quote:

---

WASHINGTON D.C. - U2's Bono, well recognized for his campaigns to reduce poverty and treat AIDS in Africa is backing a videogame which promotes the invasion and destruction of Venezuela in order to check "a power hungry tyrant" who has "seized control of Venezuela and her oil supply." Bono has failed to respond to concerns raised by the Venezuelan Solidarity Network about his funding of this project.

---

Venezuela Solidarity story

quote:

---

The computer game is played from the perspective of a mercenary who is dispatched to Venezuela with the guidance: "If you see it you can buy it, steal it, or blow the living crap out of it." Called Mercenaries 2: World in Flames, it is made byPandemic Studios, based in Los Angeles, in which a private equity firm established by the U2 lead singer has invested $300m (£165m). It is one of the world's largest independent games producers.

---

"The Venezuelan Solidarity Network calls for Bono, who has appealed to the world on many occasions for peace and poverty reduction, to apply those same values to block the manufacture and distribution of this videogame."

Still waiting for a reply from Bono. Uh-huh. By the way, you can write to him at:

Bono (of U2)
C/o Principle Management
250 West 57th Street
New York, New York 10019

It should be interesting to see how this great (and rich) humanitarian responds and which principle trumps which - the principle of getting rich, whatever the consequences, or the principle of solidarity.

[ 11 July 2006: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

Does playing NFL Madden 2K6 or playstation FIFA World cup make one more athletic or more inclines to be athletic? Clearly no.

Is the fact that I played hundreds of hours of civilization and age of empires, that I was in fact one of the top age of empires deathmatch players on Earth mean that I will one day become a global conqueror, raping and pillaging millions of civilians? No.

Does playing Dance Dance revolution freqeuently mean that one is going to become the living incarnation of Patrick Swayze's character from Dirty Dancing? Obviously not.

Note to critics of lack of political corectness in video games: get a clue. These games are not real. As someone who played them as a hobby, is that they're fine.

My first introduction to politics in fact, or one of them, when I was about seven, eight, nine years old, I was reading about how American senator Joseph Lieberman wanted to ban most video games. I knew little of poltics at the time, but I knew that this man was a fool and someone who panders, even though I didn't have the word for pandering. Ironically, reading about all the related controversy may be partly responsible for getting me involved in politics.

[ 11 July 2006: Message edited by: 500_Apples ]

quote:

---

"if it's 'just a game' and it's all about selecting fascinating and colorful locales, why didn't Pandemic select Dublin or Washington, D.C.? Because people would be outraged, that's why. Pandemic is simply capitalizing on negative and inaccurate U.S. press stories about Venezuela and its leader, Hugo Chavez, in order to make a quick buck. It's another piece of anti-Venezuelan propaganda that serves only the U.S. military, pure and simple."

---

By the way, when I would play Age of Empires, I would always seek to butcher my opponent's farmers - even half of them were female. I did this so that he wouldn't be able to build as much infantry and cavalry. Do you think I'm the next Genghis Kahn?

[ 11 July 2006: Message edited by: 500_Apples ]

Hmm. Come to think of it, did you read the policy statement of babble? You might find it helpful to ensure that you don't cross the line of what's appropriate and what's not. Or you could find out the hard way. ahahahahaha!

quote:

---

The only thing you demonstrate with your Washington DC example is that the irrational people in DC have more power to implement their irrationality than the irrational people in Venunzuela.

---

Yst wrote:

quote:

---

Perhaps you should get in contact with some fundamentalist Christians on this issue, Beltov. They too seem to believe that there is no meaningful difference between representing a thing and advocating that same thing. That is to say, to depict a thing happening is inherently to promote it, and so to depict only ideal actions while denying the existence and denying the possibility of ill-advised or undesirable courses of action is the sole acceptable treatment of art.

---

quote:

---

I wouldn't mind too much to see Victoria blown up in a video game as I recognize that the video game isn't reality. Truth be told I'd find it amusing.

---

[ 11 July 2006: Message edited by: 500_Apples ]

quote:

---

Yst: They too seem to believe that there is no meaningful difference between representing a thing and advocating that same thing.

