215: Cease Fire: A Look at Virtual Jihadi

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

Cease Fire: A Look at Virtual Jihadi

As games evolve as a storytelling medium, creative game makers are finding new ways of using the medium to challenge the limits of free speech. Kate McKiernan looks at the fiery debate surrounding this game as well as the motivations of the creator responsible for it.

Read Full Article

As much as I consider games to be an art-form that should be protected under free speech, and as much as I tried to see things Bilal's way, I simply cannot. He is claiming video games are being used to foster hatred, and yet he's made one that would do exactly the same thing, regardless of his intent. As much as I hate President Bush, I'm offended that someone would take video games and use it to put themselves in an alternate universe role as a suicide bomber targeting said president. It's almost like that game Jack Thompson wanted made, except he wasn't specifically asking for it to be about himself, if I recall.

At the same time I'm really not entirely sure he's completely wrong in what he was trying to do, but his message seems too easily malleable by others. And again, I'm finding it far too easy to draw comparisons to the game JFK Reloaded, which was built purportedly as a sim to figure out the magic bullet theory and yet was lambasted for being thoughtless (which it kind of is).

Perhaps ultimately, I don't fully understand his aims or motivations, other than provoking thought and yet crying foul when people took too much offense at what the subject matter was, as if that were an unrealistic reaction to making a game where you kill a president who hasn't even been out of office for a year.

I think this is really interesting.

AceDiamond:
He is claiming video games are being used to foster hatred, and yet he's made one that would do exactly the same thing, regardless of his intent.

As much as I can see where you're coming from with this, I think that Bilal actually doesn't believe he will take any American citizen further to partaking in any sort of hateful activity, verbal or otherwise. I think what he's trying to do is show them something that will make them question the sources of their information up to this point.

Case in point: I was playing Resident Evil 5 with my friend's younger (14) brother the other day (I know he's too young for it but he plays everthing anyway so I wasn't the one doing the damage). If you've played it you'll know the character I'm talking about, but shortly after the introduction we meet a head-scalf-wearing contact in Africa, who supplies us with our first weapons. Upon seeing this character, and aforementioned head-scalf, the boy says "Is that a terrorist?! Shoot him!" before the character has even spoken a word. The boy doesn't watch the news, he doesn't read the papers, his understanding of ethnicity (regardless of the fact that this character was from Africa, not Afghanistan or Iraq or whoever you want to talk about on this topic), is from videogames; specifically, Call of Duty 4. Now I find that is for me, if we ignore the age restrictions on games like everybody does (see the article about the 11 year-old girl who "saved" her family "thanks to GTA4"), a worrying case of videogames not necessarily inciting hatred, or violence, but definately shaping the views of a mind with little exposure to anything that contradicts a very simplistic viewpoint.

If this young boy played Bilal's game, he wouldn't turn around at every middle-aged man and decide to blow him up. But he would, I imagine, become a little confused, and try to resolve that with rational thought. This is a situation he has not yet had to find himself in. If he were to, then I think that he would find himself much more educated and empathetic to the plights of the people he thus-far doesn't understand. Yes, 14 is a bit young to understand all the issues involved, but if he's old enough to decide (even in a videogame) that any man wearing a head-scalf needs to be shot, then he's old enough to look at evidence to the contrary.

Bilal's game is very unlikely to incite any anti-American activity or thought, but what it will do is show us that anybody can make a game about destroying anybody, and that in itself is enough proof for us to, without taking away from the games we love, pay less attention to the messages we find in them. I think that's the paradoxical premise of Bilal's work. He's made a game with a message in order to stop people paying so much attention to the messages in games.

Or maybe I missed the point, if so, disregard the above rant.

jh322:
*snip*

I think you've hit the nail on the head. All the way through Call of Duty 4, my mates became increasingly fond of the phrase "fuckin' towel heads" and "stupid terrorists" and, to my shame, I thought nothing of it. This terrifies me more than I'd like to claim...

It's worth pointing out not only that all Bilal did was add a storyline to an Al Qaeda game, but also that said Al Qaeda game was made by switching the skins on the American and Iraqi soldiers in an American game.

So, to recap...

