooting up classmates" is a primary objective. You can make your way through the entire game without killing a single classmate if you are so inclined, something which Danny Ledone has said both on his forums, and in various interviews I have sourced for your consideration. The objective of the game is not to kill people, it is to view the shootings from an internalized perspective, as stated in my second URL, however, for good measure, here's another interview.

I also state once again that the only real way to gain an informed oppinion on this matter would be to play the game. You ask "how exactly does a game in which you try to kill as many schoolchildren as possible convince people that video games are not to blame", but have you thought about playing it and finding out for yourself? Maybe you could answer your own questions and presumptions by the act that I have reccomended all along by linking to the forums in the first place.

Or is it easier assuming you know it all without researching the game, it's intents, it's content, or the impact it's had on both gamers and victims? And then shooting your mouth off as if your knowledge on the subject is somehow supperior by NOT playing the game.

http://www.kotaku.com/gaming/danny-l...ing-201829.php

Although this is really a matter of perspective, I must say in recent weeks I have not found this to be true. Although I can't possibly speculate on the news sources you see, I write this after a school shooting occurred in Germany. As someone who is interested in school shootings as a social phenomenon, I found the matter was not raised by Sky News (The English version of fox), BBC news or Fox News feed from the US. However, it seems all reports in my country recently on the killings seem to reference the game and the columbine killings, along with various statements speaking of how despicable it probably is. Again, my statement was one of perspective, and from my perspective since the story of the game "broke" in my country, there have been 3 school shootings reported on my local news channels, all of which have stated, in some cases erroneously, that the shooter could have been influenced by the game.

Thanks for bringing this to the forefront. It highlights entirely my thoughts on this subject. The definition of Ignore in the "American Heritage Dictionary" is "To refuse to pay attention to; disregard." This is entirely what I see, the news coverage has pacified us to find an easy answer and then remove it from our psyche, in this case, the game is the scapegoat.

Another example can be found by someone who instead of playing the game, to find out what it's about, disregards it and asks people to "describe" it with sarcastic undertones, instead of researching said game and forming they're own opinions. As well as asking for sources for something I linked in my very first post on this site, when I linked to the forum, IE the makers intention to create dialog on the situation.

Is one not simply ignoring the issue of the game, and what it speculates about the shootings by not playing it and simply blaming the parents? You are disregarding the game and further research on what you believe to be the cause.

It seems common now to find a scapegoat and throw it out there without much research, for instance in your case, the parents. Dylan Klebolds parents state that they're son never showed any violent intentions, and that they couldn't percieve any. They didn't allow guns in they're home and Dylan had a religious, peaceful upbringing. He never stored guns or weapons in his home. In contrast Erics parents encouraged his aspirations to join the military by allowing supervised sessions with guns.

http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2000...PECTS_TEXT.htm

To state in this case that his parents are entirely to blame would again be short sited, if a parent conducted a strip search on they're adolescent son every time they entered the house, a lot of questions would be asked about the parents role.

If you ever managed to keep something hidden from your parents then by your logic, they are as to blame for the Columbine Massacre as the parents of Harris and Klebold. Perhaps at the ages of 17 and 18 you don't believe people can possibly have a mind of they're own or be responsible for they're own foolish actions, but there are numerous other avenues of scapegoating if you'd like to sample those. Harris's Doctor who perscribed Luvox even though it was known to cause Mania, the Doctor also failed to notice his psychopathy and narcism.

Maybe the pizza shop where they worked? If it is logical to assume someone is responsible enough to hold a job and earn they're income is it not possible that they could somehow be responsible for they're own actions?

I'm sorry, I haven't a clue what a flamebait is, perhaps you could source it?

I don't think of myself as vastly uninformed, had you have followed my original link to the forum you would find that I have read the 11000 page Columbine Report, which comes with a handy guide. Have been an active member of a forum that discusses both the game and the shootings as it's main purpose for the past six months. Read various articles on the State of mind of both perps. Read various reports, diaries and sources made by the killers and about the killers available here.

