DISCUSSIONS

Making History HQ Forum>MAKING HISTORY II: The War of the World General Discussion>Marketing internationally...
Marketing internationally
said on Aug 25, 2010 at 01:19 PM

BTW another point is that last time there was a neo-nazi parade there was a lot of violence, there are certain parts of Germany where you would get killed by simply raising your arm and saying heil, and Germany relies on a strong amount of immigration for a workforce, so we would not want them to think we would do such horrible things to "non-Aryan" people again.

_________________
In order to know how to use free will, we must first know how to fight for it.
  • beast566
  • MHII
  • location: United Kingdom
  • joined: May 29, 2010
  • posts: 600
said on Aug 25, 2010 at 02:32 PM

In actuality, it is NOT the symbol itself that is objectionable, but the thinking that's going on about it. Like FangFur highlights, groups that deliberately use the swastika because it evokes memories of the cruel things the Nazis did will do so for that reason. The obvious case are the Neo-Nazis and their particular brand of civic re-engineering. Likewise White Power groups. Those are the kind of people that governments really, really do not want to have ANY tools at their disposal. But government can NOT just say anything along the lines of, "Anyone can freely display these symbols except those people." That would be blatant discrimination. So to keep a tool out of the hands of hate groups, EVERYONE (with the very few noted exceptions) is denied its use.

_________________
"Until you know what is worth dying for, Life isn't worth living."

"Choose wisely"
said on Aug 25, 2010 at 03:52 PM

CaptainPatch said

In actuality, it is NOT the symbol itself that is objectionable, but the thinking that's going on about it.

Wow, that's pretty powerful stuff - banning something because of the thoughts that it may trigger. We are on two sides of a massive chasm and no amount of logic will bridge that gap. I believe in freedom of expression, but others are happy to allow freedom of expression to be regulated and curtailed for the common good. Conceptually, there isn't a huge distance between banning a symbol that can mean something nasty, to hard-wiring radios to just 2 stations as they did (not sure if they still do) in North Korea. There is no such thing as being a little bit pregnant. You allow freedom of thought and expression or you don't. Given there can be no reconciliation of these views I will end the defence of my position with this post. But my creed will always be, "I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it." And with that in mind I would like to thank Muzzy Lane for allowing us to even debate this issue in this thread.

said on Aug 25, 2010 at 05:04 PM

Soooooo graffiti is okay? It's just self-expression and that should NOT be suppressed. Someone SHOULD be allowed to say that "jdavidm"s mother should have (done something drastic) because of (fill-in-the-blank)" because everyone is entitled to voice their opinions, any opinions? That someone SHOULD be able to create an image of a horrific scene of some obvious clergymen (pick the religion of your choice) being dismembered with the bold caption of "If you want to make fertilizer you have to break a few useless (fill-in-the-blank)s"? It is, after merely that person's opinion, and to NOT let him do it is suppression of Freedom of Speech.

I have heard it said that your right to do something ends when it meets someone's right to NOT have that action done to them. And if those limits are NOT formalized and set down, people WILL start to cross the line and start to victimize others.

Which is the more important right? The right to do unto others? Or the right to NOT be made an involuntary target?

_________________
"Until you know what is worth dying for, Life isn't worth living."

"Choose wisely"
said on Aug 25, 2010 at 06:16 PM

Graffiti is fine if it's on your own property. I suggest you check out the 1969 ruling in Brandenburg v Ohio from your own Supreme Court. It set the limits for what constitutes freedom of speech. What is not allowed is speech that "is directed to inciting and likely to incite imminent lawless action." Whether you like it or not, that's the law in the US. I personally agree with your Supreme Court. The USA has lots of warts, but its commitment to freedom of expression is not one of them.

Libel of course is a different issue entirely, as is stealing a car, killing someone, driving drunk, and so on. Again, your Supreme Court has no problem differentiating between these actions and freedom of expression.

said on Aug 25, 2010 at 06:28 PM

Havent you just defeated your own arguement. The use of the Swastika in certain situations is likely to INCITE lawless action. Surely you can see that. Just as dressing in white robes with a pointy hood is likely to incite lawless action. I really cant believe you cant see this.

