Monday, December 12, 2011

Only YOU Can Rescue The 1% in "Rainbow Six: Patriots"

I have my well-documented "issues" with the mega-popularity of the First-Person Shooter genre, but for the most part it's centered around their part in the blanding-up of the medium and the devaluation of the single-player experience. But there's a darker side to the whole phenomenon - namely, that it's helped to make the gaming medium a favorite new roost for the more despicable elements of America's political "right-wing."



While the film and television industry (with some noteworthy exception) doggedly avoided serving up the kind of NRA-empowerment/vengeance-porn some audiences were clammoring for in the wake of 9/11; the games industry pretty-much jumped in and said "let's do this!" - Neither Obama or even Bush could ever blast enough craters in the Middle East to slake the voyeuristic bloodlust of Team Nugent; so "Modern Warfare" and the like have been filling the void... and reaping enthusiastic "attaboys!" from wingnut nation for doing so.

It's an unpleasant development from any angle, but thus far it's at least been one-sided: Sarah Palin's America may love Military-FPS's; but thus far Military-FPS's haven't been (openly) loving them back - even "Modern Warfare" hedges it's ideological bets by dropping a "renegade American general" bad guy into it's assinine Neo-Soviet/Muslim/Illuminati/S.P.E.C.T.R.E. overarching conspiracy storyline. But that may be changing in the newest Tom Clancy-branded shooter, "Rainbow Six: Patriots," which just ran a new trailer on the excerable VGAs and in doing so revealed that the NEW villains you'll be blasting away at this time are...

...Occupy Wall-Street.

Well, okay, not exactly - the baddies are supposedly a homegrown terrorist militia called "The Patriots" who're as miffed at the government as they are at corporate America (so... the Sons of Liberty without all the cool robots and ninjas), but it's telling that this is the flavor they wanted for the big debut. It's an effective spot, to be sure, but it also carries an unmistakable implication that they've looked at the current zeitgeist and determined that their audience is more inclined to see the activists as potential terrorists and Wall Street as a threatened victim in need of protection. Is their calculation correct? Does the "Rainbox Six" audience look at OWS and see the American Al-Qaeda?

I'll admit, it'd be less "creepy" without Clancy's name attached. If you only know his "brand" from the movies you may not be aware of it, but Tom Clancy's stuff took a turn for right-wing fringe wackjobbery awhile ago; so it's not exactly a "reach" that his name would be on a "let's blast the hippies!" game - though I don't think he actual contributes to the content of the series anymore...

40 comments:

Mads said...

Am I the only one who thinks this is not necessarily targeting the occupiers, but rather an amalgam of right win militia types and tea party'ers ?

Clearly, the "Patriots" are the enemies; whereas the OCW people don't have a name harkening back to america's roots, the tea party'ers do.

The Tea Party in boston, while significantly less violent than this trailer, was essentially an act of agression against wealthy businesses of a corrup government was feeding them and something had to be done...right?

Furthermore, the link between the tea party line and domestic terrorism is much stronger than that between domestic terrorism and OCW.

But I digress. Maybe you're right, and the target is the OCW.

But you know what?, that doesn't make it bad. Now lets be clear, I'm not saying that propaganda or placating games are good, they're generally pretty horrid, but some great works of art are designed with a serrated edge to them. Ambiguous villains and protagonist and unlikeable characters in general play an important part in many narratives. Take Starship Troopers (the book), more or less clearly a defense of the military industrial complex shrouded in a veil of science fiction. The statement it makes might not be one you agree with, but you can certainly appreciate it all the same.

I think there's a trend to lend works of fiction less and less credit in this regard (ie. regarding the work of fiction as a disparate voice from that of the author), and if games buck the trend and make opportunistic gambles because it fits with the zeitgeist and the resulting game as a whole, that's a good, not an evil.

Bebop said...

Having actually read about the game in question, Ubisoft made some things clear that actually intrigued me:

1) The enemy in question is based more on, ironically, the militaristic anti-government groups ("militia" movements) that have been building but have been relatively quiet in less scrupulous parts of the country, and posits a 'what if?' scenario in which they actually became organized under a Kurtz-style leader.

