Battlefield 3 Banned In Iran 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."
A selling point? (Score:3)
Banned in Boston used to be a selling point.
Now Banned in Iran is badge of honor.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If this game was released in Iran, it would demonstrate to the Iranian people that despite the government's reassurance, Iran actually can't do much against an invading USA. Political motives for invading Iran aside, the concern is probably that the people will lose faith in the regime and go the way of egypt and syria. It works a little different when your government relies on censorship and misinformation to make itself look good in what is technically a desert, so things like bf3's portrayal matter a l
Re:A selling point? (Score:4, Insightful)
Agreed with the last part.
When I look at the war in Iraq and the huge civilian death toll, I don't really enjoy playing war video games where the USA are the good guys. I'd feel the same playing the Nazis in Medal of Honor.
I'm fine with games where you can choose your side and all sides are portrayed equally (i.e. your perception of who are the bad guys and good guys changes depending on which camp you play in). But being forced to play the USA only, and having to endure all the We are right/Our army should be worshiped propaganda really annoys me.
I also hate games that cast the Russians as the bad guys. The cold war has been over for a few decades, the Soviet regime has been overthrown by the very people who live in Russia today, and despite what people like to think, Russia is a lot more peaceful than the USA when it comes to military invasions. Unfortunately, everything that goes on there is deformed by Western media to sound terrible (and for the record, I'm from both Western Europe and North America, I'm not Russian).
Casting Russia as the bad guys is both old and close-minded.
I'd gladly pay $200 for a video game where I have to shoot Marines for indiscriminately bombing people and otherwise endangering civilians. Don't get me wrong, I don't support Al Qaeda or the Taliban but something has to be said about starting a war that ends up killing 100k civilians, 30k enemies and less than 5k of your own troops. And before anyone here wants to point out that US soldiers are just following orders, that's no excuse. No troops = no war. When you are given the responsibility to use heavy weapons, you should have a high enough sense of responsibility to refuse to fight when needed rather than to hide behind the politicians who gave the green light for the war.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
There were a few TV shows dealing with the troops in Afghanistan shown earlier this month and one thing that really struck me was the fatalistic attitude of the soldiers, especially the bomb disposal guys. They are ordered to find and defuse improvised explosive devices because the intel from their design and origin is deemed valuable, more valuable than their ability to walk or live in fact.
They talked about how they just get on with the job, and how they were not too worried because all the enemy can do i
banks are winning (Score:2)
Dude, Haliburton, and contractors are winning, spiking up oil and making more $$$ in fed notes is a win for banks. Follow the dollars.
Re: (Score:2)
Then again you don't see a whole lot of games where the states are being invaded by anything besides aliens
Except Modern Warfare 2 and very recently MW3...but yes SPOILER ALERT
*********America does 'win' in the end (well, Russia withdraws troops from US soil after peace talks, if you call that "winning").
Re: (Score:2)
And Battlefield Bad Company 2....
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The end of BCBC2 basically implies that Russia starts invading the US.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Seems Reasonable (Score:5, Insightful)
Pretty sure a shooter involving taking down the Trade Centre would be banned in the USA.
Given the current USA/NATO warmongering mutters re Iran they probably view it as an attempt to get people used to the idea of the USA invading Iran.
Re: (Score:2)
.... as an attempt to get people used to the idea of the USA invading Iran.
What? We aren't there yet?
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
The first mission was to destroy the Pentagon and install a mind control device to take over the brains of the US soldiers.
Historical reenactment is apparently OK.
Re: (Score:2)
Just double checked since I thought that would be a bit weird given the release data, but I don't see the Twin Towers anywhere on the cover. The Empire State Building and Chrysler Building are both burning though. So same effect, just without the coincidence.
Medal of Honor 2010 game was boycotted in the USA (Score:2)
Don't think for a second that this wouldn't happen in the USA. Most recently, EA's Medal of Honor shooter in 2010 was boycotted in military stores [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".
Re: (Score:2)
Oh look, someone doesn't understand the difference between a boycott & a governmental ban. How cute.
Modern Warfare 3 starts with New York being hit (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
That's very different from you playing as the Russian bombers, killing American civilians. While it might not be outright banned, it would get a de facto ban. The media would drum up controversy, stores would bow to the pressure, and next thing you know the makers would be modifying the game to meet our sensibilities, or canceling it entirely.
Re:Modern Warfare 3 starts with New York being hit (Score:5, Insightful)
The game paints russians as bad guys and american soldiers as valorous heroes defending their homeland.
Hell, it even plays like a Rambo movie. Go out, kill a whole lot of russians, black guys and other non-american trash. The only good guys are americans, brits and a few russians, who, get this - betray their country. Turn this concept on its head and you won't sell a single copy in US, because no one will do the commercial suicide of putting it on the shelves. It would offend the very core belief that America is just and a force for good.
Re: (Score:2)
Working on very detailed US maps and city images to practice invading pretty soon. Er, I meant play games on. So nobody will mind.
Re: (Score:2)
No. It wouldn't. And that's the difference between the USA and most other countries (including ones that consider themselves modern liberal democracies). Retailers might refuse to sell it, but the government would not be able to (legally) ban it, and most responsible government officials wouldn't even try.
Re:Seems Reasonable (Score:5, Insightful)
Right. It wouldn't be banned.
Instead it would be rated AO, and no one would sell it.
Yay freedom of speech!
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
That'd be great rebuttal if we were talking about trademark law.
Re: (Score:2)
Nonsense. Self censorship isn't when it only happens because of inevitable government intervention otherwise. That is simple censorship.
Which has nothing to do with this topic.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Kinda good illustration would be Deus Ex. First scene occurs in a destroyed Statue of Liberty, destroyed by terrorists, who (I would say *SPOILER*, but come on, the games is ten years old and hey did you know Snape kills Dumbledore?) turn out to be the good guys and the people you end up helping. Oh yeah and you end up nuking area 51 (excuse me: the Groom Lake Facility). Granted it came out pre-9/11, but still. Didn't even rate a blip on the censorship radar. No, the only thing people in the US seem to want
Re: (Score:2)
That would be because it was set so far in the future, it was obviously not related to modern USA in any way.
Try a game that would do that to a modern country. Hell, for all the dicking around with portraying russians like some kind of inhumane monsters, they couldn't even make the scene where you have to shoot a bunch of civilians in a russian airport in modern warfare without giving you an option to "opt-out" of that scene.
What kind of reaction do you think the game would get if you could do the same to a
Not really (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Seems Reasonable (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Go to the developer's homepage and download it or order it and have it shipped to your house. That's how many people are beginning to get their PC games these days anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re:Seems Reasonable (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3)
you mean like corporations?
Re: (Score:2)
yes you can get a job. paying minimum wage, as determined by corporations, who change the laws to make sure you have no real power in your country, but they do
why are filled with so much hate for your own fellow americans and so willing to absolve of all sin entities which only exist to acquire more and more profit, at any cost, including your impoverishment and the destruction and weakening of your country and the government which is supposed to represent your interests (corporate cash makes sure it isn't)
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-reich/corporate-profit_b_1117741.html [huffingtonpost.com]
you're such an idiot (Score:2)
when you weaken the government, there is a power vacuum. it is filled by corporations. who are not accountable to the people, like your government is. well, it is supposed to be, in theory, but again, corporate money makes sure it is accountable to corporations instead. so what do you do? you HEAL a sick government, you don't fall for CORPORATION SPONSORED PROPAGANDA like faux news, and WEAKEN the government, thereby subjecting you to FAR MORE abuse at the hands of UNACCOUNTABLE corporations
there is really
NYC and DC invasion maps? coming right up! (Score:2)
I fail to see how its wrong either.
Do you really want the government to get involved in deciding what a business must sell? Is that truly any better than non-government censorship ?
Indeed, the US gov't does not regulate. The government prohibiting child porn, selling drugs, alcohol and guns to anyone who wants them, requiring a deed to build on a property, and requiring doctors to have a license before operating on you, having insurance for basically everything you do,
isnt' the government dictating your life. It's an expression of complete freedom.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The question at hand was whether corporate based censorship was on par with Government censorship. My (round about) answer is, yes to that question.
In answer to your followup question, no in the manner you phrased it, yes when a consortium of corporations and retailers effectively destroy any entity that doesn't follow their rules.
The point a lot of folks who are so anti-government seem to miss is that the private sector is equally capable of the evils so often attributed to governments when there is no g
Re: (Score:3)
A corporation can't shut down my private website or my personal DVD writer that I can use to distribute my Twin Towers Destruction game. The government can. I can't buy porn at Walmart or Target, yet somehow porn still gets purchased. Clearly the retailer oligarchy has failed to censor porn.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, that is why we have free speech.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAH! Hahahahaha! That's killer dude, killer.
Re: (Score:2)
Laugh all you want, but the fact is, such a game would not be banned in the US. Unless it involves kiddie porn or is directly and unequivocally written to incite real-world violence, our courts will not allow it to be prohibited.
