First of all, this is what set me off.
It’s an article about racism in video games. Supposedley. Except that really it’s an article about racism, whether or not it’s too soon to reference a city that housed a natural disaster, and whether or not you should get to play both sides of a war.
So let’s start with racism.
“…One of the games that comes to mind is “Left 4 Dead 2.” Though the game isn’t out yet, it’s already causing an uproar. Set in New Orleans, players will have to fight their way through hordes of zombies - with several of them who appear to be African-Americans.
…Do you have any idea what racism is?
The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary defines Racism as
“ a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race”
So you have a horde of zombies, all of whom attack in exactly the same way, and are, other than differing appearences, completely identical, and this is racist?
Fuck you. Moving on:
“…Another game, “Resident Evil 5,” puts gamers into the heart of Africa, blasting zombies. I bet you’ll never guess what color they are.
Black people in Africa? Racist?
Fuck you. seriously. I realize that you aren’t the first to jump on the ‘Resi 5 is racist’ bandwagon, but for christ’s sake, use your common sense. No one has ever been surprised to see mexicans in Mexico, or germans in Germany, and you don’t get the right to be surprised about Africans in Africa now. Or is the arguement that shooting said africans is racist? Because fuck that: you shoot the african zombies (and every other race of zombie, mind you, there is more than one,) for the same reason you shoot anything in any other video-game: Because it’s trying to kill you. Not because of its skin color, or gender, or sexual preference, but because It will end you, if you don’t end it.
If game developers and the like are going to use history and certain locations, they should be prepared to suffer the backlash that comes from it. It could be perceived as being racist - and turn some potential customers off.”
Apparently anything containing non-white characters can be percieved as being racist, so that’s kind of an empty threat, Karkaroff.
By the way: Did you see that reference to ‘certain locations’? this refer’s to the writer’s 2nd of three points-of complaint.
“One of the games that comes to mind is “Left 4 Dead 2.” Though the game isn’t out yet, it’s already causing an uproar. Set in New Orleans,”…
“When I saw the first trailer for the game, all I could think about was Hurricane Katrina and the aftermath. Setting the game in a city that was scene of dead, bloated bodies floating by so soon afterward was a bad call, IMHO. The city has had enough to deal with — Valve, you should have spared them, even if it’s just a video game.”
Granted, this is the one point of arguement the author makes that may be somewhat valid. How soon is too soon? It’s impossible to say, and I could foresee someone being upset by a graphics of corpses strewn around New Orleons after having lived through that once already.
Having said that, Valve clearly isn’t aiming to offend. In fact, judging by the aforementioned trailer, the game is, shockingly, going to have exactly nothing to do with Hurricane Katrina. No one gets upset when people set games in New York, even after 9/11. Same standards apply here too. I’ll grant you that this was only 4 years ago, while September 11th was 8, but for a game not focused on the tragedy, that should be more than enough.
Finally, we have this gem.
“
The game that really inspired this blog entry was Ubisoft’s “Call of Juarez: Bound in Blood.” The game starts out with players assuming the role of Ray, a Confederate officer, working to save his brother, Thomas, who’s pinned down by Union soldiers. I nearly dropped the controller. I have so much respect for President Lincoln — he wanted to preserve the Union and ended up freeing the slaves — and have just as much respect for the Union Army.
However, the Confederacy, as far as I am concerned, wanted to keep their cheap slave labor and the like. I can not stand the Confederate flag — I resist the urge to burn every last one that I see. To me, the flag represents hate — and offends me and many others to no end. And to play a game, where I don’t have a choice to be on the losing side — and one I detest — made me wonder how much research Ubisoft did for this game.
I can respect that you don’t like the confederacy. I agree. No slaves is best for everyone. But you know what? You do have a fucking choice. DON’T PLAY THE DAMNE GAME! In addition to that sentiment, I’d like to express confusion over what Ubisoft should have done more research on. This guy’s tolerance of confederates?
It would have been a good thing to give gamers a choice — sure, be a Confederate soldier — or a Union soldier.
No. now, granted, I haven’t played the game, (I’m going to have to soon, though. It looks pretty nice.) But if the character is fighting for the south, I’m pretty sure that he’s doing so for a reason. Be it born and raised there, or just that he believes in what the confederacy is fighting for. in any case, you can’t choose a side, because your character has already chosen his. This is a game about that character, not a game about you. A game about you would likely be about mistaking different ideas and mis-defining words. and I woudn’t play it.
