Talk:Super Columbine Massacre RPG!: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 06:35, 10 May 2008

Video games Start‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks

AfDs

Anton Rayne (8 participants)
Id Tech 2 (disambiguation) (1 participant)
Jeffrey Ventrella (4 participants)
Darkworks (2 participants)
Ayeah Games (2 participants)
Keemokazi (1 participant)
Canderous Ordo (6 participants)
Batboat (13 participants; relisted)
List of video games with gyro features (6 participants; relisted)
Amiga Active (2 participants; relisted)

Merge discussions

Other discussions

No major discussions

Discussion

With regard to the criticism that's been leveled at this game (and, subsequently, its Wikipedia artcle), did it ever occur to anyone that the controversy its generated attests to it being a thought-provoking piece of art?

Quick Question

Mentioned throughout the game are the initials NEK. I'm guessing they refer to a movie, but does anyone know what they mean? Yaanu 04:05, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe NBK for Natural Born Killers?DBaba 01:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This guy's right. The initials aren't NEK, they are NBK, and they do stand for "Natural Born Killers", which they were quite the fans of. VolatileChemical 04:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nintendo or Super Nintendo?

This is a gamer's minor nitpick, but the article mentions how the game's quality is reminiscent of a Nintendo title from the 1980s. RPG Maker 2000 games more closely resemble games for the Super Nintendo, with the greatly increased amount of colors displayed on the screen, the use of sequenced music with more than four tracks, etc.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.163.100.12 (talk • contribs)

Agreed. The design is clearly closer to (somewhat superior than, though it doesn't make good use of its potential) SNES. --Kizor 17:21, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The game is reminiscent of the 1992-1994 era of SNES games. --Justin 13:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Game is in the Headlines

Somebody should add that a recent college shooter claimed to have loved this game. It was on the news (today the 14th of September). I'd do it myself, but I'd rather trust people who are better capable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.211.69.98 (talk • contribs) 14:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe its more noteworthy that they could easily have been inspired by this game. Fuck, and people wonder why theres so much fucking violence for God's sake. What's wrong with these idiots?!WizardofOskemen 00:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Play the game, and then tell me it inspires violence. See pictures of Eric and Dylan dead will turn people away. The game is composed to 16 bit sprites, menus, and philosophy. The ones who come with a bloodlust will surely not be interested. Pogo 18:47, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Pogo on this (BTW, are you the same Pogogunner mod on the SCMRPG forums..?) it's perhaps possible to be inspired by this game, but jack thompson (f'ng dickhead) mentioned that a high school killer had TRAINED on this game.

they'd look pretty damn stupid going into a school and Shooting somone, letting the person hit them back and doing everything turnbased. drop down menus, sprite animations....

how the hell in gods earth do you "practice" a school shootout on this..?

JackOfTheGreen

People need to realize this game wasn't made to show the audience as much about school shootings as much as it was made to be what is actually is... a video game. A form of entertainment. Read the article in the old issue of game informer about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.219.73.66 (talk) 18:05, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actual Rating?

Is there anywhere this game was rated on it's actual gameplay? I played it all the way through and aside from the obvious controversy, it really wasn’t a very good game, game-play wise. Is there any available site that rated it?Chewbacca1010 22:40, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From what i read the gameplay (without the controversy) is a love it or hate it tpye of thing. Father Time89 23:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PC World ranked it #2 in "The 10 Worst Games of All Time." Here's some of what they had to say "Whether Ledonne's site has any constructive value whatsoever is still up in the air. But as a game, Super Columbine Massacre RPG is appalling." Drew30319 23:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POV

DBaba: I felt that your edits reflected a strong bias toward the subject of this article.

Relevant quotes that were negative had been removed.
The name of the victim from the Dawson College Shootings was removed.
The #2 listing by PC World of "The 10 Worst Games of All Time" was relegated to nearly the bottom of the article.
The quote from Ledonne in which he stated "...it was about time." in referring to the Columbine Massacre, was also removed.
etc.

It was difficult to clearly follow your intention as your changes were made in 42 edits in one day. I see that most of the pertinent information has been re-added and am more comfortable with the tone of the article now. Drew30319 00:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Drew,

I added the PC World Worst Games note in my recent edits. It was not a part of the article prior to my recent edits, so I don't think I could have been "relegating" it anywhere.

By moving it to the first paragraph, you effectively distort the popularity of the game. Descriptions of both success and lousiness belong alongside each other: by opting to highlight an extremely negative opinion in the opening, you seem to have tipped the balance of the opening toward a preferred perspective.

