Yes, I know, this probably won't make it into the database for moral considerations, but I am submitting it anyway.

It's an RPG based off of the Columbine Massacre.

http://www.columbinegame.com/

Settings are written to the application directory and the download itself is in .zip format. Unzip and run the .exe.

While it's 100% tasteless and immoral, it's very well programmed and since I can't help but succumb to curiosity...

If you actually read about how this game was set up and the author's intent behind creating it, you'd find that it has a lot more moral fiber than one might think. He created this game to try and achieve the same aims as the Soldier of Fortune series supposedly had: to make the player feel the bitter reality of what has happened and spark an emotional response. Unfortunately for the Soldier of Fortune series, the feel of the games had far too much of an arcade element to them to really create the proper response from the gamer, and the "gritty realism" was just not presented in the proper light at all. Granted, I'm pretty sure the developers of SoF said these things after the fact to try and avoid the political garbage that comes with creating games that are centered around realistic violence and gore (a.k.a. "I didn't mean it that way, honest!"). Unfortunately, the entire meaning of games and reasons that people play them make it extremely hard to create the kind of disgusted and morally horrified response that these developers are looking for.

Anyways, on to the game itself. I'm working 55 hour weeks at my job and don't have a great deal of time to do much of anything these days, but I'll try and find some time to get around to this. Like most adventure games with a very limited replay value, I find it hard justifying the addition of a game that you're not going to end up playing many times to a database aimed at consisitently useful/entertaining software, but if it does indeed meet the standards of TPFC I suppose I have little choice in the matter.

Again, sorry for not being around very much but I have a lot going on right now (and a rather sizable bank account to show for it as well!).

I find the whole idea offensive and no "Artist's Statement" can overcome the initial impression of being greeted by,

"Welcome to the world of
Super Columbine Massacre RPG!"

This isn't a considered, compassionate examination of an American tragedy. It's a game that's exploiting an American tragedy.

In my estimation, it should have no place in TPFC regardless of how "playable" or portable it is.

How do you think the perpetrators thought of the whole thing? I'm pretty sure they weren't on a religious mission. That's kinda the point of the approach.

imma have to agree with usdcs here,
i dont think it needs to be in TPFC for moral reasons,

granted theyre trying to make their little statement and all, good for them,
but i think it treads a thin line between statement and encouragement,

the fact they get so close to that line, should, imo, be reason enough to keep it out of the database,

Hmm...

How ethically numb must one be to need such an experiential simulation to awaken any sense of tragedy toward this horrific event? This 'game,' with a sloughing veneer of good intent, seems profoundly infused by exploitation. Am not questioning an inherent freedom of choice to 'play' such a 'game,' but merely wondering aloud about this site's boundaries of acceptability...


--Gary

I admit I expected a little better from TPFC forumgoers. Did anyone even bother reading/watching interviews about this game? About the creator's motivations and the meaning behind it? Hell, on the History Channel not too long ago there was a documentary and dramatization of the Columbine Massacre and it didn't get a lot of flak like this game does. Why the hell not? Why aren't people outraged at the re-creation of a horrific event on film like they are when it's put into a game? At first, I thought the exact same thing you folks did. Then I actually read into it and did a bit of "homework" to figure out what the whole thing's actually about. Did you people know that the author of the game actually works with troubled kids in a youth center regularly? That he talks at great lengths with people about the Columbine Massacre to try and help them?

This is what really pisses me off about people these days. If SCMRPG had been a film that showed these kids' point of view on the whole thing and put you into their mindset, it probably would have been applauded by a lot of folks as a means to better understand how these kids felt. But since it's in a game, it's just exploitation garbage.

I bet that if there's a girl that somehow awakens psychic powers and, being a misguided and emotionally troubled youth, starts lashing out and killing people, most people would blame it on her playing F.E.A.R.

Pathetic.

Anyways, this isn't really an open forum for games and their place in society (though even if it was, I'm pretty sure by now that it would go nowhere), since some of you have expressed concerns about its inclusion, hopefully Andrew will swoop in and figure something out. So far it seems to be portable and I'd like to see it added, but that's for him to decide. If it is added, of course there will be a disclaimer about the content and I'll advise the easily offended to not play it. Or just advise that no one play it if they're all going to keep a closed mind about what games are and what they can mean. Especially if they think that kids are just stupid little bags of flesh that do anything and everything they see on TV and in games.

