July 18, 2007
Yesterday GamePolitics took an in-depth look at a propaganda game released by hardline elements in Iran (see: With Fanfare, Iranians Launch anti-U.S. Game).
Now, we've found some gameplay video of the Iranian game, Rescue the Nuke Scientist up on YouTube. Looks like the kind of first-person shooter action that was state of the art in the West about five years ago.
Via: RedBlueNation
Now, we've found some gameplay video of the Iranian game, Rescue the Nuke Scientist up on YouTube. Looks like the kind of first-person shooter action that was state of the art in the West about five years ago.
Via: RedBlueNation
Comments
@ Eli Mordino
You're right (for once). It's not bad considering where its from. But we still get to make fun of it. That's what Freedom of Speech is all about.
Cheap shots, indeed.
Technical qualities aside, the underlying message still disturbs me. As I understand it, this game was created in response to a perceived threat against Iranian culture. So... in response... they create a game that vilifies the US and glorifies the killing of its soldiers.
That just seems... sick.
Behold, the technological achievements of the Muslim nations!
....What!?
I never thought of it like that. Its a pretty good point. Then again, video games are pretty worldwide. Then again, Iran may consider Japan and Asia as part of the West, too.
"It’s not bad considering where its from. But we still get to make fun of it. That’s what Freedom of Speech is all about."
No, it's -- oh my God. Could you possibly BE any more wrong? You are not a Constitutional scholar. People play the "ZOMG Freedom of Speech America #1" card so often and in the most ridiculous circumstances.
You don't need the First Amendment to make fun of a crappy Iranian video game. Nobody gives a crap one way or the other.
"Technical qualities aside, the underlying message still disturbs me. As I understand it, this game was created in response to a perceived threat against Iranian culture. So… in response… they create a game that vilifies the US and glorifies the killing of its soldiers.
That just seems… sick. "
It's not just a response to a generic threat to Iranian culture, it's a response to a few specific titles, Kuma War and Battlefield, to name the more prevalent ones. It could be looked as a response to the Western cultural 'war,' but that's not what it's creators only had in mind. So what is wrong with a fictional game killing US soldiers? Hollywood kills all kinds of people in it's movies, soldiers, cops, etc. What's the difference here?
Now, "The Union of Islamic Student Societies" that created the game has a heavy anti-semitic influence, and so the inclusion of Israel as the place the US hides the fictional kidnapped scientists is suspicious. But all-in-all, the game is just that: A game. And by all accounts, a fairly crappy one, from a Gamer's perspective.
If this is the best offering this group has to oppose the US in the "Cyber-War," then really, is there much of a war? But, it is an interesting method of dialogue, a tit-for-tat 'war' of game creation. It seems that video games aren't just for play, and from that perspective, I support such a dialogue.
J-Guy,
Interesting perspective!
The thing that struck me the most (besides the craptastic graphics and crummy AI) was the fact that the main character was using both Israeli (IMI Uzi) and American (M16A2) weapons. Wouldn't that be like, against the rules or something? Shouldn't he stick solely to the 'Freedom Fighter's' weapon of choice (AK-47 and it's variants)?
That's just what I noticed. In all honesty, I'd like to get a copy of the game, just to say I had it.
And I can't remember exactly who it was above, but I do believe this student union group was being sponsored by the government. Or I really doubt it would have gotten the press it has in Iran.
Are games that are created where the player objective is to fight or kill Extremists, Iranians, Soviets, Nazi's etc, created as propaganda to encourage the killing of said targets in real life?
Is this game specifically aimed to teach the intended audience to do in real life what they are imitating in the game?
I am not sure the Iranians understand the concept of a "game".
"The thing that struck me the most (besides the craptastic graphics and crummy AI) was the fact that the main character was using both Israeli (IMI Uzi) and American (M16A2) weapons. Wouldn’t that be like, against the rules or something? Shouldn’t he stick solely to the ‘Freedom Fighter’s’ weapon of choice (AK-47 and it’s variants)?"
That's not an IMI Uzi. That's an Ingram MAC M10 or M11, which is a gun made in the US. Given that the AK-47 comes from a country who was arguably just another oppressor, Russia, anyway, I don't think they really care.
http://world.guns.ru/smg/smg22-e.htm
July 18th, 2007 at 3:07 pm
I am not sure the Iranians understand the concept of a “game”. "
I agree totally with this statement. >_> What else can be said?
How different is it from games that vilify Islamic states and glorifies killing their soldiers? Surely gamers over there are getting sick of the "lets kill more muslims" games. Isn't it about time they had some of their own back? "Good on 'em", I say!
As as for the quality of the game ... it's not bad for a bunch of students.
You know I don't have a problem with the game in general or the fact they are killing Israeli or Americans.