Made by a Western Developer, about stereotypical US marines killing stereotypical Iraqi "terrorists" = fine.
Made by a Western Developer, changed by Middle Eastern group, about stereotypical Iraqi "terrorists" killing stereotypical US marines = wrong.
Made by a Western Developer, changed by Middle Eastern group, rewritten by a Middle Eastern artist, about developed Iraqi "terrorists" killing stereotypical US marines = offensive.

Chipperz:

jh322:
*snip*

So, to recap...

Made by a Western Developer, about stereotypical US marines killing stereotypical Iraqi "terrorists" = fine.
Made by a Western Developer, changed by Middle Eastern group, about stereotypical Iraqi "terrorists" killing stereotypical US marines = wrong.
Made by a Western Developer, changed by Middle Eastern group, rewritten by a Middle Eastern artist, about developed Iraqi "terrorists" killing stereotypical US marines = offensive.

Or I could have put it that simply...thanks for the summary :D

This is such a great article -- the kind of reading that every legislator and pundit needs to read.

Sure, some games are just toys to play with, but consciously or not, the stereotypes present in all types of media (video games included) shape our view of the world.

Video games often revolve around combat because it's simple, competitive, and adrenaline-inducing. It also helps that every boy plays with pretend guns at some time in their childhood, so it's no surprise that they would continue to play gun-games as they mature. It's not that video games are inherently violent, just that we happen to like violent games.

When it comes to making a violent shoot 'em up, you need something to kill. As a society, we normally don't condone killing people, except as needed to protect ourselves, hence most shooters involve protecting the world from invading enemies. An example that everyone around the world can appreciate is the idea of fighting the Nazis in WW2. This scenario has been played out again and again in books, movies, and of course, video games. Nowadays, the US is less concerned with Nazis and more concerned with assorted terrorists, so it's no surprise that many games now focus on this generic enemy.

The problem is, this simplification leaves many things unsaid. Just as killing Germans in Wolfenstein 3D was left unqualified, so is killing "towel heads" in modern-day Iraqistan. There's no distinction made between civilians and guerillas, there's no concept behind the opposition's motives, there's just "us" and "them".

This is where the problem lies. By generalizing the concept down to "us" and "them", games encourage this type of thinking about foreign entities. Without developing the nuances of the other side, we're unable to distinguish the difference between "foreign" and "bad guy" -- under this generalization, they are one and the same.

We can easily say, "But it's just a game," and yet, it's not just a game -- this, combined with our similarly-biased mass-media, makes up the only window into this foreign entity that many of us ever see. If all we ever know of them is that they (some of them) kill Americans and blow stuff up, then it's only natural to extend that generalization to their entire nation. Of course, this stereotype isn't accurate of the entire country, only of a fringe group, and it's never for the simplistic reasons that we are told, but the fact is that we develop this view anyway.

By not showing both sides of the story, games like Call of Duty and America's Army encourage blind slaughter of entire nationalities by stereotyping them as "the enemy". Even if this simplification is merely part of making the game, the player takes in this mindset while playing it, and without some external rationalization that distinguishes between the game-specific stereotype and the real world, this mindset is what the player adopts in general.

I think this is one of the times when patriotism is actually shown in the forefront for what it is: a set of blinkers.

People cry day and night that everyone is equal, we're all just people, no one (and no nation) is better than another, just different. It's held up as the ultimate ideal. And yet, when a game comes around that shows people from a different nation or social group as the protagonists, and people from their own nation/group as the antagonists, then it's all-of-a-sudden offensive and wrong.

It's certainly not a very mature or fair way to go about things. American (or western in general) games can freely portray Iraquis and Afghanis as 'bad guys' and go about their merry ways shooting and killing them with reckless abandon. Why shouldn't there be a game from the opposite perspective? Are people so close-mided that they can't see the other side's point of view in a war? It's much the same vein as WW2 games - eleventy billion about Allied soldiers slaughtering their way through german and japanese soldiers, but if one comes around where the protagonist is german it's evil and wrong. How must the Germans and the Japanese feel about that?

I hate to sound like yet another America-basher, but it mainly is America here - I can't think of any other western nation that takes blind patriotism and elevates it to such a virtue, to the point of condemning anything that could be construed as even slightly 'anti-american'. To me (as a brit) a game from the perspective of a civillian-turned-suicide bomber sounds fascinating. It's not anti-american for the same reason it's not anti-anything - it's showing us the other side of the story, the one we don't get to see in western media for the most part. Bilal is simply showing us that the terrorists and suicide bombers we're conditioned to hate are still people.

