Konami drops controversial Iraq game

By Robert Purchese Published 27 April, 2009

Fallujah criticism too much to take.

Konami has decided to dump controversial Iraq war game Six Days in Fallujah due to the amount of negative feedback received.

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

"We had intended to convey the reality of the battles to players so that they could feel what it was like to be there."

Developer Atomic Games had been collaborating with real US soldiers to authentically retell the Iraq battle of Fallujah. As entertainment. From an American perspective.

Unsurprisingly, the PC, PS3 and 360 game soon came under fire from a number of areas - even real-life SAS hardman Andy McNab got involved.

Six Days in Fallujah was due for launch next year in the US. The game was never confirmed for Europe.

Picture of Robert.

About Robert Purchese

Bertie is Eurogamer's Senior Staff Writer. When he's not hunting down news stories he's often found playing with his kids or gabbling about fantasy games and strange online worlds.

Read more articles from Robert by visiting the Robert Purchese archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (67) Latest comment 3 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • Farfarer #1 3 years ago

    Aw, come on. Don't buckle under pressure from the US equivalent of Daily Mail readers. Put the game out there, sod the naysayers.



    And if you're not, then at least leak it :)

  • Valis #2 3 years ago

    Yeah, don't be pussies, lets kills some civilians! Bonus points for women and babies!

  • Fab4 #3 3 years ago

    It will probably be repackaged and sold at a later date.

  • DFawkes #4 3 years ago

    I bet it was shit anyway, Konami are hardly shooter specialists. I bet they rebuild it as a Metal Gear spin-off. If it happens, I called it.

  • ZuluHero #5 3 years ago

    It’s funny.. because our own Army's recruitment plan seems to revolved around making war feel like a game... Maybe they could just change the Stars and Stripes textures on the soldiers uniforms to Union Jacks and just release it over here as British Army indorsed...
    Edited by 2 at 27/04/09 @ 10:30

  • JahB #6 3 years ago

    @CountFapula

    1200 iraqi civilians died during the battle of fallujah. and they weren't killed by iraqui suicide bombers.

    i'm certainly not jumping on the "the US is teh evil" bandwagon, but i don't think what went down there qualifies as "entertainment material".

  • JohnnyWashnGo #7 3 years ago

    Makes a lot of sense to me to be honest. The world could do without one more stupid war game that only glorifies violence and does absolutely nothing to make people understand that going to war is the last resort and one that should be actively avoided at all costs. I am tired of these awfully immature games being released for the general public to consume.

    I think this line somes up just what is so wrong with these gamesL:
    "We had intended to convey the reality of the battles to players so that they could feel what it was like to be there."

    Oh really?

    How do you intend conveying the loss of hearing due to a mortar fire going off next to you? Or the loss of a limb due to your vehicle driving over a mine and being upended? Or the isolation felt by soldiers when they miss their friends and family?

    To me, when I first heard about it, it sounded like another retard cash in on the conflict in Iraq. Konami are doing themselves a favour by ditching it.

  • the_dudefather #8 3 years ago

    If only it was a movie, then it would be really deep and stuff

  • aldo_14 #9 3 years ago

    Yes because that's what the game is about.

    And we all know that iraqi's didn't suicide bomb and kill their own people due to stupid religious differences, it was all the evil us marines.

    Fucking retard. Funny it's ok for iraqi nutters to blow up their own women and kids, and for saddam to ethnically clense kurds, but the us are still the evil ones. Some of you fucking should have been aborted as soon as your parents were able.

    At what point did criticism of the US become support for suicide bombers, or for Saddams policies, or indeed anything beyond not bombing the shit out of civillians in half-cocked 'pacification' excercises?

    Fuck me, aside from the whole tarring all Iraqis (including civillians in Fallujah it seems) with 'terrorist' brush phrasing, that sort of attitude is exactly the sort of thing Saddam, China, etc love. I presume criticising the My Lai massacre would make me an evil communist Viet-Cong hippy or something, then?

