War Games Related content
- News Fallujah game may reappear yet [42]
- News Konami departure "surprised" Fallujah dev [23]
- News Konami drops controversial Iraq game [75]
PreviousAdvertisement
War Games Article
Article by Rob Fahey
Page 1 of 2.
Page 2 
Published as part of our sister-site GamesIndustry.biz' widely-read weekly newsletter, the GamesIndustry.biz Editorial is a weekly dissection of one of the issues weighing on the minds of the people at the top of the games business. It appears on Eurogamer after it goes out to GI.biz newsletter subscribers.
It's difficult to sympathise with the positions of those leading the calls for Konami's forthcoming Iraq War game, Six Days in Fallujah, to be banned. Newspapers like the Daily Mail, which is leading the charge in Britain, have a lengthy and unpleasant history of building support for censorship and authoritarianism through reporting which is biased at best, and utterly ignorant or dishonest at worst - with this week's piece on the Konami game tipping precariously into the latter camp.
It's not just the fact that the Mail and others are essentially calling for the worst form of censorship, the blocking off of an entire event and saying "this is off limits, and may not be portrayed" - something which would stab to the very heart of the freedom of expression our media should be championing. Nor is it even the strong impression that some of those quoted in the article were duped by the Mail's journalists, with their reactions being based on inaccurate and biased information about the game provided by the writers themselves.
No, the thing that rankles most about this situation is the fact that this is a tabloid newspaper telling another medium that the way in which it's handling current events is insensitive. I won't need to remind any reader who walks past a newsstand on the way to work, or flicks on Sky News or CNN in the evening, just how "sensitive" the news media is in its coverage of war.
The absurd, adolescent delight in footage and pictures of battles and bombing, the huge print headlines filled with action-movie soundbites like "Shock and Awe" or "Mission Accomplished". At the invasion of Iraq, 24-hour rolling news breathlessly reported on the latest bombardments, piping live feeds of the green-tinged sky over Baghdad filled with smoke and explosions into every living room in the western world. Reporters can barely conceal their glee when machineguns rattle and bombs drop. This isn't news. It's pornography. War porn, on every TV screen and splashed on every front page with garish colour photography and three-inch-high headlines.
And the same organisations, the very same people who produce this extraordinary deluge of crass sensationalism, who feed the baser instincts of their viewers with violence and slaughter dressed up as something sexy, exciting and empowering - these same people have the gall to turn to a videogame which they almost certainly haven't even seen in action, shake their heads and go, "oh no, that's terribly insensitive"?
None of which, of course, is to say that Six Days in Fallujah deserves to be entirely free of criticism - it may, indeed, be perceived as insensitive in some quarters. However, it is but a product of our times - and if we've come to perceive war as entertainment, well, look no further than the news media for the pioneers of capitalising on that perception.
Looking beyond the astonishing hypocrisy of the Daily Mail and other such outlets, however, one aspect of the controversy surrounding Six Days in Fallujah leaps out at me as being particularly saddening.
I refer to the comments made by Konami's VP of marketing, Anthony Crouts, when speaking about the game to the Wall Street Journal. "We're not trying to make a social commentary," he told the paper. "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."
Advertisement
Are you excited about Six Days in Fallujah on PC/Xbox 360/PlayStation 3?
View Eurogamer readers most anticipated games
Thanks!
Related Games
Six Days in Fallujah
Want to comment on this article? Log in, or register!
Poster
|
AphoticCosmos
11/04/09 @ 09:38
0
Very, very good article. I wholeheartedly agree with the point about hypocrisy in the media regarding war - the tabloids and news channels have absolutely no justifications whatsoever for being able to stand up and point the finger over war depicted in various media, when they have been so irresponsible in reporting it in the first place.
|
|
0
I've just finished playing bully and I seem to remember before it came out the the media telling us how it was an evil, sadistic game promoting torture of innocent school children. I've read more violent stories in the beano. I wish the media would stop it with all the knee jerk reactions, but that wont sell papers i guess.
|
|
Kenshin001
11/04/09 @ 10:12
0
I found the article to be poorly written to be honest.
