Activision's GUN Misfires With Native Americans

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Activision's GUN Misfires With Native Americans

Posted by Zonk on Wednesday February 1, 2006 @05:17AM from the differeing-opinions dept.

jkdove writes "Gamergod.com has published a news story reporting on the backlash from Activision's western shooter, GUN. From the article: 'In reaction to the content of GUN, the Association for American Indian Development has started a boycott against Activision. They have requested that certain explicit violence and stereotyping be removed from the game ... Ultimately, the Association for American Indian Development simply wants to see the content corrected in respect of the Apache people ... Even though the historical period portrayed in GUN was fraught with racism, Activision's decision to publish a racially stereotyped videogame represents a serious misstep in social responsibility.'"

149 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Silly... by grub · 2006-02-01 05:21 · Score: 2, Insightful

Ah yes, politically correct idiots are trying to re-write history. Not that GUN is exactly history but it's set in a different time with different values. I guess next someone should go through Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn to replace all instances of the word "nigger" with "African American". What will they call the character Nigger Jim; "James from Africa"?

--
Trolling is a art,
1. Re:Silly... by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · 2006-02-01 05:30 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Ah yes, politically correct idiots are trying to re-write history. Not that GUN is exactly history but it's set in a different time with different values. I guess next someone should go through Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn to replace all instances of the word "nigger" with "African American". What will they call the character Nigger Jim; "James from Africa"?
  
  No one is trying to rewrite history, but this game certainly is offensive and inaccurate and may very well promote racism. If someone publishes a game called, "Kill the Nigger" that feature KKK members torturing blacks in a historical context, I won't buy it and I'd probably join in a boycott. If some people find Tom Sawyer to be racist and detrimental, well they are free to boycott the publishing company. No one here is advocating censorship. No one is arguing that this company does not have the right to publish this game. What they are arguing is that no one should be willing to give money to people who behave this irresponsibly.
2. Re:Silly... by faloi · 2006-02-01 05:34 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Be careful what you ask for. The ALA reports on books that are chalenged. Tom Sawyer is on the list. Although it doesn't list the reason, I recall hearing that it was for racist views.
  
  --
  "It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education." -Albert Einstein
3. Re:Silly... by grub · 2006-02-01 05:35 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  If someone publishes a game called, "Kill the Nigger" that feature KKK members torturing blacks in a historical context, I won't buy it and I'd probably join in a boycott.
  
  Did you ever see the TV miniseries "Roots" from the late 70's? It's full of racism and brutality. It was also one of the highest rated shows ever. I don't recall there being a lot of racist attacks after Roots played.
  
  It's just another kneejerk "boycott".
  
  --
  Trolling is a art,
4. Re:Silly... by kwerle · 2006-02-01 05:44 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not a shrink, but I think you missed the point. There is almost certainly a difference between viewing/reading (thus the reference to Tom Sawyer) about racism, and using a vid game to re-enact it.
5. Re:Silly... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-02-01 05:48 · Score: 0
  
  And if it were a school play (a reenactment) of Tom Sawyer...?
6. Re:Silly... by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · 2006-02-01 05:48 · Score: 1
  
  Did you ever see the TV miniseries "Roots" from the late 70's? It's full of racism and brutality. It was also one of the highest rated shows ever. I don't recall there being a lot of racist attacks after Roots played.
  
  ...and this relates to our discussion how? This video game has a protagonist, with whom players are supposed to identify, committing brutal, violent acts based upon racism. Roots showed how horrible those acts are, in a historical context and did not exactly try to make viewers think they were "fun" or justified.
  
  In any case, I support the right of anyone to speak out against something and try to organize a boycott. If some people believe Roots has a hidden message that worshipping Satan is the key to happiness, and they want to boycott it, good for them. There is nothing wrong with people boycotting businesses who do things they find unethical. In this particular case, from what I have read, I think they may have a very valid point.
  
  Censorship is unethical, and I strongly support the rights of this video game publisher, to publish anything they want. They are also, however, responsible for what they publish and should be held accountable by purchasers for their actions.
7. Re:Silly... by physik23 · 2006-02-01 05:55 · Score: 1
  
  Brilliant point. One must put oneself in the frame of mind of the people of the period that the period piece(video game, book, etc.) is set in. This is part of the reason for these mediums creation. To open the eyes of people who would otherwise have never known what happened in the era. Granted in GUN you are shooting the Native Americans but that's what was happening at that time in history. I'd like for it not to be true but it is our country's history. And this game is about that point in our history. James from Africa. HA!
8. Re:Silly... by thesandtiger · 2006-02-01 06:03 · Score: 1
  
  They aren't opposed to the fact that there was racism - they are opposed to the portrayal of the Apache in that game based on inaccurate stereotypes.
  
  If the Apache were portrayed accurately, I've no doubt the outrage would be substantially less. In fact, I know it would - certain books, most notably (to me, at least) the Lonesome Dove books by Larry McMurtry have been *well recieved* by many native groups. Why? Because natives are portrayed as people, not as stereotyped jokes, and they are DEFINITELY not portrayed in the most flattering light.
  
  There is a difference.
  
  --
  Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.
9. Re:Silly... by _xeno_ · 2006-02-01 06:05 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  A lot of people here have missed the point. Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn may have contained the word "nigger" but they were not racist books. Anyone who thinks they are really needs to actually read them; while some of the characters definitely have racist views the books actually portray black people as, well, people. Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn find that, despite what the adults tell them, their actual experiences show that black people are just people, like them. There's racist speech and racist remarks made by characters in the books, but the books themselves are supposed to show how black people are really just people.
  
  According to the article, GUN isn't like that. GUN instead portrays American Indians soley in a racist fashion. The characters in a period piece are allowed to be racist. It's expected that an American during World War II would hate Japanese. (But, interestingly enough, not Germans...) Japanese characters are allowed to be racist against Americans. However, Japanese characters in a World War II film shouldn't act like a racial stereotype. They should behave like a Japanese person during that time actually would.
  
  Yes, you can't ignore racism. It's real, and it should be acknowledged. Pretending it doesn't exist is wrong. However, falling prey to it, and portraying the world based on racist views isn't right either. There's nothing wrong with having racist characters in a game. There is something wrong when the game itself reinforces the racial stereotypes.
  
  The Association for American Indian Development contents that GUN reinforces racial stereotypes, and the article appears to agree. Having never played the game, I have no way of knowing if they're right, but if the game really does display American Indians as racial stereotypes, they have a valid point.
  
  --
  You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
10. Re:Silly... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-02-01 06:09 · Score: 0
  
  It's not about PC. It's about common courtesy. If people find something to be offensive, don't do it in their presence.
  
  Maybe you don't care about someone breaking wind, a lot. I do, I would prefer that people keep their gas passing to a minumum while in my presence.
  
  When referring to Huck Finn's sidekick, why not just call him "Jim"? The only reason people persist in using the antiquated term is so that they can hurl a racial epithet whilst pretending to be discussing a historical work of fiction.
11. Re:Silly... by Oculus+Habent · 2006-02-01 06:10 · Score: 1
  
  Here's a thought:
  
  What if the videogame made available gameplay from either side, using the opposing views to demonstrate the misunderstandings and misconceptions which underlie the racism. That way, you get more gameplay, you get historical accuracy, and you demonstrate political savvy.
  
  All for just under twice the price of the original game, though.
  
  --
  That what was all this school was for... to teach us how to solve our own problems. -- janeowit
12. Re:Silly... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-02-01 06:17 · Score: 0
  
  That's the biggest load of PC bullshit I've ever had the displeasure of reading on slashdot. "Nigger Jim" was his name, it wasn't a racist book. The "N-word" only became unacceptible in the 60s.
13. Re:Silly... by pla · 2006-02-01 06:23 · Score: 1
  
  ...and this relates to our discussion how?
  
  Because it establishes that semi-accurate "period" entertainment can and should attempt to remain true to the vices of that period.
  
  Put another way - Let's say Activision made this exact same game, but let the player pick between playing an "enlightened indigenous person" or a "evil caucasian male imperialist oppressor scum". Still a racist game? How does that compare to the trend in sci-fi and fantasy games to let the player take the role of someone other than the Gallant Knights in White Tights, ie, the Sith? How about the now-classic game "Postal"?
  
