Slashdot Mirror


Russia Recalls Modern Warfare 2

eldavojohn writes "You may recall much ado over some questionable footage in the latest Call of Duty game. Well, that footage has led to a recall of Modern Warfare 2 in Russia. Seems the Russian government was none too happy about the portrayal of Russia in the game and decided to yank it from stores. Infinity Ward has responded with a patch that removes the 'No Russian' mission (the content in question) from the storyline. Before you overly criticize the Russian government, there may be some truth to the claim that the game's story line overly demonizes Russians as just terrorists as the Russian site GotPS3.ru alleges. Is cultural sensitivity becoming an overly played card in the gaming world? Not too long ago, Wolfenstein was recalled in Germany for containing Nazi symbols."

548 comments

  1. Censorship is BAD, m'kay? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    > Before you overly criticize the Russian government, there may be some truth to the claim that the game's story line overly demonizes Russians

    Oh, I guess that makes it okay, then. The Russian government has every right to make up your mind for you.

    1. Re:Censorship is BAD, m'kay? by sopssa · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Just turn it around. Try to even think about the uproar if some game developer released a game where Americans are associated with terrorism and the famous "No Russian" level would take part in lets say New York Airport, instead of Moscow.

    2. Re:Censorship is BAD, m'kay? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought it WAS an american airport, that's why I really didn't care about it.

      When I found out it was a Russian airport I was appauled.

    3. Re:Censorship is BAD, m'kay? by lbalbalba · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Just turn it around.

      Indeed. Just imagine a game company publishing a game were you got to play some mad Islamic-fundamentalist terrorists that were out to rid the world of the 'root-of-all-evil' American civilians, and watch all hell break loose...

    4. Re:Censorship is BAD, m'kay? by Dmala · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Just turn it around. Try to even think about the uproar if some game developer released a game where Americans are associated with terrorism and the famous "No Russian" level would take part in lets say New York Airport, instead of Moscow.

      Uproar *from the people* is fine. The problem here is that, as I understand it, the ban is coming from the Russian government. There is no way the US government could get a game banned over content that portrayed Americans negatively. Any attempt would rightly be overturned as unconstitutional.

    5. Re:Censorship is BAD, m'kay? by plague3106 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I wouldn't care, and would still buy the game.

      Its just a fucking game.

    6. Re:Censorship is BAD, m'kay? by PitaBred · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You can play as a terrorist in the game. How is that different? Sure, you can say it's distasteful and protest it. But stopping sale of it by the government is just a symptom of an authoritarian government.

      Hell, there are even other games specifically developed where you can play as a terrorist the whole time. I see no limitations on them.

    7. Re:Censorship is BAD, m'kay? by thisnamestoolong · · Score: 1

      Yes. There would be a lot of uproar. There would even be a whole lot of retards braying like asses and calling for the game to be banned. In the end, however, the game would remain on store shelves because of the First Amendment. The United States government would not be able to do what the Russian government has done in this situation, and the fact that they are upset by the game is not sufficient reason to ban it. This is an attack on the civil liberties of Russians by their government.

      --
      To the haters: You can't win. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
    8. Re:Censorship is BAD, m'kay? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The difference is that such a game would not and could not be banned by the US government.

    9. Re:Censorship is BAD, m'kay? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That might be more offensive if New York Airport existed.

    10. Re:Censorship is BAD, m'kay? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      They could even add a bit about stealing cars, and call it Grand Theft Auto, or something like that.

    11. Re:Censorship is BAD, m'kay? by Anonymous+Psychopath · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The game wasn't kind to the Russians, the Brits or the Americans. All three were responsible for massive civilian casualties at different points in the game. The only difference is that there's an entire (optional and clearly labeled) level where you are directly responsible and at that time you're part of a Russian terrorist team.

      --

      Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.

    12. Re:Censorship is BAD, m'kay? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      SPOILER WARNING:

      If you played the game then you know it DOES associate the US with terrorism. An undercover CIA agent slaughtering innocent people to maintain his cover is not noble or acceptable to the vast majority of Americans. A General of the US Army going rogue, after creating a situation that led to the war in the first place isn't exactly good either.

      Personally I don't think Russia was vilified by any means. They declared war in response to a percieved terrorist attack on hundreds of unarmed civilians, armed security guards, and the killing of several dozen police officers. The one comment in the game that could be construed to be a vilification is an offhand comment by a character who deals with pretty grim/dark stuff on a daily basis: "And the Russians are killing a hundred Americans for every dead Russian". When you think about it without being a total spas you'll realize this comment is 100% in character with the person who says it. It probably has nothing to do with the opinion of Infinity Ward.

      Personally I'd think that they'd be more flattered than angry about the game but I guess being portrayed as a nation that is capable of quickly cracking an American ACS module to gain safe entry into US airspace and pull off a massive invasion, decimating American leadership and infrastructure (again in a short amount of time) isn't any good anymore. A few generations ago it would of been seen as praise and it would of been "un-American" of Infinity Ward to portray the US in any of the light it does.

      In short: the entire game is grim and intense and not for everybody. Of all the reasons to complain, this is the stupidest. If it was a movie instead of a video game we wouldn't be having this conversation most likely. And I bet it would win a few Oscars...

    13. Re:Censorship is BAD, m'kay? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Soviet Russia....oh god I can't do it.

    14. Re:Censorship is BAD, m'kay? by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      Yes now that Obama is president the US. Government published most of the material that portrays Americans negatively

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    15. Re:Censorship is BAD, m'kay? by Idbar · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "The Russian government has every right to make up your mind for you"
      How come you're label as insightful? Perhaps the Russian government shouldn't have a right, but certainly not a game that wrongly stereotypes countries.

      I am from Colombia, I have to constantly deal with being stereotyped as a drug dealer, and although I learn to take it as a joke, that doesn't make right. I won't miss the chance of correcting people making these kind of mistakes. I'm sorry but I don't like when they depict my country's capital as a tropical forest where everyone wears mustaches (which it's not true), and people believe that's the way it is.

      If a country doesn't take care of the image of its citizens, who would do it?

    16. Re:Censorship is BAD, m'kay? by santiagodraco · · Score: 1

      This is censorship? Riiight.

      Hell, I was embarrased FOR them when I saw that crap. This isn't 1970, the cold war is over. Where have these developers been hiding anyway? People need to start thinking more responsibly when they create media like this.

    17. Re:Censorship is BAD, m'kay? by Chyeld · · Score: 1

      Just a bunch of state governments that would eventually loose on appeal but waste millions of tax payer dollars attempting pass laws to allow them to ban it and make a name for their legislators.

    18. Re:Censorship is BAD, m'kay? by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      Don't forget how Carmageddon 2 demonized British drivers. Or was it zombies?

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    19. Re:Censorship is BAD, m'kay? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      > Yes now that Obama is president the US. Government published most of the material that portrays Americans negatively

      Grown-ups admit their mistakes, apologize, and try to make amends.

      Children try to cover up their mistakes, lie, and deny guilt.

      I'd rather have a grown-up government than a childish one!

    20. Re:Censorship is BAD, m'kay? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it would be in the name of "National Security(tm)". Just like the torture videos that were withheld.

    21. Re:Censorship is BAD, m'kay? by vikstar · · Score: 1

      Uproar *from the people* is fine. The problem here is that, as I understand it, the ban is coming from the Russian government. There is no way the US government could get a game banned over content that portrayed Americans negatively. Any attempt would rightly be overturned as unconstitutional.

      When I read this, I thought, "wha?". With the patriot act and the way the police execute their power, I thought that the constitution was used to wipe the asses of the corporations a long time ago, but when I consulted the good book of a 1000 truths it seems that the US haven't banned any video games at all. Compared to other nations, like Australia, which ban video games as if their going for some kind of Guinness record.

      --
      The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than the question of whether a submarine can swim.
    22. Re:Censorship is BAD, m'kay? by Rewind · · Score: 1

      Americans are associated with it... You play an AMERICAN shooting the innocent Russians. So I guess you aren't against the Americans being bad, but that the violence isn't in American. In that case I guess look at GTA or something. Not sure how you got modded insightful.

      It seems like most of the people posting here haven't played the game. I mean it takes, what... 5 hours to beat? If you haven't beat it yet its because you don't want to play it. Which is fine... but don't come here and talk about it then when you have no idea what you are talking about. I won't spoil it, but suffice to say the Americans aren't exactly heros in the situation...

      --
      ?
    23. Re:Censorship is BAD, m'kay? by tsm_sf · · Score: 1

      Is it ok if I picture you wearing a pancho, sipping coffee?

      Seriously, though. If public sentiment about your nation is so easily swayed then maybe your country has bigger problems than video games. The problem in Russia isn't that people think they're terrorists, it's that the KGB has a chokehold on the country and the average citizen likes it. Banning a video game isn't going to un-assasinate any journalists, is it Mr. Colombian?

      --
      Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.
    24. Re:Censorship is BAD, m'kay? by Dmala · · Score: 1

      When I read this, I thought, "wha?". With the patriot act and the way the police execute their power, I thought that the constitution was used to wipe the asses of the corporations a long time ago, but when I consulted the good book of a 1000 truths it seems that the US haven't banned any video games at all. Compared to other nations, like Australia, which ban video games as if their going for some kind of Guinness record.

      It's kind of amazing, I know. The Bill of Rights has proven incredibly resilient so far, having resisted most attempts to convert it into toilet paper.

    25. Re:Censorship is BAD, m'kay? by MarMic · · Score: 0

      You're quite right. Just think of all the movies, television series, novels, and video games that routinely portray American characters as terrorists, psychopaths, serial killers, etc. Are any of these being banned by the Gov? No!

      On the other hand, do you really think one could sell a game in the States produced, let's say, by a Middle-Eastern based game developer and depicting the States as the aggressors in the Irak or the Afghanistan wars and the local people as god-fearing innocent victims? You could have a no GI level where you play the local tribesmen whose mission is to improvise an explosive device to kill the invading US forces? You think your freedom of expression is that strongly protected? That the Senate and Congress and god only knows how many interest group would be in an uproar over that???

      Walk a mile in the other guy's shoes.

      On the other hand, the Russians are probably just over-reacting.

    26. Re:Censorship is BAD, m'kay? by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      The US government, if it were interested in getting in an uproar would about MW2. The mission in question, No Russian, has a soldier who was brought into a CIA operation to infiltrate this Russian terror organization, so this CIA operative is taking part in the killing of civilians. OK, I guess you can avoid shooting civilians and hope the AI characters you are with take out the airport security and FSB swat troopers.

      But still, it has a CIA operative working with Russian terrorists killing civilians.

    27. Re:Censorship is BAD, m'kay? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And you don't think uproar *from politicians* in the US would lead to the ESRB reclassifying it as AO? Effectively banning it from sale, at least for the two most popular platforms.

      Which is pretty much exactly what happened with San Andreas.

    28. Re:Censorship is BAD, m'kay? by cromar · · Score: 1

      Sure stereotypes can be bad. The issue here, though, is whether the propogation of such stereotypes is more important than the protection of a person's civil right to free speech and expression in other media. Certainly if the citizens of Colombia wish their government to protect their image, that is not a bad thing, but one must weigh the consequences of any step toward that goal, just as with anything else. I doubt you would think it would be acceptable to kill people who tarnish the image of Colombia through words, or to imprison them... what I am saying is that while protecting a nation's and its peoples' image is a worthy goal, there are many more important considerations that it must take back-burner to (in this case the civil rights of the nations citizens).

    29. Re:Censorship is BAD, m'kay? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I, as an american, would have no trouble with this. Welcome to freedom, gentlemen.

    30. Re:Censorship is BAD, m'kay? by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      I doubt you would think it would be acceptable to kill people who tarnish the image of Colombia through words, or to imprison them...

      I dunno, he did say he was a drug dealer, and you know what they are like ....

    31. Re:Censorship is BAD, m'kay? by kalirion · · Score: 1

      While the U.S. may not ban specific games, various obscenity/cp laws have effectively banned large swaths of hentai ;)

    32. Re:Censorship is BAD, m'kay? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      The other difference is that Russia is the only party that is responsible for massive casualties - as an instigator of a war of aggression against the U.S. - as a state. For both Americans and Brits, it's individual people within the military structure of both countries acting in their self-interests, not the USA or UK as a state.

    33. Re:Censorship is BAD, m'kay? by fremean · · Score: 1

      I've been somewhat tempted by the idea of making and releasing a $20 game that is as gory and politically incorrect as possible - see it get banned in Australia (Which a) won't be hard, b) would be interesting because that's where I am), Russia, Germany...

      Encourage piracy and importation of the game in those countries, and keep anonymous statistics of the number of users playing the game in which country - just to demonstrate that bans are ineffective and a waste of time.

    34. Re:Censorship is BAD, m'kay? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you for providing yourself as a negative American stereotype.

    35. Re:Censorship is BAD, m'kay? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, like, bizzaro-Halo, then?

    36. Re:Censorship is BAD, m'kay? by e2d2 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You just pointed out the root problem: the world needs a big old dose of buck the fuck up. People will stereotype you, pigeon hole you, label you, etc. Who cares? Is it really reason enough to silence those people? Hardly.

      Why is there so much outrage these days? Every source of debate seems to be summed up as "Your tone, it's all wrong!" Lighten up, sheesh. Legit problems should be the focus, not things related to personal egos.

    37. Re:Censorship is BAD, m'kay? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your post makes a good point, but just wanted to point out something about video games being 'banned' in Australia.

      Firstly, there's not that many games that aren't available in Australia. Maybe one or two per year, max. And most of those get resubmitted for classification with some minor edits, and then are approved.

      Secondly they aren't actually "banned". It's merely that there is no classification/rating for games above MA15+, and retailers arent legally allowed to sell stuff that hasn't been rated. For movies, we have the standard G, PG, M15, MA15, R18 and X classifications. But for games, MA15 is the highest rating the classification board is able to give. Anything that would attract an R rating therefore simply gets 'refused classification' by the OFLC ... it's not that they want to 'ban' it, but their hands are tied by the lack of an R18 option.

      I agree that the net effect of this IS essentially the same as if they had been banned. But there is a considerable difference in mindset, between an active decision by a government to "ban this because I don't like it", and a mere legislative/regulatory oversight (not having R rating for games). The effect is the same but it is more government incompetence, than it is them trying to be all big brother and actually ban things. It's still ridiculous and I'm not trying to excuse the government in this regard, but saying that they are 'banning' things like this makes them sound more evil than they are. I have every confidence that eventually, they will overhaul the system to allow a R18 rating for games (especially given the average gamer is now aged around 30!). Could take a while tho...

      Also this 'ban' only relates to retail sales in Australia, not posession of the item itself. You're completely free to buy them overseas, or order them from a foreign website. I have the US version of Fallout 3 for example (just happened to be in the US when it was released), rather than the slightly-less-violent Australian version of Fallout 3. I brought it straight through customs - they don't care.

    38. Re:Censorship is BAD, m'kay? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You ARE an american in the "No Russian" level.

      And there is PLENTY of american terrorist activity in the game.

    39. Re:Censorship is BAD, m'kay? by Xest · · Score: 1

      Wait, let me get this right, this would be the same Russian government that murdered Alexander Litvinenko who had been granted asylum in a foreign country with radiation poisoning- a rather horrible way to go? Or how about annexing foreign territory in Georgia by carrying out ethnic cleansing and issuing Russian passports to the remaining people there? What about beating and arrest of people who complain about election fraud? or similar treatment of opposition supporters? How about the tens, perhaps now even hundreds of journalists and activists murdered on their soil who dare say a bad word about the government?

      Bwahahahaha, seriously, wait, let me stop laughing a second... the Russian government is worried about looking demonized?

      They should've thought about that before committing a horrific assassination on foreign soil which frankly, is as much a terrorist act as any.

      Maybe their government should.. you know, stop acting like international terrorists, before worrying that a game makes them look that way.

    40. Re:Censorship is BAD, m'kay? by Xest · · Score: 1

      What, you mean like, say, in the later levels of the very same game where you shoot the shit out of the American military because a US general was behind it all?

    41. Re:Censorship is BAD, m'kay? by Xest · · Score: 1

      Mate, I'm British and have a 45 minute drive to work each day. Trust me, that game didn't demonize British drivers- most of them really are that bad. You've got to fight for your life on our roads just to get to work, going home is even worse!

    42. Re:Censorship is BAD, m'kay? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no way the US government could get a game banned over content that portrayed Americans negatively. Any attempt would rightly be overturned as unconstitutional.

      You must be either very young, very stupid, very naive, or all of it...

    43. Re:Censorship is BAD, m'kay? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah, it's not that they cut the throat to the uncensored version of manhunt 2.

    44. Re:Censorship is BAD, m'kay? by Cytotoxic · · Score: 1
      Sorry you have to deal with the negative stereotypes. There's also positive Colombian stereotypes too - being from south Florida I can tell you that the girls from Columbia are universally HOT! Ok, maybe only the ones that come to the US are that hot, but the one's I've met on South Beach have been stunning. And they tend to run in packs of 4-6 supermodel-hot ladies all from Columbia. It's like a lazy susan of hotness! So there's your positive stereotype :)

      Actually, one of my neighbors is from Columbia. Her father is a big-time judge in Colombia. Nice guy too. He got his job when his predecessor was assassinated, presumably by drug dealers. So I guess there could be a reason for stereotypes, even if they aren't universally applicable.

    45. Re:Censorship is BAD, m'kay? by The-Bus · · Score: 1

      I'm Colombian too and am happy to see the name of my country spelled correctly. Too often it's spelled Columbia.

      --

      Small potatoes make the steak look bigger.

  2. Sad by MightyMartian · · Score: 1, Insightful

    It's sad and pathetic how some countries have such thin skins. It must be so awful to be a major nuclear power and yet be so terrified of any kind of real or imagined insult.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    1. Re:Sad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      If anybody created a video game depicting Americans the same way many video games depict Russians/Arabs/enemy ethnicity of the day, the game would be branded a "terrorist training tool" and its creators would be put on a "terrorist watch list" and not allowed to live normal lives as free human beings (assuming they were in US or its puppet states like UK).

    2. Re:Sad by TheKidWho · · Score: 0, Troll

      Thanks for the warning AC, putting on my tin foil hat now.

    3. Re:Sad by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You'd get bitchy people, but an attempt to ban it would probably lead to the ACLU taking whatever level of government that tried it to court..

      There is a difference between disliking something and having a system that actually allows you to outright ban it.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    4. Re:Sad by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      I don't suppose you have any evidence that this would happen. I do love how people basically invent scenarios to justify some countries detesting of liberty. Actually I don't, because it shows your dishonesty.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    5. Re:Sad by flabordec · · Score: 0

      It is sad and pathetic that the United States popular culture portrays any foreign culture as a vulgar caricature, but americans feel outrage when a character from 1960's mexican comics does the exact same thing.

      --
      "I see undead people" Warcraft III - Necromancer
    6. Re:Sad by Mystra_x64 · · Score: 1

      'Probably' is such nice word.

      --
      Quick way to get 30% Funny 70% Troll: defend Opera browser on /.
    7. Re:Sad by Cornelius+the+Great · · Score: 1

      Videogames are a form of free speech (according to recent court case precedents). Banning them would be a violation of the 1st amendment.

      States have tried, and lost.

      --
      Sigs are for losers
    8. Re:Sad by Mystra_x64 · · Score: 0

      Yeah? How about 9/11 game where *you* are doing it? I'd like to see how that'll fly.

      --
      Quick way to get 30% Funny 70% Troll: defend Opera browser on /.
    9. Re:Sad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just so you know, the A in ACLU stand for American, and this story is about Russia. I'm just saying...

    10. Re:Sad by danlip · · Score: 1

      'Probably' is such nice word.

      I think the ACLU would definitely take on such a case. They would probably win. Since we haven't seen that exact case we can't say for sure but the US Supreme Court has a pretty good record of shooting down that type of censorship.

    11. Re:Sad by natehoy · · Score: 5, Funny

      "Rated 'T' for Terrorist"

      --
      "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
    12. Re:Sad by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      It probably wouldn't break any sales records but the Government wouldn't prohibit you from publishing it. Why can't you wrap your head around that difference? To bastardize a line from a previous American President, it's the censorship, stupid.....

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    13. Re:Sad by vishbar · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You'd get more than bitchy people. You'd have the Fox News generation in arms, Glenn Beck screaming on the television, an A/O rating from the ESA, and, even if it managed to eek out an M rating, you'd have a de facto ban from retailers afraid of enraging a bunch of teabaggers.

      In reality, it'd be the same effect. I highly doubt that the game would see the light of day. Sure, you could pirate it or order it from specialty online stores, but that's probably the same thing happening in Russia. It's better than an "official" government ban, but censorship by the masses is very alive and very well here in these United States.

      --
      Ride the skies
    14. Re:Sad by thisnamestoolong · · Score: 1

      That would have to be allowed. People would be incredibly upset about it, but at the end of the day the government would not have the ability to prevent it from being made. The thing that would prevent such a game from being published would be the forces of the free market -- no game company would want to be associated with such a vile product and would therefore not want to distribute it. If the game is establish distribution channels it will quickly fade into obscurity. This is how a free society controls undesirable speech -- we refuse to pay attention to it and don't give such people a soap box to stand on. Having the government step in and attempt to suppress it is misguided at best, tyrannical at worst.

      --
      To the haters: You can't win. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
    15. Re:Sad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      deionise them

      With an orbital ion cannon, preferably.

    16. Re:Sad by Mystra_x64 · · Score: 1

      Probably. Probably I can make $millions. Or probably can't. You'll never know until you try.

      --
      Quick way to get 30% Funny 70% Troll: defend Opera browser on /.
    17. Re:Sad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First, the American military uses 3d "game" software for tactical training. Ergo, a good game is a training tool.

      Second, real life terrorist organizations have used counter-strike as a training tool. http://lawmeme.research.yale.edu/modules.php?name=News&file=print&sid=985

    18. Re:Sad by RiotingPacifist · · Score: 1

      M really can't explamn that one the I/M keys are io where iear each-other!

      --
      IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
    19. Re:Sad by jpcarter · · Score: 1

      Glenn Beck crying on the television

      There. Fixed that for you.

    20. Re:Sad by RiotingPacifist · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Trying and stop people seeing a statement saying that image matters, because it's "offensive"* to Americans, guess your irony meter is off this year slashdot.

      *As i can't trust mods to not be retards I'll point out the "offensive" statement was meant to be an example of a perceived image.

      --
      IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
    21. Re:Sad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Given that this in on the tail end of a senior police officer going all youtube about corruption... i'd say its a politically charged subject.

    22. Re:Sad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER

      To be fair, the mission is literally walking through a mall and slaughtering hundreds of innocent civilians.

      Draw your own conclusions, but make sure you know that this is what they're complaining about.

    23. Re:Sad by pwfffff · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How about a game where you assassinate the president?

      http://www.gamespot.com/pc/action/jfkreloaded/index.html

      Not as recent, but there it is.

    24. Re:Sad by pwfffff · · Score: 1

      "But hey your just a stupid fat american so you wouldn't understand that."

      So I take it your home country is about to invade America then? If your invasions are as quality as your posts I'm not too worried...

    25. Re:Sad by pdabbadabba · · Score: 1

      It must be so awful to be a major nuclear power and yet be so terrified of any kind of real or imagined insult.

      It's actually pretty awful for the rest of us too when you think about it...

    26. Re:Sad by MightyMartian · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It probably would fail because folks wouldn't buy it. That's quite different from the government forcing it to be pulled from shelves. One is simply market forces, the other is, well, for lack of a better word, censorship.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    27. Re:Sad by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      It isn't a "probably". It's a 1st Amendment issue. Yes, the government could ban the game, but then you'd probably have a nice little run to Federal court where the law would be turfed. There have been numerous attempts to suppress video games, and other entertainments, and other than on grounds of obscenity (which SCOTUS has done some work to make sure you can't just lump anything you don't like under), the Feds and the States are plumb out of luck. They will, of course, keep trying to please their Jack Thompson-esque core constituencies, but they know perfectly well that the laws they pass will got tossed out. They'll blame activist judges, their supporters will spit on pictures of SCOTUS, and their own political game will go on.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    28. Re:Sad by Zordak · · Score: 3, Insightful

      but censorship by the masses is very alive and very well here in these United States.

      Please explain to me how "censorship by the masses" is different from plain old "voting with your wallet." For my part, I see a huge, fundamental difference between the people saying, "No, we're not interested," and the government saying, "No, you will not be interested."

      --

      Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
    29. Re:Sad by DarkTempes · · Score: 1

      I doubt anyone in the US government would need to do anything anyway. You already have commercial entities (aka the ESRB) which, while not all that affective at rating things, can still lead to commercial suicide of a product if you get something not rated at all or rated say, adults only. From my understanding many stores won't carry video games that are rated adults only (and nintendo/sony/microsoft don't allow AO games on their consoles or at least limit it).

      No 'government' level banning needed, though I suppose one could argue that for something as big as a call of duty title there is a lot of pressure on the ESRB to give it a kind rating.

    30. Re:Sad by mea37 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "You'd get more than bitchy people."

      Oh, really?

      "You'd have the Fox News generation in arms,"

      That would be "bitchy people".

      "Glenn Beck screaming on the television"

      That would be "a bitchy person"; subset of "bitchy people"

      "an A/O rating from the ESA,"

      The rating system being nothing more than a way for one group to tell others what they think of the game, that would be - you guessed it - bitchy people.

      "you'd have a de facto ban from retailers afraid of enraging a bunch of teabaggers."

      Individual business would make a business decision about what products they want to carry? Oh, the humanity! Whatever; still just people being bitchy.

      "In reality, it'd be the same effect"

      Well, not really. You don't need retailers to distribute electronic media, and in fact many things are widely available - at the click of a mouse even - in spite of the fact that no mainstream retailer would even consider stocking them.

      "order it from specialty online stores, but that's probably the same thing happening in Russia."

      You think there are online sellers defying a government ban? I doubt it, but let's assume so. That means everyone playing the game in Russia would be a criminal, as is everyone who provided them a copy to play. You really don't see how that's different from having to buy the game from an online store (but then being able to buy and play it without being a criminal)?

      Freedom doesn't mean that there's always someone making it convenient for you to get what you want. It means that if/when you do get what you want, provided it's within the bounds of your freedoms, the government doesn't interfere.

    31. Re:Sad by ravenshrike · · Score: 1

      The REVEREND Jesse Jackson feels outrage at, ohhhhh, anything done by non-blacks concerning blacks in any way shape or form of his choosing that he thinks will gain him power and/or money.

    32. Re:Sad by frosty_tsm · · Score: 1

      but censorship by the masses is very alive and very well here in these United States.

      Please explain to me how "censorship by the masses" is different from plain old "voting with your wallet." For my part, I see a huge, fundamental difference between the people saying, "No, we're not interested," and the government saying, "No, you will not be interested."

      Voting with your wallet only involves not buying said product. Censorship by the masses includes protests, book burnings (if applicable), and boycotting stores (which is a little more than voting w/ wallet).

      Probably the best example in recent time was some groups burning Harry Potter books because they teach sorcery.

    33. Re:Sad by Morty · · Score: 1

      Censorship is when the potential consumers of an artwork are denied access to experience that artwork by some authoritarian figure. When the potential consumers choose not to experience the artwork, that isn't censorship, that's the free market.

      In different terms, freedom of speech is about the speaker's right to talk, not about the speaker's right to compel someone else to listen.

      So if a game company releases a game that insults America and the American government bans it, that is censorship. If the government does not ban it but citizens choose not to buy it, that is not censorship.

    34. Re:Sad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Voting with your wallet only involves not buying said product. Censorship by the masses includes protests, book burnings (if applicable), and boycotting stores (which is a little more than voting w/ wallet).

      Simply put, censorship is one person or group's attempt to control what someone else gets to see, hear, read, etc.

      Whether this is done through government, economic pressure, or naked force is irrelevant - it is still censorship.

    35. Re:Sad by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      1. Comparing comics from the 40's to ones from the 60's is dishonest.
      2. It's silly to get offended by stereotypes created that long ago.
      3. The controversy you link to isn't regarding the 1960's comics, but rather the celebration of those comics in 2005. You'd get the same response if the US suddenly started printing stamps featuring Popeye knocking out some Japs.

      In closing, you sir are either intentionally dishonest or a complete twit. If you would let me know which of those categories you fall into, I would appreciate it. Thank you.

    36. Re:Sad by flabordec · · Score: 0

      1. Ok, lets compare to cartoons from the 60's
      2. I know, that's what I said
      3. Yeah, because modern TV does not have stupid stereotypes...

      In closing, you sir, are either entirely delusional or a complete twit. If you would let me know which of those categories you fall into, I would appreciate it. Thank you.

      --
      "I see undead people" Warcraft III - Necromancer
    37. Re:Sad by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      Ok, so that would be the latter one, then?

