Family of Infamous Warlord Looks to Sue Activision for Black Ops II

The Call of Duty games have generally been based in historical fact, except the trips into science fiction we’ve been seeing the series dabble in as of late. This was perhaps most pronounced in Call of Duty: Black Ops 2, which took place in an extremely liberally interpreted version of the Cold War, and actually depicted several historical figures as characters in the narrative. Kind of like Assassin’s Creed, but with guns and less alien conspiracies. I think, at least, I haven’t actually played the game. But unlike Assassin’s Creed, which can depict characters within it with some security knowing the won’t offend anyone who is still alive, there were people who knew some of the people depicted in Black Ops 2. Who might not be happy with how the were shown to be.

Namely, the family of Jonas Savimbi, an infamous Angolan rebel leader, who was actually depicted (and killed) in Call of Duty: Black Ops 2.

Turns out, this is a way more complicated issue than it first may seem. So, the historical figure Jonas Savimbi was a guerrilla leader who, backed by Reagan’s America, fought against the Soviet-backed MPLA in Angolia. So he was pro-American, but the civil war he helped fuel killed over 500,000 people, and promoted the giant diamond smuggling trade still wracking Africa today. He’s been likened to a figure opposite of Nelson Mandela, causing war instead of encouraging peace, and whatever positive qualities he may have had could be disputed.

In the game, he’s called “Effin’ Nuts”, drives around shooting a grenade launcher around, and drives a machete through a soldier’s chest, as well as orders his troops to kill everyone they find. The family of Jonas Savimbi call his depiction ‘barbaric’ and say it is slander against his name, and say he was a political leader and a strategist instead. They want recompense in the form of a million euros for this depiction.

Now, it’s also worth pointing out that in the game, he’s the player's ally, and frankly, anything he does is small beans compared to the countless atrocities you commit. You help him in his war, he calls you a friend, and supplies you with critical information. It’s in that vein that Activision calls him depicted as a ‘good guy’... which is a far more generous term than we could apply to the real man.

Regardless, they’re currently disputing the claim.

This isn’t the first time Black Ops 2 has been targeted for its depiction of political figures. Famous dictator Manuel Noriega also tried to sue Black Ops 2 for his role in the game as a villain (because he was a bad person who did bad things), but the case was thrown out of court almost immediately. Now, all things considered, I can see this case being a bit more complicated than the Manuel Noriega one, but still, I don’t really think they’ll get very far with it.

Than again, what do I know?