Racist game released, double standards exposed

[Tranquility]

Follow up to the earlier thread about M rated games.

While the hot coffee mod generates an overblown level of interest from political morality crusaders, and the Eidos game 25 to Life is put under fire despite not having been released yet because it contains police and gang violence, and other games get into the lists of consumer groups because they're too violent even before they're released, US neo-Nazis release a shooter titled Ethnic Cleansing encouraging violence against ethnic minorities, to little fanfare from the same politicians who slammed San Andreas for containing an awkward sex minigame.

http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=60093

Players take on the role of either a skinhead or a Ku Klux Klan member - dressed in full KKK robes and carrying a noose - and explore a city that's clearly based on New York. The object of the game is to kill black and Latino people, described as "predatory sub-humans", and their "Jewish masters".

EDIT: Just a pointer, the game probably will not be available via the normal retail channels for games, but the point I'm trying to make is that politicians slam gaming as a medium with games such as San Andreas as the focus because apparently they teach kids to be insensitive to violence. Well if they weren't just aiming for a lot of fanfare, they would be criticising the fact that a game like this gets released, but they don't because it isn't a mainstream title.

[Theoretician]

That is unbelievable.

[Champion_Munch]

Good god....if parents were doing their job and deciding for their kids what games they are allowed to play, we wouldn't have all this garbage.

with regards

[Yoshua]

Good god....if parents were doing their job and deciding for their kids what games they are allowed to play, we wouldn't have all this garbage.

with regards

As they say, "Garbage in, garbage out". Sometimes what parents see as doing their job is just a little scary. Such as parents who would consider the above software to be educational for their children.

[pghnative]

I don't think you're being fair to the politicians here (gee ... that's a phrase I never thought I'd write)

If this were released by a main stream company, I suspect there'd be a huge firestorm of protest. But the fact that it is released by an obscure neo-Nazi group changes the dynamic. I'm sure that everything released by this group is offensive, whether it is press releases, magazines, games, etc... Politicians shouldn't waste their time criticizing every offensive piece of garbage promulgated by a niche hate group.

edited once to add the missing word "group" to next to last sentance

[MAPNUT]

Right, sometimes calling attention to such a thing does way more harm than good.

[Normandy6644]

Attacking the game would be ignoring the underlying problem which is a society that would produce this game in the first place. It's obviously not a snap your fingers kind of problem, but the same thing happens with San Andreas. Criticizing the game isn't going to solve anything, it's a much deeper problem.

[Taks]

EDIT: Just a pointer, the game probably will not be available via the normal retail channels for games, but the point I'm trying to make is that politicians slam gaming as a medium with games such as San Andreas as the focus because apparently they teach kids to be insensitive to violence. Well if they weren't just aiming for a lot of fanfare, they would be criticising the fact that a game like this gets released, but they don't because it isn't a mainstream title.

this is the crux of the argument, and the reason your complaint falls flat. simply put, nobody cares that some neo-nazi group puts out a game like this because they do stuff like this all the time. the comparison between a group without any real marketing that might sell 50 games (up to 51 now because of the stink you've raised) to a major publisher like EIDOS that will sell 100s of thousands just doesn't wash. sorry.

taks

[Tranquility]

EDIT: Just a pointer, the game probably will not be available via the normal retail channels for games, but the point I'm trying to make is that politicians slam gaming as a medium with games such as San Andreas as the focus because apparently they teach kids to be insensitive to violence. Well if they weren't just aiming for a lot of fanfare, they would be criticising the fact that a game like this gets released, but they don't because it isn't a mainstream title.

this is the crux of the argument, and the reason your complaint falls flat. simply put, nobody cares that some neo-nazi group puts out a game like this because they do stuff like this all the time. the comparison between a group without any real marketing that might sell 50 games (up to 51 now because of the stink you've raised) to a major publisher like EIDOS that will sell 100s of thousands just doesn't wash. sorry.

taks

Oh yeah. They do stuff like this all the time. So it's okay to ignore it.

