UK counter-terrorism unit demands Steam withdraw controversial shooter from sale(eurogamer.net)
eurogamer.net
UK counter-terrorism unit demands Steam withdraw controversial shooter from sale
https://www.eurogamer.net/uk-counter-terrorism-unit-demands-steam-withdraw-controversial-shooter-from-sale
112 comments
Here's quick summary:
- game exists (similar to it's current form) since 2022. No civilians. Military styled players. Israeli–Palestinian conflict.
- no one bats an eye
- developer adds a cut-scene of a military styled player paragliding into a base
- everyone looses their mind
- game exists (similar to it's current form) since 2022. No civilians. Military styled players. Israeli–Palestinian conflict.
- no one bats an eye
- developer adds a cut-scene of a military styled player paragliding into a base
- everyone looses their mind
> "I do not blame Valve nor Steam, the blame is on the UK government and authorities that are pissed off by a video game," Nijm said. "On their flawed logic, the most recent Call of Duty Black Ops 6 should be banned as well. As you play as an American soldier and go to Iraq to kill Iraqi people. What I can say is that we see clearly the double standards."
Love him or hate him, he does make a principled point.
Love him or hate him, he does make a principled point.
Also, call of duty had and has ties with the army that sees is as a potential recruitment tool. [1]
Furthermore, in one call of duty a real event was narrated - although if in a fictional scenario - as if it was made by Russians [2], while in real life it was a us led attack on civilians, prisoners, and non fighting combatants. Google highway of death
Another article that has a broader view on the history of how defense and entertainment sector have ties [3]
[1] https://gamerant.com/call-duty-modern-warfare-recruitment-to... [2] https://www.newsweek.com/call-duty-modern-warfare-highway-de... [3] https://www.thenation.com/article/society/call-of-duty-penta...
Furthermore, in one call of duty a real event was narrated - although if in a fictional scenario - as if it was made by Russians [2], while in real life it was a us led attack on civilians, prisoners, and non fighting combatants. Google highway of death
Another article that has a broader view on the history of how defense and entertainment sector have ties [3]
[1] https://gamerant.com/call-duty-modern-warfare-recruitment-to... [2] https://www.newsweek.com/call-duty-modern-warfare-highway-de... [3] https://www.thenation.com/article/society/call-of-duty-penta...
> while in real life it was a us led attack on civilians, prisoners, and non fighting combatants. Google highway of death
What COD did to this scene was reprehensible, but it's also important to understand the context for the real attack. The Highway of Death that happened in real life was a targeted strike on Saddam Hussein's retreating forces, most of whom were legitimate targets of war. At the time, Iraq sponsored the 4th largest military in the world, was being bombed in Baghdad, and most of their allies were starting to turn on them over outstanding debts. This pressure pushed Saddam to invade Kuwait, and Saddam's actions pushed the US to destroy as much Iraqi materiel as they could possibly damage.
The attack did happen on a civilian road, but only after the locals became aware that the highway was being used by Saddam's forces. The controversy mostly stems from attacks on a retreating force and the scale of the destruction, both of which are still up for debate on their effectiveness.
What COD did to this scene was reprehensible, but it's also important to understand the context for the real attack. The Highway of Death that happened in real life was a targeted strike on Saddam Hussein's retreating forces, most of whom were legitimate targets of war. At the time, Iraq sponsored the 4th largest military in the world, was being bombed in Baghdad, and most of their allies were starting to turn on them over outstanding debts. This pressure pushed Saddam to invade Kuwait, and Saddam's actions pushed the US to destroy as much Iraqi materiel as they could possibly damage.
The attack did happen on a civilian road, but only after the locals became aware that the highway was being used by Saddam's forces. The controversy mostly stems from attacks on a retreating force and the scale of the destruction, both of which are still up for debate on their effectiveness.
I literally played the 'Highway of Death' CoD:MW 2019 mission last night (before it crashed and I called it a night).
That game has no self-awareness at all. US good, Russians bad, must kill bearded brown people.
