Indie Hit The Stanley Parable Under Fire For Questionable Content

56

Comments

+ Add a Comment
avatar

onisuriyuuu

Well for one, players are given the choice to stop the child before reaching the fire. They should look at their own morales for letting the child meet its fate.

avatar

habuza

I say that devs can do what they damn well please. If you don't like some part of a game's content - DON'T PLAY IT - it's that simple. Just like the airport shooting scene in MW2 as a for instance. I *loved* that level. Replayed it just for giggles several times. Label me crazy all you want, but there is one absolute truth you can not refute - It's just a GAME. Make believe. Not Real. End of discussion.

/insertboohoocrybabyblahblahgtfoqqgtfoherenobodycares

avatar

Atech66

Incase you have not noticed the world of PC gamers is being saturated with cry baby assholes. boofuckinghoo people piss and moan so much over the smallest thing anymore. Al Sharpton's grand kid must have played it.

avatar

PCLinuxguy

while I agree that it's pretty dumb to get upset about a game, the jab at PC gamers seems a bit much. Granted this was on a PC game, however it seems like people in general rather than pc gamers in regards to being overly sensitive.

avatar

TheITGuy

Or someone who thought they could sensationalize a story about it and make money while shifting the blame to someone else. A story about something you can do in game? Nobody will click on a link like that. Add race into it with somebody supposedly being offended? People will click on that link faster than one to claim your free Viagra and $500 gift card to Wally World.

avatar

candreae

The people of this country need to take a different approach to how they present their tastes and preferences to the public, one that doesn't force the aforementioned on others, who have their own. Setting blanket standards and laws is good for certain things...I for one support the illegality of murder...don't think we should legalize it any time soon either. Reason being...if you take the life of someone else without their consent you are limiting their choices rather starkly to...well...death. Folks that make a living in the world of creativity, on the bleeding edge or in an underhanded manner (but legally) are constantly under fire for their work. The creative tend to think outside the norm...case in point I probably wouldn't have immolated a child to underline the power of choice, but it's his game, not mine. This is his stage and anyone shouting from the audience should be ushered to the door and banned from the venue. People who make a living on the bleeding edge are constantly under fire for prompting change...something our rather orthodox society loathes. Stem cell research anyone? Pharmaceuticals? These things could promote change by producing goods and services that vastly improve quality of life, but the methodology behind them is so foreign to us that xenophobia rears it's ugly head. Lastly those who dare toe the line by utilizing resources that they are entitled to. Think Walmart and the minimum wage here. According to everything I've researched on the matter they are doing no wrong, at least not in the black and white sense of the law. All of these entities, these rebels who dare to color outside the lines and take what is rightfully theirs have one thing in common that makes the angry mind churn...grey area. That's right...they don't fit into a category we have seen before, there's no exact rule to follow or violation of law to allow us to punish what we see as unfair or morally dubious and this infuriates us. How can we have no recourse against such ignorance? Enter - the internet...our connected lives...social networking and the ability to leverage it against people, corporations and entities we deem, in our small little segments, immoral or potentially dangerous. These small segments disagree often enough that no consensus is reached, the grey area remains and our power to punish based on our personal preferences is tantamount to a Nerf bat. Lest we forget, this is exactly the concept this country was founded upon - the inability of the few to control the masses by limiting choice...something that cannot be present if we are to have liberties, freedoms...words mentioned often by our founding fathers. Yet here we are, creating crusades against the many, the creative, or the undefined, utilizing peer pressure like schoolhouse bullies to get our way...one petition at a time. Do I think what the author of this game did was right? My point is that it should never matter what I think about his game or if other people are playing it. If I dislike something I speak with the true weapon I wield...my billfold. Collective action with money, to fund or not fund based on our tastes and preferences has been our historical means by which we address that which is not covered by law. It is a very powerful tool, and it carries more weight than whiny internet petitions, causes and wannabe crusades against evil, who often responds to such flak with a token gesture or uses the fuss created to reap the publicity. It's silly to be mad, by the way, that the author of this game used the tide of negative publicity to walk away looking like a good guy while simultaneously giving us the finger. The soapbox was handed to him on a platter and I must admit that, given a similar situation you would find me atop it much like this gentleman has been. The power of social networking to manipulate will go the way of the dodo soon enough, unless some serious financial backing appears. Until then, it is your right to cry foul just as it is theirs to pat you gently on the head. There there.