  • schnide #10 3 years ago

    Given what this could have been if done right, and I'm not saying it would have been, this is only a shame.

  • menage #11 3 years ago

    I don't find it the least surprising. Which is why we would all be better of dumping the name "game" from our hobby and just call them interactive products (I'm not a marketing genius, make up something better if you like). Game has too many associations to do serious stuff with.

  • Apostle #12 3 years ago

    "i'm certainly not jumping on the "the US is teh evil" bandwagon, but i don't think what went down there qualifies as "entertainment material". "

    Neither would making a game about WW2 just afterwards be considered entertainment material, but look how many games we have based on it now. Anyway, CoD4 in parts is as close a recreation to fighting in a stereotypical Iraqi city, in all but name.

  • FooAtari #13 3 years ago

    Neither would making a game about WW2 just afterwards be considered entertainment material, but look how many games we have based on it now. Anyway, CoD4 in parts is as close a recreation to fighting in a stereotypical Iraqi city, in all but name.

    Thats the first thing I thought of when reading this. There is pretty much no difference between WW2 games/COD 4 and this...

  • Fab4 #14 3 years ago

    "If only it was a movie, then it would be really deep and stuff"

    If it was a movie made for entertainment then no...no it wouldnt. The only film genre that can give you any idea of what its like to actually be in a situation like that, is the documentary...whether that be an in-situ or post-situ piece.

  • Valis #15 3 years ago

    In all seriousness CountFapula, you need to leave this argument well alone. It might be possible for a very skilled and literate scholar of the war to put forward a case that the massacre in Fallujah was justified. I fear you may not be such an individual.

  • ViralNinja #16 3 years ago

    War games based on WW2 have the Nazis as the "bad guys", think about it

  • aldo_14 #17 3 years ago


    Thats the first thing I thought of when reading this. There is pretty much no difference between WW2 games/COD 4 and this...

    About 2 generations and 60 years difference, at least - plus a pretty strong consensus on that there was even a justification for the war, and an idea who the actual enemies are. And even then, how many WW2 games show civillian casualties?

  • JahB #18 3 years ago

    Neither would making a game about WW2 just afterwards be considered entertainment material, but look how many games we have based on it now. Anyway, CoD4 in parts is as close a recreation to fighting in a stereotypical Iraqi city, in all but name

    there's a world of difference here - WW2 was an absolutely justified war in which the enemy was a genocidal army led by a fucking madman that planned to eradicate entire peoples. in other words - invading germany and shooting nazis is entertainment material, because it has the good vs evil mechanic that entertainment usually provides.

    iraq on the other hand - a relatively stable country (a long shot from perfect, but still) invaded and plundered by the world's most powerful army. there's no good vs bad here. only bad vs bad and lots of civilians caught in the crossfire.

  • Figgernaggot #19 3 years ago

    but how am i going to kill nandsiggers :(

  • NonniR #20 3 years ago

    I'm glad they decided to drop it. Politicians in the US would have gotten a pretty good argument against videogames (which is obviously the fact that videogames are in fact the cause of all evil + the reason for the economy crisis).

  • raion #21 3 years ago

    I hate when things like this happen.
    people are too much sensitiv---- WHINY and get offended to easilly. especially those who have no buisness whatsoever.

    now, if they made a movie outta it, it wouldn't be in poor taste, no, it would be a brilliant look at the human aspect of a crude conflict.

    seriously, people, grow up.

  • clean515 #22 3 years ago

    The crying cunts wins again.

  • thedaveeyres #23 3 years ago

    POPCORN POPCORN

    Get your popcorn here!

  • monkeylite #24 3 years ago

    This 'game' has nothing but propaganda all over it.

    Regardless, nice thread to decide who to ignore.

    Feel free to ignore me as well. If it helps, I am a liberal lefty pinko scum socialist commie bastard who thought that the invasion was illegal.

  • JahB #25 3 years ago

    now, if they made a movie outta it, it wouldn't be in poor taste, no, it would be a brilliant look at the human aspect of a crude conflict.

    seriously, people, grow up.

    seriously, you grow up. a movie is not the same as a game. you can't equate watching people getting killed to actually doing the (virtual) deed yourself, because the player wont' care half as much about the underlying conflict as he will about winning the game/clearing the level.