  Playing the "bad guy" doesn't realy break any new ground in the entertainment realm. But if you want to feign some degree of historical accuracy, you can't rewrite core parts of that time period.
  
  Custer didn't lose to invading Martians.
14. Re:Silly... by 0xdeadbeef · 2006-02-01 06:31 · Score: 1
  
  Isn't slashdot supposed to be smarter than this? You see the word "political correctness" and your knee jerks the combo box to +1 Insightful?
15. Re:Silly... by Jaysyn · 2006-02-01 06:34 · Score: 1
  
  Fuck that. We need a "Cowboys & Indians" MMOG! :D
  
  Jaysyn
  
  --
  There is a war going on for your mind.
16. Re:Silly... by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · 2006-02-01 06:51 · Score: 1
  
  Put another way - Let's say Activision made this exact same game, but let the player pick between playing an "enlightened indigenous person" or a "evil caucasian male imperialist oppressor scum". Still a racist game?
  
  Yes, because it presupposes that race is the defining characteristic as to whether or not someone is enlightened or evil. Giving a choice of behavior and/or race would be the way to go. If you're going to railroad the player, however, into one plot and one character, you should make sure that character is not a racist stereotype.
  
  How does that compare to the trend in sci-fi and fantasy games to let the player take the role of someone other than the Gallant Knights in White Tights
  
  Letting players choose is just fine, so long as they are not given the choices of racist stereotypes.
  
  Playing the "bad guy" doesn't realy break any new ground in the entertainment realm.
  
  Except this game does not portray this character as a "bad guy."
  
  But if you want to feign some degree of historical accuracy, you can't rewrite core parts of that time period.
  
  Yes, because historically all people were racist and hated natives and all natives were violent and evil. Portraying historically accurate racism is fine, so long as you do not build the game around a plot that furthers racism in and of itself. If you do so, be prepared to offend a lot of people and be prepared to suffer bad PR and possibly a boycott by those who disagree with what you are doing.
17. Re:Silly... by Atzanteol · 2006-02-01 06:53 · Score: 1
  
  Hmm. Some of those I can see as being a little "questionable" (at least for children - "The New Joy of Gay Sex" for instance).
  
  But "Where's Waldo?" by Martin Hanford??? Is there a group of "Waldo Advocates" somewhere that objects to this?
  
  --
  "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"
  
  - Charles Darwin
18. Re:Silly... by cbirdsong64 · 2006-02-01 06:53 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, in GUN, you are on the opposite side as the Native Americans at first, but by the end of the game your character allies with them. There's more to it than that, but it could be considered spoilers.
19. Re:Silly... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-02-01 06:55 · Score: 0
  
  Huck Finn was an anti-racist book. His name was used to illustrate how pervasive southern racism was. He was a good man and a likeable character, but he was still identified first by his race THEN his name.
  
  The "N-Word" has long been unacceptable, the thing that changed in the 1960s was that black people had white allies who stood with them because it was what was right.
20. Re:Silly... by magefile · 2006-02-01 07:06 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  I think the complaint was that several pages include a topless woman. Of course, if I can't even find Waldo ...
21. Re:Silly... by voice_of_all_reason · 2006-02-01 07:16 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe you don't care about someone breaking wind, a lot. I do
  
  Farting is healthy. What is wrong with you?
22. Re:Silly... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-02-01 07:55 · Score: 0
  
  I don't like the smell of ass. What's wrong with you?
  
  Farting may be normal and healthy, but be polite about it.
23. Re:Silly... by supabeast! · 2006-02-01 08:13 · Score: 1
  
  What you're missing here is that Gun -- like the vast majority of American westerns -- is set in a time that never really existed. There weren't armies of savage indians rampaging across the west, slaughtering innocent white settlers, raping the women and scalping everyone in sight. In fact, it all pretty much worked the other way around. Gun perpetuates the old lie - that indians were savage monsters who deserved genocide.
  
  This is about being PC. This is about Americans trying to end this nation's tradition of pretending that until the the 1970's our greatest leaders were active in a genocidal war that dwarfs the holocaust. Dozens of civilizations were wiped out entirely, and it's disgusting that people are still creating entertainment that pretends America's genocidal founding was somehow anything but depraved and morally bankrupt.
24. Re:Silly... by MikeFM · 2006-02-01 08:16 · Score: 1
  
  Words don't hurt you and neither do video games. I'm a mix of white and native American and I have no problem whatsoever with games, movies, books, etc of this nature. It's fiction. It's fine if some people don't want to buy the game because of it's content but trying to get the company to change the game IS censorship. They are in effect trying to tell me that I can't buy this game if I want to do so because they are trying to force the game to be changed and games with similar content not to be made. To me, that is much more scary and is what really angers me.
  
  I should have the right to say whatever i want and I should have the right to buy products that say what I want.
  
  --
  At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
25. Re:Silly... by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · 2006-02-01 08:37 · Score: 1
  
  It's fine if some people don't want to buy the game because of it's content but trying to get the company to change the game IS censorship.
  
  No, it is not. It is exercising the free market to influence corporations the only way they can be influenced, using money, or the lack thereof. If some company wants to print lies and racist propaganda, well that is their right. But it is a citizens right to refuse to buy them and to tell others not to buy anything from them too. That is what free speech is all about. The game company can make anything they want, but protesters can ask others to do what they want too. It works both ways.
  
  They are in effect trying to tell me that I can't buy this game if I want to do so because they are trying to force the game to be changed and games with similar content not to be made.
  
  They aren't telling you anything, except they'd rather you did not do business with someone they find unethical. They are trying to influence a company using free speech and their own actions. If you don't like the results, tough. It is part of being a free country.
  
  To me, that is much more scary and is what really angers me.
  
  You're angered and scared by people exercising free speech to tell everyone what someone else is saying is unethical?
  
  I should have the right to say whatever i want...
  
  You have that right.
  
  ...and I should have the right to buy products that say what I want.
  
  You have that right too, but you don't have the right to dictate what some company makes more-so than anyone else. If you want the game, and others like it, fine buy it. If, however, enough people refuse to do business with this company because of their actions and you can no longer buy that game, well that is just people exercising their free market rights. You're not entitled to any games you're not willing to fund.
26. Re:Silly... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-02-01 08:41 · Score: 0
  
  No, you completely and totally missed the point. I guess you got all up in arms and protested Wolfenstien for it's inaccurate portrayal of Nazis? Or did you not care and continued to blow them away anyway? Are you up in arms about Grand Theft Auto, and it's stereotypical view of Italians and inner-city life? Do you actually agree with Thompson? Do you want id to delve into the motivations of the demons in Doom?
  
  Repeat after me: It's a video game!
  
  I don't care about the stereotypical portrayal of Orcs in WarCraft II (although, ironically, they went all PC in WCIII, so I guess people like you won that one), I don't care about the motivations of the people working for the Evil Lord, it's just a video game!
  
  It's hard to agree with the touchy-feely crowd when talking about a video game based on killing people. I suppose we can expect Doom 4 to touch on the softer side of demons, huh?
27. Re:Silly... by Traiklin · 2006-02-01 08:50 · Score: 1
  
  what is someone made a game where you played a Martin Luther King Jr. character?
  
  you would be fighting for the good of black people and to end segreation, but in the game there would be radicals who wanted to do things their way which is violent.
  
  are we to deny that there were violent black people during the same period as MLKjr? or are we supposed to belive that not one black person was violent untill after he was killed?
28. Re:Silly... by KDR_11k · 2006-02-01 09:02 · Score: 1
  
  You laugh. There actually are Nazi Death Camp Management sims out there.
  
  --
  Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
29. Re:Silly... by Traiklin · 2006-02-01 09:17 · Score: 1
  
  This video game has a protagonist, with whom players are supposed to identify, committing brutal, violent acts based upon racism.
  
  whoa whoa whoa WHOA! did you even pick up the game and PLAY IT? or are you just basing your views on the game from what you read in this story?
  
