Print 51 comment(s) - last by Lerianis.. on Feb 26 at 5:55 PM

Lawmakers in Chihuahua have asked federal authorities to ban the game due to its themes that reflect the current crime situation in Juarez

An upcoming Ubisoft video game, which closely resembles the real crime and murder taking place in the Mexico border city of Juarez, has critics upset to the point where some want the game banned. 

The video game is "Call of Juarez: The Cartel," and it contains themes of murder, torture and kidnapping in regards to the war between drug cartels within the city. The game is an update to an Old West series previously made by Ubisoft, and is now set in present-day Juarez. 

While several other first-person shooting games tend to be violent, the problem with this game specifically is that it reflects real situations occurring within the city, which is "not something to be made light of," according to former Juarez Mayor Jose Reyes-Ferriz.  

Juarez has consistent problems with drug cartel violence and is one of Mexico's most dangerous cities. Currently, the Juarez cartel and the Sinaloa cartel are going head-to-head in a turf war in this particular region, fighting for drug-dealing territory and prime smuggling routes within Juarez. During the first 40 days of this year, the average number of people killed in Juarez was about eight per day.  

To make matters worse, Juarez just experienced one of its bloodiest weekends yet. Over a three-day period this past weekend, 53 people were killed in Ciudad, Juarez.  

Reyes-Ferriz noted that Ubisoft's new video game based on crime and murder within the city will not only raise a sensitive subject for its citizens, but will also reinforce certain negative ideas about the city to those outside of Juarez. 

"Of course, it is something that those of us who love our city don't like at all," said Reyes-Ferriz. "It's something that demeans our city."

Reyes-Ferriz isn't the only one who feels this way. On Sunday, lawmakers in Chihuahua requested that federal authorities ban the game in Mexico. Chihuahua congressman Ricardo Boone Salmon stated, "It is true there is a serious crime situation, which we are not trying to hide. But we also should not expose children to these kind of scenarios so that they are going to grow up with this kind of image and lack of values." 

The Facebook page for "Call of Juarez: The Cartel" has also received criticism from gamers.  

"Doesn't it seem a little socially irresponsible to capitalize and/or glorify what is ACTUALLY happening (violence, murder) because of the illegal dug trade in North America?" said a user on the game's discussion wall. "If this game doesn't have a strong 'illegal drugs should be legalized so that there is no crime related to drug trafficking' theme, then I'm boycotting Ubisoft forever."

Reyes-Ferriz had hoped that all the criticism would make Ubisoft rethink the game's release, but believes that it's probably unlikely that they won't sell it at this point. The game is already available for pre-order and is set to go on sale for the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 consoles this summer.

"I know the process is not month-to-month or week-to-week," said Reyes-Ferriz. "I know it takes a couple of years to do a project like that. I think with all the headway they have, there's not going to be much that can be done."

In response to all of the negative views regarding the new game, Ubisoft released a written statement saying that the game was in no way meant to directly imitate or mock the events occurring in Juarez.

"'Call of Juarez: The Cartel' is purely fictional and developed by the team at Techland for entertainment purposes only," said Ubisoft in its written statement. "While 'Call of Juarez: The Cartel' touches on subjects relevant to current events in Juarez, it does so in a fictional manner that makes the gaming experience feel more like being immersed in an action movie than in a real-life situation. 

"Ubisoft is an entertainment company and our intention is to create a unique experience for video game fans."

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: You would think this would bring better awareness
By zmatt on 2/22/2011 10:20:26 AM , Rating: 3
agreed, instead of being offended by it, maybe Mexican authorities could use it as a wakeup call and get off their corrupt bums and do something about it.

By RamarC on 2/22/2011 10:36:10 AM , Rating: 2
I guess you haven't heard that the police are openly attacked in many areas of Mexico. The gangs also target the families of cops and public officials if they don't bow to their pressure. Military forces are often employed to deal with gangs and one shootout in January between 100 soldiers and a gang lasted 6 hours and left 14 dead.

So, corrupt butts are not the problem.

By theapparition on 2/22/2011 11:28:56 AM , Rating: 5
Sorry, but corruption within the Mexican police forces is rampant beyond almost all comprehension.

If that corruption were to stop, many of the illegal activities would be severely hampered. Indeed, many families are threatened and that causes a lot of otherwise good people to turn a blind eye, but that situation can't continue to happen. Mexico's military needs to come in and take control of that virtually lawless area.

