Irish Unionists want to BAN THIS SICK FILTH

[StrickenBiged]

Source: Eurogamer.

 

Despite the game being an 18, i.e. for legal adults (in the UK at least, may vary), some Irish politicians aren't happy with the portrayal of the IRA in the game.

 

The mission in particular is a side-mission called IRA Don't Ask. The player character is tasked by an NPC called Thomas Burke to steal 3 cars which he will then deliver to his IRA connections to be used in bombings on the streets of Belfast. 

 

One of the concerned politicians, Democratic Unionist Party MP Jeffrey Donaldson, says that the game "could be seen as trivialising the suffering of innocent victims and the evil that is represented by all forms of terrorism", although he is not quoted if he went into detail about how that trivialisation could occur.

 

Traditional Unionist Voice leader Jim Allister accuses the game of a "sick glamourisation of terrorism", despite the actual terrorist attacks not being featured in the game. (Someone correct me if I'm wrong, I haven't played it.)

 

He goes on:

 

 

When they use the name of an actual terrorist organisation in this fashion they are being even more insensitive as victims were directly impacted by actions such as those portrayed in this game.

 

This game would appear to treat the IRA in a fashion which is grossly offensive to the many people who suffered as a result of IRA bombs.

This may be viewed as another clever way of earning money by some but it is most insensitive to victims. I would urge all involved in the production of this game to consider how they would feel had they lost a loved one or a limb in a Provisional bombing.

 

Neither 2K nor Hangar 13 have responded yet to requests for comment. 

 

What do you think? 

 

__________________________________________________

 

I don't think there is a hope in hell that the game will get pulled over this. Very slightly possibly, Hangar 13 could patch in another sentence to their Assassins' Creed style notice at the start of the game that specifically addresses the concerns raised here. 

 

Calls for banning games, or any art form, are always serious and, when made by sitting MPs, censorious. It concerns me that one of the complainants is from a party currently in charge of the Northern Irish Assembly and currently sitting in the UK's House of Commons where he would be free to propose UK-wide legislation if he chose. If you catch the House at an opportune moment, when few are actually in the Chamber, it can be remarkably easy for an MP to get a bill accepted for full debate. (Though I doubt it will get that far.)

 

I haven't played the game, so I don't know whether your character or Thomas Burke or the IRA are presented as "good people", though I suspect not. 

 

I wonder whether they would have a similar attitude to other games with references to real world events, or if they have even bothered to ask the victims and families of IRA attacks what they think?

[Satoshi Ookami]

Are there elections soon in Ireland?

[DEMON]

They made a game based on the troubles? Wut.

[Rollers23]

Neither 2K nor Hangar 13 have responded yet to requests for comment. 

 

And that's how it should be.

Seriously, I don't even care for this game, but politicians should mind their own business.

Developers have right to portray anything however they want and they should not be limited or forced to delete something from their work just because some politician finds it wrong.

[Willstown]

They made a game based on the troubles? Wut.

Mafia III from reports has one mission where an IRA contact appears, so it's jsut one reference not a whole game.

 

Are there elections soon in Ireland?

 

No elections anytime soon, just some sectarian moral panic here.  The population of the US that identifies as having Irish heritage has generally been portrayed in film, books and even games as republican leaning, this is nothing new.  This is just a politician getting some free attention.

 

Down with this sort of thing

Careful now

Edited October 13, 2016 by Willstown

[damon8r351]

Probably giving it more attention than it deserves.

[Undead Wolf]

Video games don't need to prove anything to these morons.

[Caesar Clown]

Isn't Mafia 3 set in the past? Yeah, it is.

 

This is a prime example of what's wrong with our world today. People are trying really hard to edit and censor our history. This happened, it happened for real. The IRA would bomb places and kill innocents. That's a fact. But nah, let's just remove all bad stuff that ever happened in the past. That way future generations can just keep repeating the same damn mistakes.

[DEMON]

Mafia III from reports has one mission where an IRA contact appears, so it's jsut one reference not a whole game.

 

Oh okay, I thought it might have been bigger than that. I'm surprised the DUP caught it out.

 

Isn't Mafia 3 set in the past? Yeah, it is.

 

This is a prime example of what's wrong with our world today. People are trying really hard to edit and censor our history. This happened, it happened for real. The IRA would bomb places and kill innocents. That's a fact. But nah, let's just remove all bad stuff that ever happened in the past. That way future generations can just keep repeating the same damn mistakes.

 

Lol, you couldn't censor the troubles even if you tried, they keep bringing it up here.  There has also been recent bombings so it's happening again.. it's still not "history".

Edited October 13, 2016 by DEMON

[diskdocx]

I don't see the issue, but at the same time, I don't see the point of having it in either. As the story is not centrally focussed on the IRA, adding this as an aside, seems pointless.

