ModDB Shuts Down School Shooter Mod

Recommended Videos

ProfessorLayton

Elite Member
Nov 6, 2008
7,452
0
41
Stammer said:
This isn't just a small controversy. This is something that no one should want to see. It's not just "this is in bad taste because it's a game", it's something that would be in bad taste in any medium.

I wouldn't want to watch a movie where some guy went on a shooting rampage in a school. I wouldn't even want to read a book about it or look at a painting of it. This isn't freedom of artistic expression, this is just completely crossing the line.

As gamers, we stand up for our medium when a game is harassed because of the medium it is. For example, when a war game is trying to portray a very specific battle with very specific people. In a movie, it would be acceptable, but in a game it would be controversial. This is where we stand up for games. But if it's something that no one would ever want to see in any situation EVER, then it's crossed the line.
Exactly. This is unacceptable, no matter how it's displayed. This could have been a sculpture and it still would have been offensive and terrible. Six Days in Fallujah got a ton of crap from the media when it didn't deserve it. We stood up for it because if it were a movie or a book, it would have been perfectly fine but because it was a video game, it was unfairly judged. That was an example of us doing right. But there is no medium in which this is appropriate. It's an embarrassment and the fact that anyone would want anything to do with this is disgusting.
 

Lucane

New member
Mar 24, 2008
1,491
0
0
ThatDaveDude1 said:
"We believe in the right to free speech, but we're going to go out of our way to stop them from saying this."

Above: Logic.

(For the record, I personally found the game to be interesting, but ultimately tasteless. I in no way was a "supporter" of it, but it still had the right to be made).
From what I've read no one is demanding it to never be released and destroyed they can either Host it themselves and shoulder the burden of any and all negative responses or find a new distributer that doesn't have an issue with the project.
 

Jamboxdotcom

New member
Nov 3, 2010
1,276
0
0
KeyMaster45 said:
Also, since Gabe Newell never did do anything (not like he could) did Jack Thompson ever follow up on his threat?
Jack Thompson has absolutely no power to follow up on any threat. he's disbarred, discredited, and disliked by everyone.

OT: i'm glad they took this down, from a moral standpoint. but i'm sad that now it will appear (incorrectly) that Jack Thompson actually accomplished something.
 

Belated

New member
Feb 2, 2011
586
0
0
You don't get it. You just don't get it do ya? "Free Speech" means ALL Speech. You can't get rid of something just because you don't agree with it. Even if half the world disagrees with it. Even if ALL of the world disagrees with it. Even if all of the world including the creator himself disagreed with it. IT. DOES. NOT. MATTER. The only media acceptable to ban is the kind that violates the rights of others. I'm talking about stuff like snuff films, CP, and videos taken without a person's consent, that have no use in any legal proceedings. This was a mod some dude made by himself. He didn't violate anybody's rights in making it. He was just exercising his own creativity. And ModDB are a bunch of cowards.

It happened to be a really crappy sense of creativity, but it was his creativity nonetheless and he had a right to exercise it. And anybody who disagrees is a freakin' hypocrite. Why is it that when it's something you disagree with, it's just filth that you're glad to be rid of? But when it's something you like, it's censorship and a violation of rights? No. BOTH cases are censorship and a violation of rights. Personal opinions about "art" have no place in a discussion of free speech. Nothing is art. Everything is art. Everybody has a right to express what they feel is art, even if nobody else agrees with them. And Jack Thompson is a freedom-hating terrorist.

Now granted, ModDB did have a right to get rid of his work. They're not the government. They're an independently run website that can do what they want. However! They claim to support free speech. NO. THEY. DO. NOT. They support free speech when it suits them, and oppose it when it could hurt them.
 

DudeistBelieve

TellEmSteveDave.com
Sep 9, 2010
4,771
1
0
Free speech is free speech even if you don't agree with. The website that took down the mod has no balls, IMO.

However free enterprise is free enterprise and they can do whatever the flip they want with their own site.
 

Misho-

New member
May 20, 2010
398
0
0
Wow, Pawnstick sounds like an amoral psycopath...

And besides I rememeber the interview... The whole idea is to gun down innocent harmless civvies as fast as you can before the cops arrive. And then deiciding to fight them off or suicide.

It's so detrimental to the whole idea of videogames that goes to new boundaries... It's almost like if the mod was made up by people in California TRYING to get games a bad rep to influence the current case about videogames...

And freedom of speech and all but I think the mod was just awful.
 

megamabu

New member
Mar 2, 2011
34
0
0
theonlyblaze2 said:
Am I the only one who wasn't offended by this? I mean, I couldn't even tell the game was a school-shooter-sim(or whatever you call it) after I saw the video. It was just a guy shooting NPC's from Half-Life 2 until some Combine came in and shot him. Maybe he changed it after the video, but come on. This is just false controversy.
This.^^
 

Swishdude

New member
Nov 21, 2009
158
0
0
The more attention you pay to creators of poorly created content the more they get out of it.
This will create a cycle of endless production of mindless poor quality content.

