Knock McDonald's Down a Notch

Hate McDonald's? Like flash games? Well, then, this game is for you! Welcome to the McDonald's Game, where you take on the role of CEO of a McDonald's and try to earn as much money as humanly possible...or, alternatively, drive it into the ground!

As you can see from the picture, Ronald McDonald is not a happy camper. Why? Because this game is a blatant and obvious attempt at exposing the moral and environmental issues of the franchise, and they do it through a very successful means: humour. The game consists of tearing down rainforests to build soy fields and pastures to raise cows who will eat said soy (you can even genetically modify the soy for "added effects!"). You then move to the slaughterhouse, where the cows are fattened up before being placed into a grinder to be made into patties. Oh, and don't forgot to use your trusty flamethrower on those sick cows, who could land you with a food poisoning lawsuit!

Then you move to managing a McDonald's store. Make sure you hire enough employees to keep up with demand. Oh, and make sure your employees are smiling. If they're not, give them a badge that doesn't mean anything. If that fails, reprimand them for not showing their pearly whites. And if all else fails, fire them! There's plenty of people more than happy enough to take their place!

On top of all this, you need to keep up with all the PR issues that come with a big corporation. Treehuggers complaining about you tearing down those rainforests for your soy fields? Bribe an environmentalist to put out all the good things that come from tearing down that rainforest. Got complaints about your fattening, obesity-causing food? Inform them of the food pyramid, and explain how your burgers fit into it...somewhere.

How does McDonald's feel about this game? They're definitely not a fan. Then again, since when has McDonald's been a fan of anything that puts them in anything except a shining light? Anyway, check it out. Aside from the game, there is additional information at the top of the site; read through it if you're anti-McDonald's. You'll be lovin' it.

http://www.mcvideogame.com/

Reasonable or Oversensitive?

While not recent games, I figured I'd bring up an issue I came across recently. Two games, "Stubbs the Zombie in Rebel Without a Pulse" and "F.E.A.R" were criticized for portraying "cannibalism" in their games. The criticism of F.E.A.R's "cannibalism" is far less publicised, so I will instead focus on Stubbs the Zombie.

The gameplay of Stubbs the Zombie consists of, not surprisingly, killing humans for their brains and turning them into zombies. Not too different from zombie movies that show zombies eating brains or full people, right? Well, apparently, putting it into a video game is far more harmful to children's brains than that (it should be noted that this game is rated M, meaning one must be 18 to purchase the game). Why is it more harmful to children than zombie movies? I couldn't find any of the critic's reasoning behind it. I did, however, find a quote from the game's publisher, Wideload Games, which is a response to the cannibalism claims:

"The current kerfuffle in the US media about Stubbs the Zombie can be summed up in one word: semantics.
Stubbs, they say, is a cannibal.
This is nonsense, as anyone with a working knowledge of cannibals can tell you. Stubbs fails all the classic litmus tests for cannibalism. He does not wear a bone through his nose. He does not help FBI agents track down serial killers. He has not written a cookbook. He is not named Jeffrey Dahmer. The list goes on and on.
Stubbs is a zombie. Thus the title "Stubbs the Zombie." Zombies eat brains. That's what they do. Stubbs cannot just saunter into the cafeteria and order a plate of Freedom Fries. He has to fight for his meals. In fact, actual cannibals only make it harder for Stubbs to eat, which is why this "cannibalism" story is insulting as well as injurious.
It's no surprise that the all-human media cartel resorts to distortions and name-calling; their anti-zombie bias has been evident for decades, and Stubbs is just the newest target."

While there is definite humour in the response, it is also a legitimate response to the accusations. What, exactly, did they expect gameplay with the player controlling a zombie to entail? Some critics who used the cannibalism argument also praised the game itself. They said the "squishy, scalp-munching sound effects" actually contributed to the game's overall quality. So, then...why was the "cannibalism" such a big deal? Answer: it's not. The gameplay does not even focus on the violence; it was a game made with humour in mind.

So...were the critics being reasonable? Were children who got their hands on the game going to go out and start eating stranger's brains because they saw a zombie in a top hat and suit do it? Or were they just overreacting to the point of only getting a semi-serious response from the publishers back? You decide.