In other words, they could have accomplished the exact same by having a mission where you get 3 cars for an unnamed terrorist organization, and it likely would not have drawn any attention.

[Undead Wolf]

I don't see the issue, but at the same time, I don't see the point of having it in either. As the story is not centrally focussed on the IRA, adding this as an aside, seems pointless.

In other words, they could have accomplished the exact same by having a mission where you get 3 cars for an unnamed terrorist organization, and it likely would not have drawn any attention.

 

That's called censorship. They wanted to create a game that's as true to life as possible, and I don't see why that should be a problem. Making it an "unnamed terrorist organization" wouldn't have the impact or the authenticity the developers set out to create.

I think video games have come far enough to the point where they don't need to tiptoe around serious issues anymore.

[starcrunch061]

Certainly, the game won't be pulled in America. Might it be pulled in Northern Ireland or something? Maybe. Don't really care - that's their country.

[Valkirye22]

MINOR SPOILER
 

 

 

It's not even for the IRA. When you finish all of those side missions Burke says he just sold the stolen vehicles to ensure his daughter has enough money stashed once he's gone. IRA was never a thing in Mafia 3.

[LunchCannon54]

I dunno, it seems like a minor thing but the main sticking point with me is the direct reference to it. I mean, this is a game where you're gunning down KKK members that (apparently) aren't even labelled the KKK (they're called the Southern Union, apparently). To shy away from directly referencing an incredibly dark part of America's history in what is a core part of the game yet offhandedly reference an actual terrorist group that's not really even a part of the game itself seems a LITTLE insensitive, and it is a bit disheartening to see people outright dismissing their concerns.I guess though I'm not Irish and probably shouldn't be imposing my will on some Irish users who may not care about it. I don't think it should be banned at all and wholeheartedly disagree with the proposal, but I think it's a bit silly to be outright dismissive of a concern when the game in question can't even outright reference a key real world faction the game is rallying against yet directly mention another country's terrorist organisations in passing. You've got to remember there are other countries in the world other than America, and what is insignificant to you may not be for others. Sorry to any Irish users who think I might be trying speak for them or something, it's just my view of it. 

[StrickenBiged]

I dunno, it seems like a minor thing but the main sticking point with me is the direct reference to it. I mean, this is a game where you're gunning down KKK members that (apparently) aren't even labelled the KKK (they're called the Southern Union, apparently). To shy away from directly referencing an incredibly dark part of America's history in what is a core part of the game yet offhandedly reference an actual terrorist group that's not really even a part of the game itself seems a LITTLE insensitive, and it is a bit disheartening to see people outright dismissing their concerns.I guess though I'm not Irish and probably shouldn't be imposing my will on some Irish users who may not care about it. I don't think it should be banned at all and wholeheartedly disagree with the proposal, but I think it's a bit silly to be outright dismissive of a concern when the game in question can't even outright reference a key real world faction the game is rallying against yet directly mention another country's terrorist organisations in passing. You've got to remember there are other countries in the world other than America, and what is insignificant to you may not be for others. Sorry to any Irish users who think I might be trying speak for them or something, it's just my view of it. 

 

That is weird. I mean, were they worried that having your character fuck with the KKK was going to get anyone upset, besides the KKK or their sympathisers? It does seem like a couple of weird choices when put side by side... 

 

My guess it's a result of having a team of writers, probably with secondary writers doing side missions like these.

 

I get your point, but I'd respond by asking what's wrong with being insensitive? It might not be the best move in a product which (one assumes) the developers hoped would have mass market appeal, but there is plenty of art, satire and commentary which is insensitive to one group or another.

 

People need to get away from this censorious attitude which is currently pervading Western democracies. Feelings do not trump free speech rights, if you don't like the product or the message, turn it off and don't support it.

 

(Not saying you, LunchCannon, were supportive of censorship, you clearly weren't going there. Just saying.)

[diskdocx]

That's called censorship. They wanted to create a game that's as true to life as possible, and I don't see why that should be a problem. Making it an "unnamed terrorist organization" wouldn't have the impact or the authenticity the developers set out to create.

I think video games have come far enough to the point where they don't need to tiptoe around serious issues anymore.

 

This isn't about censorship, its about picking your battles. If the game was sent in England/Ireland around the time of the IRA bombings, and was in fact a commentary on that issue, then fine.

 

Otherwise it is pretty much a side thought - I don't think in this case making it unnamed would have less impact.

 

So if it isn't central to the story, and the inclusion/exclusion wouldn't have an impact, then my point stands - why include it?