It's difficult to sympathise with the positions of those leading the calls for Konami's forthcoming Iraq War game, Six Days in Fallujah, to be banned. According to the Daily Mail it is a British Army colonel and father of a lance corporal killed in Iraq calling for it to be banned. How is it hard to sympathise with them? Or at least empathise? Especially when the father says, 'These horrific events should be confined to the annuls of history, not trivialised and rendered for thrill-seekers to play out, over and over again, for ever more. It's entirely possible that Muslim families will buy the game, and for them it may prove particularly harrowing.' The media can point the finger at games because for every sensationalist article there is a thought provoking sobre assessment. Games on the other hand are juvenile, catering to juvenile minds with flimsy plots and poor acting. The most compelling thing is shootiing people in the face. |
|
0
According to the Daily Mail it is a British Army colonel and father of a lance corporal killed in Iraq calling for it to be banned.
No, it is not. It is the Daily Mail calling for it to be banned, and they got their "journalists" to ring up these people and say, in effect, "there's a videogame being made about Fallujah which will have kids running around killing people - what do you think of that?" It's almost certain that neither of the people quoted in the story knew anything about it until the Daily Mail got onto them to try and generate some outrage. Neither of them will have seen the game, will have spoken to its developers or will know anything about the issue aside from what the Mail's reporters told them. This is how tabloid journalism works - you bend the truth to create outrage, and then report the outrage. The people you mention are, frankly, victims of the tabloids' hypocrisy as much as the game developers involved are. They're not "leading calls" for anything. |
|
FenderMaster
11/04/09 @ 10:22
0
The "it's just a game" described by Anthony Crouts, which lets people experience war without feeling "uncomfortable", sounds like the most horrific thing I can imagine - the worst variety of war pornography we've yet created.
so true... one of the reasons I was never comfortable with the CoD or MoH games |
|
Kenshin001
11/04/09 @ 10:27
0
Yes, it is.
The father's exact words were, ''I will be calling for this game to be banned, if not worldwide then certainly in the UK.' Sorry, but unless you have contacted the father and asked him exactly what he was asked by the Daily Mail and then quote him verbatim you are merely speculating to fit the slant of the article. Speaking of bending the truth to create outrage. In fact nowhere in the article does it even allude to the father of a soldier killed in Iraq calling for it to be banned. A somewhat glaring omission in a poorly written article.
Edited 1 times,
most recently on 11/04/09 @ 11:31
|
|
0
Look, if you want to defend the quality and honesty of journalism in the Daily Mail, that's your choice, but I think you're backing a loser on that front. The article in question isn't special - it fits into exactly the same pattern of creating controversy around a little-known issue by ringing up some of the usual suspects that about half of the paper's stories do (the other half are regurgitated press releases).
It's perfectly clear from the text of this article that my issue is with the newspaper and the journalists who write it. I have no intention of being drawn into a ridiculous straw man argument over whether I'm being unsympathetic to the people quoted in the story. The question in hand is about the tabloid media, not about the unfortunate people who get caught in the crossfire when they're doorstepped by unscrupulous tabloid journalists. |
|
0
Daily Mail aside - because I do agree it is hypocrisy on their part, hell it's hypocrisy on my part for thinking this is a bad idea since I play WW2 RTS/FPS games - I really don't think that it's going to add any commentary on the conflict whatsoever. I've played tons of WW2 and NAM games. Not one has challenged perceptions of the media. I can't help but think that neither will this game. Great to call for it, but it isn't going to happen.
That all said I would never call for it to be banned... freedom of speech and all. I just think it's a shame Konami can't put their effort towards something other than cashing in on a current conflict. I've never, not once, had a problem with a single game being made. This is the first time. |
|
makeamazing
11/04/09 @ 11:19
0
The British press are called the Gutter press for a reason. Sorry but they are a disgrace, they spend all there time making up stories or at least glorifying a story to sell more papers. Unfortunately when they do get a story that should be asking the questions, they generally take it too far.
As a gamer I love wargames, I love war movies, but playing and watching does not mean i condone the act of war. Yes war is brutal and horrid, but from a strategic/historical point of view is great entertainment. I think these games/movies show people the real horror of war more than any other method. I like playing GTA but doesnt mean i want to go and run someone over. But I also think people take it too far the other way, protesting about wars (I use the term war loosely) that happened 5 odd years ago and complaining about it. People in the world are pretty dumb which kinda is where the gutter press love to stir up all the hate. The problem is press want to cause an outrage and for the moment games are where its at. In my day it used to be Roleplaying games. Anyway good article :) |
|
0
Eurogamer, you should be ashamed of yourselves.
