Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Cross-forum shenanigans: Rendition GuantanamoFollow

#1 Jun 03 2009 at 5:38 AM Rating: Good
*****
12,049 posts
Sure, it's a post about a video game, but I felt it was more relevant in the Asylum than =22.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/06/01/tech/main5054176.shtml
Quote:
Get Ready For Gitmo: The Video Game
Former Detainee Is Consultant On Game Where Players Try To Escape Mercenaries At Guantanamo

"It's time to fight back," states the advance promotion for "Rendition: Guantanamo," an upcoming computer game that will allow players to don orange jumpsuits and escape Gitmo. (T-Enterprise)


(CBS) A British Muslim who was detained at the American military base at Guantanamo Bay for three years before being released has been enlisted by a Scottish video game maker to help make its upcoming computer simulation of Gitmo "more realistic."

"Rendition: Guantanamo" is being developed by the Glasgow-based T-Enterprise for the Xbox 360 and PC platforms.

As revealed in a trailer video, the game depicts the prison in the near future - after its anticipated closing by the U.S. government - as a camp run by mercenaries who detain innocents sold off to their captors to serve as "lab rats" in scientific experiments.

Moazzam Begg, who claims to have been tortured during his near-three-year detention, has been brought on as a consultant to the project, reports the Web site Deadline Scotland.

A Birmingham native who ran an Islamic bookstore, Begg was detained in Pakistan by coalition forces in 2002 and held at Bagram Air Force Base in Afghanistan and, later, Guantanamo. He was released almost three years later without charge.

Begg wrote about his experience in the book "Enemy Combatant: My Imprisonment at Guantanamo, Bagram and Kandahar" (New Press). He has also been interviewed for television and documentaries, including the Academy Award-winning "Taxi to the Dark Side."

In April 2008 Begg was one of eight former Guantanamo detainees who sued the British government, claiming U.K. authorities were complicit in their abductions, detention and interrogations.

T-Enterprise director Zarrar Chishti told Deadline Scotland's Cara Sulieman that Begg helped them with the design of the virtual prison's layout, and that artists created a 3-D rendering of him to appear in the game.

Begg told the UK's Sun newspaper that his involvement is to make sure the game is as "true to life" as possible, although in the game characters have the chance to escape, shooting their way to freedom.

Chishti said the firm has already gotten hate mail from the U.S. demanding that the game not depict the killing of American troops.

"But no U.S. or British soldiers get killed in it; the only ones being killed are mercenaries," he assured Deadline Scotland.

He anticipates strong sales in the Middle East.

Begg said any earnings he gets from the game will be donated to a charity fighting for the rights of detainees.


Conservative blogs are all over it, saying things like
Tammybruce.com
Quote:
If Guantanamo is a recruiting tool for terrorism, it's because of all the hyped up lying propaganda like this

Power Line
Quote:
In Rendition: Guantanamo, the player plays the part of Moazzam Begg and tries to kill as many American soldiers as possible while escaping from Guantanamo. The game's introduction asserts, among other things, the absurdity that the player has been subjected to "illegal scientific experiments" at Gitmo.


The official statement from the game's creator, T-Enterprise, is link=http://www.renditionthegame.com/]this[/link]:
Quote:
Unfortunately, much of the speculation regarding the game itself made by various publications and websites has been inaccurate and ill informed. Based on a simple teaser trailer that actually revealed little of the game, many conclusions were reached that have absolutely no foundation whatsoever. It was never designed to be “propaganda” or “a recruiting tool for terrorism”. Neither was it designed to glamorise terrorism as has been reported.

First and foremost, the main character was NOT Moazzam Begg. Instead, his name was Adam. He happened to be involved in a case of mistaken identity and so was never a terrorist. T-Enterprise is against all forms of terrorism and would never seek to advocate otherwise. Furthermore, Guantanamo was to be a mercenary run institution and so there would have been NO American military personnel killed within the game. Again, we support the British and American troops that fight the war against terrorism to make the world a safer place and would not make a game that said otherwise.

