Controversial 9/11 Space Invaders Mashup Pulled as Creator Blames Media Reports

As GamePolitics reported last week, an artist’s Leipzig Game Conference exhibit which blended the arcade classic Space Invaders with images of the Twin Towers caused no small amout of controversy.

According to Edge Online artist Douglas Edric Stanley has pulled the exhibit, citing the uproar. In his blog, Stanley blames much of the public reaction to what he views as an ill-informed initial report by Kotaku:

I believe that I have at least some responsibility in taking seriously the many comments, especially from those within the gaming community, and obviously over at Kotaku where the response was the most varied and interesting…


Sadly, the work has been discussed, largely… based on this early report in which the journalist did not even play the game. For me at least, a video game is at some point always going to be about its gameplay. Ironically, the same journalist finally did play the game, and found some merit in it. But by then, the cat was out of the bag, and we had a media circus on our hands…

Stanley adds:

While I take full responsibility for the uncomfortable ambiguity of certain aspects of this work, it was never created to merely provoke controversy for controversy’s sake, and unfortunately, this is what the piece has now become… The American response to this work has been, frankly, immature, and lacking the sophistication and consideration that other parts of the world have so far shown the work…


Contrary to previous reports, I am an American, and it saddens me that we as a people remain so profoundly unable to process this event outside of some obscure, but tacitly understood, criteria of purely anesthetized artistic representation.

In related news, Space Invaders creator TAITO has indicated that it may sue Stanley and the Leipzig show for using the game without authorization.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on RedditEmail this to someone


  1. 0
    Blu300 says:

    I’ve seen GTA. I’ve played it. You know what? It’s still a murder Simulator.

    And Fox news saw Mass Effect. They saw video clips of it. And you know what? It’s still training children to be sex obsessed and to sell themselves. (Or whatever Fox claimed).

    I sense double standards here. Besides, I see Invaders! and see it as a work of art – it provokes emotion and discussion. More so than any painting by Van Gogh.

    Perhaps we should redefine what constitutes art for the conviniance of those who find this piece offends them?

  2. 0
    Blu300 says:

    So what was Farenheit 9/11’s point?

    What did it do that this didn’t? In fact, I’d say this was more effective at raising discussion.

    In Farenheit 9/11, we’re presented with one viewpoint and thats that. In Invaders! there is no set view point – you can think what you like.

  3. 0
    chadachada(123) ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    Personally I think that Micheal Moore is an opprotunist, and that Fareinheit 9/11 was a disgusting piece of trash…

    But, Farinheit 9/11 did have a point, something that this piece of "art" didn’t, other than pissing off some people then backing out as soon as some internet tuff guys got mad.

  4. 0
    Artifex says:

    I have yet to see anything that shows this entire event is not a coldly calculated pre-planned affair designed by D. Stanley.

    The original display, massive in size, nobody would miss it. Or the "game’s" controversial content, bound to draw negative attention. The game itself being designed from the ground up to be nothing but attention-grabbing and controversial. Doing so at one of the world’s largest games conventions, where he knew there would be large press coverage instead of in an art gallery, where he would have gotten little to no press. Then, with no pressure other than a (clearly expected) vocal minority of internet strangers, he pulls his piece down, voluntarily. Makes an insulting passive-agressive statement about gamers/americans/and the internet in general and how he is the victim in all of this. And now he is getting more media attention than most people could possibly dream of.

    Tell me how this isn’t planned.

  5. 0
    chadachada(123) ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    I think the whole thing of using the twin towers to show that "no matter what you can’t win" is a rather tacktless and stupid thing to do, and he’d be very stupid not to expect at least a fair amount of controversy. There are many other ways he could’ve shown the "no matter what you can’t win" thing without using sensitive and completely off-topic buildings.

    Seriously, some terrorists attacked us, so we went to Afghanistan to kick some Taliban ass (when it was Al Quaeda that caused 9/11), then went to Iraq because Al Quada and a dictator-with-too-much-power was there. While I agree that the way we are handling things in Iraq isn’t the best way, and won’t solve much in the end, (Iraq will have a civil war whenever we leave, period), it’s pretty offensive to say "well, the terrorists will always win in the end, might as well pack it in, give up, game over."

  6. 0
    SJ Zero says:

    This whole incident makes me want to make an offensive game.


    I’ll call it "9/11 avenger", and your goal will be to kill as many people who have nothing to do with 9/11 as possible, in order to avenge 9/11. You start by choosing a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, where not one of the 9/11 hijackers came from. Next, you cause ten times the civilian casualties caused by 9/11. At the same time, you’ll want ot kill as many of your own people as died on 9/11.

  7. 0
    Dark Sovereign says:

    I haven’t seen anybody claiming it’s not art. And since he took his peice down by choice, censorship doesn’t really enter into it. I’ve seen the game, and I’ve seen the reactions to it. I’ve seen people playing it. You know what? NOTHING CHANGED. The game is simple. It’s space invaders with a Twin Towers theme tacked on to it. There isn’t anything else to it.

  8. 0
    Austin_Lewis says:

    This game wasn’t made with parody in mind.  It was made to shock people and to generate some publicity for a mediocre ‘artist’ with a mediocre career.

    I don’t know where the idea came from that anytime someone makes something controversial and call it ‘art’, it’s actually art.  A hispanic ‘artist’ videotaped a dog being starved to death and called it art, is that art too?  What if I put a bag over a homeless man’s head and videotape how long it takes him to suffocate, then put it on display at some art gallery, is that art?

    No, it’s not art.  It’s a sad attempt to grab attention for a man who wants to call himself an ‘artist’ and sit around and pretend to be an intellectual while he really just likes to shock and offend people for the sake of being shocking and offensive.  Stop holding losers like that up as though they’re martyrs; this man is talentless, and this man is a hack.

  9. 0
    Alteffor says:

    I can’t stand any gamer trying to censor this claiming it isn’t art. What makes you any different than anyone trying to censor games? We fight to get them to be considered art, and then we turn around and attack another form of art. Controversial maybe, but so was GTA. Should that be banned too?

    Every generation has the notorious habit of fighting for their own hobby than attacking the next generations. Go ahead and continue it, but when you’re doing it, look at yourself, and you’ll see you’re no different from Jack Thompson. People here are attacking the game, but they haven’t played it. When Fox News attacked Mass Effect, they didn’t play it either. We were angry. Jack calls for a Bully ban after hearing some things about it. We were angry. Someone comes out with a piece of controversy we don’t agree with. We show our true colours, don’t we. We attack it with prejudice and uneducated statements.