As this site focuses on videogames, I'm clearly supposed to be getting shallow, PR-driven sound bites mixed into a frothy stew with snarky condesenion and boobies. Lots of boobies. Instead, I find thoughtful, well reasoned opinion pieces challenging readers to stretch their intellectual legs. And absolutely no boobies. Not one. I checked twice. Have you even considered how something like this is going to make people feel? Think about all the "respectable" news outlets that might see this and feel humiliated they've been one-upped by game nerds. I hope you're proud of yourself. You probably made some editorial writer cry. Bullies, the lot of you. And would it KILL you to add more boobies? |
|
dirk_aircool
11/04/09 @ 11:40
0
how is it possible to have a valid opinion on this game ?. none of us know what actually goes on in Iraq and afganistan due to heavy media censorship . the news is so sanitised and controlled .all we really know is lots of people have died . has anybody played the game yet ? .
Edited 1 times,
most recently on 11/04/09 @ 13:07
|
|
MisterCraig
11/04/09 @ 12:50
0
Shinji,
Good article mate. I remember coming in from school and seeing the live footage of the Iraq invation. With the smoke and flashes coming from the city. It is still haunting to think about it today. Does anyone think that a game where you control a young adult trying to reach their family by crossing a conflict zone could prove influential?
Edited 2 times,
most recently on 11/04/09 @ 13:54
|
|
0
There have been hundreds, maybe thousands of books, movies, tv series, etc. about the holocaust, Rwanda, 9/11 and such. Are those all in bad taste?
Adressing tragedy is not bad in itself. It's the way it's done that makes it good or bad. The comments by mr. marketing guy could be just trying to squeal out of the whole controversy thing, but the actual quote doesn't inspire much confidence. |
|
captain_ShortRound
11/04/09 @ 13:55
0
@ NKSR
I can totally see where your're coming from. The issue I see is the fact that by making a real life conflict into a game, essentially allows people to "participate" in the said conflict for entertainment. I don't think that any of us can argue that games are for entertainment and it's for this reason I think that people are offended or consider it bad taste. The challenge is for Konami to ensure that a lesson is learned from playing the game. It is important that the player gets a sense of the horrors of war after finishing the game and leaves with respect and admiration for those who have lost their lives and not simply enjoyed shooting someone in the face, as it was put earlier.
Edited 1 times,
most recently on 11/04/09 @ 14:56
|
|
notmyrealname
11/04/09 @ 14:50
0
EG, milking quasi intellectual debates about gaming till the last drop:P
Nice article though.
Edited 1 times,
most recently on 11/04/09 @ 15:53
|
|
YourMessageHere
11/04/09 @ 15:11
0
Completely agree with the sentiment of this article, I just have to draw attention to the wholly incorrect usage of the word "pornography" which is being lazily perpetuated by this article. Given that "pornography" is a sexual stimulant only, "War porn" is war-related media designed to arouse, and only in a sexual capacity. Wargames are not this, and neither are war films. Similarly "car porn" is not Gran Turismo, nor is it Max Power magazine, it's naked people on cars, and "Gun porn" isn't Modern Warfare 2 screenshots or the last half of Hard Boiled, it's naked people with guns. Such things are designed to appeal to enthusiasts of the things featured, and naturally appeal to them, but they are emphatically not "(insert enthusiasm here) porn". By extension of this logic, we would call videos of people having sex "sex porn".
EDIT: actually, the more I think about it, the more telling this misuse of language seems. The basic attitude that equates something that emulates a war with something designed to stimulate sexually and, most importantly, essentially act as pure sensory indulgence without reference to the consequences is exactly what's at fault here - treating tragic, hugely important events such as wars (arguably, also, violent crime or dangerous driving or other things that are staples of gaming but not desireable in reality) as casually and dismissively as the porn industry tends to treat its stars. The consequences of the sex/porn industry are widely acknowledged to affect not only those who appear in and are (generally speaking) exploited by the films, but also the desensitising effect such media has on its viewers. Everyone's aware of the price paid by those involved in fighting wars, but the danger here, surely, is the marginalisation of what the effect of rendering a contemporary war into mindless sensory indulgence will have on its players/viewers.
