Not sure what I was expecting, but I guess I was pretty saddened by that debate.
They say that they don't have the power to censor the game and it's going to come out whatever they do, but there's actually a pretty believable path from here to the point where every major platform/distributor bans the game.
They say that "it's not censorship" because actually "the game is committing censorship by excluding POVs that are bad optics for the US". I mean, we have all heard the arguments about whether or not it's really censorship to be banned from a private company's social forum, but this seems to be multiple levels of censorship hyper-sensitivity beyond that. I'm not sure it's even possible to take that argument seriously considering that the prior thing that Rami said was that he "does not understand how it's censorship" to prevent the game from being released. Okay, so then I guess if Youtube censors some topics (it does) then it's "not censorship" if the US government shuts down Youtube? No idea what Rami was thinking when he said this.
Besides, it's not really that difficult to find out what kind of bad things the US did in Fallujah. If you go on Wikipedia you learn that they used white phosphorus. If you google "bombing Fallujah" you learn that they waged a terror bombing campaign to drive as many civilians out of the city as possible (there is a Guardian article about this). But this is a tactical game about soldiers on the ground, not about shooting artillery at civilians!
A thing I can agree with Rami on would be that This War of Mine was really great. But I don't agree at all with the suggestion (implied, not outright stated) that something This War of Mine-ish should REPLACE Six Days in Fallujah. If you want more games, GOOD, if you want to ban and replace, well then what you want IS ACTUALLY GODDAMN CENSORSHIP.
Also, there were just so many "huh, why?" moments.
"All these military shooters dehumanize Arabs." Huh, why? Do you also think WW2 games dehumanize Japanese and Germans?
"A game about a real-world event should not be allowed to tell stories from the perspective of the oppressor." Huh, why? Would it be better if it was not a game but a book instead?
"It's bad that they are randomizing house layouts instead of doing a 1-to-1 recreation of Fallujah." Huh, why? I mean, that would remove the whole gimmick!
I also suspect that they don't even like the gameplay of tactical military shooters, so it would really have added to the conversation to have at least one tactical FPS gamer there. All in all, what a joke.
It's really unfortunate that they didn't bring you on, Erik. I'm sure you would have done an excellent job defending the game's right to exist and value as a medium.
Well if they stick to the same logic it does actually seem like they would say it's bad! Unless they actually think that it's the game-ness that makes it bad, like putting you into a bad role to play. Whereas reading is more like passively observing.
Thanks. I think they definitely should have brought me on but I suppose my presence was not "safe" or something. Would be cool if the devs would have come on also but I think they're laying low.
I would seriously like critics of this game to actually reach out to the devs & arrange a visit to the studio(s) to see its development, how it plays, how it actually represents the people of Fallujah, then offer criticisms to the devs directly on how to possibly correct elements that misrepresent the people affected, etc. I also feel this would be good for the devs as well.
However, I don't think this will happen as keep getting a sinking feeling that there is a whole lot of bad faith being thrown around on all sides here (studio & critics against the project).
Personally, I won't waste my money on it & would tell my friends to not either. I have zero faith that this will be nothing more than pro-military propaganda. Again, that is my overall feeling about this game, and I could very well be wrong about it when it releases. Nothing I've seen so far has swayed that though. I still won't purchase it either way.
Keep doing your thing here, Erik. While I don't agree with a few of your opinions on various topics, I do appreciate the outside perspective that hits against my own natural biases; this is a good thing. You do the work, try to back up everything you write, and will always listen to a discussion. Looking forward to the next diabolical.
Thanks very much! Sorry I'm late to this comment thread! It's so good to hear people say "we may not always agree but I enjoy having my perspective challenged"--if only everyone operated this way, what a world we'd have.
I don't agree with the CAIR statement that the game is a "murder simulator." But, the creator of this game has openly said that he plans to white wash and gloss over the fact that U.S. soldiers committed war crimes because he doesn't think it's worth putting in the game. That, to me, is worthy of discussion.
I think that the discussion should include the possibility that Microsoft, Steam, and Sony should not host the game. And, I think that all the people yelling about censorship because of that suggestion are being extremely dense as that is not censorship. I don't have to be a "fan" of giant corporations to recognize that they have no legal obligation to host my art and I am not being censored by them refusing to do so.
I'm a professional photographer by trade. If I make a photograph of Erik Kain boinking a cow with big balloon letters above him reading "NOT ALL MEN," I can't scream censorship if Microsoft or Sony refuse to sell that print in their fancy corporate gift stores.
No one screams about censorship when Museums of Art refuse to house screenshots of old Jenna Jameson movies.
Why? Because it's not censorship. No one is telling this person that they can't create and sell this game. Anyone who says that it is is simply out for clickbait metrics or they don't understand what censorship really is.
They don't see the difference between a crowd of citizens asking for companies not to promote said material, and the government enforcing regulations on art.
Now, there are some who might argue that any "hiding" of art counts as censorship.
"Wouldst thou side with the mob if it wanted to tear down the Sistine chapel for portraying God as white!?"
Because I can see that being something that someone has had to have pointed out on Twitter at some point.
