Fallujah game may reappear yet

idiots. a shooter is a shooter, why set it in an event still fresh in the minds of many people, during a needless conflict that's ongoing and has claimed hundreds of thousands of innocent lives.

wait 20 years or rename it "battle for saigon" for goodness sake.

too bloody soon.

I beg to differ about there being lots of interest.

This game comes under the "controversial for publicity's sake" genre - and I don't think a single one of those games has ever been good, with the exception of GTA.

"Controversial or not, it was a battle between soldiers and insurgents. yes civillians got caught in the cross fire, but that's the nature of war, especially when insurgents go out of their way to hide among civillians."

I kind of agree with this, but my issue still is (as it was before) will they be absolutely clear that what they are presenting is NOT factually accurate? Previously they seemed very conflicted about that particular aspect, with different quotes saying complertely opposite things on the matter.

I recall a suggestion from one of their team that dead civilians would not be shown, even thought it is a known fact that civilians were killed in the conflict, because "the marines there at the time don't remember seeing any dead civilians".

Now, if they are absolutely clear that what they are making is a fictional scenario "inspired" by real world events, we are still on shaky ground (because too many people are too dense to tell the difference even when it is spelled out to them), but at least its not outright bare faced lying.

IF they present this as some kind of "learn what happened" type affair, I can't really feel anything less than contempt for it.

wait - because it's simply too soon. people who just watched their friends or families die don't want to be playing the videogame while the graves are still fresh.

time is a matter of respect.

why do you think WW2 is so popular an actual event - because it was so long ago. time.

also, why make a computer game? a form of pure entertainment in which you are cast in a position of carrying out these killings - just for kicks. it's insanely bad taste.

finally, if you want to tell a story, make a film or a documentary, or write a book. don't turn it into entertainment for the masses while the conflict is *still ongoing*. don't. you. see?

Firstly I haven't seen much of this game so my comments are based on what I have heard (and therefore might be way off).
Is there a teaser or trailer I can watch somewhere?

But I think a game like this has potential. In the right hands it could actually make some serious political points and get them out to the exact same audience that the army is desperately trying to flirt with. Picture a game willing to show the horrible atrocities committed by both sides in war. And because it is so recent from a historic perspective, it would have a chance of really resonating with it's audience.

An anti America's Army game? One that actually convinces young men *not* to sign up for the forces? I can't think of a game that needs making more.

If this is going to be accurate can we play as both American troops and insurgents?

Telling the story from both sides would be the most interesting way to structure the game as well as the most historically thorough. It will also break up the mythology of the Americans as the 'good guys' and the insurgents as 'bad guys'.

Telling it only from the American side may produce an interesting story, but also a problematic one, much like the dodgy characterizations of the natives in 'Black Hawk Down'.

Sorry if someone said it, it just seems odd for this to be the chosen subject.

I suggest WillTheSecond reads books as well as just watch films.

To say the "dodgy characterizations of the natives " about Black Hawk down is a bit like saying "the Nazis were not that bad"

I suggest you either watch the Documentory or read one of the books on the subject.

Many,many things were left out of the film...the dragging of the bodys of American servicemen...in fact the film was liberal with its events.
They were there to help with famine and during a raid against gangsters hoarding the food the events of that day happened.

Back on topic.....this game is a stupid idea.

Interesting that someone could describe themselves as "pro-war"
Speaks volumes really.
Of course the vast majority of the people who describe themselves thus have no intention whatsoever of actually getting involved in one. They are content to let others get killed or maimed.

@ mattrix33

Huh? You're really suggesting that all the Somali fighters were just psychopaths? Also:

"Warlords, dictators and terrorists are normally okay with the U.S., as long as they do the bidding of U.S. corporate interests. In fact, the U.S. promoted Aidid for a time. He belongs on that long list of former U.S. allies who commit atrocities with impunity, but once they step out of line are denounced as the "new Hitler"--a list that includes the likes of Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and Slobodan Milosevic."

That is a quote by an actor from Black Hawk Down critiquing said film, pointing out that is does not properly contextualise the action and the reasons why the U.S. went in there.

Back to the game:

The US soldiers are not good guys in the game. Nor are they 'bad guys' they are soldiers stuck in an unjust war. Same goes for the Iraqi militia. Ironically both sides believe they are fighting for freedom when in fact their action support different kinds of violent oppression.

Now THAT would be an advancement in gaming if they made a game to explore those ideas. Alas I doubt that is what this game is. Probably just another GRAW clone.

I suggest you either watch the Documentory or read one of the books on the subject.