Edited 1 times,
most recently on 11/04/09 @ 16:41
|
|
Silvervein
11/04/09 @ 15:37
0
Truth to tell I'm not sure why is author of this article so mortified about war games in general, and the fallujah thing in particular. All war games are mindless shooters telling story of a kid playing a semi terminator character shooting bad guys in the face. Games of that sort are designed for teen and pre teen audience, and offer exactly what that kind of audience wants. Violence. Placing the game in real life location and tying it to real life event is just a desperate grasp at being even mildly innovative, to guarantee some sort of sales. Ask a 13 year old boy if he feels mortified at the horrors of war that civilians in war games suffer. The answer? Not at all. Part of that is that I can't even remember a war game that would have any civilians in it. There are always good guys (player side) bad guys (targets to shoot) and objective: kill, crash and destroy. End of story, really.
Daily mail is a tabloid, and it does excel at showing war at its worst, but it's not a massively popular read among teens. Games on the other hand are, and difference in target audience of press and war games might warrant more strict approach to what games show, compared to other media types.
Edited 1 times,
most recently on 11/04/09 @ 16:39
|
|
MisterCraig
11/04/09 @ 16:08
0
@ Silvervein
Don't you think then that the games industry has a great responsibility? One which, if handled in a inspiring and professional manner, could help a younger audience appreciate historic events more initimitalely than watching a dated video in a high school classroom? |
|
Silvervein
11/04/09 @ 16:38
0
@MisterCraig
It depends on what role do we expect games to perform. If they are to be entertainment, then educating people about anything is simply not their function. To use an example. A war game which would realistically show what happens to little timmy if he gets hit by a high caliber bullet, and not even in a vital organ but say, his leg, and then watches his friend johnny head explode after being hit by another bullet, with him writhing from pain and scrubbing johnny's brains out of his eyes wouldn't be much fun, now would it? I mean, a game where shooting part takes about two first minutes, and then is followed by about an hour of non interactive movie showing timmy in hospital, among other war victims, and then returning home and explaining to johnny's mom what happened to him while watching her moan and cry wouldn't be much fun, while it certainly would be realistic, and highly educational. As would be exposition of timmy's life afterwards, when he can't find a job due to his disability and all he can do is sit on a bench in a park, watching people walk freely with envy, while all he can do is slowly drag his carcass around. If there was a game like that, it would certainly be realistic and show war for what it really is. But who would play it? In my opinion, education is a task of books and school teachers. Not games.
Edited 1 times,
most recently on 11/04/09 @ 17:38
|
|
0
When I clicked on the headline of this article I expected an essay/analysis on existing war games and our fascination with it. Yet, it turned out to be a boring and repetitive rant on the tabloid press. That said press is full of hypocrycy isn't exactly big news, but the author made it look like he was the first human being stumbling across this amazing insight.
Next he labels war footage in these press outlets 'pornographic' when in fact their intention is exactly the opposite: rather than showing everything, you show only as much as to make people believe that something is taking place. And that something must never look like more than a tiny fraction of the mess that is really going on, because only then can you patch your respective propaganda on it (Orwell wrote a whole book about this). Now, arousal of any kind is what you want to AVOID at all costs when you are a country in the midst of a war. Hence, for any 'war pornographer' -- a person who'd surely only get aroused by actual images of violence and gore -- watching abstract rockets fly through an abstract green Baghdadian sky must certainly be a severe turn-off (like watching a shadow of what could be Tera Patrick sucking on something which could be a cock). A bit further down he finally talks about games and how they should be 'compelling' and all that (another revelation which isn't exactly new), but he totally fails at giving us so much as one example of a game that fulfills this premise in his opinion. It would have been very interesting had the author lost a word or two about how war games actually do become more and more 'pornographic' and 'showing all' (think Nazi zombies), and what that tells us about games and us -- and by that I mean an analysis which goes beyond the usual call for bans by our political and cultural watchdogs. Unfortunately he chose to let the opportunity to give this article an actual point slip by entirely. IOW, other than flogging two dead horses (tabloid press is shit, war games should make us think) there was not much in this article which was decidedly 'compelling' to me. |
|
0
"Does anyone think that a game where you control a young adult trying to reach their family by crossing a conflict zone could prove influential?"