avatar

Rebel_X

tl;dr @ all

avatar

$m

Congratulations on fitting all that into one paragraph.

avatar

TheITGuy

While I think you made some good points in there, it was kind of difficult to follow along. Although, you did make one of the most important points of all. The most powerful tool you have to vote is your pocketbook.

avatar

The Mac

tl;dr

learn how to use paragraphs...

avatar

mwahoski

Next we'll be playing shooters where 3,000 white soldiers die but any dark skinned soldier is invincible. Equality people, equality. Setting a cardboard cutout of a white child is perfectly acceptable, but a single frame drawing of a dark skinned child on fire in a satirical way has to be removed from the game??

avatar

TheITGuy

I highly doubt something as ludicrous as that shall ever happen.

avatar

Soulflare3

I really don't think it should be touched. It's a game. It's not real. Don't try to force a dev to change THEIR game because YOU don't like it. Don't like the game? Don't play it.

avatar

AFDozerman

We're becoming a maxPC nation, and I don't mean maximum personal computer.

avatar

PhaQue

Come on, guys...seems many a dear reader of MPC has fallen victim to sensational marketing techniques. This one is no different:

1 - something horrible happened
2 - it's sensational
3 - here's the link to buy it.

I'd have thought many of you were smart enough to see through the real purpose of this article.

It worked on me, though...I'm gonna buy it for my girlfriend!

avatar

TheITGuy

Finally someone who sees what this was. Someone cried wolf and now someone else is profiting from it but, the blame will go to some who may or may not have cried wolf. Brilliant

avatar

Engelsstaub

Oh no: some fictional character who didn't have light skin had something unfortunate happen to him in a fictional setting! Good thing nobody said "that's gay!" too.

Anybody else notice that in today's Pseudo Politically Correct Society everyone seems to be protected against "hate speech" except those who actually can't stand up for themselves? Namely the mentally handicapped. I still hear words like "retard" and things like "what are you; autistic?" from all these fake-liberal hypocrites and modern media/entertainment that supposedly espouses PC and compassion towards everyone. Whatever's cool to be all indignant about at the moment...fuck everyone else, right?

Didn't they have to change a Resident Evil game for the same reasons? "This is racist against my zombie people!"

avatar

TheITGuy

Not all those who cry wolf are ones who are directly affected by such accusations. I personally found nothing offensive about the Resident Evil game or this one but, if I look at the media they say I am supposed to be offended by all kinds of random useless shit. That is why I stay away from it because it is not an accurate representation of anything. It is used to manipulate and turn people against each other so, they fight one other instead of focusing on the real enemy. I'm much more offended by the fact that tomorrow I could be tased to death by the police and nothing would be done because somehow it would be my fault. They would say i had the heart condition or I raised a hand to them when I didn't or that i had this magical criminal record when mine is clean. I wish that situation was hypothetical but, it happened just last month in my city. That I find much more offensive than a silly video game.

avatar

Peanut Fox

You're talking about Resident Evil 5 which takes place in Africa, and no they didn't change it.

avatar

rsaotome

It was originally a black child?

Huh the version I have has a cardboard cutout of a white child on a stick, guess that was the change, it was pretty damn funny. :)

And technically the game burns the child, you have to press the annoying as hell button to keep it from burning.

avatar

jason2393

That's the wrong child, there's another part of the game where there's a fake instructional video, and in that video, there's a simple drawn scene where a child is set on fire. The YouTube link somebody posted below will show you the scene in question.

avatar

vrmlbasic

If the only change was to the race of the child then all the people who posted across the internet to the effect that "if the kid hadn't been black no one would have cared" have been vindicated.

