Slashdot Mirror
Germany Places Command & Conquer on Restricted List
heli0 writes "CNet is reporting that Germany has placed EA's newest Command & Conquer game 'Generals' on its restricted list, which means it may not be advertised or displayed on shelves although it may be kept under store counters and sold to adults. The reason according to Elke Monssen-Engberding, director of the Ministry for Family Affairs: 'It portrays war as the only way to resolve conflicts.'"
Americans and their Freedom Fries
Rapid Nirvana
Anyone else wants to bet that sales will soar?
GTA3 was in the news here in Norway a lot when it was released. Different agencies and ministers connected with children all wanted to ban it. Result? Top seller in Norway that year...
A)bort, R)etry or S)elf-destruct?
I'd mod you as insightful, but the troll mods you will no doubt accumulate would outweigh me. Michael Moore may be outspoken, but he makes the same point you do. Games don't kill people, people kill people.
Games don't help unstable people, but they don't twist stable, healthy people looking for a fun evening with friends.
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
A quote I saw the other day
"You know that times are stange when the best rapper in the world is white, the best golfer in the world is black, the Americas cup is held by landlocked Sweden, the French are accusing the Americans of arrogance and Germany is steadfstly refusing to go to war."
I agree with this decision. The reporting of this war has verged on pornography, with too many reporters getting excited about bombs and tanks and too little attention being paid to the human cost. They are right not to ban it, but right not to promote the joy of conflict at this time either.
Too bad America haven't experienced a single war on its territory for past >100 years, maybe they'd learn something from that
This is no BAN. They have just decided that it shouldn't be sold to people under 18.
Considering how many people lament this rather likely decision lets me wonder about the age of the general public in this forum.
J
Exactly. Many games are on the list which, I don't know why slashdot posted the news on C&C Generals, as many other ga[Ü/ëäí*qøIlist too.
Most ego shooters are on that list, especially those from idsoft (usually takes 2 days after release). Exceptions are Counterstrike and Unreal, which although violent, don't have killing as the only option (I think you can talk to some people in Unreal or something like that).
This list IS stupid, as every kiddy copies the game from friends, or downloads it from the net.
> Did or did not Bush give inspectors a chance?
A chance to do what? They were conducting their inspections, and hoping to be done in a few months.
So far, they had not found condemning evidence.
> Did or did not Bush give the United Nations a chance?
A chance to do what? A chance to say "yes Mr. Bush, please go and drop those bombs and stuff on evil Iraqi children, don't mind there is no reason at all since you cannot prove anything about the mysterious invisible weapons of mass destruction"? Yes, the UN had that chance.
A chance to peacefully settle the conflict between the US and Iraq, by letting the inspections come to an end, either by finding condemning evidence, or finding nothing at all (which I personally consider much more likely) - NO.
> Did or did not Bush give Saddam Hussein a chance?
A chance to do what? To break his own vows, step down and yield the country to the arbitrary demands of the US? With regard to UN, he was complying admirably well, destroying missiles etc. Even if they exceeded limitations in theory, w/o an explosive warhead, etc, by an unproven value, while aggressive forces were accumulating around Iraq's borders. In the face of a looming war, Iraq disarmed against all military reasoning, trying to avoid war... but alas, the war had to be. One last unfulfillable ultimatum (Saddam Hussein had _vowed_ not to leave the country). BOOM.
Drop bombs. Kill civilians. All hail America.
If losing a war is what it takes to become wise about the horrors of war and the available pacifistic alternatives, I hope that the US/UK alliance loses (or at least not wins) this war.
;-)
But on the other hand, I don't want Saddam to win either. This war just isn't right and any choice is probably a bad one. And staying neutral is probably a bad choice as well...
I hate this world, time to move on to.... Betelgeuse
Though I can't put into words why, at least, not right off the bat... something about how the constant playing of war games could eventually become a replacement behavior for learning how to have real conflict with people. Or, as one therapist friend of mine put it, it could prevent people from owning their violence.
Like with pornography: someone who looks at that stuff too much and from too young an age may never learn what real love and intimacy feel like. It's a real problem.