Many,many things were left out of the film...the dragging of the bodys of American servicemen...in fact the film was liberal with its events.

Like the Yanks shooting hundreds (literally hundreds, not hyperbole) of unarmed people, including women and children. Funny how those bits got skipped, eh?

transformers revenge of the fallen

@CountFapula

A lot of what you are saying seems to hinge on "they are just as bad as us, if not worse" defenses. Whilst that might entirely be the case, I'm not sure if it is really a sound defense.

What is unclear to me is whether you think that is a fair justification for things to persist. It like gang wars on the streets of any city. Both gangs might feel they are right, but they are both full of shit really. What should actually happen is both sides should stop being dickheads and stop fighting. In fact this is how I view most conflicts in the world. Yet the response often seems to be "we'll stop being dickheads when they stop being dickheads first", which of course ends up going nowhere.



"I never said the dropping of nukes was ''awesome''- simply that they did what they were intended to do: end the war.

That is FACT. If you are denying the fact that the dropping of the nuclear bomb ceased japanese hostility to america, you are denying facts, and denying history."

Jesus. Look, first off, writing FACT in uppercase letters doesn't make it any more true. Secondly, you don't seem to actually believe that what you are writing is true, or at the very least you seem to fear someone will end up picking holes in your knowledge of the subject. As within the same paragraph you first wrote FACT, and then started an ad hominem rant about debying facts and denying history.

You (SHOULD) know as well as anyone that there is much debate over whether in fact the nuclear arms used at the end of WW2 did end the war, or whether the war was in fact already effectively over. I know what I think about it, but that is hardly relevant. If the most advised historians in the world can raise questions over either version of events, I'll be damned in you have somehow found greater wisdom just because you managed to find the caps lock key on your keyboard.



"People like to portray the us as bad guys (especially ignorant people), but trust me, the insurgents/''freedom fighters'' would come off a lot worse with an accurate portrayal."

Unfortunate as it might be, I'm afraid most of the world sees the US as the "bad guys" in this instance. Nopw perhaps the rest of thw rodl is ignorant, but thats some pretty steep odds to be asking for. And it might also be suggested that of all the media systems likely to give an inaccurate portrayal of events, the US media is one of the front runners.


On the subject of pro-war. Deciding to go to war when it is unavoidable is not the same as being pro-war. "Pro-war" suggests that war would be your first choice out of any list of options in any given situation. Surely war should be the last option, if you still have other solutions? I mean, doesn't that seem obvious? If you have 3 choices, and all of them will work, why choose the one that involves killing people?


My final thought, though I would be interested to hear your response as its a good area for debate.

"When you come across a guy who wants to beat you with a big stick, buy a bigger stick and he will think twice about it. "

What he will perhaps think about is getting a new stick that is twice as big as yours before he returns to confront you again. Discuss.

Do these sticks have nuclear capabilities?

lololololololol.

Ok, seriously now.
The simple fact of the matter is, there is nothing these developers can do to justify the making of this game. They claim they want to show how bad war is and how it affects the people and yet they are limiting themselves to having American troops as the only protagonists. Maybe you should play as a civilian who must avoid both insurgents and Americans as you try and escape from the city?
They should include levels where the brainwashed American troops become trigger-happy and burst into a home, slaughtering children. Then it'll be realistic.
In any case, the memories are still too fresh so a little respect would be to simply leave it out. It doesn't sound like a good game anyway and I doubt it'll sell much.

Of course they can justify the making of the game - by making a game that is thought-provoking, arresting and emotionally affecting, as opposed to a familiar "go to waypoint Victor Delta and engage Tangos, fuck yeah! HUA!" wargame. That is, admittedly, a high standard to set. However, unless these guys are all thirteen emotionally and honestly think they can combine all that with a game that is primarily about shooting people, I remain hopeful for it. I really want this game to succeed, as I see this sort of serious attitude and interest in talking about difficult subjects leading to more games that tell grown-up, complex stories in interesting ways, but I can't say I expect that it actually will, either commercially or artistically.

Countfapula, I think you have some good points, but I do smell a real "us and them" attitude in what you say. There are divides in any society, and enough unrest can cause them to come completely unstuck. The potential to kill and maim neighbours and fellow citizens exists in every society in the world, all it needs is a lack of civil order and it will float to the top. Look at Yugoslavia. Prior to the Soviet invasion, I understand Afghanistan was a highly ordered and cultured society, one of the pinnacles of progressiveness in central Asia. Now look at it. Iraq is not populated by specially restive people, they are just like the people of any other country, it is simply their circumstances that are different. Notmyrealname's point about New Orleans is well made.