That game has no self-awareness at all. US good, Russians bad, must kill bearded brown people.
See also the last 25 years of cop/crime shows
[deleted]
The UK ban is taking care of UK interestst. I don't think anyone would be surprised if Iraq would request a ban on BO6 in Iraq.
Sure, if you admit that the information and the entertainment available in one's country should align with that country "interests", then there is no doubt about it. However the West markets itself exactly as the place where such thing doesn't happen, so that's where the problem lies.
The marketing and the reality are somewhat different. Ignoring the fact that “the west” isn’t one political regime, it is about balance. While the US prides itself in allowing people to run around cosplaying as nazis under the guise of freedom, other countries consider that to be offensive and would legislate against it.
It’s a wide spectrum. Any extreme of censorship and a complete lack of censorship and control will quickly lead to the decline of society. Nuance is where everything is. No absolutes.
It’s a wide spectrum. Any extreme of censorship and a complete lack of censorship and control will quickly lead to the decline of society. Nuance is where everything is. No absolutes.
I think the terrorist organisation Hamas shouldn't have a platform anywhere.
Not the West, just the US. Free speech outside of the US isn’t really a thing. The UK in particular has been very aggressive in censoring speech recently.
Oh, Here we go again.
“How can West call itself freedom of speech if I can’t even spew nazi crap, dress as a terrorist or offend women and minorities?!”
“How can West call itself freedom of speech if I can’t even spew nazi crap, dress as a terrorist or offend women and minorities?!”
So, should the UK be considered to be on the same level as Iraq for freedom of expression now, or?
Have you taken a look at some of the draconian speech laws that the UK has passed? They are definitely on the same level as Iraq or even Iran.
This is utter hyperbole. The kind of rhetoric stirred up by Musk et al, but not even remotely true.
Might want to get your information from somewhere credible.
Such as?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_the_United_Kin...
I know Google is hard but you can just look for yourself.
I know Google is hard but you can just look for yourself.
Well they recently arrested a jewish son of holocaust survivors for hate speech after he denounced Israel as behaving in a genocidal manner: https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/uk-police-arrest-israeli-...
As I understand it, he was making a pro-Hamas speech (not pro-Palestine). Hamas is a proscribed terrorist organisation in the UK.
The UK had a particular problem with preacher Anjem Choudary [1] indoctrinating followers to be militant islamists. He is reckoned to the be linked to up to 40% of terrorist incidents in the UK (including the 7/7 attacks in London).
Following this period the anti-terror laws were made stronger and "inviting support for a proscribed organisation" became illegal. Presumably that means recruiting either directly or indirectly through speeches.
So, I can understand how this happened. But your summary really only belies your bias I'm afraid, this: "arrested a jewish son of holocaust survivors for hate speech after he denounced Israel as behaving in a genocidal manner" isn't true. Even the article you link states that he was arrested for inviting support for a proscribed organisation. He wasn't arrested for denouncing Israel as behaving in a genocidal manner.
The issue is very emotive and charged. I am not taking sides. But it's often the case that whenever anyone falls foul of laws, that have been designed to protect the people of the UK, either directly from abuse because of who they are, or indirectly via terror, then those affected complain about a lack of freedom of expression.
It seems they didn't charge him, so maybe the police overreached in this instance. I haven't seen the speech, so I can't comment, and certainly I wouldn't defend the UK police as they could certainly do with some reform. But, it's also possible that this was quite a difficult tightrope for the police to walk in terms of the law.
Some of these laws may seem draconian, but the people of this country who are not racially abusing people, or targeting people because of their sexual orientation, or gender, or inviting support for a proscribed terrorist organisation (which is 99.999% of us), will never fall foul of this legislation.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anjem_Choudary
The UK had a particular problem with preacher Anjem Choudary [1] indoctrinating followers to be militant islamists. He is reckoned to the be linked to up to 40% of terrorist incidents in the UK (including the 7/7 attacks in London).
