Slashdot Mirror


Battlefield 3 Banned In Iran

dotarray writes "Iranian gamers hoping to get their hands on Battlefield 3 will be sorely disappointed, as the country has officially banned EA's latest shooter. Why? The game features an American war force launching an assault on Iranian capital city Tehran."

248 comments

  1. A selling point? by www.sorehands.com · · Score: 2

    Banned in Boston used to be a selling point.

    Now Banned in Iran is badge of honor.

    1. Re:A selling point? by lexsird · · Score: 1

      Dear Iran,

      Thanks for helping our game be more successful and making us more money! Please feel free to ban our products in the future.

      Thanks,
      The guys who made BF3 and their families.

      P.S. You would all get powned anyway.

      --
      Take the Red Pill.
    2. Re:A selling point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I imagine it could be huge seller in Iran... IF you could play Iranians defending against the Evil Americans.

    3. Re:A selling point? by Eponymous+Hero · · Score: 1

      you can. play the multiplayer on an iranian map. duh.

      --
      insensitive clod overlords obligatory xkcd car analogy russian reversals whoosh pedant fanbois ftfy in 3...2...1..PROFIT
    4. Re:A selling point? by Ethanol-fueled · · Score: 1

      The Iranians are sissies compared to the Japanese. The Japanese released 1943, in which you the American P-38 destroy the Japanese Navy to avenge your destroyed aircraft carrier.

      If you have any doubts, look at the meatballs(rising suns) on the enemy light-bomber's wings clearly visible in this screenshot.

    5. Re:A selling point? by Synerg1y · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If this game was released in Iran, it would demonstrate to the Iranian people that despite the government's reassurance, Iran actually can't do much against an invading USA. Political motives for invading Iran aside, the concern is probably that the people will lose faith in the regime and go the way of egypt and syria. It works a little different when your government relies on censorship and misinformation to make itself look good in what is technically a desert, so things like bf3's portrayal matter a lot more in their culture than they do in ours. Then again you don't see a whole lot of games where the states are being invaded by anything besides aliens and even then the Americans always win, just not a good selling point I guess.

    6. Re:A selling point? by jhoegl · · Score: 0

      Battlefield should have been banned after BF2 anyways.

      How is that for "powned" there honkey?

    7. Re:A selling point? by dstyle5 · · Score: 2

      I have to disagree. If it weren't for BF2, there would never have been the BF2142 and its glorious Titan mode. Too bad the series and been dumbed down so much since.

    8. Re:A selling point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, Iran needs media objectivity and no censorship like in America.

    9. Re:A selling point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Agreed with the last part.
      When I look at the war in Iraq and the huge civilian death toll, I don't really enjoy playing war video games where the USA are the good guys. I'd feel the same playing the Nazis in Medal of Honor.

      I'm fine with games where you can choose your side and all sides are portrayed equally (i.e. your perception of who are the bad guys and good guys changes depending on which camp you play in). But being forced to play the USA only, and having to endure all the We are right/Our army should be worshiped propaganda really annoys me.

      I also hate games that cast the Russians as the bad guys. The cold war has been over for a few decades, the Soviet regime has been overthrown by the very people who live in Russia today, and despite what people like to think, Russia is a lot more peaceful than the USA when it comes to military invasions. Unfortunately, everything that goes on there is deformed by Western media to sound terrible (and for the record, I'm from both Western Europe and North America, I'm not Russian).
      Casting Russia as the bad guys is both old and close-minded.

      I'd gladly pay $200 for a video game where I have to shoot Marines for indiscriminately bombing people and otherwise endangering civilians. Don't get me wrong, I don't support Al Qaeda or the Taliban but something has to be said about starting a war that ends up killing 100k civilians, 30k enemies and less than 5k of your own troops. And before anyone here wants to point out that US soldiers are just following orders, that's no excuse. No troops = no war. When you are given the responsibility to use heavy weapons, you should have a high enough sense of responsibility to refuse to fight when needed rather than to hide behind the politicians who gave the green light for the war.

    10. Re:A selling point? by History's+Coming+To · · Score: 2

      My experience of the game is that the Iranian's could do a lot against an invading force. In fact I get the sneaking suspicion that any small guerilla force on their own territory is going to cause so many problems for an invading army that it quickly becomes uneconomic and politically troublesome. The Americans always win? You mean like Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan? Nope, sorry, they're not "winning", they're "acceptable losses". And I'm not having a go at the US in particular, I'm British and have a couple of good friends serving alongside US troops, and even they would admit that there's not been any "winning" going on for quite a long time. Coping, maybe. Trying, definately. Not winning though. The only people who can win are the locals, either by continuing to kill western troops, or by rejecting the local militia's ethos and aims. It's up to them.

      --
      Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.
    11. Re:A selling point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know he said "and even then the Americans always win" in the context of "you don't see a whole lot of games where the states are being invaded by anything besides aliens and even then the Americans always win," right?

    12. Re:A selling point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      10 Interwebs points for you, I'd also add that Iran has something called Basij.. which is basically an army of 2 million mobilizable Guerrillas, that number is scary when it comes to ground battles.
      And in AA, 10 minutes of googling will open to you an arsenal of cutting-edge defensive technologies. Every couple of weeks they introduce a new kind of weapons, missiles, ballistic. Iran is a big opponent here, and if the U.S. can take it out.. they would've done that.

    13. Re:A selling point? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      There were a few TV shows dealing with the troops in Afghanistan shown earlier this month and one thing that really struck me was the fatalistic attitude of the soldiers, especially the bomb disposal guys. They are ordered to find and defuse improvised explosive devices because the intel from their design and origin is deemed valuable, more valuable than their ability to walk or live in fact.

      They talked about how they just get on with the job, and how they were not too worried because all the enemy can do is "take your legs". When that happens, and it happens a lot, afterwards they just seem resigned to spending the rest of their life in a wheelchair with a pretty poor military pension. Years of underfunded rehab, never getting to kick a ball around with their kids. And they are considered the lucky ones because they didn't come home in a wooden box.

      We are losing in Afghanistan every day. Losing badly. The cost to us is monetary, the cost to those we send there is immeasurable.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    14. Re:A selling point? by HopefulIntern · · Score: 1

      Then again you don't see a whole lot of games where the states are being invaded by anything besides aliens

      Except Modern Warfare 2 and very recently MW3...but yes SPOILER ALERT

      *********America does 'win' in the end (well, Russia withdraws troops from US soil after peace talks, if you call that "winning").

    15. Re:A selling point? by cheekyboy · · Score: 1

      are they all over 50yo?

      Or if they are all young 25yos, they wouldnt dare shoot at the country who made the iphone and ipad, never.

      --
      Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
    16. Re:A selling point? by cheekyboy · · Score: 1

      unlike modern vietnam, and south korea, I wouldnt consider iraq/iran any tropical holiday destination in the next 500 years.

      --
      Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
    17. Re:A selling point? by c0mpliant · · Score: 2

      Except you play as Russians...

      --
      There is no -1 disagree
    18. Re:A selling point? by Talderas · · Score: 1

      And Battlefield Bad Company 2....

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    19. Re:A selling point? by HopefulIntern · · Score: 1

      TBH I cannot remember the single player storyline for that one, I just remember it was USA vs. Russia.

    20. Re:A selling point? by Talderas · · Score: 1

      The end of BCBC2 basically implies that Russia starts invading the US.

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    21. Re:A selling point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When I look at the war in Iraq and the huge civilian death toll, I don't really enjoy playing war video games where the USA are the good guys. I'd feel the same playing the Nazis in Medal of Honor.

      Hey guess what! The WW2 civilian death toll caused by the allies (excluding Russia) was way fucking higher than Iraq and Afghanistan combined even though the conflict was way fucking shorter. Fuck I don't even have to include Hiroshima and Nagasaki to get bigger numbers. This was civilian death on a grand fucking scale. That's what war fucking is. People dying. So maybe you should just feel bad about playing any war game and shut the fuck up about trying to make a nonsensical and illogical political statement.

    22. Re:A selling point? by frito_x · · Score: 1

      China?

    23. Re:A selling point? by x6060 · · Score: 1

      Or Homefront (North Koreans)

    24. Re:A selling point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OK, so you're saying that you'd kill Marines (at least in video games) because of civilian casualties? I'm sorry, but there has NEVER been a war without those. How could Iraq or Afghanistan be an exception when the enemy doesn't exactly wear a freaking uniform? Or when they strap bombs to a woman so she looks pregnant and has her blow up a bunch of soldiers? For that matter, how many of the civilian casualties are caused by American forces? Suicide bombers aren't really known for their discretion.

      They say that "war is Hell" for a reason. I don't understand how you could wish death on a group just because they can't do the impossible. Besides, why would they refuse to fight? They're pretty sure that fighting is the reason that the US hasn't been attacked again. Not because they "fixed" anything, but because they've given the terrorists the "jihad" that they wanted all along, so the soldiers are attacked instead of people back in the states. That many of the soldiers prefer it that way is a big part of the reason your comment utterly disgusts me. Soldiers aren't perfect, no one is, and some of them have done horrible things but that hardly makes the entire group worthy of scorn and death.

      Obviously, there's plenty of propaganda on both sides, but you shouldn't let the fact the US and Europe influences public perception like that blind you to the fact that, just because the perceptions are exaggerated, hat none of it is true. As someone of Polish decent, I have no issues with any game that points out the Russian government's issues with violence (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katyn_massacre). As far as I'm aware, they STILL haven't declassified all of the documents related to that. I'm not saying they should be attacked or anything, just don't pretend that they've been framed.

      The US military is not completely innocent and it is very rare to have a "good vs evil" situation in warfare (a bit part of the reason they still make video games with Nazi enemies). To let yourself hate another group (in this case, American soldiers) is to let yourself fall victim to the same pattern of generalizations and bias that I think your comment was intended to protest.

      @Synerg1y: You say that as though the Iranian people don't already have issues with their government. They're a very intelligent and well educated people, they know their country wouldn't stand a chance in a conflict with the US based on sheer military power.

    25. Re:A selling point? by Eponymous+Hero · · Score: 1

      dude it's not my fault iranians aren't russian. they probably should have thought about that when they cried that we're fighting them in this swedish-made game.

      --
      insensitive clod overlords obligatory xkcd car analogy russian reversals whoosh pedant fanbois ftfy in 3...2...1..PROFIT
    26. Re:A selling point? by lolcutusofbong · · Score: 1

      You're right, something does need to be said:
      Achievement Unlocked: 130/5 kill-to-death ratio

    27. Re:A selling point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1. Have you played BF3? Do they really put the "rah rah USA" in your face, or did they just make a software decision to simplify coding? Are there a bunch of "USA USA" cheerleaders the entire game, or was it a similar decision to "let's make players always be on the blue team"? If you can't answer this then shame on you for basing your argument on biased assumptions.

