Talk:Ethnic Cleansing (video game)

1

Whoa. This little bit sounds so very wrong for a supposedly non-biased reference...

"Ethnic Cleansing is an important step in the history of racist video gaming. Until its release, racism in video games had been resticted to patches for decade-old games such as Doom, Pac Man or Wolfenstein 3D. Ethnic Cleansing is quite probably the first explicity racist video game created from scratch. Resistance intend to create a similar line of games based on the events of the Turner Diaries."

I mean, "important step in the history of racist video gaming?" That sounds as if the writer is optimistic that more racist videogames will follow suit. Someone revise it please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.115.196.67 (talk) 04:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I changed it to this:

Ethnic Cleansing is possibly the first computer or video game that was conceived, developed and marketed as an having explicitly racist content.

The reason being that "racism" in games has quite a long history, depending on how you define "racism in games". (Some might go on and argue anything that even remotely looks like a racial stereotype might qualify as racism, for example.) The overtly racist mods to games are a topic in itself and might not need to be discussed in this article at all, unless they're also discussed in the articles of the games too, which they aren't right now. (Racist mods for Pac-Man? what the...? And I thought you didn't need any racist mods for Wolf3D, that place is crawling with Nazis already!)

The above sentence in my opinion summarises why this particular game is notable(ish). And I say "possibly" in it, because I have very vague recollections of some 8-bit games getting flak for having what could be interpreted as racist things (but could be just a mod thing again). --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 16:54, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Ehm...ever heard of KZ manager? That IS a racist and pro-nazi game and existed way before Ethnic Cleansing, even way before Wolf3D. The link on its page leads to a download page full of racist or otherwise offensive/extremist games, and many of these date back to DOS days. What makes Ethnic Cleansing so special is that it's the first such game to be commercially released. EpiVictor 20:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Never heard of that one. =/ Thanks for the clarifications. And I know racist games as such aren't new too. I'll think up something and put it to this article. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 12:17, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I added a note about the levels in Manhunt where you get to kill skinheads. Knowing Rockstar, it was their protest to this game. But really, killing skinheads. Manhunt was an inappropriate title... it should have been called PUSSYHUNT! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.162.192.39 (talk) 08:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

They are not the ones who said it was horrible.The news mostly did.They just made a game they never said it was horrible and offensive.So any game that does not let you kill people by race is bad? Manhunt was a game about fun and a game that lets me kill dumb redneck racists i would say is pretty damn fun.69.220.1.137 (talk) 07:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

GTA3 allows you to kill gang members from 6 different ethnicities,with a white-only police force to stop you. Though this isn't the main point of the game. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.145.14 (talk) 07:10, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Any "real" reviews around?

As it seems, it's pretty hard to find "true" reviews about the game. All articles focus on its controversial theme and give little space to describing gameplay, graphics and sound. So...does any Wikipedian other than myself know of a review or played the game himself?

The claims about "budget-like quality" and "dull gameplay" are more than evident to anyone having had the "luck" of playing the game once, and the (very few and indirect) actual reviews of the game, when they bother describing THE GAME, talk about a crude collage of shapeless "Nigz" models, 8-bit quality samples, and an overall quality that reminds of titles like Thundra by Spungulas Software, not even comparable to e.g. Doom (the "reviews" at Resistance Records own homepage are generally very biased, yet even there a certain amount of dissatisfaction can be noticed).

Many of the articles (on newspapers and web sites) commenting about the game just rip off the texts out of the manual and the box of the game and continue to focus on the "first time advanced technology" of the title, while any experienced videogamer will start laughing 5 minutes after playing the game and realizing what a bargain bin game EC is.

Now...wikipedia isn't limited by whatever reasons prevented gaming sites from reviewing the game, so an attempt at providing a better description other than the generic "running through the ghetto and blasting..." ripped from the game's own texts could and should be done. EpiVictor 11:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I guess most game sites just don't bother to review games like these, either because they refuse to play it at all (either for personal reasons or in an attempt to make a point) or figure their audience just isn't interested in it.

Most game reviewers seem to think that refusing to review something would send a political message, although I would think that a bad, factual, review is better at trashing a game than self-censorship. In Germany (where racist/nazi games are banned and graphic violence is heavily restricted) some gaming magazines reviewed an ultra-violent 3D shooter widely considered tasteless and not review-worthy just to show why the game was considered bad (technically and philosophically), but that seems to have been a very unique incident.

Call it cowardice or mislead activism, but I don't think any major "authority" (i.e. game magazine or major website) would review such a game. -- Ashmodai 09:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

THIS Game is retaRDED AND IS A HORRIBLE GAME. really d- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.170.4 (talk) 17:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Is it difficult to understand that giving such a game a standard review, a major outlet would signal boost the clearly despicable nature of it? It shouldn't be that difficult to figure out. CrazyWalter05 (talk) 05:17, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Not notable???

Since when is a made by white supremacists, for white supremacists, not notable??? Its like the only true racist game!! Did someone put that up cause they feel the subject is too sensitive or some BS like that?? Come on!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.186.171 (talk) 14:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

It's also notable due to it being the first commercially released white supremacist game. If that's not notable I don't know what is. 71.237.0.144 (talk) 19:54, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not notable because the game flopped and was said to been crap. I also doubt that it was the first game made for white supremacists. CrazyWalter05 (talk) 05:18, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ethnic Cleansing (video game)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: ChrisGualtieri (talk · contribs) 05:28, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

• Quite the unusual entry for a GA, but I think I can review this neutrally. Give me a few minutes. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:28, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

The link to the home webpage is down on the external links.

• http://web.archive.org/web/20120128214108/http://www.ugo.com/games/ethnic-cleansing - does not work on Archive.org for me. Does it work for you?