    38. Re:Sad by Zordak · · Score: 1

      So would we be better off with a society where individuals are not free to protest, burn books, and boycott stores as they see fit? Or would you say that individuals may do those things, but proscribe them from peaceably assembling as groups to do them? Should retailers be forced to sell items that carry viewpoints they don't like, or that they think their customers won't like, in the interest of "fairness"? Should Christian bookstores be forced to carry Nietzsche and atheist bookstores be forced to carry the Bible? I'd rather see a person burn a copy of a book that is very dear to me than live in a society where the government forces me to keep books I don't want. I would rather have the society where that guy is free to burn my book to express his opinion, and I am free to boycott his business to express mine. I'd rather live in a society where people are free to passionately disagree with each other than one where the Government hands down a well-regulated, "balanced" philosophy and requires the citizens to subscribe to it in perfect agreement. In short, I don't see any difference between a government that burns the books and a government that forces you to keep the books you'd rather burn.

      When people burned Harry Potter books, did it revoke your access to them? Did it deprive Rowling or the publisher of money? How do you propose a free society be built without giving people the right to burn Harry Potter books when they feel like it?

      --

      Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
    39. Re:Sad by L0rdJedi · · Score: 1

      I seriously doubt you'd have Beck screaming at the television about a game unless the government did in fact ban it. He may not like the game (and he'd probably say as much), but he most certainly wouldn't want it banned by the government. He'd tell you to simply "vote with your dollars".

      In fact, Beck is the one show that more than likely wouldn't give it a lot, if any, air time. Remember Mass Effect? That got all shit on by a morning Fox show and so called "child advocate". The problem was that neither of them had played the game and admitted just that when asked by the game's creator. The host had to come up with something quickly the moment the guest said she hadn't played the game (the entire segment was based on what this so called "child advocate" had said was in the game). Hannity, O'Reilly, and Fox and Friends in the morning might jump on it, but Beck would not even bother.

  3. Swastika's are a legal issue. by crowne · · Score: 5, Informative

    Its actually illegal to display swatika's in public in Germany and Austria.

    --
    RTFM is not a radio station.
    1. Re:Swastika's are a legal issue. by snowraver1 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I wasn't aware that images on your TV inside your private residence was considered 'public' in Germany.

      --
      Copyright 2010. All rights reserved. This comment may not be copied in any way including, but not limited to caching.
    2. Re:Swastika's are a legal issue. by eldavojohn · · Score: 2, Informative

      Its actually illegal to display swatika's in public in Germany and Austria.

      So if I recall the images from the Germany story that I linked to in the summary, it wasn't even swastikas. It was SS symbols on a dead soldier's lapel that they missed as they retextured much of the game. As I commented on that last story:

      German law Strafgesetzbuch Section 86:

      Dissemination of Means of Propaganda of Unconstitutional Organizations (1) Whoever domestically disseminates or produces, stocks, imports or exports or makes publicly accessible through data storage media for dissemination domestically or abroad, means of propaganda: 1. of a party which has been declared to be unconstitutional by the Federal Constitutional Court or a party or organization, as to which it has been determined, no longer subject to appeal, that it is a substitute organization of such a party; [...] 4. means of propaganda, the contents of which are intended to further the aims of a former National Socialist organization, shall be punished with imprisonment for not more than three years or a fine. [...] (3) Subsection (1) shall not be applicable if the means of propaganda or the act serves to further civil enlightenment, to avert unconstitutional aims, to promote art or science, research or teaching, reporting about current historical events or similar purposes. [...] Section 86a StGB Use of Symbols of Unconstitutional Organizations (1) Whoever: 1. domestically distributes or publicly uses, in a meeting or in writings (Â 11 subsection (3)) disseminated by him, symbols of one of the parties or organizations indicated in Section 86 subsection (1), nos. 1, 2 and 4; or 2. produces, stocks, imports or exports objects which depict or contain such symbols for distribution or use domestically or abroad, in the manner indicated in number 1, shall be punished with imprisonment for not more than three years or a fine. (2) Symbols, within the meaning of subsection (1), shall be, in particular, flags, insignia, uniforms, slogans and forms of greeting. Symbols which are so similar as to be mistaken for those named in sentence 1 shall be deemed to be equivalent thereto.

      That part about "flags, insignia, uniforms, slogans and forms of greeting" is what got them--not a big fat swastika but some more obscure symbols. It really makes you wonder how broad they purposefully wrote this law so that they can use their own discretion to censor what they see fit. I don't agree with it but they're a sovereign nation that makes its own laws. I know I wouldn't stand for it. I recognize the horrors of my own country and we will forever keep things like slavery and repression in general in front and center of our attention -- a mandatory history lesson -- so that we never repeat those mistakes.

      --
      My work here is dung.
    3. Re:Swastika's are a legal issue. by MozeeToby · · Score: 1

      But should they be? What if the Nazi party had used the leter 'N' as it's symbol, should the letter be banned in Germany? Don't get me wrong, I understand the reasons for the ban, I just don't think it is wise to say "this, and only this, is illegal". A) I gaurantee there are still Nazi's and Neo-Nazis in Germany. B) The swastika has symbolic meaning to the Hindu religion. In other words, you are banning both less than, and more than you wanted to when you created the ban.

    4. Re:Swastika's are a legal issue. by Yacoby · · Score: 1
      That is not why it was recalled. The law in question outlaws "use of symbols of unconstitutional organisations" and while it does ban the swastika in public, it also states:

      Whoever domestically disseminates or produces, stocks, imports or exports or makes publicly accessible through data storage media for dissemination domestically or abroad, means of propaganda [...] shall be punished with imprisonment for not more than three years or a fine. [...]

    5. Re:Swastika's are a legal issue. by sopssa · · Score: 1

      They're publicly broadcasted, if you didn't know.

    6. Re:Swastika's are a legal issue. by LordKazan · · Score: 1

      A) yes there are, mostly in the former east germany. The government even officially has a stance of tolerating them displaying nazi symbols so long as they remain peaceful
      B) the Nazi Swastika and the Hindu Swastika are not the same. The Nazi one is basically the Hindu one backwards

      --
      If you cannot keep politics out of your moderation remove yourself from the Mod Lottery.. NOW!
    7. Re:Swastika's are a legal issue. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Swastikas are only prohibited as symbols of the Nazi regime, and only when used as such in a non-documentary fashion. If one agrees that using symbols of unconstitutional organizations should be illegal, then the law as it exists is quite reasonable.

    8. Re:Swastika's are a legal issue. by Sir+Codelot · · Score: 2, Informative

      Its actually illegal to display swatika's in public in Germany and Austria.

      Here in India, where the Swastika originated, it denotes good luck.
      Heh, I've always wondered what would happen if my ex-colleague visited Germany. Swastika is her name.

      --
      I have a truly marvelous proof of the Riemann hypothesis which this sig is too short to contain...
    9. Re:Swastika's are a legal issue. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its actually illegal to display swatika's in public in Germany and Austria.

      That's put a bit too simple.

      Swastikas (as in the Nazi flag) are illegal in Germany (as being a "propaganda item for an anti-constitutional organization"), but there are quite some exceptions.
      Basically, the use is OK if it serves the purpose of arts, science, education, research, or reports on current or historic events. So you commonly see it on TV, in the cinema, on the cover of and inside countless books...

      Selling games apparently is not considered to be part of that exception (it is legal to own the Wolfenstein game version which includes swastikas, you are not allowed to sell them, though).

    10. Re:Swastika's are a legal issue. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1) The Nazi swastika is sufficiently different from the religious swastikas to be able to distinguish them
      2) Swastika's for religious use are tolerated

    11. Re:Swastika's are a legal issue. by jiteo · · Score: 2, Funny

      Who is Swatika, and what does she have that's illegal to display in Germany?

    12. Re:Swastika's are a legal issue. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Swatiskas and other Nazi symbols are allowed for enlightenment of history, anti-rascism education and stuff like that. But not for games.

      While that is some kind of censorship regarding symbols you are allowed to bring your mind about how rude the Nazi Germans were to whichever extent. The Wolfenstein game with Nazi stuff replaced by things-alike is perfectly legal.

    13. Re:Swastika's are a legal issue. by thisnamestoolong · · Score: 1

      Yes, this is true. It is also completely retarded. It does nothing but damage the civil liberties of all Germans and Austrians.

      --
      To the haters: You can't win. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
    14. Re:Swastika's are a legal issue. by eltaco · · Score: 1

      Actually some letter-combinations are in fact banned:
      SS (Schutzstaffel), SA (Sturmabteilung), AH (Adolf Hitler), HH, 88 (Heil Hitler), NSDAP and others. Obviously, youre not going to get charged for scribbling them on some paper, but you won't be able to get a personalized number-plate (for instance) with those abbreviations (on that note, the Brits also ban certain number-plates. usually not in connection with the second WW, though.).

      --
      It's not about fate, it's about character.
      there be no shelter here, the frontline is everywhere!
    15. Re:Swastika's are a legal issue. by Yokaze · · Score: 1

      > not a big fat swastika but some more obscure symbols. [...]
      > I know I wouldn't stand for it. I recognize the horrors of my own country and we will forever keep things like slavery and repression in general in front and center of our attention -- a mandatory history lesson -- so that we never repeat those mistakes.

      Actually, it was a Swastika.
      The SS insignia are hardly obscure, especially to Germans, because they learned about those symbols in school in mandatory history lessons, which you so kindly suggested.

      May I point out a certain point of the law, which might have slipped your eye:

      (3) Subsection (1) shall not be applicable if the means of propaganda or the act serves to further civil enlightenment, to avert unconstitutional aims, to promote art or science, research or teaching, reporting about current historical events or similar purposes.

      --
      "Between strong and weak, between rich and poor [...], it is freedom which oppresses and the law which sets free"
    16. Re:Swastika's are a legal issue. by bckrispi · · Score: 1

      But should they be? What if the Nazi party had used the leter 'N' as it's symbol, should the letter be banned in Germany?

      Banned, no. But any use of the letter as a symbol of the Nazi regime would be verboten. A friend in mine had a band in Germany. The font used for the letter "S" in their name was somewhat similar to the "lightning bolt" sigil rune worn by members of the SS. The German police became interested in this and actually had a detective interview the band members. When it was apparent that my friend and his bandmates had absolutely no National-Socialist agenda, the cops left them alone.

      --
      Xenon, where's my money? -Borno
    17. Re:Swastika's are a legal issue. by richlv · · Score: 1

      and in latvian mythology as well - it's called peerkonjkrusts (transliterated, damn slashdot) or thundercross, as one of the main gods was thunder.
      http://latvianhistory.wordpress.com/2009/07/16/the-latvian-mythology/

      unfortunately, it's historical misuse prevents education - for example see item 6 at http://www.skyforger.lv/en/index.php?main_page_id=21&page_type=text

      it also had more complex buildup, as can be seen here : http://www.latvianstuff.com/Pagan_design_elements2.html and here : http://www.abc.lv/cms/lvdizaineri_davanas_6_14_420x340.jpg

      --
      Rich
    18. Re:Swastika's are a legal issue. by frosty_tsm · · Score: 1

      That part about "flags, insignia, uniforms, slogans and forms of greeting" is what got them--not a big fat swastika but some more obscure symbols.

      One reason not to wear a biker shirt or jacket over there. Around where I live (U.S.), it seems that most logos have symbols from WWII Germany. Granted, a yank wearing an iron cross in 1946 said less about his politics and more about who he killed in the war.

    19. Re:Swastika's are a legal issue. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I recognize the horrors of my own country and we will forever keep things like slavery and repression in general in front and center of our attention -- a mandatory history lesson -- so that we never repeat those mistakes.

      Because it's not like we still have people that wave Confederate flags around and bluster about them niggers.

    20. Re:Swastika's are a legal issue. by Le+Tmraire · · Score: 1

      The iron cross/knight's cross is still in use by the Bundeswehr (German army). As an army related symbol, the iron cross is much older than the Nazi era. It was already in use by the Prussians in their struggle with Napoleonic France.

    21. Re:Swastika's are a legal issue. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's not the wierd bit, can someone, anyone please explain why they like dressing up and reenacting a war they LOST?

  4. I just got MW2, and am disappointed. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I'm a casual gamer, and me and two other buddies play for an hour 2-4 nights a week. Its a great way to keep in touch.

    Anyways, here's what I REALLY don't like:
    * auto-aim across a map. Takes all the skill out of a good shot. Zoom. Fire. Zoom. Fire. Zoom. Fire.
    * Works with pistols. At a 1000 yards.
    * Disabling party chat on open-gaming. Now we HAVE to listen to the stupid chatter of the 14 year olds. We're in our 40s. Good god shut it off. Yes, I know I can mute all but friends. And since when can a game disable a console feature? I paid for party chat with my XBL sub!
    * Can't play co-op mission.
    * Can't play spec-ops with more than 2 people. (there's 3 of us, remember?)

    Damn, its SOOO close to being perfect its not even funny. Amazing how a few minor changes make me wish I hadn't bought it. Looks like we'll be getting more play time on WaW. Those last two points SUCK BIG TIME for the 3 of us!

    1. Re:I just got MW2, and am disappointed. by TheKidWho · · Score: 2, Informative

      Solution: Get PCs and play on a LAN...

      Oh wait, no LAN for MW2... only matchmaking.

    2. Re:I just got MW2, and am disappointed. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Haha, epic win.

    3. Re:I just got MW2, and am disappointed. by Nathrael · · Score: 1

      Better solution: torrent a copy for the PC, then use Teknogods MPLoader which enables not only playing on dedicated servers but also LAN games (or so they say - haven't tested it myself yet).

      --
      A good education is a bit like a STD - it makes you unsuitable for a lot of jobs and gives you a desire to spread it.
    4. Re:I just got MW2, and am disappointed. by sopssa · · Score: 1

      There are LAN games in MW2.

      There's no auto-aim on PC, and you can party chat on Ventrilo.

  5. Re:Waaaaahh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What's with the past-tense? Russia has a bad present.

  6. Truth in Gaming? by pete-classic · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Before you overly criticize the Russian government, there may be some truth to the claim that the game's story line overly demonizes Russians as just terrorists as the Russian site GotPS3.ru alleges.

    Assuming that it portrays them in an objectively false way, you still have to demonstrate that censorship is a good idea.

    I propose that it's a lousy idea, that games are art, and that inaccuracy isn't a reason to suppress art.

    Consider the Russian government "overly" criticized by me!

    -Peter

  7. Not much has changed in Russia since Glasnost by al0ha · · Score: 0, Troll

    obviously they still do not have any real concept of freedom of speech.

    --
    Did you ever wake up in the morning, with a Zombie Woof behind your eyes? -- FZ
    1. Re:Not much has changed in Russia since Glasnost by T+Murphy · · Score: 4, Funny

      In Russia you have the freedom to say whatever you want, and the secret police have the freedom to disappear you the next night. It seems Russia has more freedoms than we do here in America.

    2. Re:Not much has changed in Russia since Glasnost by Trent+Hawkins · · Score: 1

      In Russia you have the freedom to say whatever you want, and the secret police have the freedom to disappear you the next night. It seems Russia has more freedoms than we do here in America.

      Murder is in fact, a fairly uncommon event in Russia, but there is a lot of suicides. Walking in the night time alleyways is suicide, calling Putin a bastard is suicide, you can commit suicide very easily if you aren't careful.

      -Paraphrased from Pratchett

  8. Wolfenstein by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Wolfenstein issue seems very unrelated. Germany has had for a long time regulations about displaying anything related to the Nazis, and this even effected the removal of the symbols from earlier games bearing the Wolfenstein name. Bringing it into this argument is just sophisticating the issue that the poster (or the article it read) is trying to raise.

  9. CoD6: Vietnam by number17 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    When are the Vietnam missions coming out where a villiage gate opens and you have to pillage and rape all the civilians? That's right, nobody is stupid enough to do it for the same reason.

    1. Re:CoD6: Vietnam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Were you even alive during Vietnam or do you just regurgitate crap you read online?

    2. Re:CoD6: Vietnam by musikit · · Score: 1

      the name of the product as far as i can tell is Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2

      or in abbreviated form. CoDMW2.

      i hate to be so literal about it but if the company wanted it called "CoD6" they would have named it "CoD6"

    3. Re:CoD6: Vietnam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would play that game. With a boner.

    4. Re:CoD6: Vietnam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The appropriate question is not that some company has/hasn't made such a game but if said game existed, would you be able to play it in the USA?

      The answer would likely be "yes", you could probably still buy said game but it would likely be pulled from many store shelves due to public pressure. Places like Walmart that have pulled music and magazines because of "objectionable" nature.

      * SPOILERS * Of course, the scene in question isn't all about Russia. You're playing an "undercover" American who also willingly slaughters thousands of civilians. Not all of whom where likely Russian. I thought the rest of the game was far more "anti-Russian" than that one scene, I think. Given Russia invades America and proceeds to destroy everything standing in their way. Basically saying, a terrorist act carried out by suspected American terrorists would warrant an entire invasion of one major super power into another.

      Of course, it's really Infinity Ward's way of making you think about 9/11 and the response of America with the Afghanistan and Iraq invasion, from a different view point. It's just Russia got the scapegoat title instead of some made up countries name. And that's primarily trying to connect this game to the first game where some story of the Cold War was involved.

      Of course, the second games story was much weaker but some of the level designs where cooler. It was nice to see what it the developer envisioned of fighting a modern war on American soil.

    5. Re:CoD6: Vietnam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the funny thing is: Americans don't understand why other nationalities don't love them unconditionally.

    6. Re:CoD6: Vietnam by LanMan04 · · Score: 1

      Wrong. It's simply called "Modern Warfare 2".

      --
      With the first link, the chain is forged.
    7. Re:CoD6: Vietnam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about this for a game?

      You are a simple civilian living in peace in Afghanistan (maybe not a perfect life, but it's peace at least, right?) and the evil US invaders come to your town and fight off "terrorist" groups. Your family, friends, and many in the town get killed in the cross fire, which also gets destroyed in battles. You become angered at the US for disrupting the peace, which causes many to die and your town to be destroyed. Your mission becomes revenge on the evil invaders of your home and you try to fight back against the US soldiers in multiple missions. Eventually your mission leads you to the point of being part of a mission to infiltrate the US and destroy a major building with many innocent civilians thinking that it will be seen as something that will continue as long as those soldiers are fighting in your home country.

      I am sure that would be a big hit and nobody here would demand it is removed from all store shelves (if any stores would sell it).

    8. Re:CoD6: Vietnam by ravenshrike · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm confused as to exactly how the Russians invade America. Without, y'know, getting their asses handed to them on the high seas.

    9. Re:CoD6: Vietnam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do your parents know you defend war criminals and mass murderers online?

    10. Re:CoD6: Vietnam by cromar · · Score: 1

      Yes that's funny, but what's really funny is the way that people (e.g. people who self-identify as belonging to a particular geographical region) generalize other people of whom they actually know little about. Yes, the majority of US Citizens are more or less ignorant of world affairs, but then so is much of the rest of the world. Or at least one can say that ignorance is a general symptom of humanity and manifests itself in diverse ways among all of Earth's peoples.

    11. Re:CoD6: Vietnam by jnaujok · · Score: 1

      Spoiler:

      One of the early missions is recovering an advanced satellite encryption system from a Russian base to keep it from being reverse engineered.

      Apparently this mission is too late, as, during the invasion, the Russians use this reverse engineered system to send false images to our satellites, convincing commanders that there's a massive invasion air-fleet approaching the West coast. In the mean time, they also spoof the satellite to hide the real invasion group hitting the east coast (in Virginia). Thus, the first warning is the commanders in Virginia screaming as missiles hit the base and troop transports start dropping Russian paratroopers (and apparently heavy armor) into the residential areas.

      --
      Life, the Universe, and Everything... in my image.
    12. Re:CoD6: Vietnam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong. All you have to do is look at the boxart you fucking retard.

    13. Re:CoD6: Vietnam by PotatoSan · · Score: 1

      Wrong. They put the "Call of Duty" back into the title when they realized that consumers couldn't associate the title without "Call of Duty" in the name.

    14. Re:CoD6: Vietnam by FleaPlus · · Score: 1

      I'm confused as to exactly how the Russians invade America. Without, y'know, getting their asses handed to them on the high seas.

      If you're curious and don't mind spoilers, there's youtube video of the cinematics and gameplay for the "Wolverines" level (a tribute to "Red Dawn," I assume), which covers the first part of the Russian invasion:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iG7vxlbpeVg

      Basically, on an earlier mission you find out that the Russians have captured an American satellite component which allows them to spoof the satellite surveillance system so that it looks like there's a big invasion force coming in from the west, while concealing the actual invasion force coming in to attack the eastern US.

      Speaking of videos, here's video of the "No Russian" level which has been causing all of the controversy. The player takes the role of an undercover operative which is attempting to infiltrate a terrorist group operating inside Russia:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXBDkevx5lM

    15. Re:CoD6: Vietnam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mine says Modern Warfare 2, no "Call of Duty" to be seen.

      Of course, I didn't buy the peasant edition. so your results may vary.

    16. Re:CoD6: Vietnam by nametaken · · Score: 1

      Really? I didn't take that from it at all. I took from it that an American was the real bad guy. Even if that weren't the case, it didn't seem like it would otherwise correlate in any meaningful way. In the game it's Russians killing Russians and framing the Americans... all to start a war between super powers. 9/11 was a group of batshit insane non-Americans killing Americans (and other non-Americans I'm sure) and specifically claiming credit for it. Did they say it was some kind of goofy statement about Afghanistan and Iraq? Because that doesn't seem to make any sense.

    17. Re:CoD6: Vietnam by denmarkw00t · · Score: 1

      I actually like where you're going with this. I mean, could they do it? Would someone from the gov't of either America or Vietnam "stop" it from being released? Would retailers sell it? I hope so, this is America!

      And I do mean that. As ugly as our history - as the world's history - may be, it is OUR history: you, me, people across the globe. We all come from generally violent, carelessness-for-life histories at some point or another, and to not show or discuss the atrocities before us, we're doomed to see them happen again and again.

      This is what gets me about history books - I have friends who are teaching aids in elementary schools, and most of the history lessons are 1) embellished, 2) stretched or 3) down-right false. And then the kids go to middle and high school, where we learn a little about how things were different than what was printed. Then we go to college, where we learn that a lot of terrible things happened we didn't know about. Then we grow up, angry at lies and we DON'T lash out? No, we do. Old wounds don't heal for history by forgetting, but by remembering and learning and moving on with that knowledge, lest we invade some other country, end up with military and civilian casualties, and calmly look the other way as we rewrite history to suit ourselves while we commit horrid atrocities.

    18. Re:CoD6: Vietnam by DriedClexler · · Score: 0, Troll

      WTF? Just because satellite images are spoofed, you can somehow sneak an entire invasion fleet across the Atlantic? Whatever happened to combining multiple sources of data, like, say, journalist reports of a massive Russian fleet, our own patrolling ships, the Coast Guard, etc?

      That's like saying, "I didn't know I was being mugged because Google Friend didn't show anyone on my block."

      --
      Information theory is life. The rest is just the KL divergence.
    19. Re:CoD6: Vietnam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ---WARNING SPOLERS FOLLOW---

      They manage to get some kind of code that disables the American military information network. The only warning the US receives is more or less when the Russians are close to or over the boarder. The fleet is apparently elsewhere engaged and I assume that the part of the navy stationed near main land US is sunk.

    20. Re:CoD6: Vietnam by jnaujok · · Score: 1

      Hey, I didn't say it made sense, although our reliance on satellite observation is far too high, I'm just saying that's the excuse.

      --
      Life, the Universe, and Everything... in my image.
    21. Re:CoD6: Vietnam by The-Bus · · Score: 1

      Everyone is airdropped. They hack the US's defense systems so we can't tell they're coming until it's too late.

      --

      Small potatoes make the steak look bigger.

  10. Not so fast.. by tjstork · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Oh boo hoo. Russia has a bad history, it should expect criticism

    While we Americans were sitting on our rears eating bon-bons, more Russians died than in all of America's wars combined fighting Adolph Hitler. Love them or hate them, forced by circumstances or not, the Russians did more to save Western Europe from Nazism than anyone else.

    --
    This is my sig.
    1. Re:Not so fast.. by ComputerGeek01 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Oh boo hoo. Russia has a bad history, it should expect criticism

      While we Americans were sitting on our rears eating bon-bons, more Russians died than in all of America's wars combined fighting Adolph Hitler. Love them or hate them, forced by circumstances or not, the Russians did more to save Western Europe from Nazism than anyone else.

      "No poor bastard ever won a war by dying for his country" - General George S. Patton

      My friend General Patton and I disagree with you, they sacrificed more that is for certain but Sacrifice != Winning

    2. Re:Not so fast.. by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Of course, the Russians have to take a lot of responsibility for that, because right up until the morning of the Nazi invasion they were shipping steel to Nazi Germany. In fact, Operation Barbarossa was specifically delayed until after those final steel shipments. It's one of the great ironies of the War that a lot of equipment thrown into the invasion of Russia was made using Russian steel.

      Beyond that, one of the chief reasons that Germany was initially so successful was because of Stalin's purges of the Army in the 1930s had eliminated a good deal of talent in the Red Army. While Hitler was content to overlook some of the opinions of his most important officers in the Navy, Army and Luftwaffe, Stalin's paranoia and megalomania drove him to wipe out a good portion of the very people that would have been key in organizing military defense.

      So Russia was by no means innocent of its own woes, as Churchill reminded Stalin at times when Stalin would freak out about not enough armament shipments were getting through or when he felt the US and Britain weren't doing enough to relieve pressure in the Eastern Theater.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    3. Re:Not so fast.. by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 1

      Bon-bons? Hyperbole much? Also, your geography is off; Russia is to the east. Strictly speaking, not a single Russian died defending Western Europe. Of course, you will probably say that they turned Hitler's armies and resources away from the Western front, but I'd argue that Hitler did that on his own, and I don't think Russia deserves credit for Hitler's mistake.

      Not to belittle Russia's accomplishment in fighting them off, or the massive loss of life they sustained, just being picky. If you had left "Western" off your comment, I probably would agree more.

      --
      I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
    4. Re:Not so fast.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yea, right, not so fast. There are plenty of juicy facts showing brave russian warriors saving innocent people.

      By the way, most of you will be more than surprised, after seeing this movie http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebellion:_the_Litvinenko_Case

    5. Re:Not so fast.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh boo hoo. Russia has a bad history, it should expect criticism

      While we Americans were sitting on our rears eating bon-bons, more Russians died than in all of America's wars combined fighting Adolph Hitler. Love them or hate them, forced by circumstances or not, the Russians did more to save Western Europe from Nazism than anyone else.

      Just because more Russians died doesn't mean they did more to save Europe from the Nazis. If you know anything about history you would know how poorly they defended themselves. They lost so many people because they didn't even give their soldiers guns! You are 100% wrong.

      Before you post learn some history.

    6. Re:Not so fast.. by Keebler71 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      While we Americans were sitting on our rears eating bon-bons, more Russians died than in all of America's wars combined fighting Adolph Hitler. Love them or hate them, forced by circumstances or not, the Russians did more to save Western Europe from Nazism than anyone else.

      How's that? The fact that they suffered higher casualties does not at all correllate to their contribution to "saving Western Europe". Perhaps they suffered higher casualties because they were an inferior fighting force. Maybe if Stalin hadn't murdered the vast majority of his military leadership during the great purge from 1937-1938 then his armies would have faired better... from wikipedia:

      "The purge of the army removed three of five marshals (then equivalent to six-star generals), 13 of 15 army commanders (then equivalent to four- and five-star generals), eight of nine admirals (the purge fell heavily on the Navy, who were suspected of exploiting their opportunities for foreign contacts[24]), 50 of 57 army corps commanders, 154 out of 186 division commanders, 16 of 16 army commissars, and 25 of 28 army corps commissars")

      yeah...I'm sure that had nothing to do with their staggering losses...just a couple years later..

      True they sacrificed more in terms of lives lost - but they were also fighting for their survival as a nation... if they were so interested in saving Western Europe then maybe that wouldn't have signed a non-aggression pact with Hitler in 1939 (complete with a secret pact collaborating with the Germans on carving up eastern Europe and the balatics).

      --
      "It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance." - Thomas Sowell
    7. Re:Not so fast.. by uberjack · · Score: 1

      Does it matter that Stalin was, in fact, not Russian? Just askin'...

    8. Re:Not so fast.. by MightyMartian · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Well, I think a lot of Russians died in what was ultimately the defense of Western Europe. The invasion of Russia was, from a purely military standpoint, completely idiotic, and the German General Staff knew it, but Hitler's hatred of Communists and Slavs, even ones that he had signed a nice little pact that Stalin seemed contented with, drove him to one of the greatest military blunders in history.

      If Germany had not had an Eastern Front, it could have dedicated its land forces and airforce exclusively to the invasion of Britain and to complete dominance in the Mediterranean. D Day would have been all but impossible because all those divisions dedicated to destroying Bolsheviks would have been sitting on every vulnerable bit of coastline from Denmark to Southern France. What's more, even if an invasion of Britain was as much a disaster as a Russian invasion (and it would very likely have been), the British Isles are the only potential point Allied forces could have reasonably launched an invasion from.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    9. Re:Not so fast.. by sopssa · · Score: 2

      You do not think in a full picture either. USA/UK took a lot longer to come to far, because they had to mobilize their units. Russia didn't really have time for that, as Nazis we're already coming and attacking. They had to fight with lots of casualties to keep them away, and if they didn't the whole war and world could be a lot different now. Nazi's would had a lot more power if they had crushed Russians before US/UK came to war.