  I played through and beat the game and no wheres does the main character (the one you controll) even come CLOSE to atticking people because of their race. He doesn't attack indians for a simple reason as "Their indians!" there's people within the game that act like that but the main character doesn't.
  
  the missions before you join with the indians all have the indians attacking something and you are defending it or because they are in a part of the land someone else want's (no different from football there).
30. Re:Silly... by MMaestro · 2006-02-01 09:26 · Score: 1
  
  Having never played the game, I have no way of knowing if they're right, but if the game really does display American Indians as racial stereotypes, they have a valid point.
  One thing to note about the game (I have played and beaten it) is that the game IS stereotypical. In the first half of the game, you basically gun down (no pun intended) indians by the dozens almost literally (they're almost always armed with bows or hatchets so its easy to kill 3 or 4 with one shotgun blast).
  But on the other hand, in the second half of the game, you start killing 'the white man' complete with raiding and destroying a fort and a mine. You kill the local mayor, a business tycoon, wipe out a rouge Confederate unit, U.S. marshals, bandits and mercenaries. All of whom are fairly stereotypical (the mayor is put into power by money, the business tycoon is a local crime boss, the rouge Confederates are seenen as oppressive and in one point in the game outright torture indians which you rescue, U.S. marshals are on the payroll etc.)
  Stereotypical? Yes. More or less true in historical context? With the exception of the 'search for the golden city' sub-plot, yes.
31. Re:Silly... by mvdwege · 2006-02-01 10:08 · Score: 1
  
  On a related note, in my bookcase I have a board game by the very American Avalon Hill Game Company, a game named Geronimo.
  
  And while said game is full of historically accurate information on the Native American Peoples, and a lot of their woeful history in dealing with the European colonists, the one way to win at playing this game is to ruthlessly subject and even massacre the tribes as the US player.
  
  I remember no outrage about it however. Perhaps this is because the tribes can get their licks in as well by burning down settlements, and ambushing US Army columns.
  
  Oh, and if you have an interest in this era of US history, and like a good game, try finding a copy. It is good fun, if sometimes in a bit of a wry way (massacring a tribe's village feels weird, even if it is only represented by a bit of cardboard).
  Mart
  
  --
  "I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
32. Re:Silly... by ksheff · 2006-02-01 10:33 · Score: 1
  
  How dare these god-damn native americans refuse to buy a game about killing native americans
  That depends on the tribe. If the entire game is about killing Apaches (is that a subtle hint to hack webservers so they can be replaced by IIS?), then I suppose members of the Apache tribe wouldn't care too much for it. Other tribes that fought them in the past, may love it. As one person pointed out, the last half of the game involves killing white people.
  
  --
  the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
33. Re:Silly... by ksheff · 2006-02-01 10:38 · Score: 1
  
  SimAuschwitz? I wouldn't have thought of it personally, but given some of the other stuff on the 'net, I'm not surprised.
  
  --
  the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
34. Re:Silly... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-02-01 12:02 · Score: 0
  
  What I find really amusing is that most other native americans seem to be prejudiced against apaches, too, and will give people a bunch of shit if they say they have apache blood. What most americans seem to think about middle easterners, most native americans seem to think about apaches.
35. Re:Silly... by NoMoreNicksLeft · 2006-02-01 13:35 · Score: 1
  
  How the hell does that work. A little cartoon SS walks up and says "Wolfy, the showers are out of order again, and the cattle cars are behind schedule. We need to requisition 200 kilos of zyklon-b immediately." ?
  
  Seriously though, if I ever meet the guy that wrote the sim, I'm going to kick his ass.
36. Re:Silly... by bugg · 2006-02-01 20:21 · Score: 1
  
  the missions before you join with the indians all have the indians attacking something and you are defending it or because they are in a part of the land someone else want's (no different from football there).
  That reminds me of the time I broke into some old lady's home and had to defend it from an attack by her husband, son, and the police. Yeah, I like to defend stuff.
  
  --
  -bugg
37. Re:Silly... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-02-01 20:58 · Score: 0
  
  What about a game where you're Malcom X or some Black Panther, trying to start a race war? Would that be OK?
38. Re:Silly... by KDR_11k · 2006-02-02 04:26 · Score: 1
  
  Seriously though, if I ever meet the guy that wrote the sim, I'm going to kick his ass.
  
  Better bring a lot of friends. Those Neonazis usually attack in groups.
  
  --
  Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
39. Re:Silly... by nikkesen · 2006-02-03 05:03 · Score: 1
  
  I'm in agreement with you. However, the video can hurt you if you're stupid enough to go out and attempt to replicate what you've seen, then again, only completely inept mindless people do that. It's simply then just natural selection. Back to your post; yes, if people hate something, a boycott for their own personal reason is justifiable, but to impose their views on others? They need to take a long look in the mirror before they go out on their high horse. They've probably done a few objectionable things themselves which they'd never admit to. Censorship in this case seems to be a case of "We don't approve, therefore, we know what's best for you." and "do as we say and not as we do."
  
  --
  Unleash the weasel!
40. Re:Silly... by MikeFM · 2006-02-03 06:46 · Score: 1
  
  Exactly. It's okay not to buy a product. It's even okay to let others of likemind know that they won't want to buy the product either. It's entirely different to go on some kind of religious attack to make a company change it's product. Simply don't buy the product but don't try to get rid of the product otherwise.
  
  It's like when the religious nuts try to boycott adult stores. They don't just avoid shopping there but they actually go there and harass other people who do want to shop there and they try to make laws to have the shop closed down. That's censorship IMO.
  
  --
  At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
41. Re:Silly... by nikkesen · 2006-02-03 07:07 · Score: 1
  
  The religious right feels that because those who are 'liberal' or without a religion are 'immoral' that it is their right, no, duty to impose their 'moral' views on us because we can't act 'morally' ourselves.
  They use something legal but 'offensive' to justify their case and push for censorship simply because they don't agree with it and their principles contradict the message, which is otherwise legal and technically protected by the right to freedom of speech/expression.
  It is the same brand of people who ignore the entire Bible, selecting the sections that they feel support their movement that tend to speak the loudest. They are the ones who come out with the placard proclaiming that something unfavourable much be changed simply because they feel it isn't in accordance to their church's doctrine.
  There is a reason why the church and state have been separated; to end the censorship that fundemental religious groups demand.
  Back to the original topic. Yes, I agree, censorship is really just an offended group trying to get something legal either pulled from the shelves, shut down, editted or made illegal because it isn't on par with what they believe. The ironic thing is, that if anyone tried to start a boycott of this very nature against anything religious (since it's religious groups that are the oens making the majority of movements in favour of censorship), the offended groups would be up in arms. However, because what is being protested isn't religious, or rather contains racial themes, it MUST be censored.
  
  --
  Unleash the weasel!
42. Re:Silly... by MikeFM · 2006-02-03 07:26 · Score: 1
  
  There are very good reasons censorship is bad for everyone. It's really a two edged sword. If you censor other people you have to expect them to come back and censor you some day. The end result being that nobody can say anything because it could upset someone else. That is what being politically correct really is and it's a huge danger because it makes us so we can't have open and honest discussions. If we try we're likely to be burned at the social political stake.
  
  I don't like racism but as long as it's in words and not actions I think it should be allowed because the alternative is a far worse danger for all of us.
  
  --
  At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
43. Re:Silly... by nikkesen · 2006-02-03 07:46 · Score: 1
  
  What goes around, comes around.
  We've gone from being of a single-mentality to being liberal but sibject to limitations because someone was offended and now that resulted in the PC fad, which doesn't serve the common good. It simply limits us and justifies censorship.
  Life isn't always sweet smelling roses; take the good with the bad. And if it means tolerating the existence of something you disagree with, then you've grown a thicker skin. When society can boycott something while tolerating that others will use it then we've matured as a society, but it won't happen beause of the human flaw of obstinancy.
  
  --
  Unleash the weasel!
44. Re:Silly... by MikeFM · 2006-02-03 08:08 · Score: 1
  
  I boycott software from Microsoft but I don't really care if other people use it so long as it doesn't harm me. If all it does is erase their files every so often then I don't care. When it slows down major parts of the Internet and brings servers down because so many Windows machines are infected with the bug of the day then I care. Overall though I think I tolerate others.
  
  I'd hope that if I can avoid what I dislike while being tolerate others can too but then maybe religious and racial issues are harder to keep control of due to all the inherit fear and anger.
  
  --
  At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
45. Re:Silly... by nikkesen · 2006-02-03 08:28 · Score: 1
  
  Fear comes from lack of knowledge and ignorance (not willful). It is the breeding ground for many censorship rows, simply because the side that is vying for the source to be censored has either seened just the offending part or is relying on third hand or heresy for their information.
  