---

Why don't you try "representing" violence against women on babble and see how fast your ass is booted out of here? Some of us would find it highly amusing.

P.S. The artistic depiction of the ugly, the base and the horrible presupposes that the artist takes an philosphical orientation towards those attributes of life; endorsing indiscriminate mock killings for immediate pleasure and gratification has nothing to do with artistic appreciation of life. Edited to add: Maybe you can argue that killing is an artistic pleasure that has no need of a context. When those mock killings are of people in a real country recently threatened by a gigantic military power then it's not only artistic principles that apply but ethical, moral and those sorts of principles that also apply.

[ 11 July 2006: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

quote:

---

Again, why are you asking me about abortions, you seem to have a fetish with me and abortions, it borders on stalkerish irrationality.

---

Well, I was thinking the same thing about you. In other threads you got all in a lather waving "forced abortions" around any discussion involving population control. So, since you are all sensitive about abortions, I am asking, would you get a laugh over a video game where the purpose is to perform abortion? Yes or no? It's not that hard.

[ 11 July 2006: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]

I'm trying to conceive of how abortions could play a role in video games, how to make the fun. One idea would be for political simulations like SimCity or Civilization to allow the mayor to build abortion clinics. I don't see anything wrong with that. Another idea would be a first-person shooter where the bad guy takes some local doctors hostage including the abortion doctor.

quote:

---

Does playing Dance Dance revolution freqeuently mean that one is going to become the living incarnation of Patrick Swayze's character from Dirty Dancing? Obviously not.

---

quote:

---

I was expressing disgust about the idea of forcing real-life women to have abortions against their will.

---

Well, I saw Superman last week. [spoilers, don't read ahead if you have not watched the movie and plan on].
[Reprinted to prevent appearing on the main screen: spoilers, don't read ahead if you have not watched the movie and plan on].
[spoilers, don't read ahead if you have not watched the movie and plan on].

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
In it, one of the goons gets killed by superman's bastard child, who manifests his powers for the first known time by throwing a piano across a room at high speed. I found that amusing.

[ 11 July 2006: Message edited by: 500_Apples ]

quote:

---

Movies are a narrative that usually pit good against evil. Video games the player is cast in a role playing game often without any purpose except killing as many "bad guys" as possible.

---

You need to play some video games. You'll see they can be quite entertaining. A few years ago, a professor from an applied mathematics course I was taken was discussing his background in materials science and how he learnt about it during his undergraduate in India. One of the things he had mathematically studied to significant detail was snow. Its density, its process of formation, its conditions for stability and such. However, when he moved to Canada for his Master's degree, and he saw real snow for the first time, he realized that he in fact had not known what snow was until that time, and that no explanation could have mentally prepared him for what it felt like. The failure in your analysis is that you're not drawing the disconnect between video games and real life. I played super mario kart for many years, along with some cruisn USA, ridge racer and stunt race FX, I can assure you it never prepared me for my driving license - even though these were interactive games.

Once again:

quote:

---

Does playing Dance Dance revolution freqeuently mean that one is going to become the living incarnation of Patrick Swayze's character from Dirty Dancing?

---

quote:

---

So should there be some sort of government boards to make sure video games are acceptable?

---

Once again:

quote:

---

Does playing Dance Dance revolution freqeuently mean that one is going to become the living incarnation of Patrick Swayze's character from Dirty Dancing?

---

quote:

---

After the firefight died down, Mattias (the protagonist) then drove into a shanty town in Caracas, which was filled with plenty of shacks, milling civilians and other objects. This town obviously sprawled over the hillside, and covered a significant portion of space, but Zamkoff wanted to take a shortcut. Mattias fired his machine gun at the civilians, who scattered away from a Trans-Am that he commandeered and then literally drove through shacks, a la Bad Boys II

---

quote:

---

FM, I think it's safe to say that if one doesn't find that objectionable, I would be hard pressed to come up with an example that is objectionable to that person.

---

FM, when we were children, my friends and I would play with LEGO, and sometimes we'd make spaceships and they'd go to war. Additionally, we'd also sometimes have water fights with out water guns. I still remember when I was 12 I bought a super soaker XP 105, and organized a water gun party. According to you and Greenie, this was "objectionable." Lastly, even though I played Monpoly extensively and still enjoy it, I support social democracy.