      2. Injecting real-world politics into a game is missing the point of a game. While I do agree, I've played enough "us versus the Russians" and "us versus the Nazis" games, complaining about it because the real-world is different only shows that you don't know much about video games. Please do NOT google "plants versus zombies", as I fear it may be a bit too much for you ;)

      3. "killing 100k civilians, 30k enemies" [citation needed]

    28. Re:A selling point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While your "no troops = no war" theory sounds good in practice it's about like you saying "if I go on strike and don't do my work the company will go under", wrong, they would just bring in others that will do the job. As for the military and soldier that was derelict in duty no matter the branch or nation would face severe consequences. If you don't want to fight in a war, don't join in the first place. Once you sign your name on that contract your ass is pretty much theirs, you go where told you do what you're told to do, if during wartime, you kill who they tell you to kill.
       
      BTW Why did you single out the Marines? Marines don't kill indiscriminately, they kill the target at the other end of the sight. No more no less.
       
      Semper Fi

    29. Re:A selling point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You'd pay $200 for a game where you get to kill Marines, you think the US Army is the equivalent of Nazis, and you praise the peaceful foreign policy of Russia...have you ever considered that you are in fact not an intelligent person?

    30. Re:A selling point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Post-Soviet Russia has the debacles of Chechnya and Georgia and South Ossetia among other imperialist actions such as depriving Central Europe of natural-gas supplies mid-winter over some kind of trade dispute. This is not excusing imperialist actions on the part of the United States, but I would certainly not excuse today's Russian state as some saint of peace, freedom, and democracy. Vladimir Putin is an authoritarian trained under the KGB who's used a heavy hand against political opponents in a supposedly post-totalitarian Russia.

      Personally, I'm all around disgusted with all video games (and movies) that glorify war, no matter who's cast as "the good guy" and who's "the enemy." War, at best, is a horrible evil that may become necessary in self-defense as a last resort; we should never be cheering on imperialist acts, worshiping the military (the soldier's job may become necessary in times of self-defense or stopping genocide, but we should not glamorize it, enabling a culture that blindly worships aggressive role models and blind obedience to authority), or excusing our leaders from scrutiny in the name of "patriotism." I have zero interest in playing games like Call of Duty and Medal of Honor.

    31. Re:A selling point? by JTsyo · · Score: 1

      Russia is the other side in this since they are the only country that could realistically put up a fight with the US. Iran or NK would just be a joke. Chinese equipment is not well know and it's hard to give them the numbers advantage in a game like BF3. I haven't played through the SP in BF3 so I don't know why the two sides are at war.

    32. Re:A selling point? by History's+Coming+To · · Score: 1

      A valid point. Yes, I did, but had already got onto my high-horse. I think the point stands, but no, you're right, it wasn't a brilliant reply.

      --
      Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.
    33. Re:A selling point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Russia is a lot more peaceful than the USA when it comes to military invasions

      .
      I'm sure the Chechens, Georgians and South Ossetians would be pleased to hear that.

    34. Re:A selling point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Russia is a lot more peaceful than the USA when it comes to military invasions.
      But then, so are all countries.

  2. Seems Reasonable by blackpaw · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Pretty sure a shooter involving taking down the Trade Centre would be banned in the USA.

    Given the current USA/NATO warmongering mutters re Iran they probably view it as an attempt to get people used to the idea of the USA invading Iran.

    1. Re:Seems Reasonable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Nope, that is why we have free speech.

    2. Re:Seems Reasonable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Right. It wouldn't be banned.

      Instead it would be rated AO, and no one would sell it.

      Yay freedom of speech!

    3. Re:Seems Reasonable by pclminion · · Score: 1

      Nope, that is why we have free speech.

      BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAH! Hahahahaha! That's killer dude, killer.

    4. Re:Seems Reasonable by forkfail · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Disclaimer: Free Speech valid only in participating areas and Free Speech Zones. May be revoked at will for reasons of fear, political power, religious, ethnic or economic sensibilities. Not valid in airports or theaters. Subject to taxation and regulation. Can be exercised only with permission of media owners when applicable. Not for use afte 9:00 PM local time in town squares, plazas or Wall Street. Identification required. May not be used in the face of law enforcement. May not be used to express politically embarrassing information in wiki form in front of the world at large. Penalties will be incurred if anyone considers said free speech to be promoting of terrorism, or is considered annoying to monied interests, or is enacted by too many people in a public place. Does not apply in the context of an employer/employee relationship. Free speech may not be encrypted in certain areas; check your local laws. Subject to revocation at will by government and corporate interests. Additional fees may apply.

      --
      Check your premises.
    5. Re:Seems Reasonable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Freedom of speech isn't freedom to make a buck no matter what.

    6. Re:Seems Reasonable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Well it is written by a Swedish company so there goes your conspiracy theory.

    7. Re:Seems Reasonable by maxdread · · Score: 1

      Because an optional rating system is now on par with government censorship ?

    8. Re:Seems Reasonable by lexsird · · Score: 1

      .... as an attempt to get people used to the idea of the USA invading Iran.

      What? We aren't there yet?

      --
      Take the Red Pill.
    9. Re:Seems Reasonable by bky1701 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      When basically every distribution system uses the "optional" system, yes. Corporate censorship is still censorship. It isn't right just because it isn't the government doing it.

    10. Re:Seems Reasonable by maxdread · · Score: 1

      I fail to see how its wrong either.

      Do you really want the government to get involved in deciding what a business must sell? Is that truly any better than non-government censorship ?

    11. Re:Seems Reasonable by forkfail · · Score: 1

      When socialist based government power goes awry, it's a form of totalitarianism.

      When corporate power gets out of hand, and bends government to its will, that's fascism, and it too is a form of totalitarianism.

      Either extreme is dangerous and destructive to the citizens.

      --
      Check your premises.
    12. Re:Seems Reasonable by maxdread · · Score: 1

      This has what to do with the subject at hand? A private business deciding not to sell "adult" rated entertainment is now an example of fascism?

    13. Re:Seems Reasonable by tvller · · Score: 1

      LOL, Mod this up please!

    14. Re:Seems Reasonable by Azakai · · Score: 1

      On a side note, anyone remember the twin towers missing from the original Deus Ex? CONSPIRACY!

    15. Re:Seems Reasonable by Beardo+the+Bearded · · Score: 1

      Red Alert 2 had the Twin Towers aflame on the cover.

      The first mission was to destroy the Pentagon and install a mind control device to take over the brains of the US soldiers.

      --

      ---
      ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
    16. Re:Seems Reasonable by pshanks · · Score: 1

      EA might be Swedish, but they're wholly owned by the all American Electronic Arts

    17. Re:Seems Reasonable by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      Right. It wouldn't be banned.

      Instead it would be rated AO, and no one would sell it.

      Yay freedom of speech!

      Video game ratings are not government mandated.

      Your beef is with the retailers, not the gov't.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    18. Re:Seems Reasonable by forkfail · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The question at hand was whether corporate based censorship was on par with Government censorship. My (round about) answer is, yes to that question.

      In answer to your followup question, no in the manner you phrased it, yes when a consortium of corporations and retailers effectively destroy any entity that doesn't follow their rules.

      The point a lot of folks who are so anti-government seem to miss is that the private sector is equally capable of the evils so often attributed to governments when there is no government to counterbalance them. The main difference is that when corporations get out of hand, you cannot vote them out, nor can you stop doing business with them, as by then, they tend to be effective monopolies.

      --
      Check your premises.
    19. Re:Seems Reasonable by bky1701 · · Score: 1

      "Do you really want the government to get involved in deciding what a business must sell?"

      Yes, to some extent, I do. That might not be something libertarians here want to hear, but when there exists an oligarchy in a market, it needs regulated or else the consumers will be harmed. Just as you may not conspire to fix prices, you should not be able to use your market power to determine what may or may not be sold.

      The difference between libertarian mindsets and those of people who actually value freedoms is that we realize there is no fundamental difference between government and business. Business must respect rights as well for people to be free in the modern world. Voting with your feet does not often work, so there are times when voting at the ballot box is the only way to fix the situation.

    20. Re:Seems Reasonable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope. The developer is DICE, which is a Swedish company. EA does distribution and advertising.
      http://www.dice.se/

    21. Re:Seems Reasonable by Rasperin · · Score: 1

      Or, you know, a rating of NR for Not Rated. Plus there are a ton of indi and professional games out there that depict the twin towers getting blown up. A lot prior to 9/11 more then several post 9/11 (and more and more of the recent years). Honestly, at this point it's a BFD moment. We study history to learn from our mistakes not to hide it under the rug like it never happened.

      --
      WTF Slashdot, why do I have to login 50 times to post?
    22. Re:Seems Reasonable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Optional?

      Senator Lieberman and his ilk have a very peculiar interpretation of free speech.
      Just three days ago:

      http://tech.slashdot.org/story/11/11/25/1713237/senator-wants-terrorist-label-on-blogs

      So, yeah. It's on par.

    23. Re:Seems Reasonable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is surely a big difference between governments and businesses that anyone with a brain can see. Businesses cannot (legally) use threats to coerce your behavior and force you to do things...the government can. The government, like the mafia, uses the threat of violence against you (by threatening to take your assets, and, if you were to resist, your freedom/life) if you do not cough up the protection money they demand. Businesses may do a lot of shitty things, but they don't have the power to take your money through taxes or revoke your right to freedom/life. Money is really your life energy (you trade your time/work in exchange for money)...the fact the government takes 40% of it is a true crime.

    24. Re:Seems Reasonable by Cat_Herder_GoatRoper · · Score: 1

      But we have the choice not to buy it or anything else the company produces.

    25. Re:Seems Reasonable by bky1701 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Businesses cannot (legally) use threats to coerce your behavior and force you to do things...the government can. The government, like the mafia, uses the threat of violence against you"

      They can't? Every had your electric shut off, threatened to be disconnected from the internet, sued by a business for something, received a C&D, etc? That's not even getting into the fact businesses have and DO use force on the scale of the military. The only reason they do not currently use it on a mass scale is that, heaven forbid, they have lawsuits to fear should they abuse the rights of people. Look up Pinkertons, you'll be amazed how alike business and government can become when unregulated.

      You'll see, I hope, why I say they are not different. The only reason the difference you cited exists is because the government has disallowed businesses to violate certain rights. It is not a part of the concept of businesses in general.

      "Businesses may do a lot of shitty things, but they don't have the power to take your money through taxes or revoke your right to freedom/life."

      They can, however, fix prices in order to take your money, or just throw you out on the street to die of hunger.

      "Money is really your life energy (you trade your time/work in exchange for money)...the fact the government takes 40% of it is a true crime."

      Ah, makes sense. Your opposition to the government is the typical libertarian spiel, not an actual respect for personal rights: "I do not want taxed."

    26. Re:Seems Reasonable by Dogbertius · · Score: 1

      Doug Stanhope has covered this so many times. I got to see it in person, and people were falling out of their chairs laughing.

      You were born free, you got fucked outta half of it, and you wave a flag celebrating it!