And of course, I have played the game, and talked to it's author numerous times, which of course means feel myself appropriately informed to give an opinion on it, it's reason for it's creation, and what it says about society.

I mean, it's no alternative to blindly stumbling into accusations of solely the parents and then assuming that's the only possible solution, or asking for a description of the game instead of playing it for myself, but I feel I'm getting there slowly.<<<<<<<SARCASM

Sarcasm works great for us, we should try it more often, good job you stated it was sarcasm otherwise I would have started making the game already.<<<<<<<<< SARCASM

As you would have realised playing the game, and now I shall state for the third time within this rebuttal, the objective is not to kill as many people as possible, the objective is to play through the game understanding the influences on Harris and Klebolds life, and they're warped interpretation of that.

But I do think I'd want that question answered, apparently I'm still Not alone, as this student and victim of the massacre, seems to agree it's a better idea than simply scapegoating and calling that the end of it.

Maybe now you'll play the game and make your own mind up...or maybe it's just easier to assume you know it all about a game you haven't even played and shoot your mouth off, without seeming to have commited even the very BASIC research of playing the game and reading the creators reasoning behind it. I don't give a damn what you think of it after you've done that, but not researching the game, and simply assuming these things has lead you coming out looking "vastly uninformed", and really, I don't think I want to see this happen to you again.

The forums

shakran

(Snipped the quote to keep postlength down)

If the game is purely meant to educate, why did he title it SUPER columbine MASSACRE? That's a pretty sensationalistic title for a game that would be more accurately called "Columbine: What happened?" don't you think?
I did, on your suggestion. Not the whole thing, but enough. I'll tell you what I think. I think the guy wanted to create a big old splash. Maximum buzz. So he gave the game a sensational name, then put "educational" crap in there so he could later claim to have done it as a social awareness exercise.

Nixon said he wasn't a crook. People lie in interviews.



No it isn't. That debate has been going on since long before Columbine. Hell I remember people getting mad about Wolfenstein 3d, much less GTA.


What are you saying? That gaming is better off today because GTA let you kill hookers? I'm not seeing that.

No, we are disrespecting the medium if we push the envelope just for the hell of it. You need a reason to push envelopes, lest someone push back and sink you in a fight that you didn't need to start in the first place. This is why you don't hear "fuck" on TV every night, but you DID hear "fuck" in the 9/11 documentary that CBS aired shortly after the attacks. They pushed the envelope there because hearing the raw language of the day was necessary to truly get the full story. It is by contrast not necessary for Katie Couric to say "fuck" just for the sake of pushing the envelope.

No, but we shouldn't, as I said earlier, throw gas on the fire just for the sake of seeing an explosion. There should always be a reason for pushing the envelope. Otherwise you come off as a jackass rather than an intelligent activist for the gaming scene.


Not very many, because the type of people who are willing to explore the sociological implications of school shootings are not generally the type of people who would play a game titled SUPER columbine MASSACRE anymore than they'd play Wolfenstein 3D to explore the dangers of fascism.


That incident was in Israel. Radically different culture - applying anything but tactical lessons from that incident would do next to no good in the USA.

Yes, but creating SUPER columbine MASSACRE is going to destroy the dialogue necessary for that (correct) idea to get out there because all that's gonna happen is that anti-responsibility idiots are going to see the inflamatory title as another method to use in attacking the video game industry.

Your logic breaks down here. 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. On the other hand an undiagnosed psychopath can be and almost certainly is dangerous and capable of acts such as what Houston did.





Yeah, and you can go through Deus Ex without ever killing anyone either, but who does that?

It doesn't matter. The title alone gives the anti-videogame lobby plenty of ammunition, even if the game itself was a pacman clone.