It would also establish that there will be no protest of "racism" against whites in the gaming community. Sarcastic hooray for double standards!

avatar

LilHammer

We live in a Burger King society of entitlement, where some kind of action must be taken based on most individual opinions. Most people believe "I have a right to have it my way" which is essentially the same stance as "You don't have a right to have it YOUR way". These days, politically and socially, the two are mutually exclusive.

Entitlement is the name of the game. Everyone is entitled to what they want, and not just in the context of their personal pursuit of happiness and peace - all others that stand in opposition to that person's viewpoint are racist, extremists, stupid, etc. We have a judicial system that helps enforce that by setting ridiculous precedents and so-called "advocates" that shove their extremist ideas down the throats of everyone else, all while crying they are in the minority.

We live in a backwards world now.

avatar

Renegade Knight

We all have every right to work for what we want. If we are we are doing it right.

Entitlement is having every expectation that others will work for what you want like they damn well should.

If you lobby the game maker to change his game that's the first kind. You may not like it, and the game maker may not change anything, but it's actually OK.

If you expected him to deliver the game to you with a custom scene depicting your own take of how that scene should play out and are pissed that you even had to ask such a thing. That's entitlement.

Nursing is an awesome profession to be in if you want to see the difference in action. Guess which patients they like?

The beauty of it is this. The entitled live miserable lives.

avatar

vrmlbasic

By what you've said, if the change of the race of the kid from black to white was indeed the publisher's reaction to this then all of the complainers were indeed entitled.

Of course, those protesters were already high-handed "entitled" fools to begin with so...

avatar

Goolashe

It's a cardboard cutout of a baby on a stick that they're whining about.

A cardboard cutout. On a stick.

I mean, really? They find that to complain about, but not the fact that you can jump to your death? I find some people are just impossible to please, so sometimes it's best to just ignore them, especially if it's just a couple hundred out of over 100k that bought the game.

(and don't try and twist this view point in the direction of politics or game bugs that make it impossible to play a game. This view is JUST for relating to what's a small easteregg in the game and not to be applied to something such as a bug in the game or a minority as those are ENTIRELY different from what I'm talking about.)

avatar

legionera

At one point, the people of the New World, were strongly convinced that the communists eat babies. Thank you Pablo Neruda!!!!

Was it censored? Naaah! :)

avatar

The Mac

its actually a still animation of a drawing.

avatar

Goolashe

...that is on a cardboard cutout on a stick.

The only way to make the image more fake is to make the baby a stick figure or replace it with the word "baby".

avatar

Jox

In the interest of full disclosure: no, I have not played this game. I've only seen the youtube video linked by ross06187. What strikes me as odd is that this uproar (unless there's something more that I've missed) is all about a cartoon still-frame of an artist's depiction of a black child on fire. Also, there is no reference to the child's ethnicity (beyond his "third-world" status); only the fact that he is an orphan is mentioned.

So what's the problem here?

I could understand the outrage about graphic, violent, fully-rendered game-play (or cinematic) of a child burning to death, but we seem to be talking about outrage generated by the simple suggestion that such a thing might be funny in some dark-comedy stylized fashion. It's like the old joke: how do you get a hundred babies into a barrel? With a blender. Disgusting? Sure. Dark? Certainly! Offensive? Probably. Worthy of further discussion? Not really. It's a joke. No-one is harmed and everyone gets to move on with their lives, secure in the knowledge that (probably) no-one is out there grinding up babies for storage in an oil drum.

I'm reminded of the outrage generated in the middle-east a few years back around the printing of a cartoon of Mohammad wearing a bomb as a hat. Many people (particularly in the west) rushed to defend the artist's right to print a satirical commentary on Muslims in the 21st century. Apparently that right doesn't extend to everyone.