The parsing of "it's about time" is just wrong. The quote is cut up to distort his words and deliver an "initial reaction" that is not Ledonne's, at least not according to the cited article.
The name of the victim of the Dawson College Shootings is irrelevant, but I certainly don't object if you insist. Perhaps we should also insert Castaldo's name, so we're not just naming the negative opinions.
It is crucial to distinguish between people who have played the game and hate it, and people who have heard about a "game" and hate the idea of trivializing tragedy.DBaba 04:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PC World rating ref. in intro is POV

The introduction for these articles are for a description of the defining factors of an article. If we put in this PC World thing, we're saying that that is a defining factor. We can say it's highly controversial, we can say that some people think it trivializes murder and the lives of innocent, but I think that the fact that PC World declared the game #2 on its list of "The 10 Worst Games of All Time" should definitely be removed. Either that, or add in an equivalently complimentary reference along with it. Who's with me? VolatileChemical 04:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The same could then be said about the Best Picture Award at the Oscars, right? POV is inherent in any "best of" classification. What isn't POV however is the fact that it was listed in PC World as one of "The 10 Worst Games of All Time." If another leading publication has listed it as one of the best games then by all means that should be included as well. CuriousGiselle 18:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I object to the location of the PC comment in the opening. I think it should be balanced out in the opening, or moved to its proper context. Must remain, must not remain as is.DBaba 22:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction

The introduction stated that this game "recreates and examines the 1999 Columbine High School shootings.." (emphasis mine). We should not try to let ourselves be lured into thinking that this game had some pretentions with regard to finding out what really happened. There was an important scientific study done after the massacre, that did examine what happened, and this game is partly based on that study. It merely recreates with great detail the events of that day, and we should not give it credit for something it doesn't do. I changed the intro accordingly. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 18:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"It merely recreates with great detail the events of that day" Reinoutr, that's just a completely false statement. Just looking at the pictures on the page of the entry, that alone should relieve you of that misconception.DBaba 19:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I looked at the pictures. So the game also includes a "Hell" and an "Isle of Lost Souls", where they "meet several fictional characters and dead celebrities". Can you explain how that is "examining" the massacre? --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 07:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go read the artist's statement. The "pretentions" are laid out quite clearly there, so it'd be quite difficult for you to deny that the game at least has pretensions. Or you could try actually *gasp!* playing through the project yourself, so that you don't sound so foolish arguing about it on this talk page.

Seriously, I don't have it in me to adequately address your feelings. That instinct of yours to condemn, without any knowledge base whatsoever, and indeed right into the face of the most obvious truths about the project, that's normal, is the problem. That's why it's so hopeless for me to continue to tolerate this back and forth any further. Get your act together or don't, the next guy's instinct will prompt a similar debasing of the article.DBaba 02:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I already had read the artist statement. I am not denying he had pretentions to shock people, to get discussion going and make a statements. But he is not examining what happened. Maybe we are just discussing semantics here, but the author himself states that he tried to stay true to what happened, and in addition he added fantasy parts. Nowhere he claims that he made the game to examine and understand what happened. And please try to address my comment rather than calling me foolish. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 06:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sick

who would make something like that inless they were sick in the head? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.18.243.91 (talk • contribs) 23:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What does this have to do with an encyclopedia?

Also, I find it a great addition--it's a horrible game, gameplay-wise, but it's essentially the movie "Dahmer" except in game format with a different event. It lets you look at the event from all perspectives, why they did it, instead of people just brushing them off with a "they were friggin' psycho" dismissal. TerminusEst13 15:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POV paragraph

The following paragraph seems to be presenting it's own arguments and doesn't seem to be attributed to anyone other than whoever wrote it. Thus I removed it.

Furthermore, SCMRPG! is no different to any other video game based on real-world scenarios involving real victims of violence. Many of the video games sold and played today are based on conflicts in the Middle East; the 'enemy' invariably are people of Middle Eastern extraction, while the destruction of civilian buildings/areas/infrastructure are also incorporated into the gameplay. Despite this, such games are popular, socially-acceptable and have generated minimal controversy over the killing (direct or implied) of people with real-world counterparts. Thus, outrage over SCMRPG! may stem primarily from the fact that the game portrays real American citizens as the enemy. Critics who consider SCMRPG! as 'poor taste' (or similar) due to the subject matter should, therefore, be careful that they are not speaking from a position of prejudice.

