Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Games Entertainment

Activision's GUN Misfires With Native Americans 149

Posted by Zonk 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.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Activision's GUN Misfires With Native Americans More

Activision's GUN Misfires With Native Americans

Comments Filter:

  • Silly... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by grub ( 11606 )

    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"?

    • Re:Silly... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF ( 813746 ) on Wednesday February 01, 2006 @12:30PM (#14617257)

      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.

      • Re:Silly... (Score:2, Insightful)

        by grub ( 11606 )

        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" [imdb.com] 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".
        • 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.
          • 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.
            • Fuck that. We need a "Cowboys & Indians" MMOG! :D

              Jaysyn
            • 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.

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



            ...right?

        • 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 w

          • ...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

            • 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 tha

      • 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 m

        • 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 abo

    • Re:Silly... (Score:3, Informative)

      by faloi ( 738831 )
      Be careful what you ask for. The ALA [ala.org] 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.
      • 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?
    • 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.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
      Comment removed based on user account deletion

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
        Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • 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 por

      • 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

    • Re:Silly... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by _xeno_ ( 155264 ) on Wednesday February 01, 2006 @01:05PM (#14617593) Homepage Journal

      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.

      • 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

      • 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 mi

        • 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

          • "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
    • 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?
    • 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/ [forbiddenlibrary.com]

      Other books by Twain have
    • 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
    • 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 adulte

  • Good for them (Score:2, Funny)

    by panic911 ( 224370 ) *
    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.

  • GUN (Score:5, Informative)

    by Stargoat ( 658863 ) <stargoat@gmail.com> on Wednesday February 01, 2006 @12:21PM (#14617147) Journal
    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.
  • "Let's just stay out of this one, guys."
  • offend me. Can I take legal action / instigate a boycott of them?

  • Enough already (Score:4, Insightful)

    by mahdi13 ( 660205 ) <icarus.lnx@gmail.com> on Wednesday February 01, 2006 @12:27PM (#14617236) Journal
    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.
    • 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?
    • 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.
      • 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...
        • The difference is that Strogg cannot boycott Quake
        • 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.
          • What, you mean like Wolfenstein 3D, or any Indiana Jones game?
            • 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'
    • 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.

  • And Activision (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Tweekster ( 949766 )
    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.

    • Re:And Activision (Score:3, Insightful)

      by RexRhino ( 769423 )
      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.
    • Actually, even though they weren't the target audience, they may have been targets...
    • 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 s

  • Execs losing sleep (Score:4, Funny)

    by SkyWalk423 ( 661752 ) on Wednesday February 01, 2006 @12:28PM (#14617242) Homepage Journal
    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?

    • 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!
    • 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.

      • 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 numbe

  • 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."
    • 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 pro

  • 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 w

  • I played the game... Here is my impression: (Score:5, Informative)

    by RexRhino ( 769423 ) on Wednesday February 01, 2006 @12:53PM (#14617466)
    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.

    • 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.

    • 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

      • 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 l
  • 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 other news... (Score:3, Funny)

    by arose ( 644256 ) on Wednesday February 01, 2006 @01:15PM (#14617722)
    The Association for Hell Minion Development boycots id software.
  • 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.

  • ...it sounds better than Custer's Revenge [wikipedia.org]

  • Fine, I'll boycott their casinos.

  • We have Department of Homeland Security! (Score:3, Funny)

    by neo ( 4625 ) on Wednesday February 01, 2006 @01:32PM (#14617941)

    {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}

  • 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!!
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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).
  • 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.

Slashdot Top Deals

If it wasn't for Newton, we wouldn't have to eat bruised apples.

Close