Six Days in Fallujah

[roach]

this is as silly as calling Resident Evil 5 racist

 

[The Incredible Hulk]

I dont need you to explain it to me. I already know the difference.
Someone mentioned it was poor taste to play a game when the reality was happening....i mentioned the GTA series.
We've had a tv series about the War in Iraq....no outrage. Was there any outrage for the Afghanistan scene from Iron Man????
Hell there are already war games about Iraq so why is this one catching the flack?????

I've already explained the difference between that TV show and a "game" based on the war in Iraq. Not sure why you continue to bring that up?

And this one is likely catching more flack because it's got the name of a current war zone where American soldiers are dying in it's title so its made itself an easy target.

 

[ChrisBaleBatman]

Then what about a comic book?

A comic book has negative..."childish" entertainment reputation just as games do.

If there's an Iraq story done in a comic book, taking place in the same current war zone, would it be less relevant than a tv show?

I think games have a reptutation, and that's the difference in the end really. I think the void in which we laugh, or see action in a show or film, is filled by the play time. I think the game could tell a good story.

But, certainly, destroying the game before we've even seen it...is unfair.

 

[TheCorpulent1]

I just read about this for the first time today and, I have to say, it makes me a little uncomfortable. A TV show or a comic is very different from a video game. Those are passive forms of entertainment: a story is being told to you and you're not involved except as the viewer. A video game puts you right into the action and makes you a part of it. It'd feel awkward and disingenuous for me to be pretending to be a soldier behind the comfort of my TV screen in a real situation where real soldiers probably gave their lives and call it entertainment.

But that's just me and my personal discomfort. I don't find the game as a whole particularly scandalous because, as others have pointed out, we've skirted close to this in the past with Iraq-based shooters already, where the only difference is that the producers made the situations up--and even then, a firefight is a firefight, so they probably weren't far off from real engagements that they looked at for research anyway. If soldiers are themselves contributing to this game, I can only assume its creation is okay with them, and if they're okay with it, I'm certainly in no position to act as some kind of higher moral authority. It just makes me, personally, a little squeamish.

 

[Joker]

I'd also like to add that no one got squeamish about the America's Army games, which not only featured real situations, but real soldiers as well.

 

[ProjectPat2280]

I'd also like to add that no one got squeamish about the America's Army games, which not only featured real situations, but real soldiers as well.

Yea but those games didnt have the player partcipate in any real battles, did they?

Other than time, i don't see any difference in this compared to Brothers in Arms: Road to Hill 30. I mean you are controlling soldiers who fought and died in real battles. Everyone of rank Sgt and over were based on real characters and all the events were based on real skirmishes, so i don't really see much difference.

 

[ChrisBaleBatman]

But, real battles like the stuff we see in COD4 and other games are happening everyday right now.

Or if a character in some tv show/film/book/game...blows himself up in a scene, again it's something that has happened and does happen.

Taking part in a specific battle, or specific mission...certainly is a point of debate. But, to me...if it's enough like another battle, even though they're not calling it the same battle...still serves the same purpose.

 

[StrainedEyes]

Are there any screens for this yet? They talked about it on IGN's Three Red Lights podcast and said the graphics were terrible in the build they saw.

 

[ProjectPat2280]

Are there any screens for this yet? They talked about it on IGN's Three Red Lights podcast and said the graphics were terrible in the build they saw.

Yea theres a few shots up...and they look pretty bad, but i just figured that was early stuff.

 

[TheCorpulent1]

These are the screenshots I saw of it: http://www.gamesradar.com/pc/six-days-in-fallujah/screenshots/g-2009041314540465083

 

[ChrisBaleBatman]

Yeah.

Though, in it's defense...it does seem to be early in development.

 

[ProjectPat2280]

Good news for some, the game will NOT be coming out:

Following some heavy, initial criticism of their title "Six Days in Fallujah", Japanese publishers Konami have decided not to release it.

"After seeing the reaction to the videogame in the United States and hearing opinions sent through phone calls and e-mail, we decided several days ago not to sell it" a Konami spokesperson told Japanese news site Asahi.

http://kotaku.com/5229129/konami-pulls-controversial-iraqi-war-game

 

[Paradyme]

It just needs a new publisher thats all.

 

[ProjectPat2280]

It just needs a new publisher thats all.

Yea, i just dont see it happening. Not with the reaction that Konami got.

 

[Paradyme]

I still don't get why everyone was so pissed off. What is the difference between this and WW2? It's too soon? Or was there something else I missed?

 

[ProjectPat2280]

I still don't get why everyone was so pissed off. What is the difference between this and WW2? It's too soon? Or was there something else I missed?

Yea im kind of in the same boat as you are. I guess its just 'too soon'. I dont know.

 

[TheCorpulent1]

Maybe Rockstar will publish it. They love courting media/public backlashes.

 

[terry78]

It sounds like the album title for some indie rock band.

 

[Gee]

Necromancing this thread...

One of the most controversial video games of the 2000s is being released