With regard to Japan - the A-bombs marked the end of the war, yes. The point everyone but you seems to be making is that the A-bombs may not have been necessary. At that stage, Japan was nearly defeated in every practical sense save for the actual declaration of surrender. The people they dropped them on were mostly civilians, generally very little to do with fighting the war or the mistreatment of prisoners, so that rationale does not apply - you might as well say that it was OK to pull off 9/11 based on the fact that the US did bad things to people (to be honest I've never really understood the official rationale behind 9/11 but there you go, I doubt most people do either).

@CountFapula

Saying dropping nukes stopped Japanese hostilities is NOT the same as saying it was the ONLY way said hostilities could have been stopped. Please don't expect word play of that type to slip past me unchecked.

No doubt the nukes DID stop hostilities, but the sad truth is there were other options on the table which would have ALSO stopped hostilities, without such a terrible loss of life. Lets not forget that bombs of that type don't choose between combatants and civilians. Hundreds if not thousands of people who had no hand in the war and no control over its course were killed and it was simply NOT necessary for that to happen to end the war. Really, think about that for a little while. Far more people than were killed in any other single act in history were killed, when the war COULD have been ended by other means.


And I will say (as you must expect) that I'm simply not won over (or even remotely impressed) by pointless gesturing such as writing things in uppercase, sticking = between otherwise unrelated points, and saying "anyone who disagrees is a moron". It is the feeble posturing of people who can't back up what they say with facts, you are far from the first person I have ever come across who uses that sort of tactic, and if anything it makes me less likely to believe anything you say. You would do yourself justice to stop using that sort of thing, it simply makes you look like you don't believe in the substance of your point of view - its like trying to win adebate by shouting louder.


Aaaaanyway.

"and if someone buys a bigger stick, buy a gun. if they buy a gun, buy a bigger gun. so on and so forth. Always keep on step ahead"

Oh come on man, I know you aren't stupid but what you wrote there is extremely so. Read it again, and tell me how, in such a cycle as your describe, you can possibly ALWAYS stay one step ahead. Its a cycle, with power shifting back and forth as each person goes and buys a bigger stick. Its inherrent to the situation described. It is simply IMPOSSIBLE to always stay one step ahead.

Would you suggest that anyone planning on home defense should buy nuclear arms? Of coure not. So how could they possibly guarantee they would always have the bigger stick? If you buy a pistol, what stops a thief coming at you with an SMG? If you buy and assault rifle what stops the thief buying a grenade? Surely you must see that ALWAYS staying ahead is the absolute cold hearted lie that is the heart of every arms race. And quite simply, you seem to have bought it.


Other have pointed out there is a very "them and us" attitude in your rhetoric. Everytime someone levies an argument at you, instead of answering their point, you drop another "so you are saying they are any better?" straw man into the mix.

"come on, now, NO videogame is historically factually acurate."
"N- united for about ten minutes before they blow up their neighbours and form ethnic cleansing death squads, you mean?"
"willthesecond, tell me one country that HASN'T done whats in their best interest?"
"Oh-bollox- maybe you should blame the insurgents for dressing as civillians and hiding among them on purpose? "
"lmao yeah because the japanese and what they did to prisoner's weren't crimes against humanity right? "
"notmyrealname- so you think it's ok when saddam was in control?"

I could go on, but its starting to become farse. Almost every post you write dodges one issue and follows up with a "but not as bad as they were" response.


And most sadly of all, you say that you never described dropping nukes as "awesome", and lambast any suggestion that you did, but then you write things like.

"The US owned Japan. You can bitch about it all you like, but there's a musrhoom shaped cloud of ''don't give a crap'' from me. "

and

"The americans didn't want a long, drawn out land conflict, and landed a spectacular one two blow that ended the war."

Those sound like pretty yeehaa type terms to me.

I honestly think that (perhaps because internet debate you angry and defensive), you really don't think about some of the things you say. Pre-fixing a sentence with "yeah, but war sucks, what ya gonna do" does a massive diservice to intelligent debate. It is simply an attempt to dismiss the very question of whether alternative solutions exist when dealing with world conflict. I have to wonder, why are you so afraid of questions and debate? You genuinely seem to want to put your fingers in your ears and sing loudly when anyone suggests that war is (or was) not the best solution to an international problem. I find it puzzling. Why would anyone want other people to die when other options exist that can bring events to the same eventual conclusion? Is it because the peaceful options are often more complicated and take longer? Maybe this is what you really meant by pro-war? Help me out here.

Its all gone strangely quiet