Again, I have played the game. But the Tipper Gores of the world have not, and will not, and with sensationalist titles like this game's, they've got plenty of ammunition to whip the public into an anti-gaming frenzy. Surely you don't think that's wise.


And this doesn't tell you that however laudable his goals supposedly are (I'm not buying that, btw) the plan backfired in a big way?


So don't keep giving them scapegoats for cripes sake!


I actually was asking you to cite your sources that school shootings are being ignored- - you have yet to do this.



No. One is recognizing that using inflammatory language in the game's title will automatically make people prejudge the game. Only a social idiot, which I believe the game's creator to be, wouldn't see that this is the case.

Take another example. If I want to tell people that gays should have equal rights to straights, I'm not going to make a game titled "Super Faggot Massacre." or "Men fucking men!" That's not exactly going to get the dialogue flowing.

Yeah, but the signs were there. His dad made him return a laptop he'd stolen from school, he made bombs behind the pizza joint where he worked (once requiring the fire department to come put it out), got suspended for hacking the school's computer to get a locker combination, then putting a threatening note in that locker, then there was that school report that so graphically described the mass murder scene that he was preparing for that the teacher called his parents. In short, there were PLENTY of hints that the kid was troubled, and the parents turned a deaf ear to it.

If my kid were building an arsenal in my house, you'd better believe I'd find out about it. This is why I get so pissed when parents say that searching their kids' stuff is an "invasion of the child's privacy." The child does not have privacy. Period. You cannot invade what he does not have. My kid is a good kid, but I don't think that simply because I hope it's true and close my eyes to any potential problems that might come up. I KNOW my kid is a good kid in part because I have checked my kid's stuff and have found no forbidden materials. There is no way for my kid to hide even one weapon, much less an entire arsenal, anywhere on my property. Anyone who tells you "I had no IDEA little Eric had enough guns to start World War 3" is either lying, or fell down HARD on their job as a parent.

Eric's parents didn't need to strip search him, just search his stuff. The overwhelming evidence is that there was plenty of warning about both of these two kids, and the parents just didn't see it. But rather than saying "Gee that's sad that the parents didn't see it" we should be asking "Why the HELL didn't the parents see it?" The signs were there, in Eric's case the weapons were there too. So yes, the whole incident boils down to, it could have been prevented if the parents had seen it.

But it goes even deeper than that. If the parents had seen it that would mean they were attentive parents who gave a damn about parenting, and with attentive parents, the vast likelihood is that the boys would never have decided to shoot up the school in the first place, so there would have been nothing to prevent.

I didn't.

Uh, no, that's not my logic at all. I didn't shoot up a school. My parents did a good job raising me. Even if I had managed to hide something from them (I have no idea how I'd have accomplished this) they still wouldn't be to blame for Columbine since I did not take part in it. What are you talking about?

If I had an 18 year old kid who was still living under my roof and who stole a laptop, got suspended for threatening another student, played with fire and bombs, and scared his teacher so badly that she called me to ask about his mental health, you'd better DAMN well believe I'd be on his every move like a rat on a cheeto. He wouldn't be able to clear his throat without me being there and finding out why. AND we'd be in family counseling to find out what in hell was wrong with him, and to find out what in hell I was doing wrong to encourage him to act out like that. Were the boys responsible for their actions? Yes, obviously, but they do not get 100% of the responsibility. The parents shoulder a great deal of the blame and most likely the school does to. We all remember how well our schools handled bullies and fighting amongst the kids. If Columbine was even half as bad at dealing with kids as my old school was, then they contributed as well. Of course, again, when my school did something stupid my parents were in the principal's office demanding answers and results - something the boys' parents should have been doing as well.


OK, what's your point? Plenty of blame to go around. The majority is still on the people responsible for raising them.


Gee, if they're blowing up spray cans in the oven and setting off bombs in back of the store, no, I'd say they definitely need to be checked out, very thoroughly.




1) I never said it was solely the parents. Read. Carefully.