So politicians should only attack mainstream titles? Just because they sell well? They ought to attack a game for having a sex minigame, but they don't slam those neo-Nazi games that get released "all the time" as per your assertion despite them being probably more damaging than a sex minigame? Isn't that hypocrisy?

EDIT:

a group without any real marketing that might sell 50 games (up to 51 now because of the stink you've raised)

Oh sorry, forgot to laugh about this the first time. Ha ha.

[Gillianren]

okay. how many people are affected by a game that sells 50--or even 51--copies? how many people are affected by a game that sells 50 thousand?

more relevantly, I'm sure those politicians you're blaming because of the rating of your favorite game (which I've watched played and found tedious, not to say unnecessarily violent and fairly sexist) criticize neo-Nazi groups for existing, whether they put out video games or not. if not, that is, to me at least and ideally to you, a far bigger problem with the politician than whether or not they're jumping on the political bandwagon against violent video games.

[Tranquility]

Just a pointer, my favourite game lies squarely with Half-life 2, followed by the Warcraft series. Although I loved the 3 last iterations of the GTA series, they're not my favourite game.

Nor should my opinion or yours of how good the game is be any sort of factor in the discussion. I really don't care if you found it boring or not, nor should you care if I liked it or not. Hopefully this is out of the way now.

criticize neo-Nazi groups for existing, whether they put out video games or not. if not, that is, to me at least and ideally to you, a far bigger problem with the politician than whether or not they're jumping on the political bandwagon against violent video games.

Yeah they ought to, but I don't really see what you're getting at. Yeah they don't like neo-Nazi groups, kudos to them. I don't care about their political agenda. What I'm advocating is that the fact that a game like this isn't being attacked by politicians is hypocritical because they choose to attack another game simply because it's a mainstream title, even though the harmful effects of having a sex minigame in software rated 17+ is probably negligible in comparison with the game that lets you walk around shooting blacks, irrespective of how many people are buying it. Yeah, a politician won't be getting much attention if they slam a title that's being sold to a niche audience consisting of racists, which is why they choose to try and ban another more popular game because their efforts will grab the news headlines.

[Taks]

Oh yeah. They do stuff like this all the time. So it's okay to ignore it.

So politicians should only attack mainstream titles? Just because they sell well? They ought to attack a game for having a sex minigame, but they don't slam those neo-Nazi games that get released "all the time" as per your assertion despite them being probably more damaging than a sex minigame? Isn't that hypocrisy?

that's not the point at all, and no it is not hypocrisy at all.

the fact of the matter is that this just does not merit a response by anybody, because simply doing so will give such groups the attention they otherwise would not have received. these fringe groups are pretty much ignored by everyone except those that believe as they do. nobody cares, so why even waste your effort. that's the point.

Oh sorry, forgot to laugh about this the first time. Ha ha.

that was at the heart of what i was saying. they're so small that giving them any attention is actually furthering their cause.

taks

[Tranquility]

Oh yeah. They do stuff like this all the time. So it's okay to ignore it.

So politicians should only attack mainstream titles? Just because they sell well? They ought to attack a game for having a sex minigame, but they don't slam those neo-Nazi games that get released "all the time" as per your assertion despite them being probably more damaging than a sex minigame? Isn't that hypocrisy?

that's not the point at all, and no it is not hypocrisy at all.

the fact of the matter is that this just does not merit a response by anybody, because simply doing so will give such groups the attention they otherwise would not have received. these fringe groups are pretty much ignored by everyone except those that believe as they do. nobody cares, so why even waste your effort. that's the point.

Oh sorry, forgot to laugh about this the first time. Ha ha.

that was at the heart of what i was saying. they're so small that giving them any attention is actually furthering their cause.

taks

Fair enough.

[farmerjumperdon]

I think the big difference, already stated in so many words, is magnitude of influence. The much stronger, over-the-top rascist material is going to stay very much within a core group of already over-the-top people. It is highly unlikely it will influence their attitudes or behavior.