To which I would respond "Hey, remember that dumb snowball effect you laughed at conservatives for when they said that metal music would lead to Satanism and gay marriage would lead to the legalization of bestiality? Congrats, you're them now."
I feel like you're getting a few of the facts wrong here and distorting the conversation by using fairly radical examples. For one thing, the game's creator didn't white wash war crimes. He said he doesn't want white phosphorous to be part of the game as this is not its focus and he doesn't want to gamify the use of white phosphorous (a controversial killstreak in Black Ops that many people criticized.)
I would argue that saying that U.S. soldiers using white phosphorous because it's "not the focus" and he doesn't want to gamify it is white washing. The whole selling point of this game is that it's going to be a reconstruction of the one of most fierce battles of the war, with real life people being portrayed. He has said that he feels a duty towards the soldiers he interviewed to get the game out and tell their story, just apparently not in a way that doesn't look at the hard truth of their actions.
And, whatever, that's his prerogative. But again, it doesn't equate to censorship if people want to say that these companies shouldn't platform his art if he's willing to make money off of that "sense of duty" but too much of a coward to look at the story as a whole.
And I don't think my example are all that radical. I'm simply having the discussion that all the people critical of the CAIR statement seem to want to have. Art is art, and shouldn't be "censored." Fine. So we're either then I ask, if art is art and never to be questioned in regards to where or how it is hosted, why are we not decrying the censorship of my local children's museum not taking my application of tasteful nudes?
The answer is: we all know that this discussion of hosting isn't censorship. It's people bitching that other people are offended by a piece of art they aren't offended by.
Your nudes-in-children's museum is an example of reductio ad absurdum, or appealing to extremes. A clear fallacy. Steam carrying a FPS is nothing at all like a children's museum carrying pornography. People have a right to request that Steam not carry the game, sure, but deplatorming something because of ideological reasons is still a form of censorship.
"Fellas is railing against propaganda for US war crimes sjw-y?"
Lmao literally who cares what happens to this game? The only reason anyone knows about it at all is the controversy. It will sell more DDL copies via the rightoid backlash than it ever would have otherwise.
God fuck off Erik and go write for Fox or Breitbart. Fulfill your destiny.
I wasn't aware that defending freedom of expression was an issue only right-wingers care about. Breitbart and Fox are loathsome. Nice try though. You come off as a fun person.
Not sure what I was expecting, but I guess I was pretty saddened by that debate.
They say that they don't have the power to censor the game and it's going to come out whatever they do, but there's actually a pretty believable path from here to the point where every major platform/distributor bans the game.
They say that "it's not censorship" because actually "the game is committing censorship by excluding POVs that are bad optics for the US". I mean, we have all heard the arguments about whether or not it's really censorship to be banned from a private company's social forum, but this seems to be multiple levels of censorship hyper-sensitivity beyond that. I'm not sure it's even possible to take that argument seriously considering that the prior thing that Rami said was that he "does not understand how it's censorship" to prevent the game from being released. Okay, so then I guess if Youtube censors some topics (it does) then it's "not censorship" if the US government shuts down Youtube? No idea what Rami was thinking when he said this.
Besides, it's not really that difficult to find out what kind of bad things the US did in Fallujah. If you go on Wikipedia you learn that they used white phosphorus. If you google "bombing Fallujah" you learn that they waged a terror bombing campaign to drive as many civilians out of the city as possible (there is a Guardian article about this). But this is a tactical game about soldiers on the ground, not about shooting artillery at civilians!
A thing I can agree with Rami on would be that This War of Mine was really great. But I don't agree at all with the suggestion (implied, not outright stated) that something This War of Mine-ish should REPLACE Six Days in Fallujah. If you want more games, GOOD, if you want to ban and replace, well then what you want IS ACTUALLY GODDAMN CENSORSHIP.
Also, there were just so many "huh, why?" moments.
"All these military shooters dehumanize Arabs." Huh, why? Do you also think WW2 games dehumanize Japanese and Germans?
"A game about a real-world event should not be allowed to tell stories from the perspective of the oppressor." Huh, why? Would it be better if it was not a game but a book instead?
"It's bad that they are randomizing house layouts instead of doing a 1-to-1 recreation of Fallujah." Huh, why? I mean, that would remove the whole gimmick!
I also suspect that they don't even like the gameplay of tactical military shooters, so it would really have added to the conversation to have at least one tactical FPS gamer there. All in all, what a joke.
It's really unfortunate that they didn't bring you on, Erik. I'm sure you would have done an excellent job defending the game's right to exist and value as a medium.
The intent was to make people think there was no other side.
Indeed.
"A game about a real-world event should not be allowed to tell stories from the perspective of the oppressor."
Wait, was it bad that Orwell wrote "Shooting an Elephant" from his perspective as a colonial soldier in Burma? It's pretty strongly anti-imperialist.
Well if they stick to the same logic it does actually seem like they would say it's bad! Unless they actually think that it's the game-ness that makes it bad, like putting you into a bad role to play. Whereas reading is more like passively observing.
Great example. Love Orwell.