2)Ubi Montreal did say that they were 'changing gameplay' and the way the Patriots (apparently the militia group in question) in reaction to the tactics of modern terrorism, though they emphasized that this would be more about making difficult decisions (i.e. do you have to kill one person to save a hundred, or vice versa) and making it more realistic, though how that ultimately plays out is anyone's guess.

3) They've also said that the campaign will switch between the titular anti-terrorism group and the Patriots, in an effort to humanize both sides and make the conflict less cut-and-dry.

Of course, any of these things can and may change between now and when the game comes out, and I'm as tired of the military FPS oversaturating the genre as much as anybody (which is the REAL issue moreso than the proliferation of the FPS itself), but considering I trust Ubi Montreal with narrative integrity more than Infinity Ward, it sounds like they're actively trying to do something interesting, though again, how any of this actually turns out is anyone's guess.

Jannie said...

Really?

This is the "big problem" now, that a game that hasn't even come out yet, that you have not played, and the plot of which you know not one iota besides pre-release hype and PR which (if the past is any indication) is about as accurate as fairy tales...and all this tells you the game MIGHT be a knock at the Occupy movement.

I'm not even going to go into the actually far more insulting notion that FPS games are supposedly aimed at the right wing (I'm a liberal, by the way) I'm just going to say this:

Unless and until you can present evidence that this group is actually based DIRECTLY on the Occupy movement, and unless and until you have some confirmation that they're portrayed as a direct dig against said movement, you're at best being misleading and at worst simply lying.

You know as much about the game as anyone else does right now, which is precisely dick, and for all you know the big twist will be that these guys are the GOOD GUYS...hasn't been the last time, not in gaming and not in fiction in general. I could just as easily make the claim that the bad guys in this game are more of a rip off of the Posse Comotatus (or however you spell that) and use the EXACT SAME information that you do...information mainly gleaned from a combination of hype, a teaser, and tea leaves.

I mean really, Bob. I expected you to go apeshit over the announce of a new Rainbow Six game ON PRINCIPLE but I also frankly expected you to at least wait for it to exist in physical form before declaring it the OMG DETH OF ALL GAMING OMGOMGOMG!!!

Of course maybe that's just my naivete showing through, after all it was you and Allcaps Hulk who "broke" the "story" about Arkham City being uber-sexist because BADGUYS you KILL used the word bitch to describe their enemy, the heroine (meanwhile Other M is so not at all sexist, nope, not one bit).

I can only imagine what mental contortions it takes to derive "Oh my god, FPS games are attacking the first successful Liberal political movement since 1960! Obviously FPS gamers are all Republicans! Somehow!" from a trailer that's a little over a minute long and contains literally NO information about the game and NO actual in-game footage.

Jannie said...

Actually, scratch that, now that I've seen the trailer a second time...

HOW did you ever get Occupy from these guys? A bunch of white, middle aged, western terrorsists in business suits killing some random guy who may or may not be part of the 1%, and staging a terrorist attack on CIVILIANS who certainly aren't...

THAT is what you think Occupy looks like. If they were a bunch of young guys with a kind of rough edged look, or a punk look kind of like the Resistance from Brink, I'd buy it a LITTLE more. Maybe. Not much but I could at least see where you got the idea.

These guys look more like Mafia than Occupy WS dudes. In fact, getting super-serious here, when I first saw it I thought they were supposed to be either mobsters or assassins. I'd buy these guys as Blackwater before I see them as Occupiers.

How...the fuck...do you get Occupy Wall Street from "Middle-aged white dudes in sharp suits with automatic weapons".

Because, damn, you have a much more negative view of the Occupiers than I do. I mean, like, Fox News negative. Apparently a non-violent, mostly young or teenaged movement known for not being particularly organized is easily identified by...military precision, violence and middle-aged guys? Wut?

If I didn't know better I'd say you were grasping at straws. /sarcasm

Jannie said...

And another cunting thing!

I actually found an ACTUAL statement from the company here on Wouldyoukindly.com.