By JasonMick on 2/22/2011 2:01:08 PM , Rating: 5
Sorry, but corruption within the Mexican police forces is rampant beyond almost all comprehension.

If your choices are be corrupt (go along with the gangs) or see your family be butchered and raped, you might become "corrupt" too.

At its root you have two key problems here.

First, most of this violence is over drugs -- marijuana to be specific. The fact that the U.S. outlaws marijuana, but allows alcohol (arguably more toxic and dangerous) is debatable in its own right from a civil liberties standpoint, but when you add in the violence that our nation is essentially fostering, it's utterly despicable.

Second, this area is highly impoverished. You don't see a lot of kids joining gangs in Ithaca, New York. You see poor kids in Compton joining gangs. The same goes for Juarez -- and this won't change until the economy of Mexico and, in particular, the Chihuahua region improves.

Again this is something we could actively help with if we halfway gave a d@mn.

Now I'm all for taking responsibility for your OWN problems, so if it were not for the fact that Americans are buying the soft drug (marijuana) that largely fuels this war, I'd be on the same page as you somewhat. As is, I'd say we helped create the problem, we need to help fix it via international police/military cooperation and policy change wrt. drug enforcement.

I personally rarely drink and don't smoke, tobacco or otherwise, but I think blanket prohibition is utterly moronic and dangerous. Sure it's bad for your health (why I don't partake), but give people the opportunity to take some personal responsibility, for g0d's sake!

You don't need "daddy government" to tell you "uh uh you can't do that!" As it is, those misguided efforts at moralism are breeding a violent mess in our nation's neighbor.

By JasonMick on 2/22/2011 3:06:16 PM , Rating: 5
I know you are part of the blame America first crowd for sure but are you that dumb; seriously? I don't use or buy illicit drugs however I do consume water so am I responsible for all the people that drown every year? I mean if the demand for water wasn’t so high then we would have no need for all those drinking water reservoirs that people use for recreation and some subsequently die of drowning. Or is this you strawman to advocate from the legalization of pot?

I'm really surprised you of all people would argue against me on these points....

You offer a completely extraneous argument full of logical fallacies.

This is the case of big (brother) government coming back to bite the American people and their neighbors.

If the government decided to build a dam and the dam burst drowning people in the town below, it WOULD be held liable.

I'm not at all for "blame America first", but here the GOVERNMENT (not the people IMO) are clearly involved in the creation of this mess. Are you honestly advocating not blaming the government when it deserves blame?

I thought you were a conservative, ammohunt?

You're REALLY all for the government deciding which soft drugs its citizens can and can't take? And for taxing its citizens and investing in maintaining a big, expensive police force to enforce this moralistic mandate? Why not outlaw alcohol and tobacco then, so we can live in a happy utopia where we don't have to take responsibility for our actions.

That's the great thing about the USA, though -- here if we think the government is acting out of line and behaving irresponsibly, we have the freedom to say something about that. I am exercising that freedom, and I am sorry if you don't appreciate it.

By Suntan on 2/22/2011 4:23:30 PM , Rating: 1

If Mexican youths had real job opportunities, coupled with a real government and useful law enforcement, they wouldn’t be sucked into warring gang violence that spans entire states wide.

A lot of drug use occurs in the USA? No kidding. But when was the last time you saw a gang with undisputed power to blatantly drive down any street killing everyone they see in an entire state? You don’t because the society wouldn’t put up with it. It has moved down to Mexico because their society/government structure (at least along to top 1/3 of the country) is so poor that it is easy for them.

If it was only “demand” causing the problem, why isn’t Iowa providing all the narcotics for the State of Minnesota? Sure would cut down on the transportation costs…

Oh, and one last thing. To the people of Juarez, it isn’t the sensationalized depictions of your city in games and movies that make the rest of the world see you as a cesspool. It is the factual news reports that come out every evening. Truth hurts.


By JasonMick on 2/22/2011 5:22:14 PM , Rating: 5
Conservative yes Libertarian no!

True conservatives believe in a SMALLER government.

If you advocate a big government that mandates such moralistic issues as abortion, soft drugs (alcohol, tobacco, etc.) on citizens, you are better classed as a "neo-conservative" for lack of a better term.