2) I asked you to describe the game to us in your own words to give you a chance to prove your point. I did also play it for myself, but was willing to listen to your take on it.





Then don't give it such a stupid title, and when it DOES have such a stupid, inflamatory, sensationalistic title as SUPER columbine MASSACRE, don't be surprised when people get a little pissed.

Again, the title of the game says it all. If you don't want people to assume that your game is a bloodbath, don't give it that title. If you give your game a title like that, do not try to squirm out of the anger directed at you by claiming you were trying to teach people about Columbine. That may be what he did on the surface, but what he's really after is to piss people off and then watch the online war start. If he was out to truly teach society a valuable lesson he'd have given it a different title, he'd have consulted with many experts in the various fields related to the incident, and frankly, he wouldn't have made a damn game out of it in the first place. Why didn't he take all these fine object lessons and make a documentary out of it? Or write a newspaper column? Or a blog? But no, he chose a video game (already a hotbed of controversy thanks to people wanting to ban many games so that they don't have to be a parent and tell their kid no, they can't play it) then chose a wildly sensational title for it (stoke that fire boys!) and then publishes as the splash-screen picture on the game's website a screenshot of the two boys shooting up the school (THROW that gasoline on there! Watch it explode!)

Well, he got his fun. He got the wildly pissed off reactions he was looking for, all I'm saying is now he shouldn't even TRY to convince people that he did this all for our own good.

Now, admittedly, I could be entirely wrong about this. Maybe he really thought that making a video game called SUPER COLUMBINE MASSACRE! would lead to calm intelligent discussion of the youth violence problem. That could very well be true. Of course, if it is true, he's an idiot for thinking SUPER COLUMBINE MASSACRE! will foster any discussion other than "video games are evil!" He's certainly an idiot for thinking a title like that will 1) make any responsible person who might be seeking answers to school violence want to play it or 2) not cause the issue to be buried under a snowstorm of anti-videogame rhetoric.

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.

eden06

Sorry for the length of that post, but I felt I should reply to the questions you asked.

I'd like to say that since playing this game I have come to know a lot of people who share a passion for gaming and it's ability to say things in a way no other medium can. I can say with all honesty that I have never perceived anything but good intentions from the maker of this game, or the people who enjoy discussing it. Regardless of whether as a gamer, you love or despise the concept of this game you currently have the trust placed in you, and the freedom to choose whether to play it or not, nobody has the right to take that away from you.

Gaming is an amazing medium, much like the Internet or any other interactive media, and we as gamers have a right to games that don't just cover the same old ground, but force discussion and foster debate, on subjects that we wouldn't normally touch, as this game clearly has. If this game was in any other form, a book, a movie, a documentary, then lovers of literacy, celluloid and factual accounts would have the right to enjoy it, and the authors ideas on the subject, without persecution.

We as gamers are intelligent people, with the same variety of tastes as any other subsection of society, and hopefully this game will eventually help the makers of games create new forms of story and prose, that don't just stick to the tried and tested cliché's that we have come to expect. To be honest I'm a bit sick of rescuing the princess.

I can't say that I agree with every decision that was made in the creation of the game, however I do feel that all people have the right to create art of any type, on any subject, without it being censored. History has a way of filtering true expression from that which is dumb and ill researched. This games presence in the media, both positive and negative is proof of that, when compared to “Super KKK Brothers” or similar garbage, had that game been spoken of in these forums, I doubt there would have been so many thoughts for and against.

The choice ultimately lies with the player, and no one else. How they interpret something can turn a potential priest into a potential Oklahoma bomber, a potential “Fatal1ty” into a potential Klebold and Harris, and a potential flamebait into a potentially constructive conversation, like this one, which I hope has given more people food for thought than just myself.