Now, of course, it's PR hype so it may in fact mean nothing but really this is telling. It sounds more like you're fighting Tim Mcveigh than Occupy Wall Street.

"Team Rainbow faces a new and very real threat called the “True Patriots,” a highly-trained, well-organized group of militias."

MILITIAS.

Not protestors, but the Militia Movement, which dates back to forever and has been connected to terrorist activity in the past--see, Oklahoma City.

So that's strike one.

Strike two and three are the words 'well-trained' and 'highly-organized' neither of which has ever been associated with Occupy but HAS been associated with the malcontents and mercenaries in these Militia movements. In fact, several of them are actually evolving into a so-called Patriots Movement. PATRIOT MOVEMENT? DOMESTIC TERRORISTS? GEE, I WONDER IF THAT'S WHAT THE GAME IS ABOUT!

"The True Patriots are capitalizing on the growing sense of frustration and anger in a modern day America that they feel is irrevocably corrupted by greedy politicians and corporate special interests."

This is textbook Republican, Tea Party and Militia Movement talk here. 'Special Interests' means usually black people, FYI. And the hate-on for the government is a staple of the Repub diet for decades now.

"Lead by a calculating figurehead named Tredway, this grassroots, homespun, terrorist organization"

Terrorists. Homespun.

Not protesters. Not Occupy.

"...will stop at nothing to overthrow the government and financial institutions to reclaim their country."

Also, not Occupy. Closer in fact to the Turner Diaries. Required reading for the PATRIOTS MOVEMENT that evolved from the Militias in the early 2000s.

None of it implicates Occupy. NONE. Not a single word, at all, sounds even remotely like the categorically non-violent Occupy group and most is almost directly screaming "This is the Patriots Movement! It's supposed to be anti-government militias! Patriots! In the title! Google it!"

So yeah...like I suspected, you're either purposefully misleading people or lying.

Chris said...

You know, if Bob's mere suggestion of a speculation about the narrative of an upcoming game sends you into a rage that takes you several posts to vent, it's probably healthier to stop reading his blog.

Aiddon said...

or make a blog of your own if you're going to devote that much time and energy to throwing around bile.

As for the game, the "economic equality" thing does have sort of a hint towards people like OWS (though OWS as of late hasn't been doing very well). I still think this'll be less disturbingly jingoistic than Modern Warfare though

Mads said...

I think you're perhaps going a bit over the top Jannie...although you have a great point re the patriot movement, and analyzing the press statement bit by bit.

But yeah, from the press statement, it's clearly concerned with the mostly republican rhetoric of "taking the country back".

But fundamentally, Tom Clancy games have to deal with terrorism. That's his deal. At least this time, the focus is domestic terrorism, which is what every liberal has been screaming for whenever a non-american-terrorist game has come out.

Of course, Tom Clancy must also be conspiracy ladden and full of murderous organizations.

...but then, have you even played any recent tom clancy brand-name games? You do realize that the splinter cell series is much less onesided when it comes to these things than, say, call of duty?

So I think you either completely misunderstood the trailer, or that you're trying to fit the trailer into a narrative you find compelling.

Which is...well, tbh, quite fox newsian.

Popcorn Dave said...

What the hell are you on about, Bob? Kudos to Jannie for bothering to do some research, but even just based on the trailer and the fact they're fucking called THE PATRIOTS ( not exactly subtle, geez) this is so transparently going to be about right wing survivalist/ take the country back types that it's not even funny.

Why are you even suggesting this has to do with OWP when it so obviously doesn't? Because FPS? Because Tom Clancy? That's all you got, vague ad hominems about people you don't like? Weak, Bob. Very weak.

Angry Man said...

This was my initial reaction to seeing the trailer as well. From the voice-over anyways, it seems like the terrorists are people mad at corporate fat-cats for robbing the people of America. However, it is just a brief trailer, with very fleeting information, that doesn't at all paint the whole picture. I'd be hesitant to make any strong judgement at this point. It might turn out exactly the opposite, or it might turn out you are right, but the game tries to humanize the terrorists and make their cause somewhat sympathetic (I'm a bit skeptical on that, but one can always hope).

