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 4 Banned In China

Soulskill posted about 7 months ago | from the yet-candy-crush-gets-a-pass dept.

Censorship 380

hypnosec writes "The Chinese government has officially banned Battlefield 4, stating that Electronic Arts has developed a game that not only threatens national security of the country, but is also a form of cultural invasion. The country's Ministry of Culture has issued a notice banning all material retailed to the game in any form, including the game itself, related downloads, demos, patches and even news reports. According to PCGames.com.cn [Chinese language], Battlefield 4 has been characterized as illegal game on the grounds that the game endangers national security and cultural aggression."

cancel ×

380 comments

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

First Shot (0, Troll)

James McGuigan (852772) | about 7 months ago | (#45796759)

Bang!

Re:First Shot (5, Insightful)

unixisc (2429386) | about 7 months ago | (#45796879)

Since something like violence is so alien to Chinese culture.

Re:First Shot (5, Interesting)

Blue Stone (582566) | about 7 months ago | (#45797163)

It's not that, though. It's that the game allows players to (gasp) imagine attacking China.

Perhaps the Chinese government are actually astute and realise that their ability to control the Chinese people is fragile and anything, even a fictional representation of insurrection could tip them over the edge into thinking 'hey, why not actually do this!?' ... or perhaps they're simply paranoid. Either way, it doesn't bode well for them, if this is what they consider a threat. If it's the former it will happen sooner or later. And if it's the latter, paranoia, they'll create a self-fulfilling prophecy by doing things like this (and, of course, much worse).

Flexible democracy is the best systems for a stable society, not a brittle authoritarian regime.

Re:First Shot (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45797305)

It's not that, though. It's that the game allows players to (gasp) imagine attacking China.

Perhaps the Chinese government are actually astute and realise that their ability to control the Chinese people is fragile and anything, even a fictional representation of insurrection could tip them over the edge into thinking 'hey, why not actually do this!?' ... or perhaps they're simply paranoid. Either way, it doesn't bode well for them, if this is what they consider a threat. If it's the former it will happen sooner or later. And if it's the latter, paranoia, they'll create a self-fulfilling prophecy by doing things like this (and, of course, much worse).

Flexible democracy is the best systems for a stable society, not a brittle authoritarian regime.

Try asking EA to develop a game where the US masses rise up against the legitimate authority in Washington DC (that takes place in our time) and see how well that goes.

Re: First Shot (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45797483)

any one make a game like that someone even made a game where you play as Oswald and there is a Austin power game where you get to fire the laser at D.C.

Cue in 3...2..1.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45796769)

Boo hoo, who shall we now single out as evil enemies, deserving of mindless wholesale slaughter? Poor entertainment industry!

Re:Cue in 3...2..1.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45796801)

Don't cry, we still have terrists. Al Qaeda will save us!

Re:Cue in 3...2..1.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45796937)

I don't think even the entertainment industry can successfully play the pity card off this. What were they expecting to make in sales to China anyway? USD$25, minus shipping?

Re:Cue in 3...2..1.. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45797355)

I doubt they care either. EA likely expected any potential profit in the Chinese market to be completely canceled out thanks to piracy.

Re:Cue in 3...2..1.. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45797167)

Not like China was going to be a big legitimate market, anyway -- nobody fecking pays for games over there.

Banning cultural invasion (1)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | about 7 months ago | (#45796777)

What are they, French?

Re:Banning cultural invasion (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45796805)

Why, did they surrender?
I'm waiting for Battlefield 4 - Foxconn Rising

Americans surrendered in Vietnam (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45796995)

Americans surrendered in Vietnam

Re:Americans surrendered in Vietnam (1)

oodaloop (1229816) | about 7 months ago | (#45797029)

The U.S. surrendered in an another country after a long war. The French surrendered immediately when they were invaded. Hardly the same thing.

Re:Americans surrendered in Vietnam (0)

Desler (1608317) | about 7 months ago | (#45797087)

Immediately? They fought the French Indonchina war from 1946 until 1954 when they withdrew and they were smart to do so. Unlike the US who continued to fight a losing war for two decades wasting tons of money and wasting lots of lives.