Thanks. I think they definitely should have brought me on but I suppose my presence was not "safe" or something. Would be cool if the devs would have come on also but I think they're laying low.
I would seriously like critics of this game to actually reach out to the devs & arrange a visit to the studio(s) to see its development, how it plays, how it actually represents the people of Fallujah, then offer criticisms to the devs directly on how to possibly correct elements that misrepresent the people affected, etc. I also feel this would be good for the devs as well.
However, I don't think this will happen as keep getting a sinking feeling that there is a whole lot of bad faith being thrown around on all sides here (studio & critics against the project).
Personally, I won't waste my money on it & would tell my friends to not either. I have zero faith that this will be nothing more than pro-military propaganda. Again, that is my overall feeling about this game, and I could very well be wrong about it when it releases. Nothing I've seen so far has swayed that though. I still won't purchase it either way.
Keep doing your thing here, Erik. While I don't agree with a few of your opinions on various topics, I do appreciate the outside perspective that hits against my own natural biases; this is a good thing. You do the work, try to back up everything you write, and will always listen to a discussion. Looking forward to the next diabolical.
Thanks very much! Sorry I'm late to this comment thread! It's so good to hear people say "we may not always agree but I enjoy having my perspective challenged"--if only everyone operated this way, what a world we'd have.
I'll give a dissenting opinion:
I don't agree with the CAIR statement that the game is a "murder simulator." But, the creator of this game has openly said that he plans to white wash and gloss over the fact that U.S. soldiers committed war crimes because he doesn't think it's worth putting in the game. That, to me, is worthy of discussion.
I think that the discussion should include the possibility that Microsoft, Steam, and Sony should not host the game. And, I think that all the people yelling about censorship because of that suggestion are being extremely dense as that is not censorship. I don't have to be a "fan" of giant corporations to recognize that they have no legal obligation to host my art and I am not being censored by them refusing to do so.
I'm a professional photographer by trade. If I make a photograph of Erik Kain boinking a cow with big balloon letters above him reading "NOT ALL MEN," I can't scream censorship if Microsoft or Sony refuse to sell that print in their fancy corporate gift stores.
No one screams about censorship when Museums of Art refuse to house screenshots of old Jenna Jameson movies.
Why? Because it's not censorship. No one is telling this person that they can't create and sell this game. Anyone who says that it is is simply out for clickbait metrics or they don't understand what censorship really is.
They don't see the difference between a crowd of citizens asking for companies not to promote said material, and the government enforcing regulations on art.
Now, there are some who might argue that any "hiding" of art counts as censorship.
"Wouldst thou side with the mob if it wanted to tear down the Sistine chapel for portraying God as white!?"
Because I can see that being something that someone has had to have pointed out on Twitter at some point.
To which I would respond "Hey, remember that dumb snowball effect you laughed at conservatives for when they said that metal music would lead to Satanism and gay marriage would lead to the legalization of bestiality? Congrats, you're them now."
I feel like you're getting a few of the facts wrong here and distorting the conversation by using fairly radical examples. For one thing, the game's creator didn't white wash war crimes. He said he doesn't want white phosphorous to be part of the game as this is not its focus and he doesn't want to gamify the use of white phosphorous (a controversial killstreak in Black Ops that many people criticized.)
I would argue that saying that U.S. soldiers using white phosphorous because it's "not the focus" and he doesn't want to gamify it is white washing. The whole selling point of this game is that it's going to be a reconstruction of the one of most fierce battles of the war, with real life people being portrayed. He has said that he feels a duty towards the soldiers he interviewed to get the game out and tell their story, just apparently not in a way that doesn't look at the hard truth of their actions.
And, whatever, that's his prerogative. But again, it doesn't equate to censorship if people want to say that these companies shouldn't platform his art if he's willing to make money off of that "sense of duty" but too much of a coward to look at the story as a whole.
And I don't think my example are all that radical. I'm simply having the discussion that all the people critical of the CAIR statement seem to want to have. Art is art, and shouldn't be "censored." Fine. So we're either then I ask, if art is art and never to be questioned in regards to where or how it is hosted, why are we not decrying the censorship of my local children's museum not taking my application of tasteful nudes?
The answer is: we all know that this discussion of hosting isn't censorship. It's people bitching that other people are offended by a piece of art they aren't offended by.
Your nudes-in-children's museum is an example of reductio ad absurdum, or appealing to extremes. A clear fallacy. Steam carrying a FPS is nothing at all like a children's museum carrying pornography. People have a right to request that Steam not carry the game, sure, but deplatorming something because of ideological reasons is still a form of censorship.
Who said anything about pornography? I said tasteful nudes.
"Fellas is railing against propaganda for US war crimes sjw-y?"
Lmao literally who cares what happens to this game? The only reason anyone knows about it at all is the controversy. It will sell more DDL copies via the rightoid backlash than it ever would have otherwise.
God fuck off Erik and go write for Fox or Breitbart. Fulfill your destiny.
I wasn't aware that defending freedom of expression was an issue only right-wingers care about. Breitbart and Fox are loathsome. Nice try though. You come off as a fun person.