    When the next generation comes, do you want to be the person to attack their hobbies? Do you want to be that person? I know I don’t.

  10. 0
    ZacharyMiner ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    Uh, what? I fail to see how anything I wrote could be construed as trolling. I was making points about this artist’s attempts to create meaning with his work and about how most people seem not to have gotten any message out of it at all.  What’s trollish about that? 

  11. 0
    Dark Sovereign says:

    I think this guy (tecknicklee, second edge comment) sums up how I feel:

    ""Disappointing" is really the only word I can use to label this piece of work.

    At it’s best, Stanley’s work is poorly thought-out, totally oblivious to his source material and just flat-out LAZY. Maybe I am missing a message that exists on a higher level that Stanley has either concealed beyond recognition or simply is not equipped to express, but this is a missed opportunity to have connected the mechanics expressed by Space Invaders with the reality and nature of the events of September 11, 2001 along with the nature of the war on "terror".

    At it’s worst, it’s a cheap, amateur piece that shamelessly rides the rising popularity of videogames while exploiting a still open-wound in the psyche of the American and international community. This piece does little to put a spotlight on what could have potentially been a powerful comparison between the futility of Space Invades and the international efforts to combat terror with conventional tactics. Instead, it is a muddled, chimerical, clumsy almagam of pop culture and recent events.

    If Stanley has an ounce of videogame history and vocabulary, he certainly doesn’t express it. There is so much great material to work with, and it’s almost as if he just cut the tongue out of the buffallo and threw the rest away. Making this material work as a critical success to both high art and the general populace would have been EASY, but somehow, Stanley has appeared to let sensationalism and his own ignorance prevail.

    I know very little about Stanley, but this piece has pretty much made me lump him into the annoying and vacuous community of artsy bullshitters who do nothing but wave their hands in front of games they’ve never played while calling themselves pioneers of some new, imaginary medium.

    Controversy for controversy’s sake is a sheer sign of vanity, caprice and artistic shalowness."

  12. 0
    Dark Sovereign says:

    To an extent. Artists usually have some statement to make in their work, whether overtly (Orwell), or more concealed (some romantic fiction). Often times this will create debate, but over the views expressed in the work itself, and the skill with which they are brought out, and not how dumb the author is.

    The point isn’t clear here though. Meaning it’s either bad art (likely) or it was put out specifically to generate outrage, which is trolling. The fact that when he bowed out he felt the need to act like a dick supports the arguement that he was a troll.

  13. 0
    Jeff says:

    You’re most certainly right.

    His exhibit, as art, was made for express purpose of sparking a reaction. He got a reaction to be sure. Maybe not the one he wanted – but we can’t all get what we want. If he wasn’t expecting a negative reaction all then I question his occupation as an artist.

    A true artist would accept criticism – positive or negative – and just learn from it. After all, isn’t that what art is about?

  14. 0
    ZippyDSMlee says:

    Wow I see the petty witless woolie apes coming out of the barn over this, if the creator is as annoying as the whiners whining even then it would not be worth the fuss.

    Oh and news at 11 someone copied pack man or zelda only made with his own code, and changes to the map layouts and a few other things it 80% resembles the classic the world is goign to end I tell you!!

    I is fuzzy brained mew =^^=
    (in need of a bad overhaul)

  15. 0
    JustChris says:

    WWII games also had a single "acceptable evil" as the Nazis. The Japanese forces are more of a hazy cloud, however. Japanese censors a lot of the western-made WWII games in the context of Japanese participation in the war.

  16. 0
    Larington ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    Does anyone else find it interesting how Internet forum/message-board principles such as trolling are being applied to an art exhibit which itself has nothing to do with the Internet?

    Nevermind all that though – I thought the purpose of art exhibits was often to spark a reaction or encourage debate, and it seems as though the exhibit has done exactly that, so it doesn’t look like a failed exhibit to me.

    Just playing devils advocate here for a moment.

  17. 0
    TJLK says:

    If I created a work of art that was going to be displayed I might have made sure I couldn’t be sued for it.  Perhaps he should have re-created some of the assets from space invaders rather than pretty much taking them exactly as is.  They should be recognnizable but not exactly the same (which they look as if they are).  Taito has more merit being pissed of than people that are overly sensitive about the terrorist attacks on 9/11.  I don’t think he should be sued but I do think that Taito has more of a legitimate argument.  Again I might be wrong on this because I didn’t actually get to experience the exhibit but thats what it looks like from the videos I’ve seen.

    I feel he was actually fairly tame in his response to the people that were offended.  I would have been much, much more vulgar and I also would have concentrated on insulting the intelligence of those that were offended.  Lets face it, if you are so offended that you choose to speak about it then you are asking for it.  If you are so sensitive to where you are offended by art then perhaps you deserve to be offended if you choose to risk exposing yourself to it.  People are so soft and weak.  Everything has to be properly wrapped with a nice little bow before people accept it.  Not only that but if it is infact somewhat ugly or generally perceived as bad the politically correct police come and invent a new name for it.  It doesn’t change what it is but it just makes people more comfortable hearing and seeing it.  These people breed dishonesty and ignorance.  I hope these overly sensitive self rightious individuals are offended on a daily basis until they realize they are not the center of the universe.  

  18. 0
    Anonymous says:

    The guy is an attention whore.

  19. 0
    Anonymous says:

    Knowing how some art can get bought out by certain wealthy individuals for really large amounts of cash, it could really suggest that he could end up profiting in some way from the art.

  20. 0
    Dark Sovereign says:

    What we’re dealing with here is a troll. He takes space invaders and reskins in with a Twin Towers theme. People get offended, he pulls his game down. Sends out a comment about American immaturity.

    Michel Moore documentaries may be disrespectful and dishonest, but at least Moore gets a message across This guy didn’t. There’s no insight here. There’s little in the way of a poltical statement.

    He represents the dregs of the gaming community, and should be forgotten. Gamers are fighting a PR battle. Supporting this guy hurts the PR, and his game keeps people from taking gaming seriously. It’s uncreative and juvenile. Supporting him makes gamers seem like the social misfits the media portrays them to be.

    People got offended, and he pulled his game down. He says it’s because Americans are immature. It’s probably because he was going to get sued.