    10. Re:Not so fast.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      as Nazis we're already coming and attacking.

      You might want to reconsider that apostrophe.

    11. Re:Not so fast.. by Shakrai · · Score: 4, Insightful

      While we Americans were sitting on our rears eating bon-bons

      Why shouldn't we have been sitting on our rears eating bon-bons? You think it's the job of the United States to intervene in foreign wars? We did that in WW1 and got nothing out of it -- our supposed Allies ignored Wilson's plan for a just and fair peace and imposed draconian terms on Germany that set the stage for WW2. Then they defaulted on their wartime debts to the US. With that bit of history in mind perhaps it's easier to understand why the US had a strong isolationist sentiment in the 30s?

      Love them or hate them, forced by circumstances or not, the Russians did more to save Western Europe from Nazism than anyone else.

      The Russians made their own bed when they cut a deal with Hitler to slice up Eastern Europe. Had they joined forces with the Allies in 1939 it's probable that Germany would have been crushed and the Great Patriotic War would never have happened. The French had long sought an alliance with the Soviet Union to counter the threat of Germany but Stalin wasn't interested. He wanted the European powers to beat the stuffing out of each other to strengthen his own position. He even supplied Germany with the raw materials (ranging from grain to steel) required to keep her war machine running.

      The West owes Russia no debt for her actions in WW2.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    12. Re:Not so fast.. by tjstork · · Score: 1

      Of course, the Russians have to take a lot of responsibility for that, because right up until the morning of the Nazi invasion they were shipping steel to Nazi Germany.

      Dude, we were lending Hitler money. Everybody but France was trying to throw money at Hitler thinking it would avoid a war. He took the steel, the money and everything else, and bought weapons. Major jerk.

      --
      This is my sig.
    13. Re:Not so fast.. by tjstork · · Score: 1

      How's that? The fact that they suffered higher casualties does not at all correllate to their contribution to "saving Western Europe".

      Stalingrad and Kursk. Defense rests.

      --
      This is my sig.
    14. Re:Not so fast.. by ground.zero.612 · · Score: 1

      Oh boo hoo. Russia has a bad history, it should expect criticism

      While we Americans were sitting on our rears eating bon-bons, more Russians died than in all of America's wars combined fighting Adolph Hitler. Love them or hate them, forced by circumstances or not, the Russians did more to save Western Europe from Nazism than anyone else.

      Patently wrong.

      Love them or hate them, forced by circumstances or not, the Russians died more to save Western Europe from Nazism than anyone else.

      There, fixed that for you.

      --
      "Be prepared, son. That's my motto. Be prepared." --Joe Hallenbeck
    15. Re:Not so fast.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I am pretty sure no Russians have died defending the West ... ever!

      They died defended their homeland. Once that was safe they moved West in a land grab. It took 50 years for those countries to gain independence.

    16. Re:Not so fast.. by ground.zero.612 · · Score: 0, Troll

      Does it matter that Stalin was, in fact, not Russian? Just askin'...

      No. Just sayin'...

      The fact of the matter is that any former member of the Soviet Union will be forever ingrained in the heads of the West as simply being, "Russian." Don't like it? Tough cookies.

      --
      "Be prepared, son. That's my motto. Be prepared." --Joe Hallenbeck
    17. Re:Not so fast.. by hitnrunrambler · · Score: 1

      more Russians died than in all of America's wars combined fighting Adolph Hitler. Love them or hate them, forced by circumstances or not, the Russians did more to save Western Europe from Nazism than anyone else.

      "No poor bastard ever won a war by dying for his country" - General George S. Patton

      My friend General Patton and I disagree with you, they sacrificed more that is for certain but Sacrifice != Winning

      All winning requires sacrifice. In WW2 the US was very lucky to have a lot of that sacrifice paid by allies.
      If you believe that "The other poor bastards" who "died for their countries" were all Germans killed by John Wayne then you're viewing the world through the wrong channels on the shiny box.

    18. Re:Not so fast.. by binarylarry · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The Russian were sending human waves of starving, pressed "soldiers" against an army with trained, properly fed soldiers who had some of the best and most advanced weaponry of the war.

      Russia's special recognition is for being fucking retards.

      --
      Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
    19. Re:Not so fast.. by amorsen · · Score: 1

      It is doubtful whether Nazi Germany could have avoided an eventual confrontation with Russia. Also, the parts of Europe controlled by Hitler before attacking Russia have insufficient natural resources to sustain a decade-long stand off.

      It is understandable that Hitler went for what seemed like a quick and decisive way to end the war, because previous campaigns had been so successful. Luckily for all of us who live today it didn't work out and likely couldn't have worked out no matter which course of action he had chosen. We are also lucky that the losers of the war realized that they, as a group, had been in the wrong, and that the victors helped the losers afterwards instead of demanding another Versailles Treaty. I can't think of another war with that outcome.

      --
      Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
    20. Re:Not so fast.. by mewsenews · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Of course, the Russians have to take a lot of responsibility for that

      Please be careful not to blame the Russian people for the failures of their leadership. Especially post-WWII it was clear Stalin was off his rockers, but we should always be grateful for how much blood the Russians shed fighting our common enemy (far, FAR more than we did).

    21. Re:Not so fast.. by Shakrai · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm afraid your analysis misses the point. It was never Hitler's intention to conquer Western Europe or the Mediterranean. It was always his intention to try and conquer land in the East. His actions in Western Europe were holding actions intended at preventing Germany from having to fight a two-front war. He didn't have any designs on Western Europe beyond preventing them from interfering in the struggle that was about to unfold in the east.

      I don't know as if you can say that Barbarossa was one of the "greatest military blunders" in history either. If the dice rolls had come up just a little bit differently it's entirely possible that Germany could have won the war. If Italy hadn't needed to be rescued in the Balkans (the invasions of Yugoslavia and Greece delayed the start of Barbarossa for several weeks) or if the British had sought a negotiated peace it's probable that the Germans would have won and the Cold War would have been fought between the United States and the Third Reich.

      As it happened the Russians only managed to hold the line by drowning the German invaders in Russian blood. Go look at the casualties on the Eastern Front. Even when they "won" battles the Soviet Union usually lost two or three times as many men as the Germans did.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    22. Re:Not so fast.. by MightyMartian · · Score: 2, Informative

      One could say the same of Germany under Hitler, or of s self-centered navel-gazing US Congress that seemed to actually believe that the US could remain neutral if Western Europe permanently had a big swastika flying over it.

      At the end of a day, a country's behavior is defined by its leadership. I'm not saying that every poor soldier in the Red Army was responsible, of course they weren't, any more than every soldier in the German Army bore any responsibility, or the folks in the US living in districts of isolationist Congressmen were responsible (although the latter could be argued to be much more responsible for wanting to keep US out of the war).

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    23. Re:Not so fast.. by cenc · · Score: 2, Informative

      ah, I don't think that was really Patton, but George C. Scott in the movie that said that; but, still one hell of a line.

      http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/George_S._Patton

    24. Re:Not so fast.. by zach_the_lizard · · Score: 2, Insightful

      the Russians did more to save Western Europe from Nazism than anyone else.

      Interesting thought, that. The initial justification for the war between the Allies (France and Great Britain, initially) and Germany was the NAZI invasion of Poland. Oddly enough, the Western Allies were totally content to allow Stalin to conquer Eastern Europe and directly annex territory from Poland, Czechoslovakia, Finland, Germany, and Romania. They were also allowed to totally annex Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia. And then, in the territories they did not annex, they were allowed to install puppet regimes (such as the unannexed portions of Poland, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, East Germany, Czechoslovakia). So, if Stalin's army did, in fact, do more to save Western Europe than the Western Allies, it came at the cost of almost all of Eastern Europe.

      --
      SSC
    25. Re:Not so fast.. by Shakrai · · Score: 4, Insightful

      but we should always be grateful for how much blood the Russians shed fighting our common enemy (far, FAR more than we did).

      You mean the common enemy that they cut a deal with and allowed to conquer Western Europe without so much as firing a shot? Heck, it's worse than that -- they invaded several innocent and neutral countries (Finland, the Baltic States) while Hitler was enjoying his free hand in the West.

      If the Russians had allied with the Western Allies in 1939 Germany would have been crushed and the Great Patriotic War would never have happened. Let's try not to forget that.....

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    26. Re:Not so fast.. by Shakrai · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Stalingrad and Kursk. Defense rests.

      Stalingrad and Kursk don't cancel out the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. In fact Stalingrad and Kursk would never have happened if Stalin hadn't cut that deal with Hitler. Taking the Soviet Union out of play in 1939 was the only thing that enabled Germany to invade Poland and deal with the Western Allies.

      Just admit it, the Russians shot themselves in the foot......

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    27. Re:Not so fast.. by Hacker_PingWu · · Score: 2, Informative

      Not the US Government, no sir. Not the Federal or State divisions of government.

      Citizen-run organizations such as the American Liberty League had large portions of their membership supporting and funding the Nazi party shortly before the war broke out, and before the US joined the war.

      The American Liberty League was a large financial supporter of Fascist regimes, opposed FDR's presidential campaign and his New Deal that saved the country from the Great Depression, and had many large corporate leaders in its membership.

      Standard Oil (Rockefeller), US Steel (J.P. Morgan) were among them, and perhaps not-so ironically targeted for anti-trust operations later.

      There have been supporters of the Nazi party(which was a legally elected political party at the time, BTW) and Fascism within the US, but the US *itself has never lent Hitler money, or supported the Nazis.

    28. Re:Not so fast.. by zach_the_lizard · · Score: 1

      The invasion of Russia was, from a purely military standpoint, completely idiotic, and the German General Staff knew it, but Hitler's hatred of Communists and Slavs, even ones that he had signed a nice little pact that Stalin seemed contented with, drove him to one of the greatest military blunders in history.

      Part of the reason that the invasion of the Soviet Union was a failure was because of the U.S.'s lend-lease program. Even though the US did not send troops to the Eastern Front, it sent a huge amount of equipment and supplies. Up to 70% of all logistics trucks in the Soviet military were, IIRC, American built. We sent them some tanks (though these were much inferior to the Soviet and German models), aircraft, metal, food, and other resources. Without these and other supplies Stalin would have had a much harder time repulsing the German invasion. He might not have had the power to invade Eastern Europe.

      --
      SSC
    29. Re:Not so fast.. by Talderas · · Score: 1

      Stalingrad was one of Hitler's biggest mistakes. He committed too many resources to taking that city when it was of very little strategic importance. I am still convince Hitler wanted Stalingrad just to piss of Stalin and Stalin was just as determined not to let the city fall. Had the Germans swept through the city and moved on instead of trying to take it over 100% thus spending months there, Hitler would have been in a far better position to crush Moscow and force a Soviet surrender. Instead Hitler got bogged down there which allowed the Soviets to finally bring the east of the nation into the fight and push back the Germans.

      Stalingrad is a prime example where hubris played a part in Germany's defeat. More than anything, Hitler's hubris defeated Germany.

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    30. Re:Not so fast.. by blind+biker · · Score: 2, Informative

      And let's not forget that Russia was more than happy to divide Poland with the Nazis.

      --
      "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    31. Re:Not so fast.. by tool462 · · Score: 1

      and his New Deal that saved the country from the Great Depression,

      Uh-oh. You just set off the Libertarian Army alarms. *G*

    32. Re:Not so fast.. by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      A number of German strategists foresaw Americn involvement, though Hitler himself was apparently pretty skeptical. In their minds, the first thing to do was crush any potential opposition in Western Europe (France and Britain) before pushing eastward, which the knew would be an incredibly difficult and consuming campaign. The German General Staff was one of the very best military commands the world has ever known (inherited from Prussia and originally built into a magnificent war machine by Frederick the Great). These guys knew full well about the difficulties of an invasion of Russia, and were loathe to put themselves in Napoleon's shoes (Napoleon's invasion was generally seen as the collapse of his empire).

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    33. Re:Not so fast.. by ArbitraryDescriptor · · Score: 2, Insightful

      more Russians died than in all of America's wars combined fighting Adolph Hitler. Love them or hate them, forced by circumstances or not, the Russians did more to save Western Europe from Nazism than anyone else.

      "No poor bastard ever won a war by dying for his country" - General George S. Patton

      My friend General Patton and I disagree with you, they sacrificed more that is for certain but Sacrifice != Winning

      All winning requires sacrifice.

      Point being that it wasn't their death that helped win, it was what they accomplished before/as they died. Stating that Russia's contribution to victory is equal to their losses does not take into account all the Russians who died utterly in vain as a result of reckless and ineffectual orders, malnutrition, and poor training.

    34. Re:Not so fast.. by MightyMartian · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Dominance of the Mediterranean would have given Germany sufficient oil (that was the big thing). That's why the Brits (and later the Americans) concentrated all their effort on North Africa. Regaining control of the Mediterranean and other interesting tricks like booting out the Shah of Iran (who had pretty much been bought by the Nazis) in favor of his son were key actions. If Hitler had been able to hold on to North Africa and gain the key petroleum assets of the Middle East and Iran, he would have been in a far better position, not to mention basically holding a sword to the belly of Russia.

      Of course, all of this is hindsight "what-ifs", but no one other than Hitler seemed to seriously believe that an invasion of Russia would be a quick thing. The invasion of Russia was a good example of how a political leader going where his military advisors feared to tread can lead to catastrophe. All the Russians had to do was what they had done in 1812, wait for winter.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    35. Re:Not so fast.. by DavidTC · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Oddly enough, that's how I play Civ 4.

      Before invading a country, I make demands from it. Starting with the reasonable, and then getting increasing unreasonable. And then I invade anyway.

      I am Hitlereque.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    36. Re:Not so fast.. by deacon · · Score: 2, Informative

      While we Americans were sitting on our rears eating bon-bons

      Self loathing and ignorant. How sweet.

      Stalin just loved killing. Soviet or National Socialist, Stalin was happy to have either dead. Praising the Soviet body count without looking where it came from suggests you value quantity over quality, and you don't even care where the quantity comes from or why.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penal_military_unit

    37. Re:Not so fast.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course, the Americans have to take a lot of responsibility for that, because right up until 1944 they were shipping steel to Nazi Germany. In fact, Operation Barbarossa was specifically delayed until after those final steel shipments. It's one of the great ironies of the War that a lot of equipment thrown into the invasion of Russia was made using American steel. In 1945, the Treasury Department revealed to congress that United Steel produced the following percentages of war munitions for the Nazis: Pig iron 50.8%; Pipe & tubes 45.5%; Universal plate 41.4%; Galvanised sheet 38.5%; Heavy plate 36%; Explosives 35%; Wire 22.1%. This is the same firm Prescott Bush acted, as banker for. In effect, Prescott was Hitler’s American banker.

    38. Re:Not so fast.. by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      Likewise, if Japan had not attacked the US, but simply continued their war with China without attempting to get the Philippine's oil, the US wouldn't have entered the war either, or at least entered it later.

      It's interesting how, strategically, the two countries that caused the defeat of the Axis in WWII shouldn't have been in the war at all, and wouldn't have been without seriously stupid miscalculations on the part of the Germans and Japanese.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    39. Re:Not so fast.. by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 1

      He was Georgian. And so, when we think of "Mikheil Saakashvili", and his campaign of bloodlust against the sovereign puppet state of South Ossetia, we should also think of Stalin's agricultural policies in the Ukraine.

    40. Re:Not so fast.. by jgtg32a · · Score: 1

      I think you're watching the wrong channel because you obviously didn't know that that movie was a documentary and that John Wayne is Chuck Norris' dad

    41. Re:Not so fast.. by jgtg32a · · Score: 1

      Ok, your comment made me laugh so I'll ignore it this time

    42. Re:Not so fast.. by mewsenews · · Score: 2, Insightful

      One could say the same of Germany under Hitler [...]

      At the end of a day, a country's behavior is defined by its leadership.

      These are good points, I agree with you.

    43. Re:Not so fast.. by PolarBearFire · · Score: 1

      Point of fact, everyone forgets that when Germany was expanding in the first stages of the war, Russia was also expanding its territory at the expense of its neighbors. I wouldn't say Russia was at fault for starting WWII like Hitler was but Russia was not the victim at the start of the war.

    44. Re:Not so fast.. by tsstahl · · Score: 1

      Fighting blind declarations with logic and fact will only get you blacklisted as an agitator.

    45. Re:Not so fast.. by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 1

      I think that Stalin would have struck Hitler before too long anyway. They hated each other, and the non-aggression pacts between them were tenuous at best. Germany realized that they couldn't leave their eastern flank unprotected as they blitzkrieged through Europe, and the USSR realized they didn't have the military necessary to stand up to Germany at the moment. Both were just buying time, and I think it was just a matter of time before one stabbed the other in the back. I wonder how it would have went if Stalin had struck first, while Hitler's armies were mostly busy in France and Africa.

      --
      I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
    46. Re:Not so fast.. by tjstork · · Score: 1

      Stalingrad is a prime example where hubris played a part in Germany's defeat. More than anything, Hitler's hubris defeated Germany.

      That, and the hubris of the entire German General Staff AND industrial complex. They never did appreciate until it was way too late that the T-34 was a better tank.

      --
      This is my sig.
    47. Re:Not so fast.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some of that is subjective - in WW2 Russia sent meat walls of poorly trained and equipped troops against well trained and equipped German troops while keeping their better armies back in defense. Sure they lost a lot of troops, but in doing so they stretched the German supply lines and softened them up. As I recall, most of their elite divisions with the best equipment were holed up in Moscow and didn't even see the war (I was told that by a guy that got a doctorate in history focused on Russia). Americans and England used the best troops they had throughout the war.

      Russia was also an ALLY of Germany at the start of the war, but when they took Poland both sides were uneasy sharing a border. In addition, they had a secret pact on divvying up Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Poland, Finland and Romania - all except Finland they kept after the war.

      Stalin was one of the most genocidal men in history - letting ethnic groups starve and hiding it from the west, mass murder in purges (with names like the Great Terror and the Red Terror [or is that beautiful terror from the archaic meaning of the Russian word for red...] ) - in fact, he probably killed more in genocides (8-13 million) than troops that died in combat (8-10 million excluding civilian deaths - Germans and Russians used scorched earth, so many civilians died on both sides). This was largely hidden from scholars until the early 1990s. I have to wonder if he also conscripted ethnic undesirables and threw them on the front lines.

      I certainly don't mean to say Russia wasn't important, but both Stalin and Hitler were willing to win a war of attrition, and Stalin had a lot more people to work with. Russia forced communism on most of eastern Europe after the war, giving them a nice, safe buffer from non-communist nations. And by communism, I mean communist dictatorships, which they all were (Stalinism, Leninism, etc) as opposed to idealistic communism (which has no police state and rejects large bureaucracy).

      Hmm... can't say my opinion of the US is much better - profiteering supplying both sides then got into the war on the sides of the Allies through careful orchestration (read: US oil embargo on Japan - they said this would be a declaration of war, so claiming surprise is a lie - intentionally uninformed to create a furor is correct), tossed Japanese and Germans immigrants into concentration camps... well, I guess that was a little better than just torturing and killing them like the US did in the Great War... Anyhow, I digress - I think the European war would have been won by Russia eventually and the majority of it communist dictatorship if it weren't for the US (instead, most adopted forms of Socialism, which communists say is transition between Capitalism and Communism).

    48. Re:Not so fast.. by tjstork · · Score: 1

      Just admit it, the Russians shot themselves in the foot......

      If there's no Russian front, there's another 300 divisions, including the 6th army, sitting in France on D-Day,

      --
      This is my sig.
    49. Re:Not so fast.. by pthisis · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The German General Staff was one of the very best military commands the world has ever known (inherited from Prussia and originally built into a magnificent war machine by Frederick the Great).

      That's like saying that the modern USA military is a magnificent war machine inherited from Abraham Lincoln.

      Frederick the Great died in 1786. His military success had very little relationship to Germany's WW2 military.

      --
      rage, rage against the dying of the light
    50. Re:Not so fast.. by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      If there was no Russian front then there would have been no French front and hence no D-Day. Every decision that Hitler made was part of his long term plan to obtain lebensraum in the east. If you take that away then he had no compelling reason to go to war with the Western Allies.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    51. Re:Not so fast.. by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      And to add one more point (sorry for replying twice), it really wouldn't have mattered anyway. If there were 300 divisions in France then the first nuclear bomb would have been dropped on Germany instead of Japan. The Manhattan project was aimed at Germany all along anyway.

      Of course it's all moot, because if the Soviet Union hadn't signed the non-aggression pact Hitler never would have had the ability to invade Poland, much less Norway, France, the low countries, etc.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    52. Re:Not so fast.. by Vahokif · · Score: 1, Troll

      We did that in WW1 and got nothing out of it

      You mean apart from getting the money you lent to Britain and France back? The Lusitania was an excuse just as much as Franz Ferdinand was.

    53. Re:Not so fast.. by DarthVain · · Score: 1

      Oh Boo Hoo.

      Be happy your in the game period!

      I remember a few (ok a lot) of years ago, when Counter Strike came out (remember that one? or maybe it was rainbow 6...) there was a level where you had to kill Canadian Terrorists... I believe they were some kind of separatists or something.

      OK I don't really want to kill separatists, Quebec or otherwise, however I did think it was cool that Canada was even mentioned in a video game let alone active members in it, and part of the action actually took place in Canada. Sure I was playing US guys killing Canadian guys, but whatever, we were in the game dammit! Also some folks in the US might get a little used to games taking place in New York, or Vegas, or whatever big city they happen to be in at the time. When that city is Toronto, Montreal, or Vancouver that's like a huge deal!

      Also all this stuff gets made in the USA, just like the movies (or they are directed by, or paid for, etc...) get used to the US perspective or make your own game called: Worker & Parasite ( ).

    54. Re:Not so fast.. by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      No, the invasion wasn't idiotic. Germany thought they could defeat France, bomb the UK into submission, then turn the entire German military east and defeat the Soviets. And the all most did. Moscow was the city to far, just like Market Garden in '44, Moscow was just a little ways too far away. Then the snows and winter came, and the Soviet spies in Japan found out the Japanese wouldn't attack, so that freed up resources.

      Germany couldn't have invaded the UK, they didn't have the sealift that was needed, Sealion was just a plan, it never got past that stage. Had Germany thrown all the resources they used on Russia against the UK with aviation and naval power, they probably have made a peace or could have gotten the UK to ally against a Soviet Union that would have dominated Finland and looked south towards Persia and British India further on in the 1940s.

    55. Re:Not so fast.. by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      What part of 'defaulted on their war debts' wasn't clear?

      The Lusitania wasn't the only casus belli either. It probably wasn't even the most important one. Ever hear of the Zimmermann Telegram? I'd say that a plan to ally with a Western power and crave up the United States is a much greater provocation than sinking a British ship after warning Americans not to travel on it.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    56. Re:Not so fast.. by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      Does it matter that Stalin was, in fact, not Russian? Just askin'...

      It matters just about as much as the fact that Hitler wasn't German.

    57. Re:Not so fast.. by orzetto · · Score: 1

      How was the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact different from the Munich agreement? In MA, France and England try to get Hitler to expand East, fight Stalin and let them fight it out. In MR, Stalin pulls off the exact same thing, turning Adi West, and serving the ball back to England and France.

      Considering Stalin's previous and later crimes, this was simply a clever diplomacy move aimed at forcing England and France into the war they wanted to dodge.

      All things considered, it is probably for the better: had Hitler attacked the Soviet Union first, he may actually have been successful since he would have had no distractions on the western front, and even as things went he got his troops into Stalingrad and a few kilometres away from Leningrad and Moscow centres. After that, he would have had no obstacles east and could have taken the rest of Europe with ease.

      --
      Victims of 9/11: <3000. Traffic in the US: >30,000/y
    58. Re:Not so fast.. by Vahokif · · Score: 1

      Then I don't see why you think you didn't get anything out of it. If you're so isolationist, you shouldn't have lent money to the Entente in the first place. Also, don't forget the Dawes plan.

    59. Re:Not so fast.. by BobMcD · · Score: 1

      While we Americans were sitting on our rears eating bon-bons, more Russians died than in all of America's wars combined fighting Adolph Hitler.

      Weren't the Soviets the ones who sent in two soldiers with a single gun? "When the first soldier dies, the second takes his rifle"?

      Seems like that might experience a higher casualty rate, and that it might also make casualty rates hard to compare. Maybe we compare rifles lost instead, since those seem more valuable to the Soviet command?

    60. Re:Not so fast.. by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      I know of no evidence that the US was shipping steel to Nazi Germany in 1944. In fact, the idea is ludicrous, considering the countries were at war and Germany was doing its best to sink damned near anything crossing the Atlantic.

      It was the Russians who were shipping steel to Germany up until the morning of Operation Barbarossa in 1941, and the Germans waited until those last steel shipments were through the border before launching the attack.

      The US had most certainly traded with Nazi Germany during the 1930s, and while I think that some of this was pretty unethical, it wasn't illegal.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    61. Re:Not so fast.. by jimbolauski · · Score: 1

      Your Mother Russia had such high casualties because they had a shortage of arms, unskilled generals, little to no air support, their winning strategy was to retreat maintaining high causalities until winter came, they did invent rope a dope so Ali should thank them for that.

      --
      Knowledge = Power
      P= W/t
      t=Money
      Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
    62. Re:Not so fast.. by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      I'm afraid your analysis misses the point. It was never Hitler's intention to conquer Western Europe or the Mediterranean. It was always his intention to try and conquer land in the East. His actions in Western Europe were holding actions intended at preventing Germany from having to fight a two-front war.

      That makes no sense. You don't avoid a two-front war by attacking nations on opposite sides of you.

    63. Re:Not so fast.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you forget the part about Russia (USSR) being Nazi Allies before that? Didja? Sleep with the Krauts and wake up with saurkraut up your butt.

      Revisionist much?

    64. Re:Not so fast.. by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      I wonder how it would have went if Stalin had struck first, while Hitler's armies were mostly busy in France and Africa.

      Half of his army would have starved to death before even coming under contact? Russian logistics were horrid. They took massive numbers of casualties while operating on their soil, in a familiar environment, in a primarily defensive role. If they had attempted to go on the attack, the Germans would have massacred them.

    65. Re:Not so fast.. by emilper · · Score: 1

      The Russian were sending human waves of starving, pressed "soldiers"

      but of course ... starving soldiers can carry 30kgs of gear while storming enemy trenches. The losses on the Eastern front were 4/3 ... like the Soviets lost 4 soldiers for 3 soldiers lost by the Nazis ... the proportion of losses on the Western front was even more skewed, but a lot of the skew is due to losses in 1940. Germany and their allies had about 3.5 mil. soldiers in 1941 against about 2.5 mil. soldiers on the other side, ... after 1943 the ratio of troops and losses would have been favorable to the Soviets except the survival rate of Russian war prisoners was under 20%, while about 80% of the German prisoners of war returned home after an unpleasant trip to Siberia.

    66. Re:Not so fast.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your view is overly simplistic. See this for example:

      http://www.sras.org/foreign_ministry_ussr_forced_to_pact_with_germany
      http://02varvara.wordpress.com/2008/09/29/russian-foreign-intelligence-service-declassifies-munich-agreement-papers/

      Had the British and French not sold out Chechoslovakia, the war would have never happen.

      It does not hurt us to be at least respectful to 27 million Russians who perished in the war.

    67. Re:Not so fast.. by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If the Russians had allied with the Western Allies in 1939 Germany would have been crushed and the Great Patriotic War would never have happened. Let's try not to forget that.....

      You assume that nothing happened between 1939 and 1941 in the USSR. In fact, those 2 years of staying out of the fight were used to heavily ramp up military production, and fight Winter War (which served as a kind of practice session - it was a bitter lesson, but a lesson nonetheless, and e.g. the design of the legendary PPSh was much affected by it).

      As well, service time for conscripts was increased during that period, so Soviets had more trained soldiers than they did in 1939.

      To sum it up: if the USSR were to enter the war in 39, it's not at all clear how that would have gone. "Germany crushed" is mere speculation, and an unlikely one at that.

    68. Re:Not so fast.. by emilper · · Score: 1

      Stalin's purges of the Army in the 1930s had eliminated a good deal of talent in the Red Army

      yeah, like that guy, what's his name ... Tucha...something, that believed the an army does not need reserves ... the Poles love that talented genius :-) ; or the dumb asses that lost Hungary while facing the outgunned and outnumbered Rumanian army in 1919; or the former mahnovists (sincere anarchists), Socialist Revolutionaries (oh, those indeed loved discipline and good order ... even more than they loved the chain of command, rank insignia and infantry formations ). Yeah, big loss ...

      Joke aside, probably the Nazis were helped a bit by having one million more soldiers in the field, and knowing the day the war will start.

    69. Re:Not so fast.. by CptPicard · · Score: 1

      I'm Finnish so I certainly do not sympathize with Stalin, but there are two issues with that.. I don't think he genuinely felt like USSR was strong enough to take Germany on (remember, offensives are much more militarily expensive propositions) around 1939-40 (hey, even Finland gave Red Army trouble), and there is the fact that to get to Germany he indeed would have had to roll over the countries in between.

      Modern-day Russian historical revisionists are actually trying to push the point that Stalin just "had to" conquer his side of Molotov-Ribbentropp Pact to get some more defense in depth...

