Battlefield 4 Banned In China 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."
Re:Not the first time (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Americans surrendered in Vietnam (Score:5, Informative)
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 (Score:3, Informative)
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 (Score:3, Informative)
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 (Score:5, Informative)
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:What about Russia and U.S.? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:What about Russia and U.S.? (Score:5, Informative)
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:Americans surrendered in Vietnam (Score:5, Informative)
If you're refering to WW2, they didn't surrender immediately. They were one of the first to declare war on Germany after the unprovoked German invasion of Poland. True, their government surrended soon after - but even then much of the french military defied the order and continued fighting, simply joining forces with whichever local allied power would accept their aid. Their civilian resistance effort also went down in legend - a campaign of intelligence gathering, covert communication and outright sabotage that significently hindered German efforts to transport troops and material through the country and brought vital information to the allies.
Their surrender, though quick, was not given easily: It was only forced by a series of catastropic strategic defeats. It was only when the German army was standing at the fringe of a defenceless Paris that the surrender was hastily given, with government leaders fearful of the immense loss of civilian lives (Not to mention their own) should the capital be attacked.
Re:Americans surrendered in Vietnam (Score:2, Informative)
Communists have the unique distinction of killing approximately 100,000,000 people [harvard.edu] in the last century. Revolution, class warfare, and the extermination of class and state enemies are a pattern repeatedly demonstrated in communist rule, often followed by attempts to export the revolution to other places. It is built into the ideology.
The Soviet Story [sovietstory.com] is informative. - Excerpts [youtube.com]
When a kinder, gentler communism arises, a "socialism with a human face [coldwar.org]," the brotherly "socialist," i.e. communist, nations invade to set things straight.
Re:First Shot (Score:4, Informative)
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.
They already did. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sid_Meier's_Gettysburg [wikipedia.org]!
At least twice. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sid_Meier's_Antietam [wikipedia.org]!
Re:Americans surrendered in Vietnam (Score:2, Informative)
In 1973 the US did aid South Vietnam. In 1975 the Democrats in congress sold American allies down the river, banning even medical supplies for them. They almost did it again in Iraq in 2007. The Democratic party earned the mistrust of the American people on national security matters for a reason.
Re:First Shot (Score:4, Informative)
"Battlefield 4's single-player Campaign takes place in 2020, six years after the events of its predecessor. Tensions between Russia and the United States have been running at a record high. On top of this, China is also on the brink of war, as Admiral Chang, the main antagonist, plans to overthrow China's current government. If he succeeds, Chang will have full support from the Russians, bringing China to the brink of war with the United States." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battlefield_4#Setting_and_characters [wikipedia.org]
Re:Americans surrendered in Vietnam (Score:4, Informative)
Communists have the unique distinction of killing approximately 100,000,000 people [harvard.edu] in the last century.
Quoting "The black book of communism"? Really? That books is considered a joke by many scholars, lets say that it is at least controversial [wikipedia.org]. Even if you argue 100mil victims of communist regimes, you can hardly say that it is a "unique distinction". Capitalism has killed much more, fasism has had its share too. It is a mute arguement. If you want to argue against communism/capitalism/fasism, etc, at least do it with some serious arguments like the economics, liberties, their feasibility, which system is more just, etc.
Re:First Shot (Score:5, Informative)
Wow, what sort of imaginary Chinese history have you been reading. How do you think China gained such a large empire, if not through conquest? They've been ruthless, both historically and present day, in using whatever violence necessary to suppress any sort of cultural dissent. We take some shit in the US because we still have the death penalty, but China has purpose-built mobile execution vans, because there are just too many executions to perform from a few central locations.
Yes the British did some nasty things over a hundred years ago. That's a pathetic excuse to justify China's modern brutal oppression.
Re:Americans surrendered in Vietnam (Score:4, Informative)
That the French surrendered immediately is the largest bs imaginable.
They asked for an armistice the much larger Germany after over a month of brutal fighting, after they lost 360 000 soldiers (excluding prisoners) and over 2000 planes (although some of them were British).
After their army had been destroyed (for various reasons but cowardice wasn't one of them), after their logistics had been damaged beyond repair.
In that one month almost as many French soldiers were killed or wounded as the Americans during the entire ww2.
Those soldiers didn't die because of wine overdose. Those planes didn't rust on the ground.
They killed or wounded over 150000 Germans, destroyed over 1000 German planes. Just in that one month. Not bad for the first years of the WW2. They certainly were better and more effective fighters than the Soviet soldiers in the first months of Barbarossa.
During the Great War they almost single handedly hold up the Germans for years for the price of millions killed or maimed.
Please don't spread that bs, it was the staple of the Nazi propaganda in the occupied territories, and later of the Soviet propaganda in the Warsaw pact countries.
In the 1940 France was fighting as courageously as any other nation. The later defeat looked as bad as any defeat: in Philippines, at Smolensk or Stalingrad - because it was a defeat, not because they were Frenchmen.
And I'm not a Frenchman, never even been there too.
Re:Americans surrendered in Vietnam (Score:4, Informative)
Well, both were political decisions and nothing wrong with them.
The US left Vietnam because the fight there was more and more pointless. But certainly it wasn't a sign of weakness. After all the American intercontinental missiles were as deadly and accurate as ever.
They lost a battle but the simultaneous detente with China showed the Soviets their place.
A battle was lost but shortly afterward the Soviets were losing one political battle after another anyway.
France still existed after the armistice, and both the UK and the US were maintaining friendly relations with her.
There is nothing wrong with admitting defeat after a good fight. France asked for an armistice after the best French armies were destroyed, after the fight had become pointless, after the defence of her territory and the civilian population wasn't possible anymore.
Exactly as the American soldiers during the battle of Chosin Reservoir.
Maybe it was a mistake but it was their mistake.
But the small France (in comparison with Germany) and millions of her fallen soldiers in both wars don't deserve the "one french rifle never fired, only dropped once" treatment.
The destroyed German planes weren't available over London a few months later.
The first class, prewar trained German soldiers, the destroyed - by the French or simply by wear and tear equipment weren't available in Russia.
Among them the thirteen most modern German Panzer IIIs and Panzer IVs, destroyed in minutes during the battle of Stonne by a single French tank commanded by captain Pierre Billotte - despite being hit by 140 antitank rounds.