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)

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)