Spongey Blob said...

Right. Well, I joined in at a fun time. And I honestly can't rally behind either argument.

MovieBob... I get it. I honest to god get the 'fuck the lefties' message. While I'll certainly argue that Occupy Wall Street isn't the main target, and I haven't done the research so maybe the rest of the game teaches about the wonders of Marxism or something, but I think this trailer at least sends the message that we'll be helping privileged white cats from a never ending swathe of evil tramps who've lost everything because ooo-rah...

... but that isn't why you brought it up at all, is it?

To clarify, the 'You're just playing as the Dogs from Pink Floyd's Animals album' vibe has absolutely, positively, 100% NOTHING to do with the game being an FPS. The message this game is sending isn't because it's an FPS, it's because the developers are morons. Yes, there are far too many oorah FPS's in the market, but that's a cross-media problem, and don't try to say that the TV industry is any better than games are right now. Would 24 have been made before 9/11? The news at the moment is built entirely on bombarding us with one sided moralising about how 'the liberals, Al Quada, and homosexuals are all trying to shit in the glove compartment of your Ford Focus in particular'. Or, hell, books! Read a modern day action book that doesn't read like a Reb Brown movie. See? Games aren't alone, and this isn't FPS's problem; it's everyone's problem.

You know what? I'd like to see one post on this subject where you DON'T say the words 'FPS'. I think you're right to say that there are too many games that glorify war and violence and outdated Cold War sensibilities, but are you honestly saying it because these messages are far too prevelant, or because you can't see behind the gun barrel? Because I can't tell anymore. If Nintendo's next Mario game had all the goombas stopping five times a day to pray, would you be just as offended?

Spongey Blob said...

Right. Well, I joined in at a fun time. And I honestly can't rally behind either argument.

MovieBob... I get it. I honest to god get the 'fuck the lefties' message. While I'll certainly argue that Occupy Wall Street isn't the main target, and I haven't done the research so maybe the rest of the game teaches about the wonders of Marxism or something, but I think this trailer at least sends the message that we'll be helping privileged white cats from a never ending swathe of evil tramps who've lost everything because ooo-rah...

... but that isn't why you brought it up at all, is it?

To clarify, the 'You're just playing as the Dogs from Pink Floyd's Animals album' vibe has absolutely, positively, 100% NOTHING to do with the game being an FPS. The message this game is sending isn't because it's an FPS, it's because the developers are morons. Yes, there are far too many oorah FPS's in the market, but that's a cross-media problem, and don't try to say that the TV industry is any better than games are right now. Would 24 have been made before 9/11? The news at the moment is built entirely on bombarding us with one sided moralising about how 'the liberals, Al Quada, and homosexuals are all trying to shit in the glove compartment of your Ford Focus in particular'. Or, hell, books! Read a modern day action book that doesn't read like a Reb Brown movie. See? Games aren't alone, and this isn't FPS's problem; it's everyone's problem.

You know what? I'd like to see one post on this subject where you DON'T say the words 'FPS'. I think you're right to say that there are too many games that glorify war and violence and outdated Cold War sensibilities, but are you honestly saying it because these messages are far too prevelant, or because you can't see behind the gun barrel? Because I can't tell anymore. If Nintendo's next Mario game had all the goombas stopping five times a day to pray, would you be just as offended?

Jannie said...

@Aiddon, Chris

Oh but it's perfectly fine for Bob to accuse people like me of being everything from criminals to right-wing survivalists to racists, and that's not an insult at all. But pointing out that Bob was, either by design or incompetence, withholding information is "throwing around bile".

Gotcha.

This echo chamber bullshit is becoming laughable. This is as bad as that handful of people who still believe that Elvis is dead.

Look, since anything other than a paragraph apparently counts as "OMG SO MUCH ENERGY!!!!" I'll summarize:

Too-long, didn't-read version--Bob says the game is about Occupiers based on no evidence at all and pure speculation. I looked it up. The game is about militiamen, and most likely based around the Patriots Movement. This evidence is readily available on Wikipedia and seven other websites I found. It is easy to come by and a link on the Wikipedia page leads directly to it. Therefore either he's lying or he was being purposefully misleading. Either way his sensationalism is irresponsible.

