So remind what the point of having a jury select nominations is for if the founder can just toss out whatever entries he doesn't like?

If I was a jury member, I'd be feeling rather insulted right now.

Heh, you might want to send an apology email to those sponsers Jabrwock. ;)

It is an interesting situation in that one could view it on a grander scale.

A jury has decided in favor of a particular game.
Possible outside influences begin acting.
Director overrides jury and deems game invalid.

Move the scope to game legislation. In some cases, a judge and/or jury must decide if a particular game sold to a minor is or is not appropriate for that minor.

A particular jury in a specific case decides that, in this specific case, a specific game was appropriate for the child in question.
Outside influences harp and scream disagreement.
A Judge overrides jury's decision.

It always comes down to "It's our way or our way".

I agree with Jabrwock, there is no intellgent consistancy in this case. Screaming "interactivity" as a justification of segregation between film and games is merely a cop out. Art takes on all forms, positive and negative, and creates thought on a variety of levels. Art doesn't even have to be "pretty" to be art. Indeed, interpretation and imagination don't require button pushing but still allow a massive diversity of thought about even a still picture. Interpretation and imagination is far more "interactive" than a movie going down a set path or even a game that is slightly changable in the path it takes. They are more "interactive" because the individual doing the interpretation and using their imagination has no boundaries set for them. They can take whatever path they choose, with the only limits being set by their own minds. So using an argument of "interactivity" against one form of media, a form of media that still sets its own boundaries, is a rediculous argument because an individual's own mind offers "interactivity" no matter what form the media takes.

Personally, I've never heard of Slamdance and if the organization, by way of the director, can be manipulated by influences that, more than likely, have no concept of the various materials considered, then Slamdance, despite the length of time it's been around, may actually not be of any value any longer.

nightwng2000
NW2K Software

omg the founder suxxors. screw him.

I guess I ought to retract my condemnation of the sponsors too. /blush

Just take everything bad I said about the sponsors and apply it to Peter Baxter instead. Hey, it fits perfectly!

We in the game industry love to compare films to games but the analogy is not 100 percent complete. Games are interactive medium. There is this kind of gray area here. We need to be careful and not automatically fall for that analogy.

Of course games aren't films. Some of the things that film does well as a medium aren't done as well in games, and viceversa. New mediums always immitate old mediums as a way of gaining artistic licience. Early photographers recreated classic paintings; films weren't taken seriously until they succressfully recreated classic plays and literature. Games are currently doing the same with film. Personally I think they'd have better luck immitating literature. Eventually photography and film were allowed to leave the older medium's conventions behind and be good mediums in and of themselves. Shouldn't games be allowed to do the same?

I kind of wonder if politically aware gamers should still try to organize a boycott of the sponsers. Even though it's not their fault, it could still put some pressure on the festival's founder.

I still say my criticism of the sponsors is valid, because if they didn't lean on the founder to pull the nomination, they were clearly encouraging him to decide on his own what is and isn't worthy of a nomination, thereby making the jury just a lame duck.

If I was a sponsor, and the founder started telling the judges how to vote, I'd pull my funding and state that I cannot support a competition that is clearly pre-decided.

Hey dan!!! sup?

remember me? i enquired about the game's title.

HOW ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY THAT THE GAME WAS DISCARDED BECAUSE IT WAS RETARDED SHIT?

Okay?

@Dais

have you ever played it?

Well I support Mr. LeDonne's right to create and market this game, I can understand Baxter's decision to pull it. Slamdance can not be seen as doing anything insensitive or offensive toward the victims of Columbine. Also, can you imagine the rampage Thompson would be on if this game had won?

@Dais

And your reasons for it being bad are......?

Because it is generally awful, the only novelty being in the exploitation, which quickly wears thing.

Interesting comments and actions coming out of the georgia tech prof, and the creator of Braid... i'd be very interested to see if any other creators pull out of the competition in responce to this issue. (i know the prof isn't a finalist, but atleast he said he would be fairly considering the action if he was)

@jotun

Too true o nthe story differences, nto to mention Dead Rising had the traditional shuffler zombie. The game would have been unfair if they had the super fast zombies.

@Mark Woodvine

I don't think you can compromise on freedom even once. That's sort of like saying "well, that country may have banned one book, but that doesn't mean it'll ban more!" -- in my mind this one incident *does* undo everything good it has done, because what good it has done was reliant upon not judging an artwork by any concern other than its aesthetic worth.

I have been to Slamdance several times and met Peter Baxter on more than one occassion. I highly doubt he was personally offended, it is much more likely he is taking the heat for the sponsors. While this sucks, it is worth noting that Slamdance is a tiny little festival operating in the shadow of a big profitable festival. I am sure it upset Peter to do what he did, but even the loss of one sponsor would be disasterous to the entire festival. Absolutely express your outrage, but don't give up on Slamdance, I can assure you it has done much more good for freedom of expression than could be undone by this one incident.

@Patrick

I don't think this will kill the festival and it does I don't think it is to late to save it. They can have a public letter of apology and make it automatically qualified for next year's competition (and if it wins also announce second place) if the head guy still refuses to allow it entry.

When I read this, all that I can think of is the possibility that Mr. Baxter is taking the fall in order to not tarnish the names of his sponsors. I was at Slamdance last year, and there was a huge focus on freedom of expression. I can't imagine that the FOUNDER of this festival would voluntarily put it's credibility at stake without outside (sponsor) influence.

(This may be unprofessional to discuss on a public forum, but not nearly as unprofessional as the shit they just pulled...)

I was part of the "jury" this year, and I gave SCMRPG a terrible review (the game is shit). At the same time, the rest of the jury chose it as a finalist so it has EVERY RIGHT to be part of the festival. Was the tens of hours I spent judging not worth anything, because they can override it at will?

The judging sheet I wrote for SCMRPG was the longest one I wrote, because there was alot to say... almost all negative. However just the simple fact that I felt compelled to SAY these things means that the game did its job. If nothing else SCMRPG is an effective way of pissing people off, a power that no other game has had to this extent. If that isn't groundbreaking I don't know what is!

This is a sad day for Slamdance, and for those of us who spent our time supporting it.