Chinese army-designed video game lets players fight Japan for the Diaoyu Islands (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/07/26/chinese-army-designed-video-game-lets-players-fight-japan-for-the-diaoyu-islands/)
QuoteIn the latest passive-aggressive escalation of the Diaoyu/Senkaku Island dispute, a Chinese computer game originally designed to train soldiers has added a level that lets players "reclaim and defend" the vacant but heavily disputed islands between China and Japan.
"Glorious Mission Online," China's Call of Duty equivalent, already involved the standard faux-military missions common in such games. But the updated online version, as first reported by the South China Morning Post, will also have players simulating a battle against Japanese soldiers on the islands and using the Liaoning, China's first aircraft carrier. It's particularly provocative given that the People's Liberation Army helped develop the game.
The Diaoyu Islands — called the Senkaku Islands in Japan — are a constant and increasingly heated source of conflict for the two countries. While Japan has controlled the islands for nearly 40 years, China insists it's owned them since antiquity. Japan further exacerbated debate when it bought the islands from a private landowner and nationalized them last September.
Since then, both countries have fired a series of symbolic volleys. China has pulled Japanese books from store shelves and boycotted Japanese goods. A Japanese toymaker recently infuriated Chinese social media users by releasing a model boat bearing the words "Operation Senkaku;" the model's box also appears to show the Liaoning sinking as victorious Japanese fighter jets fly overhead.
While model boats and Glorious Mission may be fun and games, the Diaoyu/Senkaku conflict is not. Four Chinese coast guard ships appeared near the islands on Wednesday and Japan deployed fighter jets after a Chinese plane veered too close to Japanese airspace. Japan has even floated the idea of using drones to keep an eye on Chinese activity in the region.
the trailer
Awesome...in an unnerving sorta.way.
Quote from: Gusington on July 30, 2013, 07:09:14 AM
Awesome...in an unnerving sorta.way.
Unnerving is right. Although I guess it is better that they go at it in a game than in real life.
One could only imagine the reaction to an American video game maker showing American soldiers shooting Japanese while "reclaiming" American inherent territory in Iwo Jima or Okinawa. Later the Chinese will probably add an "Inherent Territory- Taiwan" add-on.
We have a bunch of WWII-era games where we shoot up the Japanese.
Operation flashpoint Dragon Rising the US Marines invade a Chinese occupied island in the Pacific, location based on Kiska in the Aleutians.
Quote from: LongBlade on July 30, 2013, 09:37:40 AM
We have a bunch of WWII-era games where we shoot up the Japanese.
yes, but this is current, even if the Chinese claim the islands back to 2394876856495786 BC
And I think we're all pretty clear in the US that the gov't isn't in the business of dictating scenarios to game-makers. In this case, the Chinese have specifically promoted this game as being a commercial version of a PLA training game & scenario.
Agreed. It's the claim of ownership that rankles me. Along with the obvious Govt. involvement. Do any of the American game makers claim the land their virtual soldiers are fighting for? Perhaps in the future, countries can settle territorial disputes with teams of gamers competing in digital warfare. If so then I'm an 4F.
I'm not sure why there aren't more game scenarios gaming a US v China conflict... Either inTaiwan, korea or in aid of our Japanese ally in the islands. Two fairly evenly matched forces (quality /quantity thing) and a fairly realistic possibility frankly
It not surprising that the (Glorious?) People's Republic of China are trying to whip up anti-Japanese sentiment in their military media. It's pretty much tradition at this point.
Look for DLC regarding invasions of Taiwan and maybe Hawaii in the future. :P
Quote from: Nefaro on July 30, 2013, 04:58:42 PM
It not surprising that the (Glorious?) People's Republic of China are trying to whip up anti-Japanese sentiment in their military media. It's pretty much tradition at this point.
Look for DLC regarding invasions of Taiwan and maybe Hawaii in the future. :P
The could also re-ignite the Sino-India conflict, too - just to spread things out.
Medal of Honor. US vs. Taliban. That's current.
Difference is MoH is real and this one is potential (really potential).
Maybe there aren't more games portraying a US-China conflict because China is a huge market for US entertainment...and they will refuse to sell anything that has a whiff of anti-Chinese sentiment. Piracy of course is another story.
SSI People's General was a decent strategy game, US/South Korea vs China. Also had some Russian scenarios. Lot of what if hardware that never made it to the battlefield or is now obsolete.
