eToychest recently spoke with Paradox Interactive’s Johan Andersson regarding the company’s recently released Europa Universalis III, an epic strategy game for the PC. Paradox Interactive has made a name for itself with complex strategy games for the PC, appealing to a nice audience of hardcore enthusiasts. The most recognizable of these is, of course, Europa Universalis, which began its life in 2001 as a quality strategy epic that let players take control of Eupropean countries in a struggle to wage war and make Europe their own. The series’ latest incarnation, Europa Universalis III, which was recently released to retail, features more options and intricacies than ever before, and delves deeply into the areas of exploration, trade, warfare and diplomacy. Europa Universalis also gives players freedom to rule their nation from an impressive choice of over 250 historically accurate countries.

eToychest recently spoke with Johan Andersson just prior to the game’s release in order to get some insight into game. Andersson worked as the game’s director of development, and as such was heavily involved in all development aspects of Europa Universalis III. He has been with Paradox since 1999 and has worked as the game designer and lead-programmer for the Europa Universalis series, as well as the original Hearts of Iron.

Hello Johan. Thank you for taking the time to speak with us regarding Europa Universalis III. More than any other series released by Paradox Interactive, the Europa Universalis franchise made the company a household name, particularly among PC strategy game enthusiasts. To what do you attribute this?

The game has an almost unheard of scope and depth, and we have put a lot of attention to the details and actual history. All this leads to a game with immense replayability, which is one of the reasons people play our games for such a long time. But the main reason is obviously that our games are fun to play, and that being the developers, also think it’s fun to play.

For those who may not be among the series’ existing fan base, can you describe briefly what Europa Universalis III is all about?

EU III is a grand strategy game that spans 300 years from 1453 to 1789. Players can explore, use diplomacy, wage war and use trade to gain as much power as possible and expand their empire. It is a game for people that are interested in a little bit of a challenge even though this game is much easier to get into than any of our previous games. There is a huge community surrounding the franchise that adds both life span and exciting twists to gameplay, especially in multiplayer.

What does this game do differently compared to the previous Europa Universalis titles?

There is so much it would take too long to go over it but the brief answer is:

• Players can start at any date during 300 years and everything in the game will be accurately reflected for that specific day
• Nation building is flexible
• You will have tons of historical personalities and great people in history at your disposal
• A 3D map with more than 1700 provinces and sea zones
• More than 250 countries, 1000 historical leaders and over 4000 historical Monarchs
• Many more options for customization and moddability

For this third iteration of the series, Paradox has introduced a new graphics engine. If you had to pick one thing that this new engine brings to the game, what would that be? And perhaps more importantly, why is this so important?

Scalability, it can affect resolutions, how the map works etc. This has benefited both the development and programming but will also benefit the player.

Your games covers over 300 years of history by allowing players to take part in campaigns set at any date between 1453 and 1789. Why exactly were these years chosen?

You can play all the A

What follows is a transcript of our interview with Jason Rohrer, the developer of Slamdance finalist Cultivation, regarding the recent removal of Super Columbine Massacre RPG from the upcoming Slamdance independent game festival.

Snackbar Games: There are some critics of Slamdance who might argue that going back to the fold, as you suggest in your letter, would hurt the credibility of the gaming medium. One thing that’s come up over and over again in my discussions with gamers and developers as I’ve tracked this story is that this would not happen to a film. Do you think there’s damage to be done to games and gaming, at least in the public perception, as a result of Slamdance’s decision?

Jason Rohrer: I certainly do not agree with the decision, and I don’t think that games are being taken seriously by the festival or by the rest of society. When I mention the idea of “a game about Columbine” to people that I know (like my mother-in-law, for example), their first reaction is almost always one of disgust. I’ve even heard things like, “games are for children, and who would want their children to play a game about Columbine?” Granted, this is mostly coming from a generation of non-gamers. They did not play games themselves, but saw their children play games, so they have pegged games as a medium that only interests kids. It’s like a 90-year-old saying, “Rock-and-roll? That’s for kids!” In both cases, those kids kept their taste as they grew up. So we have 30-year-olds that still play games and 60-year-olds that still listen to rock-and-roll.