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTOQhPd2Xh4

      They say if you give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day, but if you teach a man to fish.... then he's gotta get a fishing license, but he doesn't have any money. So he's got to get a job and get into the Social Security system and pay taxes, and now you're gonna audit the poor cocksucker, 'cause he's not really good with math. So he'll pull the IRS van up to your house, and he'll take all your shit. He'll take your black velvet Elvis and your Batman toothbrush, and your penis pump, and that all goes up for auction with the burden of proof on you because you forgot to carry the one, 'cause you were just worried about eating a fucking fish, and you couldn't even cook the fish 'cause you needed a permit for an open flame. Then the Health Department is going to start asking you a lot of questions about where are you going to dump the scales and the guts. 'This is not a sanitary environment', and ladies and gentlemen if you get sick of it all at the end of the day... not even legal to kill yourself in this country. Thanks again, John Ashcroft, you weird bible addict, can't even handle your own drug. You were born free, you got fucked out of half of it, and you wave a flag celebrating it. [audience member]: Hey, don't hold back! [Doug]: You got an argument? [a.m.] No, keep goin'! ... The only true freedom you find, is when you realize and come to terms with the fact that you are completely and unapologetically fucked, and then you are free to float around the system.

    27. Re:Seems Reasonable by Dogbertius · · Score: 0

      They have brains?

      Sure you don't mean the in-dash controls on their militarized Ford Explorers?

    28. Re:Seems Reasonable by Bucky24 · · Score: 1

      But isn't it EA that actually owns the copyrights on the game?

      --
      All the world's a CPU, and all the men and women merely AI agents
    29. Re:Seems Reasonable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your beef is with the retailers, not the gov't.

      Who, naturally, will not bow to any pressure I presume?

    30. Re:Seems Reasonable by h00manist · · Score: 1

      Working on very detailed US maps and city images to practice invading pretty soon. Er, I meant play games on. So nobody will mind.

      --
      Build your own energy sources from scratch. http://otherpower.com/
    31. Re:Seems Reasonable by dstyle5 · · Score: 1

      Nope, EA owns DICE lock, stock and barrel. They bought them out in 2006. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EA_Digital_Illusions_CE

    32. Re:Seems Reasonable by Spovednik · · Score: 1

      Not if done by aliens. Of space faring kind. They are allowed. If Americans win at the end, of course.

    33. Re:Seems Reasonable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      good

    34. Re:Seems Reasonable by Man+On+Pink+Corner · · Score: 1

      Laugh all you want, but the fact is, such a game would not be banned in the US. Unless it involves kiddie porn or is directly and unequivocally written to incite real-world violence, our courts will not allow it to be prohibited.

      That is one of the few aspects of our political system we can be genuinely proud of.

    35. Re:Seems Reasonable by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      The first mission was to destroy the Pentagon and install a mind control device to take over the brains of the US soldiers.

      Historical reenactment is apparently OK.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    36. Re:Seems Reasonable by Baloroth · · Score: 1

      Kinda good illustration would be Deus Ex. First scene occurs in a destroyed Statue of Liberty, destroyed by terrorists, who (I would say *SPOILER*, but come on, the games is ten years old and hey did you know Snape kills Dumbledore?) turn out to be the good guys and the people you end up helping. Oh yeah and you end up nuking area 51 (excuse me: the Groom Lake Facility). Granted it came out pre-9/11, but still. Didn't even rate a blip on the censorship radar. No, the only thing people in the US seem to want to censor are those nasty boobies. Those things are dangerous! Sex is AFAIK literally the only way to get AO in a game.

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    37. Re:Seems Reasonable by mike1210 · · Score: 0

      When corporate power gets out of hand, and bends government to its will, that's fascism

      No, it's not.

    38. Re:Seems Reasonable by artor3 · · Score: 1

      Just double checked since I thought that would be a bit weird given the release data, but I don't see the Twin Towers anywhere on the cover. The Empire State Building and Chrysler Building are both burning though. So same effect, just without the coincidence.

    39. Re:Seems Reasonable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pretty sure a shooter involving taking down the Trade Centre would be banned in the USA.

      Not really. Not in a country that is actually extremely permissive of violent content in video games when compared to the likes of Germany and Australia. It would draw protest from citizens, and retailers would feel the "responsibility" to be sensitive to those protests, and the game would find itself without any way to be sold at retail - but the producer could still sell it, or give it away for free if they chose.

      The game wouldn't be banned, and it certainly wouldn't be by government censorship.

    40. Re:Seems Reasonable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Another irrational "we're just as bad as they are argument". As others have pointed out it falls under free speech and I've never heard a game banned based subject matter. It would be panned, protested and universally condemned but it wouldn't be banned. The fact that the government does have limits is what makes us different.

    41. Re:Seems Reasonable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      boohoo, 'big business isn't nice to me'. Actually they can't throw you on the street to die of hunger. You can get a job and earn your keep. Or sponge, probably you aware of that one all ready. No one forces you to take their electricity or internet, but no they don't have to provide services w/o payment. Grow up and take responsibility for your life.

    42. Re:Seems Reasonable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *Update: Penalties (up to and including assasination via drone strike) will be incurred if anyone considers said free speech to be promoting of terrorism.

    43. Re:Seems Reasonable by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      That would be because it was set so far in the future, it was obviously not related to modern USA in any way.

      Try a game that would do that to a modern country. Hell, for all the dicking around with portraying russians like some kind of inhumane monsters, they couldn't even make the scene where you have to shoot a bunch of civilians in a russian airport in modern warfare without giving you an option to "opt-out" of that scene.

      What kind of reaction do you think the game would get if you could do the same to american folks in an american airport? Lieberman et al WOULD get it banned, not though government but through corporate interference and having a lot of clueless moms and dads call the company and tell it to stop selling such "unamerican" games. It would have AO rating, and then it would not be stocked by anyone anywhere, and everyone would pretend really hard that this is not censorship.

    44. Re:Seems Reasonable by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      You talk about government ban. He's talking about corporate ban - corporations simply not selling the game.

      We can split hair on semantics of whether or not that is censorship, but end result would be the same. Game would not be accessible in the country through ways other then import or fringe small time traders who will choose to not follow the trend and suffer the potential consequences.

    45. Re:Seems Reasonable by MBraynard · · Score: 1

      Nonsense.
      If I build a TV station and I decide I don't want to broadcast your crap, it's not censorship. You are guaranteed a right to speak, not a right to be heard.

    46. Re:Seems Reasonable by uninformedLuddite · · Score: 1

      what is it?

      --
      The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
    47. Re:Seems Reasonable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Freedom of speech isn't freedom to make a buck no matter what.

      Would it be otherwise if it would be released in open-source, play as long as you want, no buck to pay?

    48. Re:Seems Reasonable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fascism is when the state bends corporations to their will. I think they call the inverse American Exceptionalism.

    49. Re:Seems Reasonable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They'd get it pulled one way or another. Perhaps claiming representation of the twin towers violated some sort of copyright law on the architecture or something.

    50. Re:Seems Reasonable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If only I had mod points, depressingly true.

    51. Re:Seems Reasonable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the proper response is: grow up and pay your taxes.

    52. Re:Seems Reasonable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nonsense. Self censorship isn't when it only happens because of inevitable government intervention otherwise. That is simple censorship. Just as it is theft if I hand over my wallet to a thief with a gun, even if he doesn't shoot me.

      Retailers would never want to do this absent compulsion. There is no reason for it. The minor loss of patronage by those who would disapprove is overwhelmed by the loss due to these restraints. Only the political interest of saving the children and such, driven by savage interventionist voters, lapped up by sad vicarious politicians can place such a mindless burden on consumers. Some earlier forms of media that did not offer self-flagellation quick enough as a means to avoid worse abuse at the hands of the state. TV, music recordings, movies, books and other 'moral content' media suffered in various ways at the hands of regulators. The movie industry was smart enough to avoid even worse controls by offering government stooges positions of influence in their 'voluntary' censorship. TV had the FCC moral police actively controlling content creators through subtle threats by the infamous Newton Minow, chairman at the time.

      So any 'voluntary' arrangement is not the retailers fault whatsoever. A man choosing to jump off a cliff rather than be shot by a pursuing assailant is not committing suicide. He is simply choosing the means to the end his aggressor has already picked for him.

    53. Re:Seems Reasonable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its not on the cover but, theres an on-box promo art which had the World Trade Center being hit (albeit with what looks like a minor rocket hit (black mark on the top right of the right tower) compared to the bullet hole ridden looking Statue of Liberty)

      http://www.mobygames.com/game/windows/command-conquer-red-alert-2/cover-art

      http://www.mobygames.com/game/windows/command-conquer-red-alert-2/cover-art/gameCoverId,3974/

    54. Re:Seems Reasonable by cnxsoft · · Score: 1

      You had free speech. I think we've read they wanted to ban websites with content promoting terrorism. If the game was taking down the Trade Centre, I'm sure it would be banned.

    55. Re:Seems Reasonable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Oddly, a game featuring Russians invading Washington DC was *not* banned.

      But it's OK, when I saw the headline I knew it won't be long before bumping into a "Americans are just as bad as all the tyrants in the world" mentality.

    56. Re:Seems Reasonable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They aren't anymore cause they actually removed them from the cover after 9/11. Yeah not kidding either.

    57. Re:Seems Reasonable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      haha, I remember that shit. I remember when 9/11 went down. The very next day we were told we would need to pull the towers ablaze on the cover artwork & really every piece of material we printed still. I remember hearing we got asked to pull that first mission too. Thank god for Louis Castle however. Told EA it either stays, or they stop selling the game. Man I miss working for him.

    58. Re:Seems Reasonable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no it wouldn't. some retailers might refuse to sell it but it wouldn't be a government ban.

    59. Re:Seems Reasonable by circletimessquare · · Score: 2

      you mean like corporations?

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    60. Re:Seems Reasonable by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      yes you can get a job. paying minimum wage, as determined by corporations, who change the laws to make sure you have no real power in your country, but they do

      why are filled with so much hate for your own fellow americans and so willing to absolve of all sin entities which only exist to acquire more and more profit, at any cost, including your impoverishment and the destruction and weakening of your country and the government which is supposed to represent your interests (corporate cash makes sure it isn't)? the enemy is welfare recipients? ok, then please, go after the corporate welfare recipients, you idiot

      you are filled with so much hate for the poor, that you are willing to ignore the powers that impoverish you. go ahead and hate the poor, you will soon be right next to them, as you completely disregard and allow corporations and the rich to remove any sense of fairness and equity in your own country

      faux news propagandized fools

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    61. Re:Seems Reasonable by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      Nonsense. Self censorship isn't when it only happens because of inevitable government intervention otherwise. That is simple censorship.

      Which has nothing to do with this topic.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    62. Re:Seems Reasonable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only anliens can invade the USA... still they will get their asses kicked. :P LOL.

    63. Re:Seems Reasonable by ildon · · Score: 1

      Pretty sure a shooter involving taking down the Trade Centre would be banned in the USA.

      No. It wouldn't. And that's the difference between the USA and most other countries (including ones that consider themselves modern liberal democracies). Retailers might refuse to sell it, but the government would not be able to (legally) ban it, and most responsible government officials wouldn't even try.

    64. Re:Seems Reasonable by jtseng · · Score: 1

      "Businesses may do a lot of shitty things, but they don't have the power to take your money through taxes or revoke your right to freedom/life."

      They did in the past; they can do it again...