    Maybe there will be a good commentary on 9/11 in game form. A space invaders clone will not fulfill that purpose.

  21. 0
    T5 ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    Let’s put this to bed right here and now, if the guy was for real he would have had the courage of his convictions and ideals to stand up proudly behind his work, but he didn’t.  He was looking to make a splash but did not count on getting wet himself.  There is no two ways about it the guy is a tool, and seems like a snob given his comments, after all freedom of speech cuts both ways so can the "media made me do X" garbage.  People like this are just pathetic and deserve not spite but pity. 

  22. 0
    Dark Sovereign says:

    The World War II games were at least close to factual. You notice that they didn’t turn the Rape of Nanking into a cartoon. They didn’t make a game where you play a Japanese war criminal experimenting on POWs.

  23. 0
    Generic Enemy Number 12 says:

    He is not making any money off of this Space Invaders game, right?  So why is he getting sued?  It’s not for commercial use, as nobody payed to play it or payed to buy the game itself.  I don’t see why everybody is making a big deal over him "stealing" the game and then getting excited over video game clones on the internet with politics added in.  Shouldn’t we worry more about actual piracy and the ESA?

  24. 0
    ZacharyMiner ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    I think it is the "uncomfortable ambiguity" that got a lot of people here. This game could have meant a lot more if the message was clearer.

    From the video in the earlier post, all I can see is that he’s created a video game where you run around and gesture to play "Space Invaders," with a Twin Towers theme in the background. What exactly is that supposed to tell us? Is that "uncomfortable ambiguity," or is that "failing to communicate a message"? That’s always a tension with art, I suppose, but in this case I’d say more of the latter, unless there’s something in the exhibit which wasn’t featured in the video.

    At least with Wafaa Bilal’s art, he altered the game in a personally meaningful way, gave some backstory for his involvement and artistic choices, etc. Not to say that one person’s art is better than another’s, but if you don’t communicate a message through your art, then what was the point of doing a piece that’s supposed to have a message?

  25. 0
    Pinworm4545 says:

    The fact that countless books and several movies can be made on the subject and be called masterpieces (Michael Moore and masterpiece in the same sentance? yeah right) yet a videogame expressing the same thing is "insensitive" and whatever bullshit they’re saying just wreaks of immaturity.

    They never even gave it a chance. They never even bothered. They just went "9/11 AND VIDEOGAMES IN THE SAME SENTENCE? RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE"

  26. 0
    Zerodash. ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    I’m all for the right of this game to exist and be shown to the public.  However, calling the American reaction "immature" reeks of petty eleitism.  9/11 was a terrible experience for Americans, they have every right to be upset.  This tool knew what he was getting into.

  27. 0
    Morm says:

    I’m a european and I agree with JustChris completely. If the game was about London or Madrid bombing and would have reach the ears of mass media the same scandal would have probably occured.

    Anyone who’s read a newspaper once in his life knows that such dramatic events don’t lead to moderation, especially from media and politicians. Attacking americans’ supposed immaturity, although these reactions were so pretictable, in this case wasn’t very… mature of him.

  28. 0
    shep says:

    Funny, the videos showed no version of Space Invaders I ever saw… likewise the way to control this game was slightly different and the fact that the background element was what was slowly being destroyed which has NEVER been done in a Space Invaders game before.

    But I suppose you knew all this already.

    And why does he seemed suprised?  One of Michael Bays most popular movies is Pearl Harbor.  A film that took a pivotal and controversial moment in American History and reduced it to Ben Affleck sneaking off to fuck on a boat.  Likewise, within a YEAR of 9/11, we had three made for TV movies chronicling the events with the same level of seriousness as Dragon Wars.  Marvel Comics sold an art book showing their various heroes reactions to 9/11.We have had commenoritive coins, plates, dollars, t-shirts, mugs, notebooks, bumper stickers, and let’s not forget flags themselves all leading to a national shortage of American Flags in this country.  9/11 has been sold in every form of baseless consumerism this country has to offer to the point I’m suprised they haven’t made a Happy Meal toy over those events.

    But this game… this is the step tooo far for Americans.  Because it’s a video game, yet again, that’s the cause of the controversy.

    People need to draw a line in the sand somewhere.  And clearly label it the "too far" meter.  Because I can buy a "Remember 9/11" commenorative vibrator and that’s just fine.  But god forbid interactive art makes political statements.

  29. 0
    Pinworm4545 says:

    Why is it okay for movies such as Fareinheit 9/11 (I think that was it?) and Flight.. something or other.. to be made, but videogames on the same subject can’t be?

    Why is it okay for there to be countless books of people expressing themselves about 9/11, but it’s not okay for videogames to do the same?

    It ‘makes light of it’? Makes ‘entertainment of it’? In that case, stop charging for the books and movies. Thanks.

  30. 0
    Pogosdick says:

    I’m all for artistic expression, but Edric Stanley came off as churlish, arrogant and oblivious in his response. Since he’d initially used another’s game design only to add this particular expression, it certainly seems like it was added to "provoke controversy for controversy’s sake."

    If not, then why?
    ..and exactly how idiotic does one need to be not to realize why people are incensed?  Not to mention that he seems genuinely surprised by the backlash.

    What a tard.

  31. 0
    Nekowolf ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    I’ll be honest, I started to read the comments, but I stopped a ways through. Instead, I’ll just say what I have to say.

    Reading what the guy said, well…I wasn’t really offended by his thing, to be honest, I simply didn’t really care. Now, I just read the article that GP linked to at Kotaku, so, is that the original article then? Cause, quite frankly, I don’t see this, well…hm. *is thinking of what to say*

    Well, personally, he should have known that this was the kind of response he would get, regardless of media. Just be thankful that, as far as I know, mainstream media hasn’t done anything with it yet. If he honestly expected to go without the harsh criticism, then, well, that’s just stupid to expect.

    Honestly? To me, it sounds more like just slapping some things together (Space Invaders and 9/11), adding something unique (physical movement responses), then putting it out calling it art and saying it has some kind of message. To me, the whole thing does not sound well thought-out. To me, it’s like, "Well what did you expect?" He should have known he would recieve this kind of criticism. And when he did, I find he came off a bit pissy and a little arrogant.