Know what the trick is people?

Don't write articles, make news broadcasts, review the game, preview the game, interview the creator, or list the team's website.

In plain English, don't further the idiocy by building it's fame.


(For the record, the website is free to take down whatever they want. The creator is free to make it and distribute it. Jack Thompson can write whatever he feels like writing. Just as we have the ability to ignore them, but apparently fail to do so.)
 

Xan Krieger

Completely insane
Feb 11, 2009
2,918
0
0
I was going to get Half-life 2 to play this mod because it seemed like a really fun idea. I fully support it and hope that it still comes out.
http://checkerboarded.com/schoolshooter/
 

Heart of Darkness

The final days of His Trolliness
Jul 1, 2009
9,745
0
0
JourneyThroughHell said:
There is NO expression of artistic freedom in this. Read the guy's interview. He's not an artist.
Neither was da Vinci. Artistic expression is not limited to artists.
 

Arkhangelsk

New member
Mar 1, 2009
7,702
0
0
I'm glad it's gone. But now Jack Thompson will claim this was thanks to him and that he's the golden saint that is right about everything.
 

Candrian

New member
Mar 27, 2009
30
0
0
'Pawnstick should have the right to free speech' yadda yadda yadda.

They do. The internet is there, all they have to do is host the files themselves and find someone insane/stupid enough to advertise it and they can get back to licking windows to their hearts' content.

Strangely enough, ModDB also has the right to say 'No f***ing way are we associating ourselves with that.' It's their site, their bandwidth and, face it, their reputation that can be sunk by it.

You have a right to say what you want, but this is pretty much like filming horse porn in a neighbours living room. Once he finds out about your little kinky business he's gonna have a problem with it.
 

Callate

New member
Dec 5, 2008
5,118
0
0
The headline might be a little premature. ModDB may have taken the mod down on their site, but that doesn't necessarily preclude it being made available somewhere else.

I'm of mixed minds. If we genuinely believe that a game can't actually make someone commit violence, that remains true even if said game is deliberately inflammatory. And I certainly don't like real-world trolls like Thompson to feel, even for a moment, that their tactics might be successful. And, yes, I think someone has a right to express themselves, even in a something like the School Shooter Mod.

On the other hand, I don't feel that ModDB is required in any sense to offer such a thing. And the fact that they were receiving threats is truly regrettable. The industry doesn't need this kind of publicity, and it will inevitably come from the kind of people who don't have the foggiest idea what words like "mod" mean. The fact that the developer himself seems like a repugnant publicity-seeking troll doesn't fill me with sunshine and rainbows, either.

I don't like the mod, not because it's violent but because it set out to be truly offensive without even having anything meaningful to say, something that even a questionable game like "Super Columbine RPG" can claim, however tenuously. A lot of real people were devastated by the shootings and continue to recover from the wounds the tragedies inflicted on their lives. A decent person could be appealed to to consider that his work might harm people, but it sounds like this game's creator is in possession of no such decency.

In the end, I fall back on the line from Trainspotting: "It's a shite state of affairs! And all the fresh air in the world won't make a bloody bit of difference!"
 

Rayne870

New member
Nov 28, 2010
1,250
0
0
normally this is where I say someone caved or had no backbone but they used their own moral judgment and they have a right to decide what is hosted by their distribution site or not, So good for them.
 

T'Generalissimo

New member
Nov 9, 2008
317
0
0
Greg Tito said:
"We believe in the freedom of speech, the right to share information and be creative. We have enjoyed watching mod developers push the boundaries for years and create amazing content, and shall always do this," INtense! said. "On one hand we find the content to be deliberately offensive and in poor taste, but on the other we also feel people should have the right to be creative and share what they want."
This was a really dumb way of handling it. They've immediately framed the decision in terms of freedom of speech; even as they claim that they support freedom of speech they give the impression that they aren't willing to protect it. They should have cut the the statement down to
We find the content to be deliberately offensive and in poor taste.
That encapsulates all of what he had to say on the matter. Everything else is just irrelevant, self-defeating excuses.
 

Wrds

Dyslexic Wonder
Sep 4, 2008
170
0
0
Thank. You. God.

I'm all for artistic freedom, but there's no room for that level of depravity. It more jepordises the industry than moves it forward.
 

JourneyThroughHell

New member
Sep 21, 2009
5,010
0
0
Heart of Darkness said:
JourneyThroughHell said:
There is NO expression of artistic freedom in this. Read the guy's interview. He's not an artist.
Neither was da Vinci. Artistic expression is not limited to artists.
Well, I'll rephrase that, then.

This is not artistic expression. It's expression, sure, horrible expression at that, but artistic, no.