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_India_Company#Military_expansion

      --

      Sanity.html - Error 404 not found

    65. Re:Seems Reasonable by ildon · · Score: 2

      Go to the developer's homepage and download it or order it and have it shipped to your house. That's how many people are beginning to get their PC games these days anyway.

    66. Re:Seems Reasonable by ildon · · Score: 2

      A corporation can't shut down my private website or my personal DVD writer that I can use to distribute my Twin Towers Destruction game. The government can. I can't buy porn at Walmart or Target, yet somehow porn still gets purchased. Clearly the retailer oligarchy has failed to censor porn.

    67. Re:Seems Reasonable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pretty sure a shooter involving taking down the Trade Centre would be banned in the USA.

      I doubt it would be banned, but it would certainly be considered in poor taste.

    68. Re:Seems Reasonable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those aren't threats when it comes to payments and services you fucking tool.

      Companies can not threaten' you with violence...hell, they can't even throw hot ass coffee into your lap and you're crying about people not having money?!

      What gives YOU the right to tell US that we can't use a money system? Just because you got your degree in liberal arts and finally come to the appiffany that you can't get a jack shit job with it (unless you work as a California School Teacher) and now you're mad at the world because you made shitty decisions and had shitty people giving you shitty life advice and telling you that you can do anything anyone else can do and if you can't, cry, steal, riot until you get what you want.

      Nevermind ALL THE OTHER FUCKING PEOPLE ON THIS PLANET THAT HAVE THE SAME KIND OF PROBLEMS IF NOT WORSE THAN YOU DO AND GUESS WHAT: They aren't demanding OTHERS PAY FOR THEIR MISTAKES IN LIFE.

      Life. Liberty. And the Pursuit of Property (Happiness) and you socialists impede ON ALL THREE OF THOSE.

      Go away.

    69. Re:Seems Reasonable by lolcutusofbong · · Score: 1

      You can get a job and earn your keep.

      Not anymore, you can't! -- the GOP

    70. Re:Seems Reasonable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lol,

      "They can, however, fix prices in order to take your money, or just throw you out on the street to die of hunger. "

      AHAHAHHAHAHHAHAAHAHHAAHAH

      Watch out everyone, Von's is coming to YOUR house to throw you out of your house on to the street because there is no such thing as competition in capitalism and our economy only came into existence after World War II at FULL CAPACITY and out of thin air, not all the woman working in factories n' shit, and to only collapse because occupoo ball street goons say capitalism doesn't work...

      I wonder how many people in North Korea own their own homes or cars to drive down to Von's to buy their food (with various choices and name brands all at different prices and qualities)...

      Oh wait....they don't have that in North Korea?

      AHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAH

      If we didn't have a system, NO ONE WOULD BE ABLE TO ENJOY LIFE.

      And that's what these goons want. Because THEY don't have money, you should NOT either, and THEY have that right to tell YOU WHAT YOU ARE ALLOWED TO HAVE AND IF THEY ARE HAPPY WITH THAT because if they aren't, prepare to have your shops windows bashed in, lawns destroyed, STD's to increase, and so on.

      THAT is what you have to look forward to. A cause with out a cause, and with out a mission plan.

      WHO NEEDS A SYSTEM!?

      Just assume that everyone understands what you don't say and if they don't, DON'T SAY IT LOUDER! But to make up for your lack of reasoning, clarity, and articulation, just bash shit in, destroy others property, and do what OUR SYSTEM PREVENTS YOU FROM DOING TO OTHERS AND OTHERS FROM DOING IT TO YOU..

      Well, up until recently in L.A. anyway.

    71. Re:Seems Reasonable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "yes you can get a job. paying minimum wage, as determined by corporations, who change the laws to make sure you have no real power in your country, but they do"

      AHAHAHAAAHAHAHAAHAHA wow...

      You are really disconnected from reality. You are describing the "inheritance" of a system. We should just make ALL business pay $40.00 an hour wages with full benefits and businesses can't say NO to hiring new applicants. It doesn't matter HOW MUCH ACTUAL business we get, they gobment can just print more money! Instead of having that shitty Liberal Arts degree, try taking some econ, business classes, ect and MAYBE THEN, you'll get why this won't work.

      I don't HATE my fellow Americans, I HATE THEIR ENTITLED ATTITUDES and attitudes that say "If I don't have what they have, they shouldn't have it!" I grew up poor but I was very lucky to have at least ONE parent with a head on their shoulders who took me out from that life and gave me what every kid should have, "PARENT(S)".

      Communist psycho babble.

      Your argument lacks ONE very important variable:

      REALITY.

      It is the lack of addressing reality that gets people into the situations they are in.

      Spending money you don't have? That sounds like a personal accountability issue to me. Getting a shitty UNMARKETABLE degree? and taking loans out TO GET THAT DEGREE!? Again...that word you clowns don't like....ACCOUNTABILITY. You know, that same thing you cry for when politicians or police get busted doing something? You know, what those idiot students were calling for with the pepper spraying incidents?

      http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-uc-regents-20111129,0,7181269.story

      "I think the chancellor needs to be held accountable," Buscho said, saying Katehi's decision to send police in riot gear to the Nov. 18 rally led to the incident."

      So, being accountable is okay when it's not you?

      If business don't make money, guess what THEY CAN'T PAY YOU.

      Just like if THE GOVERNMENT DOESN'T TAX US, THEN YOU DON'T GET A FRESH LAWN TO DESTROY.

      You want to punish others for sins other than their own?

      The "sin" you're talking about comes from THE HUMAN FUCKING BEANS RUNNING THE SYSTEM, and NOT THE SYSTEM!

      For example, IF WE JUST ENFORCED THE LAWS ALREADY ON THE BOOKS, THEN THE SYSTEM MIGHT JUST WORK AS IT DID BEFORE!

      You want to cry about MY SIN!?

      What about you? Why haven't you sold everything on YOUR FUCKING BACK INCLUDING YOUR COMPUTER to help feed the homeless Americans that litter Skid Row?!

      What about you? Talking about "propagandized"!

      You sit there and wave your finger at me saying I'm filled with hate, no, I'm filled with ANGER.

      I'm not the smartest man in the world, neither near the richest, but what sets me apart from you lazy ass, over entitled, fight the system, pseudo hippies is that if I end up in the gutter, I HAVE NO ONE ELSE TO BLAME BUT MYSELF and that doesn't not give me ANY right to go and destroy someone elses property, NO MATTER HOW MUCH OF IT THEY HAVE. Now, if you DO destroy someone elses property, you best be ready to account for the consequences.

      But now, we cry foul and blame the system, it's just easier that way.

      Who needs personal accountability anyway? Just depend on someone who IS accountable: middle class business owners.

      After all, those are the shops you assholes are smashing in.

      When you can't actually argue POINTS and COUNTER-POINTS, we call that "Fiberalism"

      Enjoy America.

    72. Re:Seems Reasonable by circletimessquare · · Score: 1
      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    73. Re:Seems Reasonable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The box for Red Alert 2 was recalled from stores after 9/11 so the image of the two towers on fire could be removed from the front flap.

    74. Re:Seems Reasonable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wish I thought you were trolling, but I honestly do not understand this post at all. I can't tell what your argument is or on which side it falls, if any...

    75. Re:Seems Reasonable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just to correct you on the DE story there;

      The SoL wasn't destroyed by the NSF, Silhouette, or any of the other groups you ally with during the game; It was a false flag operation launched by Page's cell of the illuminati (MJ12) in order to create the situation necessary for UNATCO to form.

      As an extra titbit for you, go back to the games rendition of Liberty Island and check the New York skyline. The twin towers were missing; it was due to technical limits at the time, but the developers wrote it into the lore as the towers having been destroyed. This was from a game released a year before 9/11.

      The world works in mysterious ways sometimes.

    76. Re:Seems Reasonable by Jiro · · Score: 1

      Iron Storm wasn't a FPS, it was a strategy game, but it allowed you to play as the Japanese or the Nazis and conquer America.

    77. Re:Seems Reasonable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Twin towers were on the cover art for the game prior to 9/11, I had the game the week it came out and my copy has the Twin Towers on the cover, the new ones do not.

    78. Re:Seems Reasonable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Chilling Effect is still censorship.

    79. Re:Seems Reasonable by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      a. No, it is not.
      b. There is no chilling effect.

      You're confusing censorship with supply and demand. Neither are a commonly understood topic, here.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    80. Re:Seems Reasonable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Red Alert 2 had the Twin Towers aflame on the cover.

      The first mission was to destroy the Pentagon and install a mind control device to take over the brains of the US soldiers.

      Through Red Alert the USSR is continuously made the bad guy. Now, imagine if Russians would create a potentially popular video game where blowing up the twin towers, the Pentagon, killing U.S. civilians, etc, was viewed as an honorable and justified act -- that would surely get banned in the U.S. Not when the message is quite clear that what they're doing is a bad thing, and the intention is to get people scared of the Russian again.

      I actually think this is a quite logical move by Iran. Nobody wants to see their own country subjugated and destroyed by an imperialist superpower and have it justified as a humanitarian intervention or whatever, be it in a video game or otherwise.

      - oskar

    81. Re:Seems Reasonable by mike1210 · · Score: 0

      Economically speaking, fascism is a form of guild socialism - corporatism, a word derived not from 'corporation', but from the Latin root meaning 'body'. It is central planning where market competition is suppressed by the state, and sectors of the economy and society are regimented into cartel organizations under the authority of the state.

  3. Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    This will speed the overthrow of those idiots running the country. Won't be long I suppose.

    Ban Moar!

  4. I think we should airdrop 1,000,000 copies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    There you go. Welcome to the world, courtesy of EA. Seriously, the US government could easily afford this and it would be cool as hell.

    1. Re:I think we should airdrop 1,000,000 copies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But if the US Government buys it to give away, wouldn't it count as Used Digital Media?

  5. You're Doing It Wrong by Das+Auge · · Score: 1

    How about telling me when they don't ban something?

    1. Re:You're Doing It Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they don't ban Holocaust denial

  6. Not surprising... by AngryDeuce · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I mean, they would probably want to ban a Chinese game that allowed the player to kill American citizens and destroy American landmarks.

    Not saying it's right, but it's probably what would happen. Personally, I'd love to play a game about the United States from a Chinese perspective. It would probably be hysterical...

    1. Re:Not surprising... by Sasayaki · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I've always wanted to play a serious World War II shooter from the perspective of a German soldier. I mean, we've stormed Omaha beach so many times... it'd be interesting to defend it. And we'd get to participate in some really unique content that hasn't been completely done to death by every shooter ever.

      Or even an alternate history, something like Modern Warfare series, but in World War 2 where some critical decision -- such as Hitler not deciding to turn the ME-262 into a bomber and mass produce it -- causes the stop of round-the-clock bombing, which leads to a revitalization of German industry, and a swing of the war against the Allies...

      That'd be interesting.

      --
      Check out my sci-fi book "Lacuna" at http://goo.gl/MVxX8
    2. Re:Not surprising... by swanzilla · · Score: 5, Funny

      I'm still holding out for a game about Italian-American plumbers from a Japanese perspective.

    3. Re:Not surprising... by Nidi62 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Personally, I'd love to play a game about the United States from a Chinese perspective. It would probably be hysterical...