    One part though, I’d like to comment on: "and lacking the sophistication and consideration that other parts of the world have so far shown the work…" Well, it didn’t happen to them, it happened to us. The attack wasn’t on Germany, or France, or whoever, it was on America. Of course other countries would have a different reception, because they were not the ones attacked on 9/11. But we were. So naturally, we in the US would be more sensitive to it because we have a stronger emotional connection to it. And it feels like, to me, he looks at us, points to these other nationalities and says to us "Well THEY’RE not bitching about it!" when, and again, the terrorist attack on 9/11 wasn’t on these other nationalities.

    One last thing; to be quite honest, I find "art" a rather terrible choice, especially in modern times, for some kind of protest message. And what he did was no exception. They’re just not that strong for the kind of emotional response you want. It’s not like a powerful speech, or a revolutionary gathering, or something really profound. It’s like, I can do whatever no matter how controversial or stupid, call it art, and say it has some kind of intellectual message. But, controversy (or rather a kind of controversy that has been going on recently), I think, does NOT get the message across; it upsets people, it gets them angry, or hurt, or both, and it just that much harder for them to understand the context of what you are trying to say.

  32. 0
    Andrew Eisen says:

    Catwoman – Didn’t see the movie.  Looked stupid.  Game looked like a Prince of Persia rip off which isn’t necessarily a bad thing but I never played it.

    Superman 64 – If it was determined that Titus thought the game was good enough, that Superman fans would eat up any old garbage and be happy with it, then, yes I would have been offended.  I doubt that was the case though.  The game ended up an unplayable mess and I doubt anyone on the development team was happy with it.

    Custer’s Revenge – Nope.  Didn’t offend me.


    You know what does offend me?  Censorship and bans.  The gov’t or anyone else deciding that something is not appropriate for me.   That offends me.


    Andrew Eisen

  33. 0
    Chuma-Hasn'tHeardAnythingYetAboutRegistrationProblems ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    I wouldn’t call you insensitive, no, but can you at least appreciate why said projects are controversial?  It isn’t as though you have to agree with the kneejerk reactions to understand why they are made/felt.

    (For the record, I’m not playing devils advocate, just portraying my own feelings on the matter.  I feel art SHOULD be able to use existing media and explore subjects that are difficult, and whilst this means that reactions can be bad as well as good, it shouldn’t mean that said artist’s works should be closed down.)

  34. 0
    Charlie Brown says:



    But really, I guess maybe I’d understand people taking offense if it were something like this

    But, it isn’t. Did anyone really see the screenshot of it with the space invaders shooting the towers and the players NEGATIVE point count? Or did everyone not see that and decide "Oh 9/11 I’m going to go on a tangent and yell and scream."  

    Its times like this when I tent to agree with the guy "The American response to this work has been, frankly, immature, and lacking the sophistication and consideration that other parts of the world have so far shown the work…"

    Can’t we all just grow a set and move on? Or is that too hard for us?

  35. 0
    Andrew Eisen says:

    I honestly can’t think of a game that offends me.

    This thing?  Nope.

    Columbine Massacre RPG?  Nope.

    The VT game?  The torture game?  Border Patrol?  Manhunt?  Postal?  GTA?

    No, no and no.

    Am I enlightened or just insensitive?


    Andrew Eisen

  36. 0
    Leet Gamer Jargon says:

    Seriously, please shut up. Don’t call people morons; add insightful, meaningful comments to these discussions.

    ….Hold on a sec…..Jack?…JT, is that you? Are you trying to defame someone again?

  37. 0
    KayleL says:

    Have you even seen the whole game. It feels like Lawrence Cooper all over again. As GamePolitics reported, many whistle blowers dropped their statement when they actually played the game. Maybe there is a real message in the game.

    Also, how many space invader clones do you see on the internet? There must be a new one daily, and almost an exact copy while this is a modified version with a new way of interacting with the game based on video image of the player. This guy wasn’t trying to sell the game, it was like a tech demo.

    Lets say that you made a game console, and you didn’t want to make to go through a whole process of making an original game, so you make a Mario clone. Even though you are not selling that game, do you think Nintendo would be knocking on your door for copyright infringement?

    I see nothing in the article about stealing codes either. Also, Nintendo is constantly being sued all the time for patent infringement with products like DS and Wii, but do you think Nintendo is a criminal?

    About America’s immaturity, you would be surprised what kind of comments these people get. When Black Looks blogged about RE5 being racist, you see comments with the ‘n’ word more often then the word "the". Do you call that mature?

    You might say that the people who were offended by this game are respectable people. Well on a website called OneNewsNow, it’s full of very Christian people commenting on the articles. They should be respectable people, right? Well there was an article about discrimination against Homosexuals and Transsexuals being recognized by the government, and all over the comment page, you see people saying that they all should die and go to hell, they are corrupting sociality, confusing children, blah blah blah. I would call their response very immature even though the bible told them that it was a sin. So they have a good reason to say that, right?

  38. 0
    Dark Sovereign says:

    The artist is a plagiarist, and few people on this site understand copyright law. The artist can’t make a clear point, and had to TELL people what it was, indicating he isn’t a very good artist. The art itself was garunteed to cause offense, meaning he is either an idiot or a real life troll. And the killing blow? He took it down himself, and blamed America’s immaturity.

    I don’t support censorship, but this doesn’t really qualify. This is more of a gray area. This idiot set out to cause uproar for the sake of getting attention, and he succeeded. The internet community should be able to spot his kind, and avoid them, from a mile away. But what do we do? We pretend he wasn’t a hack. We attack those with differing opionions as immature, and declare ourselves to have the moral high ground, thus stomping over the "everybody has a right to their opinion" facade that gamers try to hide behind.

    The only person at fault here is the artist. He made a game garunteed to cause offense, and then, when the copyright owner threatens to sue him for stealing and repurposing their code without permission, he takes down his exhibit and pretends that Americans are immature. HE’S AN ASS. He deserves to be forgotten, not defended.

    We are not considered a legitimate artform, and this is why. We don’t want to confront the idiots within our ranks. We don’t actually judge our artistic output on its subjective grounds. We simply say that everybody else should respect free speech and tell them to suck it for thinking that this guy shouldn’t be supported.

  39. 0
    KayleL says:

    Well, that’s what this site is built on. We see headlines about some politician talking about how violent video games are corrupting our youth, and we rage on this site, and sometimes immaturely. Now with this article, the line gets a little bit grey, and there are valid statements on both side of the argument.