Re:Americans surrendered in Vietnam (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45797475)

oodaloop was comparing America's surrender in Vietnam -- after a long hard war far away from home -- to French surrender of their homes promptly upon invasion. Read carefully, try to keep up...

Re:Americans surrendered in Vietnam (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45797041)

950,765 communist forces killed in Vietnam from 1965 to 1974
58,220 U.S. service members were killed.
yeah, the U.S. totally got their asses kicked! LOL. We stopped the communist threat and that is the important thing. Economics 101 and time did the rest for us.

Re:Americans surrendered in Vietnam (5, Informative)

Desler (1608317) | about 7 months ago | (#45797097)

We stopped the communist threat

In what way? The entire country of Vietnam became communist after the end of the war.

Re:Americans surrendered in Vietnam (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45797419)

We stopped the communist threat

In what way? The entire country of Vietnam became communist after the end of the war.

The communist effort was ground to a halt, instead of sweeping over all of Asia.

Re:Americans surrendered in Vietnam (3, Informative)

fredrated (639554) | about 7 months ago | (#45797113)

By "communist forces" do you by any chance mean people defending their own country, first from the French, then from the U.S.? That is a pretty honorable thing to do unlike, for example, invading a country and killing people that were no threat to you, any of your friends or anyone else in your country.
As for 'stopped the communist threat', you do know we lost, right? Perhaps not.

Re:Americans surrendered in Vietnam (4, Informative)

fche (36607) | about 7 months ago | (#45797149)

North Vietnam invaded South Vietnam before the US ever got there -- not at all unlike how North Korea's invasion of the South started that war.

Re:Americans surrendered in Vietnam (2, Informative)

cold fjord (826450) | about 7 months ago | (#45797137)

Americans surrendered in Vietnam

Actually no. The US left as part of a peace agreement [wikipedia.org] which the North Vietnamese violated by invading and conquering South Vietnam with tanks and infantry divisions. Just another case of communist aggression and lying.

Interestingly China invaded Vietnam several years after North Vietnam invaded South Vietnam. It wasn't a pleasant experience for them.

Re:Americans surrendered in Vietnam (2, Insightful)

Em Adespoton (792954) | about 7 months ago | (#45797233)

Americans surrendered in Vietnam

Actually no. The US left as part of a peace agreement [wikipedia.org] which the North Vietnamese violated by invading and conquering South Vietnam with tanks and infantry divisions. Just another case of communist aggression and lying.

Indeed... because communist aggression and lying looks so different from capitalist aggression and lying....

Really; your argument doesn't hold together. It's just another case of aggression and lying -- governing style doesn't even have to come into it.

Re:Americans surrendered in Vietnam (1)

Desler (1608317) | about 7 months ago | (#45797277)

Just another case of communist aggression and lying.

Sort of like how Lyndon Johnson lied about the Gulf of Tomkin incident?

In 2005, an internal National Security Agency historical study was declassified; it concluded[7] that the Maddox had engaged the North Vietnamese Navy on August 2, but that there were no North Vietnamese Naval vessels present during the incident of August 4. The report stated regarding August 2:

At 1500G, Captain Herrick ordered Ogier's gun crews to open fire if the boats approached within ten thousand yards. At about 1505G, the Maddox fired three rounds to warn off the communist boats. This initial action was never reported by the Johnson administration, which insisted that the Vietnamese boats fired first.[7]

Regarding August 4:

It is not simply that there is a different story as to what happened; it is that no attack happened that night. [...] In truth, Hanoi's navy was engaged in nothing that night but the salvage of two of the boats damaged on August 2.[8]

In 1965, President Johnson commented privately: "For all I know, our Navy was shooting at whales out there." [40]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_incident [wikipedia.org]

Re:Americans surrendered in Vietnam (1)

Bruinwar (1034968) | about 7 months ago | (#45797291)

A peace agreement that everyone, including Kissinger, knew was a joke.

Re:Americans surrendered in Vietnam (1)

Sarten-X (1102295) | about 7 months ago | (#45797299)

America had promised [wikipedia.org] , as part of that agreement, that we'd bring air support to Saigon if the North did invade. They did, and we didn't.