  --
  Unleash the weasel!
UGh by Alex+P+Keaton+in+da · 2006-02-01 05:21 · Score: 0, Flamebait

Seriously- why does everything have to be PC? If you dont like what happened here 300 years ago, then give your land to a native American and move to Europe.
What if there was a game about indians fighting each other? Would that be okay?

--
And All I Ask is a Tall Ship And a Star to Steer Her By
1. Re:UGh by gEvil+(beta) · 2006-02-01 05:23 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Seriously- why does everything have to be PC?
  
  It's not just PC, you can get it for all the consoles... : p
  
  --
  This guy's the limit!
2. Re:UGh by spyrochaete · 2006-02-01 05:25 · Score: 1
  
  Have you SEEN the game? It's extremely racist against natives. Particularly in the first half of the game. I was offended on behalf of native Americans while playing this game. The designers could have been a lot more tactful without sacrificing the brutality of the game, but they pulled out all the stops and begged for a lawsuit.
3. Re:UGh by Tweekster · 2006-02-01 05:33 · Score: 1
  
  Why should they have to do that? why should a group HAVE to be sensative to another group?
  
  It was activisions choice to do this, they have every right to do so... this group has every right to boycott...
  
  we will see if that boycott matters. But what exactly did they do to deserve a lawsuit? talked ill of some group of people, oh no, i could have sworn that was perfectly legal (not necessarily popular though)
  
  --
  The phrase "more better" is acceptable English. suck it grammar Nazis
4. Re:UGh by bcattwoo · 2006-02-01 06:03 · Score: 1
  
  But what exactly did they do to deserve a lawsuit?
  I RTFA but didn't see any mention of a lawsuit.
5. Re:UGh by spyrochaete · 2006-02-01 07:45 · Score: 1
  
  "But what exactly did they do to deserve a lawsuit? talked ill of some group of people"
  
  When that group of people is a culture or religion it's called racism.
6. Re:UGh by Tekoneiric · 2006-02-01 14:50 · Score: 1
  
  Why not a game where you are the native Americans defending your home and tribal lands against invading hords of enemies? You could prevent your homes from being burnt to the ground, family members violated & slaughtered, keep them from stealing your children, raising them up in religious institutions to kill your culture, keep them from desecrating the graves of your ancestor and driving your people thousands of miles from their home so they could steal your land. Sounds like a good game; (borrowing a quote from The Last Starfighter), to fight a desperate battle against incredible odds.
  
  --
  *It's not what you can do for the Dark Side but what the Dark Side can do for you!*
7. Re:UGh by Alex+P+Keaton+in+da · 2006-02-01 15:10 · Score: 1
  
  Racism, while awful, is not illegal. We don't need the Left wing/liberal thought police telling us what to do. How many of us say things that could be considered racist in the right context?Are we going to sue for every sideways glance, scowl or joke about a "protected" group?
  
  --
  And All I Ask is a Tall Ship And a Star to Steer Her By
8. Re:UGh by spyrochaete · 2006-02-02 01:47 · Score: 1
  
  Well, there's no legal action as far as I know. It's just a boycott which is the most reasonable way to get a message out there without looking like they're trying to profit.
  
  However, you bring up a good point. Everybody's speaking out against everything these days. What do you propose? Revoking freedom of speech? If you hear complaints every day it means you live in a free country. Be thankful for liberals!
Good for them by panic911 · 2006-02-01 05:21 · Score: 2, Funny

The funniest part is the fact that the game sucked SOOO bad. Putting that game out to begin with was a mistake, now they even caused a boycott. Keep up the good work Activision.
1. Re:Good for them by DragonPup · 2006-02-01 05:32 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe they were offended that they were represented in such a horrid game?
  
  --
  "Useless organic meatbag" -HK-47
2. Re:Good for them by Anonymous Coward · 2006-02-01 06:27 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  It gives me memories of "Custer's Revenge".
GUN by Stargoat · 2006-02-01 05:21 · Score: 4, Informative

Who cares? GUN was the worst game I bought in the past 3 years. It was just about as dumb as a video game could get. After killing some 200 Indians with my pistol that never ran out of ammunition, riding around on a stupid wagon and in general dumb dialog, I took it out of my PC and put it on the shelf, to be ignored forever. Cowboys and Indians are cool. Westerns are cool. GUN was stupid, mundane, and boring. The best thing for it is to ignore the stinker of a game and wait for it to get into the 2 dollar bin and then disappear.

--
Hoist Number One and Number Six.
Hot Ginseng Mod by Anonymous Coward · 2006-02-01 05:23 · Score: 0

There is some hidden content in Gun that allows you to replace the Apaches with Chinese Laborers which you can shoot.
Obligatory South Park Quote by Farrside · 2006-02-01 05:26 · Score: 1

"Let's just stay out of this one, guys."
would you like some fire-water? by Mahou · 2006-02-01 05:27 · Score: 0, Troll

come into my teepee.

--
if i'm not immortal, what's the point of living?
...te?
1. Re:would you like some fire-water? by Mahou · 2006-02-01 10:44 · Score: 1
  
  what the fuck why did i get modded troll, it was a hot coffee parody, fuckers. and the parent gets nothing?
  
  --
  if i'm not immortal, what's the point of living?
  ...te?
Blatantly ignorant people... by Stachybotris · 2006-02-01 05:27 · Score: 1

offend me. Can I take legal action / instigate a boycott of them?
Enough already by mahdi13 · 2006-02-01 05:27 · Score: 3, Insightful

Come on people, relax...it's just a game! It's not like Activision is telling people go out to slander and kill Apaches. Not to mention it's a period game that takes place in a time when hostility towards the Apaches was very high.

I don't agree with what happened in the past, but that can't be changed and people should know, understand and learn from history. Let's educate people with accurate history instead of trying to re-write the past in order to cover up ones shame.

--
"Some things have to be believed to be seen." - Ralph Hodgson
1. Re:Enough already by Ryz0r · 2006-02-01 05:33 · Score: 1
  
  I don't agree with what happened in the past, but that can't be changed and people should know, understand and learn from history. Let's educate people with accurate history instead of trying to re-write the past in order to cover up ones shame.
  
  I've never actually played it, but something tells me GUN wasn't made for educational purposes, how can mindless killing of the natives for entertainment purposes (it's a game, after all) be educational in any way?
  
  --
  Peace, Love, Unity, Respect
2. Re:Enough already by PFI_Optix · 2006-02-01 05:39 · Score: 1
  
  This isn't about changing history. This is about a game portraying a stereotyped and historically inaccurate image of Apaches. It's like a game where every Arab Muslim is a terrorist or every German is a Nazi; it's simply not rooted in fact.
  
  --
  120 characters for a sig? That's bloody useless.
3. Re:Enough already by mahdi13 · 2006-02-01 05:54 · Score: 1
  
  it's simply not rooted in fact.
  
  How many action games actually are? How do we know for sure that the Strogg are a cruel dominating people? They could just be misunderstood and the Quake 2 & 4 storyline is based on one persons bad experience with them
  
  Inaccurate or not, it's still just a game and was made purely for entertainment only, Postal 2 was quite fun but I don't recall ever being in a town quite like that...
  
  --
  "Some things have to be believed to be seen." - Ralph Hodgson
4. Re:Enough already by maddskillz · 2006-02-01 06:03 · Score: 1
  
  The difference is that Strogg cannot boycott Quake
5. Re:Enough already by PFI_Optix · 2006-02-01 06:07 · Score: 1
  
  The difference: The Strogg are fictional. The events of Postal are completely fictional (incidentally, the name of that game upset postal workers for obvious reasons). The conflicts between the Apaches and western settlers were very real, and you should expect some people to take offense when you make a game that portrays one side inaccurately and in a bad light. Like I said, it'd be like a game where everyone from Germany is a Nazi. You'd piss off a lot of Germans doing that, and rightfully so.
  
  --
  120 characters for a sig? That's bloody useless.
6. Re:Enough already by Xuri · 2006-02-01 06:30 · Score: 1
  
  What, you mean like Wolfenstein 3D, or any Indiana Jones game?
  
  --
  -= Ho Eyo He Hum =-
7. Re:Enough already by gknoy · 2006-02-01 07:34 · Score: 1
  
  In Wolfenstein, I don't think they imply that ALL germans are Nazis ... rather, you ar part of the war machine,and are facing german soldiers. The elite-trooper status of many higher level opponents means that they are usually SS, and thus Nazis, but I did always feel a little bad about killing the grunts.
  
