Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Battlefield 3 Banned In Iran

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the par-for-the-course dept.

Censorship 248

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."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

lawl (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38196406)

Pwn3d!

Re:lawl (1)

Pseudonym Authority (1591027) | more than 2 years ago | (#38197116)

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.

Re:lawl (3)

mjwx (966435) | more than 2 years ago | (#38197570)

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.

A selling point? (2)

www.sorehands.com (142825) | more than 2 years ago | (#38196408)

Banned in Boston used to be a selling point.

Now Banned in Iran is badge of honor.

Re:A selling point? (1)

lexsird (1208192) | more than 2 years ago | (#38196636)

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.

Re:A selling point? (0)

jhoegl (638955) | more than 2 years ago | (#38197330)

Battlefield should have been banned after BF2 anyways.

How is that for "powned" there honkey?

Re:A selling point? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38196690)

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

Re:A selling point? (1)

Eponymous Hero (2090636) | more than 2 years ago | (#38196776)

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

Re:A selling point? (1)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 2 years ago | (#38196816)

The Iranians are sissies compared to the Japanese. The Japanese released 1943, [wikipedia.org] 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 [wikipedia.org] screenshot.

Re:A selling point? (3, Insightful)

Synerg1y (2169962) | more than 2 years ago | (#38196922)

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.

Why ban it? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38196442)

All signs point to the US desperately wanting to wage war with Iran as quickly as possible...explosions and electronic infiltrations of their nuclear program and a bunch of republicans frothing at the mouth, just waiting to send a fleet of drones over carrying cluster bombs. Americans already consider _real_ war to be a game. Might as well let the game through in Iran, let them all get a sense for just how badly America wants them all dead so that they can prepare accordingly...not that they need a game to tell them that.

Re:Why ban it? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38196494)

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.

Re:Why ban it? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38197266)

Would those be the ones that stacked naked men in Abu Ghraib for a laugh before torturing them? Or the soldiers on the Kill Team who murdered innocents for their own entertainment? Maybe they date farther back to the My Lai Massacre or the Bay of Pigs Invasion.

The problem with you fucking cretins is that you haven't seen _enough_ war, on your home turf. Let's hope that changes in the future. You deserve some of the pain you've been dishing out.

Re:Why ban it? (1)

Coeurderoy (717228) | more than 2 years ago | (#38197354)

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...

Seems Reasonable (5, Insightful)

blackpaw (240313) | more than 2 years ago | (#38196444)

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 (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38196478)

Nope, that is why we have free speech.

Re:Seems Reasonable (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38196492)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38196610)

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

Re:Seems Reasonable (1)

maxdread (1769548) | more than 2 years ago | (#38196652)

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

Re:Seems Reasonable (4, Insightful)

bky1701 (979071) | more than 2 years ago | (#38196662)

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 (1)

maxdread (1769548) | more than 2 years ago | (#38196716)

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 ?

Re:Seems Reasonable (1)

bky1701 (979071) | more than 2 years ago | (#38196888)

"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.

Re:Seems Reasonable (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38197088)

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.

Re:Seems Reasonable (4, Insightful)

bky1701 (979071) | more than 2 years ago | (#38197256)

"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 (1)

forkfail (228161) | more than 2 years ago | (#38196724)

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.

Re:Seems Reasonable (1)

maxdread (1769548) | more than 2 years ago | (#38196766)

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?

Re:Seems Reasonable (3, Insightful)

forkfail (228161) | more than 2 years ago | (#38196860)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38197086)

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.

Re:Seems Reasonable (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 2 years ago | (#38196844)

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.

Re:Seems Reasonable (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38197528)

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

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

Re:Seems Reasonable (1)

Rasperin (1034758) | more than 2 years ago | (#38197028)

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.

Not really (1)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 2 years ago | (#38197446)

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.

Re:Seems Reasonable (1)

pclminion (145572) | more than 2 years ago | (#38196598)

Nope, that is why we have free speech.

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

Re:Seems Reasonable (5, Insightful)

forkfail (228161) | more than 2 years ago | (#38196608)

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 (1)

tvller (1718848) | more than 2 years ago | (#38196786)

LOL, Mod this up please!

Re:Seems Reasonable (1)

Dogbertius (1333565) | more than 2 years ago | (#38197264)

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 [youtube.com]

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.

Re:Seems Reasonable (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38196622)

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

Re:Seems Reasonable (1)

pshanks (472134) | more than 2 years ago | (#38196822)

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

Re:Seems Reasonable (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38196924)

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

Re:Seems Reasonable (1)

Bucky24 (1943328) | more than 2 years ago | (#38197284)

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

Re:Seems Reasonable (1)

lexsird (1208192) | more than 2 years ago | (#38196660)

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

What? We aren't there yet?

Re:Seems Reasonable (1)

Azakai (2512142) | more than 2 years ago | (#38196802)

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

Re:Seems Reasonable (1)

Beardo the Bearded (321478) | more than 2 years ago | (#38196806)

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.

Re:Seems Reasonable (0)

Dogbertius (1333565) | more than 2 years ago | (#38197276)

They have brains?

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

Re:Seems Reasonable (1)

Cat_Herder_GoatRoper (2491400) | more than 2 years ago | (#38197130)

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

Medal of Honor 2010 game was boycotted in the USA (2)

jmcbain (1233044) | more than 2 years ago | (#38197154)

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 [destructoid.com] due to fact that you could play as the Taliban. EA eventually caved in [wikipedia.org] and changed the enemy to "Opposing force".