  • FangFur
  • MHII
  • location: United Kingdom
  • joined: Jun 21, 2010
  • posts: 132
said on Aug 25, 2010 at 06:39 PM

Sigh. I think you missed the "imminent" bit.

said on Aug 25, 2010 at 06:41 PM

And if it was used in such a way as to incite imminent lawless action, I would be against that. I don't think it appearing in MHII quite reaches that level.

said on Aug 25, 2010 at 06:50 PM

You havent been arguing about just the context of the game. You have been arguing that it is ok to use it any situation. And as Beast, Patch myself and others have stated, the use of the Swastika in certain situatins would be provocative and would lead to IMMINENT lawless behaviour. Sigh

  • FangFur
  • MHII
  • location: United Kingdom
  • joined: Jun 21, 2010
  • posts: 132
said on Aug 25, 2010 at 07:03 PM

No, from the outset my position was that I was against the German Government "using the power of the state to enforce a politically motivated censorship." Of course society cannot be a free for all. The only argument is where you draw the line. If the German government position had been adopted by a state in the USA, it would have been turfed out as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. And to be frank, the USA has a better track record at defending individual freedoms than the German government has. THAT is what I am saying. And for the record, I am not American, am anti-neo-Nazi, and my relatives fought and died in the war as well.

said on Aug 26, 2010 at 08:58 AM

I just wanted to point out that we do create a non-swastika version for Germany, but not because it is illegal (it's actually not for a historical game), but because no stores will carry it. So, at least in this case, the retailers are making the choice to avoid the symbol, it's not government censorship. Just FYI.

Chris--

_________________
Product Manager
  • Chris
  • MHII
  • location: United States
  • joined: Aug 10, 2009
  • posts: 721
  • Site Admin
said on Aug 26, 2010 at 09:46 AM

Although I preferred you to keep the proper Nazi flags, I understand the commercial needs, so I have two suggestions for the "censored" German flag:

1) ugly, but effective, just connect all points. People will know it is a censored version and no one can actually complain about this one been a swastika. Works for every single flag in the game with the swastika.


2) this one is used in some games: the Maltese Cross instead of the swastika. I personally don't like it and I know it won't work so well in the other fascists flags.

3) EDIT: one more censored flag, using the Luftwaffe roundel.

_________________
MODS: Deadlock: making-history.com/asset/1317 ; TCBTS: making-history.com/asset/384091 ; Zombie Apocalypse: making-history.com/asset/368403 ; Onslaught: making-history.com/asset/418213
said on Aug 26, 2010 at 11:08 AM

The release in Russia will be?If yes, it will be possible to use a key from the English version what to receive the Russian?

_________________
Russian anti-communist. O_o
said on Aug 27, 2010 at 02:43 PM

So, what do you think about my suggestions for flags?

_________________
MODS: Deadlock: making-history.com/asset/1317 ; TCBTS: making-history.com/asset/384091 ; Zombie Apocalypse: making-history.com/asset/368403 ; Onslaught: making-history.com/asset/418213
said on Aug 27, 2010 at 03:33 PM

Your flags are OK. Personally, I think it'd be easiest for Muzzy Lane if they kept the game in English, as it is, but without swastika. Hence no need for a version for my country, Germany.

said on Aug 30, 2010 at 08:36 PM

So, developers, what will you do about the Nazi flag in the German version?

_________________
MODS: Deadlock: making-history.com/asset/1317 ; TCBTS: making-history.com/asset/384091 ; Zombie Apocalypse: making-history.com/asset/368403 ; Onslaught: making-history.com/asset/418213
said on Aug 30, 2010 at 08:36 PM

So, developers, what will you do about the Nazi flag in the German version?

_________________
MODS: Deadlock: making-history.com/asset/1317 ; TCBTS: making-history.com/asset/384091 ; Zombie Apocalypse: making-history.com/asset/368403 ; Onslaught: making-history.com/asset/418213
said on Aug 31, 2010 at 08:25 AM

Chris said

I just wanted to point out that we do create a non-swastika version for Germany, but not because it is illegal (it's actually not for a historical game), but because no stores will carry it. So, at least in this case, the retailers are making the choice to avoid the symbol, it's not government censorship. Just FYI.

Chris--

So, when the German version is ready, then I am able to "upgrade" my English version to German?

I think people would buy a game even it has "hakenkreuze" in it (hate the word swatikas). Just don't show them up on the box. It's really much more authentic if it has swatikas. But I hope someone will offer a "flag" pack with Hakenkreuzflaggen

Making History HQ Forum>MAKING HISTORY II: The War of the World General Discussion>Marketing internationally...