    Do to the nature of the people on this website, we believe that everyone has the freedom of speech, and shouldn’t question it with some exceptions. This isn’t one of those exception. A exception is usually something like lying, or fascism which is stuff like censorship, must follow ones belief, discrimination, genocide, etc.

    This artist doesn’t fall under fascist, thus most people on this website would defence him. It’s like having a person defending gay rights with a priest. Due to what the bible say, homosexuals should be beheaded, so majority of priest would be against it and sometimes would damn you to Hell. But you would have the odd one who agrees to have gay rights.

  40. 0
    Dark Sovereign says:

    No. However, given the new cult of "diversity" and "multiculturalism" that abounds in Canada, Europe, and the elite, I thought that I would point it out. Just like many commenters on this site, they respect the opinions that agree with them, and treat any dissenting opinion as a threat that must be stamped out. The asshole has a right to his display his game (or would, if he hadn’t stolen the code), but the people offended by it have the right to be offended.

    But when somebody gets offended at speech what happens? The elitists and internet junkies come out and declare that your a fool for getting offended.

  41. 0
    KayleL says:

    Is that something new? Many countries do it all the time with other countries. America complains about digital rights in Canada all the time. There are complaints from many countries around the world about the Japanese hunting whales. Many countries criticize China about the one child rule.

    This is nothing new, and it’s not just with America.

  42. 0
    Silencets says:

    You obviously have no appreciation for the subltest of subtlties.  Look deeper in the content.  Embrace it’s MEANING.  Now write a 20 page paper that analyes the structure and content in a philosophicle/political/economical/ and societal context.  Due next Friday.

    Semper Fidelis Tim Shull Cpl Ret USMC

  43. 0
    Dark Sovereign says:

    Neither the Europeans nor the Canadians respect the American ways of running things. If they did, you wouldn’t see the British berating Americans about "living in fear" when we say we don’t like gun control, and you wouldn’t hear the Canadians bitching about our "xenophobia" in illegal immigration debates.

    I was saying that Al Qaida attacked more countries than just America. They attacked both Spain and England.

  44. 0
    KayleL says:

    No, I have not been living in a cave, nor said that Americans attack more countries. America attacked very little amount of countries relative to others, and even held back from many wars like both world wars. This is not an issue. About Al Qaida, Canada doesn’t get as much of Al Qaida propaganda as the citizens in America do.

    Also, Canada and most European countries respects Americans just as much as other countries we are allied with. But we can choose sides on a debate, and some people are going to seem arrogant and vise-versa. But hypocrisy really boils my water. Yes, Americans are allowed the be offended, but Americans offends many people. Do you think that Germany like to be painted as Hitler’s mindless minions during the 40’s, but it sure does look like that in the media. Some people in the middle east are offended by women having equal rights.

    As for the blackmailing, I don’t think that you are going to hear about that, and why would you. It’s not about arrogance, but unable to retrieve that kind of information. American media won’t report that kind of information. What President Bush told the Prime minister of Canada is that Canada has to help the US in either the Iraq war, or the Afghanistan war(well, asked the help the Iraq war, but the Canada government didn’t want to get into that, so one side, either Canada or the Sates, not sure, suggested the Afghanistan war) or Bush would start cancelling trades , which means everything to the Canadian economy. Of course Canada choose Afghanistan, and I believe most Americans know that. Where Britain comes in is that the Canadian Government felt that there wasn’t enough support for the Afghanistan war, and will pull out if there was no help from other countries, and one of the countries we asked is Britain. I believe Britain already had some support, but I could be wrong.

    You have to remember that different countries has very different political views. This artist has a very different political view about 9/11 just like your political view is different from Canada about the wars.

  45. 0
    Dark Sovereign says:

    Have you been living in a cave? Al Qaida attacked more countries than America. And how did we "blackmail" anybody? 

    This artist, and you, remind me of the European/Canadian attitude of "every opinion is worth something unless it’s American". Americans are allowed to be offended, and he wasn’t forced to pull the game.

  46. 0
    Leet Gamer Jargon says:

    Oh, do please shut up. This is a blog, not a depository for your worthless comments. Please grow up…

    ….Wait a minute. I’ve had to give this speech before….Could this idiot possibly be….?

  47. 0
    E. Zachary Knight says:

    Just as with all art, every person has their own taste and opinion. Not everyone agrees on what constitutes "bad art" To one person a pile of crap on a canvas is bad art while to someone else it is good art. To one person romance novels are great literature while to another they are not worth the paper they are printed on. To one person Invaders is bad are while to another it is good art with meaning and a message about the war on Terror.

    We won’t ever agree on what is good art and what is not. That is part of how art works. Art is a debate topic.

    E. Zachary Knight
    Oklahoma City Chapter of the ECA
    MySpace Page:
    Facebook Page:

    E. Zachary Knight
    Divine Knight Gaming
    Oklahoma Game Development
    Rusty Outlook
    Random Tower
    My Patreon

  48. 0
    SJ Zero says:


    You Americans are full of shit. There’s no proper way to explain their complete inconsistency.


    If you were really going to get offended by something, get offended by the fact that the US Air Force DIDN’T scramble a jet to shoot down the second jet, directly causing the deaths of thousands of people, all while the president refused to get off his ass and do something.


    THEN, you send off more people to die in a meaningless war against someone who never did DICK to the USA then died on 9/11, all in the name of "getting the terrorists who caused 9/11".


    No, you’re going to get outraged over a space invaders clone. A FUCKING SPACE INVADERS CLONE. People are dying RIGHT NOW, but YOU decide to act outraged OVER A SPACE INVADERS CLONE, instead of SENDING INNOCENT SOLDIERS TO MEANINGLESS DEATHS.

    Congratulations, you’re just as shallow and nihilistic as the muslims claim.


  49. 0
    Dark Sovereign says:

    Clearly, all of those things are just as offensive as making a video game based off of the worst terrorist attack in U.S. Jesus. Do you even understand why people are offended? Did you seriously consider that the other side has a point here? I not going to say I’m sad he took it down. Bad art is bad art. It doesn’t deserve ANY respect. What we’re dealing with here is a hack and a pussy. If video games want to be taken seriously, their community needs to treat them like a serious art form. That includes calling idiots like this one out on their bullshit.

    Bullshit number 1: The game is a commentary on the Iraq War.

    No, the game was made in 2001. Before the Iraq War started.