Although I'm a big advocate of free expression - and no amount of outrage will change that - war videogames don't exactly have a track record of being respectful of their source material. Playing through Stalingrad in Call of Duty, I remember thinking "hmm... kinda reminds me of Enemy at the Gates... that was a good mov - ooh look at that explosion. That was cool. Hey, who just shot me? Die motherf*cker!". Clearly an educational experience. Evoking the realities of war hasn't exactly been a priority for the medium. Although there is vast potential for it to do so, I don't think videogames in the traditional mould (FPSs epecially) can tastefully convey this. Usually, the experience is too visceral and immediate for any focus to successfully be trained on any aspect other than "shoot this guy in the head" and "explode shit up"... ...and although part of me undeniably has a blast sniping Nazis in the rubbles of Stalingrad, another part remembers my grandfather, who actually fought in the war. That part of me is disgusted. How do we get rid of the cognitive dissonance associated with playing violent videogames? By taking MisterCraig's idea and making games that focus on the victims of war. Playing a civilian caught in the crossfire, a medic or an aid worker for instance, would mean that the onus is no longer on being Terminator. Such a concept, if executed well, could give moral weight and credibility to a part of the games industry that has been under fire for its insensitivity. The ""it's just a game" described by Anthony Crouts, which lets people experience war without feeling "uncomfortable"", is indeed horrific. Unfortunately however, the "just-a-game" is not just relegated to Genji's imagination - it's everywhere, making huge amounts of money and entertaining the hell out of people like us.
Edited 1 times,
most recently on 11/04/09 @ 18:09
|
|
LewisResolution
11/04/09 @ 17:08
0
I think it's really interesting how something as neutral as playing games tends to be such a left-wing pursuit. Particularly in terms of writing about the medium, anyway. I can't think of a right-wing piece of games writing off the top of my head. Not that I'd personally be too pleased to read one, but the exclusivity of the liberal stance is quite intriguing.
Just read the Mail article. The quote from one of the game's developers is more promising: 'For us, the challenge was how to present the horrors of war in a game that is entertaining, but also gives people insight into a historical situation in a way that only a video game can provide. 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.' While it's true that the Mail doesn't explicitly say "...and we agree, it should be banned," it's pretty obvious which side of the argument they're on. The comments thread is quite an interesting read. Almost everyone who's commented in favour of banning the game has been "marked down" by other readers. Perhaps the paper missed its audience a little on this one? Major giggles at the fabulous comment that pins the blame on the presupposed collapse of society squarely on "the liberals."
Edited 1 times,
most recently on 11/04/09 @ 18:09
|
|
barnard666
11/04/09 @ 17:08
0
I had to give up reading at "What a thoroughly depressing attitude for a senior executive in our industry to hold." I agree everyone is a little questionable on this....but these articles are just fuel for the fire. Its all opinion...and as my firiend used to say, opinions are like assholes, everyone has one.
|
|
LewisResolution
11/04/09 @ 17:10
0
"Its all opinion...and as my firiend used to say, opinions are like assholes, everyone has one."
What an exciting place Eurogamer would be without opinions, eh? We could keep the "news" section... some of it, at least... the rest would have to go, though. Scrap it all! |
|
joeymoto108
11/04/09 @ 17:45
0
Personally I think the whole FPS scene has gone too far.
I think as a medium, the videogames industry generally glorifies violence and war through FPS's and action games. Even though I enjoy some shooters (Killzone 2 and COD4, in particular) I think we need to change our perception of war. War isn't fun at all- it is horrifying, merciless and unnecessary. The new generation of kids are being spoon-fed violence, sex and war through virtually every type of medium, from music to books. FPS's tend to glorify war through a gory manner (Brothers In Arms being the only notable exception I can think of) to today's children which, while maybe thoroughly entertaining them, is definitely propaganda-esque. Sure, when lil' Johnny sees explosions and guns on his TV, he'll think war is fun. But a couple of years later when he's signed up for the forces, he'll be shitting himself when he's hiding under a jeep trying to evade an enemy convoy. And yes, if this game gets banned, it is the videogame medium's fault, no one elses. It has brought this upon itself because of virtually every FPS developer's fault of being ignorant to the harsh and bitter landscape of war. Anyway, isn't it hypocrisy for every commenter here to say that the tabloids are hypocritical about 'war porn'? After all, we're the ones who are handing money over to these games developers, and we're the ones enjoying it. |
|
YourMessageHere
11/04/09 @ 18:14
0
Is it just me who reads the comments before posting? Or does no-one else understand that using the word 'pornography' to talk about a war game is tantamount to saying that you literally get sexually aroused by roleplaying warfare? Unless you are seriously mentally ill, this is clearly factually wrong and makes no sense. Please stop.