This reminds me of that time Call of Juarez: Bound by Blood came under fire for using the confederate flag...

Kate, I'm glad you brought this story out into the open for people to see. I wasn't aware of Balil's plight before this article and it makes it clear how the cliched response to controversy in all forms of artistic media undermines any attempt at rational thought.

I think Balil's game makes a very good point -- as I said in my previous post, we're happy to blindly kill some generic enemy -- but the American focus on Middle Eastern cultures as the generic enemy leads to a stereotyping that is by no means healthy.

Since we're surrounded by these stereotypes in the media every day, we often don't realize how these stereotypes become part of our consciousness. Reality quickly sits in when you see it from the other side -- the thought of Iraqis killing Americans makes us painfully aware of how terrible the things are that we are simulating.

What really concerns me are those people who are up in arms about this art display. They are so blinded by their prejudices that they don't realize the hypocrisy of their concerns. Yes, we shouldn't be encouraging people to kill the President, but we shouldn't be encouraging them to kill Muslims either. For some reason America has accepted that people from the Middle East are hedonists and terrorists, that they are enemies who want to kill us, and that we must protect ourselves by killing them first. The people who are against the former but excuse the latter are guilty of as much racism and prejudice as anyone.

Through his game, Balil is trying to show us how our prejudices and stereotypes have created a double-standard for the acceptability of violence, and he does so using one of the worst purportrators -- war games. Those who think it's offensive or obscene imply that they disagree with his statements -- that they believe in those stereotypes and double-standards. We're in a sad situation when those in power are not only blinded by prejudice, but are willing to abuse their power to protect, maintain, and spread those prejudices.

God bless the USA. It needs it.

This situation is a very interesting reflection on the attitude in America. On the one had we have Call of Duty 4, which is one of the most insanely popular games in recent memory. This game glorifies killing Arabs and Communists without a thought, and hardly anybody bats an eye at children playing it. On the other hand Virtual Jihadi is demonized. I don't agree with the message in Virtual Jihadi (in fact I detest it) but there is a huge double standard here.

I think the problem here lies in what the audience perceives, as opposed to what the game creator is actually trying to say. If every single player knew (say via an introduction cutscene) exactly what Bilal was trying to accomplish and why, there wouldn't be a problem. No one would think that he was trying to foster hatred or promote terrorism, but just to make a statement. Some players, though, will play and only see the killing Americans part. Some people will only know that the game is in the perspective of a terrorist and immediately start ranting about it.

Anyway, great article! I really hope to see more of your stuff on the Escapist!

The message in Virtual Jihadi is not meant to be liked or agreed with, but it is a strong 180 degree turn on our fight against terrorism. Those that play it and get the reason it was made will see the reality that lies behind it. We as a nation are safe here, cheering on the troops in their fight against terrorism, that we don't even feel the pain of the innocents who pay the price of 'collateral damage.' Now if there is ever a more unfeeling and insensitive term as that, I'm not sure I want to know it.
Balil could have easily switched the tables to a different scenario, where everyday Americans were the target, and not Bush. This would have fitted what drove him into making this better. I have to think that the outcry would have been even stronger though. (Which would have given me a laugh, with what a lot of gamers do in games such as GTA, Saints Row, you get the drift.) He knew at the time though that Bush was unpopular(Still is) and made for good fodder in this game. Unless there was a detail left out, no innocent bystanders are featured in the game, it is just soldiers and one twit of a president.
I am not saying this doesn't make me uncomfortable. It does very much so, but in more than one way. I myself wouldn't want to play as a suicide bomber (for one its a poor shortcut of a tactic.) And much as I don't like Bush...I don't like Bush enough to want him dead. But this is just a simulation, there is no reality in it. If you kill sim-Bush, he will res the next game to do it all over again. And as an American that supports my troops (wishing I was over there myself) I would not enjoy targeting them as well. Probably one reason I enjoy Half Life 2 moreso than Half Life. Besides the graphic quality difference.
Much as the game's concept may make me uncomfortable, I will stand in line to buy a copy, or do what little I can to make sure that it can still be sold or exhibited.