    Bullshit number 2: "I took it down because Americans are immature"

    Thinking that material is completely tasteless and pointless is not immature. And the artist took it down because his ass is/was about to get sued.

    The video game community needs to learn when bad art is bad art. It’s beginning to seem as if gamers don’t actually take themselves or their media seriously. Certainly, this person didn’t.

  50. 0
    E. Zachary Knight says:

    Read up on the history of the Novel and Film. Both had their offensive works during the infancy of their medium. The fiction novel was looked upon as a thing for vagrants and heritics. Many films created ourrage in the public because they showed things like a person firing a gun at the camera or a train riding to the camera. Even worse things were shown during films infancy. You think pornos started in the 50’s try before 1910.

    Every time a new medium is created there imediately follows offensive works. But, we can either let it happen as in books or film, or we can limit it like what happened with comics.

    E. Zachary Knight
    Oklahoma City Chapter of the ECA
    MySpace Page:
    Facebook Page:

    E. Zachary Knight
    Divine Knight Gaming
    Oklahoma Game Development
    Rusty Outlook
    Random Tower
    My Patreon

  51. 0
    Dark Sovereign says:

    Books and movies already have public respect. Games don’t. People need time to acclimate. Kotaku’s story was right: it is "too soon", in more ways than one.

    This does nothing to convince people that games are not childish. Both the author and the game are immature. I would prefer that the indie sector do something creative, and code their own games.

    We, the gaming community, need to decide what we want to be. If we truly want to advance games as art, then we shouldn’t be throwing our outrage behind every Tom, Dick, and Harry troll who wants to make an "ironic" or "offensive" game. Or we can be eternally seen as nerds squatting on the internet and continue acting as we do now.

  52. 0
    E. Zachary Knight says:

    Bad PR? What are you talking about? Is it bad PR for books when someone prints something offensive? Is it bad PR for movies when someone films something offensive? No it is not. This game along with many otehr games are doing more to break open the "games are for children" stereotype than anything coming from major game publishers. I would rather see more of this come from the indie sector than any number of FPS and rpg clones.

    E. Zachary Knight
    Oklahoma City Chapter of the ECA
    MySpace Page:
    Facebook Page:

    E. Zachary Knight
    Divine Knight Gaming
    Oklahoma Game Development
    Rusty Outlook
    Random Tower
    My Patreon

  53. 0
    Dark Sovereign says:

    Boy somebody’s projecting hard. I’m not offended by it. I don’t care if the game is shown or not. I don’t like the bad PR this gives gaming, and the artist is not somebody we need representing our community. I find the game forgettable and stupid.

  54. 0
    sheppy says:

    And here I could have SWORN all the people who PLAYED the game came away with the sense of having gained NO headway, points, and the odds are unfairly stacked against the player in the ultimate design where there IS no way to win and between rounds and players, clips of speeches from George Bush and new reels would actually play about the events.

    In other words, Dark Soveirgn… please look into the game, watch the videos, see what the exhibit actually IS versus what it’s being portrayed as.  After all, what you’re doing right now is no better than Fox claiming Sodomy existed in Mass Effect.

  55. 0
    Brokenscope says:

    Why is it, that many otherwise normal people, when faced with some thing that offends them, turn into fucking moronic bigots, with no perspective and no ability to think critically about that which upsets or offends them. Essentially, they act like Jack Thompson.

    You like so many other people on this are seeing it it what you want to see. You want to be fucking offended by it, so therefore you see it as a joke about 9/11, despite the fact the the exhbit does nothing of the sort.  You are offended because you can’t find a middle ground between speaking of it with a sort of reverent awe or shouting down anyone who doesn’t talk about it the same way.

  56. 0
    Dark Sovereign says:

    By turning it into a Space Invaders clone. By not giving any insight to the attacks. By assigning points to tower destruction. By not having anything related to the civilians killed. You just play Space Invaders until the Towers fall.

    9/11 is all about the narrative. Space Invaders had no narrative to it. Combining the two removes the importance of the attacks and shows indifference to the lives lost in both the attacks and the conflict that resulted from them.

  57. 0
    Dark Sovereign says:

    Name calling and barely concealed condescension reveal him to be far more immature than anybody he offended. He’s either a douche for purposefully creating a game which garunteed a harsh reaction, or he’s an idiot for not realizing a great many people would be offended by making light of the worst terrorist attack in the United States’ history. I’m leaning to the side of douche.

  58. 0
    Andrew Eisen says:

    Sure.  I can understand why someone finds something offensive even if I don’t.  And to be clear, I don’t hold anything against those who are offended (silly as that reaction may seem to me), what I have an issue with is the overreactions that infringe on the rights of others.  Overreactions such as calling for displays to be removed, games to be banned, books to be burned and the like.


    Andrew Eisen

  59. 0
    Artifex says:

    There’s a vast difference between a censor demanding the art be pulled, and an active group of individuals discussing their differing oppinions on how they think the art is tasteless. I haven’t read an intelligent statement or discussion made where the art should have been pulled down, but I have read plenty of statements (in the same line as your own) leading on to a larger belief that his art was somehow censored by the public. It was not. He pulled it on his own, with no prodding but some random people on the internet discussing how they didn’t like his "art".

    He pulled his display down with the sole reason to get more attention to his work than he had already recieved. Not because some people on the internet made a whiny noise. Had he brushed off the complaints and whinging, he would have only gotten a few minutes of attention from the press and public. Now, because he knew exactly what he was doing, the internet is abuzz with this guy’s name and work. This has all been a PR stunt on his part, carefully planned, and carefully executed.



  60. 0
    MrNuclearGuy says:

    I don’t know if anyone else pointed this out (I didn’t read all the comments) but there is a similarity that kinda makes me chuckle…


    Game company makes game.  Media (some, not all) reacts harshly to the game.  Game company claims it as a form of art.


    "Artist" makes game.  Gamers (some, not all) react harshly to the game.   "Artist" claims it as a form of art.


    For everyone that is thinking "Game companies never claimed their work as art", this has been their first line of defense for every state law to control distribution of games (art is protected under the US first amendment.)


    I don’t mean to come off as sounding like a troll.  I assure you, I’m not and I apologize if I do.  My wife and I are both gamers.  Personally, while the technology behind the exibit is interesting, the style could have been more tactful.  I just wanted to point out this similarity and thought it funny that some of us have turned into the very thing we hate…censors.