  • Eraysor #26 3 years ago

    All they need to do is change Fallujah to some invented place and they could sell it again without half the trouble.

  • skillian #27 3 years ago

    All they need to do is change Fallujah to some invented place and they could sell it again without half the trouble.

    But then it wouldn't sell. Seemed to me they were using the Fallujah name like it was a Transformers licence.

    Glad it's gone - it was horrible idea - and some of the comments here from those in favour of the game just affirm my thoughts about the whole thing.

  • b00n #28 3 years ago

    unbelievable.. This was a chance to move gaming forward.

  • Spekingur #29 3 years ago

    They don't have any balls, like Rockstar. Damn those US-uits in US-istan.

    And NonniR, how could it have become an ammo for politicians who are against computer games? Seriously, there's already a war out there, it's still going no matter what the media says. Would these politicians point to the game and say "LOOK! This game caused the wars in the Middle-East!" - seriously?
    Edited by 1 at 27/04/09 @ 13:05

  • makeamazing #30 3 years ago

    I would repackage it as the first iraq war or something.... that would be easier. Sometimes its just easier than getting in to one long argument about it. They would have also been better concentrating on the whole event, and having this one place as a mission, again they would have got less flak (pardon the pun).

  • Maykael #31 3 years ago

    pussies..

  • Grogmonkey #32 3 years ago

    It seems weird to me that there are gamers (I am assuming they are gamers, as this is a gaming site) doing the job of politicians and right-wing, knee-jerk reactionists for them by implying that games are incapable of conveying meaningful, deep and important messages and stories that are emotionally and socially involving.

    I was in favour of it simply from the fact it's one of the first 'big publisher' games to actually engage in social commentary, rather than just react to it 60 years after the fact.

    Plus, from what Jeff Gerstmann said on the Bonus Round aired yesterday, the people behind the game (in particular, the marine advisors that seem very keen to see the game made) actually want to make something important. To have that message denied a voice simply because people don't understand the medium or what it's capable of is really disappointing.

    But then, maybe people don't want to see video gaming mature.

  • Bitkari #33 3 years ago

    unbelievable.. This was a chance to move gaming forward.

    Exactly. If this were a book, a film, a TV show or an epic poem there would be no problem whatsoever.

    The problem is that games are either considered by many to be an inherently flippant medium, bereft of any cultural or educational value - or a powerful tool to influence children to commiting nefarious deeds.



    Edited by 1 at 27/04/09 @ 13:13

  • Salato #34 3 years ago

    I lost all interest anyway when I heard about "recharging health". If they were going to try and make a serious war game then treat it seriously.

  • Fodder #35 3 years ago

    But Konami themselves didn't seem to think it was important social commentary. Their VP of marketing said as much:

    “We’re not trying to make social commentary. We’re not pro-war. We’re not trying to make people feel uncomfortable. We just want to bring a compelling entertainment experience. At the end of the day, it’s just a game.”

  • skillian #36 3 years ago

    Thanks Fodder, perfect response and the quote I was looking for.

  • quantumsheep #37 3 years ago

    "Feel free to ignore me as well. If it helps, I am a liberal lefty pinko scum socialist commie bastard who thought that the invasion was illegal."

    /adds to friends list


    ;)

  • Grogmonkey #38 3 years ago

    It's true. Konami did say that. I thought it was a really stupid thing to say at the time, and it still is a stupid thing to say. However, I would point out that Konami aren't developing the title. Atomic Games are:

    "... Atomic Games—responsible for titles like the Close Combat series—say "for us, games are not just toys."" (taken from Kotaku).

    I'd sooner take their opinion on the title as the 'correct' one, rather than Konami's marketing team (who presumably were trying to calm the fires of disapproval by playing the 'it's a game, it doesn't matter' card. Which, as I said, is stupid.).

