Gamers Target U.S. Troops in Chinese Military ‘Shooter’ - Polidicks

[release][media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLY7GyxDmR4&feature=player_embedded[/media] China’s latest stealth fighter might be cloned from the debris of a shot-down U.S. Air Force F-117. Chinese naval warplanes are reverse-engineered Soviet designs, as is its navy’s only aircraft carrier. For decades, China has copied many of its military systems from foreign-made originals. It’s a hallmark of a fast-growing power just finding its footing in the high-tech world. The latest example? A first-person-shooter video game, developed by China’s Giant Network Technology Co. and backed by the People’s Liberation Army. It’s apparently modeled on the U.S. Army–made shooter America’s Army. Like its American counterpart, introduced as a recruiting tool in 2002, Glorious Mission begins with simulated basic training before deploying the player to an imaginary battleground to duke it out in close-quarters combat. News reports show scores of Chinese troops dutifully gaming away in front of their computer screens. “The game itself looks pretty well-made,” one blogger commented. “Graphics definitely on par with at least the [Call of Duty] series.” But there’s one key difference between the American and Chinese “shooters.” Where the bad guys in America’s Army are generic Middle Eastern or Central Asian insurgents and terrorists, the enemy in Glorious Mission is apparently the U.S. military. A TV report offers glimpses of an American-made Apache gunship crashing in flames. There’s another big difference. America’s Army has been criticized for having a subtle, propagandistic effect on young players. In Glorious Mission, the politics are anything but subtle. Following training and combat, the game’s third stage recreates the “fiery political atmosphere of camp life,” according to one Chinese-language news report. Glorious Mission follows a long line of computer games meant to reproduce some element of the military experience in a particular nation or conflict. Besides America’s Army, the Pentagon has also developed so-called “first-person thinker” games for training commanders to make tough decisions in times of information overload. Islamic group Hezbollah slapped together a crude shooter called Special Force 2, in which the player battles Israeli invaders for the future of Lebanon. NATO has a game for negotiating with pirates. Amid Beijing’s apparent enthusiasm for Glorious Mission, some observers warn of conflating real warfare with mere simulations. “The game content and the values embodied in military thinking … are very different,” one Chinese website warns. “Long-term use is not conducive to military education and training, and may even mislead officers and men.” It could be one of a thousand factors that mislead Chinese trainees into thinking the United States is destined to be China’s enemy. And not just on digital battlefields.[/release] [url]http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/05/gamers-target-u-s-troops-in-chinese-military-shooter/[/url] I target the Chinese in Battlefield 2, now we're even.

That's a little scary, not to mention I don't remember AA having Chinese soldiers as enemies.

Neat. I personally think killing American soldiers would be a nice change from always killing Russians.

So it's cool for the US and NATO to do it, but not China? Sounds like the US throwing the rattle out of the pram because someone copied them.

[QUOTE=Camundongo;29899222]So it's cool for the US and NATO to do it, but not China? Sounds like the US throwing the rattle out of the pram because someone copied them.[/QUOTE] I'm pretty sure the enemies in all the AA games were terrorists or masked men. This is a government sponsored game for military recruiting purposes that is "KILL THE AMERICANS FOR HIGH SCORE MAKE YOU NUMBER ONE PLAYA AND SOLDIER".

[QUOTE=Jimpy;29899286]I'm pretty sure the enemies in all the AA games were terrorists or masked men. This is a government sponsored game for military recruiting purposes that is "KILL THE AMERICANS FOR HIGH SCORE MAKE YOU NUMBER ONE PLAYA AND SOLDIER".[/QUOTE] ...Which is no different than any other massively popular FPS. How is it suddenly not okay to kill virtual humans if they're American?

[QUOTE=Sanius;29899315]...Which is no different than any other massively popular FPS. How is it suddenly not okay to kill virtual humans if they're American?[/QUOTE] He did point out government sponsored game for military recruting purposes. That makes it a bit different

[QUOTE=PaChIrA;29899352]He did point out government sponsored game for military recruting purposes. That makes it a bit different[/QUOTE] No it doesn't.

[QUOTE=Sanius;29899315]...Which is no different than any other massively popular FPS. How is it suddenly not okay to kill virtual humans if they're American?[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=PaChIrA;29899352]He did point out government sponsored game for military recruting purposes. That makes it a bit different[/QUOTE] Call Of Duty =/= Americas Army

I think the whole "government sponsored" thing REALLY changes the deal. If it were some Chinese Activision that was making the game then meh, but this changes things.

I'm definitely going to at least check it out, if there's an English-language release. 1) While I've memorized all the cool special-forces guns the US has ever had, and several they haven't, I can't name a single Chinese-made gun. And that's a shame, since they seem to have some cool-ish gear. 2) It's always interesting to see things from a new perspective, even if you don't actually agree with them. Like how I occasionally read foreign news articles on major things, to see how they view it. 3) It'll earn me some brownie points, should China become the next superpower. Wo yi huanying de omen xin de zhongguo bazhu.