Perhaps that isn't the German gov't's perspective, but it feels like a good decision to me, for the above reasons. Games like that just insulate the players from the realities of war. Sure, it's just a game, I know, but can anyone give me a reason why I need yet another false portrayal of war these days (in addition to those of most American media outlets)?
Of course, they could just be placing controls on software made by an American company, but I don't know if the publisher is American. As someone else said, I think it will just draw attention to it and raise sales. Too bad.
"The cup... the drop... it's a YES!"
I'm quite surprised at the reaction of whiny liberal lefties that this Iraqi invasion is so bad.
We did EXACTLY THE SAME THING in the late 90's with Kosovo, and no-one was whining then! We were stopping Muslims from being killed! The UN did not approve of the NATO invasion then either! How many people whined about Serbian children getting bombed?
But now that the USA is threatened, rather than some cute ethnic minority, oh no we musn't defend ourselves.
mogorific carpentry experiments
Well said. *Applause* Finally an intelectual who knows the facts, can discren the truth from the rumors, and is intelligent enough to convey himself with tact.
1. The "diplomat" is a neutral piece. To underscore this fact, it is not colored white or black, but rather blue, white, red.
2. The "diplomat" is never placed on the board. It cannot move and can have no ultimate effect on the outcome of the game.
3. The "diplomat" acts at the beginning of white's turn. The effect of the diplomat is to prevent white from moving any pieces.
4. Each time the "diplomat" acts, black gains an additional pawn, which may be placed on the board at the player's discretion.
5. Each time black receives a new pawn this way, the "diplomat" receives several million dollars from black, which it can stash in secret accounts to use to conduct it's "diplomacy" in other parts of the world. The "diplomat" may buy and keep other pieces of its own, which it may insert into other games without asking anyone's permission.
This sequence continues until white completely ignores the "diplomat" and begins moving pieces over the diplomats protestations.
How many times do we have to hear self-righteous Americans complaining about lack of free speech in other countries? Interestingly a recent survey on freedom of the press (demonstrated by the breadth of viewpoints espoused in articles) showed the US 14th worldwide, below Germany, France, the UK and the leaders (suprise, suprise) Holland.
"Hate" speech is the same kind of thing that any civilised country cracks down on - i.e. racism, sexism, anti-semitism, attacks on gay people etc.
Currently out of the Western liberal democracies the one that seems to be cracking down the most on alternative viewpoints is the US, examples include the Patriot act, that bloke that got arrested in a mall for wearing an anti-war T-shirt, etc.
And, as Robin Cook pointed out while resigning from the British government over the matter...
Full Text
Many people's problem with the war is simply that: Iraq breaches resolutions for 12 years, Israel for 30+; Iraq has oil, Israel doesn't; Iraq gets invaded, Israel doesn't. I'm not advocating attacking Israel or supporting Saddam. I'm simply pointing out the double standards and how they lead to assumptions that many in the US feel are unfair.
The justification for war on the back of defending a UN resolution, on the back of the weak UN, while the US has been one of the main forces stopping other resolutions from being enforced, is somewhat laughable.
Were I more petit, I'd add "In that, you, sir, are ill-informed."
1: They only supported us after we won the battle of Lake Champlaign (sp) and it became obvious that the Britsh position was becoming untenable. In the aftermath of the revolution, we actually found ourselves gravitating more towards the British then the French.
2: This has less to do with what is the right or wrong course of action when dealing with Iraq then it has to do French commercial interests and French geo-political aspirations. What France is trying to do is set itself as a new global power, hence their neo-colonialist activities in Africa. If that is their goal then that's fine, a little competition between countires can be a good thing. However, I do have a couple of issues. First, I'm not sure France is prepared for the burden global leadership, I'm not sure they are ready to pay the bills in terms of money and blood. Second, when France stumbles, we end up leaving a lot of little, white crosses behind.
I did get a good laugh out of the French Foreign Minister going to London recently and saying something along the lines of how they should work together in the spirit of Anglo-French cooperation like when they teamed up to defeat Nazi Germany. I laughed so hard I almost pissed myself.
between the greater and lesser infinities sleep the dreams undreamt