Did the decision “damage” gaming? How much weight does Slamdance really pull? I was surprised (and impressed) that they picked SCMRPG as a finalist in the first place, given how controversial it is. That initial decision probably boosted Slamdance more than it boosted gaming. Likewise, the second decision, to pull SCMRPG, hurt Slamdance more than it
hurt gaming.

I’d say that the public doesn’t take gaming seriously, and the inclusion or exclusion of SCMRPG at Slamdance would have had little effect on public perception of gaming. If anything, the pulling of SCMRPG has spawned a lot of useful discussion. Before the controversy erupted, there was almost no press coverage of Slamdance at all. Yeah, they picked a controversial game, but no one seemed to notice. It was only through the pulling of that game that people started to take notice and discuss whether games can be taken seriously—you could call this the “bright side” of pulling SCMRPG. This is a discussion that we certainly need to have.

SBG: One of the points you make is that Slamdance, as an event, warrants protecting, even though we might disagree with the decisions of the directors. How much danger is Slamdance in?

JR: I would not be shocked if this was the last year that Slamdance holds a game event. From the original fourteen finalists, only four games will be screened at the festival. The program is in shambles and funding has been withdrawn (so prizes are much smaller). There’s really not much left of the game festival this year. The film festival, on the other hand, has been going strong for many years—I’m sure it will live on in the future.

SBG: Pulling out of the contest, as you say in your letter, is not a valuable method of protest. Do you plan to address the issue during your screening? If so, how?

JR: My game Cultivation, which I will be screening, is about conflict and compromise. The game is set within a community of gardeners on a small island, but their situation is really a metaphor for any situation that involves conflict, from a squabble between board members of a small non-profit to a full-scale nuclear engagement. The metaphor can be usefully applied to the controversy surrounding the pulling of SCMRPG.
Through the mechanics that I’ve set up in Cultivation, you can observe a number of emergent phenomenon. If conflict is allowed to build unchecked, it can lead to the destruction of resources that are valuable to everyone involved. Eventually, the entire island can be ruined by a series of unchecked conflicts, leaving no land to grow food, and everyone starves as
a result.

In the conflict over SCMRPG, I saw both sides sticking stubbornly to their guns, and the result was that the game festival was essentially destroyed. A discussion of these issues will fit nicely into my screening. Will I stand up there wagging my finger at the festival organizers and saying, “Games MUST be taken seriously?” Probably not, since I think they know that already.

SBG: In many circles, the backlash over Slamdance’s announcement deals more with their behavior surrounding the decision than the decision itself. Do you think they could have acted more appropriately?

JR: I’ve had some time to fully digest the series of events that unfolded so
quickly over the past week. I now believe that the problem resulted more from premature press coverage than from the organizers’ behavior. Of course, before making a press release about pulling Danny’s game, the organizers told him about it. As I understand it, Danny went straight to the press with the news (fueling Kotaku’s “exclusive” news flash). The press reported based on Danny’s recollection of the phone call, so we got one version of the “reasons for pulling SCMRPG” (sponsor pressure). Then, still before the official press release was ready, other journalists interviewed Peter Baxter by phone, and we got a second set of “reasons for pulling SCMRPG” (a personal, moral decision on Baxter’s part). Next, we got an “official statement,” which didn’t give details about a reason. Finally, we got a letter directly to gamemakers, which explained that screening SCMRPG could open the festival to a lawsuit.

Several finalists have called the communication coming from the festival organizers “inconsistent.” However, I now believe that they were simply struggling to react to the media firestorm that Danny lit.

If we had known, from the beginning, that the festival could have been sued by the families of Columbine victims (or even by the Harris and Klebold families—after all, Danny used the boys’ likenesses without permission), would people have been as angry about the decision?

SBG: Have you played SCMRPG? If so, what are your thought on the game?

JR: Yes, I played it all way through, and wrote an in-depth review of it, just days before the controversy erupted. You can read my review online. In summary, it surpasses any other video game that I’ve played in terms of artistic achievement.

SBG: What has the response to your letter been? Have any of the finalists agreed to come back? Do you think they will?

JR: Most of the finalists who have pulled out already have written me with negative responses to my letter. None have agreed to come back, and I don’t expect that any will in the future (the “stay the course” mentality prevails). There are other issues lurking here, however. Some of these finalists weren’t planning to attend Slamdance anyway, because they could not afford the trip. Out of the six that have bowed out, only two are still coming to Park City to join the discussion—obviously, those two already had non-refundable lodging and plane tickets. The other four protesters declined to join the discussion in Park City, claiming that they could not afford it. That means that, one week before the festival, they still had no reservations (which would make plane tickets expensive, indeed). They’re much slicker to bow out in protest than to bow out due to financial concerns, I’d say.

What follows is a transcript of eToychest’s interview with Danny Ledonne, the developer of Super Columbine Massacre RPG, regarding the game’s recent removal from the upcoming Slamdance independent game festival.

Snackbar Games: To start off, tell me how you came to enter Super Columbine Massacre RPG into this year’s Slamdance competition. Thanks to the magic of the internet, I’ve seen a few differing anecdotal accounts in my research.

Danny Ledonne: Slamdance GGC director Sam Roberts contacted me last October and encouraged me to submit the game. I expressed hesitation based mostly on licensing issues but over the next few days he assured me that this wasn’t a concern and I then submitted my game to Slamdance. SCMRPG was named a finalist. Months later it was pulled. The rest is still unfolding.

SBG: When you were notified that your game was removed from consideration, what was your initial reaction? Conversely, what are your thoughts now?

DL: I was notified only after the game was removed (Thursday the 4th of January). I was led to believe that this was due to loss of sponsorship so I was quite understanding. Now this appears not to be the case at all and so I’m less certain what to think other than that this would’ve never happened to a film in the same circumstances (and the same subject matter).

SBG: Again, addressing the internSBG: there are plenty of people out there who are dismissive of the game’s removal from the finalist’s list because they believe the judges only intended to include the game for its controversial value. How do you respond?

DL: I can’t speak for the judges and I don’t know why they chose this game… but I really want people to see past the fact that it is simply controversial. It is also heavily researched. It is also a commentary on gaming. It is pushing what games are and what they can be. I believe it was on those merits that the game was chosen, not merely controversy alone (which, in my best estimation, is why the game was pulled out of the festival).

SBG: Slamdance has screened controversial games in the past. What is it that makes yours so different?

DL: Perhaps my game deals with a more uncomfortable subject matter. Perhaps placing the player in the role of a school shooter is too confrontational and discomforting for people. I’m not really sure since I still don’t really know why the game was pulled to begin with. Slamdance certainly knew what they were getting into by selecting the game, however; SCMRPG has a virtual paper trail of controversy already and if they weren’t prepared to deal with it they’d be better off not having courted it.

SBG: In an Artist’s Statement on SCMRPG‘s Web site, you talk about the need for more socially conscious games. What do you think needs to happen for games to become more widely accepted as literature?

DL: That’s something I’ve thought about quite a bit and have discussed with contemporaries of mine inside and outside the game industry. The first step is probably acknowledging that a game about 9/11 or Columbine or some other divisive topic can be valuable and moreover shouldn’t be “off limits” for videogames. This is a medium that isn’t for kids anymore. It has the potential to challenge mature audiences. It has the potential to reach people in a way currently impossible by other mediums.
Perhaps game developers need to consider making more literate work to begin with. SCMRPG includes passages from TS Elliot, Dante’s Inferno, and Friedrich Nietzsche. Why can’t more games engage players in a cerebral way? There’s no reason for games to be equivocated to toys when they can be crafted more like a documentary film or a political cartoon… or even something that doesn’t really exist yet because games are still “coming into their own” as a form of communication and art.

SBG: Do you think Slamdance has damaged the legitimacy of video games as a medium with this decision? For instance, no film or novel would be given this treatment.

DL: This has absolutely damaged Slamdance in this way; half the game developers have pulled their games out and USC Interactive Media has pulled sponsorship. Who would honestly submit an edgy game to Slamdance next year after this has happened? Only time will tell, of course, but the outlook for the GGC isn’t so good right now.

