Yesterday, GamePolitics picked up on a Kotaku exclusive which said that organizers of the Slamdance Competition had dropped the ultra-controversial Super Columbine Massacre RPG from the program due to sponsor pressure.In an update, however, Kotaku editor Brian Crecente is now reporting on his Rocky Mountain News blog that the decision to deep-six SCMRPG was actually made by the festival's founder, Peter Baxter, apparently sans outside pressure. Said Baxter:
On the one hand, a jury selected this game, and as a result of that decision it leads to our organization supporting their creative decision. On the other hand, there are moral obligations to consider here with this particular game, in addition to the impact it could have on the Slamdance organization and its community.
Ultimately it was my decision to pull this game, and I hope that a choice like it will never have to be made again.
Crecente reports that this is the first time in the festival's 13-year history that either a game or film has been axed. Meanwhile, Georgia Tech prof Ian Bogost of Persuasive Games expressed deep concern about Baxter's decision:
Baxter, it would seem, is not equipped for, or not willing to consider, the idea that videogames might have the importance or impact of the films he screens. During the two years we exhibited, I saw Baxter once or twice, but he hardly spent much time with the gamemakers. We were, it seems, a sideline, an experiment, a distraction...
I'm glad that we're not finalists this year, because I don't know if I would decide to pull our entry or not... But I think we all would do well, be we gamemakers or filmmakers, to reconsider supporting this event with our work in the future... we now know that Slamdance was apparently never really serious about videogames. When the time came to make good on their word, they failed...
On the other hand, Crecente reports that Jamil Moledina, executive director of the GDC, cautions that the film and video game mediums don't necessarily compare well:
We in the game industry love to compare films to games but the analogy is not 100 percent complete. Games are interactive medium. There is this kind of gray area here. We need to be careful and not automatically fall for that analogy.
Comments
If I was a jury member, I'd be feeling rather insulted right now.
As for apologizing to the sponsors, the complete details of the situation will never be clear, and I'm sure there were tough conversations between the festival and some of the sponsors, given the fact that they were looking for some help diffusing them. But clearly all of us reporting on the situation were initially wrong to say that sponsor pressure forced the decision. The key to this situation is really Baxter's executive decision, which undermines the festival's entire project.
A jury has decided in favor of a particular game.
Possible outside influences begin acting.
Director overrides jury and deems game invalid.
Move the scope to game legislation. In some cases, a judge and/or jury must decide if a particular game sold to a minor is or is not appropriate for that minor.
A particular jury in a specific case decides that, in this specific case, a specific game was appropriate for the child in question.
Outside influences harp and scream disagreement.
A Judge overrides jury's decision.
It always comes down to "It's our way or our way".
I agree with Jabrwock, there is no intellgent consistancy in this case. Screaming "interactivity" as a justification of segregation between film and games is merely a cop out. Art takes on all forms, positive and negative, and creates thought on a variety of levels. Art doesn't even have to be "pretty" to be art. Indeed, interpretation and imagination don't require button pushing but still allow a massive diversity of thought about even a still picture. Interpretation and imagination is far more "interactive" than a movie going down a set path or even a game that is slightly changable in the path it takes. They are more "interactive" because the individual doing the interpretation and using their imagination has no boundaries set for them. They can take whatever path they choose, with the only limits being set by their own minds. So using an argument of "interactivity" against one form of media, a form of media that still sets its own boundaries, is a rediculous argument because an individual's own mind offers "interactivity" no matter what form the media takes.
Personally, I've never heard of Slamdance and if the organization, by way of the director, can be manipulated by influences that, more than likely, have no concept of the various materials considered, then Slamdance, despite the length of time it's been around, may actually not be of any value any longer.
nightwng2000
NW2K Software
Just take everything bad I said about the sponsors and apply it to Peter Baxter instead. Hey, it fits perfectly!
I'm not on the "games as art" bandwagon, myself, but if you're going to hop on that bandwagon, you'd better have the guts to ride it out.
Of course games aren't films. Some of the things that film does well as a medium aren't done as well in games, and viceversa. New mediums always immitate old mediums as a way of gaining artistic licience. Early photographers recreated classic paintings; films weren't taken seriously until they succressfully recreated classic plays and literature. Games are currently doing the same with film. Personally I think they'd have better luck immitating literature. Eventually photography and film were allowed to leave the older medium's conventions behind and be good mediums in and of themselves. Shouldn't games be allowed to do the same?