  A little. They were, after all, only sprites. Oh, and the "Mein Leben!" cracked me up occasionally.
  
  I don't know that this is different from GUN, as I haven't played it. But I can sort of see where you're coming from.
  
  Where is the line between "stereotyping an entire culture as bad guys", versus "all the bad guys you face are from this culture"? I think Wolfenstein has a small amount more leeway, since it's in a war setting.
8. Re:Enough already by NicklessXed · 2006-02-02 04:20 · Score: 1
  
  [...]Where is the line between "stereotyping an entire culture as bad guys", versus "all the bad guys you face are from this culture"?[...] I don't know. But GUN does neither. Not all the Indians in the game are "bad guys". Later in the game, they become your allies. I seem to remember the main character being indian (half-indian?) as well, though I'm not sure. And in GUN, you'll almost certainly kill more whites than indians, if you actually play through the game.
And Activision by Tweekster · 2006-02-01 05:28 · Score: 2, Insightful

Will basically be like "Well since you are not in our target audience, therefore not purchasing our products in any quantity what so ever, well thanks for the boycott, it will only help sales" Why do people think boycotts work when they are not really the purchasers anyways... Bus boycotts worked because black people utilized that service. This wont matter because Native Americans arent exactly the most significant purchasers of video games.

--
The phrase "more better" is acceptable English. suck it grammar Nazis
1. Re:And Activision by RexRhino · 2006-02-01 05:39 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  But we don't want to discourage them. If they weren't threatening a boycott, they would be threatening a lawsuit to have the game banned.
  
  People threatening boycots is OK. Restricting freedom of speech is not. So lets not complain about this organization who are actually handling this in the right way.
2. Re:And Activision by martinX · 2006-02-01 11:34 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, even though they weren't the target audience, they may have been targets...
  
  --
  When they came for the communists, I said "He's next door. Take him away. Goddam commies."
3. Re:And Activision by dangitman · 2006-02-01 17:06 · Score: 1
  
  Will basically be like "Well since you are not in our target audience, therefore not purchasing our products in any quantity what so ever, well thanks for the boycott, it will only help sales"
  Well, you know, people who ARE in the target audience might hear about this boycott and the indigenous concerns about the game. Then people who are customers of Activision can boycoot in sympathy.
  Besides, why do you say that these people aren't in Activision's market? Do Native Americans not play video games? That sounds like a racist assumption.
  
  --
  ... and then they built the supercollider.
Execs losing sleep by SkyWalk423 · 2006-02-01 05:28 · Score: 3, Funny

My favorite part:
In reaction to the content of GUN, the Association for American Indian Development has started a boycott against Activision.
Considering no one is buying this game anyway, what does this "boycott" mean to Activision? Three lost sales, maybe?
1. Re:Execs losing sleep by Chris+Burke · 2006-02-01 05:47 · Score: 1
  
  Three lost sales, maybe?
  
  That's 75% of their GUN revenue! What's left will barely be enough for the bananas to pay the monkey who made it!
  
  --
  
  The enemies of Democracy are
2. Re:Execs losing sleep by Anonymous Coward · 2006-02-01 05:49 · Score: 0
  
  How many indian gamers are there? So all 103 of them boycott Activision. So what?
3. Re:Execs losing sleep by Mr.+Slippery · 2006-02-01 05:51 · Score: 1
  
  Considering no one is buying this game anyway, what does this "boycott" mean to Activision? Three lost sales, maybe?
  
  People participating in the boycott will not buy any games from Activision. That means lost sales on all titles.
  
  --
  Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
  You cannot wash away blood with blood
4. Re:Execs losing sleep by SkyWalk423 · 2006-02-01 06:22 · Score: 1
  
  Great call. I failed to see that angle. Allow me to revise my calculations.
  Because the boycott is a new thing, I'll assume that most of the participants already bought and own the Activision games they wanted before the boycott was declared. So Activision will take the hit primarily on *new* game sales. And taking into account the quality of the dreck Activision has been putting out lately, I'll also assume that sales would be low even without the boycott in effect. Then we must also account for the number of consumers the AAID represents. And finally, we take into account the percentage of AAID members who will truly honor the boycott, and not give in when little Sitting Cub begs his mom to buy him the latest installment of NFL Blitz: The League.
  Put all those variable into the boycott computer...
  *Beep beep boop beep bop boop beep boop*
  I'm sorry, it seems I was mistaken... it was FOUR lost sales. You were right.
5. Re:Execs losing sleep by pingrequest · 2006-02-01 10:25 · Score: 1
  
  Well here's what a boycott of Activision means: the group will no longer buy Activision games. They arn't boycotting GUN, they're boycotting Activision... thus your comment is... my favorite part.
6. Re:Execs losing sleep by Locke03 · 2006-02-01 14:23 · Score: 1
  
  Here's what it really means: People are actually going to hear about this game now. Not only that they are going to hear that it has something offensive in it (what is offensive dosen't really matter, as log as it is) and want to see what it is about so their going to go out and buy it.
  
  My guess is that it really means more sales for Activision.
  
  --
  I don't care what youre doing so much as the idiotic way you're doing it.
Since when do video games have to be realistic? by Maugrim · 2006-02-01 05:37 · Score: 2, Insightful

Last I checked you can make a game about anything; like demons for instance. We have wonderful stereotypes of them, running around rending flesh and such. However, what about the demons that in sipping tea in their smoking jackets? I don't hear then complaining. "Mmmmyes, jolly good."
1. Re:Since when do video games have to be realistic? by oolleq · 2006-02-01 08:06 · Score: 1
  
  Demons have been boycotting church services for several thousand years now. Tell your local minister to stop making the Lightbringer the bad guy in the sermons all the time and maybe they'll come back. "Church. The First waste of time."
2. Re:Since when do video games have to be realistic? by paintswithcolour · 2006-02-01 08:18 · Score: 1
  
  However, what about the demons that in sipping tea in their smoking jackets? I don't hear then complaining. "Mmmmyes, jolly good."
  Tea? Smoking jackets? They won't complain...remember British people never complain, it's part of their sterotype.
3. Re:Since when do video games have to be realistic? by steveo777 · 2006-02-01 09:14 · Score: 1
  
  Just make it up! Like in Halo, you can be as "speciesist" as you want, because there are no Covenent forces or Flood to complain about it. Either that, or you can satire it. Just think about Gulliver's Travels. John Swift would have been hung and pissed on by the governments he was satiring if they had paid enough attention. Fortunately, when being satired, most polititians and the like are too arrogent to care/notice.
  Now, I understand that the article points to racism, its promotion and a few other problems, but video games are just as much a form of media as a movie or book. Games don't have to reflect the feelings of the producer or company, but it sure as hell reflects their moral guidelines. When you put your name on something, you had better be able to say exactly why.
  
  --
  This sig isn't original enough, it's time to come up with something witty...
what are we teaching our children? by photojunkie · 2006-02-01 05:44 · Score: 1

the lessons of history are only effective when we take the time to make ourselves aware of the truth of a historical situation. Yes, perhaps a video-game is not classiest of ways to perform this much needed service but it seems these days that it's the only media truly willing to be frank about the subject. Legislating blinders on the youth of this country isn't going to lead to a more tolerant country, it's going to lead to a country less able to react and deal maturely with intolerance. That said, Gun was too damn short and McGrudder was one of the most annoying bosses I've encountered in a long time.
man, have they gotten beat down by Thud457 · 2006-02-01 05:44 · Score: 1

Boycott ? Boycott?!!!
Man, you modern Apaches are a bunch of pussies nowadays!
In the days of Geronimo they would've laid siege to Activision's headquarters and shot the place up.
Of course, this is the same bunch of milquetoasts who are whining at Yale to "pretty please give us back the skull of our ancestor that your president's grandfather grave-robbed". If they had the balls their ancestors had, they'd just take the damn thing back and kill anybody that stood in their way. (I smell a screenplay somewhere in that. "Rambo pt IV" anyone?)