 

I'm not saying the game should be banned/modified, but I would question if the inclusion was more to generate a reaction and I don't think that is necessarily 'tackling the serious issues'.

 

That is weird. I mean, were they worried that having your character fuck with the KKK was going to get anyone upset, besides the KKK or their sympathisers? It does seem like a couple of weird choices when put side by side... 

 

My guess it's a result of having a team of writers, probably with secondary writers doing side missions like these.

 

I get your point, but I'd respond by asking what's wrong with being insensitive? It might not be the best move in a product which (one assumes) the developers hoped would have mass market appeal, but there is plenty of art, satire and commentary which is insensitive to one group or another.

 

People need to get away from this censorious attitude which is currently pervading Western democracies. Feelings do not trump free speech rights, if you don't like the product or the message, turn it off and don't support it.

 

(Not saying you, LunchCannon, were supportive of censorship, you clearly weren't going there. Just saying.)

 

People always use freedom of speech rights - they don't really exist (not necessarily saying I agree), and it doesn't really apply here anyway. If you want to defend this under freedom of speech, then you also have to defend those who want to criticize the product, and would also have to accept retailers choosing not to stock it.

 

Freedom of speech does not necessarily mean that there aren't repercussions to what you say.

[LunchCannon54]

I get your point, but I'd respond by asking what's wrong with being insensitive? It might not be the best move in a product which (one assumes) the developers hoped would have mass market appeal, but there is plenty of art, satire and commentary which is insensitive to one group or another.

 

People need to get away from this censorious attitude which is currently pervading Western democracies. Feelings do not trump free speech rights, if you don't like the product or the message, turn it off and don't support it.

 

(Not saying you, LunchCannon, were supportive of censorship, you clearly weren't going there. Just saying.)

Oh I know that, I just think that if you're gonna directly mention the IRA in the game have the balls to mention the KKK too. 

Edited October 13, 2016 by LunchCannon54

[StrickenBiged]

People always use freedom of speech rights - they don't really exist (not necessarily saying I agree), and it doesn't really apply here anyway. If you want to defend this under freedom of speech, then you also have to defend those who want to criticize the product, and would also have to accept retailers choosing not to stock it.

 

Freedom of speech does not necessarily mean that there aren't repercussions to what you say.

 

I'm not disputing that. If these guys were calling for a boycott, that would be their right under freedom of speech and I wouldn't have the same level of a problem with them. I'd simply think they were being reactionary.

 

But one of the complainants is a sitting MP in the UK's legislative, hence I think it is a censorship issue because he has the ability to propose legislation to enact a ban. The UK's freedom of expression right isn't worth the paper it's written on - it is full of caveats:

 

 

Article 10

 

Freedom of expression

1Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

2The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

 

Someone who felt that people's feelings trumped freedom of speech could easily argue that a ban of this game (or similar games according to some legislative criteria) could easily argue for a ban under the protection of "morals" (or, in this case specifically, as the MP made reference to "impressionable minds", under the prevention of disorder or crime provision) for example. 

 

Compare to the USA's First Amendment, where the freedom of speech is instead drafted as a restriction on state power to enact legislation banning speech or expression. The UK's freedom of expression is backwards, in my opinion. 

 

I don't think it's likely, but it is a worrying trend.

 

Edits: Clarification and further thought.

Edited October 13, 2016 by StrickenBiged

[VerCettI]

Spoilers contained here. After you finish burkes side missions he reveals the plan for the cars was a lie. And at no point do they portray any car bombing done by the ira. So i dont see a problem here.

[Combatting]

Have

 

Spoilers contained here. After you finish burkes side missions he reveals the plan for the cars was a lie. And at no point do they portray any car bombing done by the ira. So i dont see a problem here.

This. Do these people actually play the game? Or did they just see the word "I.R.A"? 

[EternalChaos72]

There is still bombings going on here, i was actually shocked to see one of the trophy titles that mentioned the RA. 

 

Also.. Irish unionists? lmao! No such thing here in NI.

[Remilia Scarlet]

I believe that censorship is a crime. Forcing someone or a group to remove aspects or cover those aspects of their art is wrong.

[jcopp72]

Burke says later in the game that he was lying about the IRA and he was just selling the cars...

[MeteorHawk]

I'm Irish and I say fuck those thin-skinned idiots.

[Han_the_Dragon]

This is probably why some games (Shin Megumi Tensei, Persona, Mind Zero among others) have a disclaimer when we start a new game mentioning that the game is a piece of fiction, that anything that may seem related to people or events is pure coincidence and that it doesn't represent the beliefs or point of view of anyone that worked in it.. Guess developers just need to start putting that in every single game... And even then, I wouldn't be surprised for this stuff to happen from time to time..

Edited October 20, 2016 by Han_the_Dragon