      --
      I want to play Free Market with a drowning Libertarian.
    70. Re:Not so fast.. by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      And let's not forget that Russia was more than happy to divide Poland with the Nazis.

      Division of lands that made up eastern Poland at that time was a favorite pastime for nations surrounding them for quite a while by then. Let's not forget that parts of Poland that were annexed by the Soviets in 1939 were previously grabbed by Poland from Ukraine and Belarus in 1920. The areas were also predominantly ethnically Belarusian and Ukrainian, rather than Polish. Poland claimed a stake on them by virtue of them being a part of the Polish state before being annexed by Russian Empire two centuries earlier. However, one could just as well claim that Poland was the occupier there back then, no less so than Russia/USSR later on.

      As usual, the matter is quite complicated, and you get different viewpoints depending on who you ask. Traditionally, Western historiography tended to be anti-Soviet for obvious reasons, and therefore, in this particular issue, pro-Polish.

      Note that this isn't to claim that occupation of those territories by the USSR in 1939 was unquestionably positive, or that atrocities rivalling those of Nazis, such as Katyn massacre, didn't take place.

    71. Re:Not so fast.. by emilper · · Score: 1

      Even when they "won" battles the Soviet Union usually lost two or three times as many men as the Germans did.

      Care to provide a quote ?

      If I remember well, the great Russian losses came from the prisoners of war from the first year of war that were either executed on the spot or starved afterward. Otherwise, loses in combat were more balanced on the Eastern front that they were on the Western front.

    72. Re:Not so fast.. by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      They lost so many people because they didn't even give their soldiers guns! ... Before you post learn some history.

      I'd like to return your advice back to you, with an added note that Hollywood flicks such as "Enemy at the Gates" are not a good way to learn history.

      Really, did you seriously believe that Russians were stupid enough to order unarmed men to charge a fortified MG encampment? Soviet commanders could be cruel and brutal, but they weren't complete idiots (even for all Stalin's purges).

    73. Re:Not so fast.. by DaleCooper82 · · Score: 1

      Beyond that, one of the chief reasons that Germany was initially so successful was because of Stalin's purges of the Army in the 1930s had eliminated a good deal of talent in the Red Army.

      True, on top of that they had bilateral treaty not to attack each other and Stalin was thinking everything was cool.

      --
      :: There is no light at the end of a tunnel. There is a tunnel after a tunnel : Thom Y. ::
    74. Re:Not so fast.. by emilper · · Score: 1

      Had they joined forces with the Allies in 1939

      ... when, in fact, they were fighting the Japanese in Mongolia: the first large scale confrontation of the war, and won by the Soviets; guess who was in charge there ... hint: same person that was in charge at Stalingrad, and he employed the same tactics: give way in the center, then press a bit to keep the opponent busy there, but aim the main thrust at the flanks. That the Germans, with all their superior staff and military, did not think it's interesting to keep troops in reserve, was a bonus. Funny thing is, Béla Kun was beaten using the exactly the same tactics in 1919, not to speak of the manner in which a certain general from Carthage kicked Roman ass on one occasion (google for Cannae).

    75. Re:Not so fast.. by Z34107 · · Score: 1

      You have any sources for that? Google turned up nothing authoritative and interesting, and Wikipedia says they accused Roosevelt of fascism.

      --
      DATABASE WOW WOW
    76. Re:Not so fast.. by zyzko · · Score: 2, Informative

      From the same article - read the headline "Post-war commentary regarding the motives of Stalin and Hitler", as a Finn I'd like to point out that our situation was quite troubled throughout the WW2, ranging from being "sold to soviets" to being an ally of Nazi Germany (thought not not succesfully invaded by either of two in any point, and after the Continuation War there was an aftermatch agains retrieving Germans in Lapland (which was a requirement of the peace treaty with the Soviets) - and this contributed partly to Finlandization later on.

      While there is no big symphaty to Russians still among the older people in Finland because of the two wars the latter can be (in a way, how much is depending on who you ask) described as a war of an agression from Finlands part with the support of the Nazi Germany.

      So overall, Russians did a great job at stopping Hitler (many times at a gunpoint from theri own lines) but the politics involved especially between Hitler and Stalni regarding Finland and Baltic countries are very interesing and still open to interreption. And the different outcome of the war has affected both Finland and Baltic countries up till today, as close neighbours as for an example Finland and Estonia are they both have a very different set of skeletons in their closets and relationships to Russia are still not an easy thing - even compared to the cold war betweeen the US and USSR. The history is very interesting and hopefully we can learn from it - and to bring this just a little closer to slashdot - a videogame should not be seen as a part of politics, yeah, it can raise issues but if me must discuss those issues through videogames we can shut down the UN and play the game instead...

    77. Re:Not so fast.. by zero0ne · · Score: 1

      forgetting about this.

    78. Re:Not so fast.. by __aalruu9610 · · Score: 1

      Why shouldn't we have been sitting on our rears eating bon-bons?

      Because bon-bons are high in sugar which leads to tooth decay and possibly an increased risk of heart disease as well as other problems such as diabetes.

    79. Re:Not so fast.. by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      There is some truth to it, though. During the 1930s, Stalin was alarmed at Nazi Germany's virulent anti-Communist and very clear eyes eastward. He did try at some point to make overtures to the Brits (can't remember whether it was during the Baldwin or Chamberlain governments, probably the former, I'm too lazy to look it up), but the sentiment was still quite strong in Parliament (and among the populace) that any kind of hostile overtures to Germany were not in their best interests. To some degree, the deal with Hitler was Stalin's own "peace in our own time" bid. He hoped, much like Chamberlain did, that allowing Hitler to get a few scraps of meat would satiate his taste.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    80. Re:Not so fast.. by vasko · · Score: 1

      The Russians made their own bed when they cut a deal with Hitler to slice up Eastern Europe. Had they joined forces with the Allies in 1939 it's probable that Germany would have been crushed and the Great Patriotic War would never have happened.

      Yeah, right. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_Agreement

      Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact was signed full year later.

    81. Re:Not so fast.. by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      I think that's rubbish. It put off the inevitable. Hitler's primary occupation in all this "diplomacy" was to buy time until he had air superiority. Yes, refusing to bend would have altered the plans, but one has to put everything in context.

      The real failure was in 1935, when Germany was still in the infancy of proper rearmament (though it had been sneaking around its Treaty obligations since the 1920s, people forget that rearmament plans didn't start with Hitler). If the Brits, French and Americans had fielded a few divisions into the Rhineland when Germany rearmed it, the whole thing would have fallen flat.

      No less than Churchill himself pretty much judged the Rearming of the Rhineland, rather than the later capitulations, as the point at which Hitler knew he could get away with murder. He knew Stalin would do anything to avoid war, he knew there was no stomach for another general European conflict among the French and the Brits, and he knew the Yanks were too preoccupied and too isolationist to even think of fielding any kind of military presence in Western Europe.

      A good deal of ink has been wasted between the Soviets and the Brits, Americans and French over who should have done what when, but all of them, one way or another, played their part.

      I reocmmend anyone who wants to see the proportions of blame to be laid out read the first few chapters of Churchill's History of WWII. He goes into some depth to demonstrate how on the one hand the Allieds went bananas at Versailles and punished Germany far in extreme of its blame, mainly driven by the populaces of the Allied nations who wanted blood. He blames the Americans for backing out of the League of Nations, and crippling it. He blames the Brits and Americans for bullying France into disarmament and naval reduction quotas that only served to castrate France when Germany marched troops back into the Rhineland. He blames Stalin for making deals with the devil and not having the foresight to see that nothing the Nazis said amounted to anything. He blames the Brits for the near-constant capitulation from 1935 to 1939, and for not, when it became very clear that war was inevitable, doing more to rearm. He blames the turning of a blind eye to German involvement during the Spanish Civil War, and allowing Mussolini to invade Ethiopia, making it very clear that the League of Nations had no capacity whatsoever to do anything (and sending Hitler the clearest message that Germany's foes had no stomach for war).

      There's lots of blame to go around. Yes, the Russians suffered enormously, but Stalin played his part in that too, and his own machinations against the Fins, Poles and the Baltic peoples (the latter were subjected to horrible anti-Baltic activities right up to the disintegration of the USSR) make Russia into much less than a pure victim.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    82. Re:Not so fast.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not really. I mean, Obama's not American.

      I'm still trying to wrap my head around how someone can win the Nobel Prize for Peace, yet troop levels in Iraq are not much different than they were under his predecessor. This after repeatedly promising to make it a priority while he was trying to win the Democratic nomination. Do they give the Nobel Prize out now for promising to peaceful?

    83. Re:Not so fast.. by MakinBacon · · Score: 1

      Really? Fighting Hitler automatically means they have a good history? USA did more to save Eastern Asia from Japanese Imperialism than anyone else, but I wouldn't say that means that we're immune to any criticism about our history.

    84. Re:Not so fast.. by tjstork · · Score: 1

      The West owes Russia no debt for her actions in WW2.

      We don't "owe" the Russians anything, per say. But to say that the Russians are all bad is a pretty big distortion of history.

      We have to remember that we entered World War II with our own motives as well. Despite his critics, Roosevelt was no fool, and he very clearly understood the economics that the USA could actually fight and win a two front World War and come out with total dominance of the seas, and with it, an unprecedented period of American dominance that we have well, squandered. But hey, World War II bought the good life for almost three generations of Americans, brought freedom and a better standard of living for damn near the whole planet overall, and thanks to free trade, it did elevate the overall lifestyle of Americans, even if the consequences of that trade, that the third world would erode American manufacturing and inventiveness, were entirely unforseeable in the racist minds of those long ago policy planners.

      --
      This is my sig.
    85. Re:Not so fast.. by hitnrunrambler · · Score: 1

      Agreed one of the worst ideas EVER.
      In fact I'd go so far as to say that all war is a crime perpetrated by a government on it's own people, and the soviet political machine was an unparalleled criminal.

      But the stupidity displayed doesn't change the impact that all of those "poor bastards dieing for their country" had on the war, or the brave sacrifice made by the individuals (if you want to believe that war is heroic).

      A few posters in this branch have no concept of either point.

    86. Re:Not so fast.. by hitnrunrambler · · Score: 1

      Wasn't arguing against any of those points, merely bringing up a point someone was blithely trying to ignore behind Patton's well remembered joy at taking life.

      The number of deaths does indicate degree of involvement, and degree of involvement was massive. It was their presence that helped win, death was a sad development of that presence.

      Seems like a fairly straightforward point.

    87. Re:Not so fast.. by meringuoid · · Score: 1
      our supposed Allies ignored Wilson's plan for a just and fair peace and imposed draconian terms on Germany that set the stage for WW2.

      Although, to be fair, we did follow through on his excellent idea of a League of Nations. Unlike some people.

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    88. Re:Not so fast.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Why shouldn't we have been sitting on our rears eating bon-bons? You think it's the job of the United States to intervene in foreign wars? We did that in WW1 and got nothing out of it -- our supposed Allies ignored Wilson's plan for a just and fair peace and imposed draconian terms on Germany that set the stage for WW2. Then they defaulted on their wartime debts to the US. With that bit of history in mind perhaps it's easier to understand why the US had a strong isolationist sentiment in the 30s?

      The United States didn't 'intervene' in the Great War, per se. Although the, "Our poor English friends!" rhetoric was quick to come out once war had been decided upon, it really didn't have much to do with the decision itself.

      The US entered WWI because Wilson put American credibility on the line in threatening Germany over the issue of submarine warfare. Wilson had made very blunt and very public statements over American deaths in German submarine attacks---sufficiently blunt that his Secretary of State resigned over the likelihood of war. Prior to the use of unrestricted submarine warfare, popular sentiment in the US had been mixed---and before the war itself, most politicians considered war with Britain to be reasonably likely, but war with Germany unthinkable.

      The Germans, for their part, considered the American threat credible, but didn't view abandonment of the submarine war as a viable option. It has to be recalled that the U-Boats very nearly did drive the British out of the war in 1916. At one point, Britain only had food reserves for a few days.

      By the time the Americans entered the war in 1917, the Germans knew everything was riding on the events of the coming spring---that they would either break the Entente powers' wills, or they would be forced to surrender. To give an idea of how bad things were in Germany, by the time the Americans entered, the only bedsheets available legally on the German civilian market were made of paper.

      So the Germans called Wilson's bluff, knowing he'd make good on his threats, but also knowing it wouldn't affect the outcome of the war one way or the other.

      So, to get back to what you said: "...our supposed Allies ignored Wilson's plan for a just and fair peace and imposed draconian terms on Germany..." And why not? The war was decided before the first American boots set foot in France, and the Entente powers knew it. America was a day late, a dollar short, and in it for her own interests, not because the British and French were our allies---they weren't. Wilson tried to strongarm the British and French on the strength of the loans the US had made, tried to capitalize on the fact that his country, unlike theirs, was virtually unscathed.

      By the by, those wartime debts they defaulted on---that was during the Great Depression. And the reason they defaulted was because Germany default on the reparations payments to them. Interestingly, the French and British made an offer to President Hoover in, I believe, 1930. They offered to forgive Germany's reparations debts to them, if the US would forgive their debts. The German debts to France and Britain were several times larger than the French and British debts to the US. Hoover refused the offer (on laissez-faire grounds; they had mostly been made by private banks,) and continued to put the squeeze on the still war-torn British and French, who continued to put the squeeze on the Weimar Republic. Unable to repay the US without the German reparations, the British and French squeezed till Weimar was dry. And when Weimar was dry, crippled, and bleeding, they defaulted.

      So if you'd like to lay blame for WWII on the feet of the Versailles reparations---feel free, but remember that the British and French saw what was happening and tried to stop it. It was Herbert Hoover who, ultimately, put the screws to Weimar.

    89. Re:Not so fast.. by left00coaster · · Score: 1

      To a point, I agree with you. However, if we consider what led to Russia's sacrifices in WWII -- i.e., Adolph H. launched Operation Barbarossa in 1941, effectively turning Germany's former Axis partner into a de facto Western ally -- it's hard to feel too sorry for them. Then again considering how the War would have likely turned out otherwise, I deeply respect their sacrifice (and heartily applaud Hitler's stupidity).

    90. Re:Not so fast.. by nyri · · Score: 1

      Well, I think a lot of Russians died in what was ultimately the defense of Western Europe.

      True, but they didn't mean to. Stalin's plan was not to save Western Europe but to conquer it.

      It is also true that a lot of Nazis died in what was ultimately the defense of Western Europe from Russia.

    91. Re:Not so fast.. by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      Russians couldn't ally with the stauch anticommunist western allies in 1939 yet. Especially not after what those allies have done to the Soviet Union in 1918-1920.
      As for invading several innocent and neutral countries, USSR just tried to get the territories lost in the First World War back (and not even all of them).

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    92. Re:Not so fast.. by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      Wrong. Comintern has pretty much died with Lenin. Stalin decided that isolatonist policy was the best. Europe was safe from Soviet invasion because Stalin only wanted to restore the borders to the state before 1917.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    93. Re:Not so fast.. by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      So their sacrifice gave Stalin the right to purge (read: exterminate) all his political enemies, force millions into servitude and near starvation, and establish dictatorial control and depose neighboring countries' governments?

      Not saying the US is without skeletons in the closet either, but the whole "a lot of Russians died in WW2" thing does not justify the horrible things the Soviets did in the next 50 years.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    94. Re:Not so fast.. by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      That makes no sense. You don't avoid a two-front war by attacking nations on opposite sides of you.

      Yes you do. He cut a deal with enemy #1 (Russia) to give him time to neutralize enemy #2 (France). Then you deal with enemy #1 without having to worry about enemy #2. Divide and conquer, I presume you've heard of it?

      It almost worked too. The Wehrmacht got to fought a one front war until the Allied invasion of France. Yes, there was Africa and Italy but the former was a side show and the latter was easy enough to bottle up the Allies due to the geography.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    95. Re:Not so fast.. by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      Yes you do. He cut a deal with enemy #1 (Russia) to give him time to neutralize enemy #2 (France). Then you deal with enemy #1 without having to worry about enemy #2. Divide and conquer, I presume you've heard of it?

      Heh. You're saying he didn't want to invade western europe, so, because of that, he invaded western europe. Sure. Makes perfect sense. Reminds me of this one time when I didn't want to get in a fight with a bouncer, so I knocked him out first and then beat the shit out of the bartender.

      Seriously, though, I get the gist of what you're saying, but it makes no sense. If Hitler didn't want to fight the East, why sign a pact with Russia? I doubt that France or England would have spilled many tears over Staling getting his ass kicked by Hitler. You figure he'd at least have tried to sign a pack with the western european nations, instead of allying himself with the one nation he actually wanted to conquer and then attacking the ones he supposedly had no problems with. I know he wasn't the most rational individual in the world, but even he wouldn't have been THAT stupid/crazy.

    96. Re:Not so fast.. by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      You don't understand geopolitics very well. France and the UK wouldn't have spilled many tears but do you really think they would have sat on the sidelines and allowed Germany to conquer Eastern Europe without a fight? They would have gotten involved for the exact same reason that the US got involved in the world wars -- allowing Germany to absorb Russia would have made her too powerful and upset the geopolitical balance of power. The Western European powers would have been reduced to satellite states with independence in name only.

      Remember that this is in the day and age before nuclear weapons. You don't have any effective way to deter an enemy that's substantially stronger than you. Every decision that the Western powers (France in particular) made in the interwar period was designed to maintain the balance of power in Europe. This balance was shattered by the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact.

      You don't have to take my word for it though. Go read it in Hitler's own words. He spelled out his plan pretty clearly in Mein Kempf. His intention all along was to absorb Poland, neutralize France, seek an alliance (or at least a non-aggression pact) with the UK and absorb the European portion of the Soviet Union. His timetable was upset somewhat as he didn't believe the British and French would ally themselves with the Poles, nor did he anticipate the campaigns in the Balkans (necessitated by Italy's incompetence), but for the most part he stuck to the outline of his original plan.

      Had the Nazis won, France would have been reduced to a satellite state. That sounds pretty bad until you consider what they had in mind for the poor bastards living in the East -- read Generalplan Ost some time. Had they won the war and carried that out it would have rivaled the Holocaust in terms of human suffering and misery. Thank god we were able to defeat them.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    97. Re:Not so fast.. by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Um, no. The core military leadership of any armed forces isn't just made up of twenty, thirty or forty years of experience of its members, it's made up of the collective experience over the stretch of time that it has been in existence.

      Of the core demands of Versailles was the disbanding of the General Staff, because it had, since Frederick the Great had basically remodeled its Prussian antecedent, been one of the most skilled in the world. What the Weimar Republic did was to essentially violate that directive and secretly keep the General Staff employed. During the 1920s these guys were fighting mock battles with fictitious armies.

      Churchill noted this himself, that if the General Staff had actually been disbanded in reality, then it would have taken decades to rebuild it, to recreate a core group of skilled officers with the training. The Allies, by basically turning a blind eye to the Weimar's ghost army, allowed Germany to maintain the skeleton of its army to which Hitler rapidly could apply the flesh to. Without the General Staff, Hitler probably would have been in his grave before Germany had a central military command capable the kinds of campaigns that began in 1939.

      So, in a way, yes, in a very real sense, the US has a military machine inherited from Abraham Lincoln.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    98. Re:Not so fast.. by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      You don't understand geopolitics very well.

      Ditto.

      France and the UK wouldn't have spilled many tears but do you really think they would have sat on the sidelines and allowed Germany to conquer Eastern Europe without a fight?

      Hard to say, but it would have been worth a shot.

      They would have gotten involved for the exact same reason that the US got involved in the world wars -- allowing Germany to absorb Russia would have made her too powerful and upset the geopolitical balance of power.

      That's not why the US got involved.

      You seem to have extensive knowledge of WW2, yet make some rather silly assumptions. It's rather unusual. Are you a fan of those "alternate history" books?

    99. Re:Not so fast.. by pthisis · · Score: 1

      Of the core demands of Versailles was the disbanding of the General Staff, because it had, since Frederick the Great had basically remodeled its Prussian antecedent, been one of the most skilled in the world. What the Weimar Republic did was to essentially violate that directive and secretly keep the General Staff employed. During the 1920s these guys were fighting mock battles with fictitious armies.

      Churchill noted this himself, that if the General Staff had actually been disbanded in reality, then it would have taken decades to rebuild it, to recreate a core group of skilled officers with the training. The Allies, by basically turning a blind eye to the Weimar's ghost army, allowed Germany to maintain the skeleton of its army to which Hitler rapidly could apply the flesh to. Without the General Staff, Hitler probably would have been in his grave before Germany had a central military command capable the kinds of campaigns that began in 1939.

      I disagree, vehemently.

      The post-WWI General Staff _did_ secretly meet (under the name Truppenamt). They hardly formed a basis for the Wehrmacht's leadership, though. Of the most prominent Truppenamt fieldmarshals:

      The founder, Hans von Seeckt, was somewhat supportive of Hitler early on, but by the time of the beer hall putsch in 1923 he opposed him. He was out of the German military by the mid-1920s, spent some time supporting Chiang Kai-shek in China in the mid-1930s, and was opposed to Hitler's regime upon his return, though too old to be active in opposition.

      Werner von Blomberg was forced out in 1938, nominally because his wife was a former prostitute but realistically because he'd alienated Goering and Himmler. Hitler then trumped up homosexuality charges against his supposed successor--Werner von Blomberg--in order to force him out.

      Kurt von Hammerstein-Equord was a vocal opponent of Hitler's from the early 1930s on, who led several attempts to oust him

      Wilhelm Adam retired prior to the war, though he actually did get recalled and serve intermittently throughout the war (never in a significant strategic planning position).

      Ludwig Beck served as a military strategist under Hitler, but his decisions were almost uniformly ignored--in particular, he opposed Panzer Blitzkreig techniques and believed that the earliest that Germany would be ready to go to war would be in 1944. He later led a failed plot to assassinate Hitler.

      So of the 5 fieldmarshals of note, 1 actively opposed Hitler, 1 passively opposed him, 1 was dismissed peremptorily, and 1 served intermittently but not in a strategic capacity. Only 1 served as a real strategist, but his ideas were essentially ignored and he wound up leading a plot to kill the Fuhrer.

      The major German strategist to come out of the Truppenamt was Heinz Guderian. He was extremely important, but Goering and many other key military strategists had no real lineage back to the General Staff--and Guderian's influence was sporadic, as he was relieved of command after arguing with Hitler about how to fight the war on the eastern front, the later reinstated only to be relieved of command again by Hitler before the end of the war. Still, he was a key strategist especially leading up to the war.

      It's debatable, though, how much of Guderian's military acumen is owed to the ancestry of the General Staff; he himself claimed that the majority of his Achtung-Panzer! work was derivative of British strategist JFC Fuller and (ironically) French military theoretician Charles de Gaulle, not of earlier General Staff guides.

      --
      rage, rage against the dying of the light
    100. Re:Not so fast.. by ground.zero.612 · · Score: 1

      I love how stating the truth is trolling. Ahhh good old /.

      --
      "Be prepared, son. That's my motto. Be prepared." --Joe Hallenbeck
    101. Re:Not so fast.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > I love how stating the truth is trolling. Ahhh good old /.

      No-- it's your stating of an overgeneralization as fact and saying "Don't like it? Tough cookies!" that's trolling.

  11. The countries by maxume · · Score: 1

    The fact that the games existed in order to be recalled shows that the issue is with the countries, not with the gaming world.

    --
    Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
  12. Boohoo by CaseM · · Score: 0, Troll

    Unfortunately, a proper retort to the Russian oversensitivity gives away key plot points from the game. Sadly, I can't say more. Suffice it to say that their hand-wringing is baseless.

    1. Re:Boohoo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Poorest. Argumentation. Ever.

    2. Re:Boohoo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who the fuck modded this a troll? The point of my post, if I may elaborate, is that a fucking AMERICAN GENERAL is behind most of the bad shit that happens in the game...but we bought millions of copies of the game instead of banning it. That's why I didn't go into more detail. But, hell, there are plenty of posts spilling the beans now, so why worry about possible spoilers now?

    3. Re:Boohoo by CaseM · · Score: 1

      Thanks, Mr. Anonymous Coward. You got me.

  13. Re:Waaaaahh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Like Vietnam or Iraq wars. They are part of bad history. Ou, wait, it is not related to USSR or Russia? Even USA agreed that Chechnya has been terrorist nest.
    Wait and see, Ossetia will get recognized as independent country by whole world. And whole "civilized" world will forget to apologize before Russia for insults made.
    Such is capitalistic world, only acknowledging what is best for it, and it specifically.

  14. Not all about the feelings. by meglon · · Score: 1

    There is a slight difference in the two. The Wolfenstein recall in Germany had little to do with cultural sensitivity, and a lot more to do with the fact that in Germany it is illegal to perform a Hitler salute, wear a Nazi uniform or display the swastika, all of these being good for up to three years in prison.

    Given that, it's probably not unreasonable to think that some people in a given culture might find being demonized for a game not to their liking. Make a game of the early white settlers murdering millions of native american indians, and you'd probably piss off the indians and the poor rednecks who were never taught about it before they dropped out of school.

    --
    Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
    1. Re:Not all about the feelings. by HaZardman27 · · Score: 1

      Make a game of the early white settlers murdering millions of native american indians, and you'd probably piss off the indians and the poor rednecks who were never taught about it before they dropped out of school.

      I assume you've never heard of Custer's Revenge for the Atari. Not exactly the same situation, but close enough.

      Sadly, it would piss off more than just the poor rednecks as they've been taking out America's history with the Native Americans little by little every year. I've met kids these days who know nothing about it. You don't need to drop out of school to avoid learning about American atrocities anymore.

      --
      Apparently wizard is not a legitimate career path, so I chose programmer instead.
  15. anti-nazi-nazis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Not too long ago, Wolfenstein was recalled in Germany for containing Nazi symbols.

    Germans are anti-nazi-nazis.

    1. Re:anti-nazi-nazis by b4dc0d3r · · Score: 1

      No Volfenstein for you!

    2. Re:anti-nazi-nazis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I call Godwin

      Oh wait...

    3. Re:anti-nazi-nazis by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      You know who else banned displays of Nazi symbolism?

      Hitler, that's who.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
  16. What goes around never comes back? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Would you play the Jihad Freedom Fighter game that one day demonizes the US?

    Having played through and beaten the game. I don't think anyone comes away with their hands clean. The games name is "Modern Warfare" and it's dirty, gritty and cold blooded.

    Grand theft Auto I - IV never left me questioning anything I did because of the comedic gameplay. This game did.

    I don't think they should mess with the content but I do think they should have said something about it. Politely, formally, respectively. I mean this is Russia: if they can't pirate it, who will?

    1. Re:What goes around never comes back? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Would you play the Jihad Freedom Fighter game that one day demonizes the US?

      No, but I wouldn't ban it, either.

      In fact, I'll one-up your hypothetical with the actual Postal series. I don't particularly approve of the game's focus on running around killing innocent civilians and small animals, but I didn't go out and start demanding it be banned. I simply didn't buy it.

  17. Have they played the mission? by cosm · · Score: 5, Insightful

    In 'No Russian', you play as an American CIA agent, and you, as an AMERICAN agent, lay round after round into the innocent populace, alongside the Russian antagonist. I think the even larger message Infinity Ward sends with this mission is the atrocious things the American government is willing to do for the sake of 'National Security'.

    Does anyone else see the hilarity in this? Not to mention their foreshadowing of American soldiers torturing an informant via electrocution! Each side of the geopolitical spectrum gets demonized in their own right.

    But hey, lets just hate on the game that shows the gritty reality of the world.

    --
    'We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress.' RPF
    1. Re:Have they played the mission? by snowraver1 · · Score: 4, Informative

      I played this mission. All the hype was saying you have to kill dozens of civiilans, but in truth, you didn't have to kill any. You were just along for the ride. If you chose to kill some, that was up to you, but it was not required. I am sick about all the misinformaiton about this game.

      --
      Copyright 2010. All rights reserved. This comment may not be copied in any way including, but not limited to caching.
    2. Re:Have they played the mission? by tetromino · · Score: 1

      The problem with the mission with who is doing the shooting - it's with who you are shooting at. You are shooting Russian civilians. Massacring dozens of them in cold blood. That's why Russia threatened to ban the game unless the mission was removed.

    3. Re:Have they played the mission? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I played this mission. All the hype was saying you have to kill dozens of civiilans, but in truth, you didn't have to kill any. You were just along for the ride. If you chose to kill some, that was up to you, but it was not required. I am sick about all the misinformaiton about this game.

      If you shoot the civilians in the german edition of the game the mission fails. Police is a valid target though.

      This way it's just half the fun :(

    4. Re:Have they played the mission? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't buy that argument. Should the entire world ban the movie 2012 for nature killing 6 billion people? People die! Be it by nature, or induced by (fellow?) man. And humans do kill each other. It is just a fact of life.

      Lets remove the worlds history while where at it, since it depicts the deaths of billions. It's like they say in fight club: "First, you have to know, not fear, know that someday you are going to die. Until you know that, you are useless."

