Slashdot Mirror
Pakistan Boycotting Call of Duty, Medal of Honor Games
An anonymous reader writes "As first-person shooters have evolved, they've transitioned from using Nazis as the bad guys to more modern organizations, such as the Taliban. Two recent games, Call of Duty: Black Ops II and Medal of Honor: Warfighter, have both shown the country of Pakistan in a very negative light, and now shopkeepers in the country are beginning to boycott the games. 'Saleem Memon, president of the All Pakistan CD, DVD, Audio Casette Traders and Manufacturers Association, said he had written to members ordering them not to stock the controversial games after receiving dozens of complaints. ... The latest installment of the Medal of Honor series opens with American Navy Seals coming ashore in Karachi docks on a mission to destroy a black market arms shipment. But when their detonation sets off a second, bigger explosion they realize they have stumbled on a much bigger terrorist plot, sparking a global manhunt. A chaotic car chase through the city follows amid warnings that the ISI — Pakistan's intelligence agency — is on the way. Mr. Memon added there was a danger children would be brainwashed into thinking foreign agents were at war inside Karachi, possibly leading them into the arms of militants. "These games show a misleading idea of what is happening in the city. You don't get the CIA all the way through Grand Theft Auto," he said.'"
It'd probably be a bigger statement if he were selling legal copies
Where was the most wanted terrorist hiding out again?
Would shops in the US sell a video game showing the glorious jihadis blowing up Americans get sold in the US? The "sandn****r" guy above would probably blow a gasket.
Anybody have any info on the All Pakistan CD, DVD, Audio Casette Traders and Manufacturers Association? If I google it, all I get are links to different versions of this story. If a shopkeeper or group of shopkeepers decide they don't want to stock particular titles, that's a commercial decision they are perfectly entitled to take and - if they are part of a competitive marketplace and have competition who might decide differently - it doesn't really raise any freedom or censorship issues. Certainly, supermarkets in the US/UK have decided at times not to stock games which have the highest age-ratings, because they don't fit with their brand image or perceived clientelle. It doesn't matter, because you can still get the games from Amazon or another high-street retailer.
If, on the other hand, this Association is some kind of Government standards-body, or if it's a trade-association which you have to be a member of if you want to sell games (giving it genuine market-control) then that's more serious.
And as an aside, I'd note that plenty of games have sold well in the US despite having the Americans as either morally ambiguous or outright baddies (indeed, not to defend Call of Duty, but most of its games fall into the first of those categories) - and that here in the UK, being made into the baddies in games and films is pretty much standard fare.
It's not a ban, it's a boycott. Turns out that people don't like games where the best the can be is set dressing for the glorification of a violent foreign power when that same power back in the real world indiscriminately sends out robots to bomb the next village on a weekly basis.
I don't see a lot of games released here in which you get to play a Pakistani agent conducting ops in the states.
If Pakistanis want their country to cease to be viewed as a hotbed of terrorism, the best approach would be for them to stop supporting terrorism.
I remember playing "raid over Moscow" when I was a kid, which was a C64 game where you had to fly a bomber to the Kremlin, kill its guards, and blow it up. I suspect that it wouldn't sell well in the USSR, and that if somebody published the very same game today as "raid over Washington" replacing the Kremlin with the White House then it wouldn't sell well in the USA. People don't enjoy being offended, especially by propaganda, especially when it touches open wounds.
Let's be fair to the game companies. They tried localizing the games for the Pakistani audience; but it turns out going from cave to cave while hiding from the Great Satan's minions doesn't make for exciting gameplay.
#DeleteChrome
The drones don't 'bomb villages' (that statement shows how ignorant you are) they fire hellfire missiles into 'compounds' that the various special forces have usually reconoitered. Those compounds have jihadis and their families. Occasionally the missiles do miss and do kill villagers - this is indeed a tragedy, but is unintentional and less frequent than you would think. In Afghanistan NATO compensates for the damage, which inspires villagers to quickly bury donkies and claim them as killed civilians since the payoff is worth it.
It is completely awesome the drones do this because if they didn't the jihadis would continue their following reign of terror:
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/index.html#Attacks
Of course, if you are a cultural relativist you will excuse the jihadis for their violence and instead simply condemn the US/West/Israel for trying to defend their citizens against these vicious killers. You'll then probably come up with the excuse that the jihadis do it because they are poor (Osama bin Laden was rich), had their land 'stolen' (jihadis have been operating for 1400 years) or some other lame excuse. All the while you'll remain doggedly ignorant of the teachings of the Qur'an that make jihad obligatory for able Muslim males.
Meanwhile you'll probably ignore the hundreds of madrassas pumping out replacement zombies ready to kill Afghan villagers. You'll also ignore the Pakistani ISI and the crime syndicates and opium lords who provide the money for the Taliban. You'd much rather cherish the thought that the West is the bad guy for standing up to these brigands and crazed zealots.
Keep dreaming your false dream. Meanwhile the rest of us will be doing what we can to argue for our rights (stop creeping Sharia and 'cultural jihad' in the West!) and even for your rights. Hopefully one day you'll get a clue and realise who the evil guys really are - the ones that think it nothing to kill little girls for trying to get an education, or kill girls who don't want to be married to old men four times their age, or kill Muslims from another sect, or kill people just working in a building in Manhattan, or riding a bus in London, or a train in Spain, etc etc. That's the real evil.
I am from Pakistan, and all I can say is "LOL, a ban, haha, how cute"
This is just a storm in a teacup situation; For one, now one gives a flying fuck, and secondly, pirates CDs for 30 rupees (~30 cents) each man, if one shop doesn't, you don't think there are 100 other shops in the same damn plaza who will provide it?Besides they haven't been able to stop outright *porn*, they will do something like this? Yeah right.
Go back people, noting to see here, no one cares except some bourgeois who like to #TweetLikeABurger . Mr "Association President" just wanted the world to know that (a) He exists; and (b) Vote for me at the next association election!
This isn't even news here, I didn't even know this was an issue (For once, Slashdot provides news on time!). We are more concerned over CNG (no fuel for cars, winter heaters or stoves), or the fact that the investigator who was investigating corruption charges against our PM conveniently committed suicide (The fact that there were signs of torture, or that he had sent SMS to pals regarding him being pressurised to change evidence is obviously unrelated.)
Come on people, we are people of, what, 180 million? Most of whom can't even afford to feed them self, much less buy games. We are Hungry, cold, freezing and Immobile, not to mention without work. We have better thing to worry about, besides, no one can outdo us in cursing our nation, I am sure your games pale in comparison.
I am an ACCA student. Got a query on Accountancy/Finance? Maybe I can help!
I don't think you have to be a jihadist to worry that the U.S.'s policy for combating it is insufficiently cautious about "collateral damage". There is also a realpolitik question of whether it's actually effective: bombing the bad guys may feel good, but from a rational perspective feeling good and killing bad guys is not sufficient, and is counterproductive if you cause so much negative sentiment that you inflame anti-American sentiment among the local population, increasing terrorist groups' ability to recruit new members and find sympathetic people to shelter them. In some cases bombing works, and in other cases it does not work, and I think it's legitimate to ask whether the strategy the U.S. is currently pursuing is actually working, or is intended just to make it look like they're doing something, to please U.S. voters.
Here's a fun game you can play in which you wipe out terrorists by bombing them.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
I think you have a rather ignorant view of what's going on, which doesn't match historical record or reality. Support for jihadists in Muslim countries has waxed and waned for various reasons. It's completely sensible, if you want to have an actually fact-based policy which causes improvements, rather than a blind-faith-based policy which makes you feel like you're playing a cool videogame and killin' dem brown people, to look at which U.S. policies contribute to waxing versus waning. And I don't think the "fire-and-forget" use of drones is mainly aimed at that kind of optimization. Rather, it's aimed at getting people reelected (and this goes for whether it's Bush or Obama trying to get reelected).