|
|
joeymoto108
11/04/09 @ 18:27
0
@FWB
There's no games with civilians because that's not in developers' best interests. Playing a game as a civilian in a war generally wouldn't be predicted to sell well, as these game delevopers churning out these 'AAA' titles are doing fine as it is. Films which revolve around a specific war generally tend to depict war as a depressing and horrific experience. I would say most FPS's do not- games such as Unreal Tournament tend to make the violence seem as gratifying as possible, with catchphrases such as 'HEADSHOT!' shouted after a kill. You can hardly explain stuff like that anything else other than mindless, disposable fun. I respect games which try to show war as unneccesary evil such as the MGS series (which shows this through it's obvious social commentary, especially in 4) and in the Brother's In Arms series. But on the whole I would say that most FPS's show war as fun and exciting; the Gears of War series and Unreal Tournament (even though they're both fictional events, they clearly depict it as fun), the Call of Duty series and Killzone. You have to admit that they're simple minded games which all provide nothing more than shallow entertainment of 'blowing big things up'. Most developers won't try to add anything else into their games because it is unnecessary; they know that they can repeat the same tired formula for every game they make, raking in cash while paying no respect for those who have actually died in wars and their families. Tbh it's stuff like this which truly makes the world a f**ked up place- people make money and entertainment out of other people's misfortunes. |
|
joeymoto108
11/04/09 @ 18:31
0
@YourMessageHere
Yeh I know it's factually wrong but what else should I call the 'entertainment of experiencing a simulation of war'? War simulation entertainment???? Nah, war porn has a nice ring to it. |
|
0
There's no games with civilians because that's not in developers' best interests. Playing a game as a civilian in a war generally wouldn't be predicted to sell well, as these game delevopers churning out these 'AAA' titles are doing fine as it is.
I didn't say games playing as a civilian, I asked where are the games with civilians in them? Why is it every battlefield is void of them? It's a rhetorical question, btw. The point being that depicting the horrors/reality of war requires their involvement. War games are not designed to do that. They're about having fun blowing some pixels off the screen. That's not to say it won't change, but I doubt Konami's product will bring anything to the table. |
|
0
@YourMessageHere
Whilst my (aging) copy of the OED agrees with you, here's the Merriam Webster online dictionary definition of Pornography: 1 : the depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement 2 : material (as books or a photograph) that depicts erotic behavior and is intended to cause sexual excitement 3 : the depiction of acts in a sensational manner so as to arouse a quick intense emotional reaction I've seen and heard it used as in the third definition enough to be happy with it personally.
Edited 1 times,
most recently on 11/04/09 @ 19:52
|
|
hiddenranbir
11/04/09 @ 19:04
0
It is easy to play WW2 games because we are detached from it. How would a WW2 vet that survived the Normandy Landings wish to play Call of Duty's rendition of that event?
Of course, if Konami wants to try and cash in on and try to sell quite a horrific event as a fun and exciting fps, let them. I think it will say something about those that find some thrill from it. |
|
Transcendent
11/04/09 @ 19:15
0
"The alternative is that we simply beat our chests and declare that our latest simulation of war is the most accurate yet - championing beautiful graphics, realistic sound, lifelike physics, carefully researched weaponry and uniforms. If we go down this road alone, we are inviting players to turn off their brains and just enjoy the lovely war - and at that point, any moral high ground we may aspire to in debates with the likes of the Daily Mail is lost."
I see. It's wrong to play games for fun, to play it because it is about a current war and therefore is potentially the most realistic portrayal of modern warfare. Maybe it's better if they made a game about armchair philosophers who sit and drink tea and argue about how horrible war is. Go read a fucking book and stop playing games. |
|
joeymoto108
11/04/09 @ 20:06
0
"I see. It's wrong to play games for fun, to play it because it is about a current war and therefore is potentially the most realistic portrayal of modern warfare. Maybe it's better if they made a game about armchair philosophers who sit and drink tea and argue about how horrible war is.