The gamer decides what games he plays, what games he makes, what he thinks of those games and how he discusses the content. It's either all okay or none of it is. We have a medium here that is both provocative in creating discussion on things a lot of us wouldn't talk about in day to day life, and causing us to think about things in a different way than any other medium. If something is acceptable to make a movie about then surely it is acceptable to make a game about, we each have the right to decide the role of that video game in our life. I personally feel this game has a right to exist in any form it's author deems suitable, and you as a gamer have the right to choose whether you condone it or not. I personally feel that the creator of this game has approached a difficult subject that I find tasteful, and provocative, and has been able back up his claims in making the game. If you don't then you have the right to make that decision for yourself.

I hope there are some people tracking this discussion who feel they would like to play this game and find out more about it, discuss it with the creator or simply look deeper into the possible causes of school violence. I don't care whether what you think about a game is positive or negative, but you have the right to choose to play whatever you want.

shakran

Fine. Bad idea. End of story.

OK, #1, wikipedia is not a good source. Any idiot can post anything he wants up there and it may or may not get corrected. And even if it is corrected, it might not be corrected correctly.

#2, creating buzz is harder than you might think unless you're a marketing firm with a crapload of money behind you. It's totally reasonable that something might take a year or more to get noticed.

He's rich?

Depending on the outlet he tipped off, they might take one look at the game's title and drop the story like a hot potato. Those of us who work in the media are not here to help you and your friends generate buzz about your video game.


Glad you brought that up. You claim we've been ignoring the school shooting issue for 40 years (despite the fact that 2006 - 1974 is 32). Well if that's true, then this sensationally titled play/film sure didn't do much to further the dialog, did it? After all, we never stopped ignoring it, according to you.

I never called him a crook. Don't even try to misquote me.

As I've said, Danny may actually think his title is ironic and will be effective in promoting discussion. That's idiotic, but it's entirely possible that he thinks that.

I never called him a crook. Read more carefully next time.


GTA is NOT accepted by the majority of non-gamers. Neither is doom, really - it got a bad rap because the two Columbine kids used to play it and therefore according to the ignorant masses it must have pushed them over the edge.

yes, congratulations, you've managed to find one of the few places on the internet where genuine intelligence congregates. But a bunch of people on TFP willing to discuss issues does not translate to the rest of the world. If I were trying to get radical anti-gamers to mount an anti-game campaign, I'd make a game with the same title as this one.


Not necessarilly, but if you mean without the first 3d FPS there might not have been others, I'll let that one go without arguing.

And with no Nixon there would have been no Watergate. What's your point?

Rockstar is trying to make a game that the maximum number of people will play. They happen to be pushing the envelope, but they're not making the game just because they want to push it - they're making it because they think it will make them the most amount of money.

Your friend is pushing the envelope a LOT farther than Rockstar because even this many years later there are still a LOT of raw emotions about the Columbine incident. And he's pushing it unnecessarily if his goals are indeed what he claims them to be. If he wants to foster genuine discussion about the factors leading up to columbine, then naming his game with a title that is GUARANTEED to get the anti-violent-game crowd stirred up and shouting at the top of their lungs, is just plain idiotic.

Really? Gee, before GTA game stores didn't have to card you when you tried to buy a video game. Gaming companies didn't have to worry about lawsuits based around elements of a game that was not intended for public release and in fact was activated by non-company hackers monkeying with the code.

Really? That's great! I assume you will trumpet that opinion to the FCC, which fined CBS over half a million dollars for Janet Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction." I mean hell, that's pushing the envelope isn't it?

Uh, no, it's drawing unneeded attention to a debate over the gaming industry as a whole. This is adding fuel to the anti-gamers' fire. Get heat on ONE violent (or perceived violent) video game, and ALL of them catch heat.



I would like you to drop the pissant attitude. Condescending snips at other posters are insulting and completely unnecessary. You will find that they do not go very far here.

Yes, I saw the wrong 1974. The 1974 incident you refer to did indeed happen in the united states. It also happened 32, not 40, years ago, so your original point is still flawed, especially when you consider that the first incident of that type will quite logically be seen as an anomaly involving a disturbed individual, rather than as an indicator of a broad social problem.