jh322:
Case in point: I was playing Resident Evil 5 with my friend's younger (14) brother the other day (I know he's too young for it but he plays everthing anyway so I wasn't the one doing the damage). If you've played it you'll know the character I'm talking about, but shortly after the introduction we meet a head-scalf-wearing contact in Africa, who supplies us with our first weapons. Upon seeing this character, and aforementioned head-scalf, the boy says "Is that a terrorist?! Shoot him!" before the character has even spoken a word. The boy doesn't watch the news, he doesn't read the papers, his understanding of ethnicity (regardless of the fact that this character was from Africa, not Afghanistan or Iraq or whoever you want to talk about on this topic), is from videogames; specifically, Call of Duty 4. Now I find that is for me, if we ignore the age restrictions on games like everybody does (see the article about the 11 year-old girl who "saved" her family "thanks to GTA4"), a worrying case of videogames not necessarily inciting hatred, or violence, but definately shaping the views of a mind with little exposure to anything that contradicts a very simplistic viewpoint.

This is an obvious opportunity to provide knowledge where there is none, preventing ignorance. True your friend's younger brother was too young, as the ESRB put it, but you weren't letting him play it alone, therefore giving an opportunity to illuminate him on what separates the game from reality, as well as the smaller details that can be easily misunderstood, such as the arms supplier. If more people took the time to share these things with the younger set in the games they play, then perhaps there would be less outright censorship of games.
Robert Mirch, the NY City Commissioner really had no right to outright censor the presentation. What he did have a right to do, was speak his opinion on it at anytime. I think Balil wouldn't have minded that at all, seeing it as something different from what he was trying to escape. Instead Mirch and others stuck the country's foot in its mouth, and basically defeated what we were really fighting for over in Iraq and Afghanistan. You should have really read your Job Description, and not wrote in 'Prevent others from doing things that I disagree with' in crayon at the bottom, Mr Mirch. Thank you for making all of us look like exactly as those who see us as.

Agreed, fantastic article which sheds some light on an aspect of video games taht is rarely talked about. As Akaros says, part of the reason why people find it a problem is because they don't understand the artists' intent. It's much too easy to see a videogame and write it off as just that - a simple game. THe whole medium of the 'art game' is a relatively underground concept, once again due to the public's pre-formed definition of the videogame.

But art can be used to violently (not in a literal sense) provoke and smash down preconceptions, break people out of their comfort zones and make them think, and this is no exception. Bilal's game takes our previous notions of war shoot-em-ups and spins them around on our face. The result is something whose spirit is identical to the original, but which we now find extremely offensive. And that in turn should really bring us to question the message and influence of many of our own 'war' games.

I agree with with Bilal on many levels in the end if its ok for game of stereotypes to kill stereotypes it shouldn't matter which side you play.

On i side i must admit i prefer being the non stranded group in the game. I find enjoyment playing as that German or that Vietcong not because i like there ideals etc. but because its allows a more interesting perspective on game play.

samsonguy920:
*snip* This is an obvious opportunity to provide knowledge where there is none, preventing ignorance. True your friend's younger brother was too young, as the ESRB put it, but you weren't letting him play it alone, therefore giving an opportunity to illuminate him on what separates the game from reality, as well as the smaller details that can be easily misunderstood, such as the arms supplier.

For the record, that effort on my part was made in the most appropriate way I could manage.

not a zaar:
This situation is a very interesting reflection on the attitude in America. On the one had we have Call of Duty 4, which is one of the most insanely popular games in recent memory. This game glorifies killing Arabs and Communists without a thought...

I always felt CoD4 missed an opportunity to be something more. I remember when Zakhaev talked about how the "leaders had prostituted" their land and resources. But there was no elaboration...just continue the speculation that he is a radical madman...

Same with Al-Fulani... detonating a nuke in his own country? How unrealistic...

The bad guys weren't nazi's, but they were made to look absolutely bat-shit insane. No perspective, just evil. And once you've done that, killing them isn't a problem.

Thats why the transition from killing nazi's from previous CoD titles to Arabs/Russians was so effortless...Modern Warfare was a game, but it could have been more...