  • kangarootoo #39 3 years ago

    @CountFapula

    Jesus, trust an idiot to try and bring the entire complex discussion to simply deciding which side were the big bunch of murdering losers and which side were the valiant heroes.

    Do you find it makes life easier when you remove all the complexity from it?



    The apparent pitch of this game seemed pretty conflicted to me.

    On the one hand...
    ""We had intended to convey the reality of the battles to players so that they could feel what it was like to be there.""

    And then on the other hand (as supplied by Fodder)...
    "We just want to bring a compelling entertainment experience. At the end of the day, it’s just a game."


    It is a real shame to see most of the posts in here being so blinkered, and trying to distill the whole complex subject down to either "its perfectly fine" or "its wholly abhorrent". You bloody complain about the "pussies" distorting the picture and the Daily Mail readership going off on one again... but you are all doing EXACTLY the same thing, except you have the sopposing point of view.

    As I said in a different thread, a balanced debate is not just two equally uninformed and extreme views battling it out. That is simply twice as many idiots in the same room. And what we have learned today is that idiots struggle with irony and contradiction.


    "This was a chance to move gaming forward."

    This thread, like so many others, proves that we don't deserve to move gaming forward. When we can conduct ourselves like adults, maybe we will be allowed to play with adult toys.
    Edited by 1 at 27/04/09 @ 13:43

  • Fab4 #40 3 years ago

    The president of the game developers, Peter Tempte, had a quote at the beginning of this 'media circus':

    “Our goal is to give people that insight, of what it's like to be a Marine during that event, what it's like to be a civilian in the city, and what it's like to be an insurgent.”

    I'm sorry, but games can't give you that...not at the moment. They can give you the details, sure. However, they can't give you that 'bottom of the gut' feeling that can only be had whenever your life is in danger. They cant even give you a realistic idea of what its like to fire an M4, ffs, how could they ever hope to give an insight to emotional responses experienced by real people?

    When I play a FPS video game, I don't go "Fuck! That was close!" if I nearly die. I don't have to calm a racing heart. I certainly dont have to try and stem the flow of blood and guts of an injured comrade, and all the smells that comes with it.

    Its not even possible, imho, to achieve this in an entertainment film. I've seen plenty of car bombs in movies and they look excellent...and you think you have an idea of what its like...to be that close to a bomb and get blown off your feet. Its great when the hero lays motionless for a few seconds, then slowly dusts himself off and looks around at the burning debris. In reality he's probably incapable of moving due to a percussion shockwave. That's what happened to me in that situation, and I wasnt even 'Hollywood close' to the bomb.

    I didnt have a problem with the game or the setting. I had a problem with the way it was marketed...it was named to create a 'media storm' and then they tried to justify it.

  • teabagger #41 3 years ago

    From a purely freedom of expression point of view (quality of/intentions of the game aside) I think this is disastrous.

    Pressure groups shouldn't be able to exert so much influence, essentially censoring material, for the majority. There are lots of things in life I find distasteful, but it's my right not to go and buy them.

    For publishers to cave in like this sets a dangerous precedence.
    Edited by 1 at 27/04/09 @ 13:49

  • kangarootoo #42 3 years ago

    @Fab4

    Very well put.

  • kangarootoo #43 3 years ago

    @teabagger

    A couple of thoughts.

    1. This is hardly a precedent. Cancelling games due to public outcry is a reasonably regular occurrrence.

    2. There is a difference between artistic representation and misrepresentation. As Fab4 described so well, setting out to provide a realistic depiction of "what it was like to be there" is a deeply flawed approach. Now I'm not saying that is reason enough to stop publishing the thing (and I'm not saying that should have been the result in this case), but I think its important to recognise the difference.

    What angers me so much in all of this is the mass inability to see beyond the very surface veneer of what is a complex and multifaceted issue. It appears to most outsiders that we gamers don't give one fig about anything in the real world (or even understanding what goes on in the real world) above getting our shooting fix. Like I said, the majority of us here don't deserve (and can't comprehend) gaming moving forward as an artform.