--Foot Dragoon 06:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 15: / Line 15: @@
 :Agreed. The design is clearly closer to (somewhat superior than, though it doesn't make good use of its potential) SNES. --[[User:Kizor|Kizor]] 17:21, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 :Agreed.  The game is reminiscent of the 1992-1994 era of SNES games. --[[User:Jmorgan|Justin]] 13:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
-== Trash ==
-This is one of the most tasteless games ever made, right up there with [[Ethnic Cleansing]] and [[White Law]]. Perversely, the only way to show these sick bastards that they're wrong would be to shoot someone they love who still attends school, thereby sinking to the low level of the game's developers and the original school shooters. --[[User:Stelios Bedrock|Stelios Bedrock]] 13:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
-:Be fair, the game was not intended to glamourise the shootings, rather a look into the motivations for such actions. If you actually 'play' it, you'll see thats there's very little in there that would count as game play. In fact I don't see what the fuss is about. With the subject material the author could have made a sickening, depraved game, or an enlightened look into the dark side of postmodern culture and counter-culture, but instead, it was just rather mundane.--[[User:Uberisaac|Uberisaac]] 14:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
-::I consider this game too low in quality and too stupid to use Wikipedia as free adverts. There should be much less links to this article.--[[User:E-Magination|E-Magination]] 13:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
-:::This 'game' has recently been newsworthy and that makes it noteworthy, no matter what your opinion on it is. Fortunately Wikipedia is a place to store noteworthy knowledge, not [[User:E-Magination|E-Magination]]'s awesome video game tips 'n' tricks.[[User:204.69.40.7|204.69.40.7]] 11:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
-::Suggestion: Use the Wayback Machine to see how the URL www.columbinegame.com promoted this piece of trash originally. Here's a link to what that site looked like in April 2005: http://web.archive.org/web/20050421043040/http://www.columbinegame.com/
-Now you have all these games being pulled from the Slamdance competition in protest, and the author revising his story to say he just wanted to examine the minds of the killers. You honestly think it's noble to defend a game author who originally referred to the Columbine victims as "F'heads" and has a quote promoting the game saying, "follow your f'ing animal instincts: if it moves kill it, if it doesn't, burn it?" As recently as May 2006, these obscene statements were being used to promote this piece of so called "art," but now that he's trying to paint himself as a victim for getting kicked out of a competition, he's toned down his wording to stuff about "unconventional art forms" presenting "important social critique."
-:If you think this game is tasteless, you should try playing the Call Of Duty or Medal Of Honor series. The humour that's present in those games is just insensitive, to say it's about a war that claimed millions of lives and culminated in the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs. What I'm trying to say is that this game is nothing in comparison. Lighten up a bit, eh? [[User:ReloadPsi|ReloadPsi]] 01:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
-:: There is a bit of a difference between "playing" as an anonymous soldier and killing other anonymous soldiers as opposed to "playing" as a real-life murderer that is killing real-life victims. As children, many play "cops and robbers" or "cowboys and indians" (for better or worse). Can you imagine instead watching your children play at "Jeffrey Dahmer and Stephen Hicks?" SCMRPG! has taken a national tragedy and the grief of countless families and friends and made a mockery of their grief. [[User:CuriousGiselle|CuriousGiselle]] 18:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
-::: This game isn't like a normal game. When you play a game, you usually emerse yourself in it, becoming a part of the game. For this game(though there are those who can) people find it hard to that. This game isn't for pleasure or a vent for sadistic urges(though some use it that way). When i played this, i felt uncomfortable the whole way through. I didn't feel like playing it, but i felt a need to. I didn't find pleasure in this game. I found it to be hard to place this in a category, as it belongs to a category that we are not familiar with. It's a category that isn't for pleasure, but rather for learning about a very influential event in history. That's why i played it. I don't like it. But i played it and i don't regret it. i feel like i understand a little more about the world now. as a game, this is trash. but as an impliment to learn about an event and the story around it, it's not entirely bad. <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[Special:Contributions/67.11.158.162|67.11.158.162]] ([[User talk:67.11.158.162|talk]]) 00:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->
-:::"A mockery"? You, sir, must be joking. There are no jokes made at the expense of the victims, no mockery made of the victims. You get upset and enraged when "anonymous" people have names and faces attached to them, but shed no tears when anonymous people without names or faces get killed? [[User:TerminusEst13|TerminusEst13]] 15:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
-:::: Replace "anonymous" with fictitious and that may help you to understand CuriousGiselle's point. Also one definition of "mockery" is "something absurdly or offensively inadequate or unfitting." Yes indeed this "game" is a mockery. And finally I imagine that "sir" is likely an inappropriate title as Giselle is a female name. [[User:Drew30319|Drew30319]] 17:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
-::::: The assertion that "author revising his story to say he just wanted to examine the minds of the killers" is verifiable as being untrue.  Ledonne's press statements have always been of this claim and it is clear that the original design of the site is in keeping with the satirical elements of the game.  The phrase "kill as many f'heads as possible" is lifted from the writings of Eric Harris - just as in the game itself.  As the game continued to be misunderstood, Ledonne updated his site and included an artist statement to better establish the goals of the project.  The ongoing interest in alleging that author revising his story stems from a general dislike of the project and allegations manifested from this dislike. [[User:tolka|tolka]] 20:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
-Please note that this article's Talk Page is for discussing the article only.  It is not for discussion of the subject.--[[Special:Contributions/204.248.58.136|204.248.58.136]] ([[User talk:204.248.58.136|talk]]) 22:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 == Game is in the Headlines ==