Go read a fucking book and stop playing games." No. I think it's wrong to be ignorant about the important events which occurred in games such as the COD series and MOH series. I know for a fact that lots of these teens who play FPS's don't play them for the authenticity of war, they just play it to blow shit up, regardless of what war they are virtually partaking in. It's your type of attitude that will mean that this industry will never be taken seriously. |
|
0
Either you allow all war games, or you allow none, including Halo, Gears and Killzone.
Also I seem to remember a Soilder of Fortune game that had civillians, never played it but it hit the press because you were penalised for shooting civillians in America, but not Iraq. The developers response "How is this inaccurate?" |
|
ArchMarduk
11/04/09 @ 21:45
0
awesome article .... but like everything that has some sort of value or meanning it won't even reach the "right" people, and by right ppl i mean those that can actually do something about the current situation. That VP know only 1 thing, if there is too much oposition from autorithies their product might get actually banned and they'll be loosing all their investment and CASH which in their eyes is not an option. CASH is the new god to far to many people in our days. So nothing surprise's me anymore. I wonder when they are going to make some "reality tv shows from warzones"..... that will be the end of our so called civilization. Fear the end but try to change it is what I say.
|
|
0
Anything said about the game at this point other than "it's a war game, set in Fallujah" is pure speculation if not divination, so anyone calling for anything should stop looking at their crystal balls and wait until the game actually materializes in some form so we can actually see what it is all about.
Which is not to say the Mail isn't full of it and hypocritical to the max. But certainly statements like the one issued by the PR guy aren't helping matters, and it's certainly the wrong way to go about making a game centered around this subject matter. Call of Duty 4 actually did the right thing by having your character die, in first person, and showing a few of the senseless deaths in war, though for a lot of it it was still very gung-ho about the whole thing. But that was definitely a spine-chilling moment. |
|
metalangel
11/04/09 @ 23:34
0
Flashpoint had you dying easily, horribly and pointlessly. It had civilian populations fleeing that you could shoot if you wished.
If it's wrong to tell stories about war, why have people done so for centuries? Was there this same outcry when films and books about WW2 were being made before the war ended? |
|
0
OFP had you dying easily because that was the structure of the gameplay. As for the civilians.. yes you had the odd character but they weren't there to develop a commentary on the nature of war*. They were few in numbers and never really involved in combat unless it was a hostage situation such as in Rainbow Six.
I loved OFP. One of my favourite games and, to be fair, as close as you'll get to - what I imagine is - the true nature of war, if only because it's geared as a war simulation. But it is unique and it was never set in a contemporary ongoing conflict based around a battle that was extremely controversial. *There wasn't even respawn in coop, which meant once you were dead that was it. From a game perspective I thought that added to tension, but I guess one could argue it highlighted the frailty of the player.
Edited 1 times,
most recently on 12/04/09 @ 04:01
|
|
0
Personally I feel its a bit tasteless Konami doing this as the way is hardly over. Not forgetting everything else that is going on in the middle east.
Maybe in 10 years time release a game with this scenario when things have hopefully ended or quietened right down, but at this moment in time is not good. |
|
AphoticCosmos
12/04/09 @ 08:48
0
Personally I feel its a bit tasteless Konami doing this as the way is hardly over. Not forgetting everything else that is going on in the middle east.
Maybe in 10 years time release a game with this scenario when things have hopefully ended or quietened right down, but at this moment in time is not good. Well technically both the war and the hard core of the insurgency are long over. Our job is done and the war is finished. Six years later than planned, but hey. Things have quietened down immensely in Iraq, but I do agree that it's not the best time to be producing a game based on the Iraq war. Maybe five years down the line when technology could do justice to the horrors of war it might be worth it, but now I think it's probably a bit of a joke. |
|
kentmonkey
12/04/09 @ 09:15
0
Very interesting article. I don't want to get into the debate as, in all honesty, it's Easter Sunday and there's chocolate to eat and less hours to eat it in now that I've been informed we're going round the in-laws at tea time. That at it's only going to end up in a poo-flinging contest as usual.
Just wanted to say very interesting article and not what I was expecting when I clicked on it, but it still had me reading to the end and mostly agreeing (only thing was the pornography statement which, as someone else has mentioned, is being overused and incorrectly so by so many people now, just because it sounds good). |
Want to comment on this article? Log in, or register!