I can only see this in one of two lights: 1) moral outrage for the sake of attention or 2) moral outrage due to some perceived slight from an overly sensitive minority (the minority being the overly sensitive people, not blacks in general). Personally, if I were black, I'd be more offended by the term "African-American" as not all blacks are from Africa.

That's just my 2 cents, but I don't feel persecuted, so I may be unqualified to comment (not that that has ever stopped me).

-Jox

avatar

TheITGuy

I'd say your two cents are right on the money. Regarding the media, most of the time there are others who may or may not have a certain thing pertaining to them but will always speak up for everyone regarding how much offense is taking to a certain statement. The media also seeks to sensationalize every story out there about race purposely turning everyone against each other not realizing who the real enemy is. There are more important battles to fight out there than worry about this game developer whose intent was not to be racist.

Tekknyne, your statement is complete bullshit. I am not racist nor hateful but can clearly identify when something is out of place or different. Are there people who cry wolf sometime? Certainly. As there are exceptions to every rule but, it does not mean every time someone points out something inconsiderate that they are the ones at fault.

avatar

tekknyne

First world problems G. People are going to point the finger and scream racism, but my response would be that they're a racist. It takes a racist to identify racism.

avatar

Hellkrai

Non questioning the fact he gave an obviously malnourished child a cigarette, But that he set the child on fire.

avatar

Xenite

Be honest it has NOTHING to do with setting a child on fire, it's because the depicted child is black. If it was a white kid nobody would care the guy was torching him.

Thing is if you look at the context it wasn't racial at all.

avatar

vrmlbasic

Not Funny IMO, but not offensive (that's fact).

"Though I do not believe this is the right thing to do artistically I do, however, believe that this is the right thing to do FINANCIALLLLLLYYYYYY!!!!" <-Nathan Explosion

avatar

dgrmouse

vrmlbasic said, "not offensive (that's fact)."

The thing is, just because it isn't offensive to you doesn't mean it isn't offensive to anyone. I'm amazed at how many folks are outspoken about "Bullys' Rights" and the virtue of being politically incorrect. Seriously, it's like hearing a five-year-old say "I was just joking" after getting caught doing something wrong.

avatar

ZombieKiller

LOL!!! Ha Ha!!! I almost downloaded this game yesterday off of ModDB! But didn't. Now knowing that children get set on fire in it I am downloading ASAP!! :D
Yes I know I am a little violent but I like it. :) :P
Playing some Brutal DOOM while waiting for the download... \m/

But honestly I am wanting to give it a try, anyone try it before? Any good?

avatar

legionera

Add "artistic" and "religious" to your sentences, and everything you say will be unbreakable.

avatar

Scatter

It must suck to be forced to play a game that you don't like.

avatar

legionera

hahahah That was very clever!!! :)

avatar

Blackheart-1220

Some people are so butt hurt when a game isn't what they expect, This game is a work of "art". AAA Games are now made by committees and they use information collected from surveys and focus groups to make games with features, gameplay, and a plot that consumers will like with the goal of making money. It's unlawful [in my country] and a crime against common sense to censor or ban something because you don't like it.

avatar

macmooda

I am getting really sick of all these sick and twisted games. Why do games have to be so violent??? Why can't we have games that are fun to play but are not sadistic and disgusting?? I mean I guess to each his own, but at the same time, doesn't anybody wonder that if young kids/mentally ill people play these extremely violent games, that it might twist their minds? I mean look at some of the shooter games out there. The point of the death match game type is to get the most kills to win. Now look at all the horrible shooting cases in this country. Like the one in Connecticut. The kid was trying to get as many kills as possible because he idled the dude from Europe and also loved to play games and get the best score that he could get. Maybe it is just me, but I really wonder if all these violent games and television shows are instigating the violence in the world. What do you all think? Am I the only one that is starting to wonder this?? (Just as a note, I am not trying to offend anybody, just stating my opinion).