Having clarified our position on terrorism, I would now like to refute all suggestions that the game was in any way linked to Al Qaeda. T-Enterprise has never had and would never have a link to Al Qaeda in any way, shape or form. Furthermore, we would certainly not facilitate a means of funding for any group that undertook terrorist activities. The game was simply designed to be an action video game that adults could enjoy.

However, as a direct result of the extreme reaction that the game and its popular misconceptions have provoked, T-Enterprise has decided to pull out of the project and will not be completing Rendition: Guantanamo.


Much ado about nothing in the end, but do you think this game should have been canned because of the reaction? I think it would have been a tough sell in the West, but been really popular elsewhere. I could see a lot of Chinese and Middle Eastern players liking it (even if you kill mercenaries and not American/British troops).
#2 Jun 03 2009 at 6:02 AM Rating: Decent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
Well if they made it PvP, the 'other' side could score points and progress by 'making them talk' and gaining key pieces of information.

Speaking of liberal type hype, did anyone catch the ABC show last night called Earth: 2100? It was a documenscary thing, mixing some interviews, scientific facts with a scenario of one womens life moving through the 21st century. It portrayed lots of gloom doom and disaster due to global warming - including a Miami-killing hurricane named 'Linda' (ftw). I didn't watch it all, so didn't get the 'full gist' of the show.

I can imagine, however, a few of the more conservative types having a hay-day with this.








Edited, Jun 3rd 2009 6:33pm by Elinda
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#3 Jun 03 2009 at 6:03 AM Rating: Good
Quote:
do you think this game should have been canned because of the reaction?


Of course not.

I can't see how it's that different from GTA, or Desert Storm, or Escape from Alcatraz, or any of the thousand of other video games which are clearly fictional and not meant to be taken as historical documentaries.
____________________________
My politics blog and stuff - Refractory
#4 Jun 03 2009 at 6:09 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
LockeColeMA wrote:
Power Line
Quote:
In Rendition: Guantanamo, the player plays the part of Moazzam Begg and tries to kill as many American soldiers as possible while escaping from Guantanamo. The game's introduction asserts, among other things, the absurdity that the player has been subjected to "illegal scientific experiments" at Gitmo.
If we're going to deman rigid historical accuracy in our video games, I'm not going to have any more demon-summoning **** zombies to kill Smiley: frown
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#5 Jun 03 2009 at 6:37 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Oh, no, that really happened.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#6 Jun 03 2009 at 6:39 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
Yea, it would seem Joph needs to brush up on his WWI and WWII history.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#7 Jun 03 2009 at 7:44 AM Rating: Good
Gave Up The D
Avatar
*****
12,281 posts
Elinda wrote:
Speaking of liberal type hype, did anyone catch the ABC show last night called Earth: 2100? It was a documenscary thing, mixing some interviews, scientific facts with a scenario of one womens life moving through the 2100 century.



Wouldn't the 2100 century start at the year 200,000? I think they were talking about the 22nd century.

Edited, Jun 3rd 2009 11:44am by Shaowstrike
____________________________
Shaowstrike (Retired - FFXI)
91PUP/BLM 86SMN/BST 76DRK
Cooking/Fishing 100


"We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."
— James D. Nicoll
#8 Jun 03 2009 at 7:52 AM Rating: Decent
*****
19,369 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Yea, it would seem Joph needs to brush up on his WWI and WWII history.


And reinstall Wolfenstein.
#9 Jun 03 2009 at 8:32 AM Rating: Decent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
Shaowstrike wrote:
Elinda wrote:
Speaking of liberal type hype, did anyone catch the ABC show last night called Earth: 2100? It was a documenscary thing, mixing some interviews, scientific facts with a scenario of one womens life moving through the 2100 century.



Wouldn't the 2100 century start at the year 200,000? I think they were talking about the 22nd century.

Yes. I'm feeling rushed today. So did you see the show?

Edit for clarification. When I started watching the show they were at the year 2015. They were up to 2045 when I finished watching, but presumably the show continued on until the year 2100. So, it mostly encompassed the 21st century.

Edited, Jun 3rd 2009 6:41pm by Elinda
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#10 Jun 03 2009 at 7:32 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
RedPhoenixxx wrote:
Quote:
do you think this game should have been canned because of the reaction?


Of course not.

I can't see how it's that different from GTA, or Desert Storm, or Escape from Alcatraz, or any of the thousand of other video games which are clearly fictional and not meant to be taken as historical documentaries.


Except that those don't involve already hot political issues (aside from the violence itself of course), much less include a "hypothetical" environment which happens to match a specific viewpoint regarding Gitmo.

The flip side is to ask why the base needed to be Gitmo. Couldn't they just have a fictional camp where the fictional mercenaries are performing fictional experiments on fictional victims? Clearly, they were banking on the controversy surrounding Guantanimo Bay. Doubly so with the use of the word "Rendition" in the title. Whether they call the armed guards mercenaries or not, it's a pretty flimsily disguised reference to the practice and the current operations there.


Does this mean that they "can't" produce such a game? Of course not. But if you choose to bank your game on controversy, you can't complain if the controversy goes in a direction you didn't want. I mean. I *could* propose a game in which we play a member of a fictional white supremacist group living in an alternate universe who's given a mission to assassinate a fictional Black president of the fictional country we live in called the "Unified Comonwealths of Columbusland", and insist that this is all fictional and hypothetical and isn't at all meant to be a related to current events in our country. But I suspect that I'd be called a hatemonger, reviled by a number of organizations, pilloried in the media, and likely come under investigation by the secret service to boot.


What's surprising to me is that anyone thought this might be a good idea...
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#11 Jun 03 2009 at 8:13 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
The flip side is to ask why the base needed to be Gitmo.
To drum up free publicity from people spazzing out about it and putting it in the news.
Quote:
But if you choose to bank your game on controversy, you can't complain if the controversy goes in a direction you didn't want.
Oh, I'm sure it's going 100% the way the guy wanted. He's turned what's probably some generic first person shooter into "That game that the guys on FOX were saying is sooooo bad because it's about Gitmo".
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#12 Jun 03 2009 at 11:06 PM Rating: Good
***
3,909 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Oh, I'm sure it's going 100% the way the guy wanted. He's turned what's probably some generic first person shooter into "That game that the guys on FOX were saying is sooooo bad because it's about Gitmo".


Well, the game's never going to be produced, so I think the publicity backfired on him.
#13 Jun 03 2009 at 11:38 PM Rating: Good
Citizen's Arrest!
******
29,527 posts
LockeColeMA wrote:
Power Line
Quote:
In Rendition: Guantanamo, the player plays the part of Moazzam Begg and tries to kill as many American soldiers as possible while escaping from Guantanamo. The game's introduction asserts, among other things, the absurdity that the player has been subjected to "illegal scientific experiments" at Gitmo.



That sounds like the same uninformed ******** commentary that hounded Mass Effect. I really wish people would actually play games(or even read more about them than the title or reviews about them done by people who only read the title) before commenting on them.
#14 Jun 03 2009 at 11:46 PM Rating: Decent
*****
10,359 posts
Not seeing how this is anymore worthy of note than any other war game ever, especially stuff like CoD4 and Army of Two. Shooting armed american armed forces, much less mercenaries, shouldn't be any more atrocious or surprising than a german playing medal of honor, or a russian playing resistance. This makes america look like a hypersensitive *****. It's shameful.
#15 Jun 03 2009 at 11:48 PM Rating: Good
Can't you play as the ***** in CoD multiplayer? And, you know, shoot Americans?
#16 Jun 04 2009 at 12:04 AM Rating: Good
*****
10,359 posts
I don't know. The only fps' I've ever played in multiplayer were perfect dark and goldeneye.

In terms of main campaigns however, this article only illuminates a massive double standard. Oh no! The shoe is on the other foot now and we are forced to recognize that there are two sides to conflicts!
#17 Jun 04 2009 at 2:05 AM Rating: Good
gbaji wrote:
RedPhoenixxx wrote:
Quote:
do you think this game should have been canned because of the reaction?