  • sneetch #44 3 years ago

    @aldo_14
    At what point did criticism of the US become support for suicide bombers, or for Saddams policies, or indeed anything beyond not bombing the shit out of civillians in half-cocked 'pacification' excercises?

    This is a basic propaganda technique, anyone who dissents is, obviously and automatically, unpatriotic and must sympathise with the enemy. Apparently CountFapula's conditioning is so complete that he's joined in. He's even apparently forgotten that it's possible for both sides to be wrong - there is no universal law which states that one side must be right, so therefore the other(s) must be wrong - and for innocents to be caught up in the whole thing.

    Fuck me, aside from the whole tarring all Iraqis (including civillians in Fallujah it seems) with 'terrorist' brush phrasing, that sort of attitude is exactly the sort of thing Saddam, China, etc love. I presume criticising the My Lai massacre would make me an evil communist Viet-Cong hippy or something, then?

    What are you? Some kind of communist Viet-Cong hippy or something? You must be, that's what they implied on the news last night. Damned long-hair pinkos! (See how it works? Join in, it's fun when you completely surrender free-thought and stop questioning!)

    So to sum up, for those having a difficult time: I think most of us are of the opinion that no killing at all is the ideal situation, in absence of that, anyone killing civilians is universally bad. They started it or they kill more are not valid excuses.

  • JohnnyWashnGo #45 3 years ago

    So nobody is thinking that this game would have trivialised the act of war, glorified the killing of human beings and turned the misery and suffering of a whole group of people into just another form of entertainment?

  • collateral89 #46 3 years ago

    which faggots complained about this u dont like it dont fuckin play it.

  • Kenshin001 #47 3 years ago

    Seems gamers are too immature to handle anything nearing realism. Nudity and sex are practically absent from mainstream games. The cancellation of this game is just another example of why games will always be inferior to books and movies and gaming perceived as the pasttime of manchildren.

  • Beek4257 #48 3 years ago

    "We had intended to convey the reality of the battles to players so that they could feel what it was like to be there."

    How? By making my console blow up in my face and taking my head off? No thank you.

  • Grogmonkey #49 3 years ago

    @Fab4

    Correct me if I'm misinterpreting your response, but you're basically saying no game can recreate actual experiences and the only way to truely understand what happened in Fallujah was to actually be in Fallujah at the time? If that's the case, then you're absolutely right.

    Personally, however, I feel there's room in the middle ground for 'partial understanding/appreciation' of a subject. Yes, it'll never get even close to the real thing, but it's got to be better than having no understanding at all. As an example are the likes of Call of Duty, which, at the time, were praised for their depictions of World War II, and how they allowed a generation a world apart from the one which actually fought in '45 to garner some kind of appreciation for what happened and the sacrifices that were made. In a similar manner to Saving Private Ryan and the Band of Brothers series.

    Perhaps it's just me, but I got a greater sense of what went on in WWII from CoD than any number of field trips to War Museums and battlefields in France and years of history taught in school. I think games have real scope for the kind of incidental, interactive learning that no other medium can achieve.

    Like I said, though, I agree that "games can't give you that...not at the moment". I'm not convinced that's reason enough not to try, however. How else will we know when games are able to give you that sense of understanding? I think it's going to take many small steps to get to that point, and someone's going to have to be first.

  • metalangel #50 3 years ago

    I agree with Grogmonkey, while I didn't fight in WW2, I have seen and participated in the most vivid recreations possible thanks to games. And from that, I've gained an appreciation for just what sort of bravery soldiers (all soldiers regardless of side) have to go into battle. I don't pretend to understand, but I have the beginning of an appreciation for it, and respect for those who have and who have to continue to do it.

    This makes the current Iraq thing feel all the more wrong to me - they're laying down their lives for what is a pretty unjustified cause (fat old men in suits want to keep the world dependent on oil) and for that I support bringing them home ASAP.

  • Fab4 #51 3 years ago

    I think what I'm trying to get across is the difference between cognitive and emotional empathy. Cognitive, from what I understand, allows you to place yourself in a scenario and understand it, while emotional empathy requires you to have actually experienced a similar scenario.