I have no problem with this. They can target whoever they want. Why would you care?

[QUOTE=lulzbocksV2;29899449]I have no problem with this. They can target whoever they want. Why would you care?[/QUOTE] The only reason people are offended is because they feel that America basically owns the world.

[QUOTE=Camundongo;29899222]So it's cool for the US and NATO to do it, but not China? Sounds like the US throwing the rattle out of the pram because someone copied them.[/QUOTE] Excuse me for forgetting that Wired magazine represents the official opinion of the U.S.

[QUOTE=Jimpy;29899286]I'm pretty sure the enemies in all the AA games were terrorists or masked men. This is a government sponsored game for military recruiting purposes that is "KILL THE AMERICANS FOR HIGH SCORE MAKE YOU NUMBER ONE PLAYA AND SOLDIER".[/QUOTE] So 'KILL MIDDLE EASTERNS' is better than 'KILL AMERICANS' for what reason?

[QUOTE=Camundongo;29899471]So 'KILL MIDDLE EASTERNS' is better than 'KILL AMERICANS' for what reason?[/QUOTE] I'm not agreeing with this man, but AA's enemies aren't even Middle Eastern. I think they may be from the Balkans. And who exactly is complaining about this game? Did I miss something in the article?

I don't care because it's a game.

No one would care if Activision released some game with Americans Killing Canadians But if a game is funded by the Government to Recruit people, say America's Army, it shouldn't have you killing Chinese people. (Or in this games situation, Americans.)

[QUOTE=Keegs;29899534]Who the hell cares that Activision has Americans Killing Canadians in it's latest release, but this is like the American Government releasing America's Army (Gov Funded Recruiting game) and the enemy is Canadians.[/QUOTE] You're not making any sense.

[QUOTE=lulzbocksV2;29899567]You're not making any sense.[/QUOTE] Wasn't worded very well, point is, a game funded by and created for the government, shouldn't have the people you're killing someone you have to deal with everyday.

[QUOTE=Keegs;29899587]Wasn't worded very well, point is, a game funded by and created for the government, shouldn't have the people you're killing someone you have to deal with everyday.[/QUOTE] Why would you care?

[QUOTE=Camundongo;29899471]So 'KILL MIDDLE EASTERNS' is better than 'KILL AMERICANS' for what reason?[/QUOTE] Because terrorist automatically means middle eastern. Stereotype much? There are only two reasons that a nation may sponsor a video game with the enemy of that video game being another country: 1) We intend for our people to see this nation as our enemy. 2) The U.S. is the only nation which the Chinese feel makes a bigger bang in the game. The first one is the problem. The U.S. and China have not had the smoothest of relationships and that is sad, and I would blame the U.S. to be most at fault for these problems. However to continue down this path of ill will is no way to go for either countries unless they seek total annihilation and a global-scale conflict.

[QUOTE=lulzbocksV2;29899601]Why would you care?[/QUOTE] It's a matter of why WOULD they do it, the government putting Americans in as enemies seems somewhat hostile to Americans.

[QUOTE=Keegs;29899534]Who the hell cares that Activision has Americans Killing Canadians in it's latest release, but this is like the American Government releasing America's Army (Gov Funded Recruiting game) and the enemy is Canadians.[/QUOTE] [img]http://letustalk.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/map-of-soviet-union.gif[/img] Yo dawg, that doesn't look like Canada to me! Also WHERE CAN I DOWNLOAD?

[QUOTE=animephreak135;29899467]Excuse me for forgetting that Wired magazine represents the official opinion of the U.S.[/QUOTE] Fair point, but I still find it odd for a US publication complaining that another country did the same thing the US did, along with NATO. Also, I'd imagine this is more to do with the fact that China probably wants to curb Americanisation as much as possible, and this is an attempt to resist it, more than any idea China wants to go to war with the US. Hell, the US is one of China's biggest trade partners, if not the biggest. They just dislike the USA's cultural influence.

[QUOTE=certified;29899649][img_thumb]http://letustalk.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/map-of-soviet-union.gif[/img_thumb] [/QUOTE] Are you trying to be funny or do you really not realize this is theoretical.

[QUOTE=Sanius;29899466]The only reason people are offended is because they feel that America basically owns the world.[/QUOTE] It's better that American owns the world than anyone else imo. I'm Canadian and I'm saying this.

[QUOTE=killover;29899691]It's better that American owns the world than anyone else imo. I'm Canadian and I'm saying this.[/QUOTE] You're also an idiot.

[QUOTE=Sanius;29899466]The only reason people are offended is because they feel that America basically owns the world.[/QUOTE] Yeah, cause no one would be offended if it was Swedish or Dutch forces or any other NATO/Allied country aswell. [/sarcasm]

[QUOTE=Sanius;29899710]You're also an idiot.[/QUOTE] What? Would you rather have a country like North Korea own the world than America? You're just butthurt.