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."
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment