Talk:Ethnic Cleansing (video game)/Archive 1

Archive 1

References for "realistic negro sounds"

From the game's own page:

8.) Q.)Why do you advertise "Realistic Negro Sounds" and then only have monkey and ape sounds?

A.)Because it's funny. [sic] [1].

The "advertisment" they're talking about was on some earlier promotional pages and on the box of the game itself, if I recall. EpiVictor 16:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

It's also in the Popmatters review, last of the external links, so there should be no more doubts. EpiVictor 16:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I keep reverting a (vandal?) who keeps posting that the advertisements are true. I warned him on his talk page. --Liface 23:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Has anyone noticed that when you go to the FAQ thing and then click on "home," it takes you to a porn site? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.163.100.6 (talk) 23:00, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

My REAL review

this is for that guy up there who wanted a non biased review of some one who actually played the game

First off, before you start the game a pop up appears asking what rendering device you want to use beofre you launch the app (software or open GL) i couldnt get the game to work on open GL at all, in software rendering mode i wasent able to get my screen resolution to work and worse it crashed my comp right after i launched it, so i re-booted and finally got the game to play in a 800x600 window in software resolution mode. As for the game play... IT SUCKS (and it didnt even render half the objects corrrect). In the options there was a controls menu, but I couldnt figure out how to change them (if u can even change the controls), and unlike ever FPS ever made it used the "S" button to move forward and "Z" and "X" to strafe side to side (and I dont even know if there was a back button). The game felt slugish and the graphics looked like something strait out of windows 95. I only got to kill two enemies before i some how died, and it then crashed again! As for the 30 whole seconds of game play , i killed two enimes, an african american that yes "screamed like an ape" when i killed him, and a very, very, very stereotypical mexican wearing a sombrero and one of those colorful cape things (sorry, i dont know the name of it). The music was some punk band singing about "get of of here niggers!" The only reason to think of downlaoding the game (yes download, not buying becuase those bills would be better spent wipeing your ass with) is if you like to collect novelty games, and in that case just downlaod it on bittorrent like i did. Harsh review? yes, but would agree with me to if you played it yourself

--Joe dude 07:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

That does it, I'm getting this based on your excellent review. --Liface 15:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

LOL, that's more or less what I heard from other players: the 3D rendering system is just primitive by 2002/2003 standards, even with OpenGL support turned on (the view distance is something like 15-20 meters, after that objects "darken" then vanish), sound effects are just laughable (I guess the music suits the mood of the game, though) and the gameplay resembles Thundra somehow. So no, no "cutting edge technology" was used in this game, instead it looks like something straight out of a "game maker" package or something. EpiVictor 22:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

What a sec, you only get to kill, like, 5 enemies? I would expect that this game would have kills up to the thousands. If it only has three people killed, I guess their hate isn't strong enough. Either way, yeah, shit suxEAB 05:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Help me

Hello zoar!! I saw this and thought it was wrong. This may go agaist wikipedia rules, so I apologise, but something has to be done about this horrible game.

Contact my disscusion page if you want to join my penitition to say this game is horrible, and racism should stop. --Gerrado 17:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Whatever action you intend to take vs the game or its publishers, wikipedia should not be involved, as its only purpose is to be informational and as neutral as possible (yeah, this includes even controversial games such as Ethnic Cleansing). As you said, lobbying and encouraging any "corrective actions" vs wikipedia in order to "make the net a better place" would indeed go against several rules and probably lead to edit wars, flaming and the such, and nobody (I hope) wants that. EpiVictor 18:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

How bout you stop violence or hunger or poverty dont even waste your time on this dumb racist game just ignore it, it doesnt deserve the attetion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.6.158.32 (talk) 15:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

And "how bout" you stop wasting time on complaining about this "dumb racist game" that "doesnt deserve the attetion" and continue your quest for stopping violence/hunger/poverty instead? EpiVictor 16:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Gerrado %100. This game is awful, and people should know that others are still creating games such as this. However, thankfully, the gameplay is so bad (according to Joe Dude) that not many people can see the racism involed. --Tzadok Aviv 15:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Suit yourself, just don't vandalize or encourage vandalism on any Wikipedia article (including this one), unless you want to see everything in here semiprotected or fully protected. EpiVictor 10:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism? I did not try to craete vandalism! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerrado (talk • contribs) 20:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Saying that a game is "dumb", "should be banned", "shouldn't have an article", "join my crusade against racism" etc. promotes vandalism and cyber-lobbying. Just...NOT ON WIKIPEDIA, period. EpiVictor 12:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Do any of you have a life or do you just sit around and verbally trash games because you're too stupid to do anything else? Not sure why I even bother coming around because wikipedia really is nothing but a big "bash this and that" site from what I've seen. Really a waste of cyberspace that only seems to serve to make a few "kids" moderators of some sort giving them feelings of importance since they obviously suffer from a major case of penis envy. The moderator may as well throw himself on the ground and have a tantrum as his words seem to convey. LOL... "it'll be my way or I won't talk to you, nananananana!" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.67.229.167 (talk) 18:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

So, wait a sec, you set up a petition to tell the world "RACISM IZ BAD THIS SHUD STOP". Don't give the game anymore publicity dude. You've obviously never been on the internet long enough if THIS is offensive. While I agree that basing your opinions on someone elses race based on a few idiots is pretty stupid, I also believe that the internet shouldn't be censored. Sadly, that includes racism.

MY OPINION COUNTS TWICE AS MUCH AS YOURS BECAUSE IM HISPANIC LOLOLOLOL

Seriously though, this won't do anything. Let it goEAB 05:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm hispanic too --88.108.68.141 21:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup

Spotted some vandalism, also removed a couple of clearly NPOV angled wordings. Also nerfed the section of self-glorification where it claims to be the worlds first racist game. The same sentence that listed a group of games of racist purpose that existed clearly decades before this game did.

I'm going to clean up a little bit more, but it's three am so I won't be doing massive amounts on my before-bed rounds; I've got a strong feeling that this article ISN'T actually NPOV focused against the owners of the game, but POV angled BY the owners of the game to sensationalise it more. Such as obviously emotive and inciteful anti-game angles like pointing out it has 'stereotypes'. I mean duh, it's a racist game, we figured that from the get go. If someone who disliked the owners game added that section, my apologies, but .. duh. If the owner added that, double duh and nice attempt to highlight the obvious to fit in more keywords and sensationalism. 211.30.71.59 13:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you feel better now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.67.229.167 (talk) 18:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Release Date?

The article currently indicates the game was released on MLK Day 2002, and cites the Wired article and the Anti-defamation league article; however, the Wired article claims MLK Day as the release while the ADL claims MLK Day as the day that advertising for the title began.

I've found an article in the Los Angeles Sentinel (04 Apr 2002, page B3) that also says MLK Day was the advertising campaign's kick-off (corroborating the ADL), and that the release day was March 25, 2002... but the earliest version of the game's page on the Internet Archive is from Feb 15, 2002 and lists the game as "now available".AlbinoFlea (talk) 21:39, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Not going to go into the PC or bias aspects here but...

For the life of me, WHY in the world would this be considered 'Ethnic Cleansing (video game) has been listed as "one of the Video games good articles under the good article criteria"[...] Review: November 8, 2014. (Reviewed version).'?! How is this 'good'? I am far from PC but I am bothered by the bias in this article (not that I know how you'd write an article that isn't biased about this any more than you'd write an article that isn't biased about ANYTHING that is 'real'. I dunno about you guys, but I'm totally looking forward to a realistic simulation of being a guard or a prisoner or a trustee in a German concentration camp during WW2, myself. Or a Jap/"Nip(!)" in an internment camp fighting for my home back in the United States during roughly the same period. In my opinion, maybe things like this just SHOULD NOT HAVE AN ARTICLE. You know? Going by a 'would this have been in a hard-copy encyclopedia' standard. But really. Back to the original statement, and to paraphrase Pirsig with the whole 'what is good, Phaedrus, and what is not good, need we ask anyone to tell us these things?' -- I believe you people seriously do. This is 'not good'. ((Why Bother with a Name?)) on 21 June 2019, 21:01 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.156 (talk) 21:01, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

OK Boomer. "Good article" is not an endorsement of the subject, it means that the article is well-written. World War II is a good article, but was a very bad thing. Can you point out what in this article is biased, either pro the game or against it? It's quite usual that when someone says that an article is biased, they're just saying it's not biased in the way they want it to be biased. If you're saying this shouldn't have an article, you can nominate it for deletion, but you seem to want it deleted for not liking the subject rather than for its notability. It seems that just like people saying "I'm not racist but..." are leading into a racist statement, people who say "I'm not PC but..." want to get rid of everything they find un-PC Wallachia Wallonia (talk) 17:17, 12 January 2020 (UTC)