Politicians lie, intentionally or not, regardless of what party they associate with.

Re:Banning cultural invasion (1)

Austerity Empowers (669817) | about 7 months ago | (#45797309)

I would like nothing more than to destroy Foxconn!

In the game...of course.

Re:Banning cultural invasion (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45797057)

It is completely obvious if you know how the Chinese government thinks.
In their doctrine there are no discontent minorities in China, no separatists and everyone is happily part of a large, 1 party, China.
The mere idea that there could be a civil war is controversial to them because it implies otherwise. They consider promoting this idea in whatever shape or form an endangerment of national security and harmony, and therefor as "cultural aggression".

Re:Banning cultural invasion (1)

billcarson (2438218) | about 7 months ago | (#45797083)

The parent post was probably ment to mock France, but he is right: their efforts were futile. France today is just as Americanized as any other western country.
Their tactic of only playing french music didn't work so well either. Culture isn't something you can protect with legislature.

Re:Banning cultural invasion (1)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | about 7 months ago | (#45797147)

I wasn't trying to mock France. I just thought the similarity of their approach to cultural preservation was noteworthy.

Re:Banning cultural invasion (1)

timeOday (582209) | about 7 months ago | (#45797401)

I think "Americanized" is a misnomer, and a more correct term would be "commercialized."

Granted, commercialization has its natural home here. But in the end, I think our whole-hearted embrace of greed just speeds up the process somewhat. All life is about sucking up resources, and most likely doomed to end in a race to the bottom.

Re:Banning cultural invasion (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45797375)

Cultural Invasion? While china is systematically buying land and planning cities in the US (ya know: actual subversion/invasion)... nothing but sympathy over their games.

"Ministry of Culture" (5, Funny)

AlanS2002 (580378) | about 7 months ago | (#45796799)

Someone needs to tell these idiots that 1984 wasn't meant to be a manual.

Re:"Ministry of Culture" (5, Funny)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | about 7 months ago | (#45796861)

Someone needs to tell these idiots that 1984 wasn't meant to be a manual.

If you mean the NSA, don't worry, they just got your message loud and clear.

Re:"Ministry of Culture" (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45796877)

Countries like US, UK, etc. are certainly treating it as one. China's just trying to fit in.

Re:"Ministry of Culture" (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45796899)

Wow, such original comment, so creativity

Re:"Ministry of Culture" (1)

jovius (974690) | about 7 months ago | (#45796969)

In 1984 popular culture was generated by machine algorithm, and people happily hummed along with the nonsense. I think it's a bit late already to prevent that from happening...

Re:"Ministry of Culture" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45797099)

Someone needs to tell these idiots that 1984 wasn't meant to be a manual.

Other way around. People aren't following 1984. 1984 simply accurately predicted the future.

Think Nostradamus. Even if the book wasn't written (and no other book of similar nature was written), these things are bound to happen.

Re:"Ministry of Culture" (3, Funny)

s.petry (762400) | about 7 months ago | (#45797129)

Look here you insensitive clod. That book is banned in China just like Battlefield 4, they can't use it for a manual if they can't read the thing!

Travel... (2)

retech (1228598) | about 7 months ago | (#45796813)

It'll be interesting to see if anyone traveling, who is employed by, or associated with this game, is able to pass through China.

Re:Travel... (2)

Virtucon (127420) | about 7 months ago | (#45796951)

Why would you want to? With the recent spate of news stories on pollution problems in China it reminds me of New Jersey.

Re:Travel... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45797077)

China makes New Jersey look pristine in comparison.

Re:Travel... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45797301)

more specifically, Shanghai makes New Jersey look like some sort of garden state.

Re:Travel... (1)

s.petry (762400) | about 7 months ago | (#45797153)

Randy Marsh called on Al Qaeda to fight Jersey and left China out of it, so I'm thinking they are pretty equally "evil".

