The Slamdance Film Festival in Utah is more than a film festival. There's also the Guerilla Gamemaker Competition, a representation of independent game development with little (or no) budget that explores the limits of game design, vision, and social meaning and impact. One of the titles in the festival, Super Columbine Massacre RPG (or SCMRPG for short), was pulled out of the festival a few days ago.

While SCMRPG is a PC game, this article is cross-posted on several QJ blogs because the topics apply to all of us. The question here is this: "If a game is about a massacre or another disturbing topic, is it automatically bad?" Let's see. We'll talk about three things: whether games like this should be made, whether people should be allowed to play them, and whether the game itself is good or bad.

Can games be used to explore important social events? We're talking about Columbine massacre here, where students killed other students. You're exploring a serious and disturbing social event that will upset many people. I'll make up some examples so you can see how far the envelope can go: Super World Trade Center 911 RPG, A.D. 33: Jesus Must Die RPG, 1968 My Lai Vietnam: Kill All Villagers RPG...

So, back to the question. Can games be used to explore social events? Yes! Games are like film are like theater are like books.

But should games be used to explore the darkness behind some events? Not everybody agrees: games are not like film. Games are interactive and immersive (as many people point out). While a movie like "American History X" can explore tough issues, it's a movie meant for mature people to watch. Many people find the idea of "making Columbine into something playable" as "pushing the envelope too far" - especially when you consider the number of immature people who insist on playing games meant for mature audiences.

DUMB PEOPLE SHOULDN'T BE ALLOWED TO PLAY ANY VIOLENT GAME. When Oedipus gouged out his eyes in "Oedipus the King" the Greeks wept, but when the Jews were gassed in "Schindler's List" some of my classmates laughed and cheered. Imagine how much they'll enjoy SCMRPG.

When blood splatters across the screen when playing a game, why do some people cheer, whoop, and demand more? Are they cheering for more blood? Or are they appreciative of the realism of the game? Those are two different things.

At QJ, blood on the screen makes us wince, appreciate the realism, and go on playing with grim determination. Violence in a game adds to realism. They make us value the character's life (because the character is "more real"), not back down from a challenge, do our best to solve a puzzle, and promise to not give up - positive values.

We can handle SCMRPG and play it maturely. Some of you readers know you can. But is America and the rest of the world ready for SCMRPG? If only there was a way to ban immature sociopaths from going near media, then there wouldn't be a need to ban "dirty" games or movies or whatever.

The game itself. One scene in SCMRPG has Cassie Bernal (she was asked "Do you believe in God?" before she was shot). We can look at this and have a grown-up discussion about how some Christian groups made the Columbine massacre proof that non-Christians are prone to violence. We can look at this and discuss the serious psychological and social issues behind Columbine.

We can also look at this and say, "If I had a family member who was shot, do I really want a game of that event?" or "Why would you take something so tragic and shove it in people's faces as if it was a joke?"

Many people say the game shows great care in treating the subject matter without making it into a violent farce. But many of these same people say the game should never have been made or that the developer Danny Ledone should have picked a different topic.