The mainstream titles, though toned down from the worst of this stuff, will be in the hands of way too many young people who might never have considered this kind of thing as fun, and who do not yet have the wisdom to appreciate the destructive tendencies they instill.

I understand our difference of opinion on this, and think it might be more a matter of degree than anything; though your criticism reflects you only looked at one of the articles. I think the plethora of studies out there demonstrate that exposure to violence, aggression, racism, etc - begets the same. In fact, I had not made the link before, but that is exactly how racism gets passed along. People are not born rascist, they learn it. And the most proliferate racist behavior is joke-telling. By your logic a kid should know the difference between a joke and serious conversation, same as they should know the difference between a game and real interaction with other humans. But the lines get blurred. When a child grows up with all the adults around them telling racist jokes, racism begins to become a part of their persona. That is a fact, it is Psych 101, it is Behavior for Dummies.

Madison Avenue spends billions per year counting on that kind of assimilation, and you claim it does not exist. That might indicate you have as much of an agenda as the politician.

[Taks]

Madison Avenue spends billions per year counting on that kind of assimilation, and you claim it does not exist. That might indicate you have as much of an agenda as the politician.

i think this concepti holds as a magnitude of influence as well. there's a difference between a child growing up with his entire sphere of influence driven by racism, violence, etc. and a single game being played on his playstation. we know the difference between joke and truth because we were raised to know. when my son is older, i expect he will know those differences because i taught him to. one game (or even many) will not shake that foundation. however, those that are not ever taught to know, will not know.

taks

[AGN Fuel]

In a country as litigious as the US, I am a little surprised that the people (and I use the term loosely) who release this vile thing have not been sued down to their underpants.

What sort of anti-vilification laws exist in the US?

[Jpax2003]

In a country as litigious as the US, I am a little surprised that the people (and I use the term loosely) who release this vile thing have not been sued down to their underpants.

What sort of anti-vilification laws exist in the US?

Not many since the First Amendment protects speech.

Let the haters play their games, I'm more concerned with the lawmakers going after the bigger companies not vice versa.

[hippietrekx]

Madison Avenue spends billions per year counting on that kind of assimilation, and you claim it does not exist. That might indicate you have as much of an agenda as the politician.

i think this concepti holds as a magnitude of influence as well. there's a difference between a child growing up with his entire sphere of influence driven by racism, violence, etc. and a single game being played on his playstation. we know the difference between joke and truth because we were raised to know. when my son is older, i expect he will know those differences because i taught him to. one game (or even many) will not shake that foundation. however, those that are not ever taught to know, will not know.

taks

Several of my friends have Plastations and GTA games. I've gone to their house and played {some of the GTA games are quite challenging} with them, and we laugh and have fun, but when the plastaion goes off, so does the "violence is fun!" frame of mind too. When we play, a parent checks in on us, and knows we're playing, and what we're playing.

It's a game. A game that shouldn't be played by young children, as the ratings suggest. Older teens are old enough to understand that GTA-type games aren't real. Behavior like that isn't condonable. They know it's a game. I'm not sure that younger children understand that whats on the TV shouldn't always be seen as a role model.

I'm not against M-rated games. I'm against M-rated games being in the hands of impressionable children who are under the age of play that rating suggest. If younger than the ratings age children DO play M-rated games, a parent should know just what the child is picking up from the game, and that the child is playing, as well as for how long.

Parents have a responsiblility to monitor what is being put into the computer and game system. My parents do.

--htx

[Kebsis]

That game (Ethnic Cleansing) came out a long time ago. I remember reading about it when I was in highschool. I don't know why the article you posted is reporting on it now as if it is current...I guess just to make a comparison to the GTA mod thing.

[Taks]

I'm against M-rated games being in the hands of impressionable children who are under the age of play that rating suggest. If younger than the ratings age children DO play M-rated games, a parent should know just what the child is picking up from the game, and that the child is playing, as well as for how long.

Parents have a responsiblility to monitor what is being put into the computer and game system. My parents do.