(still sold over 10 million units, so who over there cares :/)

jh322:

samsonguy920:
*snip* This is an obvious opportunity to provide knowledge where there is none, preventing ignorance. True your friend's younger brother was too young, as the ESRB put it, but you weren't letting him play it alone, therefore giving an opportunity to illuminate him on what separates the game from reality, as well as the smaller details that can be easily misunderstood, such as the arms supplier.

For the record, that effort on my part was made in the most appropriate way I could manage.

I, for one, found it quite appropriate. Too many kids these days play anything unsupervised and therefore allowed to make their own mind up about what they see. It is one thing to condemn a media for the effect it has on our kids, but another to be there while the kid plays, and help them discern facts from fiction, and fantasy from reality. I see no harm in games as long as the player knows it is fantasy, but without knowledge and guidance, it is too easy to see fantasy as reality and bring that into one's day to day life.

I really hope Jako never knows about that game, he will probably say its a terrorist training device...

anywhay, the point in the game is well made, i understand why he was doing it, and it shows how much of a "free speach" people really get from the goverment

but still, i think he could have made his point without resorting to a video game, i feel that in the future perhaps, his work will be taken as an "example" of how "video games" can "influense" people.

I was disgusted at COD4 blatant rhetoric, however I enjoyed the game and managed to keep things in perspective. Hey, it's a shooter, it's american-made, and there is a war going on, so no surprise there.

I think it would be interesting to do a paper on the use of video games as a form of propaganda. It seems to be the new toy of government agencies nowadays.

The First Golf War provided the backdrop to numerous murder simulators, the emphasis at the time, was 'simulation', as in fighter jets and helicopter simulators, 'surgical strikes'. WW2 shooters were still kings at the time, since not much happened on the ground there. Now that the focus is on ground troops and terrorists, we got shooters coming out of the woodwork (Soldier Of Fortune, Black Hawk Down, COD4, Tom Clancy, American Army, Arma, ect, ..) as a form of propaganda and recruitment tool.

It's interesting that I do feel more self-conscious nowadays when playing shooters (especially modern shooters), rather than what I used to do as a teenager, just killing 'nazis' or 'japs'. their crude and twisted portrayal just didn't register at the time.

So it is a good thing to 'stir shit up' in that department and forces people (especially young people) to reconsider the context of these video games. What I find sad is the hostile attitude of the authorities what are suppose to have an adult, mature mind, and just do the knee jerk dance and completely miss the point. 'oh, killing the president, terrorists! no no no!'. Pavlov had a point.

I'm still gonna get Modern Warfare 2, I know it will be full of cliches and sad one-liners. It will just probably make me even more cynical with the corporate game industry and their constant quest for appealing to the lowest common denominator. But it's the kid inside who wants his computer-guided adrenalin fix.

samsonguy920:

I, for one, found it quite appropriate. Too many kids these days play anything unsupervised and therefore allowed to make their own mind up about what they see. It is one thing to condemn a media for the effect it has on our kids, but another to be there while the kid plays, and help them discern facts from fiction, and fantasy from reality. I see no harm in games as long as the player knows it is fantasy, but without knowledge and guidance, it is too easy to see fantasy as reality and bring that into one's day to day life.

I was quite shocked to know that my 10 years old cousin played Black already (probably with his friends, his parents have a 'no video games' policy).

I'd agree, however a 16 years old won't have a much more mature view than a 14 years old. But they are ripe for joining the Marines! With games depicting reality, you need to get some perspective sometimes.

Great read!

This should be taught in schools so the game makers of the future will stop making stereotypical war games.

I personally like to think of video games as an escape from reality I personally don't like that anyone is trying to turn my hobby into their own political statement. I mean asking developers to censor themselves more than what they have already will produce nothing but bland cookie cutter games. I mean as far as some FPS are concerned(I'm looking at you call of duty)

Try the Chern. Life Simulation Mod for ARMA 2, or even the CLR ripoff that was made, you pretty much play the role of a terrorist, a normal citizen, or a cop. Takes a bit of RP aspect to get it to work in a FPS environment.. but interesting scenarios..

Bravo, Mr. Balil! Many have said that art is only truly art when it annoys people. This is no proof that videogames are an art, just that true art will simply be whatever media it gets its message across more easily.

I, for one, would like to see an actual game by a big developer showing the story of a Middle Eastern fighter, trying to defend his country from a Western invasion force. Yeah, keep dreaming.