Of course not.

I can't see how it's that different from GTA, or Desert Storm, or Escape from Alcatraz, or any of the thousand of other video games which are clearly fictional and not meant to be taken as historical documentaries.


Except that those don't involve already hot political issues (aside from the violence itself of course), much less include a "hypothetical" environment which happens to match a specific viewpoint regarding Gitmo.


Are you kidding me? Organised crime, gangs violence, drug dealing, those aren't "hot political issues"? Most of the time on GTA is spent killing cops. Ordinary, American, cops. Desert Storm (this goes back a bit, I know) was spent killing Iraqi soldiers and civilians. It was a pretty how political issue at the time.

It's some Scottish company doing it by the way, not some American one. Could it be seen as bad taste? Sure, but so could any of the games above, or Manhunt, or whatever it is kids are playing these days. Unlike your specific scenario, you're not involved in a racist group killing a specific individual, you're a wrongly imprisoned guy trying to break free, which is the basic story line of 50% of all movies or computer games really. The only thing that is "controversial" is that you're in Gitmo, as opposed to some fictional base, but other than that... I can't see how it's worse than "Harold and Kumar escape from Guantanamo".

____________________________
My politics blog and stuff - Refractory
#18 Jun 04 2009 at 4:10 AM Rating: Good
*****
12,049 posts
Gbaji wrote:
Does this mean that they "can't" produce such a game? Of course not. But if you choose to bank your game on controversy, you can't complain if the controversy goes in a direction you didn't want.


Hmmm, not sure if I agree with this. I think the only thing you couldn't complain about is if sales plummet because offended groups block the markets of venue (I would think it likely that many conservative state leaders would keep their video game stores from selling it). Because that is the gamble: either it's a hit because of the controversy or it's a flop because of it. However, reading between the lines I'm guessing it's more than that... thanks to the uninformed blogs and reports on the game, I'm guessing the producers were threatened with bodily harm and possibly investigated by the British government for alleged terror ties. I think you have every right to complain if that happens! Threats aren't allowed, and investigation on the basis of right-wing nutters seems like a bad route to take.

All right, maybe investigation is ok, but I think it would be easy to see the producers of the game just wanted to tap into a market of outrage and make a buck (or a pound).
#19 Jun 04 2009 at 4:19 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
zepoodle wrote:
Well, the game's never going to be produced, so I think the publicity backfired on him.
Smiley: laugh That'll learn me not to re-read to the end.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#20 Jun 04 2009 at 4:34 AM Rating: Decent
*****
10,359 posts
Quote:
Hmmm, not sure if I agree with this. I think the only thing you couldn't complain about is if sales plummet because offended groups block the markets of venue (I would think it likely that many conservative state leaders would keep their video game stores from selling it).


I have an extremely dumb question.

Can states regulate that? Wouldn't it count as interstate commerce?

I don't know the extent to which states are bound by the esrb either. I've never heard of a game being banned aside from receiving an AO label. Take san andreas for example: the esrb was put under huge pressure to change its rating, and ultimately capitulated, but I don't recall (might be wrong) a direct ban.
#21 Jun 04 2009 at 5:52 AM Rating: Good
*****
12,049 posts
Pensive the Ludicrous wrote:
Quote:
Hmmm, not sure if I agree with this. I think the only thing you couldn't complain about is if sales plummet because offended groups block the markets of venue (I would think it likely that many conservative state leaders would keep their video game stores from selling it).


I have an extremely dumb question.

Can states regulate that? Wouldn't it count as interstate commerce?

I don't know the extent to which states are bound by the esrb either. I've never heard of a game being banned aside from receiving an AO label. Take san andreas for example: the esrb was put under huge pressure to change its rating, and ultimately capitulated, but I don't recall (might be wrong) a direct ban.


I don't see why not. You can't use, buy, or sell fireworks in MA, so everyone just goes over the state line to NH for their July 4th sparklers and brings them back.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 299 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (299)