    If the aim of the game was to give a gamer cognitive empathy of what it was like in Fallujah, for the US soldiers, civilians, etc, which I wholeheartedly agree is possible, then it could just as easily have been set in a less 'hyped' environment and that empathy would have remained. However, if the aim was actual emotional empathy, then it was never (and likely never will be) possible to achieve purely from a game, movie, book, or poem.

  • Royal Fool #52 3 years ago

    Nick Breckon of Shacknews wrote up an excellent article on the game a while back.

    Personally, I don't think I'll miss it. Not because I was particularly offended by it but because I'm quite certain it would've been a really poor game

  • kangarootoo #53 3 years ago

    @Grogmonkey

    Maybe one of the important details is the will of those involved in the production of the game. If the game was absolutely heart and soul setting out to create a realistic and balanced view of a particular conflict, then maybe with the right people involved it could get halfway to achieving that and we could applaud the attempt.

    Most of what I have seen so far in this case (especially the flip-flopping response to questions and critisisms) suggests to me that making a pile of cash from no small amount of flag waving jingoism was to some extent behind this current title.

    I think it is a shame that some of those who champion freedom of artistic expression (among whom I might count myself) risk picking the "wrong candidate" for their campaign. A candidate that doesn't really care about truthful portrayal of conflict OR artistic expression, but is quite happy to have a bunch of angry teenagers fighting their case on the misguided belief that they are all in it for the same valiant reasons.

  • Fodder #54 3 years ago

    "Nick Breckon of Shacknews wrote up an excellent article on the game a while back."

    He talked about it some more on the latest Idle Thumbs podcast too, for anybody who's interested in hearing more about the game. http://www.idlethumbs.net/

  • kangarootoo #55 3 years ago

    @Royal Fool

    Great link, nice one.

  • kangarootoo #56 3 years ago

    An interesting quote from the linked article.

    "One Marine: "This is the opportunity to tell our story.""

    "Our story" he said, not THE story.


    And then after that, more disturbingly.

    "However, the more subtle contradiction seems to be the statement that the game will show only what the consulted Marines saw on the ground--despite the fact that civilians, and even insurgents, have been consulted for the project. Because these particular Marines apparently saw no dead children, and few civilians, the game will reflect that, according to Tamte."

    So they conculted with many different people, no doubt in the name of creating that realistic experience they sometimes talk about, but then only used the reference gained from marines to build that experience.

    This couldn't possibly be because a balanced depiction wouldn't sell... could it?

  • DaDon123456 #57 3 years ago

    'Developer Atomic Games had been collaborating with real US soldiers to authentically retell the Iraq battle of Fallujah. As entertainment. From an American perspective.'

    Nice. Bang on.

  • dudefella #58 3 years ago

    Jesus Christ. Buckling to negative feedback, really? If every controversial artist did that, we'd never have anything interesting to discuss. Why don't we all tip-toe around the sensitive issues and pretend they don't exist, eh?

    I like how most people never even gave this game a chance. Come on.

  • kangarootoo #59 3 years ago

    @dudefella

    Have you read this thread?

  • metalnut #60 3 years ago

    I'm really pleased to see some educated discussion going on here, thanks Grogmonkey et al.

    I think the problem our medium has with tackling areas such as this is that, at the end of the day, most of the people wanting to play COD and similar games are looking for the thrill, it's little to do with appreciating the historical context. A game has to be fun when it comes down to it - you couldn't for example tackle the trenches of WWI and be both entertaining and accurate - because crouching in cold water for months getting trench foot, with the only way out a 10-second run into machine gun fire, really isn't fun. Which is the point that other media have a better track record of dealing with.

    Movies and books can deal with this because they don't have to be fun. They can be harrowing, thought provoking and downright depressing and people will still watch / read them. But I don't think the gaming public is ready for that yet in their games, which is why, even though COD et al do a good job of recreating the atmosphere, which at a very superficial level 'educates' people, they really don't do the gravity of the situation justice at all, and shouldn't be considered a particularly tasteful way of dealing with the subject matter IMO.

