Anyone has the right to say what ever they want no matter how stupid and hurtful, the only time when that is called into question is threats, intimidation, or verbal violence. One could argue that these games are a form of emotional violence, however I would disagree as one has to look to find these games.
Poll: Should games like "Super Columbine Massacre RPG!" be allowed?
- Thread starter Lucem712
- Start date
I saw an interveiw of the guy who made it
he was there and he wanted people who hadn't been there to feel what it was like
he was there and he wanted people who hadn't been there to feel what it was like
Should Super Columbine Massacre RPG! have been allowed? Absolutely. American freedom of speech and all that. Should it have been made? Again, absolutely. Danny Ledonne created the game to work through his feelings about the shootings as well as to comment on and satirize how society reacted to it. If he'd made a film documentary he likely would've been applauded for his creation (films such as Elephant and Bowling for Columbine certainly were), but because he chose video games as his medium it's immediately branded distasteful and despised. Pushing the boundaries of the medium should be encouraged, not hated upon. Frankly, I learned more about the columbine shootings from playing that game for an hour than from any class, news story, or other documentary I've ever seen. SCMRPG!'s one weakness beyond having a ridiculous title (the exclamation point is there to tell people that the title is a joke on video games in general and that the Columbine Massacre wasn't "super," but that flies over most people's heads) is that while it's a good documentary, it's not a good game. It's repetitive, has a difficulty curve like a mile-high brick wall unless you are EXTREMELY methodical (and therefore exceptionally evil) before moving on to the Hell levels, its goals and obstacles are unclear, overall it's just a god-awful mess.
Somewhat unrelated:
Somewhat unrelated:
I'd have to strongly disagree with this interpretation of the second amendment. There are some decent reasons, one of which is written in the amendment itself, why the interpretation you've presented is incorrect, but the discussion we're here for is the validity of games such as Super Columbine Massacre RPG!xvbones said:
No it isn't. Freedom of expression isn't real. It's extrapolated from freedom of speech. Freedom of expression does not mean the same thing as freedom of speech, since "expression" is some random thing people made up due to not understanding nor having read the first amendment. There is a divide. There is a a discrepancy. It is there when splitting hairs. It is there when being pedantic. It is ESPECIALLY there when argument semantics. Freedom of expression does not exist. It can't be any of those things since freedom of expression IS NOT A REAL THING. I mean, seriously. How much further in denial can you be when the actual and LITERAL text of the 1st Amendment spells it out for you?xvbones said:
Listen, the 1st Amendment guarantees five rights: speech, press, assembly, religion, and petition. NONE of which are expression. Let me repeat this: NONE of the five rights in the 1st Amendment are "expression". Do I need to do it one more time or have you gotten the point? I mean, just go to a transcript of the Constitution on the internet, hit ctrl+f, and type "expression". You won't find anything in the body of the work on "expression". Either use "freedom of speech," or don't bother at all since "freedom of expression" doesn't actually exist. You got called out on not knowing this, and instead of accepting you might "be wrong," you are sitting here and arguing against text of the document itself. You are basically digging yourself deeper into a hole than deciding to step out of it.
You won't respond anymore since you know you are wrong
. That's what "I won't reply to this anymore" almost exclusively means. You said something factually incorrect, got called out on being factually incorrect, and now you want to put your head in the hole like an ostrich Please, I really hope you reply again though. I want to know what that foot tastes like, ESPECIALLY now.
Did anyone think that maybe this was someone's way of dealing with their feelings about the events? It could also be a massive work of irony, games were almost blamed for the shootings if I remember correctly.
I've never played the game, so I don't have a view on the actual game. Clearly a lot of people feel that the game shouldn't exist, as it is insensitive, although people have been creating stories, art and movies about sensitive subjects for years, should games be any different? I've read the artist's statement, http://www.columbinegame.com/statement.htm, in which he says that he created the game to try and gain some understanding, to deepen and redefine the discussions around Columbine. I think I might have to try the game for myself.
I've never played the game, so I don't have a view on the actual game. Clearly a lot of people feel that the game shouldn't exist, as it is insensitive, although people have been creating stories, art and movies about sensitive subjects for years, should games be any different? I've read the artist's statement, http://www.columbinegame.com/statement.htm, in which he says that he created the game to try and gain some understanding, to deepen and redefine the discussions around Columbine. I think I might have to try the game for myself.
It looks like people are judging the game without having done research. The game was not made by '2 teens' as someone said above, .it was made by one man who lived in the area and went to the same school as Dylan and Eric and was still living in the town when the shooting occurred. The man who made the game (the name escapes me) said he wanted to make a game and he drew inspiration from one of the most important experiences for him. The game itself could be insulting but it really does not appear to be made for that reason or even to be a satire. The game plays like a documentary, which it basically is seeing ad though the guy who made the game used pictures, statements and a lot of background information he managed to find out about. The game itself was meant to be non biased and non satirical. But i can see why someone would be offended. Anyway, should it be allowed? Yes
Depends on the context, if the game is just a raunchy shoot em up killing students for points, then Fuck NO! That game would just be some tasteless troll attempt to build hype and controversy.
There has to be an substance for a game like that, just like there would need to be a substance in a film or song version.
There has to be an substance for a game like that, just like there would need to be a substance in a film or song version.
I will respond to you one final time, seeing as you've begged me to.Stall said:You won't respond anymore since you know you are wrong
You are incorrect. The absence of the word 'expression' in the constitution does not alter the definition of 'freedom of speech' as 'freedom of expression.'
They are the same thing. There is no difference. The law does not treat them differently.
That is why a painting is covered as 'protected speech', despite not actually being vocal.
Because 'Speech' is 'Expression'.
Freedom of speech is freedom of expression.
There is no divide. There is no discrepancy. Please stop attempting to argue semantics on words you clearly do not understand the definition of.
I challenge you to enroll in a constitutional law class and make this hilarious argument there.
Please let this forum know precisely how many seconds it took for you to be bounced from the class.
Someone else will have to tell me how long it took, as I am really finished with repeating myself to you, and have placed you on ignore.
It has an opinion that it is expressing.ghost whistler said:
It is expression, speech, and protected.
Whether the perpetrators of this game are cunts is irrelevant.
It is protected speech.
It has the right to exist. Everything has the right to exist, and I'd hate to see any censoring or stifling of intellectual work.
That said, I don't think anyone should actually *buy* or *play* a game like Super Columbine Massacre. It's one thing for it to have the right to exist, but it doesn't deserve to make any money or get any recognition.
That said, I don't think anyone should actually *buy* or *play* a game like Super Columbine Massacre. It's one thing for it to have the right to exist, but it doesn't deserve to make any money or get any recognition.
No material should be strictly taboo. Whether or not a set of material is in "good taste" or not should be the only question, but being in poor taste is not the same as being taboo.