Pakistan Boycotting Call of Duty, Medal of Honor Games 220
An anonymous reader writes "As first-person shooters have evolved, they've transitioned from using Nazis as the bad guys to more modern organizations, such as the Taliban. Two recent games, Call of Duty: Black Ops II and Medal of Honor: Warfighter, have both shown the country of Pakistan in a very negative light, and now shopkeepers in the country are beginning to boycott the games. 'Saleem Memon, president of the All Pakistan CD, DVD, Audio Casette Traders and Manufacturers Association, said he had written to members ordering them not to stock the controversial games after receiving dozens of complaints. ... The latest installment of the Medal of Honor series opens with American Navy Seals coming ashore in Karachi docks on a mission to destroy a black market arms shipment. But when their detonation sets off a second, bigger explosion they realize they have stumbled on a much bigger terrorist plot, sparking a global manhunt. A chaotic car chase through the city follows amid warnings that the ISI — Pakistan's intelligence agency — is on the way. Mr. Memon added there was a danger children would be brainwashed into thinking foreign agents were at war inside Karachi, possibly leading them into the arms of militants. "These games show a misleading idea of what is happening in the city. You don't get the CIA all the way through Grand Theft Auto," he said.'"
So I hear India's population is 1,2 Billion (Score:2, Interesting)
Surely some of them have a taste for and can afford these games.
Even if India's censorship is just as asinine sometimes, I can totally see them giving any game that paints Pakistan in a bad light a pass.
best approach (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Can you blame them? (Score:4, Interesting)
Except for the issue that no game company would do something so controversial, and even if one had the balls, no publisher would touch it with a hundred foot pole. We can't even let kids die in video games. You really think a game about being a terrorist would actually get publishing deals?
Shit would be all over the news how we're training kids to be terrorists and there would be all sorts of lobbying for it to get banned.
It would be a goddamn nightmare.
Re:Can you blame them? (Score:4, Interesting)
America gets destroyed in every other movie and nobody gets worked up because of it.
Re:Really? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Cool story (Score:4, Interesting)
Completely incorrect. There is nothing the US has or has not done that causes jihadis to hate you. Same with Israel. It is core to Islamic doctrine to hate and subjugate all non-believers. It is a mistake to think it is for any other reason. The other thing is the Arab and Islamic culture respect strength. If you are willing to compromise it shows weakness which they will push to exploit. The only way to earn respect is through strength and fighting at an intense pace that the jihadis can't match. That is the lesson Israel has learned the hard way. There is no quid-pro-quo with jihadi organizations. You can concede but all you get is 'hudna', a temporary respite while they gather strength preparing for the next attack. If you are weak you will not be offered hudna, jihadis take the weak down without remorse. Look at the slaughter of Lebanon. Your statements are nice in theory but just do not match the historical record or reality. There is no compromise with jihadis. Either you win decisively, or they win and you are extinguished. Winding down your offensive means looks like you are losing to jihadis and it emboldens more recruits. So your uninformed guesses about 'inflaming' the locals is wrong and counter to history (eg. see the Sunni Awakening in Anbar where the strength and moral restraint of US forces gained respect and did more than appeasement ever would).
Nothing really? Invading Iraq and Afghanistan and installing puppet regimes doesn't count? Western powers have interfered in the Middle East for a long time causing enough for the Arab populous to hate them. After WW1, the British and French having promised Arab independence carved up the middle east leading to decades of oppression. That along with GB promising a Jewish state in Palestine, WW2 and declaration of Israel as a state. The US presence in the region came with the departure of European control leading to Soviet interest in the region. It is all this that led to islamic fundamentalism. The invasion of Kuwait led to the first invasion of Iraq and permanent US military presence in the region which Bin Laden used as a reason for 9/11. Since this point, nothing the US has done in the region has endeared them to the Arabs/Muslims. US interference in the region is driven by resources and not by the welfare of the populations. Organisations like Al Qaeda have benefited from US interference - whether it is true or not CIA funded/trained Al Qaeda directly US presence training forces in the region has allowed them access to it. Overall, the US and the West in general have done a lot for the Middle East population not just 'jihadis' as you call them to hate us. With regard to Israel, without the US backing them they would not be in the position they are in now. No longer the persecuted but now the persecutors. Without the broken promises of the West (GB to be precise), Israel would not exist (at least where it is now). You don't have a clue.
Back to the games.. the FPS modern military shooter is getting way overdone now. Don't think its a bad thing they're banning them. We should probably do the same as it would save us money as they are all the same now. Warfighter was the biggest pile of poo I have played in a long time and CoD is just the same. They should do another BF 2142 or something. That was pretty good with the mechs, pods etc.. and titan mode was great.
Re:Cool story (Score:1, Interesting)
Every once in awhile I read something from a random stranger that throws me a much needed spark of hope. It isn't a video game and we're not 'winning'. We're playing into the [insert your favorite label here]'s hands. We're spending tons of money to make a whole bunch of people in one group scared and a whole bunch of people in another group sympathetic to the [insert your favorite label here] cause by killing their [insert your favorite label here] relative, acquaintance or countryman. It is indeed reasonable to question the wisdom of the approach.
Re:Well gee - who is responsible for the most murd (Score:4, Interesting)
It has nothing to do with the "most" people, trollboy.
Bin Laden isn't a war criminal for targeting the Pentagon in and of itself, that's a valid military objective. He's a war criminal for targeting the Towers, and using 747s full of civilians to do it, deliberately, deliberately killing thousands of civilian innocents in the process. Bush did not target civilians, period. The US tries to avoid collateral damage - one reason we spent so much damn $$ on smart bombs and laser guided munitions. It'd be a lot cheaper and less risky to just carpet bomb with traditional bombs, if that's what the US really wanted.