Montreal Police "Investigate" School Shooting Game

[Snow Fire]

Ok, guess what, art can be offensive and tasteless too. And I never asked for it's removal or censorship, I'm just heavily criticizing and condemning it because I feel I have as a man who believes in the artistic and expressive power of games a responsibility to praise games that are doing a good job at passing certain messages and certain ideas (not the ideas, but the way they are passed), and call out the games that are just being offensive and have no real value.

Not all pieces of work are equal. The ability to choose between what we defend and what we shun will inevitably form what the medium will be.

In my humble opinion, all art can be offensive, and tasteless to somebody, but it's still art with an idea, be it good or bad, at its core that deserves equal protection. I never said you were up for its removal, or censorship. That is just what I see to be the most likely course of action. The medium is not defined by people choosing what is good and what is bad, it is defined by the individual. Art is about total freedom to create anything, which is why I defend this work.

 

[ShadowKirby]

Ok, guess what, art can be offensive and tasteless too. And I never asked for it's removal or censorship, I'm just heavily criticizing and condemning it because I feel I have as a man who believes in the artistic and expressive power of games a responsibility to praise games that are doing a good job at passing certain messages and certain ideas (not the ideas, but the way they are passed), and call out the games that are just being offensive and have no real value.

Not all pieces of work are equal. The ability to choose between what we defend and what we shun will inevitably form what the medium will be.

In my humble opinion, all art can be offensive, and tasteless, but it's still art with an idea, be it good or bad, at its core that deserves equal protection. I never said you were up for its removal, or censorship. That is just what I see to be the most likely course of action. The medium is not defined by people choosing what is good and what is bad, it is defined by the individual. Art is about total freedom to create anything, which is why I defend this work.

To defend everything and not make distinctions between what is art and what is a stupid game where you shoot people based on actual events... for fun, is only devaluating the art itself.

 

[CNKFan]

Ok I am not a Canadian so I did not hear of this event. On one hand it is offensive to the surviors and their familes on the other I played it and I had fun. Also I may be a misanthrope which would explain why I wouldn't mind if someone made a 9/11 flash game.

 

[sir.rutthed]

Stay with me here. I don't think making a game like this is a bad idea. For gaming to move forward as a serious media, we have to engage difficult topics in a way that best suits the media. Where the game maker went wrong, I think, is in his presentation of the game. The last thing you should say is to have fun while shooting pixelated people based on real people who got shot. He should have just stuck with the "raising awareness" approach or made it some kind of tool to try to understand the mind of the killer. These are the kinds of things gaming can do to help prevent these massacres, but it's just disrespectful and mean spirited to try to make it a "fun" game when it may be better as a "thoughtful" game.

 

[Snow Fire]

To defend everything and not make distinctions between what is art and what is a stupid game where you shoot people based on actual events... for fun, is only devaluating the art itself.

In my opinion, art has no value until looked upon by an individual who forms his opinion about it. It's value is entirely dependent on the individual. I don't see how this devalues art.

 

[Celtic_Kerr]

To defend everything and not make distinctions between what is art and what is a stupid game where you shoot people based on actual events... for fun, is only devaluating the art itself.

In my opinion, art has no value until looked upon by an individual who forms his opinion about it. It's value is entirely dependent on the individual. I don't see how this devalues art.

Firstly, without malice, you don't need to say "In my opinion" every time

Also, there is a line between art and a videogame made where you shoot students. If it was called "School shooter" it would be one thing, but they named it after aspecific event. Art is general, and is open to interpretation. If Dawson student simply associated it with Dawson, that's one thing, but he made it one specific example.

A project like this is simply a game. It is not art.

 

[sageoftruth]

To defend everything and not make distinctions between what is art and what is a stupid game where you shoot people based on actual events... for fun, is only devaluating the art itself.

In my opinion, art has no value until looked upon by an individual who forms his opinion about it. It's value is entirely dependent on the individual. I don't see how this devalues art.

I have to admit, I have also seen art this way, and once you portrayed the event in this light, I think you may have changed how I see it. Sadly, this seems to make me wonder if perhaps art must be given limitations for the sake of society. Speaking in extremes, suppose someone made a brilliant scuplture out of the fresh corpses of kids from a hospital. Even if it had an artistic message, it would still be harmful, just as this game was to the victims of the school. The frustrating thing would be knowing where to draw the line between acceptable art and unacceptable art.