Re:Travel... (1)

DigiShaman (671371) | about 7 months ago | (#45797171)

With a Transit Visa (G Visa), you might be able to pass through China when traveling through. But if you plan on staying in China for any length of time as a destination, you will need to obtain a Tourist Visa (L Visa). For those, you have to fill out a request form and send it off to the nearest Chinese consulate. I've done it in person, though I have seen travel agents in line with me carrying sacks full of passports. In any case, yes, it's quite possible foreign people affiliated with this product could be denied entry. For example, I'm pretty sure Björk is banned. The only way to know for sure is to apply. If you get denied, now you know.

Re:Travel... (1)

retech (1228598) | about 7 months ago | (#45797489)

I would think everyone on that dev. team would be banned an L visa.

Banning... (5, Funny)

Chordonblue (585047) | about 7 months ago | (#45796829)

You'd think they would have banned it elsewhere until it was at least finished!

Re:Banning... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45796911)

You sir or mam have won my internet points for the day!

c'mon slashdot (1)

blooddiamond (3469183) | about 7 months ago | (#45796839)

slashdot posting a 3week old story! Not good

Re:c'mon slashdot (5, Funny)

SJHillman (1966756) | about 7 months ago | (#45796889)

You're right... if they keep doing things this quickly, their editorial integrity might start to falter.

retailed to the game (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45796841)

The country's Ministry of Culture has issued a notice banning all material retailed to the game in any form

yea, that sounds like it was written by a chinese person

chaosers advocate for linux re; privacy (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45796843)

they used to be /. heros. they poo-poo windows & macs without hesitation. hobbyist whiner penguinistas pull no punches. free the innocent stem cells. never a better time to consider ourselves in relation to momkind, our spiritual centerpeace & originators of the wwwildly popular new clear options program

Not the first time (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45796853)

They also banned Reisure Suit Rarry

Re:Not the first time (1, Informative)

DexterIsADog (2954149) | about 7 months ago | (#45796979)

Ha ha! I see what you did there! I love casual racism!

Re:Not the first time (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45797237)

Except it's the Koreans who have trouble pronouncing the "R" sound, not the Chinese. But, I also enjoyed the joke.

Re: Not the first time (1)

loufoque (1400831) | about 7 months ago | (#45797071)

don't confuse japan with china, you insensitive clod!

Re: Not the first time (1)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | about 7 months ago | (#45797173)

don't confuse japan with china, you insensitive clod!

He's not. You're thinking of Tentacle Larry.

They don't like BF (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45796855)

Imagine what would happen if there was a GTA Shanghai edition... WW3.

Re:They don't like BF (1)

GTRacer (234395) | about 7 months ago | (#45796897)

Is GTA: Chinatown Wars close enough? That one's an oldie and I don't remember a war...

Re:They don't like BF (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45797043)

Nops, GTA: Chinatown Wars didn't sold 27.34 million units (GTAV), it didn't had people's attention.

Captcha: peaked

cultural aggression (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45796859)

Well they certainly wouldn't want to endanger cultural aggression.

Banning = more interest. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45796869)

Banning it will only make it the #1 pirated game in china Tomorrow.,

I'd be alarmed too (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45796885)

It's a populist screed about how America is going to help the first influential person with "dreams of democracy" make a coup d'etat against the government of China. In the game's defense it does show China's military kicking the collective ass of the US Navy and the Marines up one side and down the other.

Re:I'd be alarmed too (2)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about 7 months ago | (#45796997)

Well, hey - realistically speaking, how many organizations do you think are capable of facing a million man army, which can draft a half billion man army on short notice? Come on, now, there aren't anywhere near a million squids and jarheads in the Department of the Navy.

On the plus side - when they've got our asses surrounded, we don't need to worry to much about target acquisition! "Target rich environments" do have their benefits!

Re:I'd be alarmed too (5, Insightful)

DSElliot (3445351) | about 7 months ago | (#45797115)

The PLA has short arms and short legs - meaning that it can't get to where it's going and once it gets there, it doesn't have the logistical tail to fight. The strength of the US Army has nothing to do with our weapons. I served with the US Army in Egypt about 10 years ago at a remote checkpoint in the middle of the Sinai desert. I watched as every day, Egyptian conscripts were given a bag of rice and vegetables as their food for the day. Their only water was from a 55 gallon oil drum which was used for cooking and bathing and the only time they got meat was when they were rotated back to their main base. Meanwhile, I'm on a FOB with satellite TV, air conditioning and more turkey sandwiches that I could possibly eat. That's when it struck me that the strength of the US Army does not come from our weapons - it comes from our ability to move more turkey sandwiches across the globe than the good guys can even move in their own country. An Army marches on its stomach. The problem with a million man army is that you have to feed it and once we cut that off, the Chinese have a million starving, trained men with guns.

