Ghosts of Tsushima, the samurai simulator developed by Sucker Punch Productions for the Sony PlayStation 4, has been released to very positive reception from critics and fans alike for its beautiful samurai aesthetic and exciting gameplay that is said to out-assassin Assassin’s Creed. It may indeed be an enjoyable video game, but underneath the “fun” lurks the game’s scandalous secret: Ghosts of Tsushima was developed by white people.
That’s right. Despite playing as a Japanese character in feudal Japan, the game itself is a white man’s creation. While white developers are allowed and encouraged to create video games that include minorities, there is a limit to how many non-white characters can be in a white man’s video game before it becomes cultural appropriation: one black character, one LGBT character, one Asian character, and one Latinx character that always says “pendejo” as Latinx people always do. Not only does Ghosts of Tsushima lack black, Latinx, and LGBT characters, but it does not even respect the limit of Asian characters allowed in a cisgender white man’s video game.
It would surprise nobody that gamers overlook this problematic element—they are neckbearded incels with no redeeming factors whatsoever—but even critics have condoned this racist cultural appropriation. Even worse, Kotaku, a gaming journalism outlet I once considered on the right side of history, fueled the flames of white supremacist patriarchy by posting an article with quotes from Japanese critics that all praise Ghosts of Tsushima. The Japanese may consider the game respectful of Japanese culture, but as an Asian American (part Filipino, to be exact), I can say that they are wrong and what Sucker Punch Productions did is unacceptable.
Ghosts of Tsushima is not worth your time. It may be fun, but does that matter? If so, it’s time you questioned why you even play video games. Skip this one, folx, and grab yourself The Last of Us Part II instead. That’s a video game that shows respect to its non-white, female, and LGBT characters, pendejo*.
*I’m also part Mexican.
The 2016 election proved that political experience is not only unnecessary in a presidential candidate, but undesirable. Corrupt politicians have more political experience than anybody else, so it stood to reason to many voters that a man without experience would be incorruptible. While that debate is still open, 2020 is already shifting the paradigm once more: Not only does a president not need experience, but he does not even need to be mentally sound.
Democrats and Republicans agree on less day by day, but both have thrown their full support behind candidates who exhibit deteriorating mental capacity. One presents his growing insanity to the nation through unhinged tweets on Twitter while the other forgets where is and what he is doing more often than should be comfortable for the potential leader of the free world. Whether or not either or both men end up vegetables by November, Democrats and Republicans agree that their mentally unwell candidate of choice is the best man for the job.
Everybody else who does not live as if everything is a conspiracy orchestrated by Russian bots or Obama may have written off 2020 as a lost cause, but while the next four years will be interesting to say the least, they will bring us one step closer to a new kind of president: a dog president. Dogs are innocent of the political ambitions that often corrupt governments, and they wear their true intentions on their tails. They are also loyal to a fault to their masters. Imagine a dog who saw America as its master. They would truly put America first.
Are there obstacles to a dog president? Some might think the U.S. Constitution disqualifies them, but even if the constitution were still valid, nowhere does it specifically state that a dog cannot be president. The president must have simply been born in America and be at least 35 years of age. It does not specify whether those are human years or dog years.
Voting for a dog may not be the most sensible act, but neither is voting for men whose senses are failing them. That’s why, come 2024, I am endorsing Air Bud as president.
Image created from images by congerdesign and Angelique Johnson from Pixabay
Mass shootings are more common than ever in America, but while most end in tragedy, one in Orange County, California ended more positively and with a light touch of humor. The mass shooting, which resulted in twelve injuries and four deaths in a local high school, was in actuality an act of satire according to its author, Eric Dylan.
“I just pointed out how ridiculous blaming gun violence on guns is,” Dylan told the Bard. “I got one semi-automatic rifle from a gun show and one off the street and made sure anybody I killed would be riddled with bullets from both, so nobody could say whether the bullets that ended up killing those kids were legal or illegal. It was pure satire.”
Critics of Dylan’s one-man act have demanded that he be imprisoned for his satire, but Dylan countered that he has freedom of speech according to the first amendment. “You may not like what I say, but it doesn’t matter. Take away my freedom of speech, and then you’ll have to ban the Onion too. That’s the rules.”
Authorities have not yet arrested Dylan. Instead, they have begun investigations into the role that video games played in the massacre. Dylan, meanwhile, is making the rounds in the media as the latest misunderstood genius driven to violence by an unloving society.