--htx

exactly. we (as a society) keep trying to remove blame from parents. it is ultimately a parent's responsibility to watch what their children are watching. yes, always, not just "when i have time." my parents did, and so will i with my son. his tv time is regulated (against his wishes, at 2 years old already, darned blue's clues!). his playstation time (or whatever) will be as well. fact of life, give birth, raise child. raise child means watch that little bugger till he's 50 if necessary. my son is relentless, and already a con-artist. i will be equally relentless.

taks

[hippietrekx]

I'm against M-rated games being in the hands of impressionable children who are under the age of play that rating suggest. If younger than the ratings age children DO play M-rated games, a parent should know just what the child is picking up from the game, and that the child is playing, as well as for how long.

Parents have a responsiblility to monitor what is being put into the computer and game system. My parents do.

--htx

exactly. we (as a society) keep trying to remove blame from parents. it is ultimately a parent's responsibility to watch what their children are watching. yes, always, not just "when i have time." my parents did, and so will i with my son. his tv time is regulated (against his wishes, at 2 years old already, darned blue's clues!). his playstation time (or whatever) will be as well. fact of life, give birth, raise child. raise child means watch that little bugger till he's 50 if necessary. my son is relentless, and already a con-artist. i will be equally relentless.

taks

While my TV time is not regulated, per se, my parents keep the hours of 3pm to 5pm off limits to electronics during school (unless homework requires on-line research). During the summer from the hours of 12pm to 5pm are no electronics time. We also have no TV during dinner. I'm online (which at least reuires thinking) more than I play videogames or watch TV (even if I do still watch more TV than I should!)

I just think that people in general are too stuck to the TV or game system. Heck, my game system is a Sega Genisis that my brothers bought when I was two. The most violent game I own is Sonic The Hedgehog: 2...

The really violent games (like GTA) get boring to me after about an hour... I don't understanf the addction some peole have to them.

--hippie

[Kebsis]

I've got a general question for everyone.

'Ethnic Cleansing', from what I understand through reviews, was a horrible game. By that I mean the gameplay, graphics, storyline etc. were all terrible.

But if Ethnic Cleansing was an awesome game...that is, a game with extraordinary graphics, great gameplay, an interesting storyline and everything like that...do you think it would catch on? Do you think alot of people would play it?

[Kemal]

"Ethnic cleansing?" God almighty what is wrong with some people.

[Gillianren]

But if Ethnic Cleansing was an awesome game...that is, a game with extraordinary graphics, great gameplay, an interesting storyline and everything like that...do you think it would catch on? Do you think alot of people would play it?

if it had the marketing/availability of an average game, yes, honestly, I do. before people can jump all over me, no, not all gamers would play it, but a fair number would, simply because all they care about is the shooting part. I've seen people like this.

and for the record, I don't think it's society taking responsibility away from parents. I think it's parents abdicating responsibility to society. no, my mother didn't keep track of what I watched, as it happens, because she worked 40 hours a week. my dad didn't because, well, he was dead, which makes it difficult. and to be fair, a lot of families have parents who don't have a lot of time to monitor kids. however, there are also families where there's a parent who does have the time but doesn't do it.

[hippietrekx]

and for the record, I don't think it's society taking responsibility away from parents. I think it's parents abdicating responsibility to society. no, my mother didn't keep track of what I watched, as it happens, because she worked 40 hours a week. my dad didn't because, well, he was dead, which makes it difficult. and to be fair, a lot of families have parents who don't have a lot of time to monitor kids. however, there are also families where there's a parent who does have the time but doesn't do it.

My mom works 40 hours a week, and my dad works 60. They're not always closely guarding what I watch or play, but they do screen what is on my computer and what games I bring into the house. My parents also don't "keep track" of what I watch, but they do know, in general, the type of shows I watch (normally sci-fi and documentaries). In fact, when I do use electronic devices, my parents aren't usually home or awake. I think what's important is that parents have a general idea of what their kids play or see. Constant moderation isn't nessecary, but parents should know what could be influencing their children.

--hippie