      I have actually always wanted to play a WW2 game from the perspective of the Germans. Imagine sitting on the beach on Normandy watching thousands of ships headed towards you, or the chaos of having troops dropping out of the sky at night randomly, and not knowing when you will run into an enemy patrol. Or moving into Russia, fighting on the outskirts of Stalingrad, then having to fight your way out before you are cut off and doomed to be captured (of which only about 5,000 out of around 100,00 ever made it back to Germany, the rest died in captivity). Finally defending Berlin as it is slowly overrun by the Russians. It could be done well, and done tastefully, without touching on all of the Holocaust stuff and other atrocities (of course, when CoD:WaW came out, no one made a fuss about playing as the Russians, even though they murdered thousands of German and other civilians, as well as working to death thousands more German POWs), but of course there would still be a huge controversy. A shame really, a game like that could actually have some really powerful moments to it.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    4. Re:Not surprising... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      I've always wanted to play a serious World War II shooter from the perspective of a German soldier.

      Red Orchestra 2?

    5. Re:Not surprising... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      interesting would be how they pitch a game that in the end you lose, no matter what.

    6. Re:Not surprising... by Nidi62 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You know, when I played World at War, and I'm playing the final Russian missions where you're attacking Berlin and storming the Reichstag and all that, all I could think about was that, in real life, those German soldiers defending Berlin were mostly 14-16 year old boys and 40-60 year old men. Not only were they completely untrained, but they were using horribly made weapons (worse even than many of the later war year manufactured Japanese weapons). The Volkssturm weapons showed just how desperate the situation was: for example the Volkssturmgewehr VG.1-5 (http://world.guns.ru/rifle/autoloading-rifles/de/vg1-5-e.html) and the Volkssturmkarabiner VK.98(http://world.guns.ru/rifle/autoloading-rifles/de/vk9-e.html).

      Off topic, I know, but with a little knowledge of history, these games have a lot more impact and a lot more emotion in them. If people knew a little bit more about history, we would have games such as what you and I want, where we get to play as the Germans. However, it has become PC to dehumanize the Germans and the Wehrmacht particularly, and downplay the fact that many Germans and most of the military weren't fighting for Hitler, or an Aryan nation without Jews, they were fighting for what pretty much every soldier fights for: their family, their country, and their comrades.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    7. Re:Not surprising... by Nidi62 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      interesting would be how they pitch a game that in the end you lose, no matter what.

      What do you think happens in war? End the end, no matter what, you lose (particularly for the kinds of people you play in these video games, the front line grunts). Your friends are dead. You might be wounded. If you aren't, then you are certainly going to be plagued by nightmares of some kind (whether reliving your friends dying, or seeing the faces of those you had to kill), as well as other emotional trauma. You've lost several years of what would be the best, most productive years of your life. Your country has spent millions, if not billions of dollars, and your or someone else's country has suffered a large amount of damage.

      I play these war games all the time, I enjoy them a lot. But I worry that games such as these desensitize people to war. I personally think war is a legitimate and useful tool of statecraft, but should be used sparingly, and never lightly. To quote a man that was a hero and great man in every sense of the word (he loved his country, the land of his birth, his family, and the men he commmanded): "It is good that war should be so terrible, lest we grow too fond of it." Sometimes, I feel like we have forgotten how terrible it is, partly due to games such as these, and partly because soldiers have in a way become domestic political tools.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    8. Re:Not surprising... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A sobering thought, isn't it? Children and old men against the battle-hardened Red Army.

    9. Re:Not surprising... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they were fighting for what pretty much every soldier fights for: their family, their country, and their comrades.

      Bullshit. They were fighting because if they didn't then they knew their own government would kill them.

    10. Re:Not surprising... by Hatta · · Score: 5, Insightful

      However, it has become PC to dehumanize the Germans and the Wehrmacht particularly, and downplay the fact that many Germans and most of the military weren't fighting for Hitler, or an Aryan nation without Jews, they were fighting for what pretty much every soldier fights for: their family, their country, and their comrades.

      This is intentional. If people understand that the Germans were just like us, they would understand that we are subject to the same forces that the Germans were. With that awareness, we might look around us and see what is happening. If we learn that they control us by manipulating our allegiances to family, country, and comrades, then we're less likely to be affected by such manipulation in the future.

      It's an uncomfortable truth we have to accept if we're going to stop atrocities. Most people, in the right circumstances are fascists. Consider the Milgram experiment, 65% of people will obey an order to kill a man on the flimsiest of pretexts because of their deference to authority. Or the Stanford prison experiment, where people who took roles of authority became cruel simply by taking that role. We have to be aware of these tendencies in ourselves, and reject them. Do not accept or obey any more authority than is absolutely necessary.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    11. Re:Not surprising... by Hadlock · · Score: 1

      I remember defending the beach at Normandy in Wolffenstein: Enemy Territory and a few other games. Pretty sure BF1942 had this map either in the base game, or one of the early expansion packs.

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
    12. Re:Not surprising... by artor3 · · Score: 0

      The problem was that those people were fighting for Hitler, and they were fighting for a Europe free of Jews. They may not have liked it, or agreed with it, or in some cases even known it. But that is what they were fighting for; that would have been the result had they won. That's one of the many terrible things about war. It drives people to fight for and participate in things that they'd never even consider during normal life. The Wehrmacht on the Eastern front in particular took an active hand in killing Jews and other undesirables (not in the death camps, but they would round up and shoot Jews in captured towns).

    13. Re:Not surprising... by PhrstBrn · · Score: 1

      I'd find that more interesting than a game where I can plow through hundreds of enemies and regenerate my health as long as I stand behind a wall. Showing some of the futility of war might give people some more perspective.

    14. Re:Not surprising... by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

      The Wehrmacht on the Eastern front in particular took an active hand in killing Jews and other undesirables (not in the death camps, but they would round up and shoot Jews in captured towns).

      Actually, in most cases these atrocities were carried out either by the SS, or German special police units (I'm sorry, I cannot recall the name). Sure, there were instances where Wehrmacht units would do this, but they weren't spontaneous, and it was usually on the orders of a officer (which yes, does not excuse them, but you can be sure the average private took no joy in this). And like I said, the Soviets did the same thing on their reverse march (murders of "suspected" Nazis, common Communist targets such as Catholics, etc). It wasn't as systematic or orchestrated as what the Germans did, but remember, every Soviet unit had a political officer attached that would promote this kind of thing. It really is kind of a classic case of the victors writing history (and political expediency, we needed the help of the Soviets back then). And of course, I do want to say that I do not condone what either side did (or even what we did with Dresden or Tokyo, but those were different times then, and a different conflict). Civilians should always be afforded the highest protection possible in combat, no matter what.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    15. Re:Not surprising... by Cat_Herder_GoatRoper · · Score: 1

      The game CounterStrike had an Ohama level where you can defend the beach.

    16. Re:Not surprising... by Phrogman · · Score: 1

      Look at the various companies and individuals that supported the Nazis in some way or another, either by direct allegiance or by doing business with them. I don't know if this information is accurate (its on the web after all) but I found this page pretty quickly on google:
      http://www.11points.com/News-Politics/11_Companies_That_surprisingly_Collaborated_With_the_Nazis

      --
      "The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
    17. Re:Not surprising... by Wahakalaka · · Score: 1

      Well, they are developing a new Counter-Strike... I wonder if you'll be able to play a terrorist in a "modern shooter" capacity. Hostages, bombs and everything I hope. I remember on 9/11 I came home from school and loaded up cs (as a terrorist naturally) cause well that's what I always did, hesitated for a second, then thought, "Hell if I stop playing my favorite game cause of this then the terrorists really do win."

      --
      The truth is somewhere in the middle.
    18. Re:Not surprising... by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

      I knew there was a reason why those uniforms looked so sharp....I do have a couple points with that website, however. One, I thought it was common knowledge that Hitler was a big inspiration behind VW and the Beetle (on a related note, he also built the first autobahns). Second, with regards to Henry Ford, up until 1938 (and really even a little after that), Hitler appeared to be a good model. He had brought Germany back to prominence, bringing the economy back from the humility of the Versailles Treaty, (seemingly) united the German people, and (and this was VERY important at that time) taken a strong stance against Communists. There were very few flags for people outside of Germany that Hitler would go off the deep end. Third, a lot of those companies were German companies. The Third Reich pretty much nationalized (in effect if not in actuality) most of the manufacturing and production in Germany, centrally led by Albert Speer (actually an architect by training, and a favorite of Hitler). So if you were a German company, you pretty much had no choice.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    19. Re:Not surprising... by Wahakalaka · · Score: 4, Insightful

      As a Jewish kid growing up one of the most important lessons I learned about the Holocaust was not to dehumanize the Germans as a people or as individuals for what happened, as that would make me no different than the Nazi's themselves, rather I should understand why and how they did what they did so that I could do my part in preventing it from happening again. When I try to apply that logic now to Islamic extremism, and Israeli extremism for that matter, I'm surprised at the vehemence of the pushback I get, even from people that really ought to know better (I think deep down they do, that's why they deny it so hard). To say that we "can't understand terrorism or extremism so don't even try" is insane to me. They're just people. Hell international business and finance these days is way more complicated and at least as sinister as any terrorist...

      --
      The truth is somewhere in the middle.
    20. Re:Not surprising... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is what I enjoyed about the CoD4, there were several scenes which attempted to portray war as not being entirely "let's kick ass and kill everyone hooyah". Between the opening scenes of heading to your own execution in first person view, to the marine character you've been playing crawling out of the wreckage of a downed helicopter shortly before dying (and maintaining control of that character throughout that sequence). It's probably the only time a war based video game has made me pause and reflect on war as a whole and very real thing.

    21. Re:Not surprising... by dstyle5 · · Score: 1

      Too bad CoD 4 was the last good game in the series. Since then they have eschewed any semblance of a story and have turned it into a MOAR shooty bang-bang, big explosions, lame slow-mo "kill the bad guy", I'm better than you bro-fist 5000 game.

    22. Re:Not surprising... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's a reason why it's called
      "Call of Doody".

    23. Re:Not surprising... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This experiment have been redone just recently. Slightly different but scores 80%

      http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124838091

    24. Re:Not surprising... by icebraining · · Score: 1

      The Russian campaign in CoD1 had similar moments. The river crossing with the boats near you getting sunk by artillery; the guy in your boat who jumps to the water and gets killed by his own officials; reaching the battle field and receiving only 5 bullets and no gun; or the guys near you getting hit by machine guns while you desperately try to find some dead man's rifle.

    25. Re:Not surprising... by icebraining · · Score: 1

      German special police units

      The Gestapo?

    26. Re:Not surprising... by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

      German special police units

      The Gestapo?

      No, the Gestapo were different. These groups weren't secret police, and as far as I can remember they weren't affiliated with the SS. If I remember correctly, they were either more of a civilian group, or police. Maybe a gendarmerie. But it was definitely not the Gestapo, or SS, or any of the commonly known Nazi groups.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    27. Re:Not surprising... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      'it's probably what would happen' Citation or example or else you're just spouting out your a__. I don't recall any video games being banned in the US.