Re:I'd be alarmed too (2)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about 7 months ago | (#45797263)

You do make a helluva good point. But, we also saw what happened in Vietnam. I'm not old enough to be a Viet Vet, so I base all my thinking on hearsay and history books. But, the Ho Chi Minh trail proved quite effective for the opposition. They moved personnel, vehicles, weapons and equipment, food, and other material pretty freely. Ultimately, we lost that one.

Re:I'd be alarmed too (1)

mjwalshe (1680392) | about 7 months ago | (#45797393)

At what cost human and materiel with the gunships roaming at will dropping a 105mm on anything that looked like a truck - the VC didn't have much success in a fight it was only after the "peace" treaty and the NVA invading in a more traditional manner.

Re:I'd be alarmed too (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45797435)

Indeed, and thanks to that, we have a perfect example of what to watch out for. Surely you don't think we'd lose to that tactic again.

Re:I'd be alarmed too (2)

mjwalshe (1680392) | about 7 months ago | (#45797367)

And the Chinese army is much more about internal control than being able to project force 2000km away

Re:I'd be alarmed too (4, Insightful)

Tom (822) | about 7 months ago | (#45797505)

Everything you said is true. There's just one thing to add:

The problem with a million man army is that you have to feed it and once we cut that off, the Chinese have a million starving, trained men with guns.

Pray that they're in your enemies territory at the time.

Russia won WW2 through their burned earth strategy, but it cost them their industrial base and contributed greatly to them losing the Cold War.

Re:I'd be alarmed too (2)

cold fjord (826450) | about 7 months ago | (#45797191)

On the plus side - when they've got our asses surrounded, we don't need to worry to much about target acquisition! "Target rich environments" do have their benefits!

Things pretty much worked out that way the last time US and Chinese troops fought each other.

Lt. Gen. Lewis Berwell Puller [military.com]

During the Korean War, the Chinese communists had overrun the Yalu River and the Marines battling them were in a running fight to reach the coast. Ten Chinese divisions surrounded Col. Lewis Berwell Puller's 1st Marines. The indomitable "Chesty" Puller saw the situation with his own brand of logic: "Those poor bastards," he said. "They've got us right where we want them. We can fire in any direction now!"

Re:I'd be alarmed too (2)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about 7 months ago | (#45797311)

When once asked what his one wish would be, "Chesty" Puller responded, "I would like to see the face of every Marine I served with one last time."

The streets of Heaven are supposed to be guarded by United States Marines. Maybe the general has seen his Marines again.

What about Russia and U.S.? (1)

tompaulco (629533) | about 7 months ago | (#45796921)

It looks like Russia and the U.S. are also in the game, and you can play as any of them, so will it also be banned in the U.S. and Russia? Nope? Didn't think so.

Re:What about Russia and U.S.? (1)

Virtucon (127420) | about 7 months ago | (#45796971)

Give Putin about 5 minutes and he'll have a law ready to sign banning the game and promoting his new health and fitness photos. [telegraph.co.uk]

Re:What about Russia and U.S.? (1)

Suiggy (1544213) | about 7 months ago | (#45797011)

It's the single player campaign that China likely has an issue with, which is strictly one-sided in portraying China as the enemy.

Re:What about Russia and U.S.? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45797189)

Except the part (whole game) where you play alongside a chinese agent to take down a rogue chinese general.

Re:What about Russia and U.S.? (5, Informative)

danbob999 (2490674) | about 7 months ago | (#45797199)

The US would never do the same. They always accept when they are the enemy in a video game [cnn.com] .