Sylocat said...

@Popcorn Dave: I don't want to speak for Bob, but I think it might have slightly more to do with the fact that, oh yeah, the voiceover in this trailer is transparently plagiarized from many of the #Occupy movement's signs and blogs.

Now, maybe the actual GAME won't be quite this direct, and the trailer is just playing up this angle to try and cash in on momentary topical relevance (it wouldn't be the first time), but you cannot seriously claim you don't see the parallels here.

@Jannie: That's right, just let it allllllllllll out, you'll feel much better.

Aiddon said...

@Sylocat

This could take awhile

Jannie said...

Hey Sylocat, care to post those blogs that the trailer "transparently plagiarizes"? I mean since it's so obvious, surely you wouldn't mind.

I mean, plagiary is a very specific claim, it means basically copying something word for word into something else, so clearly you MUST be able to show WHERE this was copied from? Yes?

So please, I implore you, if you have evidence that Ubisoft is doing so then it is your duty to expose them.

I'm awaiting your inevitable deluge of evidence, since I'm sure you're not just pulling that out of your ass with no idea what the hell it actually means.

Ian said...

I'm sorry Bob I'm inclined to disagree on your opinion of True Patriots. The narrative seems to be more focused on showing the dangers of someone who is charismatic, and has the ideological mind set of someone from the Tea Party Movement during the mid-term elections, and the home grown terrorists that have spawned as a result of in their minds over reaching government. Sure the target in the trailers happens to be someone who appears to be a part of the 1%, but take a chance to read the Game Informer cover story. I am glad to actually see a game that is genuinely going to be tackling a current topic, without doing it for shock value.

Jannie said...

It's also worth noting, of course, that "we hate rich bastards" is not something the OWS protesters came up with.

With all due respect to the Occupiers (and believe me, I genuinely do respect them) this whole theme has existed for decades and decades. The idea that the government is inherently corrupt, controlled by corporate interests, and actively conspiring against the common man dates back to the distant years of the post-WWII era.

Groups like the John Birch Society, the Posse Comotatus (again, spelled that wrong), the Weathermen, the Black Panthers, the Symbianese Liberation Army and even the Ku Klux Klan have aped this idea for generations now. Tim McVeigh and the Militias, the Patriots Movement, the anti-immigrant Minutemen (*snicker*), the Tea Party and yes even the Occupy Movement have all used similar rallying cries in the past.

The fact that the Occupiers are actually RIGHT and most of those past organizations were just anarchists and radicals, doesn't mean that the Occupy Movement, right in their convictions or not, get to claim ownership of saying "The government is full of corrupt liars! Rich people are fucking us over!"

Shit I mean, that's basically the plot behind the original Deus Ex, and there the anti-government rebels are the GOOD GUYS. In fact it's basically the thrust of the plot to Sonic the Hedgehog: evil corporations rule the world, the government does nothing, one small group of rebels rise up to overthrow the monied oligarchy.

I'd almost call it a narrative cliche if not for the fact it's actually, and rather horrifyingly, true...

Popcorn Dave said...

Sylocat: there's some anti corporate stuff in the trailer, but you can hear similar sentiments from many survivalist fanatics .... When those groups say "take our country back" they're not necessarily taking about Obama.. well not just him, anyway. It seems most likely the plot is going to be something about the recession causing a nationalist uprising, which is why the reference to bailouts is in there.

When have you ever heard an occupy protester refer to years of training and "this is the day we've been preparing for" or whatever it was the trailer said? This is so obviously a spin on the militia movement that I'm honestly suspicious that Bob might be mispresenting it on purpose.

Jannie said...

I'm still wondering where this trailer's dialogue was "transparently plagiarized" from.

Plagiarizing means copying something word for word. So for this to be plagiarized (TRANSPARENTLY, no less, meaning it's copying something well known and obvious) we'd need to see some Occupy blogs or websites say the same things.