**********

As for Patrick Sqayze, not sure if anyone has copied him, if you want me to guess, I would imagine that yes, some imitated him. Movies are much more powerful than video games in that sense - they can be emotionally powerful enough to stimulate motivation.

[ 11 July 2006: Message edited by: 500_Apples ]

quote:

---

otter: I suspect that any game that identified the U.S. of A. as the "enemy" of the world would be taken to task immediately.

---

That's pretty obvious to all but the most deluded, gawking yes-man of the U.S..

quote:

---

I know i would buy it and enjoy the concept of kissing ass there ...

---

Since that's clearly not what people want, why don't we initiate a controversy and draw some attention to the game? That way we can make sure the publishers get some attention, and give the game a little 'naughty' cachet.

Nah, it'll never work. 'Bad' doesn't sell, especially not to adolescent males (the primary but not only market for games like that).

My point being that the vast majority of games like that are in the bargain bin within a month. From what I've read about the game in question, it has nothing original or exciting (to a gamer) to offer over any other game. What it might have is a little controversy, to move the product.

Edited to add that: I agree the setting of Venezuela is problematic, for sure. However, that's separate from the mayhem that apparently happens inside the game - it could happen in any context, and is a separate topic.

What I mean is: would it be different as a strategy game, where the player maneuvered pieces on a board into Venezuela? It's Venezuela as the target that's the issue, as I understand it - the mayhem is another issue (certainly worth discussion, but not necessarily on topic for this thread).

[ 11 July 2006: Message edited by: arborman ]

quote:

---

arborman: From what I've read about the game in question, it has nothing original or exciting (to a gamer) to offer over any other game. What it might have is a little controversy, to move the product.

---

...which is one of the things that the original letter to Bono draws attention to. It will be interesting to see if the famous musician chooses to distance himself from this cash grab by a company that he's financially connected to or whether he just lays low, hoping for the controversy to blow over. Not that I expect much from him; I've never idolized that musician and I much prefer less commercial music than U-2's.

quote:

---

arborman: What I mean is: would it be different as a strategy game, where the player maneuvered pieces on a board into Venezuela? It's Venezuela as the target that's the issue, as I understand it - the mayhem is another issue (certainly worth discussion, but not necessarily on topic for this thread).

---

I think 500_Apples has confused the two issues [mahem versus the target] on this thread. But about the first question - video games are much more powerful multi-media "experiences" than simple strategy games and probably leave a more lasting unthinking impression. A strategy game that made a "tyrant" who had "taken over" the oil fields of Venezuela the target of the player is going to have a more modest influence than that on an active gamer who pushes the buttons to visceral screams and explosions in full living colour and sound.

[ 11 July 2006: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by arborman:
Sounds like a pretty low-rent video game, with a shelf life of about 2 weeks. First person shooter games are a dime a dozen, and 98% of them disappear almost instantly, never to be seen again.

---

I'm not sure if it's low budget since the game doesn't seem to be released yet. However, it is a sequel and the previous version of the game seems to be still selling today, about a year and a half past its initial release. The publisher is LucasArts which is not a minor player. I'm leaning towards this title not being a budget title, forgettable two weeks after its release.

Perhaps they could make a game where you get to play a Nazi, and you run a death camp, where you have to try and execute as many Jews as possible, before your time runs out, or else the Fuhrer will reprimand you.

Do you think that would be an acceptable game?

How about a game where you get to play an Al-Qeada leader, and after you win a battle you get to decapitate all your prisoners?

Do you think that would be an acceptable game?

Or perhaps a game, where you are a detective, and you have to go around finding all the clues to show that the Holocaust was just a big myth?

The fact of the matter is that the US(the cgreat champion of democracy) supported an illegal invasion of Venezuela, against a democratically elected leader - for no reason, other than the corporations that they pander to, felt their profits might be in jeopardy.

quote:

---

Pearson: Does it give you the option ...

---

Chavistas, like all the other Venezuelans, are simply victims and cannon fodder for the "protagonist" or shooter.

A review says that "[The] level of destruction has been increased exponentially. Co-op play is finally available."