As for me, I liked CoD 4 because I like shooters, and it did a pretty good job at conveying the cacophony of war, the side you're fighting on be damned. But when I play Battlefield 2 I always play as the Iraqis.

DemonCrim:
I personally like to think of video games as an escape from reality I personally don't like that anyone is trying to turn my hobby into their own political statement.

Well, if you like music, will you say that people writing music about political topics in order to drive a point across is wrong?

Yes games are an art form but I still have my right to say I think its stupid.

I can't say I disagree with the governments attempts to shut him up, but I think Mr. Balil is on to something. His idea to use video games as a way to strike a cord and send a socio-political message is brilliant. I can't say that I'd play the game, but I understand what he was trying to say.

It's kind of like the artist a few years ago who painted a portrait of a naked Jesus - who was a woman. Conservative, fundamentalist Christians cried foul! I don't think that the artist was honestly intending to cause controversy, I think he was trying to make a point. In his case, the point he was making was, "God might not be who you think he (she) could be," which is a valid point. In fact, just yesterday, I was talking to a friend about certain things pertaining to our Christian religion, and she was getting all uptight about various things, and then I pulled out a verse which literally says, "Life's meaningless, you owe it to yourself to go our and party, don't hold back enjoying all that you can!" Of course this all occurs within certain bounds, but it shook her faith to think that God would advocate for fun verses a bland, ritualistic, religious life.

It's unfortunate that people don't recognize the point this man's trying to make and are just too quick to cry foul - this was never about the game, it was about the statement.

You know this article really reminds me of something I've read on TvTropes. I think its this one: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TrueArtIsOffensive

I'm not saying they are wrong I mean if they want they can go ahead but what I'm saying is I can careless about their political views it normally doesn't usually make for a good listen.I'm saying that some of us that use video games as an escape would be turn off by those types of games and not buy them. And if people aren't buying them then its not an effective medium. I just don't think video games is the correct medium to be doing those sorts of things.

I honestly can't say I'm surprised in the least. This is an unfortunately typical mindset in many Americans today- "They're not people, they're terrorists!" Demonize the enemy, make them subhuman, believe that they are a relentless and implacable foe bent on your extermination, and then it's okay to hate them and destroy them. But turning this around, asking us to view ourselves from the eyes of those we are fighting... that is absolutely, unequivocly verboten, and the merest suggestion that anyone who takes up arms against us is anything but a freedom-hating, crazed madman who would be "killing us over here" if we weren't "killing them over there"- well, you might as well set the Stars and Stripes on fire and defecate on the Constitution while you're at it, you'll get the same reaction.

This is the kind of truth that we Americans MUST be forced to see. There are too many people who absolutely will not believe that we could do any wrong, that America is The Good Guys and anyone who has a problem with anything we do is a "terr'ist". Understanding that there are human beings living in that strangely-shaped spot on the map with all the funny names will go a long way towards making people question what we, and our government, do on the world stage. Terrorism is a nasty thing, and the ends do not justify their means- but it is not at all unpatriotic to question if they justify ours, either.

nice piece. All games have my full support. Provided of course they have an appropriate rating and are only available in appropriate places (wouldnt want EB selling one of those jap rape games lol)

This was clearly an issue of protected free speech. Yes, the video game exhorts the player to kill a facsimile of the American president, but the key here is: context matters. Mr. Balil was attempting to effect a flip in perspective irrespective of ideology - an extremely valuable thing in all areas of life. He was not trying to convince a player to kill someone, let alone the president, in real life. This is quite clear from the context. In fact, the whole point as far as I can tell was to convince the participant to *not* kill anyone!

I think that these art exhibits are exceptionally useful because they are necessarily anti-popular view. They force a rational observer to reality check. Any time you consider a problem, it's a really good idea to flip it around and look for a solution from the other end; solving a maze from the goal point to the start point can often be easier than they way it was designed to be solved. Perhaps with understanding, we can find a peaceful solution (or if not, perhaps a better way to fight).

On a more video game related note, I think that a full version would be fantastic to play. I would love to be able to play both sides of a conflict, seeing what internal blunders they make, how they really view strategic goals, and fighting under vastly different conditions. That is true art. Unfortunately, the gaming industry seems to only be able to support brain dead us vs them stories. The former idea probably wouldn't sell for nearly the same reason Mr. Balil couldn't even display his work. Also, thinking detracts from the experience for adrenaline jockeys. Constant brain dead action just makes me feel tired :-P I want to feel that I'm learning something from the game.