Which, I'm sure exist, because Sylocat wouldn't just throw terms like that around willy nilly with no intent on backing up his accusations, fingers crossed that no one ever calls him on it.

Right?

Right...?

Smashmatt202 said...

And people wonder why you hate Republicans so much.

Jannie said...

Well, I'm a Liberal, in case anyone cares. Though I don't see how people can just assume you're a conservative because you play games written by a conservative author--I watched a Roman Polanski movie once too, does that make me a male sex offender? I've seen Scott Pilgirm, does that make me Michael Cera. Well, statistically, probably since Michael Cera, his mom, me and six other people were probably the only ones who bothered to watch the damn movie...so ok, that was a bad example.

Though I don't see why one's political view should weigh on this issue or not because the question at hand is not if you think OWS is right or wrong but rather, did Bob even think to research this game before knee-jerking to his conclusions--or if he did, did he care that said conclusions don't gel with reality. Off hand, I'd assume the former.

The other question is where are those blogs that the trailer dialogue was ripped from that Sylocat is surely amassing to present as evidence for his claims. Must be an awful lot of them if it's taking this long...

Sylocat said...

Wow, I get back, after actually DOING SOMETHING with my day instead of sitting at the computer for twenty-four hours straight, and awaiting me are no less than THREE replies, each one saying the exact same things over and over again, all directed at me! Even for you, Jannie, that's gotta be a record.

Now, as for "plagiarize." I guess I'm using the academia definition of plagiarism (in which very close paraphrases still count, believe it or not), but even if you insist on using the Wiktionary-or-whatever definition, may I suggest you track down such messages using that thing called... oh, what's the word, it sounds vaguely like "Gaggle" ...

Jannie said...

LOL, ok, soooo then you can't prove what you said. Good to know, I was worried for a second you had coherent argument with points and such. Instead you once again prove my original theory, that you're just a sycophantic defender of Bob Chipman (someone who, by the way, doesn't know or care about you) with no idea what the hell you're talking about. It's nice to have one's faith restored.

See, the onus of proof is not on ME, it's not my job to prove you're not lying through your teeth and pulling claims out of your ass. YOU made a claim, I don't have to disprove it YOU on the other hand must support your claims with evidence to prove them correct or incorrect.

Let me summarize this for you--

Phase I: You say something, thereby making a claim which requires evidence to prove. This is called an argument.

Phase II: I say I don't believe you and inquire as to what evidence you have to prove your case. This is a counter-argument.

Phase III: You say you have none. Normally this would mean you concede the argument, but since you don't know what "concede" means, you just go "NO U!" and post hipster memes with cartoon characters that haven't been relevant or funny in over a decade. This is you failing to understand what Phase I and II entail.

Anonymous said...

"This is as bad as that handful of people who still believe that Elvis is dead."

I laughed for a five full fucking minutes after I caught this! Couldn't goddamn breathe!

Jannie, you're a dumbass of the highest order and so is anyone else who 1) gets so worked up about this or worse 2) agrees with this stupid bullshit. But for that quote alone I think I wanna marry you!

Seriously, you guys need to remember that Bob is an entertainer first and foremost. He's just the same as Rush, Stern, the op heads at Fox and MS, take your damn pick. I don't doubt his sincerity mind, because that's part of the draw, just like every other politically minded hot-head. They wouldn't be as popular otherwise because more than ever people yearn for that level of honesty regardless of how valid the opinion. But it's important to keep perspective and realize that it is an OPINION from a guy who's livelihood comes from making opinions.

Just sayin...

Mads said...

@ Anonymous

And some of us prefer fake news shows like The Daily Show that pull apart the BS oppinions of other people.

It's a guilty pleasure, because it's probably one of the least constructive things to spend your time on...but it keeps the mind sharp.

@ Sylocat:
Yup. You're talking out your ass. The blogs you mention don't exist. I googled it.

Spongey Blob said...