I have heard this faillogic before it’s the same one people use in reference to the 9/11 Attacks that if we weren’t meddling in other countries affairs then they( the terrorists) would not have had any reason to attack us somehow it ends up being our fault; it’s a completely bankrupt argument.

Err... way to bring up 9/11 when it bears ZERO relevance to our debate. Talk about fail logic....

Drugs are illegal so any one purchasing drugs (feeding the demand) are effectively criminals.

Aha, but who decides what drugs are illegal? You? Joe down the street? Your town council? Nope, the federal government.

Now I have no big problem with this, as long as it's based on sound science.

But what we have here is a substance that modern medicine says is one of the least harmful commonly used drugs (cannabis) banned, while other more dangerous drugs (alcohol and tobacco) are perfectly legal.

If you wish to challenge this assertion, by all means do, I will provide you with peer reviewed scientific studies in prestigious medical journals.

Not to sound all /conspiracy theorist/ but it's pretty easy to see why marijuana is illegal.

Alcohol requires a lot of effort to make and few are willing to put that effort. Tobacco, likewise, only can be grown well in select climates, so it's hardly accessible to the average user.

Marijuana, by contrast, can grow in virtually any climate in the lower continental U.S. That means that it would be virtually impossible for a corporation to rake in big profits off of it, other than to sell seeds.

Thus Cannabis represents a tremendous financial threat to alcohol and tobacco. It's little wonder that these industries invest millions to lobby Congress and the White House to keep it illegal.

Don't kid yourself, this isn't about morality, legality, or health. And the end of the day you have a corrupt institution (the federal gov't and the FDA) that is purposefully defying science and civil liberties in order to bow to corporate interests.

Sure the cost is in life due to drug violence, but when has loss of life gotten in the way of the almighty dollar?

That being said even if we did de criminalize all drugs in the US it still would be illegal in Mexico and most of the rest of the world.

Err cannabis and certain other less harmful drugs (e.g. "magic mushrooms") are perfectly legal in MANY countries. The U.S. is among a select group who prosecute their use. If the U.S. decriminalized, Mexico would almost certainly follow. It's U.S. pressure that keeps marijuana illegal in Mexico in the first place.

Mexico needs to clean up their own backyard before pointing fingers northward they are heading towards a failed state not unlike Somalia. As for Americas interests we need to act towards containment a Korean DMZ style Border fence would stop 90% of the BS we are seeing going on the border now couple that with a non-bureaucratic worker visa program for the honest hard working Mexicans and possible a refugee program if things get really bad.

Sure they need to "clean up" their backyard. But we're sure not helping by tossing junk from our "drug war" into their backyard.

At the end of the day, like it or not Mexico is our problem.

Your idea of a DMZ fence is novel, but it would be quite expensive to guard and maintain and would basically kill the majority of international trade seriously impacting our nation's economy.

The situation we're in is akin to a rich family who lives in a ghetto neighborhood. They keep complaining about all the shootouts next door and that their neighbors keep trying to break in.

They speculate on how to build new alarms and better bars. And above all else, how to prevent their neighbors from getting in.

Meanwhile the situation improves zero.

And for the record I'm talking about the need for a response in a broad sense, not only from the U.S. gov't. U.S. businesses need to step up to the plate and start trying to play a bigger role in improving the Mexican economy.

Building a huge fence is a pretty cr@ppy solution.

Of course, even if the Mexican economy improves, there'd still be a large amount of drug violence (though likely reduced) both there and here in the U.S. that's utterly avoidable if cannabis was legalized.

,Forgive me for my bluntness/rudeness but you surprised me with comments like that.

It's okay your bound to get hot headed in a debate. This is just an issue I have strong opinions on, and I believe I'm being a good American by expressing them.

I'm a strong advocate of personal responsibility, and I think Americans are afraid to admit that their government is helping to cause the mess in Mexico and do something about it.

Curious considering they're more than happy to point out the government's shortcomings otherwise, of late....

By kfonda on 2/22/2011 9:20:06 PM , Rating: 4
Drugs are illegal so any one purchasing drugs (feeding the demand) are effectively criminals.

Aha, but who decides what drugs are illegal? You? Joe down the street? Your town council? Nope, the federal government.

I personally don't care if marijuana is made legal on not but this whole concept of the government making it illegal is ridiculous.

You are the government.

If all the 'legalize pot' people would sober up for a while and put as much effort in to changing the law as they do into complaining about it maybe it would happen.

