Now here's an interesting question, much along the lines of the AP discussion about Paris Hilton we covered a while ago - when, if ever, should deliberately controversial gaming subjects NOT be covered? Shacknews' Chris Remo has a detailed post called 'On Giving Attention to V-Tech' which looks at this issue even further magnified.

Remo explains: "Yesterday, we ran a news piece dealing with the media coverage and political situation surrounding Ryan Lambourn's tasteless game based on the recent shooting at Virginia Tech. I approved the story... because of its well-researched and, I believe, contextually clear angle highlighting the sadly myopic view of video games taken all too frequently by those with a public voice."

He continues of Shacknews user complaints not to give the creator attention: "That complaint is one with which I would generally agree if we were simply reporting on the game's creation and availability. This, however, is not the case. More relevant to the coverage sphere of this site is the situation that has sprung up around the game, with elected officials using the game's subject as a platform to further erode the already embattled reputation of the video game industry as a whole--or even the concept of games as an entertainment form!--and with mainstream media effortlessly blurring the line between a freely distributed nonprofessional game and a product of the established game development community."

Over at TIGSource, Derek Yu does some further analysis, due to a Destructoid double interview with Lambourne and Super Colombine RPG's Danny Ledonne that's just been posted. And I think he's right on the money with the following statement: "I find it interesting that Ledonne is very articulate and Lambourn is… well, he did it for the “lulz.” Neither game is a success, in my opinion, from a gameplay perspective or a social perspective. What they’ve proved is that games can create discussion and cause controversy… is that something that needs to be proven?"

A particularly interesting comment in the TIGSource thread from 'Underwhelmed', too: "I know that Ledonne says he did it for art, and Lambourn says he did it for attention, but really, Lambourn is the only one telling the truth here. Both of these guys are attention whores, Ledonne is just a little more articulate and willing to pretend it was for some other reason."

So what's the fix here? As Remo says, whenever games are not seen by public figures such as politicians as a monolithic entity, then it'll be easier for the entire art form not to be tarred with one brush - Hollywood and YouTube are not synonymous, despite both being filmed, for example. But then again, if we're asking for games as a whole to be awarded free speech rights on the basis of 'flagship titles' such as SCMRPG, are we going about it the right way? Like many of you, I'm deeply conflicted, and wish our poster child wasn't quite so ugly.