    28. Re:Not surprising... by Luckyo · · Score: 2

      This write-up shows your extreme lack of understanding of both war and humanity. We, as humans, compete for resources chiefly on various organizational (read: tribal) levels. War is the chief way of doing that. Eliminating or enslaving civilian population has always been the key to winning wars, because civilian population is where soldiers and resources for any oppositions are raised from. Hell, one of the reasons why West (and by extension Soviets) can't win a war in dirty third world countries in over half a century is because the rise of cameras and television made people sensitive to civilian deaths. As a result, you no longer can do the war the way it's meant to be done, "kill the men, rape and enslave women and children, take the land".

      But once you take off that mask of civility and go back to where real wars without TV cameras everywhere are still fought today, such as various parts of Africa, you see that war hasn't changed one bit. It's still exactly the same, except that people who can be efficient killers need less physical strength due to existence of cheap firearms. We see the same in both former Soviet and current NATO/USA armies - when soldiers know that they won't be caught, we get Abu Graibs, rapes of teenage girls that are followed by gunning down of her entire family to remove witnesses, gunning down of civilians to collect body parts as "trophies", not to even mention more "acceptable" issues like forced "hiring" of local female populace into prostitution for invaders and other similar acts. It's only human to do so, and we have plenty of history to prove it.

    29. Re:Not surprising... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, for the Japanese release of Fallout 3 they did self-censor a quest where you get to detonate an a-bomb in a middle of a city.

    30. Re:Not surprising... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.redorchestragame.com/

      http://www.heroesofstalingrad.com/

    31. Re:Not surprising... by uninformedLuddite · · Score: 1

      you can watch one but its not released for the public http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UvzxREKsJEc

      --
      The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
    32. Re:Not surprising... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      this++

    33. Re:Not surprising... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [...] (on a related note, he also built the first autobahns). [...]

      Actually, that's a myth. The planning and building of the Autobahns was begun in the 1920s before Hitler's reign.

    34. Re:Not surprising... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, I guess the only thing you have proven with your analogy is that Germans are fascist under the right circumstances. Your logic is flawed in the fact that communism would fit within the experiments outcomes as well (STALIN?). Fascism and communism are pretty much polar opposites of each other. you argument does not meet the necessary conditions required to enable an entire nation to disband it's government and grant sole power to one person. I suspect you need to add large reparations from a past war. Include a depression the greater the better. Also have some scapegoats preferably a separate sect with say a thousand years of prejudice that you all could blame for your nations past failures. Then your comparison that the Germans were just like us would be true. The fact is, the Germans were lock in step with the Nazi party and welcomed their leader with open arms. You don't need to apologize to me. I am not Jewish.

    35. Re:Not surprising... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You're probably thinking of the Einsatzgruppen; they were specifically tasked with this kind of work. They were run by the SS.

    36. Re:Not surprising... by nausicaa · · Score: 1

      However, it has become PC to dehumanize the Germans and the Wehrmacht particularly, and downplay the fact that many Germans and most of the military weren't fighting for Hitler, or an Aryan nation without Jews, they were fighting for what pretty much every soldier fights for: their family, their country, and their comrades.

      This is intentional. If people understand that the Germans were just like us, they would understand that we are subject to the same forces that the Germans were. With that awareness, we might look around us and see what is happening. If we learn that they control us by manipulating our allegiances to family, country, and comrades, then we're less likely to be affected by such manipulation in the future.

      o/~ A priest's excuse, a ruler's tool, a tyrant's delight o/~
      Another good one: o/~ Do you know who's paying the cost? The little soldier, he is lost o/~

      A lot of truth in those words..

    37. Re:Not surprising... by space_jake · · Score: 1

      Command & Conquer Red Alert 2 starts with players destroying American landmarks IIRC.

    38. Re:Not surprising... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Milgram only showed us that 35% of us are pussies...

    39. Re:Not surprising... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ya, it'd be a real hoot to play a game where the Chinese are killing me.

  7. Re:Why ban it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Americans already consider _real_ war to be a game.

    Maybe the Americans you hang out with, chief. There are plenty who have seen it first-hand who think otherwise.

  8. KH2002 License by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I want to know if EA/DICE paid money to the Iranian government.

    All weapons appearing in the game (sp and mp) are licensed, meaning the owners got paid for permission to use the guns likeness. The KH2002 is a bullpup assault rifle designed and produced by the (government run ) Iranian defense industry which appears in the game as a usable weapon. Who did EA/DICE pay to license this gun? Is this in violation of any embargo, considering there is a complete ban on any weapons exports (presumably including designs) from Iran?

    1. Re:KH2002 License by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Probably the same people they paid to ban the game in Iran. Fuck EA.

    2. Re:KH2002 License by game+kid · · Score: 1

      Better question: Is licensing gun likenesses and other "IP" something EA even cares about, unless it's that of their games?

      --
      You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
    3. Re:KH2002 License by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The horse's mouth: http://twitter.com/#!/zh1nt0/status/137569596440973313

      Daniel Matros is "Global Battlefield Community Manager at DICE"

    4. Re:KH2002 License by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmm, this is an intriguing question. Maybe EA/DICE simply neglected to purchase the license for the KH2002, figuring that the Iranian Government would not be able/willing to sue them in the foreseeable future. Or, perhaps Iran does not actually own the rights to the KH2002.

    5. Re:KH2002 License by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Iran didn't sign the Berne Convention (IP).

    6. Re:KH2002 License by Jonner · · Score: 1

      It's easy to find detailed images of the rifle. That, combined with general knowledge about its operation (easy since it's based on existing designs including the M-16) is all the designers needed. Since the game designers knew they'd be pissing of the Iranian government with the basic plot, do you really think they cared about "licensing" images of Iranian weapons?

    7. Re:KH2002 License by VJmes · · Score: 1

      Probably just threw it in there without bothering with a license from the Iranian government.

  9. Why Ban it For That? by Greyfox · · Score: 4, Funny
    They should just not ban it and instead imprison any Iranian team who loses on Defense (Or wins on Offense, for that matter.) That would be much more fun, from a Department of Rightness and The Iranian Way perspective!

    "So... Ahmed... I see you lost in Battlefield on defense of Tehran... Why do you hate Iran, Ahmed?"

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

  10. set in Iran but enemy is russia? by Oakey · · Score: 1

    But the enemy was Russia was it not, not the Iranians?

    --
    "Dre don't get as high as me.... I'm Cheech and Chong" - Snoop Dogg
    1. Re:set in Iran but enemy is russia? by Nidi62 · · Score: 2

      Actually, the enemy(kind of) is a nationalist group in Iran that actually takes control of the country from the current Iranian government. In the single player, you actually only fight the Russians for 1 mission. And even this portion takes place in Iran. Besides I believe 2 missions, the entire game takes place in Iraq and Iran. However, yes, in the multiplayer, it is US vs. Russia.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
  11. Worrying. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    After seeing Afghanistan and Iraq, my hopes for peace kinda go down the drain.

    Iran is not helping by assuming a militarized stance; the one viable exit IMHO is to enforce ties with more neutral countries like France/Germany and hope to get EU support to a very open administration -- with permanent onlookers -- so as to prevent any US action. Not that the US is known to wait to decide things with just diplomatic conversations... after all, Obama couldn't really produce the changes needed to make the world a better place. He's being dragged along the trail the Republicans created...

    It all makes China in Tibet look really like a good thing by comparison, and Putin a very reasonable guy.

    I can only feel sorry about the heated interests which use patriotism like a tool for domination, against the very owners of the countries... the citizens. Very sad.

    1. Re:Worrying. by Lotana · · Score: 1

      Just ignore your score.

      There are very many of us that read at -1 and I for one appreciate any constructive input to a story.

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

      Thanks a lot!

      Actually, seeing how many people have died recently -- or endured pepper-spraying without retreating -- I feel childish to even complain about a score.

      But then there's the bigger question about how the general public sees such concerns and the will to solve the situation without the need for so much blood like in Egypt or Lybia...

  12. Indoctrination by InnerInsight · · Score: 1

    Easy way to appease the populace into upcoming practices is make it an event, so that if it happens, they have already become apathetic about it if &when the real event occurs... Would you blame any country if an opposing countries media shows its cities pummeled? Why have militaries become so interested in video games? Therin lies your answer.

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

      Once again: The game is written by Dice, which is a Swedish company. www.dice.se.

  13. OMG OMG OMG! by BottleCup · · Score: 1

    Iran banning this game is just sufficient justification for the US to go in and invade them!

  14. Quds Force Declares Fatwa Against BF3 Until IRNV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...is nerfed or Quds Force members unlock IRNV, whichever comes first.

  15. shocking! by chrisj_0 · · Score: 1

    I mean really... what isn't banned in Iran, and why do I care ?

    1. Re:shocking! by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

      I mean really... what isn't banned in Iran, and why do I care ?

      Homosexuals, because apparently they don't have any there. You don't have to ban what you don't have.

      (and just in case anyone doesn't get it, /sarcasm)

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    2. Re:shocking! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like so many comments from Iran, the "homosexual" one was another that was "twisted" by the US and Israeli propaganda machines.
      The Iranian President basically stated that "Iran doesn't have homosexuals, like in the US", as in "Iran does not have a huge 'flaming gay' homosexual culture like the US with gay bars, pride parades and rampant AIDS".
      Much like "Israel has no right to exist", as in "the state of Israel should never been set up in the first place", and they certainly did NOT state that Israel should be blown off the face of the earth.

  16. Well then... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... the US should ban Rainbow 6 - Vegas!

    Those darn EA spies!!!

  17. Wow! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are gamers in Iran?

  18. BF1942 simulated German soliders too... by rwade · · Score: 2

    I've always wanted to play a serious World War II shooter from the perspective of a German soldier. I mean, we've stormed Omaha beach so many times... it'd be interesting to defend it. And we'd get to participate in some really unique content that hasn't been completely done to death by every shooter ever.

    Have you heard of Battlefield 1942? It is one of the most popular World War 2 games ever and is a multiplayer game -- meaning that you can play both sides of the war. It even has a Omaha Beach map.

  19. Source, please? by rwade · · Score: 1

    All weapons appearing in the game (sp and mp) are licensed

    Oh really? Can you provide a source on that?

    1. Re:Source, please? by Xest · · Score: 1

      Agreed, if I've noticed anything about affiliation and licensing it's that many Western military games are happy to license from companies like Boeing, Lockheed and such for their aircraft, but that you rarely see guns like the AK-47 licensed.

      It's a classic example of the hypocrisy of American IP enforcement - everything American or to a lesser extent, Western must be licensed for use, but if it's something Iranian, Chinese, or Russian? Meh, just stick it in, who cares about licensing from them.

      I'd be suprised if the Twitter comment is true, as it would imply every game to date has had to license every weapon and military vehicle going.

      I think it's quite a grey area even then, I know in Desert Strike the Apache had a slightly different tail rotor, presumably to try and avoid any rights infringement and there have been similarly many games since that introduce iconic military equipment with absolutely minor alterations to hide the fact it's otherwise an exact copy.