Following this period the anti-terror laws were made stronger and "inviting support for a proscribed organisation" became illegal. Presumably that means recruiting either directly or indirectly through speeches.
So, I can understand how this happened. But your summary really only belies your bias I'm afraid, this: "arrested a jewish son of holocaust survivors for hate speech after he denounced Israel as behaving in a genocidal manner" isn't true. Even the article you link states that he was arrested for inviting support for a proscribed organisation. He wasn't arrested for denouncing Israel as behaving in a genocidal manner.
The issue is very emotive and charged. I am not taking sides. But it's often the case that whenever anyone falls foul of laws, that have been designed to protect the people of the UK, either directly from abuse because of who they are, or indirectly via terror, then those affected complain about a lack of freedom of expression.
It seems they didn't charge him, so maybe the police overreached in this instance. I haven't seen the speech, so I can't comment, and certainly I wouldn't defend the UK police as they could certainly do with some reform. But, it's also possible that this was quite a difficult tightrope for the police to walk in terms of the law.
Some of these laws may seem draconian, but the people of this country who are not racially abusing people, or targeting people because of their sexual orientation, or gender, or inviting support for a proscribed terrorist organisation (which is 99.999% of us), will never fall foul of this legislation.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anjem_Choudary
The UK has never, at any point in its long history, hidden its authoritarian tendencies.
How does that follow? The main problem with freedom of expression in Iraq isn’t the censorship of video games that include actions against Iraq. If that was the only censorship in Iraq, the UK and Iraq would be on the same level.
Neither follows. Of course the UK is nowhere near Iraq in terms of censorship. Yet, here the UK prescribes to their standards on grounds just as hollow.
Think about what makes this case different, why it was treated as such, and what the motivations were (Hint: Not related to counter-terrorism).
Think about what makes this case different, why it was treated as such, and what the motivations were (Hint: Not related to counter-terrorism).
UK is turning into Oceania. Police are knocking on people's doors for tweets. And in a way in Iraq chances are you will have greater freedom of expression because the state capacity is low. UK can enforce shit.
Tweets inciting violence and hate crimes. Which led to actual riots and attempts at lynching of immigrants.
"Non crime hate incidents" too. Ie not crimes but they still found themselves bored with enough resources...
If you’re referring to the faux outrage whipped up by Daily Telegraph ‘journalist’ Alison Pearson, then that too isn’t accurate [1]. A member of the public reported a crime (inciting racial hatred), the police followed up on that, as is their duty.
She lied to suit her own divisive narrative.
Free speech absolutionists are whipping up fervour with divisive rhetoric. It’s as simple as that. In the UK we have free speech rights but also responsibilities. That’s how it should be. Unfettered free speech without a thought to the public and social consequences is reckless imho.
For those that care for facts rather than the divisive rhetoric of twitter: this is a decent overview of the freedom of expression rights and responsibilities in the UK [2]
"In contrast, freedom of speech does not protect statements that discriminate against or harass, or incite hatred or violence against, other persons and groups, particularly by reference to their race, religious belief, gender or sexual orientation. In the UK, this includes laws specifically designed to protect people from suffering abuse on account of who they are."
[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cev9nxnygzpo
[2] https://www.lawble.co.uk/freedom-of-speech/
She lied to suit her own divisive narrative.
Free speech absolutionists are whipping up fervour with divisive rhetoric. It’s as simple as that. In the UK we have free speech rights but also responsibilities. That’s how it should be. Unfettered free speech without a thought to the public and social consequences is reckless imho.
For those that care for facts rather than the divisive rhetoric of twitter: this is a decent overview of the freedom of expression rights and responsibilities in the UK [2]
"In contrast, freedom of speech does not protect statements that discriminate against or harass, or incite hatred or violence against, other persons and groups, particularly by reference to their race, religious belief, gender or sexual orientation. In the UK, this includes laws specifically designed to protect people from suffering abuse on account of who they are."