Granted. I ask again, why give the people who use games as scapegoats more ammunition to use games as scapegoats. Not real smart. You may not remember this, but after Columbine many people were running around blaming Doom for the shooting. This despite the fact that tens of thousands of kids had played doom and had NOT shot up a school. But it was a compelling argument because parents could say "ahhh, see? I don't have to worry about MY pathetic parenting skills! It's all the video game's fault!"

no, it is not clearly an ironic oxymoron. It is an oxymoron, but the irony may or may not get through. Frankly I don't think it will get through with the anti-game crowd.

Yes, I was pointing out that you did indeed get something right in your argument. Credit where credit is due.

You said "Eric Houston coudl not have been influenced by undiagnosed psychopathy." I said you were wrong. And you were.

Agreed.

No, I agree with that idea as well. I do NOT agree with the idea of giving those who say it's all the video game's fault more ammunition to further their bullshit excuse.

Pole Position doesn't stop you in any way from crashing into another car or from losing a race, yet it is the game's primary objective to win races without crashing into other cars. Just because a game does not prevent you from failing to achieve the primary objective does not mean the primary objective is not there.


Wow, you just took this argument onto a whole new level, and you don't even have a good reason for doing so. No, I am not that mindless, thank you, and I didn't even say the game has to remove it completely. But if someone titles a game Super Columbine Massacre, and then expects people not to think they're supposed to, gee I dunno, massacre something, then that person is a very special kind of stupid.

Wouldn't know, I don't do console games.


hey, that's great, and that's going to shut up the "I hate video games" lobby how?

Exactly as I said would happen.


No, it didn't, I never said it did, nor did any of my words indicate that it made me WANT to kill anything.


No, it says more about the idiot who named the game using words like SUPER and MASSACRE and then got surprised when people thought it was about killing people.

If you will go back and read my first post in here, you'll note that I defended the game designer's right to design and publish the game. Do you really think that puts me in the same league as the lobbyists? No, it does not. I then pointed out that it's pretty stupid to give the lobbyists unnecessary ammunition because it will then make it that much harder for the next guy who wants to publish a game that might offend someone.

I frankly don't care what games he makes. He can make a flight simulator of 9/11 for all I personally care. But if he did that, and then acted as though people were just CRAZY for getting upset about it, it would further prove his stupidity.


Neither do the people who are just ITCHING for an excuse to ban violent video games.

Attention.

WOW! That's like, a whole .0026% of the population of the country! Just THINK of the influence you guys will have! If you really think a few thousand guys on a message board can compete with a political movement that has MILLIONS of dollars to dump into advertising, you've got another think coming.



Very nice, but you display your ignorance of the media. It is VERY VERY rare that we EVER get to that third tier because our managers almost ALWAYS nix those stories in favor of more sensational crap that you see every sweeps period. I'm being completely honest about my industry here - you will NOT get that kind of penetrating analysis out of the American media except perhaps on NPR or Frontline, and the type of people who listen to those shows are already too intelligent to jump on the "ban video games" bandwagon anyway.

You WILL get a whole lot of breathless bullshit about how Super Columbine Massacre is yet another game that glorifies violence, whether it is or not.


So why dump a shock and awe story right in their laps? That's crazy.


I never told you to pull it. I told you it was stupid to make it in the first place because it will give those asshole lobbyists another weapon to use in trying to convince the public that video games should not be considered protected speech. We're in a damn dangerous time right now, when people are willing to throw their constitutional rights away just because somebody in gubmint tells them they ought to for their own safety/protection. Now is NOT the time to be encouraging those who want to take your rights away.

What do you mean pretty soon? They're already saying that. People are PISSED about that game, and the debate is, as usual, moving toward "they shouldn't make games like that!" instead of "I as a parent shouldn't let my kid PLAY games like that."