People stereotype groups of people because those people have done things that move them out of someone's comfort zone.

More than say..3 white teenage kids dressed in sk8er gear? common assumption is they are punks. the usual "eff the man" and all that.

More than 2 black guys dressed in street clothes..maybe wearing a do-rag..gang members..possibly armed. That's what a lot of people think..

More than one "arab looking" guy standing around and no one is standing near or by him because they assume he is a terrorist.

I can tell you the #1 thing that will cause more trouble..the religion associated with some groups of people.

Sure not all Christians are Southern Baptists saying "if you dunt give your money to tha church yer goin' straigh ta hell"..
What's nice about the "Christian" religion..there are fundamentalists but they are not espousing suicide bombing as a way to get to Heaven.
Not every single Muslim wants to blow themselves up,but from what we've seen on the news..that's all they show.
Kinda like UFC..what they show on TV gets ratings..UFC tv..20 minutes of sweaty dick punching. They don't show stuff like the roundhouse kicks and that one guy who got kicked and his leg was broke.

I'm sure there are plenty of Muslims out there who are saying to themselves "I just wish they would quit doing that and making us look bad" but their voices aren't heard as loud as the guy who blows up a building so he can get 72 virgins.(you know..they never have told you whether or not those virgins were male or female..)

I don't like the idea of the game,but I'll support it as a medium because once a game like that gets banned from ever being sold,more interest is shown in it..you know because it's bad and people are looking for the next bad game.
I would support the sale of the game provided it's treated like any decongestants at the pharmacy counter. You have to have proof of State Issued ID and sign a book. NOT SO THE GOVERNMENT can track you,so the store selling the game isn't presented with a lawsuit and a cease and desist order on selling video games.

Chipperz:

jh322:
*snip*

I think you've hit the nail on the head. All the way through Call of Duty 4, my mates became increasingly fond of the phrase "fuckin' towel heads" and "stupid terrorists" and, to my shame, I thought nothing of it. This terrifies me more than I'd like to claim...

It's worth pointing out not only that all Bilal did was add a storyline to an Al Qaeda game, but also that said Al Qaeda game was made by switching the skins on the American and Iraqi soldiers in an American game.

So, to recap...

Made by a Western Developer, about stereotypical US marines killing stereotypical Iraqi "terrorists" = fine.
Made by a Western Developer, changed by Middle Eastern group, about stereotypical Iraqi "terrorists" killing stereotypical US marines = wrong.
Made by a Western Developer, changed by Middle Eastern group, rewritten by a Middle Eastern artist, about developed Iraqi "terrorists" killing stereotypical US marines = offensive.

That argument completely divorces the situation from any context, though. The goal of American Marines is to kill people who are trying to destabilize the region without harming the civilian population. The goal of the Iraqi/Al Qaeda terrorists is to use violence and intimidation against the civilian population to instigate conflict and incite resentment against American troops. Look at the news about the suicide bombings that go on in Iraq, routinely killing 50 or more civilians. Setting aside the misguided American intentions in Iraq, can you really argue that suicide bombers and the like are not "the bad guys" (or at least the greater evil) in this conflict?

EDIT: I do support the designer's right to free speech. If that "freedom" doesn't protect offensive speech, then it isn't really freedom.

jh322:
-oh hey, you post just went *poof*, would'ja look at that-

Yea, you are partly right, but think of it this way also, the game he was using was developed so that you were an american mowing down Iraqi's to get to Saddam, then Al-Queda modded it to give it a George Bush skin instead, Im thinking he was making a game more personal, hell I would be kinda pissed if I had a family member become collateral damage from a U.S. airstrike. What gets me is how America tried to silence the game in the land where you are free to say anything until you offend someone, but lets jump back to the idea itself.