Re:What about Russia and U.S.? (4, Informative)

Raistlin77 (754120) | about 7 months ago | (#45797537)

Voicing an opinion that results in the game developer changing the title of one side of the fight is a far cry from making the game illegal. Medal of Honor was not banned and EA was not forced to remove "Taliban" from the game, they simply did so because they felt it was the right thing to do profitwise after hearing said opinions.

Re:What about Russia and U.S.? (1)

tompaulco (629533) | about 7 months ago | (#45797405)

I got the game for Christmas, but haven't played it yet. It looks interesting. I'm a strictly single player guy. I don't find it interesting to play against others on the internet, especially profane 13 year olds who have nothing better to do but play online games 24/7.

It's ok China... (1)

g0bshiTe (596213) | about 7 months ago | (#45796955)

It's ok China, you can ban the game just keep in mind that millions of BF 4 players are enjoying the game on Chinese manufactured equipment.

Irony anyone?

Re:It's ok China... (5, Insightful)

DexterIsADog (2954149) | about 7 months ago | (#45797025)

It's ok China, you can ban the game just keep in mind that millions of BF 4 players are enjoying the game on Chinese manufactured equipment. Irony anyone?

Umm, since their intent is to prevent Chinese from getting ideas, and they do like the revenue from manufacturing computers for the rest of the world, and would probably prefer that other countries' youth wasted their time on games instead of studying, then...

No, that's not ironic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irony [wikipedia.org]

Re:It's ok China... (2)

ElectricTurtle (1171201) | about 7 months ago | (#45797079)

That ok. Thank you for money. (Signed) China Dictated but not read.

China has a point (-1, Flamebait)

Suiggy (1544213) | about 7 months ago | (#45796981)

The voracious supporters of democracy and freedom in the West are more radical and virulent than 20th century International Communists when it comes to spreading their ideology. China has every right to to be concerned, especially when bringing "democracy" and "freedom" to the rest of the world means bombing campaigns, land invasions, and subservience to Western central banks.

Re:China has a point (3, Insightful)

JoeyRox (2711699) | about 7 months ago | (#45797103)

I agree, freedom and democracy are a virus on humanity that should be stamped out of existence.

Re:China has a point (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45797197)

Well put.

Re:China has a point (1)

Nemyst (1383049) | about 7 months ago | (#45797201)

What the hell are you harping on about? This is all about the Communist Party banning a video game which casts them in a bad light (in this case, in a state of internal turmoil, with the entire country plunged into civil war). It's a move to preserve the public image of the party as something invulnerable and all-knowing.

Almost fooled me... (3, Insightful)

Libertarian_Geek (691416) | about 7 months ago | (#45797221)

The voracious supporters of democracy and freedom in the West are more radical and virulent than 20th century International Communists when it comes to spreading their ideology. China has every right to to be concerned, especially when bringing "democracy" and "freedom" to the rest of the world means bombing campaigns, land invasions, and subservience to Western central banks.

Wow, for a brief moment there, I thought that you weren't condoning censorship. Good use of the halo-effect/devil-effect in making the East's censorship look justified by calling out the West's evils. Uncensored corruption is of course bad, but censorship doesn't suddenly make the censors' intentions or methods a good thing. Let me simplify: Censorship = still bad.

Re:China has a point (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45797511)

The voracious supporters of democracy and freedom in the West are more radical and virulent than 20th century International Communists when it comes to spreading their ideology. China has every right to to be concerned, especially when bringing "democracy" and "freedom" to the rest of the world means bombing campaigns, land invasions, and subservience to Western central banks.

Only on Slashdot does this get +5 insightful... If this were the USA doing the censorship instead of China, the slashdot commenters would be screaming of tyranny. When China does it, censorship is cheered on as fighting the encroachment of the USA and western influence.

Missed opurtunity (1)

Kimomaru (2579489) | about 7 months ago | (#45796985)

China SHOULD ban it, but they should have banned it because of its frequent glitches and crashing. China had a chance to be funny about this and I think they just missed it. Maybe Australia can pick up the pieces of this comedy gold.

Re:Missed opurtunity (1)

Suiggy (1544213) | about 7 months ago | (#45797067)

You seriously expect today's soulless politicians and bureaucrats to have a sense of humor that is anything more than parroting a scripted joke written by a political speech writer? Now that's funny.