avatar

Omegasupreme80

If you're sick of these types of games then don't play them, play some of the GREAT MANY nonviolent titles that are available out there that you are evidently oblivious to. Stop blaming the game for kids playing them. Blame the parents for buying them for the kids. Banning one particular media because of what a small percentage of the population "may" do if they use it is a pretty slippery slope. Taking the rights of the many to punish the few is never a good thing. There are a large number of reasons that violence is so prevalent; it's called humankind. Pick up a history book and you'll see a long and bloody timeline that pretty well predates video games. Violent games are simply an excuse for people to have something to blame rather than trying to discover the actual root cause for violent episodes.

avatar

macmooda

Wow... kinda an angry reply to a comment that was just stating an opinion. Also to a comment that said absolutely nothing about banning anything. If you read my post you would have noticed that I did not say the word "ban" once. Nor did I ever say anything about taking the rights from anybody. You are reacting to the opinions of people that think all violence should be banned completely. Like the people that support gun control. Please don't confuse me with such people. I don't believe in banning anything in this FREE country.

You are right there are many reasons for why there is so much violence in the world. From poverty, hunger, greed, religion, survival, there are many reasons violence takes place. And yes violence has been around for a long time. Without violence you wouldn't be sitting in the United States of America right now.

In my original post I should not have stated "Why do games have to be so violent". I should have stated why do more and more games have to be sadistic. I mean be honest almost all video games have some degree of violence. Even Mario could technically be called violent in a way because Mario physically jumps onto to creatures to kill them. But some games just get ridiculous. Like the above case, lighting a child on fire?? That is just too disgusting to even contemplate. Again to each his own, but I can't and won't play such a thing. It is just wrong on so many levels. And I do play violent games. I play things like Battlefield, call of duty, and such and such. But I don't play things that are soo out of control. That goes for TV as well. I don't/won't watch television shows that show horrible things that are don to people (torture to be more specific). Again that is my opinion. All I stated is rather anybody wonders rather because of the increase in violent material, rather that does anything to anybody. Again... I am not trying to offend anybody, I am must stating my opinion.

avatar

davelray

Everyone's entitled to their opinion, macmooda. Most gamers get upset with your stance because you have formed your opinion based on assumptions and false logic. Correlation does not equal causation.

avatar

macmooda

Yes everyone is entitled to an OPINION. All I am doing is stating my opinion, my thoughts and questions. And the first response to my opinion/post was a response to nothing that I stated in my post. The first response that I got was about almost nothing that I stated. But whatever, if people can't read and compensate anything that they read, that is not my problem. Also how would you know it is false logic?? Do you have any real evidence stating it is true or false from a real reputal source? Cause if you don't how is your logic any better than mine??

avatar

davelray

How do I know it's false logic? Because if I used your logic, then people would be shooting up malls, theaters, schools, etc. every single day. Millions would be dying. Since millions aren't dying in incidents every single day due to "gamers gone wild," I can thus conclude that while crazy people that commit these violent acts maybe before hand have been drawn to violent media (correlation,) it does not mean that violent media caused them to do what they did (causation.)

avatar

macmooda

As for the logic, you can't prove that some cases aren't because people watch/play too many things and get things in their head (cause your not them), and neither can I. But to be honest all I ever said..... was I wonder. I never said this is fact etc. etc. Read the posts. I am done.

PS. Got any good game recommendations. Oh, and thanks for the good debate. Again, I was never trying to offend anybody. :-)

avatar

HeroOfCanton

Which is more likely?

A) Violent video games are inciting violence in otherwise normal people.

B) People with severe mental illness are attracted to violent video games and fetishize them.

Just because two things are related, it does not imply that one is the cause of the other. That is basic logic.

avatar

tekknyne

Correlation does not imply causation