Here's more:

quote:

---

GameSpy: It's been more than a year since gamers last saw gun-for-hire Mattias and his merry band of mercenary misfits blowing up all of Korea. Since that time, Mattias has decided to leave the concrete jungle in favor of one with a bit more green. Mercenaries 2 opens up with Mattias and his crew in Venezuela, contracted to help the local guerilla soldiers in their struggle against an expanding oil conglomerate and its highly trained security forces. As always though, loyalty can be bought for the right price. After all, the game is called "Mercenaries."

What makes missions in the game so interesting is that when you're contracted to do a job, you're simply given a goal to accomplish. How you actually go about achieving that goal is left entirely to your imagination. Need to sink an oil platform? You can swipe a boat, cruise out to the platform's support structures, and plant remote detonated C4 charges. Or, if you're feeling more adventurous, you can use the game's newly implemented grappling hook to hijack an enemy helicopter, and just blow the heck out of the platform with your new chopper's missiles. There's no wrong way to get things done, just as long as you get it done.

---

quote:

---

How about a game where you get to play an Al-Qeada leader, and after you win a battle you get to decapitate all your prisoners?

Do you think that would be an acceptable game?

---

No less and no more acceptable than such a movie would be.

quote:

---

If people created these games, would you really come out, and protect free speech and say that these games are just fine? Would you let your children play these games if they were given as presents?

---

If I had children, then I might seek, for the first few years, to limit their access to popular media which promotes unhealthy junk food, objectification of women, and violence; and this curtain would slowly lift. And indeed I include video games among popular media, I'd probably prefer strategy games and action adventure to FPS.

I do also argue the posters on this thread may be making a category error through their lack of video gaming experience. I don't consider a mercenary in venunzuela to be morally equivalent to a nazi killing Jews. I think it's more analogous to James Bond. I note that Mr. Bond has a license to kill.

[ 11 July 2006: Message edited by: 500_Apples ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pearson:
500

Perhaps they could make a game where you get to play a Nazi, and you run a death camp, where you have to try and execute as many Jews as possible, before your time runs out, or else the Fuhrer will reprimand you.

Do you think that would be an acceptable game?

How about a game where you get to play an Al-Qeada leader, and after you win a battle you get to decapitate all your prisoners?

---

I don't like the premise (mad dictator takes over the oil) as applied to Venezuela, but I suspect that these things often get blown out of proportion.

In the 80s we had a slough of 2nd rate movies about vigilante justice against drug lords. Before and during that period it was Vietnam movies (a much more serious topic, so far).

There is currently a fairly popular video game out where you have the choice to play either the US or Vietnames forces in the Vietnam war. I'm told the Vietnamese side is popular. There are tons where you can play Axis or Allied forces in WWII.

So the mayhem happens in Venezuela, in this game. I've seen games where it happens in LA, in London and on Mars. Unless you think that the video game developer is a deep cover CIA propaganda agency, isn't it just yet another variation of make believe? Is it the mayhem, or the location that is the issue?

And my understanding of the game is that it is possible to fight for any of the sides in the conflict - it isn't built as a linear invade & conquer game. Am I wrong, or are people jumping to conclusions about the point of the game (as far as I can tell, it's mayhem, but is there something more?)

What I'm saying is, the game might reflect some unpleasant elements of the US worldview, and lots of people certainly don't like violent (or any other) video games at all, but I don't know that the game is any worse or better than hundreds of other games out there.

quote:

---

Originally posted by marzo:

Is it possible that somebody who is obsessed with violent fantasies is likely to get bored and crave the experience of real brutality, screaming victims, and control over the lives of others?

---

It's possible, but don't conflate the people who are obsessed with violent fantasies with the people who play videogames.

I play videogames, some of them have violence in them. To my knowledge, I've never been obsessed with anything, least of all violence. In the (mercifully) few instances in my life when I've encountered real violence, I've been horrified.

Video games are the current easy target for those who want to make a bit of political hay. Not long ago it was Heavy Metal music, Rock&Roll, Jazz, J.D. Salinger or any number of other art forms. No doubt I'll be worried about something arborboy gets into 15 years from now as well, because it will be new and I won't fully 'get it'.