@ Jannie

I'm really sorry, but I can't defend the trailer at least for this kind of plot, if only because I'm a sociolist former communist who gets delighted whenever a tree falls onto a Yuppie's Porsche. My problem is that MovieBob probably only brought it up because it was an FPS, not because it's a pretty ugly idea for a video game, to cut through wave after wave of poor sod for the benefit of some fat cat. Maybe if they were distancing the terrorists from the poor, or were trying to give an ironic message about how, by deciding to kill, the few oppressed who stand up end up becoming exactly like the oppressors and sell out, ala the most recent Black Mirror or something like that... maybe. I haven't done my research, but this trailer at least certainly gives that air, in my opinion.

But, as I said, to point the finger at just videogames, or just FPS's in particular is silly and narrow-minded. This kind of sensibility, fuck the working class, is all over the place. From the news stations to the man-in-white-van jokes to the recent production of The Iron Lady which looks like it'll put arguably the worst post-World War 2 British prime minister in a positive light of all the fucking cheek, it's clearly a sensibility in modern society that has NOTHING to do with the fucking camera angle of the game.

For once, just for once, I'd like to think that MovieBob or any other FPS-hating anti-modern gaming... person (I dunno if they have a name) would disapprove just as much if these themes cropped up in the next Zelda game, but they only make it harder and harder.

Jay said...

This is going to be a short post.

I just read about the Militarization Authority Act. Then I saw the trailer.

I do not adhere to the two party system and believe myself to be similar to an Anarcho-Libertarian in most instances.

My face paled in seeing something that reminds me of the Norway killings, the OK bombings, and the OWS movement's fight to stop income inequality and take the money out of politics in general.

I would like people to really think about what this game could be. It could be another Call of Juarez, where lazy design made a very biased game that tells a bigoted story. Or we could have a game, like the one EA canceled, that tries to explore different sides of a very complex argument. Still, I don't have high hopes that this game can truly show what it needs to re: domestic terrorism and keep both sides in a good light.

Jannie said...

I certainly have no problem with the Occupy Movement. I'm frankly glad that the left has finally been able to create its own grassroots movement (REAL grassroots, not astroturfed bullshit like the Tea Party) to counter the right's various Tea Express for America Century Party...thing.

But that's not what Bob was saying and that's not what this game is about. The asshole terrorists in this game are blowing up civilians and killing the innocent guys on the ground there who are just trying to get by. If they really gave a shit about the "common man" they have a crazy way of showing it. I also read, in another PR press statement thing, that supposedly the enemies in this game include...super-serious, not making this up...guys who have been kidnapped, strapped with explosives and forced to fight against their will. Which strikes me as the least efficient way to help the "little guy" the terrorists could possibly come up with.

Which brings me back to my point: this game isn't even ABOUT left or right, it's about terrorism and trying to stop it. Regardless of WHY the terrorists have a beef they're strapping bombs to people to make them into living IEDs. That has to fucking end. Even if we all agree that they're right and corporate America is out of control, blowing up a city block during rush hour or kidnapping some poor blue collar schmuck and making him into a Not-Yet-Beheaded Kamikazie is NOT the right way to go about dealing with the issue.

And THAT is my problem with Bob's "coverage" of the game. He's not just grasping at straws he's misrepresenting the actual facts. If someone wants to hate on the game because it's an FPS, that's fine. It's narrowminded and silly but so were the console wars, so whatever. But Bob and Aiddon and Sylocat are making claims about this being SPECIFICALLY about the Occupiers and have in turn presented no evidence to back up this claim. THAT is my problem. I don't care if anyone hates it (believe it or not, I've never played a Tom Clancy game besides HAWX) what I care about is honesty and not sensationalizing a story just to make some obtuse point.

I mean, maybe this is my naivete showing through, but I expected a little less Yellow Journalism from the gaming press than I get from Fox News. I don't believe that's an unreasonable expectation.

Anonymous said...

All these politically charged modern-day setting FPS games make me pine for the days of WWII setting FPS games, where we could all agree that the Germans are a subhuman race in need of extermination.

Anonymous said...

You know so far the only game coming out that probably has the most meaningful thing to say about the occupy movement vs the tea party is Bioshock Infinite While IG has gone on record saying that the factions with in the game(the Vox populi and The Founders) are not based off of the respective movements it does paint an eerie picture of how things could go south with both moments

Anonymous said...