      I'm actually intrigued to get some cold hard facts on this subject, as I wonder how it effects indies - can indie games effectively never produce modern military games due to the fact they'd never be able to afford the licensing deals like EA can? Thus far no one seems to have sued over it, but no one seems to know the exact answer. Certainly it seems to just be a case of license from those likely to sue, and ignore the rest though.

  20. lol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    of course they banned it
    they think americans are mocking them
    cause they cant afford fast enough computers
    or even consoles to play it

  21. Re:lawl by Pseudonym+Authority · · Score: 1

    Inorite?

    Oh no! They're missing a great opportunity to be called gay by 12 year olds on the internet! And single player is shit (except visuals).

    It really sucks that the Iranian government is censoring this, but I doubt they were going to buy it anyway.

  22. Future Perspectives... by Phrogman · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It is entirely possible that 200 years from now historians will agree that the US invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan was entirely brought about for economic reasons and to benefit US corporations who had supported the Bush Administration(s) by letting them rake in some of the missing billions of dollars spent in Iraq, or test weapon systems, or for a myriad of other reasons. We may learn enough about the Extraordinary Renditions program and use of torture that the people of that future environment agree that the US was an Evil entity at the time - not the people, but elements of the ruling elite (Government, Corporate, 1% whatever you want).
    Or just the opposite could happen as far as history is concerned. Probably the biggest deciding factor will be who writes the history - i.e. the dominant culture/country of the time.
    As for the Germans in WWII, many if not the majority of them were not aware of what was being done in the extermination camps. I am sure they knew that Jews were being taken away wholesale, but I imagine many thought they were being taken to "labour camps" as was promulgated at the time. Not everyone was a Nazi supporter, and its a shame we have to demonize the entire nation for the actions of its vile government (which were truly evil no question). We should never forget what happened there, but we should also try to understand it. Demonizing all Germans of the time does not help understanding.
    Likewise the demonization of all Muslims for the actions of a small percentage. It will not help in the end to alienate 1 billion+ people because it serves the interests of the government in power to focus the population's attention on a foreign threat just so its easier to get elected.

    --
    "The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
    1. Re:Future Perspectives... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not that this excuses anyone, but even the Allies didn't believe that the Holocaust was actually happening, until troops started liberating the death camps. It just sounded like a lot of anti-German propaganda at the time.

  23. Medal of Honor 2010 game was boycotted in the USA by jmcbain · · Score: 2

    Don't think for a second that this wouldn't happen in the USA. Most recently, EA's Medal of Honor shooter in 2010 was boycotted in military stores due to fact that you could play as the Taliban. EA eventually caved in and changed the enemy to "Opposing force".

  24. Matros was probably lying about MP5 license by rwade · · Score: 1

    The horse's mouth: http://twitter.com/#!/zh1nt0/status/137569596440973313

    Your source is to those that follow him known as generally highly uninformed. This tweet was likely just a lying excuse for why they left the MP5 out of the game.

    The MP5 was in Battlefield 2. If DICE and EA put an effort into licensing the equipment in its games, it would have licensed it at the time. So why would it not be in BF3? Some might speculate that perhaps the relationship between H&K and DICE/EA deteriorated. If that were true, then why is the M416 in there? How about the G3? How about the MP7?

    You have to remember that many of the people that care enough about Battlefield 3 to complain about BF3 featuring this weapon or that are likely those that don't have a lot of clout in the real world -- teenagers, mostly. Matros is not going to put a lot of effort into figuring out why the MP5 wasn't included -- he likely just walked over to his PR boss and asked what a plausible excuse was and used that.

    I just did a quick google on "battlefield3 equipment licenses" and turned up nothing in the first three pages, so...probably not actually licensed.

    As another note, there is a little disclaimer at the bottom of the recently-released BF3 trailers (such as this one) that reads:

    "The depiction of any weapon or vehicle in this game does not indicate affiliation, sponsorship, or endorsement by any weapon or vehicle manufacturer."

    Some might suggest that statement implies that there is some contract between EA and these equipment manufacturers spelling out the terms by which DICE may use such equipment, including that there be such a license. In fact, I'm inclined to suggest that this disclaimer is intended to set up a legal shield to avoid having any relationship at all with equipment manufacturers.

    1. Re:Matros was probably lying about MP5 license by lgw · · Score: 1

      This tweet was likely just a lying excuse for why they left the MP5 out of the game.

      I find that comment bizarre - how could anyone care whether some particular gun was in the game or not? Was the in-game gun controversial or overpowered or somesuch in BF2? Are there really MP5 fanboys out there? It boggles the mind.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    2. Re:Matros was probably lying about MP5 license by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      they want the same guns in the game as they have as their airsoft guns.

      (wacko dicks)

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    3. Re:Matros was probably lying about MP5 license by rwade · · Score: 1

      I find that comment bizarre - how could anyone care whether some particular gun was in the game or not? Was the in-game gun controversial or overpowered or somesuch in BF2? Are there really MP5 fanboys out there? It boggles the mind.

      The original tweet linked to above and held up as a source indicates that DICE licenses the guns in BF3. That response was prompted by the following question addressed to Matros:

      @zh1nt0 Hi will it be possible to add Mp5 in with current game after B2K DLC comes out? Mp5 is my favorite weapon of all time.

    4. Re:Matros was probably lying about MP5 license by lgw · · Score: 1

      OK, but it's still a mystery to me why anyone would care, especially to the extent of inventing conspiracy theories around it.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  25. Re:Why ban it? by Coeurderoy · · Score: 1

    Population of Irak around 30 M, population of Afghanistan around 30 M, population of Iran around 80 M.
    Approximate economical wealth of Iran compared to Irak + Afghanistan about 4 time more.

    Cost of Irak/Afghan war : around 4 Trillion.
    Probable cost of Iran war between 6 and 16 Trillion US$ or around 25K per us citizen age 0 to 100.

    Or equivalent to the next bank bailout ...., not sure the US can afford both...

  26. what about a bundle with by milkmage · · Score: 1

    BF3 and MW3 where the NYC, Berlin and Paris are bombed to shit by the Russians?

  27. Modern Warfare 3 starts with New York being hit by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

    Russians have invaded and are blowing shit up. They've disabled US air defenses and so on. You have to fight through the trashed streets and go disable their jammer and so on and so forth.

    That is the opening mission in the campaign.

    The game sold 6.5 million copies in the first 24 hours it was out. You can find it on the shelves of every games store in the USA.

    Seriously, even if the US wanted to ban a game for content, it'd have a real hard time. That whole pesky "first amendment" thing.

    1. Re:Modern Warfare 3 starts with New York being hit by artor3 · · Score: 1

      That's very different from you playing as the Russian bombers, killing American civilians. While it might not be outright banned, it would get a de facto ban. The media would drum up controversy, stores would bow to the pressure, and next thing you know the makers would be modifying the game to meet our sensibilities, or canceling it entirely.

    2. Re:Modern Warfare 3 starts with New York being hit by Luckyo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The game paints russians as bad guys and american soldiers as valorous heroes defending their homeland.

      Hell, it even plays like a Rambo movie. Go out, kill a whole lot of russians, black guys and other non-american trash. The only good guys are americans, brits and a few russians, who, get this - betray their country. Turn this concept on its head and you won't sell a single copy in US, because no one will do the commercial suicide of putting it on the shelves. It would offend the very core belief that America is just and a force for good.

    3. Re:Modern Warfare 3 starts with New York being hit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you actually paid attention to the game you would have caught that there was an extremist faction that took over the Russian military... thus the mission to SAVE the Russian president and his daughter. Does not paint the Russians as the bad guys... you just have bad guys controlling their military.

    4. Re:Modern Warfare 3 starts with New York being hit by Holammer · · Score: 1

      Hell, imagine a game where you play a Wermacht soldier in WW2. Sure would be interesting to see many of the battles from the other side. With a good unapologetic storyline it could be very thought-provoking and engaging. Sadly the topic is so toxic that nobody in the business dares to go against the inevitable media shitstorm that would follow. So they come up with the shitty, but safe storylines we see in BF3 & MW instead

    5. Re:Modern Warfare 3 starts with New York being hit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yet you sit on Slashdot crying about it and not in some Iranian, Chinese, Russian, North Korean, or any other communist/socialist country you prefer to mine coal in.

      Hell yeah we're Americans! We may not be perfect, but you know what, go live in Tehran and fight for THEIR "just" cause then.

      At least here, women can drive and WORK.

      They have propaganda slamming the United States, so guess what, we, The United States, come back with OUR propaganda and guess what? OUR PROPAGANDA is better because if Iran's propaganda pulls YOU in, good, go over there, we don't want you here, go live in a country where you ARE a TOTAL PUPPET and not like us Americans being puppets with our freedoms, and liberties n' shit.

      Let me guess, you did some occupying right?

      Let's see, how does our youth think today? YOU or YOUR BUSINESS choosing to air a commercial or put something on a shelf to sell that may or may not destroy your company? Include with that, your right to play WHATEVER VIDEO GAME YOU WANT.

      OR

      (As you like support)

      Tehran getting to choose what YOU can and CANNOT sell, play, and so on.

      You protest at an Ayatollah's funeral the way WestBoro gets to at our Military Service Member's funeral and then tell me American is a bad place where you can't express yourself. Do that shit to Iran's Revolutionary Guard and see where you AND your family end up.

      It's okay, you're right though, go back to Iran and tell them how much you agree with them in that the US's Battlefield 3 is a form of high tech propaghanda manifested in the man's plan to take down you the "oppressed" and how you agree with the philosophy that women don't have rights, and the people don't have rights unless the Gobment tells them they can.

      War mongering?

      LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO

      I call it "Preventive Maintenance"

      Just the fact that we have had the bomb now for over 50 years and have YET to use it on Iran should tell them that the United States' mission is to NOT destroy ANYONE...unless they fuck with us.

      Case in point:

      The defeat of Japan in World War II.

      But no, you clowns still won't learn. You'll say everyone can be rehabilitated by incarceration and treatment programs...BUT....not before they get their MANDATORY PAROLE JUST TO MAKE DOUBLE SURE THEY ARE A BAD PERSON.

      Because trials now a days just don't cut it.

      Yeah, America's soooo bad we can't have a video game (art) that depicts the U.S. champions of the world!

      Cause what the fuck ever did the UNITED STATES do for the world compared to North Korea, right?

      Fucking over entitled, ignorant fucking idiots.

      Remember what happened when those fucking idiot hikers tried to Occupy Iran?

      AHAHAHHAAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHA

      Morons.

    6. Re:Modern Warfare 3 starts with New York being hit by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      +1 funny. Definitely!

  28. Not really by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

    For one, that kind of thing isn't want earns a game an AO rating. Go look at the ESRB's page, they are quite open about things.

    More important is the fact that as others have noted the ESRB is NOT the government. It is 100% optional, it is an non-profit industry group. For that matter even if you need a rating to sell in the stores you want, you can use someone else. PEGI is the European version of the ESRB. Civ 4 was only PEGI rated, not ESRB, and was sold in retail stores.

    Finally there's the whole issue of digital distributors these days. Even if stores say "No we won't do AO," there are a bunch of companies online who don't have such hangups (including just selling it on your own site). That is perfectly feasible these days, there have been a number of successful no-retail games. Minecraft being the most visible.