    5. Re:Have they played the mission? by H0p313ss · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I actually found myself facing a moral quandry when I got to this mission. So I opted to try not using my weapon at all... this was no problem until we faced heavy opposition from the security forces and I opted to apply my fire selectively for self defense. So all told I fired less than 50 rounds, didn't shoot a single civilian and mostly hid behind things.

      That being said I have been waiting for this to hit the proverbial fan ever since.

      --
      XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
    6. Re:Have they played the mission? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So if you don't do anything, your "comrades" still kill the civilians? You know in most places in the world you can still be charged for murder for being present with an accomplice that commits the murder, even if you yourself caused no direct harm?

    7. Re:Have they played the mission? by PitaBred · · Score: 1

      And if you made the same game except shooting innocent Americans? Wait... nothing would happen. Protests, sure, but there would be no banning of the game here in the US.

      Or should we ban books where they talk about the atrocities the Russians committed in wartime? Or Americans? Where does it end when you start regulating "distasteful" content?

    8. Re:Have they played the mission? by amorsen · · Score: 1

      The civilians end up dead either way, don't they? Does it make it better if it isn't you firing the shots?

      --
      Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
    9. Re:Have they played the mission? by flitty · · Score: 1

      This is why this mission is interesting, and should not be censored by any government. The question I've asked my friends who have played it is how they have responded the first time through the level. The implications of being found out are laid out in the cutscene before the level, so everyone I've talked to have reacted differently. I mean, games rarely make you feel emotions, even when they are presented in good vs. evil, such as Fallout 3. The fact that this game does give you moral questions is interesting and does so in a way I haven't seen to date (as long as you accept that these aren't just polygons and nothing you do matters anyway).

      This is the classic moral question of "Do you push the fat guy in front of a train to stop it so it doesn't kill 5 people, even if there is a chance the train could possibly stop on it's own?" put into video game form. (Spoiler: Turns out pusing the fat guy in front of the train kills the fat guy and everyone on the train, and happens to kill the 5 people on the track also.)

      --
      Whether or not there is some sort of god, I'm not supposed to say/god is a word and the argument ends there-Smog
    10. Re:Have they played the mission? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Corrected your post for accuracy with * * below. (Spoilers)

      In 'No Russian', you play as an American CIA agent, and you, as an AMERICAN agent *working for the main villain undercover*, *have the moral choice to* lay round after round into the innocent populace *or not fire at all*, alongside the Russian antagonist *who will shoot you dead if you try to stop them, and does shoot you dead after the mission is over, because he knows you're a spook*. I think the even larger message Infinity Ward sends with this mission is the atrocious things the American government is willing to do for the sake of 'National Security'. *Because the antagonist is not the "prize", the largest threat in the storyline.*
       

      My question at this point is will Infinity Ward release the "patch" as DLC in the rest of the world. The game gives you the option to skip the harrowing scenes, but a free patch to not play this one scene might be appealing to a lot of people.

    11. Re:Have they played the mission? by lidocaineus · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Question - do you find it a moral quandary to run over people in the GTA games? Or play a thief stealing from people in any number of games?

    12. Re:Have they played the mission? by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 1

      From what I've heard, MW2 can be played through in six to eight hours. It's pretty meagre, if true. Perhaps IW2 should offer a replacement campaign to make up for their lack of judgement.

    13. Re:Have they played the mission? by tetromino · · Score: 4, Interesting

      If you made a game with a "No English" mission, where you play as a Russian GRU agent who helps an American terrorist John Remington kill dozens of American civilians at a New York City airport, you will get the American version of game censorship: none of the major stores (Walmart, Best Buy or GameStop) would touch the game with a 6-foot pole. The only reason the federal government wouldn't try to censor the game is that US law currently doesn't allow it to do so.

      But the Russian law does allow such censorship: propaganda of terrorist activities is explicitly illegal. And a game that allows you to participate in terrorist acts (as opposed to just passively watching them or reading about them) would probably have been judged to be propaganda of terrorism, if the game's Russian publisher had decided to go to court about it instead of proactively removing the mission.

    14. Re:Have they played the mission? by syntaxeater · · Score: 1

      I too have played this mission, and while I agree with your statement - saying "dozens" is a little bit of a misnomer. There were many more than a few dozen. Not having read forums or seen clips before playing; I had expected maybe a hostage situation with you partaking in the executions... But this is more on par with "State of Emergeny"'s level of casualties. Granted no where near as graphic, but the volume is there. I'm not complaining or saying I was offended in anyway. Nor am I taking a stance with Russia in banning this. I'm just saying you can't battle misinformation with misinformation.

    15. Re:Have they played the mission? by lavamunky · · Score: 1

      Actually the mission shows British people about to torture someone. The British are NOT Americans

    16. Re:Have they played the mission? by snowraver1 · · Score: 1

      Well, the next step up from 'dozens' would be 'hundreds' ,which I would not consider accurate. I stand by my choice of wording.

      --
      Copyright 2010. All rights reserved. This comment may not be copied in any way including, but not limited to caching.
    17. Re:Have they played the mission? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you had them killing American vets it would get censored. Vets are now sacred cows in the US.

    18. Re:Have they played the mission? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, MW2 is censored in Germany, too. You die if you kill any civilians.

    19. Re:Have they played the mission? by H0p313ss · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Question - do you find it a moral quandary to run over people in the GTA games? Or play a thief stealing from people in any number of games?

      Nowhere near as much as the massacre scene. It's very deliberately quite disturbing.

      --
      XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
    20. Re:Have they played the mission? by TheModelEskimo · · Score: 1

      >I am sick about all the misinformaiton about this game.

      Misinformation? Oh, you mean PUBLICITY!

    21. Re:Have they played the mission? by Ben4jammin · · Score: 1

      If you find it that disturbing, you care about certain groupings of pixels much more than I do. The two main "objective" parts of the game are the aforementioned airport scene and going through DC after much of it has been blown up. After GTA and Fallout 3, I find neither to be that shocking. And since it is just a game, it just didn't bother me. If you need a video game to help you ponder the morals of killing unarmed civilians, then there are larger issues at stake.

    22. Re:Have they played the mission? by tsstahl · · Score: 1

      Ah, jeeze, ITSA GAME!!!!. When I turned all the monsters in Doom II to Barneys, what message was I sending to my yet unborn children?

      Now I'm going to buy it just so I can shoot whatever looks shootable and post screenies in order to destabilize the world! MWAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

      Might as well jump on the ludicrous bandwagon for fun since the games are now all off limits for fun.

    23. Re:Have they played the mission? by thewils · · Score: 1

      What happens if you shoot your buddies? Do you 'die' with the friendly-fire message like in previous CoDs?

      --
      Once I was a four stone apology. Now I am two separate gorillas.
    24. Re:Have they played the mission? by H0p313ss · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If you do NOT ponder the morals of a video game allowing you the choice of massacring dozens of unarmed civilians then there are larger issues at stake.

      --
      XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
    25. Re:Have they played the mission? by H0p313ss · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I actually went back to re-play the mission to answer the same question as soon as I'd finished the campaign. The game will not let you fire on the terrorists at all.

      This is where I think the developers could have really done something special and failed... if as soon as you realize the intent of the terrorists you could eliminate them (or die trying) there could have been two paths to the storyline... one in which you complete the massacre, and one in which it is stopped short. They could have easily wrapped both up in the whole story with minimal impact on cut scenes.

      Not having the opportunity to do the right thing here is where the scene fails.

      What I'd like to know is how many players get to this sequence and wonder "Now wtf do I do?" And what does it imply about those people who start blowing away the civilians without pause?

      --
      XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
    26. Re:Have they played the mission? by pwfffff · · Score: 1

      You forget scores.

    27. Re:Have they played the mission? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some of us realize that there are no actual unarmed civilians being slaughtered -- they are just computer graphics. (Yes, shocking, I know...)

    28. Re:Have they played the mission? by Naturalis+Philosopho · · Score: 1

      Actually, if you let the terrorists get far enough ahead of you then you can shoot them dead; but then the game stops and tells you that your mission failed because you're not supposed to shoot the bad guys. Your idea where you could you die trying to stop them is great as an American Terrorist body in the sky mall area of the airport would be just as good as a body at the end of the mission in terms of the plot line. I believe that this game has brought up wonderful questions, in a format for people who don't normally think of "philosophical" things. And I can imagine a new Meme where your sig tells what you did during your first run-through of the mission.

      As far as the Russian Gov't? They'd best remember that they got into their current position because the Russian People can only put up with so much of being treated like their government's pawns. It's always possible that the Velvet Revolution isn't over yet, and it may yet turn even more violent that the occupation of Moscow back in '93.

    29. Re:Have they played the mission? by ravenshrike · · Score: 1

      Ah, but you see, if you did that, then the Russians wouldn't have gotten angry enough to send what would pretty much have to be their entire armed forces to SUUUPER SEEKRETLY invade the US.

    30. Re:Have they played the mission? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They don't let you kill the terrorists, because then there would be no story. What happens in this mission is pivotal to the rest of the story. By killing the terrorists nothing else in the game would have taken place, and you would have had one short (ok, shorter) campaign.

    31. Re:Have they played the mission? by H0p313ss · · Score: 1

      Actually, if you let the terrorists get far enough ahead of you then you can shoot them dead;

      I guess I didn't try hard enough then...

      but then the game stops and tells you that your mission failed because you're not supposed to shoot the bad guys. Your idea where you could you die trying to stop them is great as an American Terrorist body in the sky mall area of the airport would be just as good as a body at the end of the mission in terms of the plot line.

      That's exactly what I meant. The whole flavor and moral overtone of that mission would change completely if success meant you had to die trying to stop them and failure meant you killed civilians or security or did nothing.

      --
      XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
    32. Re:Have they played the mission? by H0p313ss · · Score: 1

      They don't let you kill the terrorists, because then there would be no story. What happens in this mission is pivotal to the rest of the story. By killing the terrorists nothing else in the game would have taken place, and you would have had one short (ok, shorter) campaign.

      Hence the "die trying" plotline. You cannot walk away a hero but at least you tried.

      --
      XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
    33. Re:Have they played the mission? by PitaBred · · Score: 1

      Yet you could still download it, or get it through mail-order, or whatever. Just because it's unpopular doesn't mean it's illegal or should be banned. Russia may legally allow censorship, but that doesn't make it right. Somalia legally allows stoning... does that mean we should just shrug our shoulders and say "Well, that's what their laws say"?

    34. Re:Have they played the mission? by kumanopuusan · · Score: 2, Funny

      Turns out pusing the fat guy in front of the train kills the fat guy and everyone on the train, and happens to kill the 5 people on the track also

      yeah, you're just greasing the wheels

      --
      Use of the words "good", "bad" or "evil" is almost invariably the result of oversimplification.
    35. Re:Have they played the mission? by BlueCollarCamel · · Score: 1

      It's a game dude. If you can't separate fantasy from reality you shouldn't be playing it.

      --
      1&1 - Cheap domain and web hosting.
    36. Re:Have they played the mission? by Nimey · · Score: 1

      I take it you're not able to fire on the terrorists that you're "with", then? What happens if you try that?

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    37. Re:Have they played the mission? by CaseM · · Score: 1

      massacring dozens of unarmed civilians

      I didn't do that. I used a button on a controller to send commands to the game that instructed it to fire a digital gun at some digital people.

    38. Re:Have they played the mission? by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      As a parent, it's surprising how quickly that "side" evaporates. I support criticism that you kill people. That you don't "have to" is irrelevant.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    39. Re:Have they played the mission? by Simulant · · Score: 1

      I did the same thing. That scene left a bad taste in my mouth. I viewed it as a pretty cheap shot... providing a virtual Columbine-like experience for the seriously twisted. I have no interest in pretend shooting at people who don't shoot back.

      I don't play FPSes for the story or moral lessons. Nor am I pretending to be someone else when I play. I am playing myself in a game of skill against other real humans. The single player games don't even interest me that much (I never even finished the original Half-Life... gasp!) FPS is not RPG nor do I want it to be.

      Infinity Ward has, for the first time since Doom, caused me to consider whether or not I should be playing FPS games at all. Given that they've also neutered multi-player experience with MW2, I think I'll at least stop playing this one.

      Oh... and if I was Russian, I'd be pissed too.

    40. Re:Have they played the mission? by Kailias · · Score: 1

      I'm a 26 year old american male. The first game I ever remember playing was Oregon trail, and the only interesting part about that to me, was when it was time to hunt. When GTA3 was out, I didn't even do the main storyline... I thought it was more interesting to track down all the hookers in the city, take care of business with them in a dark alley somewhere then drive the car off a bridge with them still inside of it. I'm fairly desensitised to anything I see in games, real life, the news. It simply all is information to me. However like you... I found myself facing a moral dilemma when it was time to pull the trigger on the civvies. Before i realized what i was doing, I actually shot at the terrorist and immediately failed the mission. However, the fact that I felt anything at all while playing, especially morally...... was shocking to me. I think this, and a few others things in the game are quite brilliant. I mean really, imagine having a moral dilemma about shooting a digital bullet into a digital civilian in this day and age. I believe this is exactly what they were going for, and it was executed quite well. War is hell. The game does warn you about some shocking content and give you the option of skipping it if you so desire. I believe they should let it stand.

    41. Re:Have they played the mission? by nametaken · · Score: 1

      That's a pretty significant difference. Major stores opting not to carry something controversial is a far cry from a government censoring content because it has decided that you shouldn't see it.

    42. Re:Have they played the mission? by brokenbeaker · · Score: 1

      if the end results are the same, i see no difference

    43. Re:Have they played the mission? by lidocaineus · · Score: 1

      While I respect your opinion, it seems an odd to me that you're not be bothered by wonton mindless destruction of random individuals versus wonton pointed destruction of random individuals.

    44. Re:Have they played the mission? by Gaffod · · Score: 1

      So the CIA kills Russian civilians... We have US breaking numerous pacts, committing an action of -unannounced- war and committing a war crime (civilians!) in the process. What's this about the "Russian antagonist"? Seems to me the Americans are the real terrorists.

  18. The big picture... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    How many sales do software companies even make in Russia? Russia is notorious for hacking, pirates, and spam; not a place where a lot of sales are to be made.

    1. Re:The big picture... by natehoy · · Score: 4, Funny

      One. And it's returned the next day.

      --
      "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
  19. America gets it far worse by mike260 · · Score: 5, Funny

    The US military spends half the game trying to recapture a Burger King and the other half trying not to bomb their own White House. At least the Russians get portrayed as *competent* terrorists.

    1. Re:America gets it far worse by snowraver1 · · Score: 1

      The US was really Attacking Burger King. The "Terrorists" were actually Burger King workers. America has a grudge because Buger King stopped selling the Angery Whopper. Those Bastards!

      --
      Copyright 2010. All rights reserved. This comment may not be copied in any way including, but not limited to caching.
    2. Re:America gets it far worse by ewenix · · Score: 3, Funny

      The "Terrorists" were actually Burger King workers. America has a grudge because Buger King stopped selling the Angery Whopper. Those Bastards!

      My colon declared *me* a terrorist, after I ate one of those Angry Whoppers.

  20. While they're at it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    ...the Russian government should probably pull all the Red Alert titles from the shelves too. Using FMV to portray actors with terrible Russian accents is an affront on everything the Russian people hold dear.

  21. Stay Classy Russia by Swanktastic · · Score: 1

    It would have been nice if there were a discussion of the "demonizing" of Russians from a site in English- to hell with site translators. I haven't played the game and don't really know if the game portrays all Russians as terrorists. I'm fairly sure they would have been content to depict Muslim Chechens as all being terrorists though. A Russian guy once told me about how Russian police(?) wrapped Chechen terrorists' corpses in pigskins to prevent their souls from escaping their bodies.

    1. Re:Stay Classy Russia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what? Americain soldier coated there bullets in bacon fat during the iraq war.

      If islamfag realy belive in the cult bullshit why not use that belive agaist them
      to win battle without fighting. What if in place of X virgin girl to rape in heaven they get
      ethernity in hell because they got killed with pig tainted bullet? They will think twice
      before even engaging battle and will stay home insted of blowing stuff up.

      Fear is the most powerful weapon in any war.

  22. Re:Waaaaahh by jimbobborg · · Score: 0, Troll

    Like Vietnam or Iraq wars. They are part of bad history. Ou, wait, it is not related to USSR or Russia?

    North Vietnam: Former Soviet Puppet
    Iraq: Former Soviet Ally
    Nazi Germany: Former Soviet Ally

  23. Re:Waaaaahh by sopssa · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What does this have to do with history?

    If you have played the game, its clear it makes Americans seem as the true, innocent heroes fighting against bad bad Russia. Even after so long after Cold War Americans still have the type of thinking that Russians are The Evil.

    The war is started by Makarov's set up, but its clear the whole game romanticizes Americans.

  24. Re:Waaaaahh by Piata · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I'm curious what America's response would be to their people being demonized. I'd love to see a game set in Iraq or Vietnam where America invades your country, kills your people and attempts to rest control of your homeland away from you. Or how about a game focused on WWII's war between Japan and America that ends with 2 of your cities being vaporized?

    I would love to see games from a different perspective. It would be refreshing. That and it would generate a lot of amusingly ironic commentary from Americans.

  25. Re:Waaaaahh by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 1

    That misses the point. If they don't like it, why don't they release a game that portrays the US as villains? The irony is that it would probably sell out in the US. My son & his Xbox friends all love playing as the evil bad guy.

    --
    I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
  26. They Couldn't See this Coming? by mpapet · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Seriously,

    My fictionally perfect game that will sell WAY more than this title will have country-specific enemies. Marketed in the U.S? Russia. Marketed in Russia? U.S. Marketed in India? Pakistan. Marketed in Pakistan? Indians.

    They'd sell more games pandering to country-specific deeply ingrained cultural enemies. Maybe the game engine doesn't support locales like that though.

    --
    http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
    1. Re:They Couldn't See this Coming? by JimboFBX · · Score: 2, Funny

      Why would Pakistanis want to play a game where the Cherokee on horse-back are the bad guys?

    2. Re:They Couldn't See this Coming? by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      the game engine doens't have to support it, just ship different editions.

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    3. Re:They Couldn't See this Coming? by tsstahl · · Score: 1

      Doable, but a support nightmare. Release it as a community game.

    4. Re:They Couldn't See this Coming? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you kidding me?

      Pakistan is in the middle of Cold War-esque nuclear standoff with the Cherokee!

      Call of Duty 4: Brown vs. Red Warfare will be awesome! :)

  27. Disclaimer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Agreed that the game does slant a bad image of Russia. An introduction to the themes and a disclaimer could have really cleared up all the mess. When you portray a nationality as the antagonist, thick skinned or not, it does kind of sting a little. At the very least, a few people might be self conscious now that the rest of the world views them as imperialistic "will to power" war mongering opportunist. ALA USA post 9/11.

    A brief disclaimer and introduction to the themes/plot narrative would have cleared the air that this is fiction and they just choose russia as the bad guys, purely out of fiction.

    1. Re:Disclaimer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is one, at least in PS3. It gives you the option to skip "potentially offensive" missions. If you choose to ignore the disclaimer, then that's your fault.

  28. Thin skins are not the problem; terrorism is by tetromino · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The problem Russia's Ministry of Internal Affairs had with the mission is not with how the Russian villain is portrayed (although that probably didn't help the game get a positive reception), but with the fact that the mission is about killing innocent Russian civilians. It does not matter whether the villain is Russian or French or American or Martian - killing civilians at an airport is, according, to a Ministry spokesman, "propaganda of terrorism" and hence illegal.

    See http://www.gotps3.ru/article/call_of_duty_modern_warfare_2_zapretjat_v_rossii/ for more details.

    1. Re:Thin skins are not the problem; terrorism is by ozbird · · Score: 4, Funny

      ... killing civilians at an airport is, according, to a Ministry spokesman, "propaganda of terrorism" and hence illegal.

      What if they were journalists?

    2. Re:Thin skins are not the problem; terrorism is by discord5 · · Score: 2

      ... killing civilians at an airport is, according, to a Ministry spokesman, "propaganda of terrorism" and hence illegal.

      What if they were journalists?

      ZING! Careful now, you better be carrying a Geiger counter with you if you keep telling jokes like that.

    3. Re:Thin skins are not the problem; terrorism is by toiletsalmon · · Score: 1

      I don't recall them being so concerned about "Russian civilians" in those videos I saw of Russian Police Officers beating the living shit out of so called "criminals". Of course, I'm sure they make certain to use those techniques on ONLY the criminals.

    4. Re:Thin skins are not the problem; terrorism is by Gaffod · · Score: 1

      He did say *innocent* civilians.

  29. Re:Germans and Wolfenstein .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wouldn't say they gloss over their history...

    What about the "Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe" in Berlin?

    Murdered Jews! I'd hardly call that a denial of your own history

  30. Re:Waaaaahh by Hybrid-brain · · Score: 0

    North Korea: Former Soviet Protectorate Cuba: Former Soviet Base

    --
    Five words describe me on a normal day. two words describe me the rest of the time. can you guess?
  31. Re:Waaaaahh by Boomerang+Fish · · Score: 1

    Probably a lot of protests, a few of your more "paternalistic" chains, like Walmart might refuse to stock it, but in the end it would sell, because the protests would bring a much larger audience than it could have gotten on its own...

    Hell, you'd probably get some special interest groups screaming "its about time" and buying it out on principle.

    --
    I drank what?

  32. Re:Waaaaahh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I've played, but clearly you haven't.

    SPOLIERS

    Did you completely forget the massive subplot where Col. Shepard was in cahoots with Makarov to initiate the attack on American soil? His motives be damned, towards the end you were fighting hordes of Russian and traitorous US troops.

  33. Re:Waaaaahh by Shakrai · · Score: 1, Troll

    but its clear the whole game romanticizes Americans.

    Imagine that. You'd almost think the game was written by an American gaming company or something.....

    Seriously, who cares? Who cares if the game presents Americans as wholesome apple pie eaters and Russians as murderous baby rapers? Is this really something to get Governments worked up about? Shouldn't the story here be about censorship rather than game content? Make a game that portrays Americans in a negative light and sell it here -- I doubt our Government will feel the need to prevent our people from buying it.

    --
    I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
    We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
  34. Re:Waaaaahh by iamacat · · Score: 1

    What does this have to do with history?

    What indeed? Games are for entertainment and doing precisely the kind of things that would be a bad idea in real life. If you want to blow away Russians, Americans or Iranians, your government has no business keeping you from buying the game. In fact, as a Russian, my curiosity is now piqued. Although I would prefer a politically incorrect title to the tune of Leisure Suite Larry or Duke Nukem.

  35. Unlike all other countries? by Lemming+Mark · · Score: 1

    Russia has a bad history and so does everyone else. I don't see the mainstream video games industry making much effort to portray the negative sides of countries they're based in or where their major markets are. You can use art, including video games, as a critical tool - but if a developer really has an artistic interest in social commentary, rather than just finding convenient stereotypes to build plot around, I'd expect them to be tackling the dirty laundry of other major powers from history. That said, being located in an unstable region with various power plays going on in their vicinity, Russia does make a plausible setting for dramatic military stuff to go down.

  36. mw2 doesn't portray russians as terrorists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just to be clear -- mw2 does NOT portray russians as terrorists.
    It portrays one guy in particular, who happens to be russian, as a
    a terrorist. He happens to slaughter a bunch of civilians (along with
    the american CIA mole) and pins it on the US, which leads the
    russians into a conventional war against the US. This is (with
    the exception of the terrorist framing a major government) entirely
    analagous to the US going into Afghanistan after 9/11.

    the "no russian" mission is pretty hardcore violent, and you're
    warned about it when you set up the game.

    So I don't think anyone can justifiably say it portrays "russians"
    negatively... in the context of the game, they're pretty justifiably
    pissed off, not invading "as terrorists".

    If anyone recalls the game for nastiness, I'd expect it to be for
    the "no russian" mission purely because it's... hardcore violent.
    I can't comment on the russian rationale for the recall, as TFA
    is in russian. The english articles citing it are gaming sites
    citing other gaming sites, I don't see original English sources
    explaining why the recall is happening.

  37. A mod to correct the portrayal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In an effort to make the Russians appear less bloody thirsty the new release of the game will have Russian weapons replaced by flowers and instead of running the Russian characters will skip.

  38. they purposefully wrote this law by wiredog · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I thought the Allied Powers wrote the law in 1945?

    1. Re:they purposefully wrote this law by plague3106 · · Score: 3, Informative

      And since Germany is again soverign, I imagine they could change the law if they wanted to.

    2. Re:they purposefully wrote this law by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm pretty sure I can see the headlines already, should Germany decriminalize the swastika: "Swastikas endorsed by German Government", "Germans are again flying SS symbols", etc.

      I don't think there is a country in the world that works harder at self-flagellation than the Germans - nor is there any country in the world that is expected to self-flagellate that hard.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    3. Re:they purposefully wrote this law by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      Its not criminal in the US, and no one is claiming the US endoreces Nazism. Germany could simply say "we think we've undone the damage to our children, and have beated Facist ideas."

    4. Re:they purposefully wrote this law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It beats the Japanese approach.

    5. Re:they purposefully wrote this law by discord5 · · Score: 1

      Its not criminal in the US, and no one is claiming the US endoreces Nazism. Germany could simply say "we think we've undone the damage to our children, and have beated Facist ideas."

      Yes, but that is the US. I'm sure that if Germany stopped banning the swastika some people here would get upset. When the wall fell, a lot of the older generation were mumbling the words "Oh great, give them another 10 years and they'll be occupying us again".

      I'm not saying that that particular sentiment is still alive that much at the moment, but there are still plenty of examples of that sentiment. For instance, where I live certain families are still mentioned in the same sentence as the word "collaborator". While people don't really take out to the streets anymore to shave their heads (amongst other things), there is a certain amount of venom in the words particularly when that family has been successful financially.

      While most my generation thinks the whole swastika ban is nonsense, my parents generation would frown upon it being lifted, and my grandparents generation would start stocking up on supplies. Remember when prince Harry wore a nazi costume? Look how prominently the swastika is displayed in the picture. A shocking report on TV on neonazis? You bet the camera keeps that swastika on screen as much as possible. I doubt that the symbol will lose its (relatively) new meaning in the next generation, and maybe that is a good thing if it reminds everyone not to stand for such a regime again.

      I don't think there is a country in the world that works harder at self-flagellation than the Germans - nor is there any country in the world that is expected to self-flagellate that hard.

      True, but what great comedy it has given us. Even today, that episode of Fawlty Towers remains funny, and I'm sure the Germans are allowed to have a laugh too now.

    6. Re:they purposefully wrote this law by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      And since Germany is again soverign, I imagine they could change the law if they wanted to.

      Not really. Laws banning swastika and other Nazi symbolism in Germany stem directly from the latter's constitution ("Basic Law"), and the relevant clauses of that are immutable - there's no legitimate procedure by which they could be changed. And this arrangement was in turn largely dictated by the Allies as a condition of handing over the power.

    7. Re:they purposefully wrote this law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think there is a country in the world that works harder at self-flagellation than the Germans...

      Yeah, I really can't take German food either without some Beno...

    8. Re:they purposefully wrote this law by rossz · · Score: 1

      I don't think there is a country in the world that works harder at self-flagellation than the Germans - nor is there any country in the world that is expected to self-flagellate that hard.

      These days Israel is expected to do exactly that. They just won't play along with the UN's bullshit.

      --
      -- Will program for bandwidth
    9. Re:they purposefully wrote this law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think there is a country in the world that works harder at self-flagellation than the Germans - nor is there any country in the world that is expected to self-flagellate that hard.

      Oh that's hott.

    10. Re:they purposefully wrote this law by boppacesagain08 · · Score: 1

      Did you really just use the words flagellate twice in the same sentence?

    11. Re:they purposefully wrote this law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "... nor is there any country in the world that is expected to self-flagellate that hard."

      Well, as far as expectations go, there are a few. However, Germans AFAIK are the only ones who took it seriously and didn't skim at it.

    12. Re:they purposefully wrote this law by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      You point to anecdote to show that SOME people may still have some reservations. I don't think that's the mainstream thinking though.

      As far as price harry goes, no, I never even knew that happened. Of course the link seems to suggest it was only reported in trash tabloid "news," and there seems to be no good reason for him to be dressed in full nazi combat fatiges (it looks like a costume party, but it doesn't seem to match the theme).

      I don't recall that being news anywhere in the US, at least.

  39. Re:Waaaaahh by sopssa · · Score: 1

    Exactly. But none is going to do it, publish it or sell it. And it would most likely be banned right away.

  40. yeah i think by nimbius · · Score: 1

    we need to crack down on demonizing countries and people in video games. as an example, theres a notable portion of the populace that have an extremely difficult time discerning between sean hannity's tangential commentary and REAL news. What is to stop this portion from being creatively incensed even further to adopt a polarized stance to the rest of the world based on gameplay they forgot is not part of history or even a remotely accurate portrayal?

    lets go back to places and people that arent real, so we can be free to form our own opinions without entertainment media driving them to extremes.

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
    1. Re:yeah i think by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We need to crack down on self-appointed elites that think that they know better then other people how those people should be entertaining themselves.

    2. Re:yeah i think by plague3106 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      How very arrogent of you, to think that people are so stupid as to be influced as much as you claim. Oh, but I'm sure you don't think media influcences YOU right? After all, you're too smart.