    I stopped playing historical realistic soldier games after becoming disillusioned that they were trivialising these very significant real events, and oddly the more accurately they tried to recreate them, the more distasteful I found it. It's about as appropriate as having a "Saving Private Ryan" ride at Disneyland - fun and serious appreciation of the time just don't mix. If you really want an education on what the war was like, talk to your grandfathers or watch interviews with people who were involved. You'll get a very different story.

  • TitusCrow #61 3 years ago

    I wonder if you would have been allowed to drop white phosphorus cluster bombs for purposes of pacification like they did in the real battle..
    Take one reasonably ok city remove the dictator, then freak out when a protest gathers from the locals, fire on the killing 17 and then when they fight back bomb the shit out of them, including thousands of civillians.
    Hmm.. i bet they thought when sadam was deposed the bad times were over, guess they shouldnt have killed and strung up 4 american contractors in reprisal for being fired on.
    Well the main thing is they paid for it! the city is now wrecked and populations are said to be at 35-45% pre- war levels. That will teach em! all's well that ends well, am i right?
    Edited by 1 at 27/04/09 @ 16:08

  • OdinsEinherjer #62 3 years ago

    Good riddance.Enough with games that only demonize people from other cultures,a good portion of gamers actually believe the shit they hear on the news...

  • finty13 #63 3 years ago

    @CountFapula

    Do you know who gave Saddam the money and weaponary which allowed him to cleanse the kurds?

    It should come as no surprise to everyone that it was in fact the good ol' US of A.

  • napalm68 #64 3 years ago

    God damn puxxies

  • Spekingur #65 3 years ago

    @Kenshin100: That's not gamers. That's the media and the people that don't play games but like to shout angrily about something. Like an annoying neighbour you can't get rid of.

    Even if the game would not end up being realistic then at least they are trying. The only other ones are the guys with Operation Flashpoint and Armed Assault they try to display "real war with realistic behaviour".
    And how can movies not affect you? I remember well after having seen the first Matrix movie and the first Fast and the Furious how the adrenalin was pumping. I remember the first time I played Serious Sam with a group of friends, lots of adrenalin. Movies, books, poems, music and even games have been able to successfully convey emotion. Games to quite a lesser extent because no one seems to be truly trying.
    If a game can successfully bring you, the player, into what feels like what war in (for example) Iraq would then that is a success. When you experience what soldiers on both sides and what civilians have to go through whilst just sitting in your home but still feel like you have experienced war like previous mentioned groups then it is successful. I'm all for allowing as many as possible to experience how real war feels like - emotionally, at least - without actually being in it.

    From the comments, I can see that this current game was only going to show one side of the story. To me, that is wrong, good riddance to the game then. Show all sides. But then again, how many WW2 games are there where you play as the Nazis? Or the people caught in the middle?
    Let me play as a civilian trying not to get killed by either side. That would be diffirent - and difficult. Gamers would complain about how unfair the game is, developers would just respond that wars are unfair to civilians.

  • Eurytus #66 3 years ago

    @ countfapula

    The hypocrisy from some of you makes me fucking sick.

    It's perfectly fine for saddam to try and commit genoicde, and for his sons to rape and pillage, but hey, when the us try to wipe out insurgents who woud gladly bomb their own people, it's all of a sudden the big, bad evil us. No wonder things like darfur and zimbabwe happen if so many of you are more than willing to turn a blind eye to genocide.



    Wow, you're really dumb.
    There's a tasty cookie waiting here for you if you can find someone in this thread that states that its perfectly fine for Saddam to commit genocide.
    Go on, knock yourself out.

  • Eurytus #67 3 years ago

    Your boys were supplying him with arms and money AFTER he committed genocide.
    Try not to look like such a twat next time huh?

  • OdinsEinherjer #68 3 years ago

    @CountFapula

    You're a pussy.Join the Army and get killed or shut it.