 

[ThePantomimeThief]

I fail to see how anyone can suggest this could be seen as art. Message? No merit in that. Story? No merit in that. Maybe if it was graphically the best thing the world has ever seen, but no. It's not even fun. It's a flash game, made by someone who clearly wants a lot of attention so has made something to create as much uproar as they can.

I'm all for various sources being seen as art but it has to have some kind of merit. This has none. It's just a bad taste shocker put together to get some headlines. Uwe Boll's Postal has more credibility to be seen as art than this.

It should be taken down, without question. I suspect Newgrounds doesn't do things like that, but it should.

 

[LaBambaMan]

This is jsut the creator's desperate cry for attention on the internet.

What gets me is the "reliving the real event....for fun" bit. I seriously doubt any of the people who lived through that wuld consider any part of it "fun." Something like this is extremely disrespectful to the people who were hurt, and 10 fold to the family of the girl who died.

I know I'd be royally pissed if someone made a game where you get to play as the beltway sniper because I lived through that whole ordeal. Nothing about that was fun, or entertaining, and since games are supposed to be fun and entertaining making one based on the event would be a huge slap in the face to everyone who was effected by it.

Fuck the guy who made this abomination, and fuck anyone who supports him.

 

[Jared]

...And you think they would have better things to do...

 

[Snow Fire]

Firstly, without malice, you don't need to say "In my opinion" every time

Also, there is a line between art and a videogame made where you shoot students. If it was called "School shooter" it would be one thing, but they named it after aspecific event. Art is general, and is open to interpretation. If Dawson student simply associated it with Dawson, that's one thing, but he made it one specific example.

A project like this is simply a game. It is not art.

There are many paintings that portray tragic events that happened in this world, can video games, the latest medium of art, not do such a thing? To simply dismiss it as a game, in my opinion, only weakens the argument that this is an art medium. I would like to point out that art has two sides, subjective and objective. Unlike subjective art which is open to interpretation, objective art has no room for interpretation.

 

[Celtic_Kerr]

Firstly, without malice, you don't need to say "In my opinion" every time

Also, there is a line between art and a videogame made where you shoot students. If it was called "School shooter" it would be one thing, but they named it after aspecific event. Art is general, and is open to interpretation. If Dawson student simply associated it with Dawson, that's one thing, but he made it one specific example.

A project like this is simply a game. It is not art.

There are many paintings that portray tragic events that happened in this world, can video games, the latest medium of art, not do such a thing? To simply dismiss it as a game, in my opinion, only weakens the argument that this is an art medium. I would like to point out that art has two sides, subjective and objective. Unlike subjective art which is open to interpretation, objective art has no room for interpretation.

I'm all for videogames being an art form, but even objective art has a cetain amount of interpretation. In this this case, it cannot be subjective, because you're ignoring the author's comment. "The game is made as such to follow these events and at the same time try to add a little fun, but it's mostly to re-live the experience in a way... have fun."

THis is what the art is supposed to be. It's objective, there is no interpretation. So now my question to you is: Do you see reliving a shooting where 19 people were injured and 1 person lost their life for fun as art? Do you see playing a man who went into a school and shot helpless people as art?

 

[Snow Fire]

I'm all for videogames being an art form, but even objective art has a cetain amount of interpretation. In this this case, it cannot be subjective, because you're ignoring the author's comment. "The game is made as such to follow these events and at the same time try to add a little fun, but it's mostly to re-live the experience in a way... have fun."

THis is what the art is supposed to be. It's objective, there is no interpretation. So now my question to you is: Do you see reliving a shooting where 19 people were injured and 1 person lost their life for fun as art? Do you see playing a man who went into a school and shot helpless people as art?

If objective art has more than one interpretation, it's not really objective any longer. That would really defeat its purpose of portraying an event.

As for your question, depends who you are, I agree that his words were poorly said, and doubt his intent. However, I consider it to be objective art portraying a tragic event. It's undistorted by emotion or personal bias, it's clear what it is. He didn't sugarcoat it, and try to hide what it was portraying.

 

[archvile93]

I support free speech and all that, but this game seems a bit over the line and insesitive. Still, I'll have to play it before I can make any opinion that matters.

Edit: Okay I played it, yes it is just some violence glorifying shit made by an insesitive moron. And no, it's not even fun. However, just because I don't like something, doesn't mean it doesn't have a right to exist. After all, it's not hurting anyone.

 

[ShadowKirby]

I'm all for videogames being an art form, but even objective art has a cetain amount of interpretation. In this this case, it cannot be subjective, because you're ignoring the author's comment. "The game is made as such to follow these events and at the same time try to add a little fun, but it's mostly to re-live the experience in a way... have fun."

THis is what the art is supposed to be. It's objective, there is no interpretation. So now my question to you is: Do you see reliving a shooting where 19 people were injured and 1 person lost their life for fun as art? Do you see playing a man who went into a school and shot helpless people as art?

If objective art has more than one interpretation, it's not really objective any longer. That would really defeat its purpose of portraying an event.

As for your question, depends who you are, I agree that his words were poorly said, and doubt his intent. However, I consider it to be objective art portraying a tragic event. It's undistorted by emotion or personal bias, it's clear what it is. He didn't sugarcoat it, and try to hide what it was portraying.

It's not an objective portrayal of the event. The guy came in, shot a bunch of people, one of them point blank in the head while she was begging him to spare her live, and killed himself when he was cornered by the police.

That game is a dumb shooter where your goal is to kill as much people as possible and it uses real tragic events as a backdrop to create shock.

It is not a portrayal of the events that took place that day.

It's not objective art, it's not subjective art, it's not goddamn art, it's fucking bullshit.

 

[Metalix Knightmare]

Here is the real question. Why is there an investigation on a 4 year old game that no one has really thought about until the investigation brought it back up?

Edit: Never mind, I'm stupid. I took a look at the actual game's age. Now I'm wondering why the idiot who came up with the game decided a 4 year old school shooting would make for a good flash game subject.

I'm also wondering if the police force in that area needs more things to do if they can take the time to investigate tasteless flash games.

 

[Vanguard_Ex]

Absolute bullshit. He didn't make this game to draw attention to shit, he just made it because he thought it was good shock value and now it's bitten him in the ass with the realisation that actually he's mocking a serious event that doesn't need to be immortalised in 8 bit graphics.

 

[ThePantomimeThief]

Its not an objective portrayal of the event. The guy came in, shot a bunch of people, one of them point blank in the head while she was begging him to spare her live, and killed himself when he was cornered by the police.

That game is a dumb shooter where your goal is to kill as much people as possible and it uses real tragic events as a backdrop to create shock.

It is not a portrayal of the events that took place that day.

It's not objective art, it's not subjective art, it's not goddamn art, it's fucking bullshit.

I completely agree with you.

Here is the real question. Why is there an investigation on a 4 year old game that no one has really thought about until the investigation brought it back up?

The game wasn't submitted to newgrounds until 09/08/2010, so that's either the 8th September or the 9th August depending on their dating system.

 

[Celtic_Kerr]

I'm all for videogames being an art form, but even objective art has a cetain amount of interpretation. In this this case, it cannot be subjective, because you're ignoring the author's comment. "The game is made as such to follow these events and at the same time try to add a little fun, but it's mostly to re-live the experience in a way... have fun."

THis is what the art is supposed to be. It's objective, there is no interpretation. So now my question to you is: Do you see reliving a shooting where 19 people were injured and 1 person lost their life for fun as art? Do you see playing a man who went into a school and shot helpless people as art?

If objective art has more than one interpretation, it's not really objective any longer. That would really defeat its purpose of portraying an event.

As for your question, depends who you are, I agree that his words were poorly said, and doubt his intent. However, I consider it to be objective art portraying a tragic event. It's undistorted by emotion or personal bias, it's clear what it is. He didn't sugarcoat it, and try to hide what it was portraying.

Its not an objective portrayal of the event. The guy came in, shot a bunch of people, one of them point blank in the head while she was begging him to spare her live, and killed himself when he was cornered by the police.

That game is a dumb shooter where your goal is to kill as much people as possible and it uses real tragic events as a backdrop to create shock.

It is not a portrayal of the events that took place that day.

It's not objective art, it's not subjective art, it's not goddamn art, it's fucking bullshit.

Agree completely with this. Very well said

 

[Snow Fire]

Its not an objective portrayal of the event. The guy came in, shot a bunch of people, one of them point blank in the head while she was begging him to spare her live, and killed himself when he was cornered by the police.

That game is a dumb shooter where your goal is to kill as much people as possible and it uses real tragic events as a backdrop to create shock.

It is not a portrayal of the events that took place that day.

It's not objective art, it's not subjective art, it's not goddamn art, it's fucking bullshit.

If that is how you want to put it, that is your opinion, I respect that. But, in my opinion, this specific piece has done its job by teaching me something. In all honestly, never would I have even known about this shooting if this game had never been made. That is just how I see it.