Modern Warfare 3 starts with New York being hit (1)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 2 years ago | (#38197368)

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.

Re:Seems Reasonable (1)

h00manist (800926) | more than 2 years ago | (#38197588)

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

Good (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38196452)

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

Ban Moar!

I think we should airdrop 1,000,000 copies (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38196456)

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.

You're Doing It Wrong (1)

Das Auge (597142) | more than 2 years ago | (#38196480)

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

Re:You're Doing It Wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38196528)

they don't ban Holocaust denial

Not surprising... (4, Interesting)

AngryDeuce (2205124) | more than 2 years ago | (#38196490)

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... (4, Interesting)

Sasayaki (1096761) | more than 2 years ago | (#38196600)

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... (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 2 years ago | (#38196736)

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

Red Orchestra 2?

Re:Not surprising... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38196746)

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

Re:Not surprising... (3, Interesting)

Nidi62 (1525137) | more than 2 years ago | (#38196872)

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... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38197572)

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.

Re:Not surprising... (1)

PhrstBrn (751463) | more than 2 years ago | (#38197050)

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.

Re:Not surprising... (5, Insightful)

Nidi62 (1525137) | more than 2 years ago | (#38196778)

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... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38196886)

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

Re:Not surprising... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38196968)

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.

Re:Not surprising... (5, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#38196998)

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... (1)

Phrogman (80473) | more than 2 years ago | (#38197212)

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 [11points.com]

Re:Not surprising... (1)

Nidi62 (1525137) | more than 2 years ago | (#38197346)

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.

Re:Not surprising... (4, Insightful)

Wahakalaka (1323747) | more than 2 years ago | (#38197382)

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... (0)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 2 years ago | (#38197008)

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).

Future Perspectives... (3, Insightful)

Phrogman (80473) | more than 2 years ago | (#38197136)

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.

Re:Not surprising... (1)

Nidi62 (1525137) | more than 2 years ago | (#38197168)

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.

BF1942 simulated German soliders too... (2)

rwade (131726) | more than 2 years ago | (#38196964)

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 [wikipedia.org] ? 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. [filefront.com]

Re:Not surprising... (1)

Hadlock (143607) | more than 2 years ago | (#38197002)

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.

Re:Not surprising... (1)

Cat_Herder_GoatRoper (2491400) | more than 2 years ago | (#38197208)

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

Re:Not surprising... (1)

Wahakalaka (1323747) | more than 2 years ago | (#38197280)

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."

Re:Not surprising... (5, Funny)

swanzilla (1458281) | more than 2 years ago | (#38196630)

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

Re:Not surprising... (4, Insightful)

Nidi62 (1525137) | more than 2 years ago | (#38196666)

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.

KH2002 License (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38196522)

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?

Re:KH2002 License (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38196624)

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

Re:KH2002 License (1)

game kid (805301) | more than 2 years ago | (#38196632)

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

Re:KH2002 License (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38196692)

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

Daniel Matros is "Global Battlefield Community Manager at DICE"

Matros was probably lying about MP5 license (1)

rwade (131726) | more than 2 years ago | (#38197160)

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 [wikia.com] . 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 [bf3blog.com] in there? How about the G3? How about the MP7 [bf3blog.com] ?

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 [youtube.com] ) 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.

Re:KH2002 License (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38196704)

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.

Re:KH2002 License (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38196748)

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

Re:KH2002 License (1)

Jonner (189691) | more than 2 years ago | (#38196972)

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?

Source, please? (1)

rwade (131726) | more than 2 years ago | (#38196986)

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

Oh really? Can you provide a source on that?

Re:KH2002 License (1)

VJmes (2449518) | more than 2 years ago | (#38197230)

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

Why Ban it For That? (4, Funny)

Greyfox (87712) | more than 2 years ago | (#38196562)

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?"

set in Iran but enemy is russia? (1)

Oakey (311319) | more than 2 years ago | (#38196576)

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

Re:set in Iran but enemy is russia? (2)

Nidi62 (1525137) | more than 2 years ago | (#38196614)

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.

Worrying. (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38196656)

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.

Re:Worrying. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38197206)

Recently I've been getting -1 quite frequently.

Maybe voicing my opinion is not welcome anymore; or peace among countries is not really coincidental with everyone's objectives.

I guess some guys really feel the need to have a -2 or -3 rating at times.

Indoctrination (2)

InnerInsight (2514816) | more than 2 years ago | (#38196680)

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.

Re:Indoctrination (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38197114)

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

OMG OMG OMG! (1)

BottleCup (691335) | more than 2 years ago | (#38196812)

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

Quds Force Declares Fatwa Against BF3 Until IRNV (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38196852)

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

shocking! (1)

chrisj_0 (825246) | more than 2 years ago | (#38196914)

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

Re:shocking! (1)

Nidi62 (1525137) | more than 2 years ago | (#38196926)

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)

Well then... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38196946)

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

Those darn EA spies!!!

Wow! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38196950)

There are gamers in Iran?

lol (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38197092)

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

what about a bundle with (1)

milkmage (795746) | more than 2 years ago | (#38197360)

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

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?