    1. Re:Not really by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 1

      Civ 4 was rated E10+. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilization_IV

      --
      Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
  29. Re:lawl by mjwx · · Score: 3

    Oh no! They're missing a great opportunity to be called gay by 12 year olds on the internet! And single player is shit (except visuals).

    There's the reason it was banned, there are no gays in Iran so how can anyone be called gay.

    Perfectly logical, right? In all seriousness, oppressive Mid-East government bans popular western game. Not news. I wonder if I can get BF3 in other ME nations with strict religious governments, like Saudi Arabia.

    --
    Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  30. NYC and DC invasion maps? coming right up! by h00manist · · Score: 1

    I fail to see how its wrong either.

    Do you really want the government to get involved in deciding what a business must sell? Is that truly any better than non-government censorship ?

    Indeed, the US gov't does not regulate. The government prohibiting child porn, selling drugs, alcohol and guns to anyone who wants them, requiring a deed to build on a property, and requiring doctors to have a license before operating on you, having insurance for basically everything you do,
    isnt' the government dictating your life. It's an expression of complete freedom.

    --
    Build your own energy sources from scratch. http://otherpower.com/
    1. Re:NYC and DC invasion maps? coming right up! by Baloroth · · Score: 1

      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but licence." -- John Milton, Tenure of Kings and Magistrates

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
  31. 20 more domain names were seized oct 26 by DHS by h00manist · · Score: 0

    TechDirt: 20 More Domains Seized Over The Weekend
    2011 October 26
    by Michael H. Berkens

    According to TechDirt.com 20 more domain names were seized over the weekend by ICE, part of the Department of Homeland Security.

    The domain names all allegedly involved sale of unauthorized NFL merchandise

    The list of domains seized:
    beawholesaler.com
    cheapcanjerseys.com
    cheapjerseys16.com
    cheapjerseys16.net
    cheapjerseys21.com
    cheapjerseyssite.com
    cheapjerseyssite.net
    fanjerseyshop.com
    maxexercises.com
    nfljerseyscheap.com
    nfljerseyswholesales.com
    nhlclubhouse.com
    nhlnflwholesale.com
    ravensjerseysmart.com
    ravensjerseysshop.com
    ravensjerseysstore.com
    wholesalejerseyscheapnfl.com
    wholesalejerseysonly.com
    wholesaleusjersey.com
    wholesaleusjerseys.com

    --
    Build your own energy sources from scratch. http://otherpower.com/
    1. Re: 20 more domain names were seized oct 26 by DHS by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      That'd be great rebuttal if we were talking about trademark law.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

  32. It's owned by capital by h00manist · · Score: 1

    Capital has no home, no country, no allegiance, and no color. It travels to where it gets the best deal. It dismisses everyone, as it needs no one.

    --
    Build your own energy sources from scratch. http://otherpower.com/
  33. Re:Why ban it? by qxcv · · Score: 1

    Cost of spell checker: $0.

    --
    "The most dangerous enemy of a better solution is an existing codebase that is just good enough." -- Eric S. Raymond
  34. Think of all od that lost revenue by Sprouticus · · Score: 1

    They may have lost tens or even a hundred dollars.

    On the other hand Iran probably gave EA enough free pub to make it a net gain 10x over.

  35. I wrote a book... by Sasayaki · · Score: 1

    I wrote a book where the heroes are Chinese and Iranians (and one EU member from Belgium), shameless link-whoring here.

    Would this book be banned in Iran? Or lauded? I wonder what they think of it...

    --
    Check out my sci-fi book "Lacuna" at http://goo.gl/MVxX8
  36. Pfft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In the same game

    Paris was nuked into the ground. Entire city in ruins. Havn't heard anything about the French government up in arms over this.
    Operation Metro is an American subway station and park area (Cant remember if its in New York or not). No one gives a damn about that.

  37. Moot Point by Miseph · · Score: 1

    EA is an American company. The US currently does not allow exports of most things to Iran, including software, and doing so may qualify as a capital offense (treason). Iranian residents were unlikely to purchase BF3 regardless of how the Iranian gov't decided.

    --
    Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
    1. Re:Moot Point by blackicye · · Score: 1

      EA is an American company. The US currently does not allow exports of most things to Iran, including software, and doing so may qualify as a capital offense (treason). Iranian residents were unlikely to purchase BF3 regardless of how the Iranian gov't decided.

      Not just that, the hardware to run it (PC or console) is not exportable to Iran either (officially)

  38. maybe instead of getting upset... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    think about it!

    sure it's stupid to ban video games.. give people some credit. we aren't completely stupid. there is at least a bit of seperation between reality and what we'd like or fear it to be...

    but it sure is god damn insensitive and stupid to even attempt to release such a thing in iran. it shouldn't be banned because it shouldn't have been offered. consider their perspective. for at least like 25 seconds. sometimes jokes or whatever are funny. but to some people they aren't funny. so you don't tell them the joke.

    p.s. the word i have to type in to be allowed to post is "kindle". so random.

  39. banks are winning by cheekyboy · · Score: 2

    Dude, Haliburton, and contractors are winning, spiking up oil and making more $$$ in fed notes is a win for banks. Follow the dollars.

    --
    Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
  40. Re:Why ban it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    +1,000 Insightful sir.

    To stereotypically characterize a region of this planet with informational bias / ignorance becomes harder and harder as our world becomes smaller. Although we can still stereotypically refer to Slashdotters (like me) as ____ . (fill something in that you disagree with and need to comment on)

  41. Re:Why ban it? by Given+M.+Sur · · Score: 1

    not sure the US can afford both...

    Sure we can, we've just got to cut all of those pesky social programs and eliminate all of the federal agencies (except DOD, of course) and then we'll have plenty of money to defend ourselves from the terrorists that hate us for our freedoms and save the job creators. Then we can all bask in the glorious stream of money that comes trickling down upon us.

    --
    nil
  42. Re:Medal of Honor 2010 game was boycotted in the U by Jaysyn · · Score: 1

    Oh look, someone doesn't understand the difference between a boycott & a governmental ban. How cute.

    --
    There is a war going on for your mind.
  43. useful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    they shoulda used BF3 as a training simulation to prep for war, not ban it.

  44. you're such an idiot by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    when you weaken the government, there is a power vacuum. it is filled by corporations. who are not accountable to the people, like your government is. well, it is supposed to be, in theory, but again, corporate money makes sure it is accountable to corporations instead. so what do you do? you HEAL a sick government, you don't fall for CORPORATION SPONSORED PROPAGANDA like faux news, and WEAKEN the government, thereby subjecting you to FAR MORE abuse at the hands of UNACCOUNTABLE corporations

    there is really something wrong with this country: so many fools so eager to believe that the institution formed to represent them is the enemy, and the institutions formed to acquire cash, at whatever cost, including infecting and weakening their government and encroaching on your rights, are innocent and without the capacity to harm

    how can so many be so gullible and so easily fooled?

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:you're such an idiot by ctsupafly · · Score: 1

      No, we just realize that the 2 institutions of which you speak are now one in the same.

    2. Re:you're such an idiot by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      right. so repair the institution that is suppose to represent your interests: remove corporate influence from government

      except some morons want to weaken the institution that is their only possible chance to represent a power counterweight to corporate interests, thereby impoverishing themselves more and removing any chance they have at having their interests and rights represented and protected

      because the real enemy is poor people freeloading, you see. not multibillion dollar multinationals freeloading. right?

      it's fucking incredible how fucking clueless and easily propagandized some fools can be

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  45. Re:Why ban it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Americans already consider _real_ war to be a game.

    Maybe the Americans you hang out with, chief. There are plenty who have seen it first-hand who think otherwise.

    I'm one who has "been there, done that". Look these up in your wiki: Tet Offensive + Hue + III Marine Amphibius Force (IIIMAF).

    Have a nice day, player.

  46. Propaganda - It's a no brainer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "As soon as you put real countries, in a present or near future timeline against each other, in a game or film, it's propaganda. End of story american arrogant ignorants."

    My first thought is above. Perhaps saying,
            "in the present tension context, it's a very unappropriate decision. Jolys against Yullies (fictious) would do just fine"
    is more construcitve.

  47. Who needs to see it first? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who is the dumbass who needs to see it first-hand before thinking otherwise? Can't they get that wisdom without killing other people first?

    Yeah, good thing they eventually got to the civilized level. But damn, what a price to pay for it. Good thing they were only "towelheads" and "camel jockeys", huh?

  48. No ban, they just changed the name by useless4321 · · Score: 0

    The Sims: Tehran

  49. Re:Why ban it? by Shompol · · Score: 1

    Please watch the civilian execution in the Manning video. Killing 20+ civilians with a press of a button. He did not even see them first-hand, they were hazy images on his little computer screen. Now tell me that's not a video game. The operator definitely sounded like it was.

    To take it to a more abstract level, there were psychology studies carried out, that discovered that when the person(s) you are harming are remote and impersonal, the ease of pressing the trigger fast approaches that of a video game.

    So despite the people you hang out with knowing better, the fact is that killing civilians with today's military technology is as easy as playing a video game. Also, judging by the Manning video it is also as desirable, as the dude with the button clearly could not tell the two apart.

  50. The Grasshopper Lies Heavy by Thud457 · · Score: 1

    A Red Dawn game could be pretty cool. Hey, look, we have an opportunity for one coming up next year!
    There was a Fortress America board game, but that's about all I could come up with.

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    1. Re:The Grasshopper Lies Heavy by Creepy · · Score: 1

      Instead of Russia and Latin America communists attacking the US like in the original Red Dawn they use North Korea, a country that couldn't pull it off because they just don't have the logistics to do it. China maybe, but North Korea by itself just is not happening, even if they do take over the south first. Their active army is too small (though they do have the largest reserve army in the world) and they just don't have enough air transports to do it in a timely manner.

      The video game Homefront is based on a unified Korea dominated by the north invading the US, if that is what you're after. It came out in March, and one of the writers for Red Dawn was involved (John Milius) as I recall. I didn't play it, personally, I'm just pointing out that it essentially has been done.

      Fortress America was Mexico invading from the south, Russia from the east, and China from the west, but it was heavily biased toward America and difficult to lose as them. The only time I ever remember playing America and losing I was rolling horrifically bad and the Russians rolling incredibly well. I think they averaged 9 or 10 units killed for every 1 I killed that game (I pretty much repelled the east and south fronts, but Russia rolled over half the map and won the game on their own).

  51. War games by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    are plain and simple disgusting as disgusting as the wars themselves.

    10,000 years in evolution we are still fixated on this mainly Animalistic ritual and we keep inventing newer and newer reasons and rationalization for it.

  52. poor Iraniens by Olywebart · · Score: 1

    Poor Iraniens. I don't even think what i would do if, for example, they'll tray to bann it in my country :))

    --
    Enjoy our HD World http://wallpaper.shiftwp.com/
  53. Re:lawl by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ..oppressive Mid-East government bans popular western game

    A'jad doesn't want no stinkin' game, he wants the real thing. Hey - Iranian citizens; fix it from the inside before someone else comes in and does it for you... please. It isn't worth it.