I believe that this and many other games are forms of art, except for Halo, bread and butter shooter if you ask me, and as such they are open to interpretation. You might just see a game about a terrorist trying to blow up former President George W. Bush, but what I think he was trying to aim at was who exactly the person is trying to do it. sure you can put someone in a mask and give them a gun, but the story is probably better than one from any big name developer could make. I love how no one even hit the question why he would make such a game, possibly trying to turn a blind eye to what happened, So I applaud Bilal for his artwork.

m_jim:

That argument completely divorces the situation from any context, though. The goal of American Marines is to kill people who are trying to destabilize the region without harming the civilian population. The goal of the Iraqi/Al Qaeda terrorists is to use violence and intimidation against the civilian population to instigate conflict and incite resentment against American troops. Look at the news about the suicide bombings that go on in Iraq, routinely killing 50 or more civilians. Setting aside the misguided American intentions in Iraq, can you really argue that suicide bombers and the like are not "the bad guys" (or at least the greater evil) in this conflict?

but your not looking at it from the other perspective, Al-Qeada seeks to ensure a strict Islamic law wherever it is at, and the Jihad is indeed a Muslim religious war with several lessons from it being the notorious martyrdom virgins. To them any Iraqi or Afghan that works with American troops has betrayed them and the Islamic teachings, to them, We are the evil invading force while their insurgents are protecting their country, religion, family and homes. What both are failing to realize is how war effects the individual, which is what this game is about, Bilal isn't doing it for his religion, his country, but out of vengeance for the death of his brother, a pure intention skewed into an anti-American perspective sadly.

also, anyone know where I could get the game? his website talks about it but I don't see anything about downloading it, I don't really want to use Google to search for "game where you blow up George W. Bush" either.

Kalezian:

m_jim:

That argument completely divorces the situation from any context, though. The goal of American Marines is to kill people who are trying to destabilize the region without harming the civilian population. The goal of the Iraqi/Al Qaeda terrorists is to use violence and intimidation against the civilian population to instigate conflict and incite resentment against American troops. Look at the news about the suicide bombings that go on in Iraq, routinely killing 50 or more civilians. Setting aside the misguided American intentions in Iraq, can you really argue that suicide bombers and the like are not "the bad guys" (or at least the greater evil) in this conflict?

but your not looking at it from the other perspective, Al-Qeada seeks to ensure a strict Islamic law wherever it is at, and the Jihad is indeed a Muslim religious war with several lessons from it being the notorious martyrdom virgins. To them any Iraqi or Afghan that works with American troops has betrayed them and the Islamic teachings, to them, We are the evil invading force while their insurgents are protecting their country, religion, family and homes. What both are failing to realize is how war effects the individual, which is what this game is about, Bilal isn't doing it for his religion, his country, but out of vengeance for the death of his brother, a pure intention skewed into an anti-American perspective sadly.

I'm not talking about the American perspective. If you are going to fault me for not looking at it from Al-Qaeda's perspective, I am going to fault you for not looking at it from the point of view of the Iraqi civilian population. These are everyday people who are being murdered in droves by jihadists. Do they not have a right to life, regardless of what some holy warrior believes?

Getting back to the game, Bilal is doing his people no favor. American soldiers don't want to kill civilians. They try not to do it. It is very sad that his brother was killed, but putting forth a piece of art that seems to glorify slaughtering American soldiers, who are fighting and dying to protect Iraqi civilians, sends a bad message. It reinforces the stereotype of Middle Easterners as blood-thirsty savages.

EDIT: I hope that I did not come off as too combative. We are having a nice, civil discussion so I hope that there are no hard feelings.

War is the product of ignorance. Before globalization, it was due to the unfamiliarity of one culture with another (i.e. the conquest of North and South America by Europeans c. 16th century and after). Now, today's wars involve enemies that were created as byproducts of expansionism (the extremist hatred of the West by certain Middle Eastern organizations) and people looking for someone to blame (both World Wars).

Edit: The American mantra of "free speech" is impeded by the number of conservative politicians who want to make a whole operation (SWAT teams and all) out of something they don't agree with. When I say "conservative," I don't mean it in a political sense, but rather a cultural one. It is a fact of life that many older people will not accept the new culture that accompanies a new generation. A problem arises when they think they can do something to revert it to the way it was when they were younger, especially if said person holds a position in office (and, if I'm not mistaken, the political scene is dominated by old men).

I don't have anything against old people as a whole, but many politicians tend to be old people. There is a line between "regulation" and "suppression" that many older politicians tend to cross regularly. Of course, there are also young people who do the same, but that's different. Those kinds of people are just assholes by nature.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here