You're correct in that people are not looking logically at school shootings. Instead they're blaming it on anything but themselves. Giving them ammunition in the form of this game's title does not help this problem.

I never said SOLELY the parents were responsible. Again, you need to read more carefully. The parents bear a VERY LARGE portion of the responsibility, and it's a portion that they and others are trying desperately to shove off onto any scapegoat that becomes available. I'm saying it was dumb of this guy to give them yet another scapegoat.



No, reading comprehension strikes again. I haven't changed my views. You've finally figured out what I've been saying all along.



Really? You say you're a gay man. Go try to get married and come back and tell me you still have equal rights. Were you not paying attention in the last elections? Gay marriage bans passed in a shocking number of states across the nation.

But can you honestly sit there and tell me that a game titled "Men Fucking Men" would foster a discussion on homosexual issues that might possibly lead to a much-needed change in the prevailing acceptance (or distinct lack thereof) of homosexuality?


Again, we're in a VERY VERY small minority of the country. And as popular as TFP is, it's obscure to the point of invisibility when compared with the power of one 30 second national advertisement. THAT is what we're up against here - millions upon millions of dollars that can buy exposure that you and your super columbine massacre forum can only dream about. And if you give the groups that control those advertising dollars the wrong impression about your cause, or you unwittingly give them ammunition to support THEIR cause, then YOU are the ones who will lose the debate.

How? My kid steals a laptop, I'm going to take it one way and one way only. The kid stole something, he cannot be trusted, his every move will be watched. If SOMEONE had taken this attitude toward this kid, Columbine may never have happened.

He probably does bear some responsibility, although how much is very debatable. I think he bears more responsibility for running a school environment that allowed bullies than he does for not locking down the school because he thinks a kid is angry.

But lots of kids have violent angry streaks. Hell I had a BIG one myself when I was that age. I channeled it into martial arts rather than shooting up the school. Why? That's where this discussion needs to go. It does NOT need to be derailed by naming the game with that inflammatory title.

The fire in the dumpster was, to be quite honest, the least worrying of all the precursors to the shooting. After all, kids are firebugs. There's a reason you can't leave any matches around with a kid -they WILL burn the house down. Some kids take a lot longer to grow out of it than others. The pizza place manager sounds like a moron, but lots of bored retail workers find pseudo-destructive things to do with their time. Whether the parents were alerted to it is unknown, however it's also immaterial. there was plenty of other crap that they absolutely did know about that they failed to act on.


Had you given her other signs? Giving away your possessions, etc? No? Well then she had a reason to trust you. And even so she followed up with you and made sure you were OK. If my kid wrote something like the shooting paper on the heels of all the other trouble he'd gotten into, you'd better damn well believe he'd be in a shrink's office the next day.

And it's up to the parent to be smart enough to realize the kid might be lying and, especially if the kid's been showing signs of social abnormalities before, it is their responsibility to make sure the kid's telling the truth.

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,[/quote]

Yes, and that's the major problem with young Americans today, is that not only is this not always the case, but it's RARELY the case.

Correct. A lot of parents are idiots who should never have had a kid in the first place. Giving them another excuse to say "it can't be MY fault! It's the GAMES!" is not a good way to solve this problem or the school violence problem.

As I've said, I KNOW my kid is a good kid because I've checked up on it. I check his stuff, I search his room, I monitor who he hangs out with, I check up on WHERE he's going to be hanging out, I meet the parents of his friends before he goes to their houses. In short, I'm an involved parent, and my wife does the same thing when I can't. closing your eyes to your kid and PRETENDING that you know he's a good kid because doing otherwise might upset you is quite different from KNOWING your kid is a good kid.