If a clear majority of the voters wanted it legal, it would happen.

They tried in California, but apparently the majority does not think it should be legal.

By Ammohunt on 2/23/2011 1:45:13 PM , Rating: 1
Looks like alot of pot heads visit daily Tech.

By Suntan on 2/23/2011 3:48:02 PM , Rating: 2
And for the record I'm talking about the need for a response in a broad sense, not only from the U.S. gov't. U.S. businesses need to step up to the plate and start trying to play a bigger role in improving the Mexican economy.


We have a manufacturing plant in Juarez that for all intents and purposes does better work than a number of the plants we have here in the States. As project managers a number of us would love to have our products moved down to that factory and there were plans to invest the capitol needed to bring higher skilled activities into the compound that pay and provide much better overall economic conditions than just basic foundry and assembly work does. But we have been told that will not happen until the area becomes safer.

As it is, no one is allowed to travel to the factory to support new production startup because Americans are at such high risk of being kidnapped. Originally the risk was only high when you travelled throughout the city, but it was still considered safe within the factory. Now it is not allowed because it is not considered safe for Americans even inside the fenced-in compound that makes up the factory grounds, where only *coworkers* are allowed.

The last time the head of manufacturing visited the factory, she had 5 armed guards accompany her and she was in no one place for more than a half hour, spending less than 4 hours total south of the border.

You can’t conduct business with these kinds of conditions.

Yeah, I suppose we should do more. It’s our fault. We don’t pay them enough. Etc. etc. But at the end of the day, I’m not going to endanger my life just because you feel some misplaced sense of responsibility.

You first. Head on down there and “make a difference.” I’ll stay here thank you.


By Spacecomber on 2/22/2011 5:08:41 PM , Rating: 2
Related to the issue of corruption in the context of impoverishment, keep in mind that most of the security forces are paid peanuts. In circumstances where you are not given a living wage, but you are in a position of authority, guess what happens?

By Aenslead on 2/23/2011 3:21:48 PM , Rating: 2
Jason, you have a +1 from me.

As a Mexican, I appreciate that at least some people in the US trully understand the situation we are going through.

Only Mexican Policmen are corrupt? Question: how does MJ get from Juarez/Tijuana to Seatle/Chicago? Hm? Trust me - there is as much corruption on your side as in ours.

Until the US STOPS selling anyone weapons and stops being number one drug consumer in the world, this will only go on.

On the bright side, 9/10 deceased are related to drug crimes, so at least we're getting rid of the trash that emerged since the Zetas began their fight to take over main routes. After all, the amount of profit that drug consumption in the US generates is as large as some top Forbes500 companies - together.

By Suntan on 2/23/2011 3:56:05 PM , Rating: 2
If the market for drugs in America became non-existent tomorrow, do you think that would suddenly make those areas peaceful areas of legitimate commerce?

If drugs were legalized today, would you then advocate to legalize the selling of young woman the next day to “solve” the human trafficking that these cartels would then turn to tomorrow?


By Aenslead on 2/23/2011 4:42:48 PM , Rating: 2
I do like your assumption, but I will not reply to it because it will never happen. Impressive amounts of banks and politicians in the US make their fortunes out of drug business.

All we need is a DEA like organization that keeps controll of the routes and determines what gangs can operate where and how, just like in the US, where there is "peace amongst the gangs".

Mark my words: American and Mexican economy would COLLAPSE in a matter of months if drug trafficking ceased. Why do you think it's not been legalized? It's the best way to get huge amounts of money around. In cash.

By Lerianis on 2/26/2011 5:49:55 PM , Rating: 2
No, what would stop the violence is for the world to realize that they don't have the right to dictate what people put into their own bodies (unless they are causing a direct and imminent physical danger to someone else at that very moment) and legalize the drug trade!

We have tried drug prohibition and it is more and more apparent that it was a lost battle like alcohol prohibition even before it started.

By Adonlude on 2/22/2011 11:33:03 AM , Rating: 5
Every war that America has had anything to do with has been immortalized in video games. I think I've experienced D-Day in 3 different games. Those were my countrymen, my grandparents, and I still played it and didn't feel like I was disrespecting their sacrafice.

Maybe the people of Jauarez should focus on the problem at hand and not waste any more energy over a video game.

