BurningStickMan (17916) on 1/11/2007 3:13 AM · Permalink · Report

[Q --start Indra Depari of the Clan Depari wrote--]The only part where I disagree with the organizers is that they didn't stick with their initial decision. If they let it the game in, in the first place might as well be consistent. [/Q --end Indra Depari of the Clan Depari wrote--]

grins at flipkin

But as for this game, the essay on Manifesto Games inspired me to take a look at it. The only real credit that I can give is that this game taught me more about the events at Columbine than anything else. I have no doubt about the authenticity of, say, the recording the made or the notes left behind. Their state of mind and early actions seem to have been authentically (who could ever truly say accurately) recreated based on the evidence left behind. All of this, from the wording of those notes to the police impound images of the weapons they actually used, is in the public domain.

I appreciate the research the designer did, because I know I didn't bother. And most of the world probably didn't. I believe we all wondered "what could drive them to do such a thing?" but expected someone else to tell us. Few people likely took the time that this developer did. The boys' view of themselves as some kind of Che Guevera revolutionaries, and condemnation of a world they saw unjust, is particularly infuriating. As they look over Denver and talk about how they wish they could kill everyone, one of the characters goes on a tirade about everyone being "high and mighty" and ordering society around; foisting their answers upon others and wishing to remake the world in their image. "Who are you to tell us how to live?"

Who are you to kill them?

I never would have considered this if it weren't for this game. Probably never would have given Columbine another thought. It would seem that these boys had a message, however confused and misguided it was, and the media ensured that message never got to the people. By putting you in their shoes, this game has finally delivered that message.

Beyond that, it's no better than any Newgrounds tripe. They're glorified as heroes. The "Hell" levels are too shameful to even be considered dark humour. It's no longer making an artistic statement, it's just becomes parody; having fun after the fact and giving a big "hell yeah!" thumbs up to the two killers.

What strikes me the most, as a game that both tries to be an RPG, and tries to pull you into "their world," is that the game is completely linear. You cannot stop the events from happening, and see a postulation of how their lives might have changed. You cannot play days or weeks before the event to even get an idea of these perceived injustices and horrors they have faced - horrors they apparently thought were equivalent to the bloodiest of war. The only time you really spend "in their shoes" is during the murders, which makes it hard to call the game anything beyond an interactive simulator of those events.

Perhaps the designer wanted to stick to fact, and the lives of these boys were never documented with any reliability until they day they decided to shoot up a school. Perhaps he wanted to avoid putting words in their mouth. Whatever the reason, it turns the game into more of a rollercoaster through a horror show, and forces you to be a willing participant in their fate, but not to truly understand them.

I have often wondered whether someone truly makes art with intent, or whether that intent is put to art by so called thinkers and professionals. If art is made with an intent by the artist, surely any other interpretation would be incorrect. I believe the designer of this game believes every word these two "revolutionaries" said, and built this game as a shrine, and to attract negative publicity. I could be wrong, but the game carries a tone that is hard to deny. I believe that this artistic merit was imposed upon it by people trying to defend their own interpretation of the medium of games. I don't believe the game itself has any artistic merit, at least not in the way it is credited.

The most that can be said is that spurs discourse, and for that, and the fact that it was voted in by a jury, it should not have been dropped. I am disappointed in Slamdance for choosing to drop the game to protect their own perceived reputation. I hope in the future they choose to side with what provokes and can be talked about, instead of protecting their pocketbooks. I congratulate Moby for continuing to support them.

Ace of Sevens (4479) on 1/16/2007 1:26 PM · Permalink · Report

Works for me. What are you getting?

Martin Smith (81664) on 1/11/2007 4:30 PM · Permalink · Report

At a time when the moral outrage against computer games is stronger than it has been in a decade, this is an unfortunate situation. Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold were confused, possibly mentally-ill, and completely isolated from a society they saw as depraved, hypocritical and unjust - that's my understanding of why those events unfolded (that and the US' over-liberal gun laws, but that's another story). Expressing events from their point of view is a completely valid thing to do. I only wonder whether the decision to remove the game was to avoid negative publicity or losing sponsors, or out of a genuine fear that the game would inspire copycat attacks. That the game appears to be poor quality and perhaps only noticed for its shock value is another story - but frankly most successful rap music doesn't have any artistic quality either.