In Hollywood, moviemakers have never been the kind to shy away from graphic violence or blaming America. In 2001, one movie was about a violent bombing in New York City. One movie had a poster showing an American flag flying backwards. In the past, award-winning films like Good Will Hunting offered a hostile view of the US intelligence gathering organizations like the National Security Agency and American foreign policy. All of that changed on 9/11 when the American public woke up to Hollywood's disdain for Middle America. Well, it changed for about a month. Producers like Oliver Stone and Aaron Sorkin have or will soon push some "we need to understand why the poor Islamic radicals hate us so badly" celluloid garbage on America. Look for "timely messages" and glitzy celebrity names attached to these projects.

In the computer games industry, the action was just as immediate. Microsoft removed the World Trade Center graphics out of their upcoming Microsoft Flight Simulator 2002. Electronic Arts pulled their Yuri's Revenge expansion pack for the popular strategy game Red Alert 2 because the box showed the New York City skyline in flames after a Soviet attack. Ubi Soft, publisher of Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six-series of squad based first person shooter (FPS) games, would indefinitely postpone the release of their Black Thorn expansion pack. Although game specifics are secret, the game content of Black Thorn was deemed as possibly offensive because of the anti-terrorist aspects of gameplay. A month later, the video game industry is still walking on eggshells about possibly offensive materials in upcoming titles since the terrorist attacks.

Has the multi-billion dollar a year video game industry had an epiphany in light of the attacks? The industry that once told consumers "Violence in video games is nothing but fantasy - Don't blame us for anything" now is concerned for how depictions of terror might affect the squeamish masses? No, there are still plenty of gory titles on the horizon and some of them even focus on terrorism. One title that has the gore and terrorism in one neat package is Soldier of Fortune II, the sequel to a game so violent that it was banned in some European countries that normally give the US grief about being too uptight. In SoF2, players roam the world's hotspots as a mercenary trying to stop a biological attack from wiping out a good chunk of western civilization. In SoF2, expect to see detailed game environments, various guns mimicking real-life weapons, a realistic physics engine (the game has gravity that makes grenades bounce off objects, dead bodies crumple into heaps, et cetera) and a lifelike damage model that allows for players to blow arms, legs and heads off of their opponents.

Before we continue, let's play a little word game here. When I say "terrorist," what image comes to mind? Did you picture a Neo-Nazi skinhead from Hamburg? How about a burly Russian mafia strongman that was a former assassin for the KGB? Did you automatically think of Tim McVeigh? Or did you dare to imagine a bearded Arab dressed like Yasser Arafat? Shame on you for playing to the stereotype! That's not a very politically correct way of thinking and you are obviously a racist that knows nothing about the peaceful religion of Islam.

The word game was important because that is exactly how the computer entertainment industry views terrorist characters in their games. Common enemies in games that let virtual soldiers fight back against international terrorism portray terrorists as men from the former Soviet Union. The most famous of all computer games about terrorism, Rainbow Six and based on Tom Clancy's excellent eponymous novel, casts as the terrorist villain a tree-hugging American billionaire bent on unleashing a biological plague to wipe out anyone on the Earth without Sierra Club membership cards. In the game's sequel, Rogue Spear, anti-terrorist forces are called in to stop the Russian mafia and a cabal of former Soviet hard-line commie generals. Basically, the bad guys are the non-existent Soviet Union and Ted Turner.

Tom Clancy's novels have been praised for their realism. Mr. Clancy's Rainbow Six video games are top sellers that also have garnered critical acclaim for their realism. Yes, certain missions in the game involve your anti-terrorist force freeing hostages held by Islamic radical terrorists, but they are only working for the real bad guys (the Russians and/or the fake Ted Turner). The SoF2 storyline has not been released to the press, but all evidence points to non-Arab antagonists as well. Why would games steeped in realism (the threat of global terrorism) shy away from the reality that most of the really atrocious acts of terrorism come from Arab states?

I contacted both Ubi Soft and Raven Software for comment on Black Thorn and SoF2. I asked them why games that strive to be so realistic in their portrayals of violence (as in the case with SoF2) and their attention to real-world political dynamics (a hallmark of Tom Clancy's products) would steer away from the Islamic radical terror groups we constantly hear about in the media as their games' villains. If Congress suggests video games might be a contributing factor of pervasive societal apathy and violence, the game industry has responded: "Hey, lighten up! It's just a game." If peaceful Muslims applied pressure to Raven or Ubi Soft for allegedly playing to the stereotype and giving Islam a bad name, couldn't the game makers respond with the tried and true "Hey, lighten up! It's just a game" retort? SoF2 game designer Kenn Hoekstra did not decline comment, but instead chose to ignore my request. Ubi Soft spokeswoman Cassie Vogel replied that Black Thorn was "postponed" out of respect for the families who lost loved ones in the attacks. Ms. Vogel has appeared on NPR and elsewhere saying the same thing. She never answered why terrorist villains in her company's video games were unlike the majority of terrorists in real life.

One game developer said that there is an unwritten rule that video villains must be politically correct. Yann Modon, spokesman for French cell phone game producer In-Fusio, said that game developers have considered it taboo to portray their villains as coming from a specific ethnic group. Modon expressed concern to the Reuters news service that game developers might soon contemplate games where the bad guys are "terrorists clad in Arab-style headgear." Okay, let me get this straight: In France, multiple mistresses for elected leaders = good. Realistic villains in a video game = bad.

We all know that Islam is a peaceful religion given a bad name by brutal leftist radicals like Osama bin Laden. Is it wrong to make a video game with villains that are brutal leftist radicals or is it just not politically correct under any circumstances? Regardless of what the unwritten politically correct rule is, the first company to sell a game that allows players to blow up Osama bin Laden's terrorist camps will be a huge hit - no matter who complains.

Scott McCollum is an independent consultant and tech industry insider living in Austin, Texas. He is a contributing editor for World Tribune.com and his column will be featured in WorldTechTribune, a new publication by WorldTribune.com, which will be coming soon. His opinions have also been featured at Pure Politics, the NewsFactor Network and on the internationally syndicated Cyber-Line radio talk show.

Print this Article

Email this article

Free Headline Alerts