PLA Develops First Person Shooter With US Troops as Targets 395
An anonymous reader tipped us to a People's Daily story about the (Chinese) People's Liberation Army's new shoot-em-up game with US soldiers as targets, and that story led us to a more complete description of the Glorious Revolution game at the Daily Mail, which includes a nice video (in Chinese, of course) toward the bottom of the article that shows how the game looks in action.
We are their enemy (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:BUT DO MUSLIMS IN ME HAVE PCS ?? (Score:2, Interesting)
i always complain about false equivalency (Score:2, Interesting)
i always complain about false equivalency morons posting on slashdot and elsewhere. you know, the morons who say "but the u.s.a..." whenever the issue of chinese internet censorship or human rights violations comes up. even though chinese internet censorship and human rights violations are genuinely orders of magnitude worse than in the west. not that the false equivalency morons can see that. whether out of intellectual dishonesty or genuine stupidity, who knows
but this is entertainment, not government policy
as such, it is innocuous and without consequence. frankly: who fucking cares if the chinese shoot westerners in their video games. no, really, who fucking cares?
why is this fact important or even surprising to you? the west makes plenty of games and movies with the red chinese as fair game for military adventurism. therefore, it is entirely fair for the red chinese to make video games and movies with westerners as fair game for military adventurism. no big fucking deal. a big yawn
in other words, true equivalency
don't be hypocritical, westerners, by expecting those you demonize not to demonize you in turn. turnaround is fair play
Re:Is it Really US Troops? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:So what? (Score:3, Interesting)
DISCLAIMER: I make a distinction between governments and populations.
Re:Not surprising (Score:5, Interesting)
So did the game developed by the US Army feature chinese and russian enemies?
Of the article is accurate, this game wasn't developed by some third party but was developed by the PLA.
Seems a bit revealing to me.
And folks tell me I'm wrong when I say there will be a significant war with china in the next 50 years. But this is how things start. The chinese have a fairly enormous racial superiority complex laid over a deep inferiority complex due to the 1800's and early 1900's. That kind of thing can boil over in a bad way.
The best thing to happen will be to get them away from the racially pure meme they are nursing. That kind of belief has lead to bad things very reliably over the last several hundred years.
Re:Not surprising (Score:5, Interesting)
I fear a Sino-American war, and hope it doesn't happen. However, there are a lot of things that worry me:
1: Two countries, one set of resources. Almost always, this is what wars end up being fought over.
2: China's nationalism. Race is second, because there are a lot of races in China.
3: Revenge, especially of what Japan did to them last century.
I just hope old hatreds can be set aside, people here in the US start using nuclear power as opposed to fighting over dino juice, and that both countries get some wisdom of their own that trading is a lot better than chucking ICBMs.
China is also going through a cultural renaissance. Now that people can do art and music without being lined against a wall and shot (like in Mao's time), people there are more interested in education and developing their economy as opposed to military gains.
I cross my fingers -- in a lot of ways, China is a command economy, but it isn't an extreme country (now that the nuts like Mao are cozily dead), nor is it one that would sacrifice its children for religious dogma meaninglessly. I just hope it stays that way.
Re:i always complain about false equivalency (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Not surprising (Score:2, Interesting)
1. The events are set so long ago that not only does the side no longer exist, but nor do any direct successors. Eg, AoM you get to fight against ancient greece, ancient egypt.
2. The enemy is of a side so loathed that even the country of origin has condemned their action. The uberexample here are the Nazis - you can shoot them all you want without Germany making a fuss. This could also apply to, say, fighting the Confederacy in the American Civil War, but I can't think of any games that use that one.
If you defy these rules, then you can expect a bit of political fallout. Angry letters, a strongly-worded condemnation from the affected government, the banning of the game in some countries. On the plus side, it'll grab headlines, which means more publicity and thus sales.
Re:Not surprising (Score:4, Interesting)
USA (Score:4, Interesting)
U.S.A. government, http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D000033404&year=2009 [opensecrets.org]
Or we can look up BSA or other "not for profit" orgs they use to buy the government with.
Re:Not surprising (Score:2, Interesting)
No, actually, most of them became the Han. Chinese history plays like a broken record: the Chinese do really well and grow rich, then grow lazy, then get invaded by outsiders. The outsiders live in tents and wear furs and eat yak meat for a few decades, but pretty soon the palaces and fancy clothes and delicious food start to seem pretty sweet. They learn Chinese language and history and literature and whatnot, and before you know it they're calling themselves Han.
Seriously, major Chinese dynasties that were started by non-Chinese (or borderline, yokel Chinese): the Qin (from whence comes the name 'China'), the Sui, the Tang, the Yuan, and the Qing. Those are only the major, China-wide dynasties; there were also the Jin, the Liao, etc, that just controlled major parts of China at some point or other.
Being 'Han', to a Chinese person, means more or less being 'Chinese'. Certainly, that's always the way it was. There were never really 'a lot of races' in China in the sense that you mean.
The flip side of that is that calling yourself something other than Han was kind of rebellious. And yeah, groups that did that had a tendency to vanish.