[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cev9nxnygzpo
[2] https://www.lawble.co.uk/freedom-of-speech/
No, I'm not. I don't read the Daily Mail. Are you trying to imply that was just one case and police don't spend time on them at all?
"My Lords, so-called non-crime hate incidents may have been introduced for perfectly good reasons after the Macpherson inquiry, but last year the police recorded more than 13,000, including some against schoolchildren and others for utterly absurd reasons—I myself was investigated for calling Hamas Islamists" [0]
Essex police foi response demonstrating resources spent on hate incidents https://www.essex.police.uk/foi-ai/essex-police/other-inform...
Ditto met police https://www.met.police.uk/foi-ai/metropolitan-police/disclos...
[0] https://hansard.parliament.uk/Lords/2024-11-19/debates/0DE7E...
"My Lords, so-called non-crime hate incidents may have been introduced for perfectly good reasons after the Macpherson inquiry, but last year the police recorded more than 13,000, including some against schoolchildren and others for utterly absurd reasons—I myself was investigated for calling Hamas Islamists" [0]
Essex police foi response demonstrating resources spent on hate incidents https://www.essex.police.uk/foi-ai/essex-police/other-inform...
Ditto met police https://www.met.police.uk/foi-ai/metropolitan-police/disclos...
[0] https://hansard.parliament.uk/Lords/2024-11-19/debates/0DE7E...
Incite conflict and spew hate speech? Good riddance, if you ask me.
No one has been specifically prosecuted for speech as far as I am aware of. The individuals locked up were quoted as being prosecuted for speech by less than accurate media and were persistent offenders and violated their release or suspended sentence terms.
Britain hasn't had a sovereign interest in the Levant for over a century. Their citizens deserve access to uncensored media to form their own opinions, even if the media is satire that would make Matt Stone and Trey Parker blush.
Pedantry: Cyprus is in the levant, and the UK has two sovereign areas there.
I think we can probably make do without a game that glorifies the 7th of October massacre. Or any as a matter of fact.
I mean I pretty much made my mind up about that one already. It didn’t take a lot of effort.
I mean I pretty much made my mind up about that one already. It didn’t take a lot of effort.
"I think we can probably make do without a game that glorifies the 7th of October massacre. Or any as a matter of fact."
The developer of the game is complaining about a double standard. Given the fact that we have shooter games glorifying some abhorrent us activities, and we are okay with that, we do have a double standard. We could discuss for ages whether it's wrong or right, but we can't hide behind "oh no it's a terrible thing" because we have been representing terrible things since decades, but this time apparently it's bad because it's not our faction doing the funny (it's not so funny anymore, isn't it?)
The developer of the game is complaining about a double standard. Given the fact that we have shooter games glorifying some abhorrent us activities, and we are okay with that, we do have a double standard. We could discuss for ages whether it's wrong or right, but we can't hide behind "oh no it's a terrible thing" because we have been representing terrible things since decades, but this time apparently it's bad because it's not our faction doing the funny (it's not so funny anymore, isn't it?)
Double standards happen in international politics. Things are regional and promoting certain events are considered a security threat as it’s not exactly as if there isn’t a problem with terrorism from radicalised Islam in the UK.
Also worth noting that the content of this is considered distasteful among the Muslim community here as well. It makes them look bad too.
Stuff like this sows the seeds of division between the communities.
Also worth noting that the content of this is considered distasteful among the Muslim community here as well. It makes them look bad too.
Stuff like this sows the seeds of division between the communities.
We can make do without any games. Or any books.
Yeh, not really double standards. If you banned a game because anyone got killed in it, there wouldn’t be many video games…
From what I can tell in the screenshots all the targets in this game are military. I'd be curious if that's indeed the case.
[deleted]
According to the steam description, only soldiers are killed.
It's clear they would have had to use children and not soldiers, had they made this about an Israeli soldier and not a Palestinian one (/s)
It's clear they would have had to use children and not soldiers, had they made this about an Israeli soldier and not a Palestinian one (/s)
A principle point would be going after the Brazilian army but that would get him arrested. Safe principled point?
I came in prepared to defend the game and all, but then I read the subject matter, and just walked away thinking it’s a miracle it’s available anywhere.
Sure, he’s right that that’s double standards, but still.
Sure, he’s right that that’s double standards, but still.
They added in the Oct7 attacks?! Pretty abhorrent. That being said, I'm not sure what counter-terror objective blocking this game actually has.
I just went over a year worth of updates/release summaries and nothing suggest that Oct 7 attacks were added! If it's judging by this [1]:
> The game drew the attention of terror police because it included scenes of players paragliding into an Israeli army base and killing soldiers.
That's the only connection to the Oct 7 attacks.
Also when you look at the graphics and gameplay, the 'combatants' are all in military style uniforms. Nothing even remotely suggest there are civilians involved.
[1] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/11/26/terror-polic...
> The game drew the attention of terror police because it included scenes of players paragliding into an Israeli army base and killing soldiers.
That's the only connection to the Oct 7 attacks.
Also when you look at the graphics and gameplay, the 'combatants' are all in military style uniforms. Nothing even remotely suggest there are civilians involved.
[1] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/11/26/terror-polic...
The video in their steam page starts with the October 7 scenes in-game.
Yeah, that's my point: describing military-styled persons paragliding as "October 7 scenes" is really stretching it.
Is it though? What other events might that represent, was that ever seen before?
It doesn't have to represent anything. Just as CS 747 map (CounterStrike, 747 Hijack map [1]) represents nothing, even though "we have seen that before".
[1] https://counterstrike.fandom.com/wiki/747
[1] https://counterstrike.fandom.com/wiki/747
[deleted]
"I'm not sure what counter-terror objective blocking this game actually has."
This, plus, what authority does Counter Terrorism Command over commercial enterprise in the UK?
Can any police force in the UK just arbitrarily block things for sale?
The article provides the CT comment:
"The CTIRU works closely with a range of technology, social media and online service providers, but we do not comment on specific content or any communication we may have with specific platforms or providers."
But nowhere do they state an actual law being broken, or law under which CT command can block things for sale.
I'm not a lawyer, so maybe this one is obvious, but this looks like authoritarian overreach.
This, plus, what authority does Counter Terrorism Command over commercial enterprise in the UK?
Can any police force in the UK just arbitrarily block things for sale?
The article provides the CT comment:
"The CTIRU works closely with a range of technology, social media and online service providers, but we do not comment on specific content or any communication we may have with specific platforms or providers."
But nowhere do they state an actual law being broken, or law under which CT command can block things for sale.
I'm not a lawyer, so maybe this one is obvious, but this looks like authoritarian overreach.
Sadly, authoritarian overreach is the state of the affairs in the UK. Recent "coconut" incident that got wide publicity:
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cvgwew5v4qyo
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cvgwew5v4qyo
Pretty wild guess but maybe to prevent radicalization and recruitment? If you have a game like this and get the players onto your discord, you might move over some of them to do something in real life.
Are people still seriously clinging on to the "video games cause violence" idea?
I was skeptical about whole thing, but then getting Jewish pogroms in the middle of freaking Amsterdam in 2024 wasn’t on my bingo card. Some things are better be blocked for good.
And before I get “but Counter-Strike!” - it is set in imaginary universe with made up factions.
And before I get “but Counter-Strike!” - it is set in imaginary universe with made up factions.
> pogrom: an organized massacre of a particular ethnic group
Not what happened in Amsterdam by any measure. Israelis started a row on the streets and got backslash from the local Arab population. No casualties.
Not what happened in Amsterdam by any measure. Israelis started a row on the streets and got backslash from the local Arab population. No casualties.
Even this is soft pedaling it a bit. A bunch of soccer hooligans chanting genocidal slogans got their teeth kicked in.