  61. 0
    Chuma-Hasn'tHeardAnythingYetAboutRegistrationProblems ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    It wasn’t exactly displayed at the Olympics so much as on a reel about England and its art.  The reel itself has been used many times and this is the first time it has had enough exposure for someone to latch onto it to make a headline.  In this case though I guess they are probably right; it isn’t really the best image to be used in the context of the Olympics.

  62. 0
    Anonymous says:

    Actually, there’s a comparison between this is the Moira Hindley image that was made out of childrens hand-prints and displayed at the Olympics in Beijing, which was taken down once it was discovered (though not banned in the UK, the government were, I think pretty rightly, worried about it giving the wrong image, however, enraged people have vandalised it before whilst on display).

    I can feel for both sides of the argument, but I suppose the image from the display I got was that the more ‘Invaders’ you shot, the more it created, which is a pretty accurate statement on the situation in many of these countries, and when you think of Terrorism, the image that has been pushed into our minds time and again is the Twin Towers.

    I think the artist should have ridden the storm, and not withdrawn it in protest, his first policy should be getting his art and thought seen, not backing down to criticism.

  63. 0
    Michael Chandra ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    Question to everyone who’s doing their best to insult this guy as much or more than Jack would insult them:

    Did you play the game?

    I’m just gonna go ahead and say that if you didn’t, you prolly should PLAY, not watch a single movie, but play the game for a few levels, THEN decide to call him a troll, or a hack, or a thief, or whatever. Seriously, what’s wrong with you people? I’ve seen more tolerance coming from Jack Thompson!

    To those who did play it before expressing a ruthless opinion, go ahead, it’s your right, first amendment and everything. =) (At least I think it’s the first amendment thingy but I’m a layman as far as USA law is concerned.)

  64. 0
    Anonymous says:

    "The American response to this work has been, frankly, immature, and lacking the sophistication and consideration that other parts of the world have so far shown the work…"

    So I have to ask, has he tried any other "exibits" based on other countries tragic events?  Maybe as an artist he should see how other parts of the world would react to such…

    I’m more offended by the trollish creator’s hypocrisy then the so called work of art…  The same old "Just as planed, I knew the subject of my work was too stupid to understand my brilliance" stance.

  65. 0
    SJ Zero says:


    Anyone who is offended by a stupid game of space invaders while there’s truly atrocious stuff going on is out of touch.


    Seriously. We went into Iraq to the beat of the 9/11 drum, even though Bush himself has admitted Iraq has absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. I’d be outraged about that. More American soldiers have died in Iraq than died on 9/11. I’d be outraged about that. At least 45,000 civilians have been hurt or wounded. I’d be outraged about that. 9/11 could have been mitigated if fighter jets scrambled to shoot the second plane down. I’d be outraged about that.


    A game of space invaders? I’m not all that outraged about that. Am I *REALLY* the out-of-touch one?


  66. 0
    Dark Sovereign says:

    Defending his right to speech while lambasting his opponents portrays us as out-of-touch nerds. I see where you’re coming from, but the fact that he did this in the first place doesn’t really say much about his maturity either. The best thing to do would have been to ignore him.

  67. 0
    SS says:

    Check the comments on his page-


    I can understand why he’s so pissed.  He might have stepped into fire with this but the comments by some of the people commentating is just enormously insulting.

    If i was in his situation I would have personally erupted at them with far more anger than this guy’s fairly calm statement.  

    He might have been a asshole by creating that but the response has been frankly juvenille and confirms the steoreotype of gamers being hyperviolent freaks.

    I’m not defending him but he is right when he says that the response has been juvenile.

    As for creating it, I think the use of the WTC was frankly insensitive.   


  68. 0
    Dark Sovereign says:

    I was using hyperbole. It was based on this portion:

    "While I take full responsibility for the uncomfortable ambiguity of certain aspects of this work, it was never created to merely provoke controversy for controversy’s sake, and unfortunately, this is what the piece has now become… The American response to this work has been, frankly, immature, and lacking the sophistication and consideration that other parts of the world have so far shown the work…

     Contrary to previous reports, I am an American, and it saddens me that we as a people remain so profoundly unable to process this event outside of some obscure, but tacitly understood, criteria of purely anesthetized artistic representation."

    Specifically the last sentence of the first chunk and the last sentence in it’s entirety. It reeks of elitism. The artist says this not as a person who actually cares about "we as a people" but as a person who clearly believes himself above such petty feelings.

  69. 0
    Dark Sovereign says:

    A parody is a work that makes fun of another work, but remains seperate and distinct from the original work. The original creator usually has nothing to do with them. Scary Movie makes use of horror movie icons and situations, but milks them for comedy istead of fear, thus a parody.

    In movies and books, the coding problem doesn’t come up, but it does in video games. The behind the scenes work is copyrighted too, not just what you see at the face. Even THEN it still wouldn’t matter because he used the exact same style of graphics, the exact same gameplay, the exact same hero ship, and the exact same aliens, who move in the exact same way. The only thing original about this is the Twin Towers and the score.

    Word has it that he was duping it with intent to sell. Sadly, the internet is a pathetic tool if you’re tracking down rumors, and I can’t nail a source that isn’t commenters.

    I never said it wasn’t art. I never said it should be banned. I did say he should have coded his own game, and not reskinned existing code. I did say that he is a douche and a troll.

    The gaming community needs to step up, call this guy a douche, and move on. Free speech aside, he didn’t stand up for himself or he wasn’t honest, and he made a game garunteed to cause offense. The immaturity that took him down was his own.

    Everytime that this kind of game comes up, public perception takes a step back. We aren’t movies, we aren’t books, we aren’t TV shows, and we haven’t realized it. The gaming community, if it ever wants to be taken seriously, needs to stop treating itself like the poor victim and actually examine its entertainment. What we do now is scream "OPPRESSION" everytime a video game gets a bad rap. It needs to stop.

  70. 0
    waaaambulance says:

    So are you saying that the "Scary Movie" series is not parody because the filmmakers did not create the original work they are paradying? What about the "Super Columbine Massacre RPG" game, which parodies other games including Doom?

    I do not see this as parady, but calm down, it is fair use, and the courts will agree. He didn’t sell the product, but only used it for his instilation. Just because the work is ambiguous, and potentially offensive doesn’t mean it isn’t, nor cannot be, art. Whether or not the instilation was, or is, in good taste, or is good art, is for another debate.