Like all art forms, there is a fairly high signal to noise ration. For every 'Seinfeld' there are 5 'Who's the Boss?' "Full House' etc. For every really good video game (Civilization) there will be 5 really bad ones. For every excellent band there are dozens of Britneys and Backstreet Boys, or 50Cents.

What worries me in all of these discussions about video games is the conflation of video games (make believe) with reality. People don't do it with Shakespeare, (though I'm sure they did at the time). They do it with the new media, whatever they might be. Somebody please, think of the children!.

One question - does the game portray an invasion of Venezuela as a good thing (like D-Day), or as a nasty backdrop for the events of the game? Very different situations, I'd say.

quote:

---

I am certain that a link exists between immersion in fantasy violence and a desensitization to real violence. Fantasy violence could include video games, movies, or bible stories.

---

If this was purely fictitious, I would have no issue with it. However, the US hawks have been echoing similiar statements as of late - the latest tp dismiss Chavez's democratic victories since Hitler was elected as well.

Arborman - While the US did not officially invade Venezuela, it has assisted and supported an illegal coup - a new completely undemocratic government which it recognized as legitimate immediately upon the overthrow.

And, there is enough saber rattling to suggest that the US could very well invade Venezuela - which is why they are so opposed to Venezuela getting arms to defend themselves.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
Do you think video games should be exempt from the same laws being applied to speech?

---

I'm opposed to most of Canada's speech laws. I don't understand why anyone on the Left thinks the state would regulate speech in order to build a more progressive society.

[ 12 July 2006: Message edited by: Lord Palmerston ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pearson:

Arborman - While the US did not officially invade Venezuela, it has assisted and supported an illegal coup - a new completely undemocratic government which it recognized as legitimate immediately upon the overthrow.

And, there is enough saber rattling to suggest that the US could very well invade Venezuela - which is why they are so opposed to Venezuela getting arms to defend themselves.

---

Certainly true, as far as I know. But that likely has little to do with the game developers, who are probably just picking a likely spot for turmoil. Again, what side do the main characters pick in the in-game conflict? Does anybody know, or is everyone here assuming the players are invading USians? Judging by a description posted above where the main character is fighting against an oil conglomerate, I suspect things are a bit more nuanced.

And there really is nothing wrong with placing media in hypothetical hotspots.

quote:

---

What next? Will they have a video game that allows the player to plant a bomb on the planes of Latin leaders who are not pro free-market enough?

---

Probably not, because that's not the point of a game. The point of a game is to have fun - the few games that have been developed to 'teach' or promote a political viewpoint tend to be pretty boring.

Again, so these developers looked at world events and hypothesized Venezuela as a hotspot. Not entirely unimaginable, I'd say. So they decided to situate their game in that hotspot. So what.

~~

One doesn't have to be against free speech to draw conclusions about the character and motive of those speaking.

When someone denies the holocaust, you're free to draw very firm conclusions about their character and their politics.

...creating conditions to attack Venezuela ...

quote:

---

The government of the United States climbs to new heights of cynicism and shamelessness when it tries to tie Venezuela to its particular vision of international terrorism. It affirms that Venezuela is not "collaborating sufficiently" with the fight against terrorism. ...

Public opinion knows the emphasis that the present Administration, with President Bush at the helm, places on the principle that "a terrorist is not only he who engages in acts of terrorism, but also those who harbor them." This principle permits us to affirm without fear of being mistaken that current U.S. authorities are terrorists. By the same token, public opinion is well aware of the shelter that the U.S. is providing the most criminal of terrorists in the Western Hemisphere, Luis Posada Carriles, a well known assassin on the payroll of the CIA. Public opinion also knows of the order given by U.S. authorities to release two persons accused of terrorism by Venezuelan courts of justice: Antonio Colina and Germán Varela, who placed bombs in the diplomatic missions of Spain and Colombia, allied countries of the United States of America. The Bush Administration has simply not responded to the request made by Venezuela for their extradition, under treaties and international law ...

---

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I know i would buy it and enjoy the concept of kissing ass there ...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Take that Harper helmet off at once! I think you meant "kicking ass".

---