Completely untrue.
https://counterstrike.fandom.com/wiki/IDF
https://counterstrike.fandom.com/wiki/SEAL_Team_6 https://counterstrike.fandom.com/wiki/GSG-9 https://counterstrike.fandom.com/wiki/FBI
https://counterstrike.fandom.com/wiki/IDF
https://counterstrike.fandom.com/wiki/SEAL_Team_6 https://counterstrike.fandom.com/wiki/GSG-9 https://counterstrike.fandom.com/wiki/FBI
On T side. You’ve listed good guys.
but then getting Jewish pogroms in the middle of freaking Amsterdam in 2024
An utterly ludicrous description of the actual events.
An utterly ludicrous description of the actual events.
> I was skeptical about whole thing, but then getting Jewish pogroms in the middle of freaking Amsterdam in 2024 wasn’t on my bingo card.
Thanks for irresponsibly spreading falsehoods without any factual basis. Very cool.
Thanks for irresponsibly spreading falsehoods without any factual basis. Very cool.
A pogrom with zero casualties. What’s next, a holocaust of taunting? When a government is committing genocide, you can expect people will have strong feelings about it.
Well, at least one tram got destroyed. Maybe it was some sort of tram genocide/pogrom? Rest in peace.
You do realise the bulk of video showing packs of dark dressed soccer thugs chasing down victims were showing Israeli fans chasing local Arabs?
I'm not sure what happened where you live but here several networks apologised and withdrew their earlier reports.
https://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/episodes/amsterdam/1046153...
I'm not sure what happened where you live but here several networks apologised and withdrew their earlier reports.
https://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/episodes/amsterdam/1046153...
I dunno who this guy is, but I really like his facial expressions as he describes this stuff.
Paul Barry - very much a veteran Australian news reporter and on again off again host of Media Watch for decades - an Australian weekly short that rips into print, tv, radio, and internet media reporting across the board and takes it to task for accuracy, dodgy deals, misrepresentation, etc.
The facial expressions are great .. the weekly shows are only 20 minutes or so and still soak up the time of 10 staff or so, including KC's (King's Counsel Lawyers (top ranked in Commonwealth countries)) that donate a fair bit of time gratis to double check statements and liabilities.
They do f*ck up on occassion but it's a solid show for ripping into the (media) pricks with substance and receipts.
That segment is from the very last of Barry's hosting sadly, he's retiring after a storied career that includes being fired (and later rehired) for asking tough questions.
The facial expressions are great .. the weekly shows are only 20 minutes or so and still soak up the time of 10 staff or so, including KC's (King's Counsel Lawyers (top ranked in Commonwealth countries)) that donate a fair bit of time gratis to double check statements and liabilities.
They do f*ck up on occassion but it's a solid show for ripping into the (media) pricks with substance and receipts.
That segment is from the very last of Barry's hosting sadly, he's retiring after a storied career that includes being fired (and later rehired) for asking tough questions.
My thoughts exactly. I was thinking it maybe genuinely unfair treatment, but then I read the developer's own description of the game.
Anyone who describes their own work as 'basest of all time' is clearly going for shock value, and not as a protest, but as a selling gimmick.
I don't necessarily agree it should be banned, I just... can't think of a downside.
[deleted]
COD famously did this for the airport scene. I see these Steam indie games like standup comedy, a lot of smaller/younger devs try hard to push boundaries to get attention in a sea of thousands of generic games coming out every month. It is sometimes where good ideas come from. Or maybe another analogy is porn where there's a million niche things for everybody's perverse interests.
The point of "No Russian" is that the mass shooting was unjustified. You're an American who has infiltrated a terrorist group, and you go on a mass shooting with them to maintain your cover. Then, at the end of the mission, it's revealed that the terrorists knew you were an American, so they kill you and leave your body behind so that Russia blames the United States for the attack.
It's subversive because you think it's the typical "sometimes you have to do bad things to stop worse things from happening" plot.
But nope, committing atrocities because that's the standard of the "bad guys" is what allows terrorists to justify their existence and propagate the cycle of violence. The entire plot of the game is that individuals in the US and Russian governments use terrorism to justify even worse actions.
