Atari said Custer's Revenge damaged their reputation as a company by having offensive games. Funnily enough, the lawsuit only increased the sales of Custer's Revenge due to all the attention it was given. The game could've provided an insight on the war occurring down in Mexico between the government and the cartels to people who probably don't know anything about it.
It could've been educational, in a Grand Theft Auto kind of way. Then you play the game and realize how much it sucks. Call of Juarez, as a game, is terrible and its racist depictions only add insult to injury for the gamer. The game has inaccurate depictions of the drug war, like having human trafficking victims changed from Mexican to American. Critics of the game point out an infamous mission in the game called "Gang Bang," where the mission is to defend yourselves against the rushing enemies.
Critics point out that "Gang Bang" has achievement where you have to kill 40 enemies, however, every single enemy is African-American. It's dehumanizing. This is a confusing entry for me, as I don't understand how something like this could fallen through the cracks. It had to be a big oversight. Scribblenauts is a game where you collect stars, as you type in words to summon items or animals or whatever to complete the level.
For those who don't know, Sambo is racist word directed towards black people, specifically for people who were half black and half Native American. If you Google "sambo" and click on Images, you'll see what I mean. The Creative Director for 5 th Cell, creators of Scribblenauts , Jeremiah Slackza said Sambo is an Ecuadorian name for a type of gourd that looks like a watermelon and that it was all an accident.
Accident or not, 5th Cell should be more careful next time. Some might not know Punch-Out!! More people would know that the stereotypes that make up Punch-Out's cast have made some people say the game is racist. Even if you disagree that Punch-Out is racist, the game lazily uses stereotypes for the cast.
R, Vodka Drunkenski in the arcade game. And since each character of a Punch-Out!! The arcade version isn't the only game in the Punch-Out series to misattribute a country. If Nintendo did any research, they would learn that Mexico has produced many champion boxers. Some of the best boxers in history are Mexican. But, no, he had to be a luchador.
This is surprising entry. Deus Ex: Human Revolution tends to be a pretty middle of the road game when it comes to morality. It's all pretty gray. The protagonist, Adam Jensen, often thinks about whether or not what he's doing is the right thing to do.
There's the mission and then what Adam feels. Even if he did something to help people, the guilt of his actions still eat at Adam. No single action is ever purely good or purely evil in Deus Ex: Human Revolution. Then we have the character Letitia, a street informant in Detroit, who sounds like an old racist Looney Tunes character.
Her voice is so over the top, she might as well be called Mammy. And it's so jarring to listen to Letitia's voice and Adam's gruff voice back to back. We will work hard to develop a physical football team that is dominant on both lines of scrimmage, and has a dynamic balanced offense and a stout aggressive defense. His successes and offensive accolades as a head coach the past five years are astonishing.
Lincoln will recruit relentlessly, develop his players on and off the field, and implement a strong culture in which the program will operate with the highest level of integrity and professionalism. She replied, "well, we have a right to protect our product [through steam DRM], don't we? My reply to her is much the same as my reply to "don't they have the right to moderate what is on it?
Having the right to do something does not mean freedom from criticism when you use that right in a dumb way. Which is one of the things that makes this a great country, we're allowed to disagree and criticize. You having the same rights as I do thousands of miles away on another continent is what makes you a great country? Very weird Nintendo has the legal right to moderate content on their platform. The case study doesn't challenge that.
Instead, as a case study, the article presents a situation where legal obligations are clear and instead asks whether Nintendo should. If you've spent any time here you should be familiar with the idea. Does this moderation really serve their goals? How does this moderation choice affect future engagement on the platform? Considering the average response that is given for a commentator's opinion on this site when it comes to this subject matter, one that chides them for not choosing their words carefully enough, tries to intentionally construe the comment as a statement of law instead of opinion, ignores sarcasm, and in some cases projects bad faith for an opinion they rejected outright, the sarcasm is warranted.
Indeed it doesn't. What if someone more equal than others is offended? Could some other nefarious actor abuse it? It's painfully obvious as to what the site and it's regulars opinion is when it comes to "free speech on the internet. Nor does the comment section ever play out any differently than the previous article's.
Yet, this site constantly drums up more articles like it. Asking the same tired questions again and again. As if the site needs someone to reaffirm it's confirmation bias. TL;DR: If you want people to give you their opinion, don't intentionally construe it as a statement of fact because you disagree with it. The average response is one of fact - Nintendo and other companies like it have every right to do things in a particular manner, but people are also free to criticise them and suggest that a different approach would be more constructive and successful in the long term.
I regularly see people whining or pretending that saying that Nintendo do something negative to their own business translates to people saying the don't have the right to do such things, but I rarely see a valid counterargument. They do something that's dumb or harmful to their own brand, other people tell them such.
Such is the case with several episodes of the original cartoon series which were removed from broadcasting schedules in the wake of the destruction of the World Trade Center on September 11, Most notably, though, an episode which features a giant rampaging Tentacruel destroying a coastal city and toppling buildings with its tentacles, while ostensibly an homage to Japanese monster movies, was temporarily removed from broadcasting schedules due to the imagery of skyscrapers being toppled, which was deemed too sensitive a subject in the wake of the terrorist attacks.
Poor Gardevoir. From subtly suggestive to downright lewd, all possibilities have been considered.
0コメント