Again, no, they do not have to appreciate ANY level of privacy. If my kid were 18 and he wanted privacy, he could get all he wanted. Move out. As long as you're under MY roof and are MY responsibility, I'm going to take that responsibility seriously. It amazes me that parents get more hands-off as the kid gets more pressures to do bad things. We're all over the 5 year old, who's not being pressured to do drugs or have sex or get a gun. But the 17 year old who's got all those pressures and more, we let him run all over without any supervision. It's stupid.
Let's boil that down to a more universal key. The REAL key to parenting is to be a parent who gives a shit. That's all. That's the big secret. If you give a shit, your kid's gonna know it and his life will automatically be better and he will automatically be less likely to do something like Columbine. I will NEVER be convinced that the real reason these kids did what they did is because they felt no one gave a shit about them. And the sad part is, they were probably right. And it's frankly CRIMINAL that these kids could have parents and yet not feel that ANYONE cared.

Granted. But a plugged in parent who gives a shit can see the psychopathic signs. Look at just about any psychopath out there and you'll see the same pattern. Jeff Dahmer's parents said "Gee we don't get it! He was such a happy kid!" Funny how they conveniently ignored him torturing and killing animals. Even if you don't know that this is a warning sign of a future psychopath, you should certainly know SOMETHING is wrong with the kid.

Well my parents didn't care if I listened to rock and roll, if I wanted to taste beer I could do it at home under supervision. And as for sex, I guarantee you there wasn't any going on in my house because I had to keep the bedroom door open if a girl was over.

your logic is completely flawed here. I said that if you don't monitor your kid correctly you are a bad parent. I did NOT say that ALL children of bad parents shoot up schools.


Again, logically flawed. I'll show you an illustration as to how your logic fails to work here.

Fact: All girls have long hair.
Fact: Joe has long hair.
Conclusion: Joe is a girl.

Do you see where this does not work? Just because I say that all girls have long hair, I am not precluding the possibility that some boys have long hair. For you to conclude that I am saying ALL children of bad parents shoot up schools is just as incorrect as concluding that Joe is a girl.

Then for cripes sake don't give them a REASON to do all this.

And that's exactly where you guys fail. You seem to think it's a good tactic to ridicule those who disagree with you in order to convince them to agree with you. You'll notice that even though I heartily disagree with you, I'm not calling you a dumbass. There's a very good reason for that, beyond the TFP rules. If I were to call you a dumbass it certainly wouldn't make you think "Gee! That Shakran guy just called me a dumbass! He MUST be right! Otherwise he wouldn't have ridiculed me!"

Ridiculing the people who can't see further than the inflammatory title will not swing even ONE of those people around to your point of view.


Fine. But just as you would not listen to me for instructions about how to build a bridge, most people would not listen to some kid that wrote a game, especially one with that inflammatory title, for instructions on how to build a less violent society.

There's a difference. Bully and GTA and Goldeneye are all out for one thing. The almighty dollar. You guys are supposedly out to make a difference. why use the sensationalist tactics that always raise the ire of the anti-gamers to try to effect social change? It's the wrong way to go about it.

Fine, they're working HERE. what is a discussion on TFP going to do to stop school violence? We need more than a couple of hardheads beating each other up on the internet. We need a national discussion, and this game is not going to foster it.

Again, I neither like nor dislike this game. *I* PERSONALLY have no problem with the game as it stands. Where I have the problem is that the game will give those who are out to get video games yet one more piece of ammo to add to their arsenal, and it does so for no good reason - - either by design (just to be sensationalistic) or by stupidity (he thought it would work).

I wish to protect free speech by the judicious use of it. There are people out there who want to ban it, and don't get me wrong, I will fight them tooth and nail when they try. But giving THEM more ways to convince people that free speech is bad is NOT smart.


that's exactly what I do want to defend, but it seems every time the discussion cools down to the point where rational arguments might just take hold, some idiot goes and makes a new game that fans the flames again, making reasonable argument impossible as it gets buried in the rhetoric.


Again, the average TFP user is one holy HELL of a lot smarter and more open minded than the average American.

Miss Mango

Controversy follows decision to pull Columbine video game

Source