      How about we do this instead; let people think for themselves.

    3. Re:yeah i think by theArtificial · · Score: 1

      Why the outcry over fiction? Does this mean any fictional books involving Russia are subject too? Why isn't there an outcry over movies with fictional Russian villains?

      --
      Man blir trött av att gå och göra ingenting.
  41. Re:Waaaaahh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm sure people would bitch and moan, but it wouldn't be BANNED by the government. Why? Something called the constitution, and freedom of speech.

  42. Re:Waaaaahh by sebt3 · · Score: 1

    Go to school... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_war Iraq was a US mignon during the cold war. and Iran was help by the soviet.

  43. Rainbow 6 : Tower Records by royler · · Score: 2, Funny

    why dont they just make a game where the RIAA are the bad guys?

    1. Re:Rainbow 6 : Tower Records by PPH · · Score: 1

      Because we're already playing it. Its called IRL.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  44. Quite a simple solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Release an alternative mission that involves first going into an American school and massacring the schoolkids, then by chance stumbling upon the president out on a jog and killing him, who happens to be Obama.

    -5billion flamebait.

  45. It doesn't say why? by Lemming+Mark · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The article isn't specific on whether the infamous airport scene is being removed because of its portrayal of Russia, or whether it's being censored because it's an unpleasant part of the game. Most other countries have had uproar about this scene and I'd expect to see it refused classification in some places (e.g. in Australia where Left 4 Dead 2 recently encountered problems). A national classification body refusing to allow a game to go on sale does, effectively, constitute the government disapproving of something - but it's a very different situation to central government stepping in and banning something directly for political reasons. Maybe this is happening behind the scenes but the article *doesn't say*.

    It's certainly suggested that the Russian gaming public weren't all overjoyed to see the portrayal of their country in the game. That's hardly surprising, though - I expect most gamers from other big markets such as Europe, the US and Japan would also be quite easily offended if their unpleasant past was dredged up. People don't like to think of their country ever being the villains and yet pretty much every country in the world has been villainous in the past, often surprisingly recently.

    1. Re:It doesn't say why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, we Canadians... w00f, we are that the worst of the worst. The attrocities we Canadians have inflicted on teh world... oh wait... are we even in the game? >.>

    2. Re:It doesn't say why? by Lunzo · · Score: 1

      Actually Modern Warfare 2 isn't banned in Australia. Apparently shooting civilians at an airport isn't evil but setting fire to zombies and cutting undead with chainsaws is.

    3. Re:It doesn't say why? by Lemming+Mark · · Score: 1

      Bizarre! Maybe they've toned down the game there pre-emptively? My understanding was that the classification system for video games there isn't flexible enough to deal with violent content well, so it's possible for stuff to basically integer overflow and crash their classification board ;-)

      Of course, this might be untrue, I read it on Slashdot!

  46. Re:Waaaaahh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you have played the game, its clear it makes Americans seem as the true, innocent heroes fighting against bad bad Russia. Even after so long after Cold War Americans still have the type of thinking that Russians are The Evil.

    Evil? Maybe not so much, but they do not act in our interests (nor do we act in theirs), and we don't trust each other.

    The war is started by Makarov's set up, but its clear the whole game romanticizes Americans.

    Maybe so.. then again the game was developed in the US, by a US company, and while copies will be sold overseas a huge number of units will be sold in... wait for it... the US.

    I've got an idea: whoever doesn't like the game shouldn't buy the game nor play the game. Is it really that difficult?

    The hell of it is, is that neither Infinity Ward nor Activision will change the game for most other markets, all the while it will sell an assload of units to the same people who are bitching about it. Vote with your Euros and buy something else, you fucking retards!

  47. Here we go by Itadakimasu · · Score: 1

    In Capitalist America, you ban the game.

    In Soviet Russia, game bans YOU!!

  48. Re:Germans and Wolfenstein .... by raddan · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I've been to Germany a number of times, and had a long-term relationship with a woman living there. I met a lot of Germans.

    I wouldn't say that modern Germans are 'in denial'-- really, people's reactions run the gamut. But what is true, is that everyone there has a strong opinion on the matter. Many people have a deep sense of shame about it-- after all, in many cases the people who perpetrated the atrocities of WWII were parents or grandparents. Some people had nothing to do with that part of the past, or are descendents of victims, and they feel that the German people are wrongly villified. A minority-- and unfortunately, these people are growing in number-- think that the whole Holocaust thing is revisionist history. It's not that people don't talk about it, but it is a very sensitive issue, even among Germans, and so you'd understand if they don't want to talk to you about it.

    Interestingly, when I was in Germany, many people I hung out with constantly complained about "repressive American political correctness" while also failing to notice that American 1st Amendment freedoms are much stronger than the German equivalent. There's definitely a bit of a different philosophy at work there (e.g., most Germans I met are not as optimistic as Americans when it comes to populist regimes), but with regard to how, exactly that differs, I have not been able to put my finger on it. Maybe a German reader would care to comment.

  49. Re:Waaaaahh by Shakrai · · Score: 1

    I'm curious what America's response would be to their people being demonized.

    There would be a lot of whining but I'll wager that our Government wouldn't feel the need to prohibit our people from buying the game.....

    That's a small little difference between the US and Russia that most people in this discussion seem to be omitting.

    --
    I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
    We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
  50. They're missing the whole point by Tetrarchy · · Score: 1

    The mission is called "No Russian" for a reason. Without being too much of a spoiler, the title is from the words to you by the terrorist leader at the start of the mission, reminding you not to speak any russian. Because he plans to blame the attack on outsiders for political gain. So theres no real implication that the game is portraying Russians in general in a bad light in this mission. That being said it was one of the more shocking experiences I have ever had in a video game. There is very little explanation of the mission objective before hand, so when your 'squad' opens fire you are completely confused. I bet it would make for a psychology case study to see what people do when prevented with this situation. But anyways, its really an interesting game for the situations they put you in. Its a lot different from the last one, as you're not shooting at generic arab terrorists for most of the game anymore. Eventually you really start wondering who's side you're really on or who the good guys are. I really liked it.

    1. Re:They're missing the whole point by tetromino · · Score: 1

      I am afraid you are missing the whole point. As Russia's Ministry of Internal Affairs sees it, a mission where you get to massacre dozens of Russian civilians at an airport is terrorist propaganda, and therefore is, under Russian law, illegal. It matters not one bit whether the character you are playing speaks Russian or English or Arabic (although the portrayal of the Russian villain certainly didn't help the game get a positive reception).

  51. Re:While they're at it... (Red Alert) by buckeyeguy · · Score: 1
    OK so I'm not the only one wondering why the Russians are offended by implications of terrorism, when they're apparently not offended by implied gross incompetence, which the latest (C&C RA3) seems to promote with great comic effect. For god's sake never let Tim Curry mess with the space/time continuum!

    "at least I have job..." lol

    --
    I'd have a personalized plate on my car, but "toxic bachelor" won't fit into 7 letters.
  52. Re:Germans and Wolfenstein .... by davek · · Score: 1

    If that's accurate, then it goes a LONG way towards understanding why they'd ban a game like Wolfenstein, and why they're so adamant about banning sales of Nazi era items on eBay, etc. etc.

    I believe that nazi symbols are illegal in Germany, creating the usual ironic effect whenever forms of expression are censored. That is, the act of censoring expression will bring more attention to that which is being eradicated.

    A quick google turned up this: http://www.wisegeek.com/is-it-really-illegal-to-display-the-swastika-symbol-in-germany.htm

    --
    6th Street Radio @ddombrowsky
  53. Re:Germans and Wolfenstein .... by CorporateSuit · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Actually, it comes down to a difference of philosophy on how to build a brighter future. While Americans profess "We must learn from History, lest it repeat itself." -- Germany argues "We must not learn from History, lest someone get ideas on how to repeat it."

    --
    I am the richest astronaut ever to win the superbowl.
  54. Re:Germans and Wolfenstein .... by DomNF15 · · Score: 1

    Indeed, and at least the footprints of some concentration camps still exist, where they will show you footage of what happened there and give you tours of the ovens and gas chambers. I happened to visit Dachau a few years ago. Repression is not the best way to prevent the past from repeating itself.

  55. Re:Waaaaahh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You need to learn that Wikipedia is not a substitute for school.

    While it is true that the US supported Iraq just enough to maintain a stalemate in the Iran/Iraq war, that amount of US support for Iraq was minuscule compared to that of other countries like the Soviet Union.

  56. Re:Germans and Wolfenstein .... by ChienAndalu · · Score: 4, Informative

    While I confess I've never even visited Germany before, I had a teacher who did a while ago. I remember him telling us the Germans had a culture of denial, when it came to the WWII Nazi era. History textbooks would completely gloss over that part of history with only the vaguest mention of Hitler and his ambitions. At first, he tried to discuss and question it with people there, but he said it was almost like running into a brick wall. People would practically tell him to quiet down, because "we don't talk about that here anymore".

    If that's accurate, then it goes a LONG way towards understanding why they'd ban a game like Wolfenstein, and why they're so adamant about banning sales of Nazi era items on eBay, etc. etc.

    Are you trolling? You are spreading some serious misinformation here.

    We have several Holocaust memorial days, there is probably a documentary on the Third Reich and World War Two once week on the TV channel. About a third of history education in school is dedicated to the Third Reich. I think a trip to a concentration camp is even mandatory for school classes.

    The display of Nazi symbols is banned (with certain exceptions) not because of denial, but to fight right-wing extremists. And like every government, our government is being stupid and bans Nazi symbols even if they aren't being used by right-wing extremists but by ID software in Wolfenstein. We have a "department for youth protection", which is something like Jack Thompsons wet dream, which does all the censorship. German gamers hate it when their games are being censored, so don't confuse "what the German government does" with "what all German people think is good" like in the thread about the two murderers.

  57. Re:Germans and Wolfenstein .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't know where your teacher went or who he/she was trying to talk to, but that is completely inaccurate.
    During my final years of highschool in Germany we spend twice about half a year in history lessons on 1st and 2nd world war. Our history teacher even organized to go and watch Schindler's List with our class.
    Of course there are radical Neonazi movements etc. (as there are in the US), which as usual is a tiny part of the population getting disproportionate media publicity. The reason Nazi symbols and the like are forbidden in Germany is not to hush it all up as you seem to imply, but in an effort to crack down on those elements. So it is really the opposite, because of our history we tend to be more sensitive to these things, not because we try to deny what happened, but because we know very well, probably better than many other nations, what those things can lead to.

  58. Wolfenstein and the "Occult" by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    In Raiders, Major Eaton claims that

    for the last two years the Nazis have had teams of archeologists running around the world looking for all sorts of religious artifacts. Hitler's gone nuts on the subject. He's crazy. He's obsessed with the occult. And right now, apparently, there is some kind of German archeological dig going on in the desert outside Cairo.

    But how true is this claim? Is this perception simply a failure to grapple with the fact that Hitler was not insane, he was not possessed by demons, and simply made a cold blooded choice to slaughter millions?

    Wolfenstein encourages the player to think of Nazis as creatures of myth and masters of the dark arts, rather than as ordinary criminals, capable of making ethical decisions and thus fully culpable for their actions.

  59. Don't forget Poland by mobby_6kl · · Score: 1

    Not to mention how buddy-buddy they were with each other when it came to taking a bite out of Poland. If Hitler wasn't so retardedly ambitious, the whole of Eurasia, Africa, and probably some other parts of the world would be Germany, Russia/USSR, and Japan now. Or maybe not, as the empires would probably fall apart on their own, but that's not the point.

  60. Re:Waaaaahh by Plaid+Phantom · · Score: 1

    Make a game that portrays Americans in a negative light and sell it here...

    Isn't that what they did with GTA?

    --
    All comments are properties and trademarks of the voices in my head. Not like I'm gonna claim them.
  61. Absolute reasonable action by the Russian Gov't by elloGov · · Score: 1

    Considering the ridiculous amount of hours the players will spend playing this game, these fictional scenarios are bound to cross boundaries with reality in the minds of avid gamers. Russia has a valid concern.

  62. Stalin Let Hitler Invade Poland by geoffrobinson · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You mean those long 5 months? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact

    Seriously, Stalin let Hitler attack Britain & Poland. They were double-crossed. The Soviets did sacrifice a lot, but let's be honest. They were bastards.

    --
    Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
    1. Re:Stalin Let Hitler Invade Poland by MattSausage · · Score: 0

      Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.

      I don't mean to be Pedantic, but in response to your sig. I'm pretty sure wars were started in defense of slavery, and *against* American independence. After all the south could have simply said, "Okay" when slavery was outlawed, and the British could have simply said "alright then." when American's proclaimed their Independence. Those wars were fought to maintain slavery and to maintain British rule, and the aggressors lost. Similarly, the Nazi's started WW2 by invading another country. The war was fought to defend against the Nazi's, WW2 wasn't started with the idea to rid the world of Nazism. Also, I'm curious which war ended communism?

    2. Re:Stalin Let Hitler Invade Poland by Chosen+Reject · · Score: 1

      If we're going to be pedantic, the American Civil War had been under way for some time before the Emancipation Proclamation. The Civil War was started for other reasons. Freeing the slaves eventually became an additional objective which gave Lincoln popular support from foreign powers, most importantly France and the UK.

      --
      Stop Global Warming!
      Just say no to irreversible processes!
    3. Re:Stalin Let Hitler Invade Poland by MattSausage · · Score: 0

      Fair point. But you then admit that ending slavery (in America of course) was, at best, a by product of war, not caused by war. And hell, in England, Slavery was ended by the guy who wrote Amazing Grace. I saw it in a movie.

    4. Re:Stalin Let Hitler Invade Poland by geoffrobinson · · Score: 1

      All my sig says is that wars settled issues, largely in response to "wars don't solve anything" which is complete b.s.

      --
      Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
    5. Re:Stalin Let Hitler Invade Poland by Chosen+Reject · · Score: 1

      By-product and cause are not necessarily different. The American Civil War most certainly caused the ending of slavery. However, ending slavery was also a by-product of the war. That is, the war's original purpose did not involve ending slavery, (so thus it was a by-product), but it did cause slavery to end.

      But even without the cause/by-product argument, the sig in question never said that the wars had to be started for the purpose of solving those problems, it only stated that war did solve those problems.

      --
      Stop Global Warming!
      Just say no to irreversible processes!
    6. Re:Stalin Let Hitler Invade Poland by MattSausage · · Score: 0

      For what it's worth. I stand corrected. And I would agree that war solves issues.. who's issues and to what extent those issues are to the overall benefit of mankind, obviously that is arguable.

  63. Re:Waaaaahh by ground.zero.612 · · Score: 1

    I'm curious what America's response would be to their people being demonized. I'd love to see a game set in Iraq or Vietnam where America invades your country, kills your people and attempts to rest control of your homeland away from you. Or how about a game focused on WWII's war between Japan and America that ends with 2 of your cities being vaporized?

    I would love to see games from a different perspective. It would be refreshing. That and it would generate a lot of amusingly ironic commentary from Americans.

    The response would be "Who fucking cares?" Then the silence that would echo in your ears would be all the Americans not caring.

    Everyone in the whole world already knows the worst possible thing you could be on Earth right now is: White, Christian, Male, and American. We are already demonized in every other form of media around the world, do you honestly think we would give a flying fuck if it happened in a video game???

    Trust me when I say we don't care what you think about us. Try to fuck with us too much though and see what happens hahahahhahaa!

    --
    "Be prepared, son. That's my motto. Be prepared." --Joe Hallenbeck
  64. And yet by Culture20 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    A good percentage of games and media made in the U.S. portray the U.S. government in a bad light, and yet they don't get yanked. (pun merely fortuitous)

    1. Re:And yet by Phrogman · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Ah but I think Americans also distinguish between criticism of their Government by other Americans and criticism by foreigners. There is also the distinction between criticizing the Government and the System.

      Pretty much every American seems willing to accept that their Government is not perfect and needs constant correction to keep to the right path; that its capable of corruption etc.

      Pretty much every American I have met or talked with seems to think that in general their government system is the best possible option over other systems - and many seem to assign almost religious overtones to the US Constitution, like it was handed down to them from the hands of Jehovah himself.

      If a game came out that portrayed the US Government as a malevolent system that dominated and abused its population, that portrayed the Constitution as a scheme/tool that permitted that domination, and which showed the US Government rounding up civilians both at home and abroad and slaughtering them in concentration camps - and encouraged you to support this view of the US by participating, I think that US gameplayers and the US Government might have some objections (although some would love it of course). I agree that they would likely founder on the rights of free speech mind you, but someone would be speaking up. There is a distinction between portraying individual Americans as evil and portraying the system as evil.

      Now, I don't think that the US Government or the US Constitution are in fact evil. I do think that Corporations are inherently immoral, and that they have far too much control over the machinations of the Government (in some ways they appear to be the Government effectively). The truth of the situation is somewhere in between I think.

      --
      "The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
    2. Re:And yet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Same goes for film and television. I'm pretty certain there are more than a few books that have been forcefully edited or blacklisted for content in the past too. :)

      This isn't new, just the same old censorship assaults applied to another medium. It's fictional people, and I'm sure I could find much more horrific game content out there. Anyone remember Postal 1 and 2? You could dump gas on civilians, light them on fire, watch them run around and then have the option to piss on them to put out the flames or not. You could also beat animals. How about some of the gang-fiction games where you could beat and violate women, steal, sell and do drugs, and more?

      I think Russia needs to lighten up. If they want sentiment like this to not be linked to them they should continue on their path of being a more inviting country internationally. More tourism, national parks/preserves, and respect for their people would be a great place to start. If you haven't watched the National Geographic series Wild Russia that was recently released I recommend it. There is some very interesting territory that is seldom shown to the rest of the world.

    3. Re:And yet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We Americans don't act as though the constitution was handed down to us by Jehovah. That is an unfair remark.

      However, we DO recognize that our constitution is rather special. It is very likely the ONLY THING that restrained George W. Bush from taking the world in a very bad direction during his eight years in power.

      Would I like to update the constitution a bit? Sure. I'd start by creating a detailed preamble specifically describing a "bill of human rights", I'd pattern it after the U.N's Universal Declaration of human rights, and I'd explicitly state that no amendment or adjustment to the constitution could ever be made that would abridge any of those rights. Most important, I would explicitly state that the rights described apply to ALL HUMAN BEINGS, not just Americans, to head off any future republican shenanigans.

      But would I trust Congress to get it right, and not totally screw up the whole thing? Not on your life.

      The constitution isn't bad currently, and we're stuck with it for better or worse. If it can curtail (and survive) Dubya, I guess it ain't half bad.

    4. Re:And yet by cromar · · Score: 1

      We Americans don't act as though the constitution was handed down to us by Jehovah.

      Some of us do. Some of us do so very loudly. Not all of us, but... I can see how other countries might get that impression.

      The funny thing to me is that, while I do believe in the Bill of Rights almost religiously, I wonder if the founding fathers really had the rights of the People at heart when they wrote it... e.g. slavery, must be land-owner to vote, etc. Or maybe it was just their confederalist ideals that led them to ignore these issues in the written document. I'm always torn, though, between local rights (i.e. states' rights) and the power of Federalism to kick states' asses that suck at governing, e.g. with reconstruction, segregation, racism, etc.

    5. Re:And yet by Simulant · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Citation needed. Please list one game that portrays the US military in a bad light.

    6. Re:And yet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Depicting U.S. government as an omnipotent evil monstrosity is actually favored by the politicians. It makes them seem competent in the eyes of the public.

    7. Re:And yet by d34dluk3 · · Score: 1

      many seem to assign almost religious overtones to the US Constitution, like it was handed down to them from the hands of Jehovah himself.

      They didn't teach you that in school? You poor uneducated bastard!

  65. Re:Germans and Wolfenstein .... by OrangeMonkey11 · · Score: 1

    But I would not call the "Memorial of the Murdered Jews" in Berlin any sort of openness embracing of Germany WW2 history either.

    Your comment is like a white person saying "I'm not racist i have black friends"; just because they built something to memorialize an atrocity that was mostly ignored by most of their population does not mean that they have finally embrace and acknowledge that part of their history.

    I have been told over the years by many instructors who have experience what King TJ instructor have experience while staying long term in Germany as well; Germans do not like to talk about "that" part of their history.

     

  66. Not following by JimboFBX · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The game was supposed to draw parallels to Afghanistan without being that obvious (imagine your country being invaded all because of the acts of one person/small group of people). Its clearly criticism against he US government.

    Oh well, the Russians aren't missing much. The plot was quite frankly kind of stupid, like it was written by Michael Bay. The snowmobiles/speedboats move at 150 mph too and don't feel even remotely realistic.

    1. Re:Not following by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When was the last time you were haulin' ass in a snowmobile/speedboat?

    2. Re:Not following by cptnapalm · · Score: 1

      "The game was supposed to draw parallels to Afghanistan"

      If that is the case then it does a piss poor job of it, which isn't too surprising because the plot, as you said, is pretty stupid. It is the leading candidate for my 2009 Most Vastly Overrated Game of the Year.

    3. Re:Not following by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 1

      And I think that Cameo with Ben Stiller was a little over the top.

    4. Re:Not following by indiechild · · Score: 1

      A Call of Duty game being critical of the US government, are you for real? You must be smoking something good...

    5. Re:Not following by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the game obviously drew a lot from Michael Bay movies ... two scenes in particular were almost directly from The Rock.

      One was the fight through a locker-room, complete with a surrounding second floor filled with bad-guys. Only thing different was you don't pop-up through the drain in the middle.

      The other was the race to the top of "Whiskey Hotel." There were jets inbound ready to bomb WH to the ground, and to stop them you had to rush to the roof, pop a flare and wave it around in the Nick (cage) of time.

      I'm sure others can chime in with other parts taken almost directly from action movies.

    6. Re:Not following by masterQba · · Score: 1

      the snowmobiles/speedboats tipped you off? :-)
      for me it was the f15s zipping by two helicopters at arms length or in the same level being airlifted from a 2x2 hole in the roof with metal rods waiting to split you in half... cod never's been a realistic game. if you want (semi)realism play operation flashpoint or something. cod is an action movie and it's great if played like that... way worse than the first modern warfare though. playing it I get the feeling that I've done this all before, ohh so many times. nothing to see here move along.

      --
      xb0x
  67. Re:Germans and Wolfenstein .... by Dgtl_+_Phoenix · · Score: 0, Troll

    While only antidotal evidence, my experience with native Germans was quite similar. Attempts to speak of the Nazi era were generally dismissed with the tone that an American northerner would dismiss slavery. Pressing the issue yielded more awkward results. Only the Jewish population had any interest in anything beyond tacit acknowledgement of the Nazi regime. Given the culture of quite denial, it’s not shocking that many German laws focus on keeping this portion of German history out of the spotlight.

  68. Re:Germans and Wolfenstein .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I have to say that your teacher has no clue what he's talking about, even though this behavior was widespread in the generation fighting this war (which is pretty obvious...try to explain to yourself you took part in genocide) this holds no longer true today.
    I am German and WWII is anything but glossed over. I'd even say it is exaggerated. During my school career WWII and our 'Sonderweg' (special path in history) were central aspects, they were repeated over and over until it came out of your ears. The German culture, up to this day, has not recovered from the moral blow.

    Our government and population are outright afraid of being accused to have forgotten the past. We will do anything to tell you it is our fault anytime, we will stoop as low as we can. To this date it is not possible for Germany to talk openly to Poland or Israel for example. We cannot do a neutral decision in matters of immigration and there are a thousand other things like that (to which the ban of the swastika belongs).

    It is because our politicians and population always feel the sword of Damocles above their heads. If there is one thing you have to be afraid of in German politics or community then it is being called a Nazi or being compared to them. It's like Godwin's in real life. You can override any argument if you play that card.

    Hm, this got a little long. Well just as additional value for all you non Germans out there (especially to the Americans, since that student exchange I feel some of them need a reality update) : Hitler is dead, yes we have electricity and we don't use the Hitler salute anymore.

  69. Does anyone else find the G.I. Joe archetype... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    tiresome in video games? I think it's silly to take offense to the fact that video games usually portray the American G.I. Joe hero archetype as the player character. That's simply what sells games because the U.S. is such a huge market. Russia is a convenient adversary because of the extensive black market for weapons; it's possible to write a paper-thin plot without any effort if you center it on Russian terrorists.

    Personally though, I find that the standard American hero portrayal is just boring. It's been done too often. The first Call of Duty did a decent job covering all the ally forces, in fact, the Russian campaign was quite good for that one and I thought that it was a fair portrayal. Some other games do a good job of exploring other factions but not many. I think that it's about time that the video game industry expanded it's cultural inspirations just to avoid doing the same bloody thing over and over. I believe that there is a market for it.

    1. Re:Does anyone else find the G.I. Joe archetype... by halivar · · Score: 1

      You might have had a valid point, if the main protagonist in both CoD:MW games wasn't British SAS.

    2. Re:Does anyone else find the G.I. Joe archetype... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You might have had a valid point

      Just as you might have if you didn't ignore half of the game is played as an Army Ranger...

  70. Iran/North Korea/etc... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tell ya what Russia... you stop making nukes for countries with extremists and an itchy trigger finger for incumbent governing bodies... we'll stop presuming you lean towards the "evil" side of things.

    That all aside, if their economy warranted for publishing world-market games, I'm sure they'd have no issues depicting any other nationality as evil.

  71. In Soviet Russia.... by BetterSense · · Score: 0, Redundant

    In Soviet Russia, game ban you!

  72. I can hear it playing now... by eXFeLoN · · Score: 0

    AMERICA. FUCK YEAH! we really do kick that much ass.

    --
    My other sig is a knife wound.
  73. Story sources by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If you trace the the story back it all originates from a forum post on a Russian game site. Despite this, the story has been picked up by the Guardian UK, PC World, Gamespy, to name but a few. Yet not a one of them has done anything to verify the report. How hard is it to call a Russian retailer or "My Gosh!" someone in the gov't. This is just another example of the incestuousness of today's news where the reporter's job entails nothing more than reading newspapers and websites.

  74. And in this summary... by UbuntuniX · · Score: 1

    I overly think the word overly is the only overly used card.

  75. Re:Waaaaahh by MaXMC · · Score: 1

    World in Conflict did this... well not the raping and pillaging... but attacking the U.S.A.

  76. Re:Waaaaahh by zach_the_lizard · · Score: 1

    Iraq: Former Soviet Ally

    A former American ally that received weapons of mass destruction from the United States. Ah, the sweet smell of nerve gas in the morning.

    Nazi Germany: Former Soviet Ally

    Soviet Union: Former US Ally.

    --
    SSC
  77. Re:Germans and Wolfenstein .... by natehoy · · Score: 1

    So this would be the Streisand-Godwin Effect?

    --
    "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
  78. Re:Waaaaahh by sopssa · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Shouldn't the story here be about censorship rather than game content? Make a game that portrays Americans in a negative light and sell it here -- I doubt our Government will feel the need to prevent our people from buying it.

    I really doubt there would NOT be any problems to release a game where you're an Iraqi fighting against the invading your country by American soldiers, trying to protect your country from the "bad". To give some extra perspective to the game, the American soldiers could be raping your families and completely destroying your country (interestingly that's not even made up story, as it's real). Or where you would be designing terrorist attacks against USA. Do you really think that would be allowed?

    But there's no need to think what would happen. It would be banned for obscene material and the creators sent to jail, like in earlier case:

    Extreme Associates and owners Robert Zicari, also known as Rob Black, 35, and his wife, Janet Romano, aka Lizzie Borden, 32, pleaded guilty in March to a felony charge of conspiracy to distribute obscene material through the mail and over the Internet and got over an year in jail time.

  79. Re:Germans and Wolfenstein .... by Anonymous+Struct · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's not like we don't have a culture of denial here in the US. We wiped out the American Indians pretty remorselessly. That's pretty close to genocide, but it doesn't get taught that way in our schools. Every nation tries to overlook the terrible things its done in the past. People and countries are pretty much all the same, wherever you go.

  80. Re:Germans and Wolfenstein .... by mister_playboy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Much of the modern legal systems in both Germany and Japan still contains elements that were dictated to them by the Allies after WWII. They did not choose this viewpoint entirely of their own accord, but accepted it as part of the peace agreements.

    Any serious student of history sees their can be no moral high ground to look down on other civilizations. Each one has done terrible things in the past. Acceptance and understanding are what will prevent past travesties from being repeated.

    --
    Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law ::: Love is the law, love under will
  81. Fat Americans by dakkon1024 · · Score: 1

    Imagine if Japan release a game where you shot at fat Americans leaving various fast food chains.... oh who am I kidding we would play that too. Probably while eating sushi.

  82. Re:Germans and Wolfenstein .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    While I confess I've never even visited Germany before, I had a teacher who did a while ago. I remember him telling us the Germans had a culture of denial, when it came to the WWII Nazi era.