--
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
1. Re:man, have they gotten beat down by Austerity+Empowers · 2006-02-01 06:26 · Score: 1
  
  Now my brief excursion into a forced month of "Native American Studies" (tought by a real live injun activist!) would lead me to believe that Indians never killed humans until white man brought the notion of violence to them. They were a peaceful, vegetarian people who worshipped the land and it's bounty. Your portrayal of Apache's as warlike and hostile is clearly an inaccurate view constructed from evil European values and social degeneration brought on by Christopher Columbus, The Anti-Christ.
  
  I believe everything college professors tell me.
2. Re:man, have they gotten beat down by Omestes · 2006-02-01 06:45 · Score: 1
  
  And sadly up here in Northern AZ they might just have been eating each other... Of course this was a responce to the White Devil's coming 1000 years in the future.
  
  Though, according to the PC climate around here, we're not supposed to talk about this. Only discuss the transgressions of the dominate majority (white males), never the minority.
  
  I'm so sick of 'liberal education', I was forced to take a sociology class which claimed that *I* am the source of all the worlds problems, and towards the end of the class it turned into sanctioned male bashing, but the minute I opened my mouth I was called a misogamist.
  
  Where is my cut of the damn caucasion patriarchy?
  
  --
  A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
3. Re:man, have they gotten beat down by Austerity+Empowers · 2006-02-01 06:57 · Score: 1
  
  I am the source of the world problems, and I refuse to feel guilty. I was informed in the self-same class, that I can't help it, that white man is born evil and cannot change.
  
  Thus by definition, I am what I am. I think Indians may have inspired Calvinism.
4. Re:man, have they gotten beat down by Kirth · 2006-02-01 07:08 · Score: 1
  
  I'm so sick of 'liberal education', I was forced to take a sociology class which claimed that *I* am the source of all the worlds problems.
  
  Well, there is nothing liberal about being forced. If, however, you attribute everything bad that happens to you as "liberal", then mabye you are the source of all the worlds problems...
  
  --
  "The more prohibitions there are, The poorer the people will be" -- Lao Tse
5. Re:man, have they gotten beat down by DrSkwid · 2006-02-01 08:00 · Score: 1
  
  seems education is sick of you :
  
  misogamist : noun
  1 misogamist
  a person who hates marriage
  
  --
  There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
6. Re:man, have they gotten beat down by dhakbar · 2006-02-01 08:08 · Score: 1
  
  Strangely, he didn't attribute everything bad that happens to him as "liberal." He didn't even necessarily attribute this particular annoyance of his to "liberalism."
  
  Shut the fuck up, sit the fuck down, stop exposing your partisan affliction.
7. Re:man, have they gotten beat down by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · 2006-02-01 08:49 · Score: 1
  
  Now my brief excursion into a forced month of "Native American Studies" (tought by a real live injun activist!) would lead me to believe that Indians never killed humans until white man brought the notion of violence to them.
  
  Drop out now. Seriously, if you have such disreputable teachers that require you to "learn" obvious historical inaccuracies you're better off finding a new place of education. Many native American tribes were plenty violent long before the Europeans invaded. Mind you, two wrongs don't make a right, and killing people for their land is not justified by the fact that they were already warlike. I would like to note, however, that the commonly presented practice of scalping historically seems to originate with Europeans who paid bounties for dead natives, with scalps as proof of a kill.
8. Re:man, have they gotten beat down by Pluvius · 2006-02-01 09:03 · Score: 1
  
  Ah, the "noble savage" theory. I didn't know anyone still seriously espoused it.
  
  Rob
9. Re:man, have they gotten beat down by Austerity+Empowers · 2006-02-01 12:22 · Score: 1
  
  Liberal education has nothing whatever to do with being a liberal, except sometimes a proclivity towards taking up random worthless subjects in serious study.
  
  Liberal education is a forced requirement that probably still exists as part of science, engineering and medical degree requirements in many universities. It's a blatant excuse to make people who actually have a goal in life spend tuition money on classes they either have no interest in, or are at least distracting and detrimental to their end goals. Some believe such survey courses should have already been taken care of in lower (public) education where they did not directly waste an individuals money. "Forced" seems hyperbolic, as no guns or threats are involved, but anyone completing his education in number of credits and grade point average yet does not have the credits in his "liberal education" category, does not get a degree. Since a degree in these fields is a prerequisite to getting a job, it is quite a powerful compulsion.
  
  Liberals are people who are defined as not being conservative. Conservatives are people who define themselves as not being liberal. There are other definitions, but from the standpoint of American politics, those are most accurate and descriptive. (And that is the source of problems with our democracy, I'd disagree the entire world suffers from this) I consider myself conservative, although somehow the republican party has the least in common with my value systems which have nothing at all to do with religion or a strong, authoritarian government. Hence I reject the idea that the words mean anything at all, except labels people apply to ideas they don't like. Therefore if he were a conservative, labelling an idea he did not like as liberal is actually completely appropriate. I can agree, because I think I'm conservative and hate liberal arts classes, thus it must be a vast left wing conspiracy. You, on the other hand, may label it as conservative because you clearly have some notion of being a liberal. I'd be disgusted of course that you'd apply such a good name to such a bad class, but we could still be in agreement at the same time. Confused? Good.
  
  I think we agree that it's all complete bullshit, no matter what you call it.
10. Re:man, have they gotten beat down by Omestes · 2006-02-02 10:23 · Score: 1
  
  pedant
  noun
  a person who is excessively concerned with minor details and rules or with displaying academic learning.
  
  --
  A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
11. Re:man, have they gotten beat down by DrSkwid · 2006-02-02 11:07 · Score: 1
  
  You should try academic learning some time, it might be good for you.
  
  --
  There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
When I hear the words ... by 19thNervousBreakdown · 2006-02-01 05:46 · Score: 0, Flamebait

... "Social Responsibility," I want to reach for my gun.

--
<xml><I><am><so><damn>Web 2.0</damn></so></am></I></xml>
1. Re:When I hear the words ... by 19thNervousBreakdown · 2006-02-01 05:49 · Score: 0, Offtopic
  
  --ESR
  
  --
  <xml><I><am><so><damn>Web 2.0</damn></so></am></I></xml>
I played the game... Here is my impression: by RexRhino · 2006-02-01 05:53 · Score: 4, Informative

The first half of the game COULD be considered insensitive, if taken completly out of context. But in the second half, the main character realizes he was wrong for fighting with the Apaches, that the Apaches are simply defending their land, and teams up to help them.

The main character also single handedly destroys a U.S. military base and butchers the solders inside, and kills the Marshal, and the Governor of the Terroritory, and literaly thousands of other people too, all of whom are stereotyped as bloodthirsty rednecks, so it is not like Apaches where singled out.

The story is really bad, the acting is worse, but it certainly doesn't portray any single group as the bad guys.
1. Re:I played the game... Here is my impression: by Jarlsberg · 2006-02-01 09:16 · Score: 1
  
  The story is really bad, the acting is worse, but it certainly doesn't portray any single group as the bad guys.
  I don't agree with that assessment. Yeah, the story is so-so, but the acting, in terms of voice acting, is really top notch. The textures leaves a lot to be desired (this is *especially* noticable on the hi-res Xbox360 version), but you really can't fault the acting for that.
  I think Gun is a rather enjoyable game. It does have a fair number of design flaws, but on the whole, it's not that bad.
2. Re:I played the game... Here is my impression: by Premo_Maggot · 2006-02-01 09:34 · Score: 1
  
  Thank you, someone who told the story like it is. People should really play the game all the way through (I heard it was short so I rented it :]) before they make a judgement on it, even those Native Americans boycotting it.
  
  --
  Good karma sticks to me like velcro on a piece of plexiglass.
  Move along, citizen.
3. Re:I played the game... Here is my impression: by StocDred · 2006-02-01 09:58 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, it's a narrative thing. You face off against the "bad guys" who eventually turn out to be - SHOCK - not the actual bad guys. I'll agree that your first encounters with the Native Americans are not exactly complimentary, but they're not in HBO's Deadwood either. Why is it that video games can't be held to the same dramatic standards as movies and television?
  Of course, Gun is a pretty lousy example of dramatic standards. No doubt nobody bothered to play through to the pro-Apache resolution because the controls / storyline were so painful.
Comment removed by account_deleted · 2006-02-01 06:01 · Score: 2, Funny

Comment removed based on user account deletion
Because people aren't ready? by TheLink · 2006-02-01 06:03 · Score: 1

When people are not ready for something, then they need a bit more supervision.