Chinks gonna chink (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45797055)

No surprise. Seriously, not news.

Somewhat awkward (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45797117)

I won't defend such actions, but I can in some way understand that creating of a "USA vs *insert any other non western nation not being pro USA* game" might be perceived as glorifying "political" tension, with an emphasis on charicatured violence added to it in the form of computer gaming. I have nothing nice to say about the state of China though.

I think DICE would be so much more classy working with historical content, fictionalized or not, instead of creating some kind of fantasy revolving around a future war involving parties that already today is fueling tension so to speak.

As a person not residing in, nor being a citizen of USA, I want to say that I used to think it was fun watching CNN show the US military bomb Iraqi military forces in the 90's, but then I grew up and today consider lots of USA's actions to be akin to state terrorism. Battlefield 3 and 4 just isn't making a positive impression on me, but I guess those games might for others be thought of as having some kind of value for propaganda purposes. *shrugs*

One might imagine how a story in the the two games (the single player mode) as a product of narration, could perhaps be a satire or a parody (I don't know what is in the SP campaign), however one sort of still end up with a fairly clear notion of "USA" fighting "some other nation" I think.

Who cares (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45797141)

what china thinks.

cultural aggression (5, Interesting)

Tom (822) | about 7 months ago | (#45797187)

Don't know about BF4 in particular, but they sure are right about "cultural aggression". The most successful invasion the USA is continually running on the rest of the world isn't military.

I live in Europe. Most of the Americans view us as socialists, mostly because there used to be a cultural difference between Europe and the USA. Where in the US the basic concept is "everyone makes his own luck", Europe has a bigger focus on the social units you belong to - the family at the lowest level, the nation at the highest. That's why we have healthcare and unemployment benefits and all that, because we care for each other in addition to ourselves.

Both models have advantages and disadvantages. In the US, you can make it, there are more options for venture capital or starting your own company in general, and less obstacles. At the same time, the path is smaller and more dangerous. And if you fall, you fall alone.

But things change. With the constant battering from Hollywood, music, comics and other cultural exports, Europe is in crisis primarily because old and new social concepts are clashing, and we are the battlefield.

Now imagine Asia, where the social groups are even more important than the individual. What kind of havoc a US-spirit can wreck there.

Re:cultural aggression (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45797479)

You're absolutely right.

Even here in Canada, we're seeing an emergence of increased cultural aggression from the US and many American companies are trying to bring their American values to Canada. Traditionally, we're valued our social programs, healthcare and unemployment benefits as a cultural force that has helped us to provide better governance and lifestyle to the vast majority. The American (corporate) values are really starting to push the view of letting the aggressive superstar individual succeed and everyone else fail. I'm sorry if anyone is offended but today's American values tend to let the entire middle class suffer and hurt the lower class significantly. The old adage that the rich get richer and the poor stay poor has been tilted to the extreme in today's economic reality.

Don't get me wrong - I love the US. But they tend to think that democracy and capitalism are one and the same and that's not true. People don't exist to serve artificial constructs like corporations. People exist to help serve and better the human race and too often we forget this as we struggle in our daily lives. I want my children to live in a better world than the one that I grew up in and I don't see it happening today. The US concept of democracy has been perverted by corporate interests and aggressive corporate lobbying. Candidly, I think the world is a more violent, aggressive and dangerous place to live in today than it has been in the past. That being said, it's still better than anything coming out of the cultural toilet that is the Middle East, China and Russia.

Good for china (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45797253)

fuck you ea games

Because someone has to say it... (1)

Megane (129182) | about 7 months ago | (#45797265)

And nothing of value was lost.

Can't have that... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45797279)

... the game endangers national security and cultural aggression....

Any game that endangers cultural aggression is bound to be a problem. Just think what would happen if American aggression was endangered....

Unsurprised (1)

Chris Mattern (191822) | about 7 months ago | (#45797345)

Battlefield 4's storyline includes a Chinese admiral attempting to overthrow the Chinese government. You're not allowed to suggest those sorts of things.

Huh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45797399)

...I guess it won't be long before the UK bans first person shooters, then.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>