<ContinueRantThread>

Citing the creator's motivation, or who he works with, is a species of informal fallacy called "style over substance," its genus being "changing the subject." These factors just aren't relevant to the argument, but are a distraction, at best. An appeal to the History Channel's offering also fails, since it attempts to force an analogy with a historical documentary, only to produce a fallacy called "false analogy." This simulation is simply not a documentary, as it does not "document" anything that actually occurred, but it does offer the opportunity to pretend or 'simulate.' Quite different, indeed.

Suggesting that anyone has a "...closed mind..." in this situation - ad hominem fallacy. Am unsure of the purpose of citing the (any) character of kids, since such does not inform this argument...

No progress here, but I still maintain that people have the right to choose...

</ContinueRantThread>

Forgive me for thinking we were talking about translating a tragedy to a different medium than reality - I thought that was the point.

And yes, the "closed mind" bit is a bit much but this is one issue that really frustrates me to no end. The 12 hour shifts don't help much either.

Fluffy

Long hours - no good...

If nothing else, this sparks a meaningful and timely discussion. I don't maintain that there's any correct answer here. Seems reasoning can only take us so far with these issues, then we bump into the "I just don't like it." I don't see anything ultimately wrong with this, provided it's not the starting point...


--Gary

i think Gary said it perfectly:


and truthfully,
idc what the auther does, and no, i didnt read about the game or what he does, and could really care less,

you want to leave it around the forums for people to check out,
sure, fine with me,
anyone wants to play it,
phht, go ahead, i really dont care if they do or not,

i think the site should just have a slightly higher standard as to what gets added to the site as far as a game that encourages you to go into a school and shoot students,

in other words,
im more worried about the sites 'image' then the actually game,
Granted,
i think the game is stupid and rather immoral for various reasons,
but im not arguing my personal views on the game to get you or anyone else to stop playing it,
its the Net, theres no way id be able to even if i wanted to / thought it was right,

anyways,
point to all that,
my personal views about the game isnt having an effect on my judgment for what im saying, i just think the site having a game that encourages people, in one form or another, to go out and kill students in a school, will refelct badly on the site ingeneral,

and no, i dont think games/movies are responsible for violent acts,
its the peoples parents/upbringing,
and yes, 'good people' still do 'bad things' but thats just the way it is,
i really doubt a game makes someone kill somebody,

i mean, hell,
i was playing Doom/Quake and such when i was like, 12-14,
and i havnt killed anyone,
...tempted to yes, but thats not the games fault,


and dont start comparing this game to like GTA,
granted they both encourage you to do 'bad things' but you still get a choice as to what you do in GTA,


And,...


No, your wrong,
id blame Carrie,
(kidding, )



Semi-Edit:

Ok, ive also shown this to a few friends on mine to get thier opinions,
and one really raised a valid concern, i think,





Edit:
Yeah, Fluff,
i know what thats like, ive had to do stuff like that when people have taken off before,
hope things calm down for you,


Also, the last 3 post above mine were put up while i was typing this and talking about it with some friends, so take that for what its worth as to how it might make it sound, -_-

Boy, when I started this site, I never guessed I would be asked to pass moral judgement on a piece of software! Unbelievable.

If you want my personal opinion, I am opposed to censorship, and I hate anyone telling me what I can or cannot see. I prefer that I am allowed to make that judgement, rather than someone else make it for me.

However, I do recognize that in the real world, there are certain boundaries, either formal or informal. For example, I've got nothing against porn, but my web host prohibits pornographic content, so that's a line I can't legally cross.

Back to this game. I found out more about the unfortunate incident in Wikipedia, and I read the author's position. My personal opinion is that the author is really trying to use the game as a medium to contribute to the understanding of the event. I mean, what if someone wrote an article about the event "through the eyes of Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold". How is that different from doing it as a game? Some people may find it "tasteless", but then again, different people find all sorts of things tasteless. Are we supposed to ban them all?

How about a game like Darfur is Dying, where...



How is it different from this game? Is it immoral and tasteless as well?