I kind of wonder if politically aware gamers should still try to organize a boycott of the sponsers. Even though it's not their fault, it could still put some pressure on the festival's founder.
It's truly such a slap in the face to gamers and game makers of any genre. But why would anyone care? We're all just a bunch of kids, right?
If I was a sponsor, and the founder started telling the judges how to vote, I'd pull my funding and state that I cannot support a competition that is clearly pre-decided.
I want to stress that one controversial game made by one vilified individual can only get us so far. History always seems to paint the impetus for change as being that of "leaders" when it fact the underlying sentiment of the large majority is nearly always the true cause of progress. If we collectively want videogames to be more than mere objects to distract us, it's time to think about how that progress toward gaming as a true artistic medium can be made. If we only want plucky entertainment, then games like "Super Columbine Massacre RPG!" will be tossed down the memory hole, forgotten, and a scant few of us will talk about a revolution that almost happened but never was. It's up to us.
remember me? i enquired about the game's title.
And honestly, I agree, and in cases I think the critics would liek that to happens ,games like the SCMRPG you created to be tossed into the dustbin of history.
Okay?
This always makes me laugh, because 20 years ago, there was 'definitive' proof that sitting in front of a TV or Film screen unable to get involved was what was increasing all the 'pent up anger in today's youth.'
Personally, I think the story changes depending on what political donkey needs to be ridden at the time.
have you ever played it?
And your reasons for it being bad are......?
Slamdance needs to grow some balls and stand up to those who would attack them for letting the game stay. By pulling it, they are letting video games continue to be seen as toys for children. If video games that deal with real situations like that aren't protected, then it's only going to hold games back from becoming a form of media that is taken seriously by all.
Your opinion, so I can't change your mind.
Personally, I htink it's at least a decent insight into what happened.
I agree with this comment by Jamil Moledina, just like my favourite movie and game, George Romero's Dawn of the Dead and Capcom's Dead Rising, although they had the same setting in the shopping mall, but the story is much different.
Too true o nthe story differences, nto to mention Dead Rising had the traditional shuffler zombie. The game would have been unfair if they had the super fast zombies.
I agree, and the shuffling zombies you say? Yeah, those types of zombies appeared on those above movie and game I mentioned. And yeah, I prefer super fast zombies on first person shooters, that way, it will be scary, and in fact, super fast zombies are scary in the dark where they suddenly sneaks up behind you or pops out to slash you.
I don't think you can compromise on freedom even once. That's sort of like saying "well, that country may have banned one book, but that doesn't mean it'll ban more!" -- in my mind this one incident *does* undo everything good it has done, because what good it has done was reliant upon not judging an artwork by any concern other than its aesthetic worth.
Then you'll be pleased to know Resident Evil 5 will contain the fast zombies.
More likely however, two of the best games will be removed, the conference will go as planned and everyone will feel a bit cheated, a bit hollow in the wake, and Mr. Roberts will resign and go work for Indiecade. The Slamdance Gamemaker's Competition will become no more, assasinated by the festival's founder, whose concern for the festival's future evidently implies the film festival, and none other.
My question is, would you rather fight for a fair competition, or pace through a hollow ceremony?
I don't think this will kill the festival and it does I don't think it is to late to save it. They can have a public letter of apology and make it automatically qualified for next year's competition (and if it wins also announce second place) if the head guy still refuses to allow it entry.
Yeah, it's a combination of ganados and zombies, the zombies of Resident Evil 5 not only can run like you said though, they can communicate like the ganados and have a thirst of flesh just like ordinary zombies.
Anyway, thanks for letting me know.
(This may be unprofessional to discuss on a public forum, but not nearly as unprofessional as the shit they just pulled...)
I was part of the "jury" this year, and I gave SCMRPG a terrible review (the game is shit). At the same time, the rest of the jury chose it as a finalist so it has EVERY RIGHT to be part of the festival. Was the tens of hours I spent judging not worth anything, because they can override it at will?
The judging sheet I wrote for SCMRPG was the longest one I wrote, because there was alot to say... almost all negative. However just the simple fact that I felt compelled to SAY these things means that the game did its job. If nothing else SCMRPG is an effective way of pissing people off, a power that no other game has had to this extent. If that isn't groundbreaking I don't know what is!
This is a sad day for Slamdance, and for those of us who spent our time supporting it.