The game mentioned in the OP, on the other hand, portrays Palestinian liberation as requiring violence in order to match the actions of the Israeli military. The killings are not only justified but are necessary. This follows Frantz Fanon, who said:
> At the level of individuals, violence is a cleansing force. It frees the native from his inferiority complex and from his despair and inaction; it makes him fearless and restores his self-respect.
In other words, getting revenge is inherently cathartic and the solution to a violent conflict is to ensure your side performs more violence and ultimately wins. It's a very different message to Call of Duty.
It's subversive because you think it's the typical "sometimes you have to do bad things to stop worse things from happening" plot.
But nope, committing atrocities because that's the standard of the "bad guys" is what allows terrorists to justify their existence and propagate the cycle of violence. The entire plot of the game is that individuals in the US and Russian governments use terrorism to justify even worse actions.
The game mentioned in the OP, on the other hand, portrays Palestinian liberation as requiring violence in order to match the actions of the Israeli military. The killings are not only justified but are necessary. This follows Frantz Fanon, who said:
> At the level of individuals, violence is a cleansing force. It frees the native from his inferiority complex and from his despair and inaction; it makes him fearless and restores his self-respect.
In other words, getting revenge is inherently cathartic and the solution to a violent conflict is to ensure your side performs more violence and ultimately wins. It's a very different message to Call of Duty.
The game portrays violence specifically against the Israeli military, which isn't analogous to that COD campaign in any case.
The difference between this and CoD is that the government supports, advises, and might even invest in CoD. It's the right kind of killing.
> COD famously did this for the airport scene.
Wasn’t it just an intro where you play as bad guys to provide background for the conflict? The game wasn’t fully based on playing as bad guys.
Wasn’t it just an intro where you play as bad guys to provide background for the conflict? The game wasn’t fully based on playing as bad guys.
> based on playing as bad guys.
You gave it away.
You gave it away.
Whatever’s your stance on the conflict, if you include Oct 7 as a playable mission AND you continue to play as the same guy throughout the game - you’re the bad guy.
It’s one thing to create imaginary world of freedom fighter fighting against tyranny of oppressive world hegemony of certain state and it is completely different thing to include some sort of Sep 11 event and then paint it as resistance.
It’s one thing to create imaginary world of freedom fighter fighting against tyranny of oppressive world hegemony of certain state and it is completely different thing to include some sort of Sep 11 event and then paint it as resistance.
> The game wasn’t fully based on playing as bad guys.
Well yeah... COD is a giant mainstream game where that line has to be from a socially acceptable shortlist of bad guys. Yet it still included a transgressive scene that upset people with calls to remove it. I remember the news heavily covered it. Great for marketing.
This is some small Steam game where you can put together some low effort campaign in an old game engine, spin it with some controversial topic and get frontpage on social media without having to appease a wider audience.
Well yeah... COD is a giant mainstream game where that line has to be from a socially acceptable shortlist of bad guys. Yet it still included a transgressive scene that upset people with calls to remove it. I remember the news heavily covered it. Great for marketing.
This is some small Steam game where you can put together some low effort campaign in an old game engine, spin it with some controversial topic and get frontpage on social media without having to appease a wider audience.
I find this disclaimer on the steam page particularly interesting:
All the Characters, Art and Storylines depicted in this game are purely the work of fiction. Any similarity to persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental. The plot of this game is a fictional history inspired by real facts. Even the political and military groups depicted on the game are fictional. In this game, the player does not shoot Israeli civilians, women, children, elderly, only soldiers. Also in this game there are NO images of sexual content, illicit drugs, religious desecration, hate of speech against any group, ethnicity or religion, anti-Semitic propaganda against Jews, Nazi propaganda or boasting of any terrorist groups and / or other unlawful acts. This game only contains the virtual representation of the Palestinian Resistance Movement against the Israeli Military Occupation, which is officially recognized by the United Nations (UN). This game was approved to release by Brazilian's Government Justice Department, Age Rating Sector.