Looks like the USA still needs a Nanny to look after it.

Unfortunately it got Big Brother instead.

I think people in other countries should learn from that and "grow up" really quick if they haven't already.
--
- Too many replies beneath your current threshold
Comment removed by account_deleted · 2006-02-01 06:04 · Score: 2, Funny

Comment removed based on user account deletion
Isn't this just digital Cowboys and Indans? by ShyGuy91284 · 2006-02-01 06:06 · Score: 1

Excuse me for being politically incorrect, but from the little I've played a little bit of Gun, that's what this sounds like. Nothing more then a modern version of "Cowboys and Indans" (being cowboys and Native Americans).

--
In undeveloped countries, the consumer controls the market. In capitalist America, the market controls you.
1. Re:Isn't this just digital Cowboys and Indans? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-02-01 16:20 · Score: 0
  
  "Indians" vs. "Native Americans"
  As their conquerors, we should get to name them. :-)
In other news... by arose · 2006-02-01 06:15 · Score: 2, Funny

The Association for Hell Minion Development boycots id software.

--
Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
boycott everything by Zot · 2006-02-01 06:19 · Score: 1

Due to my Scandinavian heritage I insist that everyone boycott anything portraying Vikings as bloodthirsty barbarians.
Due to my Italian heritage I insist that everyone boycott anything portraying Italians as bloodthirsty criminals.
1. Re:boycott everything by Anonymous Coward · 2006-02-01 09:21 · Score: 0
  
  Italians as bloodthirsty criminals? Nonsense!! Everyone knows that Italians are fat mushroom eating plumbers that can jump really high and throw fireballs.
  
  - Love, an Irish alcoholic with a gambling addiction that is the fault of Indian casino's.
At least.. by brunes69 · 2006-02-01 06:19 · Score: 1

...it sounds better than Custer's Revenge
Pot Calling the Kettle.... by Thermous · 2006-02-01 06:29 · Score: 2, Funny

Fine, I'll boycott their casinos.
1. Re:Pot Calling the Kettle.... by oolleq · 2006-02-01 08:27 · Score: 1
  
  That'll work. You've no doubt suffered greatly due to my boycott of Euro-American owned casinos in Las Vegas.
We have Department of Homeland Security! by neo · 2006-02-01 06:32 · Score: 2, Funny

{sarcasm}
I know the American Indians have been waiting a long time for this, but finally the United States is taking a stand against the foriegn invaders from Europe who usurped their lands. The Department of Homeland Security will provide the protection we need from attacks on American Indian's homelands and while it will probably take a long time, rid this country of it's invading anglo-saxon hoards.
{/sarcasm}
1. Re:We have Department of Homeland Security! by Anonymous Coward · 2006-02-01 06:43 · Score: 0
  
  The sad thruth is that the Native Americans are considered secondard citizens in this country. Part of that the problem here is that the constitution (yes it can be a blessing and decrement) treats them as such. Now the other part is racism and yes it still exists.
That's the idea by Fhqwhgadss · 2006-02-01 06:43 · Score: 1

I propose that Activision come out with a new title called "Concentration Camp Commander" where you are in charge of using the trainloads of Jews coming into your camp for the benefit of the Reich. It'll be more of a simulation game like Railroad Tycoon. Keep the prisoners just hungry enough that most live to perform labor, while others starve. Then use the remains to make soap and candles to sell in exchange for more ovens, and VX gas. If anyone gets offended, fuck 'em, its a period piece.

--
How does a 7-person democracy cut a pie? Into 4 pieces.
1. Re:That's the idea by ChildeRoland · 2006-02-01 07:21 · Score: 1
  
  I would buy that game.
  
  --
  The mark of a mature person is not creating arbitrary criteria for considering others mature.
One has to wonder by Anonymous Coward · 2006-02-01 06:50 · Score: 0

Whether these people have actually played the game through. The Apaches' role changes quite a bit after some events in Empire City. The main character himself is half native american for crying out loud.

As for slaughtering native americans in the game, well... there's plenty of whites and mexicans getting butchered too. Stereotypes are really an irreducible part of the game, if you pay attention to them.
Jack Thompson, is that you? by mrchaotica · 2006-02-01 07:08 · Score: 1

'Cause we all know playing racist video games makes you racist, just like playing violent ones makes you violent!

...right?

--
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
1. Re:Jack Thompson, is that you? by Locke03 · 2006-02-01 14:13 · Score: 1
  
  Oh yeah, I play FlightSims and RTS games...guess I'm a fighter pilot capable of leading massive numbers of troops into battle. Now I'm quitty my crappy boring job.
  
  --
  I don't care what youre doing so much as the idiotic way you're doing it.
If we could just say it this one time by rabbot · 2006-02-01 07:28 · Score: 1

We're not gonna protest...
We're not gonna protest?

We're not Gonna Protest!! We're not gonna protest!! We're not gonna protest!! We're not gonna protest!!
1. Re:If we could just say it this one time by Anonymous Coward · 2006-02-01 11:42 · Score: 0
  
  Gutter is a tool!
Too Late by Ironsides · 2006-02-01 07:35 · Score: 1

The Adventures of Tom Sawyer. Mark Twain [Samuel L. Clemens]. Airmont; And/Or Press; Bantam; Grosset; Longman; NAL; Pocket Bks. Excluded from the childrens' room in the Brooklyn, N.Y. Public Library (1876) and the Denver, Colo. Public Library (1876). Confiscated at the USSR border (1930). Removed from the seventh grade curriculum in the West Chester, Pa. schools (1994) after parents complained that it is too full of racially charged language.

http://title.forbiddenlibrary.com/

Other books by Twain have been censored for using un-PC language. Additionaly, Farenheit-451 has been censored for using "foul language" and several other books.

--
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
1. Re:Too Late by grub · 2006-02-01 08:07 · Score: 1
  
  Oh my, that's sad.
  
  No one would advocate that kind of language but the books were written in a different time. To change them or squash the reading of them would be trying to erase history.
  
  There's a book chain here in .ca called Chapters which refuses to sell Mein Kampf for whatever reason. I doubt Hitler's rantings from his jail cell would have much effect nowadays. :) Very odd.
  
  --
  Trolling is a art,
2. Re:Too Late by Craster · 2006-02-01 09:25 · Score: 1
  
  Farenheit-451 has been censored for using "foul language"
  
  Oh, the irony of that is just superb.
3. Re:Too Late by Ironsides · 2006-02-01 12:22 · Score: 1
  
  Trust me, I know. What's worse, it was the ORIGINAL PUBLISHER who censored it over various revisions prior to publication. The way Ray Bradbury found out about it was that a class he had shown the original manuscript to noticed the differences when compared to the first printing. I even have an old copy that has some, if not all, of the deletions in it somewhere.
  
  --
  Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
In other news... by Ironsides · 2006-02-01 07:41 · Score: 1

The Governors of West Virginia, Alabama, Mississippi, Texas, Georgia, Tennessee and Kansas calls for a boycot of the Video Game "Red Neck Rampage" for portraying them as drunk gun-toting idiots who like to blow things up.

--
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
It's always something... by sdhankin · 2006-02-01 08:01 · Score: 1

The police organizations don't want us to play Cops and Robbers. The native American organizations don't want us to play Cowboys and Indians.

Geez, I feel old...
Activision revenue losses by Anonymous Coward · 2006-02-01 08:04 · Score: 0

Between the "firewater" and gambling, do Injuns have much disposable income for gaming?
Attention all minoritys by Anonymous Coward · 2006-02-01 08:23 · Score: 0

No one cares about you. Especially the white man. Please shut the hell up and quit trying to ruin my racist fun.
Waiting for the special edition by metamatic · 2006-02-01 09:10 · Score: 1

I hear the Special Edition release will come with a free bottle of fire water, and have a miniature smallpox-infected blanket in each box.

--
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
GUN was... by A_Non_Moose · 2006-02-01 09:11 · Score: 1

Essentiall GTA in the Old West...somewhere between GTA III and SA.

Heck, if they really wanted to piss of RockStar, et al, the could have
called it GTE:SA (Grand Theft Equine: San Antonio).

