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.
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.
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."
"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.
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.
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.
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."
"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.