Actually Andy, i feel theres a difference between reading and article about something and playing a game where you actually Do it,
and the whole documentary thing falls somewhere in between,
(even though i think that article would be crossing a line, because i dont think you can honestly write something like that and be bias, but thats me i guess,)

as for the game you pointed out,
to a point, yes i think it is, the part your quoted and any like minded parts in the game,
they want to say your in game character dies/gets beat, fine,
but i think railroading characters into getting raped/abused is a bit much,
even if it does happen in real life,



anyways my feelings about that and the columbine game aside,

im thinking more how it Might reflect on TPFC,
i mean, you want to add it, then go ahead, you wont hear me go off and bitch about it,
but others Might,

really though, idk,
i dont know how many hits the site gets, or how 'big' it is out on the net and all, which would be a factor in the whole thing,


i personally dont like the game, wont play the game and so on,
(and i still think it borders on encouragement despite the authors 'intent'/statement,)
but, hey, fine, thats my choice, and im not going to try and stop others from doing it,
and im not trying to 'censor' the game either, im ok with having it on the forums, which being general view its easy enough for anyone to stop by and see,
i just think that by putting it on the site, its seems more like an ...official endorsement,



and, just a thought,
going Only by what Fluff said about the game author,
i didnt read Anything about him, i stoped looking at the site on the first page with the in game pictures.

But,
not everyone on the net is as honest/nice/good hearted as they make themselves seem,

Andrew,


Let's put your question into context.

From the Darfur is Dying site:

From the README.txt file included with Super Columbine Massacre RPG!:
The initial "mission" in Darfur is Dying is to obtain water for the reugee camp, without being caught by the Janjaweed Militia. The initial "mission" in SCMRPG is to get your bombs past the security cameras and the Hall Monitors, so you can ultimately detonate them in the Cafeteria.

The goal of DiD is survival. The goal of SCMRPG is death.

So, to answer your question, "is DiD as immoral and tasteless as SCMRPG?" Not in my mind.

Here's why. In DiD, when one of the Darfurians is captured, a text screen informs you:

It then presents textual information as to what might happen to a person caught in those circumstances. In SCMRPG you're rewarded for collecting weapons and see fire and explosions (At least from what I could see in the screenshots. I haven't played the whole game and I seriously doubt that I will...)

If, on the other hand, in DiD, you were allowed to assume the character of a Janjaweed Militia man, and you were able to act out the rape and killing of refugees, I would definitely say that it was immoral and tasteless.

So, keeping things in context, while there might be superficial similarities between them, one is marketed as a Role Playing Game and the other is marketed as a Simulation. This, I believe is an important distinction. I believe that the Authors' presentation of each is influenced by what they've called it. I believe that upon closer examination these differences are apparent. And that's why I am opposed to listing the Game in this community.

Andrew, the is your site and you know that I've defended that to the hilt in other postings. But, all of us who are members, and those that are regular visitors, make it the community that it is. As such, every community has standards. And as a member of this community, I'm voicing my opinion that this game has crossed the boundaries that I'm comfortable with.

Regards,
Dan

My main point is that censorship is a slippery road, and sometimes it is difficult to know where to draw the line once you start doing it.

For example, if someone posts a game with the Prophet Mohammad as the main character, Muslims may complain that it is tasteless. Actually, it is worse than that, it is blasphemous. Remember the uproar caused by the Danish comics last year? So we'd better not touch it.

Oh, did you know, display of Nazi symbols is prohibited in Germany, so I guess if someone submits games in the genre of Wolfenstein 3D or Return to Castle Wolfenstein, I guess we'd better steer clear of them as well.

BTW, homosexuality is not tolerated in many countries. For example, in the small island state where I reside, all traces of homosexuality are routinely wiped out or portrayed in a negative light so that it won't promote "the homosexual lifestyle". Just recently, the Oscar acceptance speech made by Melissa Etheridge was subtlely censored 'cos she has the gall to thank her same-sex wife on national TV! So if someone submits a game with gay characters, I think a lot of people will find it tasteless.

I could go on....

Someone once told me while democracy is about respecting the wishes of the majority, the legal system upon which it is based is about protecting the rights of the minority. Without the legal system, we would all be subjected to mob rule, where the minority will be subjugated to the whims of the majority (eg. freedom of speech, freedom of religion etc.)