Laurel Meissner

John Johnston

ENGL 1B

April 14, 2007

Tragedy in 8-Bit: The Debate Over Super Columbine Massacre RPG!

      As Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold walked towards their high school the morning April 20, 1999, America had no idea it was on the brink of a major, devastating paradigm shift. Immediately following the horrific shooting at Columbine High, society as a whole was in a state of shock: left dazed and wondering what could possibly have caused the event, which left 15 dead, individuals and the media began pointing fingers at possible causes. Was bullying, lax gun control, poor parenting, or even the media itself, particularly the violent videogames the boys had often played, to blame?

      How then should society react when presented with Super Columbine Massacre RPG! a videogame based on the events of that day? While the answer may at first glance seem obvious, the issue is proving complex enough to provoke numerous viewpoints about the validity of the game and even whether videogames should be considered a viable art medium.

      The most visible, simple sides are polar opposites: those who are offended by and object to the game and those who speak in support of it. Outrage over Super Columbine Massacre RPG! is really not limited to any one type of person. It is usually to some degree vilified by conventional media, as it was when it attracted national news coverage, but the media is certainly not the only body of people to be offended- the public at large has reacted with disgust. In contrast, the more vocal supporters of the game have one thing in common: most of them are game enthusiasts or makers themselves, and some are involved in the independent game scene, where small groups or individuals create games without the backing of large mainstream companies. While one may find themselves tempted to immediately pick sides it is important to consider that all of the viewpoints exist for a reason- the individuals choosing to speak in support or demonize the game do so because of their own personal fears, values and beliefs, many of which can be determined through careful analysis of their debates.

      The most repeated charge leveled against the creator by those against the game is “You trivialize the actions of two murderers and the lives of the innocent,” (Vaughan) but those criticizing Super Columbine are not likely to have played the game themselves before passing judgment. How, then, have they come to the conclusion that this game trivializes (or even exploits) the event, when they haven’t even seen it themselves?

       The answer lies with how these critics view videogames as a medium. The comment “I'm not sure it's possible to turn children killing children into something fun.”(SCMRPG: Better Than You'd Think?) Is particularly telling on multiple levels. There is an assumption behind this statement that the point of Super Columbine must be the act of murder. This is echoed in another statement by one of the students who attended the school at the time: “Anyone playing this game can kill Rachel over and over again." (Vargas) It is assumed that because the game requires players to reenact the events of that day, the game must be primarily about killing innocent students in a way similar to how one would mercilessly cut through enemies in any other game- and furthermore, that this is intended to be fun.

      That is the second assumption in the above statement: that videogames must be fun. Videogames are generally seen as a means of entertainment; in our mass media they are the younger, less sophisticated sibling of movies and books, and thus far have not been elevated into the realm of art. The use of the word children in that statement is notable as well- to an extent it also triggers the commonly held association between videogames and America’s children. As Tony Long at Wired magazine put it, “Gaming is essentially escapist entertainment… With all due respect, I think this is the wrong medium for this sort of soul searching.”(Long)

      This is the foundation of the argument many have against Super Columbine RPG! namely, “There are just some things you don't make games about. This is one of them.” (SCMRPG: Better Than You'd Think?) There is an underlying sense to most of the critical commentary that certain subjects are simply taboo, and should be untouchable by the game-making community. The act of making a game about these subjects is a priori tasteless and exploitive. When asked about this stance and whether taboo games could provide a new insight into the subject matter, a typical response is, “…Which is why a "First Person Rapist" game would be ok. Or how about "Klan Kommand," an RTS that has you controlling a group of KKK terrorists as they turn over school buses, bomb churches and lynch people while avoiding the FBI? New insights, right?” (SCM: Games*Design*Art*Culture) To those opposing Super Columbine, games are distinctly different from movies, music or writing because of their interactive nature. While exploring uncomfortable subject matter through film or song may be acceptable, taking on the role of the “bad guys” to do so is unthinkable.

       This is where the final element becomes apparent: many critics of the SCMRPG! are afraid of the interactive nature of video games, and the moral ambiguity of acting as a merciless antagonist. Behind the dismissal of videogames as a medium and the marking of certain subjects as taboo there is the uneasy concern about how these games affect those playing them. It manifests as the worry that some players will go on to emulate the actions of the characters they play in video games; that “…all the world teenagers playing this game, does increase the probability that a extremely small portion of them become killers… and tend to be carried by what they see around them.” (SCM: Games*Design*Art*Culture)

      In contrast to this perspective is that of those who support Super Columbine Massacre RPG! Unlike its critics they are more likely to play the game before reaching a conclusion, and generally have a familiarity with videogames, whether they are players, creators or just interested in the medium.

      This prior knowledge of gaming and willingness to play the game allow them to do something many of the opposition cannot, that is, consider the game itself, rather than the idea of the game. The approach is less first-reaction and more measured response; as a result, writing by advocates of the game tends to contain more artistic critique- “It uses the language of games as a way to think about the massacre. Ledonne … uses gameplay as a rhetorical technique.” (Thompson) In deciding to play the game themselves, the supporters show that they are more comfortable with role-playing as the villain than those opposing it, a mind-frame that allows for more deep exploration of this dynamic:

 “…the insight Super Columbine Massacre provides about its subject matter derives precisely from the fact that the player is forced to take the roles of the perpetrators. The player is exposed to their world: the music, the games, the heedless cruelty of high school life, the thoughts and words of Harris and Klebold themselves.”(Super Columbine Massacre: Artwork or Menace?)

“After playing the game you can appreciate the underlying issues behind the shootings, as well as what Columbine High school signifies. Its about representing an idea, instead of simply simulating murder.”(Dugan, King Lud IC) By playing it they can judge the game as a distinct entity rather than solely a concept, which allows them to make their own decisions about the intent of the game’s maker based on the work itself.

      All of this serious analysis rests on the single belief shared by all of the supporters of Super Columbine Massacre RPG! : Games are art, and should be respected just as much as any other medium. In their words, “That's why this game deserves to be properly discussed and not dismissed. Flight 93 got the EXACT same treatment. So should this.” (Sawyer) To them videogames can be more than just entertainment: they are a form of self-expression, and sometimes even a livelihood. Because of this it is vitally important to them that videogames are seen as art- if they aren’t, this form of work and passion is invalid. They see games as a viable medium with its own strengths, namely that of interactivity “The great strength of games as a medium, the one thing games are able to do that other media cannot, is to illuminate their subject by engaging the player directly in the action.”( Super Columbine Massacre: Artwork or Menace?) With the flurry of controversy spurred by SCMRPG! those who view videogames as a unique art form feel they have to defend their personal beliefs against criticism and the possibility of censorship.

      Censorship is one of the drives behind many of the discussions about Super Columbine. It is not so much a question of legal censorship, but rather, whether game-makers should hold themselves back from making games about sensitive topics. This is primarily in response to the beliefs of those against the game- that certain topics should not be touched. There is a sense that shunning SCMRPG! due to its content is taking a step towards seriously limiting the artistic freedom for games as a medium. There is little mention of legal rights, as the more worrisome specter for those in support of the game is socially enforced self-censorship: the rendering of certain topics as taboo. “…frankly, that's a WORSE proposition. Law permits the accused a to defend himself rationally; taboo allows no rebuttal.” (Dugan, King Lud IC) As supporters of video games as artistic media, those who support Super Columbine feel pressured to do so in order to preserve their medium’s artistic freedom. “It is well documented how the Comic Code strangled the comic book industry's voice for decades. It wouldn't be too wise to submit another medium to that prison.”( Cheslow)

      If the shared belief amongst Super Columbine Massacre RPG!’s supporters is the artistic validity of games, then the shared motivation is self-preservation. Many of their written pieces sound like rallying cries for those championing art games. Super Columbine is to them a poster child for serious games, misunderstood and vilified because it is art that stands outside the popular definition of the medium. Beneath the artistic critique there is a hint of desperation; the game is now a case study for how the public views videogames as a medium for expression. Now that SCMRPG! has attracted attention to serious games it must be supported to serve the entire community’s needs:

“What we do need is games that challenge the stereotype of games as mindless, violent thumb-candy for boys--and games that show the potential of our medium to enlighten, to illuminate, to teach, and to move. What we need is games that approach the status of art.

Like Super Columbine Massacre.”( SCM: Artwork or Menace?)

      Whether one ultimately supports or sides against the game is personal. The truly relevant idea presented by this conflict is how society as a whole views videogames. Will they gain acceptance as an art form, or be relegated to the sidelines as mere entertainment? Super Columbine Massacre RPG! has started a dialog about the place of games in our lives and yet offers no distinct conclusions. It is as the game’s author, Danny Ledonne, states:

"This game, frankly, may be either a bit ahead of its time, or there may be no time for this game, depending on how our culture will view serious games in the next five or ten years." (Dugan, Soapbox)

Works Cited

Cheslow, Ari. "Slamming Slamdance." Dry, Sardonic, Irreverent. 20 Jan. 2007. 27 Apr. 2007 <http://d-s-i.blogspot.com/2007_01_01_archive.html>. 

Dugan, Patrick. "Soapbox: Why You Owe the Columbine RPG." Gamasutra. 13 Mar. 2007. 27 Apr. 2007 <http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20070313/dugan_01.shtml>. 

Dugan, Patrick. "Super Columbine Massacre RPG." King Lud IC. 26 Apr. 2006. 27 Apr. 2007 <http://kingludic.blogspot.com/2006/04/super-columbine-massacre-rpg.html>. 

Long, Tony. "Shoot to Kill, Shoot to Thrill." Wired. 1 Feb. 2007. 27 Apr. 2007 <http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/commentary/theluddite/2007/02/72592>. 

Sawyer, Ben. "Super Columbine Massacre RPG." Serious Games. 5 June 2006. 27 Apr. 2007 <http://www.seriousgames.org/archives/000150.html>. 

"Super Columbine Massacre: Artwork or Menace?" Games*Design*Art*Culture. 6 Jan. 2007. 27 Apr. 2007 <http://www.costik.com/weblog/2007/01/super-columbine-massacre-artwork-or.html>. 

"Super Columbine Massacre: Artwork or Menace?" Manifesto Games. 6 Jan. 2007. 27 Apr. 2007 <http://www.manifestogames.com/node/3048>. 

"Super Columbine Massacre RPG: Better Than You'd Think?" Kotaku. 3 May 2006. 27 Apr. 2007 <http://kotaku.com/gaming/retro/super-columbine-massacre-rpg-better-than-youd-think-171305.php>. 

Thompson, Clive. "I, Columbine Killer." Wired. 15 Jan. 2007. 27 Apr. 2007 <http://www.wired.com/gaming/gamingreviews/commentary/games/2007/01/72491?currentPage=1>. 

Vargas, Jose A. "Shock, Anger Over Columbine Video Game." The Washington Post. 20 May 2006. 27 Apr. 2007 <http://www.washingtonpost.cohttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/19/AR2006051901979.html>. 

Vaughan, Kevin, and Brian D. Crecente. "Video Game Reopens Columbine Wounds." Rocky Mountain News. 16 May 2006. 27 Apr. 2007 <http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_4702205,00.html>.