Maybe the upcoming "command" will have it, but a US naval defense of Taiwan against a Chinese invasion seems like an obvious (and fun) scenario
Quote from: mikeck on July 30, 2013, 08:05:08 PM
Maybe the upcoming "command" will have it, but a US naval defense of Taiwan against a Chinese invasion seems like an obvious (and fun) scenario
If there's not a stock scenario, I guarantee there will be multiple user-created ones. There have been many for the Harpoon series. Also China vs Japan, US, Vietnam, or numerous others. China pretty much disputes claims to all small island chains in the North/South China Seas so there are plenty of turf wars to go around in that area.
Another favorite hypothetical is Japan vs Russia dispute over the Kuriles.
IIRC, Falcon3 hade one of those. Or maybe the MiG29 add on did.
Quote from: mikeck on July 30, 2013, 08:05:08 PM
Maybe the upcoming "command" will have it, but a US naval defense of Taiwan against a Chinese invasion seems like an obvious (and fun) scenario
In real life all it would take is one the sinking of one US ship and the USN would run away, the US is way to risk adverse to casualties and will lose to any country that's not risk adverse like China. That's why we win all the battle yet, still manage to lose the war (Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan).
No effing way. Politicians might be risk-averse and you might argue that the very top military brass are also effectively politicians but if units of the USN found themselves in a shooting battle the area command would make sure that no punches were pulled. After the dustup in question there is no telling how things would play out in the political arena but while weapons were hot the US Navy would fight.
so how long after playing this game are you hungry again?
and does it have MSG?
Quote from: SgtRock on August 21, 2013, 11:54:24 AM
Quote from: mikeck on July 30, 2013, 08:05:08 PM
Maybe the upcoming "command" will have it, but a US naval defense of Taiwan against a Chinese invasion seems like an obvious (and fun) scenario
In real life all it would take is one the sinking of one US ship and the USN would run away, the US is way to risk adverse to casualties and will lose to any country that's not risk adverse like China. That's why we win all the battle yet, still manage to lose the war (Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan).
No. Those decisions you mentioned were strategic decisions made after years of combat. I would also disagree that the US "lost" in Iraq. When we left in 2010, it had a stable govt that was friendly to the US. So how is that a defeat? You theory of the navy running after losing a ship would be a reflexive retreat and we don't do that. BTW, we are still in afshitistan so not sure how that ended up in your list.
Sorry to go off topic but I have (as many here do) family and friends serving in Afghanistan right now and in Iraq in the past. To call those defeats is just incorrect and I wanted to comment in it.
Quote from: mikeck on August 22, 2013, 08:18:56 AMI would also disagree that the US "lost" in Iraq. When we left in 2010, it had a stable govt that was friendly to the US. So how is that a defeat?
Actually, your characterization rings even more true about 1971 in Vietnam. The Southies smoked the 1972 invasion. After we pulled our financing support for them, the gov't ran out of fuel and ammo and couldn't stop the 1976 invasion for lack of logistics.
Quote from: SgtRock on August 21, 2013, 11:54:24 AM
In real life all it would take is one the sinking of one US ship and the USN would run away, the US is way to risk adverse to casualties and will lose to any country that's not risk adverse like China. That's why we win all the battle yet, still manage to lose the war (Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan).
and I imagine you would say that to the faces of the men who crewed the USS Stark? ::)
you dont seem to be aware of the fact that the modern US Navy has a habit of taking our most expensive equipment and charging straight at whatever enemy we're fighting.
nor do you seem to be aware that China can be even more risk adverse. any public loss cuts the reputation of the Chinese government to the bone. you might want to check up on the details of their little adventure in Vietnam or the border disputes they used to have with Russia.
Quote from: bayonetbrant on August 22, 2013, 08:39:02 AM
Quote from: mikeck on August 22, 2013, 08:18:56 AMI would also disagree that the US "lost" in Iraq. When we left in 2010, it had a stable govt that was friendly to the US. So how is that a defeat?
Actually, your characterization rings even more true about 1971 in Vietnam. The Southies smoked the 1972 invasion. After we pulled our financing support for them, the gov't ran out of fuel and ammo and couldn't stop the 1976 invasion for lack of logistics.
Absolutely correct. All they needed was ammo and spare parts and we would t even supply that.