To be honest, the game looks ridiculous with its over the top scenes. It's like a reverse spec ops the line, except it's so exaggerated it's ridiculous rather than depressing
All the Characters, Art and Storylines depicted in this game are purely the work of fiction. Any similarity to persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental. The plot of this game is a fictional history inspired by real facts. Even the political and military groups depicted on the game are fictional. In this game, the player does not shoot Israeli civilians, women, children, elderly, only soldiers. Also in this game there are NO images of sexual content, illicit drugs, religious desecration, hate of speech against any group, ethnicity or religion, anti-Semitic propaganda against Jews, Nazi propaganda or boasting of any terrorist groups and / or other unlawful acts. This game only contains the virtual representation of the Palestinian Resistance Movement against the Israeli Military Occupation, which is officially recognized by the United Nations (UN). This game was approved to release by Brazilian's Government Justice Department, Age Rating Sector.
To be honest, the game looks ridiculous with its over the top scenes. It's like a reverse spec ops the line, except it's so exaggerated it's ridiculous rather than depressing
According to post by YouTube, the game is banned in Pakistan as well:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eE83eJl6FUE
[deleted]
The first few seconds of his demo reel sum up the situation neatly: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eE83eJl6FUE
Video game NPC killed using a sword- the bad, horrible kind of killing, versus if he had used an assault rifle or other firearm- the ethical, humane way of killing.
looks like it got pulled from the australian market already
>An error was encountered while processing your request:
>This item is currently unavailable in your region
Now I'm curious... might have to find it on the high seas just to have a look
>An error was encountered while processing your request:
>This item is currently unavailable in your region
Now I'm curious... might have to find it on the high seas just to have a look
You can play this "style" of game in Project Reality, albeit against US Marines in Fallujah.
It is a very fun map and led to other less COD like games such as Hell Let Loose and Squad etc.
There’s got to be more to it than just “playing as the bad guys”. There’s at least one Battlefield game where you can play as the Nazis. But I don’t think that includes committing atrocities. If the next Battlefield game included Nazi-mode where you get to re-enact El Alamein from Rommel’s perspective, then it could be viewed as an interesting exercise in alt-history. However, if it included Nazi-mode with the objective of righteously industrializing genocide, then I expect it would be viewed as beyond the pale.
So I wonder which route this game takes. Is it a straightforward combat simulator with one team that happens to be labelled Palestinian, or can you press F to rape?
So I wonder which route this game takes. Is it a straightforward combat simulator with one team that happens to be labelled Palestinian, or can you press F to rape?
The opening scene in their Steam page is Hamas fighters dropping down into Israel (flags visible) with paragliders.
I don't have a side here but that is in really bad taste, and not comparable to any other mainstream shooter.
I don't have a side here but that is in really bad taste, and not comparable to any other mainstream shooter.
It's comparable to most Call of Duty games at the minimum, many of which have maps in completely residential and commercial areas. Russian airport terminals, Ukranian apartment blocks, etc.
Also- considering the plotline of the game, in which the protagonist is fighting off an invading IDF military, is that flag you see Israel (Israel) or Israel (Occupied Palestinian territory)?
> Missions across real places in Palestine
Seems like the latter, with no evidence for the former.
Also- considering the plotline of the game, in which the protagonist is fighting off an invading IDF military, is that flag you see Israel (Israel) or Israel (Occupied Palestinian territory)?
> Missions across real places in Palestine
Seems like the latter, with no evidence for the former.
Perhaps it's in bad taste to Westerners who've imbibed a steady stream of atrocity propaganda about October 7, which avoids acknowledging that many of those killed and captured were legitimate military targets. By all accounts these are the antagonists presented in that mission in the game.
[deleted]
ethernot(1)
medo-bear(2)
This game is greatly inspired by Hideo Kojima's Metal Gear Solid, Call of Duty Modern Warfare, Insurgency Sandstorm, Max Payne and Goldeneye 007."