--
Have you read the moderator guidelines? Well, have you, PUNK? (and I want a Karma: Gnarly option)
Gun is not racist by Jarlsberg · 2006-02-01 09:12 · Score: 1

Seriously, have these guys even played Gun? The main character survived through the aid of Apache indians (the character named "Many Wounds" saved his life as a baby), and several plot points rely on aiding or receiving aid from the apaches.
1. Re:Gun is not racist by Anonymous Coward · 2006-02-01 11:55 · Score: 0
  
  Racist stereotypes come in two flavors, the negative and the positive. The negative ones are the worse of the two, but the positive ones are harmful as well. (See: "All black people have a natural sense of rhythm!")
  Native Americans have been stuck with a dichotomy of positive and negative stereotypes since the continent was discovered. It's either 'red-skinned killer' or 'child of nature'. You're either a noble savage, or just a plain old savage. The problem with these kind of 'positive' racial stereotypes is that it robs people of their individuality, and thus, their humanity. It turns them into two-dimensional props, standins for other people's ids, rather than letting them stand on their own two feet as real people.
  
  It's true that awful stereotypes are abundant in videogames (example: Hitman 2 had a group of turban-wearing radical Sikhs trying to acquire nukes -- really insulting to the audience's intelligence when you realize that Sikhs are pacifists.) but if the people who are offended keep making a stink about it when it happens, and bystanders don't just apathetically throw up their hands and say "get over it" then maybe.. JUST MAYBE.. video games might grow up into a respectable artistic medium instead of the godawful vaudeville schlockfest that it is now.
  Demand better writing.
  
  -- mantar
Big Myth about WWII by LWATCDR · 2006-02-01 09:46 · Score: 1

If you take a look at even the cartoons of them time Germans where also stereo typed. Even then the racism wasn't as universal as you might think. The movie Gung Ho is a good example. Still racist by today's standards but also pointed out some of the racism of the time. The funny thing is after the war things flipped. The Japanese where white washed. The Japanese where every bit as sick and twisted as the Nazis. They just didn't kill as many white people.
BTW An honest portrayal of members of the Japanese military would could honestly make them out to be far worse monsters than they where ever made out in any WWII movie. No one really would have believed a movie during WWII showing what the Japanese and Germans really did. It would have been written off as propaganda.

--
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
1. Re:Big Myth about WWII by _xeno_ · 2006-02-01 10:35 · Score: 1
  
  The Japanese where every bit as sick and twisted as the Nazis. They just didn't kill as many white people.
  I'd hesitate to use the word "the Japanese" because it means both the government in charge and the people. While you're absolutely correct that the Japanese government at the time did stuff that was every bit as nasty as the Nazis, the Japanese as a people are no more evil than the Germans as a people are or Americans as a people are.
  BTW An honest portrayal of members of the Japanese military would could honestly make them out to be far worse monsters than they where ever made out in any WWII movie.
  
  So what? Yes, individual people can be really messed in the head. That doesn't mean that everyone of the same race is messed up. Timothy McVeigh and the Unibomber certainly don't represent Americans. A movie about Timothy McVeigh wouldn't portray every other American as being just like him. That's the concept I'm trying to get across - your average American, German, or Japanese person isn't a brutal killer.
  
  Yes, some Japanese decided to do some nasty things, and they got a lot of people to follow. The Nazis did the same thing to the Germans. Arguably, something similar happened in Abu Graib.
  
  But more importantly, just because the Japanese government were doing evil things, doesn't mean that Japanese-Americans will be doing evil things. Your average Japanese citizen and average American citizen at the time of WWII were likely more similar than different. There would be a cultural difference, of course, but both would just be human.
  
  --
  You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
2. Re:Big Myth about WWII by LWATCDR · 2006-02-02 03:50 · Score: 1
  
  "But more importantly, just because the Japanese government were doing evil things, doesn't mean that Japanese-Americans will be doing evil things. Your average Japanese citizen and average American citizen at the time of WWII were likely more similar than different. There would be a cultural difference, of course, but both would just be human."
  
  I agree with you about 95%.
  Racism is when you judge the individual based on the negative actions of the group or when you judge the group on the negative actions of the individual.
  If you watch the movie Gung Ho you will see that I was pointing out that even during WWII period the internment of the Japanese-Americans was being questioned. It showed Japanese-American troops being trained and commanded by frankly a redneck officer. While still racist by our standards it did question why? It even had a line about them not throwing German-Americans into camps. Where I disagree is in the statement that the citizens where very similar. That is really just not true. Japan was and still is extremely homogeneous while the US even then was much more diverse. Up until the bombing of Perl Harbor there was strong debate if the US should get involved in the war, support the UK and Russia or even support the Germans. The brutality that Germany and Japan did during WWII really is mind numbing. The cultures of those two nations now is so different than then that we have trouble seeing how it could happen. Because of the distance in time it is becoming common to adopt the idea that a "few" people did it and rest really where not involved. The truth is you can not kill Millions of none combatants in occupied territories with out a lot of "average" people taking part. Read about the rape of Nan-king.http://www.unitedhumanrights.org/nanking. htm The Japanese killed about as many people as the atomic bomb did. The difference was this was an occupied city and they did the killing with guns, knifes, and swords. What the Germans did is better documented. The Government and society where both to blame and that is the truth.
  What would be racist would be to say that NOT ONE Japanese or German opposed it. Or that they where incapable of opposing it.
  I know that some Germans did give their life to oppose Hitler. I know some Japanese did the same.
  It is not racist to portray a German during WWII as a blood thirsty killer. It is not racist to show a Japanese solder killing women and children just for the joy of it. It is not racist to show a southerner in the 40s, or 50s being pro segregation. These are all history and do happen. It is racist when you think that a white southern must be pro-segregation, a German must support Hitler, or a Japanese person must get joy out of killing women and children.
  We need to learn that we don't have to change the truth about what happened because it can be used to support current lies. You can not use a lie to fight for the truth.
  
  --
  See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
One little two little three little indians by mnmn · 2006-02-01 10:18 · Score: 1

Noone is trying to rewrite history, its about being sensitive.

How about producing a fun game of flying 737s into NYC buidings? You get more points for killing more people. People jumping off the buildings will be accompanied by humerous music. If the average american thinks thats unfunny, they should not produce games making fun of the original Americans, nor of Germans (like in wolf 3d).

The word nigger when and it was accepted was used in good literature. I'm not saying such literature should now be adulterated, but rather try not to produce games poking fun of black people in the most demeaning manner. Think of this Game:

Lynchings 2 (Activision 2007)
$29.99 USD

Thats what shouldnt happen, rather than doing a s/nigger/African American/ across all literature. Thats what Activision has really been doing to Native Americans. If you still dont see why thats a bad thing, why its OK to joke about killing Indians centuries after having actually done it, get back to the idea of a game poking fun at flying planes into buildings and screaming people jumping off them.

If you still think thats ok... you need to get out more.

--
"Give orange me give eat orange me eat orange give me eat orange give me you." -Nim Chimpsky
was it Dennis Banks? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-02-01 10:24 · Score: 0

That sounds like some of the off the wall bullshit he would spew. Drop out now.
I had never paid much attention to this game, but now that I know that I would be killing Indians and sales of it pisses off their activists, I think I'll buy a copy. I bet it sells very well on the various reservations and that's what really got their goat.
Comment removed by account_deleted · 2006-02-01 10:45 · Score: 2, Funny

Comment removed based on user account deletion
Er... by D14BL0 · 2006-02-01 17:18 · Score: 0

How do you remove violence from a game that's already been released? It doesn't look like there's much that can be done at this point.
The difference between movies and games by Saint+Fnordius · 2006-02-01 19:10 · Score: 1

There is one critical point in where movies and games differ, and that is how far along in the story the audience goes. With a novel, play or a movie, the audience waits until the end, since their participation isn't necessary to advance the plot. All they need is patience.

With a game, however, that isn't guaranteed. Many, many players drop out long before the plot reaches its climax. Some don't have the skills necessary to finish the missions, others don't have the patience or time necessary. Or some are like me, writing off the story as a monotone bloodfest after barely entering the story*.

Now I'm going out on a limb here, since I haven't played GUN, but the important thing is that a lot of players will leave before the protagonist switches sides. If, IF the story does no foreshadowing, then I can see the standpoint of the boycotters. And judging from the critical comments I've seen here, it could well be the case that the Apache are shown as 100% evil at the beginning.

*I did this with Diablo II and the original Marathon, for example. I am not claiming that I have ever player GUN.