It appears the news we broke last week of Slamdance removing the Columbine game from their lists of finalists and why has created quite the shitstorm, for lack of a better word.

Ian Bogost reports over on Water Cooler Games growing list of reactions to the decision:

Kelee Santiago pulled Slamdance finalist and future PS3 title flOw from the competition in protest.

To hear that the game had been pulled was deeply discouraging. As a group, our opinions on the quality of the game itself range, but we can all agree on one thing: it deserved to be there.

We also agree that the act of pulling SCMRPG is one we cannot condone. But how best to protest this action? Going to the festival, at which prizes are awarded, only to criticize its organizers seemed unfair at best, and hypocritical at worst. Therefore, we have decided to withdraw flOw from the competition. We agree with Jonathan Blow:

Jonathan Blow, creator of finalist Braid, has also pulled his game from the competition.

The game lacks compassion, and I find the Artist's Statement disingenuous. But despite this, the game does have redeeming value. It does provoke important thoughts, and it does push the boundaries of what games are about. It is composed with more of an eye toward art than most games. Clearly, it belongs at the festival.

So, in protest of game's expulsion, I have dropped Braid out of the competition as well.

Raph Koster has spoken up on the subject.

Dismissing the game "on moral grounds" essentially argues that it is exploitative; yet we do not necessarily consider clearly issue-driven films or books as exploitative. Rather, the sensitivity of the subject seems to be what is pushing the needle here. Can games, which some allege caused Columbine, then comment on Columbine without being regarded as exploitative?

SCMRPG is no great shakes as a game in its own right. It doesn't even try to do something new on that front. Instead, it's incurring controversy based on artwork, content, and most importantly, the medium that it happens to be in. Were its RPG plot excised and written out as a book, would anyone raise an eyebrow? Probably not.

As has Slamdance Game Fest sponsor Greg Costikyan, of Manifesto Games. Costikyan, while continuing to support the fest, has created a permanent place for the game on Manifesto's site.

As gamers, and those who love games, our reponse to this game, and to the criticism of it, should not be to hide, or run away, or hope that it goes away. Instead it should be to say: You do not understand, nor are you attempting to understand. This is not a glamorization of the murderers, nor yet a trivialization of the tragedy; it is a work of serious artistic intent and accomplishment, based on considerable research, that in fact illuminates and reflects the horror of that day. Just as there are novels of the Holocaust, there can be a game of Columbine, and neither need trivialize a tragedy.

Andrew Stern and Michael Mateas, winners of last year's Slamdance Grand Jury Prize, have written an open letter to the festival, asking for the reinstatement of the Super Columbine Massacre RPG.

We give no judgment here about how successfully "Super Columbine Massacre RPG!" addresses its topic. However we feel it is extremely important that the game community, including high-profile festivals such as Slamdance, support such experimentation. Games, as a medium, are as fully deserving and appropriate as film and other more established media forms, to deal with such subject matter.

And how can we forget Newsweek's N'Gai Croal.

This is a recipe for the continued infantilizing of a young medium whose potential, for all of the compelling works already released, still remains largely untapped. We haven't played Super Columbine Massacre RPG, but from what we've read, it strikes us as a fairly serious and well-intentioned attempt to grapple with the shootings and suicides through an interactive medium. And while we certainly recognize that many will see SCMRPG as ghoulish, offensive and trivializing of a horrific event, we reject the premise that it is inherently so—any more than Art Spiegelman's "Maus" or Pablo Picasso's "Guernica"—and any attempts to paint Ledonne's game as inherently so should be firmly and loudly repudiated. For those of us who care about the future of videogames, this is a time to stand up and be counted.

If you have any interest in gaming besides the playing of them, you must read all of these links. Seriously. Artistic expression in video games is the most important topic that will likely be faced by developers, perhaps ever. The fact that the game that seems to be bringing this topic to a head happens to be one that many find repugnant is incidental to the bigger issue here.

To be clear: This is not about SCMRPG. This is about whether video games will forever be relegated to the position of mindless entertainment and child's play or whether gaming as an industry can make that final leap into artistry, expression and tackle topics that evoke something more than fun.

This is why I finally decided to become a games journalist. I enjoy writing reviews, but what finally pushed me to make that leap from police reporting to features writing is the chance to be covering a medium at the cusp of becoming something so much greater. Brian Crecente

Update: Jan. 9
Three more finalists have dropped out of the festival. Bringing the the number of finalists no longer in the competition to five, six if you count SCMRPG, or nearly half.

Once Upon a Time withdraws from the finals.

"We are very saddened by the news of Super Columbine Massacre RPG being pulled from the Slamdance Guerilla Gamemakers competition due to loss of financial backing.
Regardless of the merit of SCMRPG being a finalist in the SGG competition, having chosen the game and then only removing it when pressured by outside influences brings the impartiality of the competition as a whole into question. Who is truly judging these games: the Slamdance judges or their financial backers?
We unfortunately feel that we cannot be part of a competition that does not rank artistic expression and free speech as priorities and would therefore like to withdraw our entry of Once Upon A Time from the competition.
We thank you for your support of our game and wish you continued success."

Finalist Toblo withdraws from festival.

We cannot condone removing Super Columbine Massacre RPG! from the Slamdance Festival on moral grounds. Along with the developers of Braid and flOw, we are pulling our game from the Slamdance Festival. In the unlikely event that Super Columbine Massacre RPG! is re-admitted to the festival, we would be happy to participate.