The issue is that they are treating the game as a tool to support hatred against someone. It is hard not to think that considering the developers stance and their governments stance on the game.
Are games such as Ghost Recon, Call of Duty or even Mercenaries 2 calling for and training players to kill, Mexicans, Germans, and Venezuelans? Or instead are they set in locals that in history or present day have similar issues to make the game setting more believable?
I haven't seen any of the so called "Religious Leaders" or even "Political Leaders" of the USA support games in almost any form.
So I think the issue here is completely the context in which the Iranian game developer has decided to try and make more out of a game then what it should be. Which is just a game.
Any game featuring real/quasi-real world factions/locations can be turned in to a hate thing. (note: racial slurs are included purely for demonstrative purposes, not as an indication of my personal views).
When lanning BF Vietnam I've heard people yell "GET SOME GOOK".
Lanning CS, "Die towelhead/sand n#gger"...
etc etc. Unacceptable of course, and typically as the LAN organiser I would put a stop to it. The people weren't even necessarily racists, but it was easy to see some terrorist type wearing the face wrap and just let the bile spew..
Then there are other games... America's Army, where it doesn't matter what side you play in a live fire map, you are American and the enemy you see are typically terrorist types (portrayed as the archetypal Muslim). So, everybody get's to be the "good" guy. If that isn't a clear propaganda message, I don't know what is.. = \
I don't like the message any more than the rest of you, but you can't call this anything else than an attempt to fight fire with fire. As propaganda goes, it really is small potatoes compared to some of the more impressive efforts of our time... (eg. a campaign to get certain countries invaded on the premise that they were producing WMD's for example...)
And for the record, I'm Australian. =)
As Asmo already mentioned, this is exactly what America's Army is all about. It's used as a recruiting tool to bring in gamers to so they can "kill ragheads for real". And it's all backed by the US government.
Now Iran's getting their own back? To cry foul is nothing short of hypocritical.
"It’s not just a response to a generic threat to Iranian culture, it’s a response to a few specific titles, Kuma War and Battlefield, to name the more prevalent ones."
Key phrase: perceived threat. There is no cyber war that I'm aware of, and I think you'd be hard-pressed to find someone who played BF2 and suddenly developed a negative opinion of Iranians, which, I gather, is what they're insinuating.
"So what is wrong with a fictional game killing US soldiers? Hollywood kills all kinds of people in it’s movies, soldiers, cops, etc. What’s the difference here?"
Nothing is wrong with a game that depicts the killing of US soldiers. I play several games that do. Hell, I'm frequently on the side that's killing them--games like Battlefield 2 and the HL2 mod Insurgency.
The point I was making was that this game was made in response to a perceived threat and the way they chose to respond was, as I wrote earlier, to "create a game that vilifies the US and glorifies the killing of its soldiers."
I don't object to the content. What I object to is the motivation behind the game. That is what I termed "sick."
@Michael
jepp already responded to your comment in much the same way I would have: "The issue is that they are treating the game as a tool to support hatred against someone."
To be honest, I'm not sure what to say about America's Army. I guess I've never really viewed it as a recruitment tool, certainly not one with a message of hate. There's no "these people are evil, so join us in the fight to kill them."
Who knows. Maybe I'm more hyprocritical than I like to think.
With that in mind this game is hardly sick.
To view otherwise would be hypocrisy.
Besides there are plenty of good Western games that allow you to shoot up US soldiers past and present-for a new one check out the Insurgency mod its very good.
This game though looks very dated, glitchy, buggy and crappy.
But then its not like Iran is known for its programming.
"Korrd-you are aware the the sheer volume of shooters which glorify the US at the expense of other nations?"
"...at the expense of other nations"? Forgive my naïveté, but I don't view games like Battlefield and Call of Duty the same way I do this one; they were created as entertainment. They weren't meant to promote the idea that in the real world Country X is bad or evil or trying to destroy the American way of life.
They were intended to recreate a historical battle, or depict modern warfare, maybe even create a future conflict, all for the purpose of fun. Not because the opposing nation is, in the real world, any more sinister than any other, not because the developers hate those nations... for fun.
As I said, it's not so much the game I consider sick, but the motivation for creating it.
As for Muslim terrorists being portrayed as enemies in videogames, TOUGH. It's perfectly topical, as terrorists from Islamic territories really are threatening civilization. Considering the kinds of horrible things they are capable of around the world, as we have been reminded of time and time again, they're the perfect sort of dirtbag enemy for a modern day game. Nobody complains about Nazi's being portrayed as monsters in video games, then getting slaughtered by the dozens. Al-Qaeda is just as bad--why that should a game about killing them bother anybody? The obvious answer is: It never should... but in some cases, it does.
cool site...