In short, I think your fondness for action films, and possibly some kind of weird bigotry, is clouding your judgment, which is true of many of my countrymen, to the detriment of America's safety. But killin' dem Muslims gets American politicians elected, so they'll keep doing it even when it's dumb. Shock 'n' awe, duuuuude! Mission accomplished! It's like a bunch of you fucking frat boys are in charge; I'd rather have some adults.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Got proof?
Or is it just "They're nig-nogs and ragheads, so they're all criminals"?
You could RTFA:
"Although shops in all of Pakistan's major cities have been told of the ban, the game was still available on Friday in shops crammed with pirated CDs in the capital Islamabad."
In most ME countries they really don't give a fuck about piracy.
Completely incorrect. There is nothing the US has or has not done that causes jihadis to hate you. Same with Israel. It is core to Islamic doctrine to hate and subjugate all non-believers. It is a mistake to think it is for any other reason. The other thing is the Arab and Islamic culture respect strength. If you are willing to compromise it shows weakness which they will push to exploit. The only way to earn respect is through strength and fighting at an intense pace that the jihadis can't match. That is the lesson Israel has learned the hard way. There is no quid-pro-quo with jihadi organizations. You can concede but all you get is 'hudna', a temporary respite while they gather strength preparing for the next attack. If you are weak you will not be offered hudna, jihadis take the weak down without remorse. Look at the slaughter of Lebanon. Your statements are nice in theory but just do not match the historical record or reality. There is no compromise with jihadis. Either you win decisively, or they win and you are extinguished. Winding down your offensive means looks like you are losing to jihadis and it emboldens more recruits. So your uninformed guesses about 'inflaming' the locals is wrong and counter to history (eg. see the Sunni Awakening in Anbar where the strength and moral restraint of US forces gained respect and did more than appeasement ever would).
Nothing really? Invading Iraq and Afghanistan and installing puppet regimes doesn't count? Western powers have interfered in the Middle East for a long time causing enough for the Arab populous to hate them. After WW1, the British and French having promised Arab independence carved up the middle east leading to decades of oppression. That along with GB promising a Jewish state in Palestine, WW2 and declaration of Israel as a state. The US presence in the region came with the departure of European control leading to Soviet interest in the region. It is all this that led to islamic fundamentalism. The invasion of Kuwait led to the first invasion of Iraq and permanent US military presence in the region which Bin Laden used as a reason for 9/11. Since this point, nothing the US has done in the region has endeared them to the Arabs/Muslims. US interference in the region is driven by resources and not by the welfare of the populations. Organisations like Al Qaeda have benefited from US interference - whether it is true or not CIA funded/trained Al Qaeda directly US presence training forces in the region has allowed them access to it. Overall, the US and the West in general have done a lot for the Middle East population not just 'jihadis' as you call them to hate us. With regard to Israel, without the US backing them they would not be in the position they are in now. No longer the persecuted but now the persecutors. Without the broken promises of the West (GB to be precise), Israel would not exist (at least where it is now). You don't have a clue.
Back to the games.. the FPS modern military shooter is getting way overdone now. Don't think its a bad thing they're banning them. We should probably do the same as it would save us money as they are all the same now. Warfighter was the biggest pile of poo I have played in a long time and CoD is just the same. They should do another BF 2142 or something. That was pretty good with the mechs, pods etc.. and titan mode was great.
It has nothing to do with the "most" people, trollboy.
Bin Laden isn't a war criminal for targeting the Pentagon in and of itself, that's a valid military objective. He's a war criminal for targeting the Towers, and using 747s full of civilians to do it, deliberately, deliberately killing thousands of civilian innocents in the process. Bush did not target civilians, period. The US tries to avoid collateral damage - one reason we spent so much damn $$ on smart bombs and laser guided munitions. It'd be a lot cheaper and less risky to just carpet bomb with traditional bombs, if that's what the US really wanted.