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."

Comments

A selling point?

[www.sorehands.com]

Banned in Boston used to be a selling point.

Now Banned in Iran is badge of honor.

Re:A selling point?

[Synerg1y]

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.

Re:A selling point?

[dstyle5]

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.

Re:A selling point?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:A selling point?

[History's Coming To]

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.

Re:A selling point?

[AmiMoJo]

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.

Re:A selling point?

[c0mpliant]

Except you play as Russians...

Seems Reasonable

[blackpaw]

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.

Re:Seems Reasonable

[Anonymous Coward]

Right. It wouldn't be banned.

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

Yay freedom of speech!

Re:Seems Reasonable

[forkfail]

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.

Re:Seems Reasonable

[bky1701]

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.

Re:Seems Reasonable

[forkfail]

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.

Re:Seems Reasonable

[bky1701]

"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."

Re:Seems Reasonable

[circletimessquare]

you mean like corporations?

Re:Seems Reasonable

[ildon]

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.

Re:Seems Reasonable

[ildon]

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.

Not surprising...

[AngryDeuce]

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...

Re:Not surprising...

[Sasayaki]

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.

Re:Not surprising...

[swanzilla]

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

Re:Not surprising...

[Nidi62]

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.

Re:Not surprising...

[Nidi62]

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.

Re:Not surprising...

[Nidi62]

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.

Re:Not surprising...

[Hatta]

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.

Re:Not surprising...

[Wahakalaka]

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...

Re:Not surprising...

[Luckyo]

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.

Re:Why ban it?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

KH2002 License

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Why Ban it For That?

[Greyfox]

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?"

Re:set in Iran but enemy is russia?

[Nidi62]

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.

BF1942 simulated German soliders too...

[rwade]

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.

Future Perspectives...

[Phrogman]

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.

Medal of Honor 2010 game was boycotted in the USA

[jmcbain]

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".

Re:lawl

[mjwx]

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.

Re:Modern Warfare 3 starts with New York being hit

[Luckyo]

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.

banks are winning

[cheekyboy]

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