By omnicronx on 2/22/2011 11:44:25 AM , Rating: 2
Banning the video game is pointless, but please for the love of god stop pretending as though the people of Juarez are the problem.

You people don't seem to realize how bad it is there, if memory serves it has the highest murder rate of any city in the world per capita and 3 times more murders per year than the the most murderous city in the United States (which I assume is LA which is has 6-7 times the population at least.) Which as discussed is mostly due to massive drug trade north of the border.

I'd rather be dropped smack dead in the middle of Iraq then have to spend a night in Juarez.

By Ammohunt on 2/22/2011 2:48:58 PM , Rating: 1
Looks like Mexico needs a second amendment of its own. You think for a second this kind of cartel crap could happen in the states?

By Lerianis on 2/26/2011 5:51:56 PM , Rating: 1
You are damned well skippy it could happen in the United States. Actually, I'm pretty sure it WILL sooner or later unless we get off the 'illegal' drug prohibition bullshit and realize that it is better to regulate and tax the drug trade.

By Hiawa23 on 2/22/2011 10:42:14 AM , Rating: 2
With all the issues Mexico is having right now, a video game should be the least of your worries...

By omnicronx on 2/22/2011 11:19:41 AM , Rating: 2
As another poster noted, corruption is hardly the issue. The mayor of the town in question constantly has death threats thrown his way and must walk around with a team of body guards for his protection.

Not only that, but you do realize where this town resides right? Their current state of affairs is a direct result of the drug trade with a certain country north of the boarder..

By theapparition on 2/22/2011 11:31:13 AM , Rating: 4
And yet the US doesn't do what it should, all in fear of offending a certain demographic. Political Correctness will be the death of us.

RE: You would think this would bring better awareness
By bah12 on 2/22/2011 12:04:12 PM , Rating: 5
Correct, LEGALIZE IT ALREADY!!! The "war on drugs" has costs FAR more deaths that it has ever prevented. Regulate it, tax the hell out of it and quit trying to regulate your moral beliefs on what one person can and cannot put into their body.

I consider myself a conservative, and even I can see that no good comes from making it illegal. Those who want it can still easily get it, and it forces this very situation of a black market.

Legalize it today, and you save a boat load of money on this un-winnable "war" plus you get a desperately need influx of jobs and tax revenue. Where is the downside?

By omnicronx on 2/22/2011 1:03:54 PM , Rating: 2
And your point is what exactly? The years leading up to the end of prohibition in the United States saw increased consumption rates of 60-70% of pre prohibition levels.

People are going to drink and do drugs regardless of laws, i.e the only Utopian rant going on here is the idea that this is not the case.

Might as well regulate and tax it, and in the process stop wasting billions of dollars in resources trying to stop it.

By RedemptionAD on 2/22/2011 2:05:33 PM , Rating: 2
Alcohol was illegal for 20 years and we know what happened then. Marijuana has been illegal for only about 60 years, you figure out what happened.

By bah12 on 2/22/2011 2:41:20 PM , Rating: 2
What omni said. The only one being utopian is your assumption that it can be stopped. If we had no way of knowing what legalizing it would do, I MIGHT be able to see your point of view. But come on, WE'VE TRIED THIS before aka prohibition. The years during prohibition were far more criminal/violent, than the years before. AND it did not reduce consumption. Hell the mob was born because of prohibition not the other way around.

This isn't up for debate, we have loads of historical data that prove that violence, crime, and consumption INCREASE when you outlaw it NOT the other way around.

Your blatantly false assumption is that alcohol related deaths would go down if we outlawed it, that simply is not the case and we have historical evidence to back it up.

FYI my wife's brother was killed as a teenager by a drunk driver, I absolutely despise people who drive intoxicated. But no matter how illegal we make it, he would have still died (after all the act of driving while intoxicated is illegal but a crap load of good that did). There is no evidence that outlawing anything will curtail that behavior, quite the opposite really.

"And boy have we patented it!" -- Steve Jobs, Macworld 2007

Most Popular Articles5 Cases for iPhone 7 and 7 iPhone Plus
September 18, 2016, 10:08 AM
Laptop or Tablet - Which Do You Prefer?
September 20, 2016, 6:32 AM
Update: Samsung Exchange Program Now in Progress
September 20, 2016, 5:30 AM
Smartphone Screen Protectors – What To Look For
September 21, 2016, 9:33 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki