I’ve been thinking about the Slamdance Super Columbine Massacre RPG debacle since details first emerged. I think it’s funny, actually. Why? Because Slamdance is getting exactly what they wanted. They lobbied to have the game included in the first place. Something attracted them to it. Was it the graphics? Uh, nope. Was it the gameplay? Probably not. What could it have been? Perhaps the controversy that surrounds it? Hmmm, it could be.

Why do I believe that? Because the gameplay has been pretty much panned. And frankly if I released a game that had graphics and design flaws like it does, but was set in a Fantasy world, I’m sure I’d get universally crushed Gigli-style.

In short, I don’t think someone should be able to attach an “important subject” to a shitty game and get praise for it. That doesn’t automatically make the game important. If people believe SCM is “art”, as has been argued by most who have defended it, then it should be entered in an art show. If it’s a finalist in a game contest it sends the message that gameplay doesn’t matter, which is wrong.

Slamdance was drawn to the controversy -- they were blinded by the so-called importance of the subject matter -- but came to their senses when they realized the game actually sucked, and they’re now getting the controversy they wanted. The reason for removing the game is the very same thing that made them include it in the first place. And for the record I believe that both of those decisions were bad. They should have had a better screening process.

I do feel that games can be high art, and can tackle controversial subject matter. But we should never get too heady about it. SCM is not a good example of game making and never got praise for that. At the end of the day, that’s what matters to me.

Note: I attempted to play the game but lost interest in it very quickly, because it just wasn’t fun. I gave it as fair a shake as I could.

Reply to this | Trackback | | See Previous Entry | See Next Entry