Fest finalist Everyday Shooter withdraws

As you may have heard, Peter Baxter, the president of Slamdance, decided to pull Super Columbine Masscare RPG! from the competition.

I do not agree with his decision. His action is part of a the ball and chain that continuously represses the games medium from advancing beyond superficial entertainment. Because the Slamdance games competition now carries the sharp undertones of this sad repression, I am withdrawing Everyday Shooter from the competition.

Grand Text Auto Publishes Letter of Protest from Finalists

We object to this decision and strongly urge the festival organizers to reinstate the game in the festival. It is legitimate for games to take on difficult topics and to challenge conventional ideas about what video games can do. No game should be rejected for moral or other reasons after a panel of judges has found the game to be of artistic merit and worthy of inclusion in the festival. We find it very unlikely that a similar decision would have been made about a jury-selected film, and see this decision as hurting the legitimacy of games as a form of expression, exploration, and experience.

Grumpy Gamer Calls for Finalists to Put Up or Shut Up

Apparently some people in the game industry are pretty upset by this, but my question is: Why haven't the other finalist pulled out in protest?

Seems like it's for one of two reasons:

#1 - They agree the game should have been pulled.
#2 - They don't want to lose the chance of winning the award to stand up for something they believe in.

Lastly, but not leastly, our formerly very own John Brownlee breaks down the argument for both sides and asks for help writing his Wired piece on the subject. Go... help.

It's bleak just to look at those questions: perhaps I'm too cynical, but for me, it's clear that the progression there signifies the complete death of art as a medium of deep personal expression.

I need your help. I'd like you guys to help me brainstorm and bring alternate perspectives to the table. Questions and viewpoints I haven't considered. Maybe you can try to answer some of the questions and give me a better idea on what people besides me think the logical progression is. The intention is that you guys will help me think about this n a wider and more three-dimensional complex, which will hopefully make my story at Wired News richer and better thought through.

What do you guys think? Hit our comments and let us know.

The relationship shouldn't be a big deal. Larry Page is co-founder of Google. Marissa Mayer is vice president of search products and user experience at the company, and employee number 20.

Google is famously consuming of its employees' lives, so it's not a surprise that people should develop relationships at the workplace. The connection was disclosed at Google, even if only at Mayer's prodding. She does not, at least not officially, report to Larry Page. As of last year, they no longer even date.

So why on Google Earth is the fact treated as such a secret? Google's corporate communications department has been putting forward Marissa Mayer as an appealing alternative to the company's overexposed founders. She's been the subject of puff profiles in magazines such as BusinessWeek and Fast Company.

Readers learn that she was on the high-school debate team, and that she welcomes late-night dropins from Google engineers. But, astonishingly, even in this mound of trivial color, not one mention of the fact that she dated one of Google's billionaire founders.

Maybe it's simply not relevant. Well, it's at least as relevant as the fact that Mayer flies kites and has the posture of the ballet dancer she was in her youth. And let's not pretend there's no significance in the tight connections of Google's founders and their first employees. It's because Larry Page and Sergey Brin, the co-founders, are still so close that they've been able to retain effective control of the company, able to pursue any hubristic scheme to bring free wifi and knowledge to the world. Personalities do matter.

Nobody's saying the dating lives of Larry Page and Marissa Mayer are front-page material, or even worth many a blog screed such as this. But the item is a staple of Silicon Valley gossip. I must have heard the tip from a dozen different people in the last month; it must be worth at least a mention. Try this: Marissa Mayer, who joined Google as employee number 20 and dated Larry Page until last year, was promoted to VP of search products. There, that wasn't too hard.

So why gloss over the fact? Some out-of-town reporters are no doubt unaware, true. But most local journalists know the gossip, relish it, and wouldn't dream of working it into an article, unless, say, it was the basis of a sexual harassment suit, which is not on the cards. Their explanation: it isn't worth it. The gossip is a throwaway line, a paragraph at best; but access to Google executives is worth thousands of words, and cover stories.

Google doesn't even have to threaten. Eric Schmidt imposed a year-long ban on cooperation with CNET after the site made a point about privacy by publishing the Google CEO's address and other information. But that didn't last long, Google isn't nearly as fearsome as Apple in its dealings with the media, and I've heard no suggestion that Google explicitly vetoes certain lines of questioning. Marissa Mayer's handlers, in managing the press, still have much to learn from the Tom Cruise's publicists.

What we have here is simple old-fashioned self-censorship. In China, few articles are ever censored. The press knows the rules, and anticipate them. Now, famously, some Google search results, for controversial terms such as Tibet, are self-censored.

It would be easy to make some joke about Google subjecting tech reporters to the same inducements that it faces in China. But this really isn't Google's fault. Any company in a strong position would do the same: use access to control the story. The real embarrassment is that of the Silicon Valley's toothless press corps. Raised on a diet of pre-packaged anecdotes ooh, did you know Google hired a chef who travelled with the Grateful Dead? it's incapable of chewing on a real story.

An evening with Google's Marissa Mayer [one of the few mentions of her relationship with Larry Page, in a comment, about half-way down]

The Search [In John Battelle's book on Google, he describes Mayer as a "cultural force" in the company, but relegates her personal life to a footnote]