  71. 0
    Dark Sovereign says:

    Parody works in my world when you code the game yourself. He didn’t. No parody can truly call itself parody if it isn’t a separate work entirely. And what is he parodying? 9/11? Space Invaders? It isn’t clear. Parody is clear.

  72. 0
    ZippyDSMlee says:

    I see parody only works in your little word when it works… there is a level of artistic parody here that very well dose have commentary and criticism in a artistic way, fair use pretty much protects this work as a "worthless piece of art" as a profit item (IE selling it online) it dose not protect it so much.



    I is fuzzy brained mew =^^=
    (in need of a bad overhaul)

  73. 0
    Dark Sovereign says:

    How does this count as "comment, criticism, teaching, news reporting, scholarship or research"? Comment and criticism refer to comment and criticsm on the product itself, where direct quotes of the text/game/movie are broken up and analyzed. There’s no teaching going on here. The game is not repeating news. There is no learning about the game going on. The only way that this could qualify for fair use is if it was commenting on Space Invaders. It isn’t, though, it’s commenting on 9/11. Reproduction under fair use refers to the the fair use of the game itself. The game can only be repurposed like this if explicit permission is given. It wasn’t.

    Let’s break down the rest of it:

    1) The purpose and character is stealing the code whole scale and repurposing it. This is not for nonprofit educational purposes, and it is not explicitly for commercial use, though it might be later.

    2) The copyrighted work is a game

    3) Almost all of the game was taken. It was then given another background and points system.

    4) It damages the image of Space Invaders by creating an association with the brand name that is both negative and not the original game.

  74. 0
    Brokenscope says:

    Jesus Fucking Christ—-000-.html

    Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—
    (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
    (2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
    (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
    (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
    The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

    It is fair use.

    Critisicim and Comment

  75. 0
    Dark Sovereign says:

    Fair Use doesn’t extend to stealing code and reskinning it. That would be, to take an example, taking Windows XP, making everything purple, calling it Doors, and then trying to pass it off as your own work. The code beneath the game is copyrighted too.

  76. 0
    GTCv Deimos says:

    I dunno… this is one of those many instances where I’m finding myself annoyed at both parties… yes everyone overreacted, and he shouldn’t have had to censor himself.

    … But still… These days, 9/11 has become a cheap vehicle for drama… if any song writer, or film/tv writer, or artists ever ask themselves "I want my piece to be meaningful, but how do I do that?" 90% of the time they go "I KNOW! 9/11!!!"

  77. 0
    Silencets says:

    Let’s not forget that all art is not equal.  I walked on an "art" exhibit that was a pattern of nine tiles on the floor alternating between stainless steel and black.  My opionon is that everything’s been crap since the impressionist period.  Whadda ya say to that?

    Semper Fidelis Tim Shull Cpl Ret USMC

  78. 0
    Larington ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    Last time I saw that phrasology was from the concerned/ creator who had a picture of a TF2 engineer with the caption:

    "Spies? Sapping my sentry?"


    "Its more likely than you think, get free spy check now!"

    Or something to that effect.

  79. 0
    -Jes- ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    It’s a meme, based on a catchy antivirus-scanner ad.

    "Something? On my Someplace??

    It’s more likely than you think!!

    Something-Scan Now!"

  80. 0
    Loudspeaker says:

    Glad someone did.  The statement was made to show the hypocricy of those taking the "It’s not a copyright issue" stance.

    Personally I’d want someone to ask permission before using something I created rather than asking forgiveness.

    "Volume helps to get a point across but sharp teeth are better."

  81. 0
    Blu300 ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    I doubt this is the first time that someone has taken someone elses idea; Plaigarism is rife in any industry.

    For example; Avril Lavigne’s video for "I wanna be your Girlfriend" is neck and neck with "The evolution of Dance" to first youtube video to 1 million views. I say that as it shows the song is fairly popular.

    Of course, some say that she ripped off the Rubinoos "I want to be your Boyfriend" when she came up with that song.

    The artist isn’t even profiting from this.

    And @Dark; No one ever said that. You instantly assuming thats what people thing about you says a lot about you than it does about the artist.

  82. 0
    sheppy says:

    I love when people know dick about art and yet love to chime in their two cents.

    It’s called derivitive works, using someone else’s original art in a modified fashion to make a new artistic statement.  Fairly common in the art world, actually.  No, he wouldn’t be looked down upon as an "artist" whereas you will wear the label "twat" for quite some time.

  83. 0
    Loudspeaker says:

    I’m forced to agree with Dog Welder and Dark Sovereign.  This guy has ZERO ground to stand on when he uses someone else’s property without asking permission first.  He dwells in the art world yet steals someone else’s ideas to use in his own work without permission. 

    Any credibility he may have had was flushed with that move.

    "Volume helps to get a point across but sharp teeth are better."

  84. 0
    KayleL says:

    How ironic, I think that this was the whole political statement. America acts like they are culturally superior that not only they made 9/11 their own problem, but the worlds problem. The American government went as far as blackmail countries like Canada, and a domino effect that brings in even more countries like Britain.

    Congratulation for making the most ironic post for today.

  85. 0
    Dark Sovereign says:

    The artist was a douche. An arrogant douche to boot. Clearly, these "other parts" of the world are culturally superior in every way to us poor, dirt dwelling, dumb-as-sewage Americans.

  86. 0
    sheppy says:

    Fair use laws.  As the article said, grow up and quit being so immature about this.  It was a political statement and unfortunately, we gamers, hate that shit unless it’s wrapped around giant robots fighting angels.

  87. 0
    Dog Welder ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    Yes, I’m sure pulling the exhibit had NOTHING to do with Taito threatening to sue his ass. 

    And if he’s saying that he didn’t think this sort of thing wouldn’t provoke a controversy, he’s clearly clueless.  The guy is nothing but a shock artist douchebag.  Keep in mind that I recognize his right to be a shock artist douchebag and would never have called for the exhibit to be pulled down.  This is nothing any worse than the guy who urinated on a crucifix and called it "art."

  88. 0
    gs2005 ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    Space Invaders is a foundation to that great gaming company, and why anyone would wish to incur their wrath seems shortsighted to me.  When I was in Nihon last year, I got to try out Power Shovel and Let’s Go By Train 2, which were pretty cool games…

Leave a Reply