Once again Moviebob makes a sensational title with no research at all (just like batman arkham city post) and his fan base rush in to defend his case even if his completely wrong.

Which then Jannie completely destroys by actually researching, then given ""NUH UH"" responses.

Jesus, what does Moviebob do for you to earn this totally acceptance non judging support?

Smashmatt202 said...

I can't really argue with that, seeing as Bob admitted in one of his columns that he does not do any research for his videos/columns/blog posts (with some exceptions). I never QUITE understood his reasoning behind this, though...

However, I CAN say that, regardless of whether or not he does research, what he says CAN make sense to some of us.

Anonymous said...

Wait a minute.... Those guys in the trailer are the bad guys? I thought that they were the protagonists and that the objective of the game was to take the 1% down along with the government. What the hell, I got really worked up from this trailer and I got an urge to play it! This game is going to be crap!

Jay said...

@Anonymous

The entire problem with this premise is that these bad guys are well intentioned extremists. This runs counter to the nonviolence of the OWS. However, if you need an apt comparison, PETA actually has ties to domestic enviro-terrorists.

Anonymous said...

Does it really matter? Personally when I saw the trailer, I immediately made the connections to both the Occupiers and the Tea Party movement and it's likely taking inspiration from both. But what I also saw was "Huh what do you know, a game that's not automatically 'corporations are bad and corrupt and evil' like every other modern conspiracy game (Hawx, Army of Two, Assassin's Creed, Resident Evil just to name a few)"

I mean yeah, the game industry is pretty much terrible at portraying gunplay with any sort of tragic drama, but shouldn't this at least be a step in the right direction in terms of story telling? I think maybe you're taking the allusions to modern day wealth disparity a little too seriously and letting your contempt of the right cloud your judgment.

Jay said...

I mean yeah, the game industry is pretty much terrible at portraying gunplay with any sort of tragic drama, but shouldn't this at least be a step in the right direction in terms of story telling? I think maybe you're taking the allusions to modern day wealth disparity a little too seriously and letting your contempt of the right cloud your judgment.

Dude, lay off the ad homs. I don't advocate rightist ideals nor leftist. I look at issues and form my own opinions based on research not a political ideology.

Second, it's not a step in the right direction. It's taking advantage of the current story in the news and blurring the actual lines in it quite heavily.

I probably wouldn't be as concerned if the dev didn't have such a horrid one-sided amalgamation of both the Tea Party and the Occupy movement, give them a gun and call it a day. It's as if the main thing we're seeing here is an action form of the current protests. It should be worrying given all of the backdrops that are currently happening in the US government right now.

I don't have much confidence that the game makers will do well in telling this story, given the fact that the story of a Tom Clancy book is very pro-military. Will this meet Call of Juarez levels of racist? I've no idea. But it's going to be an interesting thing to watch.

Nim said...

This may not be intentionally an attack on OWS but to anyone who doesn't think it will be taken that way by many if not most of the players, well you just haven't been paying attention.

Fox news has been doing it's best to equate OWS with an unwholesome and violent element for some time now, and as far as I can tell have had a decent amount of success. Occupy and the original reason for the Tea Party both have some INCREDIBLY legitimate complaints against problems with the financial system and corruption in the government. Now I can only critique the trailer, but it paints those complaints as those of violent psychopathic madmen, which isn't really treating the issue with the respect it deserves.

I hope I'm proven wrong, but I'd bet money that the game will send you in guns blazing to kill these terrorists - and that they are terrorists simply being an excuse to shoot people you disagree with. Those of you who've been saying it's just a quick trailer have a point, though this is what they chose for their opening media. It's not like it's leaked footage taken out of context - Ubisoft chose this AS their context.

Marcus said...

It wasn't Fox News or the TEA Party who joined with the terrorist group SDS and tried to blow up a bridge in Chicago in between the multitude of rapes and murders at their illegal gatherings. THAT was Occupy.

Anonymous said...

This game is a bad idea.