SBG: Is there anything else we haven’t discussed that you’d like to comment on?

DL: This is just something I’d like to throw out there: SCMRPG is one amateur game but has come to represent the beginnings of a movement in gaming: one toward games being truly artful objects that confront our world instead of simply distracting us from it. This idea isn’t going to go away; there will be more games about controversial issues and our culture is going to be faced with some very real choices as to how it deals with agenda gaming in the future.

What follows is a transcript of eToychest’s interview with Tracy Fullerton regarding the recent removal of Super Columbine Massacre RPG from the upcoming Slamdance independent game festival. Tracy Fullerton is a assistant professor at the USC School of Cinematic Arts, Interactive Media Division, and is co-director at the Electronic Arts Game Innovation Lab.

Snackbar Games: To start off, I’d like to play devil’s advocate – Doesn’t Slamdance have the right to change its mind if it deems the content of Super Columbine Massacre RPG inappropriate?

Tracy Fullerton: We don’t dispute their legal right to make this decision, but we do object to the decision in principle and are invoking our right to rescind our support.

SBG: There has been some buzz in the blogosphere that pressures from ‘backers’ led to SCMRPG‘s removal. Is it true that, as one of those backers, this issue was not discussed with you? Is Slamdance’s inability to keep an open dialogue with its sponsors more or less damning than the poor timing of their decision?

TF: The decision was not discussed with us at all — we found out after the fact. I think the decision should have been discussed with sponsors, as it changes the nature of the contest. In effect, it communicates that Slamdance will honor the best independent games that are not too controversial.

SBG: When I first heard the news about this incident, my first thought was that banning Elephant or Bowling For Columbine from consideration at any film festival would have dramatic repercussions, and yet the Directors of Slamdance found this course of action acceptable. What do you think prompts this kind of double standard? What needs to happen for interactive media, such as video games, to be afforded the same respect as, say, film, another medium which is still relatively young?

TF: I think that games are emerging as an important and expressive art that have the potential to be as important to the coming century as film was to the previous century. It is crucial that we recognize the right to free expression in this emerging form even while we are still learning to use it to communicate effectively. It’s clear that game makers are just now beginning to thing about how they use the form to express complex ideas. If we’re going to get better at it, we need support from artistic venues in this process.

SBG: Do you think this action on Slamdance’s part constitute some kind of sea change or, to try and be hip, a ‘selling out’? Given their inclusion of Waco Resurrection just a few years ago, it seems that their views on controversial subject matter are drastically different.

TF: I think it was a decision specific to this game, but it sets a dangerous precedent. Waco is a good example of a controversial game that they screened in the past, and supported in the same way they’ve supported countless controversial films. It’s an argument for the fact that there should not be a double standard between films and games.

SBG: All things considered, is there any chance of the Interactive Media Division sponsoring the festival again? If so, what would it take on Slamdance’s part to make it happen?

TF: I don’t know what will happen in the future. I certainly hope that Slamdance survives this experience and is able to grow from it.

SBG: Slamdance isn’t the only event of its type, though it may be the most high profile. As the spearhead of this protest, has your department considered attempting to host a similar competition in the future to fill the resulting void?

TF: No, we’re not thinking of that right now.

SBG: Have you played SCMRPG? If so, what are your thoughts on it?

TF: Yes, I have. It is a difficult game in terms of its subject matter. I found it deeply disturbing, but it made me think about the events in a way that no other media has done. I’ve seen countless TV reports, films, etc. on the tragedy, but this game took me through that day and implicated me personally in the events that took place. I won’t say I enjoyed the game, but it was certainly thought-provoking.

SBG: I appreciate you taking the time out to speak with me. Is there anything we haven’t discussed that you’d like to comment on?

TF: Just that this was an incredibly difficult decision, not only for us, but for the finalists who pulled their games from the contest, and that I only hope that out of that sacrifice will come a serious discussion of games and freedom of expression that helps the medium achieve a level of legitimacy as an art form.