    Not sure which Germany he visited, but it does not seem to be the Germany I live and grew up in. Where I spent about a school years worth of history classes learning about the period of 1910-1945. Where even on the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Wall on November 9th it is important to stress that on November 9th 1938 the synagogues were burning. Where every anniversary of historic events related to the Third Reich is met with reports on TV and in the magazines. Where eg the largest and most influential weekly magazin on occasion of the 70th anniversary of the start of WWII has a cover titled "The war of the Germans; 1939: when a nation attacked the world". (http://wissen.spiegel.de/wissen/titel/SP/2009/35/312/titel.jpg)

    Of course you will meet people with different attitudes towards that. Some people would rather not be bothered anymore. Others might be very conscious about it, and still not really happy (or comfortable) to talk about it too much. But the vast majority of people I know has a conscious, respectful yet also somewhat relaxed attitude towards it (which is easier for the generations which don't have to justify themselves what they did during that time, of course).

    All in all, I think the Nazi past plays a big role in the attitude and consciousness (or however you want to call it) in the present day society in Germany. I have foreign friends living here in Germany who are quite amazed by that (and say that they think that the postwar generations feel too guilty in their opinion).

  83. I suppose that the right officials by Shivetya · · Score: 1

    and the right amount of money and suddenly it all becomes a misunderstanding.

    The Russian government is as corrupt as any other because it still is staffed by humans

    --
    * Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
  84. Germany Recall by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

    Well, the Germany recall has nothing to do with being politically correct. There is a law in Germany that forbids the use of the National Socialist Party symbol and any type of Naziism period. If there is a mention of any type of Nazi principles toward government organisations, those people are able to be apprehended by the police. So, nothing new there. It comes down to the laws. If people don't pay attention to the laws they will unfortunately pay the price.

    Does this have anything to do with antiquated thinking and beliefs... totally. Do people have to grow up and realize it is a part of life... sure. But, that is not the issue. The law is no Nazi affiliation or symbolism is allowed in Germany.

    The fact that Infinity Ward decided to "demonize" the Russians or a faction of Russia... that's their own fault. They should have stuck with non-descript or fictitious governments.

  85. SPOILER: Have they played the mission? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    SPOILER

    Not only that, but the whole airport incident was orchestrated by an American. Its actually americans that are the bad guys of that whole scene, not Russians at all. The Russians are just the put upon victims.

    Really, if anyone has a case for recall, its americans.

  86. from TFSummary by jDeepbeep · · Score: 1

    Is cultural sensitivity becoming an overly played card in the gaming world?

    Yes. Yes it is.

    --
    Reply to That ||
  87. Re:Germans and Wolfenstein .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What part of Germany was your teacher in? The part where they don't speak German at all and which isn't even located inside of Germany?
    During my time in school, we had 3 non-consecutive semesters of history lessons about Nazi Germany, the whole school went to watch Schindler's Liste, we visited a concentration camp (though I don't remember which one anymore, I have to admit, after the 6th visit to different camps the memories kind of meld into each other - the amount of visits had different reasons, though).
    There are routinely documentaries on television.

    In essence, it may have been the result of over-saturation. Plus, if your teacher was really that dense that he did not find the history textbooks which are dedicated to the time period of Nazi Germany (which are usually so big that they _only_ contain that time period), then I do begin to see why no one wanted to "discuss" the issue with him.

  88. Re:Germans and Wolfenstein .... by theArtificial · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I think you're confusing Germany with Japan. Japan gloss over their ww2 history with the atrocities they inflicted upon their neighbors and that is part of an on going problem to this day.

    The Germans do not have a culture of denial. Time is spent covering this theme although it varies from instructor to instructor what material is covered. On average I would say anywhere from 3 to 4 months is spent studying but it is not a tabu thema.

    Damals war es Friedrich is a book that is usually covered in class. The reason for the ban of symbols, greetings etc. are set in the constitution. Example: Imagine if you will that Democrats are outlawed - to be a member is illegal, the party is not official, the symbols are illegal. Fast forward 60 years and it becomes a big PC issue.

    --
    Man blir trött av att gå och göra ingenting.
  89. Re:Waaaaahh by deafNewt · · Score: 1

    Have you played the game? Americans get demonized quite a bit, as other posters have stated. The final baddie is the US General and your character who kills him is British SAS.

  90. Hypocrisy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    First of all, I'm Russian so feel free to disregard my words and call me an ignorant enemy of liberty. Now, for the comment

    Sure, the recall of the game is overreacting and completely ineffective since most players will just go buy the English version of the game on Steam. However, I find it really unsettling that everybody here is criticizing Russia for censorship. Many people in the comments have already said that such criticism is hypocritical because in the US would do the same. There has never been a game released in the US (or Europe for that matter) where Americans are portrayed as the villains and were such a game made, it would be pulled from the shelves pretty quickly - if not the government, then some patriot group or overly sensitive player would sue the developer and\or publisher. And what's the best rebuttal that the opponents of this could come up with here? "It's never happened so you can't say it's true". I'm convinced that all of you know precisely what is wrong with this rebuttal and are simply unwilling to admit it.

    Cheers,
    ANonymous Coward

  91. Re:Waaaaahh by Shakrai · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Yes, I do think it would be allowed. I think that such a game would be a failure in the marketplace and that many stores (Wal-Mart) would refuse to sell it but I do not see the Government preventing you from publishing such a game. If you have any evidence to suggest that they have done so recently then let's see it.

    --
    I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
    We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
  92. Re:Waaaaahh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I'm curious what America's response would be to their people being demonized.

    I'm curious as to what planet you've been living on in recent years. America is regularly demonized by little shit-stain, wanna-be dictators, their regimes, and masses of useful leftist idiots that support them from the sidelines.

  93. Re:Germans and Wolfenstein .... by Colonel+Korn · · Score: 1

    It's not like we don't have a culture of denial here in the US. We wiped out the American Indians pretty remorselessly. That's pretty close to genocide, but it doesn't get taught that way in our schools. Every nation tries to overlook the terrible things its done in the past. People and countries are pretty much all the same, wherever you go.

    When did you go to school? In CA in the 80s and 90s it was certainly presented as a genocide.

    --
    "I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
  94. Russia was a part, but not the sole factor by hellfire · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Russians who believe they single-handedly took down the Nazis are as foolish as Americans who think they single-handedly took down the Nazis.

    As any reasonable historian will tell you, it was a combined effort. The Nazis lost because they were outnumbered. Had the Nazis not invaded Russia (or at least waited until the UK fell) or Japan hadn't bombed pearl harbor, the war would have been quite different. It's a testament to both the Russian and US soldiers for what they had endured, but to say simply that the only factor was how awesomely great one army was over the other discounts the thousands of factors that go into modern warfare.

    Oh and by the way, we didn't get a whole lot of help from the Russians in the pacific theater. You like to take a lot of credit over the Nazis and you forget that the Italians and Japanese were allied with Germany and someone had to deal with them, and it sure wasn't the Russians.

    --

    "All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"

    1. Re:Russia was a part, but not the sole factor by DrFalkyn · · Score: 1

      The Soviet Union (not *Russia*) probably could have beat the Third Reich and her European allies(don't forget Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria) on their own. After the Germans failed to capture Moscow in late '41 (and indeed, they never came that close ever again - the Soviets launched a counterattack), it became an attrition war which Germany could not win. The Soviets had Before you scream "Lend Lease", realize that didn't kick in much until about 1943, by then you have Stalingrad and the destruction of an entire German army(the 6th), not to mention those of the Romanians and Bulgarians.

      Japan was not really a threat to the SU - the defeat at Khalkin Gol pretty much showed the IJA could not deal with an opponent with modern tanks, in places they were useful. (They had success in Malayasia, Burma and the Phillipines because tanks weren't really useful there, and China didn't have much in that department)

      The Allied powers (U.S./Great Britain and Canada) similiarly could have defeated the Axis powers by themselves, assuming their was sufficient political support. I have seen quotes that the U.S. alone was producing almost 60% of the world's crude oil in 1940. When you add in Great Britian, the Germans would have been outproduced. And you get the A-bomb in mid-45 to boot.

    2. Re:Russia was a part, but not the sole factor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does anyone find it odd that the losers of ww2 make really good cars, and the winners, well, dont.

    3. Re:Russia was a part, but not the sole factor by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      it was a combined effort ... Oh and by the way, we didn't get a whole lot of help from the Russians in the pacific theater. You like to take a lot of credit over the Nazis and you forget that the Italians and Japanese were allied with Germany and someone had to deal with them, and it sure wasn't the Russians.

      It was a combined effort, but not every side contributed equally. You have to look at the numbers.

      While some people like to look at Allied casualties per state, for some reason, I don't think it's a good measure of success. After all, having several times as many of your own soldiers killed, as USSR did, does not necessarily mean that you've dealt proportionally more damage to the enemy. Instead, let's look at total Axis casualties on various fronts:

      Total - ~8,000,000
      Eastern Front - ~4,900,000
      Pacific Front - ~2,200,000
      Western Front - ~400,000

      Eastern front is mostly due to Soviets, Pacific is mostly due to Americans, and Western can be tricky to divide (a lot of Brits and Canadians there too, for example), but it's relatively minor in comparison, anyway.

      So, all in all, Soviets are still on top by over 2x, but American contribution was still clearly very major.

      Note that the figures are still somewhat skewed, because they only count dead - either on the battle field or as POWs - and not all casualties. Soviets took a lot of German POWs, for example (and a lot of them died, and so those counted in the numbers above - but not all by far), while Americans took comparatively few Japanese POWs, for well-known reasons.

    4. Re:Russia was a part, but not the sole factor by tjstork · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Oh and by the way, we didn't get a whole lot of help from the Russians in the pacific theater. You like to take a lot of credit over the Nazis and you forget that the Italians and Japanese were allied with Germany and someone had to deal with them, and it sure wasn't the Russians.

      The USA was a machine during the war, of that, you can't argue. The Japanese scrounged up maybe 13 aircraft carriers and the USA cranked out 26 awesome Essex class plus more jeep carriers than we can count. By 1944, the USA could put more aircraft in the air just from carriers than Japan had in their entire air force. That's just awesome, and the planes were better.

      In the ETO, it is pretty fair to say that the Russians could have beaten the Nazis by themselves simply because of two things: a) the Russian economy was much stronger than the German economy, and b) the Russians had more people. People think of Germany as an economic powerhouse and Russia as weak but in the 1930s and 1940s the situation was actually in the Soviet favor. Germany and Russia were both state run, centrally planned economies, but Germany was just crushed from losing World War I and the French occupation did Germany absolutely no favors. By 1941, Russia was producing more and better tanks, had their own capable ground attack aircraft, far more artillery than their German counterparts. Just look at how many T-34s the Russians were producing per month. I mean, yeah, the Russians did lose 20 million people, but a lot of those were civilian deaths. If you go soldier for soldier, Russians butchered as many hapless Germans in 1944 / 1945 as Germans butchered hapless Russians in 1941/1942.

      And, in any case, the United Kingdom cannot be underestimated. They knocked the Italian navy nearly out of the war, grabbed control the Mediterranean, blocked even the threat of any German attempt to invade the main islands and within a year or so had waves of lancasters firebombing the shit out of German cities.

      I mean, when Great Britian, with a fraction of the population, produces more aircraft, more warships and has vastly superior electronics than Germany does, you really begin to understand just what a disadvantage a totalitarian regime has in war.

      --
      This is my sig.
  95. How hard to relate to them really? by Ilgaz · · Score: 1

    Is there a mission where you kill American civilians as some Al Queda member? No? Why not?

    I play games since 1980s and I keep "killing" Russians, "bombing" Russian towns, watching dumb Russian soldiers.

    It really seems someone at "New World" better start a global political correctness fashion.

  96. Re:Waaaaahh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Iraq was a US mignon during the cold war

    Awww lookit widdle Iraq ain't it so cute!

  97. As American sales will be 1000x more? by Ilgaz · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I think they knew the game wouldn't sell original copies too much in Russia so they basically trolled with that "No Russians" level, predicting this or less would happen.

    Income: PR, "Reds banning American game", Slashdot YRO story etc. It is far more than the game would sell in Russia.

  98. Not realistic enough by greatgreygreengreasy · · Score: 1

    I, on the other hand, don't think it's realistic enough.

    --
    LRN 2 SWM
  99. Re:Germans and Wolfenstein .... by DavidTC · · Score: 2, Insightful

    We have several Holocaust memorial days, there is probably a documentary on the Third Reich and World War Two once week on the TV channel.

    Only once a week? Man, the History channel must have really cut back on the WWII stuff over in Germany.

    Here it's about 50/50 WWII stuff.

    --
    If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
  100. It Does Not Depict Them As Terrorists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    SPOILER ALERT. I got the game yesterday for my bday and I just beat the game today, stayed up all night and day playing it on PC. This has to be one of the best FPS single player games I have ever played (haven't tried the multiplayer yet). But keep in mind, it is entirely fiction. In the end it actually makes a U.S. General look like a backstabbing s.o.b. and the Russians are just reacting in retaliation for something they *think* we did to them. It doesn't actually suggest that the Russian government is terrorist in any way. In this entirely fictional plot, there is a terrorist element similar to the Irish IRA inside of Russia. They cause a blood bath at a Russian airport and leave behind the dead body of a CIA agent in the middle of it to take the fall for it. When in reality the CIA agent was there to infiltrate their terrorist organization and expose them. However, the CIA/USA end up getting blamed as the cause of the bloodbath, so the USA ends up looking like the terrorists in the eyes of the Russian government and people. It is entirely a misunderstanding and as a result an all out war breaks out which involves the USA being invaded by Russian forces, which eventually leads to a nuclear attack.

    I would suggest that the Russians take a closer look at the plot line, so they can realize this isn't in any way suggesting that the government of Russia is evil or terrorist. This entirely *fictional* plot is a series of misunderstandings and betrayals on both sides. If anything, the U.S. should be concerned that it makes our Generals look like self-serving backstabbing scum. However, it is fiction, artistic, amazingly well done and is a perfectly proper use of free speech. There is no slandering going on here, just a fun & exciting yet disturbing depiction of a hypothetical future world. Please, let the Russian gamers play this game, it is just plain fun and one of the best FPS I've had the honor of playing.

    1. Re:It Does Not Depict Them As Terrorists by cptnapalm · · Score: 1

      "I would suggest that the Russians take a closer look at the plot line"

      I wouldn't recommend that. All that will do is to drive them insane as the plot is absolute crap and makes little to no sense.

    2. Re:It Does Not Depict Them As Terrorists by Naturalis+Philosopho · · Score: 1

      Did you really write "misunderstanding"? WTF? The plot allows that the U.S. was quite willing to sacrifice an airport full of Russians in order to maintain one operative's cover. Maybe it would have saved more lives had he succeeded, maybe not. But all those people would still be dead. The operative may not have planned the attack, but he sure helped execute it. Undercover or not, he was still culpable for his actions that day. Answer me this... since "only" ~2k people died on 9/11, if one of the Terrorists had been a Russian agent working to infiltrate a cell, and he succeeded and has, directly because of the success of 9/11, saved a million Russians, would the deaths on 9/11 have been worth it or not?

  101. Remember Six Days in Fallujah by SilentStaid · · Score: 2, Interesting

    To answer the general question everyone asked about what would happen if this mission had been about Americans I'll refer you to Six Days in Fallujah. One of the severely downplayed (though not the biggest) reasons that game was shelved was due to the amount of civilian casualties caused by Americans in their hunt for insurgents.

    http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2009/04/fallujahkonamicancel.html
    "Reports claim that up to 6000 civilians died throughout the operation." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Battle_of_Fallujah

    That being said, I realize that the situations are only relatively similar but they clearly favor the argument stating that such a game made about America wouldn't make it financially speaking. As for it being outright banned or recalled, doubtful.

  102. Re:Waaaaahh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You mean like a scene where you as a US agent are encouraged to help in a massacre of hundreds of innocent civilians? Or that draws a direct parallel to US invasions in a way that is designed to create empathy for the countries being invaded? Wonder if we'll ever see something that critical of US policy in a video game.

  103. Re:Waaaaahh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I'm curious what America's response would be to their people being demonized.
    [snip]
    That and it would generate a lot of amusingly ironic commentary from Americans.

    Apparently you are not curious. Apparently you have made up your mind already. :)

  104. not "cultural sensitivity" ? by Zoxed · · Score: 1

    > Is cultural sensitivity becoming an overly played card in the gaming world? Not too long ago, Wolfenstein was recalled in Germany for containing Nazi symbols.

    My knowledge of German law/history is hazy, but Nazi symbols are illegal in Germany (and Austria ?) under the constitution except in certain cases. (And the constitution was initiated and signed off by the Allies.)

    i.e. it was not "cultural sensitivity", but illegality that affected Wolfenstein.

  105. "Recall" is a euphemism for "ban." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Recall" is a euphemism for "ban."

  106. The real question here. by maillemaker · · Score: 1

    The real question for me in the Modern Warfare series is why the bad guys are Russian at all.

    Why aren't they the usual terrorist stereotype? You know - Muslims.

    Probably because instead of a recall they'd be facing death threats like that Cartoonist fellow.

    --
    A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
    1. Re:The real question here. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Did you even play the first game? Half of the plot is fighting in a chaotic (no longer Saudi) Arabia taken over by Muslim terrorists.

  107. Re:Waaaaahh by PrescriptionWarning · · Score: 1

    apparently some people don't know the meaning of the word FICTION.

    What about the movie V for Vendetta that demonizes the British Government?

    This is really not much different from the movie Red Dawn except that in this case the war was brought by a lunatic terrorist who fooled the Russians into waging war with the Americans. Sounds much like a Tom Clancy scenario to me.

  108. The US by GigG · · Score: 1

    The US General is the real "Bad Guy" in the game.

    --
    Is buying a Harley Davidson as your first motorcycle since you were 16 at age 49 a midlife crisis issue?
  109. Right back at you. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    North Vietnam: Former French & American Ally
    Iraq: Former French & American Ally
    Nazi Germany: Former French & American Ally

  110. Error by F0RR · · Score: 1

    The game is not recalled. It's just patched, so that there's no airport mission. Well, I don't give a damn about it, actually.

  111. Good by genner · · Score: 1

    That will teach em to remove dedicated server support.

  112. Re:Waaaaahh by MaWeiTao · · Score: 1

    There would be little commentary. Movies have already been depicting that sort of thing for decades. I will concede that such a game might cause a stir, not so much because it's being depicted but because it's being depicted in a game.

    In fact, I'd argue that there would be a lot stronger outrage if Modern Warfare 2 depicted some ethnic groups other than Russians. Remember all the complaining about Resident Evil 5 once people found out the zombies were African? I'd say when you want to depict terrorists and not spark much outrage Americans or Europeans are always the safe way to go.

  113. You know the old saying... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In Soviet Russia the... Uh... whoa.

  114. Re:Waaaaahh by kevinNCSU · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm curious what America's response would be to their people being demonized. I'd love to see a game set in Iraq or Vietnam where America invades your country, kills your people and attempts to rest control of your homeland away from you.

    You mean like a game where you play as a suspected American terrorist who murders hundreds of civilians in an airport of a superpower and then that superpower comes and fucks your country up? I played it this morning, it's called Modern Warfare 2, and we reacted to it by buying millions of copies. Any more questions?

  115. Re:Waaaaahh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How is parent flamebait?

  116. Re:Germans and Wolfenstein .... by BForrester · · Score: 1

    I've visited Germany a few times, and you can hardly walk to the corner store without tripping over a holocaust museum. The people will generally express their communal embarrassment over this sad part of their history, and the government has gone to great lengths to both preserve the memory of this atrocity, and to make repayments where still possible. Nazi paraphernalia is forbidden there because they do not want Nazism to be glorified or take root again, not because they want to sweep the past under the rug.

    That contrasts *very* sharply with other countries I've been to in Europe.

    Your teacher either had some sort of grudge to bear, or is an idiot.

  117. Re:Germans and Wolfenstein .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, this web page contains a couple of factual errors. For example, it says

    As a matter of public law, the post-war German law codes prohibit the display of a swastika in any form or fashion, even if used satirically or as part of an anti-Nazi political statement.

    which is just wrong. There are many exceptions to the ban of the swastika, including the use for education, research, in arts, movies etc. Recently, the musical "The Producers" was staged in Berlin - with real swastikas on stage.

    Also:

    Along with banning the publication or ownership of Hitler's autobiography Mein Kampf, ...

    It is perfectly legal to own (and sell) a copy of Mein Kampf, as long as it was printed before WWII. Books printed after WWII are in violation of copyright, as the copyright owner (the state of Bavaria) does not authorize books to be printed.

    Also, it's Adolf, not Adolph... ;)

  118. Re:Waaaaahh by Toonol · · Score: 1

    There would be problems, sure. People and organizations might protest. The publisher might be wusses, cave from the pressure and decide not to release it. But the Federal Government would not ban it. A few of the dumber states might, but it would be overturned.

    And it would be very tough to make obscenity charges stick; anything with redeeming artistic merit isn't obscene.

  119. i'm glad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm from Russia and i'm very glad that people in another country understand that "the Russians did more to save Western Europe from Nazism than anyone else. For example in Russia during WW2 died about 30 million of people ... what about game... I had been realy disapointed when i see that i should to shoot in Russians.

    P.S. sorry my bad english )))

  120. Maybe the gaming world is catching up to by Presto+Vivace · · Score: 1

    everyone else. Is cultural sensitivity becoming an overly played card in the gaming world? no.

  121. I think this is self-censorship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you want to sell the game, you'd probably do that kind of thing (cutting the mission in question). Why not try to sell Hiroshima bombing simulator to Japan? Will we ever see 9/11 mission in H.A.W.X.?

  122. Arrested Development? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    modern warfare.

    Hey, that's the name of the game!

  123. hello by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Russia make about 80 % to took down Nazis. just because about 30 millions of Russian were killed in WW2 it's much bigger than in all other countrys

  124. Re:Germans and Wolfenstein .... by maestroX · · Score: 1
    No offence meant, but West Germany appears to have a culture of denial. (Without it, I doubt the country wouldn't be as democratic/prosperous as it is right now).

    Even today at important WWII landmarks in Germany I find the documentation on the actions of the Nazi regime ridiculously sparse. Go visit Cologne (city of former Gestapo headquarters) and find the lack of information.. while a lot of people have disappeared there. When I travel around Germany, which I like, rebuilt cities appear to bear no resemblance of the black history..

    So yes, compared to surrounding countries, Netherlands, France, Poland, I find the lack of openness on this topic (w.r.t. information, no history) seemingly denying.

    That said, I do think the German government nowadays as being one of the more progressive and constructive of Europe.

    Fast forward to today's culture: playing the victim. Shouting censorship and behaving like a child who's toy has been taken, when the government/people try and limit violence and references to Nazi's in games. Perhaps it's not about Big Brother government, but about respect.

    So yes, considering your well-informed education about the atrocities in WWII (*never again*) and your rigid stance on playing what you choose (i.e. WWII revivals), you are seriously in denial.

  125. Re:Waaaaahh by c6gunner · · Score: 1

    I really doubt there would NOT be any problems to release a game where you're an Iraqi fighting against the invading your country by American soldiers, trying to protect your country from the "bad".

    There have been several similar games created in the past. Iran's "Rescue the Nuke Scientists" (yeah, shitty title) is one example. There have also been movies which paint American troops as evil rapists/murderers/baby-eaters. None of them have ever been banned in the US. You won't find them in your local Walmart because they don't have any market appeal, but you can track down rare copies in specialty stores, and you can buy them online. If you really think that the US would or could pull a product like that, then you don't understand anything about how the American government is structured.

    To give some extra perspective to the game, the American soldiers could be raping your families and completely destroying your country (interestingly that's not even made up story, as it's real [bbc.co.uk]).

    Well, if you really wanted to maintain realism, you'd then have to have the soldiers being rounded up by the MP's, put in front of a military tribunal, and sentenced to 90 years in prison. Somehow I get the feeling that you'd like that part left out, though.

    Or where you would be designing terrorist attacks against USA. Do you really think that would be allowed?

    I know that would "be allowed". Seriously, take the time to familiarize yourself with US law. ESPECIALLY if you're a US citizen.

    But there's no need to think what would happen. It would be banned for obscene material and the creators sent to jail, like in earlier case

    That's a complete non-sequitur. Unless your hypothetical video game features sexually explicit material, there's no chance in hell of such charges ever being brought. Take out that scene of Obama Bin Laden having a romantic liaison with a goat, and you've got nothing to worry about. Even if you included some pornographic material, chances are you'd have nothing to worry about since the majority of sexual acts would pass the Miller Test. And, in the unlikely scenario that your game DOES fail the miller test, you can always challenge the constitutionality of obscenity laws - something which Extreme Associates was in the process of doing (and had a lot of luck with) until they, for some weird reason, decided to plead guilty. The case against them had already been thrown out once.

  126. Re:Germans and Wolfenstein .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The American what?

  127. Re:Germans and Wolfenstein .... by Sephollyon · · Score: 1

    The genocide of Native Americans was covered extensively throughout every stage of my public education. Maybe your school just sucks.

  128. Interesting... by digitalsolo · · Score: 1

    The interesting thing in all of this, is the terrorist is a Russian, but he's not working FOR Russia. Half of the game is trying to get information to show Russia what happened and why.
    More interesting to me is the fact that the US military (well, at least certain people in it) aren't exactly cast in a good light either, yet no one is railing against it here.
    Americans are slaughtered in any number of American made games. Big deal, it's a game.
    That said, it's their government, they can ban what they like. How very American of us to get outraged at what another country does to it's own citizens. Perhaps a more enlightened approach would be to let them do as they please on their own land, eh?

    --
    Just another ignorant American.
  129. Not quite... by cromar · · Score: 1

    If a game came out that portrayed the US Government as a malevolent system ... I think that US gameplayers and the US Government might have some objections

    Sure they might have some objections. There would almost certainly be objections. However, despite those objections, our constitution does not allow our government to censor speech. (First amendment to the US Contitution protects the free speech of US Citizens.)

  130. Germany and the Swastika(the "Nazi" symbol) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wolfenstein already was censored like hell by the publisher, but there was one tiny pixel Swastika left one some texture that "caused" the ban of the game in Germany.

    There it is: http://www.schnittberichte.com/www/SBs/5982811/haken.jpg (My very first slashdot attack)

    The german authorities are crazy like shit after stuff like this. It's not even funny in its pathetic way anymore. They even did go after kids that used crossed out Swastikas that where intended to be simbols agains Nazis...

    And please, after reading this do not belive that german authorities do anything agains real Nazis!

  131. Re:Waaaaahh by emilper · · Score: 1

    If you're Russian you probably know that during the cold war and after USSR (or Russian) propaganda against US was a lot milder than US propaganda ... in fiction, even during Stalin's time, the "Capitalist" spy was more likely to be a bumbling idiot than a blood thirsty murderer (that was reserved for the Nazis).

    The game will be available soon (if it's not already) on bittorrent, where no censorship would reach it, but Russia's govt. had to take a stand before being forced to take a stand by the press or opportunist politicians.

    Censorship ? Game (or movie) ratings are censorship, the GTA incident was censorship, and yeah, this is censorship too, except in two month nobody will care and the uncut version will be freely available, and any entrepreneur of violence that would try to stir the s..t up by pointing at this game will be reminded that the govt. is still in charge and took the appropriate measures. P&M have to deal with cold war zombies (such as the dumb frobnicators that wrote and approved the script for the episode in question) from both sides of the visa wall, and they are doing rather well in keeping a balance. They are also busy keeping the lid on the National-Bolsheviks (those might be an "bitter and ironic dadaist joke" party, but from a distance they look like Nazis in scary black uniforms).

    Anyway, if a similar game were to be published in Russia, we would be swamped by the Guardian, The Economist, Washington Post, and of course, a whole bunch of slashdotters, with protests against revisionist propaganda, with predictions of doom, and all the defenders of freedom will be foaming at the mouth about "the return of the red commies".

  132. Re:Germans and Wolfenstein .... by BobMcD · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Oh really? What about the notion that the Royal Proclamation of 1763 is the true cause for the Revolutionary War? I had never heard that in school, and only learned of this theory much later in life.

    And in case you're unfamiliar, the theory goes that England wanted to stop the killing of the Indians and lessen their desire for war, so they limited expansion. The Colonials saw this as unacceptable and continued to kill Indians anyway. This open defiance is what was eventually codified as an actual Revolution.

    It is an interesting theory, and puts things like the Trail of Tears in a COMPLETELY different light. If the plan was genocide from the very beginning, then a lot of the alleged bad faith in the treaty making and breaking was really just part of the scheming. They wanted the land all along, and wanted to kill the people on it.

  133. Off the shelf it goes. by westlake · · Score: 1

    In the end, however, the game would remain on store shelves because of the First Amendment.

    The first amendment doesn't keep the retail box on the shelves at Walmart. It doesn't guarantee you access to the console market.

    Amazon can cut you loose. Steam can freeze you out.

    The developer's only protection is against government censorship.

    He can't stop the VFW from circling the Congress with a picket line. This time he probably won't be able to stave off adoption of a mandatory ratings system with teeth.

    The Supreme Court has ended the execution of juveniles in the U.S. It may put an end to life without parole for the juvenile offender.

    When the intellectual and moral immaturity of the child becomes so important and embedded a principle in the law - it becomes possible to argue with a very real chance of success that some games should be accessible to adults only.

    No excuses and no exceptions.

    1. Re:Off the shelf it goes. by thisnamestoolong · · Score: 1

      it becomes possible to argue with a very real chance of success that some games should be accessible to adults only.