• Yeah, but for some reason I have to load it twice; the first time most of the stuff comes up blank. Try that. Tezero (talk) 17:24, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

• The staff opined that only "very stupid children" would be susceptible to its message and that it would make players feel like "small-minded assholes" - I would simply drop the "very stupid children" and "asshole" quotes and simply reflect that they acknowledged it was a game targeted at children, has blatent racism and that it was further insulting to have it release on Martin Luther King day. I don't mean to mince words, but I prefer that such casual comments as quoted by the reference be paraphrased to maintain professionalism on Wikipedia.

• I would agree, but that changes the meaning. They're doing more than acknowledging the intent and racism; the "very stupid children" part means that it didn't do a good job at being persuasive. Tezero (talk) 17:24, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

• As for "nightmarishly dumb", I think that is an okay quote if you want to leave one in. Probably not enough to make it a FA, but that might be have to be worked on for unifying the tone and prose if you choose to.

• What would you suggest instead? Tezero (talk) 17:24, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay, for the "very stupid children" part - you just explained it better than the publication! I cringe a little whenever see hyperbole like "nightmarishly dumb" which doesn't even make sense and is so descriptively vague. "Profoundly stupid" is a better descriptor and represents the point without getting into whether something is "nightmarish". The term refers to intensely disturbing, but as an adverb... it just ruins the flow somewhat. But that is minor in comparison to the first quotes. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:45, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Alright, I've swapped it. Tezero (talk) 20:52, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

• For "About two thousand copies of the game had been" is incorrect. A "couple thousand" is vague and it could be 4000 or 5000, but picking "about two thousand" is not accurate to what Pierce quoted.

• Fair enough. Reworded. Tezero (talk) 17:24, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

• "Resistance Records" should be used in full for this sentence. " Resistance released[2] and began to advertise the game on Martin Luther King, Jr. Day (January 21) of 2002." - Also could you please move the reference to the end of the sentence as per usual.

• Done. Tezero (talk) 17:24, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

• "a reference to the White nationalist motto of the Fourteen Words" is not supported by the Wired source. As a result this reads as original research in the article. If it cannot be supported by another source, I'd opt for the price removal out of relevancy.

• Removed for OR, though I think it's plenty relevant. Tezero (talk) 17:24, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

• " The National Alliance intended to create an entire line of racist games, but only Ethnic Cleansing and White Law have surfaced.[2][11]" - I do not see "White Law" in either source and both sources are old. I do not think you need a source for this, because you normally cannot prove a negative or non-existence of something with a source. Though the Pop Matters source carries the whole paragraph for you if you wish.

• Reworded to avoid a White Law reference. Tezero (talk) 17:24, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

• Last concern is the creative links or awkward links. As in the case of "subway system" going to rapid transit, "World domination" to Hegemony and most interestingly "monkey noises" to Stereotypes of African Americans. Not sure if you are aware of this, but that page makes no mention of "monkey" or "ape" at all. Racism is racism, but let's not be coy about it either. The other term "going postal" is likely not well-known and can be easily fixed.

• I removed the "monkey noises" link for slight irrelevance (as well as the others), but the page does mention it: "a monkey sound is played". Reworded "going postal". Tezero (talk) 17:24, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, again, but you got to admit that the term is not always used as racist as well. The "monkey noises" were popularly launched at George W. Bush and it was a running gag for some productions. Of course, the clear racist implications are understood, but it was more of a fact that if there is an article on such a stereotype or act that it be linked to it. When I couldn't find any mention I felt that linking to it anyways seemed a bit odd. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:45, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

The rest seems pretty satisfactory for a GA article, but I did find a few more severe issues then I expected to at first. There are several other sources which you missed that could easily help the article expand a bit more. These include:

• [Confronting Right Wing Extremism and Terrorism in the USA By George Michael http://books.google.com/books?id=5SOAAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA66&dq=National+Alliance+video+game&hl=en&sa=X&ei=YmBcVIqWGJbbsATq0oHYDg&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=National%20Alliance%20video%20game&f=false]
• [Beyond Hate: White Power and Popular Culture By Professor C Richard King, Assoc Prof David J Leonard http://books.google.com/books?id=k2J7BAAAQBAJ&pg=PA126&dq=National+Alliance+video+game&hl=en&sa=X&ei=UGFcVImpMY_dsASpyoIw&ved=0CEcQ6AEwBjgK#v=onepage&q=National%20Alliance%20video%20game&f=false]

• I haven't seen those specifically, but I have seen a few that aren't used in the page. The problem is that these sources tend to say the same things because so few have actually played the game and most are content with being disgruntled with the idea of it and echoing hearsay and official statements. In this case, from a cursory perusal I'm not seeing anything meaningful I can add from those sources, although if anything's excessively controversial I can use them as supplements. Tezero (talk) 17:24, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

The last of which also reads like some of the information came from Wikipedia... but does seem to add significantly and cite its sources. Probably more out there, but I'll let you get to fixing. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:10, 7 November 2014 (UTC) ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:10, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll take a look at that stuff when I'm at my real computer. A minor note: I didn't add the "14/88" part; I agree with the removal of that original research bit. Tezero (talk) 06:27, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Alright, ChrisGualtieri, think I've gotten to everything. Tezero (talk) 17:24, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I had a distinct feeling about that, you are always a very careful editor. It is why I am not blaming you in the least. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:11, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Passed. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:53, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

88 does not stand for Heil Hitler in all iterations

It can also refer to Hitler's 88 words in 'Mein Kampf' talking about assuming the place the Creator of the Universe has assigned for us (Aryans). The Fourteen Words article linked even mentions that, so the article as it stands appears to be a bit contradictory.

Are there are any releases on this game about how the National Alliance intended 88 to be read? Phil of rel (talk) 01:01, 5 April 2022 (UTC)