That is one of the few aspects of our political system we can be genuinely proud of.
Re: (Score:2)
You talk about government ban. He's talking about corporate ban - corporations simply not selling the game.
We can split hair on semantics of whether or not that is censorship, but end result would be the same. Game would not be accessible in the country through ways other then import or fringe small time traders who will choose to not follow the trend and suffer the potential consequences.
Re:Seems Reasonable (Score:5, Insightful)
Disclaimer: Free Speech valid only in participating areas and Free Speech Zones. May be revoked at will for reasons of fear, political power, religious, ethnic or economic sensibilities. Not valid in airports or theaters. Subject to taxation and regulation. Can be exercised only with permission of media owners when applicable. Not for use afte 9:00 PM local time in town squares, plazas or Wall Street. Identification required. May not be used in the face of law enforcement. May not be used to express politically embarrassing information in wiki form in front of the world at large. Penalties will be incurred if anyone considers said free speech to be promoting of terrorism, or is considered annoying to monied interests, or is enacted by too many people in a public place. Does not apply in the context of an employer/employee relationship. Free speech may not be encrypted in certain areas; check your local laws. Subject to revocation at will by government and corporate interests. Additional fees may apply.
Re: (Score:2)
It's owned by capital (Score:2)
Capital has no home, no country, no allegiance, and no color. It travels to where it gets the best deal. It dismisses everyone, as it needs no one.
Re: (Score:2)
You're Doing It Wrong (Score:2)
Not surprising... (Score:5, Interesting)
I mean, they would probably want to ban a Chinese game that allowed the player to kill American citizens and destroy American landmarks.
Not saying it's right, but it's probably what would happen. Personally, I'd love to play a game about the United States from a Chinese perspective. It would probably be hysterical...
Re:Not surprising... (Score:5, Interesting)
I've always wanted to play a serious World War II shooter from the perspective of a German soldier. I mean, we've stormed Omaha beach so many times... it'd be interesting to defend it. And we'd get to participate in some really unique content that hasn't been completely done to death by every shooter ever.
Or even an alternate history, something like Modern Warfare series, but in World War 2 where some critical decision -- such as Hitler not deciding to turn the ME-262 into a bomber and mass produce it -- causes the stop of round-the-clock bombing, which leads to a revitalization of German industry, and a swing of the war against the Allies...
That'd be interesting.
Re: (Score:2)
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... (Score:5, Insightful)
You know, when I played World at War, and I'm playing the final Russian missions where you're attacking Berlin and storming the Reichstag and all that, all I could think about was that, in real life, those German soldiers defending Berlin were mostly 14-16 year old boys and 40-60 year old men. Not only were they completely untrained, but they were using horribly made weapons (worse even than many of the later war year manufactured Japanese weapons). The Volkssturm weapons showed just how desperate the situation was: for example the Volkssturmgewehr VG.1-5 (http://world.guns.ru/rifle/autoloading-rifles/de/vg1-5-e.html) and the Volkssturmkarabiner VK.98(http://world.guns.ru/rifle/autoloading-rifles/de/vk9-e.html).
Off topic, I know, but with a little knowledge of history, these games have a lot more impact and a lot more emotion in them. If people knew a little bit more about history, we would have games such as what you and I want, where we get to play as the Germans. However, it has become PC to dehumanize the Germans and the Wehrmacht particularly, and downplay the fact that many Germans and most of the military weren't fighting for Hitler, or an Aryan nation without Jews, they were fighting for what pretty much every soldier fights for: their family, their country, and their comrades.
Re:Not surprising... (Score:5, Insightful)
However, it has become PC to dehumanize the Germans and the Wehrmacht particularly, and downplay the fact that many Germans and most of the military weren't fighting for Hitler, or an Aryan nation without Jews, they were fighting for what pretty much every soldier fights for: their family, their country, and their comrades.
This is intentional. If people understand that the Germans were just like us, they would understand that we are subject to the same forces that the Germans were. With that awareness, we might look around us and see what is happening. If we learn that they control us by manipulating our allegiances to family, country, and comrades, then we're less likely to be affected by such manipulation in the future.
It's an uncomfortable truth we have to accept if we're going to stop atrocities. Most people, in the right circumstances are fascists. Consider the Milgram experiment, 65% of people will obey an order to kill a man on the flimsiest of pretexts because of their deference to authority. Or the Stanford prison experiment, where people who took roles of authority became cruel simply by taking that role. We have to be aware of these tendencies in ourselves, and reject them. Do not accept or obey any more authority than is absolutely necessary.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re:Not surprising... (Score:4, Insightful)
Future Perspectives... (Score:4, Insightful)
It is entirely possible that 200 years from now historians will agree that the US invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan was entirely brought about for economic reasons and to benefit US corporations who had supported the Bush Administration(s) by letting them rake in some of the missing billions of dollars spent in Iraq, or test weapon systems, or for a myriad of other reasons. We may learn enough about the Extraordinary Renditions program and use of torture that the people of that future environment agree that the US was an Evil entity at the time - not the people, but elements of the ruling elite (Government, Corporate, 1% whatever you want).
Or just the opposite could happen as far as history is concerned. Probably the biggest deciding factor will be who writes the history - i.e. the dominant culture/country of the time.
As for the Germans in WWII, many if not the majority of them were not aware of what was being done in the extermination camps. I am sure they knew that Jews were being taken away wholesale, but I imagine many thought they were being taken to "labour camps" as was promulgated at the time. Not everyone was a Nazi supporter, and its a shame we have to demonize the entire nation for the actions of its vile government (which were truly evil no question). We should never forget what happened there, but we should also try to understand it. Demonizing all Germans of the time does not help understanding.
Likewise the demonization of all Muslims for the actions of a small percentage. It will not help in the end to alienate 1 billion+ people because it serves the interests of the government in power to focus the population's attention on a foreign threat just so its easier to get elected.
Re: (Score:2)
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 s
Re: (Score:2)
German special police units
The Gestapo?
Re: (Score:2)
German special police units
The Gestapo?
No, the Gestapo were different. These groups weren't secret police, and as far as I can remember they weren't affiliated with the SS. If I remember correctly, they were either more of a civilian group, or police. Maybe a gendarmerie. But it was definitely not the Gestapo, or SS, or any of the commonly known Nazi groups.
Re: (Score:3)
This write-up shows your extreme lack of understanding of both war and humanity. We, as humans, compete for resources chiefly on various organizational (read: tribal) levels. War is the chief way of doing that. Eliminating or enslaving civilian population has always been the key to winning wars, because civilian population is where soldiers and resources for any oppositions are raised from. Hell, one of the reasons why West (and by extension Soviets) can't win a war in dirty third world countries in over ha
BF1942 simulated German soliders too... (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
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... (Score:4, Interesting)
interesting would be how they pitch a game that in the end you lose, no matter what.
What do you think happens in war? End the end, no matter what, you lose (particularly for the kinds of people you play in these video games, the front line grunts). Your friends are dead. You might be wounded. If you aren't, then you are certainly going to be plagued by nightmares of some kind (whether reliving your friends dying, or seeing the faces of those you had to kill), as well as other emotional trauma. You've lost several years of what would be the best, most productive years of your life. Your country has spent millions, if not billions of dollars, and your or someone else's country has suffered a large amount of damage.
I play these war games all the time, I enjoy them a lot. But I worry that games such as these desensitize people to war. I personally think war is a legitimate and useful tool of statecraft, but should be used sparingly, and never lightly. To quote a man that was a hero and great man in every sense of the word (he loved his country, the land of his birth, his family, and the men he commmanded): "It is good that war should be so terrible, lest we grow too fond of it." Sometimes, I feel like we have forgotten how terrible it is, partly due to games such as these, and partly because soldiers have in a way become domestic political tools.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The Russian campaign in CoD1 had similar moments. The river crossing with the boats near you getting sunk by artillery; the guy in your boat who jumps to the water and gets killed by his own officials; reaching the battle field and receiving only 5 bullets and no gun; or the guys near you getting hit by machine guns while you desperately try to find some dead man's rifle.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Not surprising... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Not surprising... (Score:5, Insightful)
Personally, I'd love to play a game about the United States from a Chinese perspective. It would probably be hysterical...
I have actually always wanted to play a WW2 game from the perspective of the Germans. Imagine sitting on the beach on Normandy watching thousands of ships headed towards you, or the chaos of having troops dropping out of the sky at night randomly, and not knowing when you will run into an enemy patrol. Or moving into Russia, fighting on the outskirts of Stalingrad, then having to fight your way out before you are cut off and doomed to be captured (of which only about 5,000 out of around 100,00 ever made it back to Germany, the rest died in captivity). Finally defending Berlin as it is slowly overrun by the Russians. It could be done well, and done tastefully, without touching on all of the Holocaust stuff and other atrocities (of course, when CoD:WaW came out, no one made a fuss about playing as the Russians, even though they murdered thousands of German and other civilians, as well as working to death thousands more German POWs), but of course there would still be a huge controversy. A shame really, a game like that could actually have some really powerful moments to it.
KH2002 License (Score:5, Interesting)
I want to know if EA/DICE paid money to the Iranian government.
All weapons appearing in the game (sp and mp) are licensed, meaning the owners got paid for permission to use the guns likeness. The KH2002 is a bullpup assault rifle designed and produced by the (government run ) Iranian defense industry which appears in the game as a usable weapon. Who did EA/DICE pay to license this gun? Is this in violation of any embargo, considering there is a complete ban on any weapons exports (presumably including designs) from Iran?
Re: (Score:2)
Better question: Is licensing gun likenesses and other "IP" something EA even cares about, unless it's that of their games?
Matros was probably lying about MP5 license (Score:2)
The horse's mouth: http://twitter.com/#!/zh1nt0/status/137569596440973313 [twitter.com]
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]
Re: (Score:2)
This tweet was likely just a lying excuse for why they left the MP5 out of the game.
I find that comment bizarre - how could anyone care whether some particular gun was in the game or not? Was the in-game gun controversial or overpowered or somesuch in BF2? Are there really MP5 fanboys out there? It boggles the mind.
Re: (Score:2)
they want the same guns in the game as they have as their airsoft guns.
(wacko dicks)
Re: (Score:2)
I find that comment bizarre - how could anyone care whether some particular gun was in the game or not? Was the in-game gun controversial or overpowered or somesuch in BF2? Are there really MP5 fanboys out there? It boggles the mind.
The original tweet [twitter.com] linked to above and held up as a source indicates that DICE licenses the guns in BF3. That response was prompted by the following question addressed to Matros:
@zh1nt0 Hi will it be possible to add Mp5 in with current game after B2K DLC comes out? Mp5 is my favorite weapon of all time.
Re: (Score:2)
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? (Score:2)
All weapons appearing in the game (sp and mp) are licensed
Oh really? Can you provide a source on that?
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed, if I've noticed anything about affiliation and licensing it's that many Western military games are happy to license from companies like Boeing, Lockheed and such for their aircraft, but that you rarely see guns like the AK-47 licensed.
It's a classic example of the hypocrisy of American IP enforcement - everything American or to a lesser extent, Western must be licensed for use, but if it's something Iranian, Chinese, or Russian? Meh, just stick it in, who cares about licensing from them.
I'd be supri
Why Ban it For That? (Score:5, Funny)
"So... Ahmed... I see you lost in Battlefield on defense of Tehran... Why do you hate Iran, Ahmed?"
what about a bundle with (Score:2)
BF3 and MW3 where the NYC, Berlin and Paris are bombed to shit by the Russians?
Think of all od that lost revenue (Score:2)
They may have lost tens or even a hundred dollars.
On the other hand Iran probably gave EA enough free pub to make it a net gain 10x over.
I wrote a book... (Score:2)
I wrote a book where the heroes are Chinese and Iranians (and one EU member from Belgium), shameless link-whoring here [lacunaverse.com].
Would this book be banned in Iran? Or lauded? I wonder what they think of it...
Moot Point (Score:2)
EA is an American company. The US currently does not allow exports of most things to Iran, including software, and doing so may qualify as a capital offense (treason). Iranian residents were unlikely to purchase BF3 regardless of how the Iranian gov't decided.
Re: (Score:2)
EA is an American company. The US currently does not allow exports of most things to Iran, including software, and doing so may qualify as a capital offense (treason). Iranian residents were unlikely to purchase BF3 regardless of how the Iranian gov't decided.
Not just that, the hardware to run it (PC or console) is not exportable to Iran either (officially)
Re:Why ban it? (Score:5, Insightful)
Americans already consider _real_ war to be a game.
Maybe the Americans you hang out with, chief. There are plenty who have seen it first-hand who think otherwise.
Re: (Score:2)
To take it to a more abstract level, there were psychology studies carried out, that discovered that when the person(s) you are harming are remote and impersonal, the ease of pressing the trigger fast approaches that of a video game.
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7387332n [cbsnews.com]
Re: (Score:2)
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...
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
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)
Re:lawl (Score:4)
Oh no! They're missing a great opportunity to be called gay by 12 year olds on the internet! And single player is shit (except visuals).
There's the reason it was banned, there are no gays in Iran so how can anyone be called gay.
Perfectly logical, right? In all seriousness, oppressive Mid-East government bans popular western game. Not news. I wonder if I can get BF3 in other ME nations with strict religious governments, like Saudi Arabia.
Re: (Score:2)
Just ignore your score.
There are very many of us that read at -1 and I for one appreciate any constructive input to a story.