      This would make sense if evidence could be found of any sort of causal link between video game violence and real world violence. Since there have been innumerable studies of this, and all have ended up with nothing, there is absolutely no argument for a mandatory rating system. If one is passed, the ACLU will fight it tooth and nail, as it would be a massive violation of the First Amendment.

      --
      To the haters: You can't win. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
  134. Re:Germans and Wolfenstein .... by Anonymous+Struct · · Score: 1

    I went to school in the 80s and 90s as well (in FL), and the discussion on that particular aspect of our westward expansion was extremely muted. Compared to the coverage given to Nazi Germany, I couldn't have even rated it as a footnote. I remember there was a single corner of one page devoted to the Trail of Tears, and I think the language was something like 'forced migration under harsh conditions'. That was pretty typical of how the narrative was presented altogether. I'm really surprised to hear you say that it was taught as genocide, to be honest. I don't think many Americans consider the US to be guilty of genocide, but maybe I'll try suggesting it in a crowded room some time and see how it plays. My gut tells me that it would be a lot like mentioning the holocaust in a crowded room in Germany -- nobody would say it never happened, but you won't be very popular for bringing it up.

  135. Finish the damn game by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Sometimes I wonder if the people leveling criticism at the game have actually completed it at all, or simply weren't paying attention.

    Modern Warfare is mostly critical of... modern warfare. The ease with which a single deception can lead to mass conflict, the mutual exclusiveness of the extremes of patriotism with morality, the callousness of weighing actions by the "potential" number of lives lost, and the physical and spiritual sacrifice soldiers of all sides are forced to make... the only crime IW committed was bringing the true ethical dimensions of war uncomfortably close to gamers who until now have only exprienced it in the comfort of home, who "recall" war with implanted sentimentality. No mass conflict unfolds without taking innocent casualties, no one's hands are left clean... not people like Shepherd, nor people like Price. In fact, they were two sides of the same coin.

    The No Russian stage needed to be in the game, because people NEED to be sickened by war. This doesn't even come close to the kind of soul-wrenching decisions real soldiers face on the battlefield every day to serve their country. Most of us can barely take it in a fictional video game.

  136. Re:Germans and Wolfenstein .... by bfandreas · · Score: 1

    What are you talking about? The gp was talking about the Holocaust. WWII started when it was half way done. You are a couple of years off. I for one am quite happy to live in a country where people flying the colours "of the good old days" get a nice chewing over in court. Sad thing is that I seem to be the only one who sees the irony of this censorship debate. In the USA you wouldn't be censored. But you would possibly see the inside of a court room being dragged in there by an overzealous AG on a fast track for higher politics. But you would certainly be shouted down by right wing media.

    --
    20 minutes into the future
  137. Re:Germans and Wolfenstein .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We have several Holocaust memorial days, there is probably a documentary on the Third Reich and World War Two once week on the TV channel.

    Only once a week? Man, the History channel must have really cut back on the WWII stuff over in Germany.

    Here it's about 50/50 WWII stuff.

    That's not true anymore. They seem to have replaced the WWII shows with various Ghost shows.

  138. Re:Waaaaahh by c6gunner · · Score: 1

    A former American ally that received weapons of mass destruction from the United States. Ah, the sweet smell of nerve gas in the morning.

    That is, of course, a complete lie. The second sentence, specifically, is an outright fabrication since the US never shipped nerve-gas to Iraq. The first sentence is at least based in fact, even if it does completely misrepresent the situation. Specifically, various Iraqi organizations did obtain small batches of various biological and chemical agents from the US. However, a batch of viruses or a load of pesticides is not a "weapon of mass destruction" any more than a lump of iron is an aircraft carrier.

  139. get your facts right by Tom · · Score: 1

    Not too long ago, Wolfenstein was recalled in Germany for containing Nazi symbols."

    You should've also read the discussion on that when it was posted, and noticed that a lot of german readers have pointed out that all that goes back to a bundle of laws the the allies, i.e. you americans, most of all forced unto Germany after WW2, before the Federal Republic of Germany was founded.

    --
    Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  140. Re:Germans and Wolfenstein .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    German resurgence is occurring - slowly - via domination of the EU and slowly in reclaiming 'lost' territories in Poland. The Germans aren't as benevolent as they portray themselves to be. They now make documentaries about the Wehrmacht massacring civilians and such but those who still remember WW2 and have contact with Germans as Eastern Europeans know very well of the deep racism of many Germans.

  141. Re: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Everyone should just do things the American way because it is the right way to do things.

  142. As a Russian by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 4, Interesting

    As a Russian, let me share my opinion on this.

    First of all, I'm generally irked by portrayal of Russians in U.S. mass culture, including films and video games, especially action ones. "Hordes of dumb evil rampaging barbarians" is so cliche. You can do better.

    CoD series was never good at it in the past, either - e.g. in CoD5, all Soviet missions seem to emphasize brutality and human waves as much as possible, especially by character dialogue, while American missions seem more focused on "fighting the bad guys". This is clearly evident in two prisoner-taking scenes - in Soviet one, Germans genuinely surrender, but you have to execute them (or have your squad do so), and your only choice is between shooting them and burning them alive. Either way, it's clearly a war crime. In American mission, Japanese fake surrender, and you cannot shoot them until they try to overpower and kill your fellow soldiers restraining them (and then, of course, killing them is perfectly justified). I didn't see much difference in MW2 in that regard. If anything, the first MW was more ambiguous in that regard, since at least you had "good Russians" and "bad Russians"; in MW2, the former kind has apparently rapidly died out again, so we're back to good old stereotypes.

    On the other hand, I actually have to thank Infinity Ward for MW2, for one simple reason: it's been a while since any American game depicted a proper, honest-to-God Russian invasion of U.S. soil, complete with shelled cute "American Dream" neighborhoods and burning White House, and the overall gloomy atmosphere of verging on defeat. At least it's markedly different from your typical drivel of a U.S. Rambo squad on rampage somewhere in Siberia, taking out Russian soldiers by the thousands. Just as unrealistic, too, but hey, at least you can appreciate how it looks from the other side now. I only wish there was an option to play for the paratroopers in the initial wave :)

    Finally, regardless of my personal likes and dislikes of this and other games touching on the subject at hand, I firmly believe that any kind of political censorship is wrong; and this, especially, is one really stupid reason to ban a game.

    1. Re:As a Russian by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well to be fair, there's a reason for their portrayal in a WW2 game. The USSR didn't seem to give two shits about its citizens and spent them as expendable assets quite readily. The US had about 400,000 military deaths, about 1,700 civilian. The UK had about 380,000 military deaths, 67,000 civilian deaths. In both cases you are talking about a total of less than 1% of their population.

      The USSR? About 10,000,000 military deaths, about 14,000,000 civilian deaths, about 14% of the population in total. They did simply send human waves against the enemy.

      Stalin was not a nice guy, he was totally unconcerned about the lives of his citizens and the military strategy in WW2 showed this.

    2. Re:As a Russian by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 4, Informative

      They did simply send human waves against the enemy.

      It's a very popular myth of the "everyone knows that... " kind, but also wrong. USSR didn't employ human wave attacks, except for a few isolated cases.

      Of course, if you can find any reliable sources to prove otherwise, go ahead.

      Regarding casualties: first of all you really have to look not at raw casualty numbers, but at rate vs enemy casualties. So for U.S., it's about 1 death for every 5 dead Axis soldiers; for Britain, it's actually slightly worse than 1-for-1. For the USSR, it's slightly worse than 2 for 1. Still bad.

      That said, of all those countries, only the USSR had to repel a full-scale ground invasion on its own soil. It was also the one against which the most brutal warfare tactics were used - e.g. mass murder of Soviet POWs - 60% died in the camps, and that's ~1/5th of total Soviet military deaths. Western Allied POWs were much better off.

    3. Re:As a Russian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would like to see the numbers if the US had a border with germany.

    4. Re:As a Russian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well to be fair, there's a reason for their portrayal in a WW2 game. The USSR didn't seem to give two shits about its citizens and spent them as expendable assets quite readily. The US had about 400,000 military deaths, about 1,700 civilian. The UK had about 380,000 military deaths, 67,000 civilian deaths. In both cases you are talking about a total of less than 1% of their population.

      The USSR? About 10,000,000 military deaths, about 14,000,000 civilian deaths, about 14% of the population in total. They did simply send human waves against the enemy.

      Stalin was not a nice guy, he was totally unconcerned about the lives of his citizens and the military strategy in WW2 showed this.

      You have no common frame of reference. Your country did not get invaded and overran and had millions of your countrymen and women raped and murdered for no reason. Where survival of your entire nation depended on doing everything you can. But I digress.

      As a Russian American its funny to see how these events unfold. Its just a game. If you don't like it, vote with your dollars: don't buy it.

    5. Re:As a Russian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey you are not the only one the US fears an invasion from, the worst is Austria we are the root of all evil
      http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0094077/

      greetings to Russia ...

    6. Re:As a Russian by bostei2008 · · Score: 1

      Jesus, that is such a cynical calculation. The righteousness of it makes me gag.

      The U.S. was effectively hidden behind an ocean. No enemy soldier ever entered U.S. soil. No enemy bomb ever fell on any of your cities.

      Had the Axis ever invaded the U.S. - or Great Britain, for that matter - the death toll would have been far higher.

      Also, the Americans and Brits didn't give shit about *enemy* civilians, carpet bombing german cities to stone age.

      You might have a moral high point in respect to the Germans, but not to Soviet Russia.

      BTW, I'm a German. From what I learned and heard from our grandfathers, the Russian war effort was what toppled the Nazis, not the western front. This might be wrong, but at least I do not have any reason to be biased to either side.

    7. Re:As a Russian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To put it in perspective: The Russian statistics have to be compared to Poland, France, even Germany itself in the end, and the other countries that fought for self-preservation on their own territory, and corrected for the duration of the armed conflict. France had 370,000 dead or wounded and 1,700,000 captured in little over a month. France, being an exemplary liberal democracy, did the civilized thing and surrendered. If they had fought on, the numbers would certainly have approached the Russian ones, at least proportionally.

      In for instance the Netherlands (the case I know best as a Dutchman) the military deaths to civilian deaths ratio for just five days of battle in 1940 is also almost 1:1. This is not exceptional if you are fighting in your own cities, and against a brutal opponent that bombs cities and manouvers faster than citizens can evacuate their homes. Ratio of Dutch military deaths to German ones is believed to be somewhere between 1 to 1 and 2 to 1, not much better than the Russians. I believe the differences in ratio are mostly due to air superiority: the Americans have had it continually against the Germans, the Dutch lost their air force in a matter of hours and could barely move troops around at all.

      I also read in a Dutch book (discussing the perceived lack of performance of the Dutch and French army) that the attrition numbers per unit per hour of engagement of British, French, Polish, Belgian, and Dutch in 1940 are in fact roughly similar and also similar to the Russian number. In short: Western Europeans on the continent didn't really fare much better or worse than the Russians, but they surrendered quickly and kept the numbers sort of acceptable in that way. Let's just be glad the Soviets didn't.

      The performance of Americans (and British later in the war) is fundamentally uncomparable, since they fought abroad and (with some exceptions like Pearl Harbor etc.) most of the time picked the time and place of the engagement, and had air superiority.

      One feature that winners US, UK, and USSR have in common and the occupied countries in Europe lack is strategic depth. If the Russians, Americans, or British would have lived in France they would have been as vulnerable to a knockout in 1940 as the French were.

    8. Re:As a Russian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interesting, mod this guy up.

    9. Re:As a Russian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd call Nikolaj a "good russian". Besides, the reasons stated for the invasion are quite reasonable (i.e. american involvment in the largest massacre ever).

    10. Re:As a Russian by The-Bus · · Score: 1

      > If anything, the first MW was more ambiguous in that regard, since at least you had "good Russians" and "bad Russians"; in MW2, the former kind has apparently rapidly died out again, so we're back to good old stereotypes.

      I'm not 100% sure, but I believe the guy piloting the aircraft for Soap is Russian. Or at least he has an Eastern European name/accent.

      --

      Small potatoes make the steak look bigger.

    11. Re:As a Russian by GatorMan · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, I actually have to thank Infinity Ward for MW2, for one simple reason: it's been a while since any American game depicted a proper, honest-to-God Russian invasion of U.S. soil, complete with shelled cute "American Dream" neighborhoods and burning White House, and the overall gloomy atmosphere of verging on defeat. At least it's markedly different from your typical drivel of a U.S. Rambo squad on rampage somewhere in Siberia, taking out Russian soldiers by the thousands. Just as unrealistic, too, but hey, at least you can appreciate how it looks from the other side now. I only wish there was an option to play for the paratroopers in the initial wave :)

      Take a look at World in Conflict for PC. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_in_conflict

    12. Re:As a Russian by masterQba · · Score: 1

      SPOILER ALERT




      As a Pole I can say that our two countries had a difficult history. Some of it good some of it bad. Russians killed many Poles, many Russians were killed by Poles. But on the whole I would say that both our peoples are very close (if not for the stereotypes). And that's the point of MW2. It's very antiwar in my opinion. Of course it makes war out to be cool and fun, with gadgets, new weapons, special effects high speed chases. If you stop for a moment and look past the graphics and the action you see the dead bodies lying in the streets, the burns, the wounds, the property damage. In MW2 everyone is guilty, every nation portrayed has done something questionable in the name of a "grander" cause. But also members of those nations have done some good things. The game shows us that behind monolithic nations stand people, people that make decisions, take actions. Sometimes good, sometimes bad. There's no clear cut difference that Russians are bad and Americans are good or vice versa. MW2's main antagonist is American after all (at least in my opinion).
      I have to agree that the US Ranger parts are overly positive and idealistic in nature.

      --
      xb0x
  143. Re:Germans and Wolfenstein .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's not like we don't have a culture of denial here in the US. We wiped out the American Indians pretty remorselessly. That's pretty close to genocide, but it doesn't get taught that way in our schools. Every nation tries to overlook the terrible things its done in the past. People and countries are pretty much all the same, wherever you go.

    Well, the clever thing is just the phrase it the right way. It was the European immigrants that killed the native Americans. When that was done they became Americans. Problem solved.

  144. Nazis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    " Not too long ago, Wolfenstein was recalled in Germany for containing Nazi symbols."

    It's illegal to have Nazi symbols in Germany had nothing to do with the Game. Call of Duty and Medal of Honor Eliminate Swastikas from German Copies of the Game

  145. Well... by okmijnuhb · · Score: 1

    There often is a sort of cartoonish view by America of the rest of the world.

  146. its useful for the germans by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    the japanese don't self-flagellate that much

    and so they do this:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_surrounding_Yasukuni_Shrine#Politicians.27_visits

    and they get that:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Japanese_sentiment_in_China#Effects_of_World_War_II

    a little self-flagellation by the japanese would be less harmful for the japanese than visiting that stupid shrine. however, pride being what it is...

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  147. Re:Have they played the mission by H0p313ss · · Score: 1

    Glad to see I'm not alone. +Interesting

    --
    XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
  148. Re:Germans and Wolfenstein .... by ChienAndalu · · Score: 1

    No offence meant, but West Germany appears to have a culture of denial. (Without it, I doubt the country wouldn't be as democratic/prosperous as it is right now).

    As said before, I think you are wrong.

    Even today at important WWII landmarks in Germany I find the documentation on the actions of the Nazi regime ridiculously sparse. Go visit Cologne (city of former Gestapo headquarters) and find the lack of information.. while a lot of people have disappeared there. When I travel around Germany, which I like, rebuilt cities appear to bear no resemblance of the black history..

    Well, shame on Cologne if that is the case. I welcome you to visit Karlsruhe where you can see the Stolpersteine (stumbling blocks) and Gedenksteine (memorial stones) just to name some of the many memorials in my home town which you literally cannot miss if you live here.

    Fast forward to today's culture: playing the victim. Shouting censorship and behaving like a child who's toy has been taken, when the government/people try and limit violence and references to Nazi's in games.
    Perhaps it's not about Big Brother government, but about respect.

    There have been cases where people have been brought into court (although not sentenced) because they had a protest shirt with a swastika crossed out, to show you some of the absurd consequences of that law.

    The question of freedom of speech is a separate issue and you can try to make some arguments in favor of censorship. I didn't claim it was about Big Brother government, I just refuted the ridiculous idea that the laws are part of some conspiracy to suppress the discussion of the holocaust.

    So yes, considering your well-informed education about the atrocities in WWII (*never again*) and your rigid stance on playing what you choose (i.e. WWII revivals), you are seriously in denial.

    I don't even understand what you mean. And I don't play any WWII games.

  149. Russians buy games? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wait a second here... Russians actually buy their games?!

  150. Re:Germans and Wolfenstein .... by DrFalkyn · · Score: 1

    Americans called it Manifest Destiny

    The Germans called it Liebensraum

  151. Nazi symbol by KamuZ · · Score: 1

    As far as i know, displaying Nazi symbols is ILLEGAL in Germany.

  152. Re:Waaaaahh by malv · · Score: 1

    SPOILERS AHEAD: Towards the end of the game you are killing Americans operating under the control of a corrupt general. In fact, all of the conflict is triggered by this US general. The Russian invasion was a response to a perceived false flag operation conducted by the US. There are no good guys in this game.

  153. The General Staff was overrated. by tjstork · · Score: 1

    The German General Staff in WWII suffered from the same sort of flaws that pervade the American military today. To wit - the commanders are superb tacticians but terrible strategists. By comparison, American generals in WWII were aweful tacticians, when Patton's yer best, you got problems, but, super strategists. Right now, in our present wars, I would much rather have an Eisenhower or a Marshall, someone that can think of the whole picture, rather than Rommel-esque guys that can carve up a country in a few weeks but can't hold an inch of the pie.

    I would make the argument that in our admiration of skillful German tactics, we underestimated the civil engineering heritage that used to be a hallmark of the academy prior to MacArthur's bringing in all the sports and placing an emphasis on warfighting rather than army running.

    When push comes to shove, I'm pretty dour on old D-Mac and I wonder if he might not be those most overrated American generalissmo of all time. He blew the defense of the Phillipines, he was nothing compared to Nimitz when it came to the Pacific, and he damned near blew the Korean war both before Inchon and after, and he almost blew Inchon as well.

    --
    This is my sig.
    1. Re:The General Staff was overrated. by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Oh come on. Eisenhower is the most overrated major general in history. The Brits had been working on some pretty neat plans to try to pierce France from the Mediterranean that wouldn't have involved basically throwing sufficient shit at the fan. Anybody can win a war by putting enough people in front of machine guns to make killing them all impossible and allowing the columns behind the cannon fodder to push through. Yes, it's a victory but a costly one. YOu don't need any particularly strategic or tactical skills, you just need lots of bodies.

      Guys like Patton and Rommel did the job. Rommel's biggest problem, like most the generals in the Third Reich, was that Hitler was making daft decisions. If Hitler had been some sort of military genius it might have meant something, but the war as it was initially fought in Western Europe and North Africa was not, in fact, Hitler's idea. The General Staff, covertly in the 1920s, had been working on these plans for nearly 20 years by the time Hitler put them into use.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  154. If you play the game through... by malv · · Score: 1

    SPOILERS: -You will find that a corrupt US general is responsible for triggering the conflict and is the main antagonist of the story. -The Russians are merely reacting to a perceived false-flag terrorist attack perpetrated by the US. -You will be killing American soldiers at the end of the game. -Not a single individual in that game could be classified as a hero.

  155. Re:Germans and Wolfenstein .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > The Germans called it Liebensraum

    "Loving-room"??

  156. Why is this a troll? by tjstork · · Score: 1

    Why is this a troll?

    There's a pretty good factual argument to be made that the USA literally picked the English side in World War I precisely because of the massive debts England and France racked up. Yes, there was a common heritage with England, but the USA at that time was nearly as much German as it was English, or had a huge German minority - particular in the midwest.

    The fact is, Imperial Germany bent over backwards to avoid war with the USA and the Zimmerman telegram was basically a "WTF do we do if the USA goes against us... maybe Mexico will join us"... but the German high command KNEW they were losing the war, KNEW the war was over if the USA joined it, just on naval strength alone and they threw the hail mary. The british intercepted it.

    Woops.

    --
    This is my sig.
    1. Re:Why is this a troll? by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      The Zimmerman telegram wasn't even a good hail mary. Given US and British Naval supremacy there was no conceivable way that Germany could have supplied Mexico with any meaningful military aid. Mexico would have been fighting the United States on her own without outside support. It gets worse though -- Mexico had no meaningful armaments industry of her own and the bulk of said industry in the New World was located in the United States.

      That might explain why the Mexican Government said "thanks but no thanks" in response to the Zimmerman telegram. The Germans should have anticipated this and avoided sending the thing in the first place. It might not have kept the US out of the war but why anger the population of a neutral country for no conceivable gain?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    2. Re:Why is this a troll? by tjstork · · Score: 1

      The Zimmerman telegram wasn't even a good hail mary. Given US and British Naval supremacy there was no conceivable way that Germany could have supplied Mexico with any meaningful military aid

      Agreed. About the only chance the Germans had would have been to send the whole fleet out against the British and hope for the best.

      It might not have kept the US out of the war but why anger the population of a neutral country for no conceivable gain?

      Agreed. It was just foolish.

      --
      This is my sig.
  157. The cast of badguys is official by dilvish_the_damned · · Score: 1

    it will be zombies, aliens and rednecks from here on out. When we discover aliens, it will end up being alien zombie rednecks. In any case rednecks will always be OK to shoot at as long as they are zombies and so long as they are not pregnant with anything other than alien zombie babies.

    Its really pretty strait forward put any other way.

    Wait, I forgot about demons.

    --
    I think you underestimate just how much I just dont care.
  158. Re:Waaaaahh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nazi Germany: Former Soviet Ally

    Soviet Union: Former US Ally.

    Neither of these statements are true in the strictest sense: though they were on the same side and were actively fighting, the Allies and the Soviets were never actual military allies; nor were the Nazis and the Soviets.

  159. Re:Waaaaahh by Joce640k · · Score: 1

    Try making a game which features Abu Ghraib.

    --
    No sig today...
  160. Controversial mission aside... by yourtallness · · Score: 1

    Excluding the controversial mission (in which by the way I find it kind of hypocrite that you can get away with shooting only for self defense; if I were Makarov and one of my squad members showed less than zealous to participate in the "mission", I'd discipline them right away), there is one more basic question I have regarding war games:

    How does it feel for people to play games where they have to mow down legions of soldiers of their own ethnicity? How come Russia is upset mainly for the terrorist scene, but I don't see anyone complaining much for having to wipe out wave upon wave of Russian paratroopers?

    Mind you, I'm not questioning the fairness of defending against an aggressor (in a given premise), I'd just like to find out what Germans feel when placed in a position where they have to shoot German soldiers, etc. Is there still fun to be had, or does it feel weird or wrong?

    Having said that, I can only think of Half-Life 1 as an example of US Forces being portrayed as the bad guys, and would certainly like to see games or movies present matters from another viewpoint, for some balance.

  161. Re:Waaaaahh by arethuza · · Score: 1

    One of the things that made me stop playing Ghost Recon was that I was getting a bit sick of shooting Mexicans in Mexico who didn't appear to be fighting for much more than stopping US interference in Mexico.

  162. Re:Waaaaahh by arethuza · · Score: 1

    I think you need to correct your statement to allow for Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin.

  163. Wolfenstein by dugeen · · Score: 1

    Wolfenstein was recalled in Germany because Germany has strict laws about display of swastikas and other Nazi insignia, which the game violated. Not simply because it gave offence.

  164. Re:Waaaaahh by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

    it makes Americans seem as the true, innocent heroes

    yea, shame on them for giving the audience what it wants. when you have a game where you play some villain instead of a hero people get all upset and offended, if you have a game where you play the hero then people get upset about who is chosen as the antagonist.

    These games aren't made to pander to the American or Russian government. And provide some ego boost to the populace of respective countries. The games are made to make money. And the fluffy bunny games where everyone is your friend and the only thing you can shoot is a stream of rainbows to collect guests for your birthday party are not typically big money makers.

    Maybe culturally sensitive games(I hate this term) where the protagonist's point of view changes depending on which region the game is purchased are worth the additional effort(that means money if you didn't know). I assume a company could make more money in Russia if they catered to what a Russian audience wanted instead of just reselling what works well in America.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  165. Re:Germans and Wolfenstein .... by TheTurtlesMoves · · Score: 1

    What the hell are talking about?

    When i am in Germany (or Austria) and having a few beers at the local pub. Brining up the war is something that almost always happens, and we talk about without a big problem. The only person in Denial here is your Teacher. All Germans are taught about the war and the camps.

    Hell last night we worked out that my grandfather was probably shooting at the other guys grandfather and visa versa.

    --
    The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
  166. I've played them all. by maillemaker · · Score: 1

    [quote]Did you even play the first game? Half of the plot is fighting in a chaotic (no longer Saudi) Arabia taken over by Muslim terrorists.[/quote]

    I've played all the COD games since the first one, except for COD3 which was only for consoles.

    But it's been a long time since I played single player so I can't remember the plot line of COD4MW.

    The OpFor forces just always struck me as Russian or Russian-backed. I guess it's the Hind helicopters.

    --
    A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
  167. Re:Germans and Wolfenstein .... by DavidTC · · Score: 1

    Perhaps before commenting, you should actually attempt to learn what I'm talking about. Namely, that a specific channel here, the History Channel, has gained fame for showing WWII documentaries all the damn time. Not like 'every day', like literally every single second of every day. (Although this is exaggeration, it was only every other second of the every day.)

    I have no idea what sort of point you're trying to make about the Holocaust, but what the GP ACTUALLY said was that there was a documentary on 'the Third Reich and World War Two' once a week, and I was commenting that that was not actually that impressive.

    --
    If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
  168. Re:Germans and Wolfenstein .... by DavidTC · · Score: 1

    Oh, well that's...um...better? Somehow?

    I'm so glad I don't have that channel.

    --
    If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
  169. Enough with the carebears by Adustust · · Score: 1

    For those who are complaining about the scene specifically - It's a game meant for entertainment, just as there are massacres in movies, there can be massacres in video games. They're both meant for the same age group. For those who are complaining about the negative portrayal of Russia - There was also a corrupted general who killed his own men in this game too. It's a fictional storyline, get over it.

  170. Re:Waaaaahh by Shakrai · · Score: 1

    something which Extreme Associates was in the process of doing (and had a lot of luck with) until they, for some weird reason, decided to plead guilty

    They ran out of money. Lawyers don't work for sleezebags for free. I wish they had continued to fight it because even sleezebags deserve free speech but I understand why they would want to cut their losses and move on with their lives.

    --
    I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
    We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
  171. Re:Waaaaahh by c6gunner · · Score: 1

    They ran out of money. Lawyers don't work for sleezebags for free.

    That blows. I would have been more than happy to contribute to their defense fund, if I'd known about it. I have no interest in their merchandise, but I absolutely abhor the idea of "obscenity laws".

  172. postal by maxslash · · Score: 1

    I shot as many as I could and ENJOYED every minute of it... it may have saved a real life that day, considering all the texting, cell phone using idiots i drive on the road with every day.

  173. Re:Waaaaahh by zach_the_lizard · · Score: 1

    The U.S. sold anthrax and bubonic plague to Iraq 1 2 3. It may not be nerve gas itself, but there is plenty of evidence the U.S. supplied Saddam with WMD.

    --
    SSC
  174. Re:Waaaaahh by c6gunner · · Score: 1

    The U.S. sold anthrax and bubonic plague to Iraq 1 [cbsnews.com] 2 [timesonline.co.uk] 3 [gulfweb.org].

    Seeing as how your sources basically repeat what I said earlier, perhaps you should have tried the "I'm sorry, I was wrong" approach, instead?

    It may not be nerve gas itself, but there is plenty of evidence the U.S. supplied Saddam with WMD.

    Then let's see your "evidence". So far you've provided nothing of the sort. The most you've been able to show is that the US supplied Iraq with dual-use items.

    If you're going to make such ridiculous accusations, expect to be called on it.

  175. Re:Waaaaahh by strikethree · · Score: 1

    I have mod points and I was about to mod you as flamebait... but I thought it would be better to educate you. I doubt you will listen but here goes:

    It was not American policy to rape civilians. The story you linked to showed that people were being punished for that crime. Yes, it was a crime, but you are portraying it as if it was American policy and very widespread. Releasing a game where Americans rape innocent civilians would be in bad taste considering that raping innocent civilians is a punishable crime. Regardless, I would not want to see such a game censored.

    strike

    --
    "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
  176. a Reagan quote by amazingxkcd · · Score: 1

    Reagan said to Gorbachev "In America, anyone can go to the white house and say to the president, 'Mr. President,I don't like what you are doing with this country'. In Russia, anyone can go to the Kremlin and say to the prime minister,'Mr. Prime Minister, I don't like what the American President is doing with his country'". now, its the Russian land, so the Russian government can decide what they want. Cant argue much about that.

    1. Re:a Reagan quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reagan said to Gorbachev "In America, anyone can go to the white house and say to the president, 'Mr. President,I don't like what you are doing with this country'

      Yeah right! Just try it.

      You can go to the white house, but you won't get anywhere near the president.