War Games

By Rob Fahey Published 11 April, 2009

Games have every right to explore modern wars, but they must tread with care.

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."

What a thoroughly depressing attitude for a senior executive in our industry to hold. At its most basic level, it raises questions about how well some people in this market actually understand the concept of a "compelling entertainment experience". Compelling entertainment is compelling exactly because it does make people uncomfortable - because it challenges their perceptions in intelligent ways, because it makes them think, placing them in unfamiliar situations in which their day to day morality and rules don't apply.

Compelling entertainment is something which you're still thinking about hours or days after the experience. Shy away from that, as Mr Crouts seems so keen to do, and you're left with nothing but popcorn - shallow, disposable, forgettable. In their desperation to avoid taking a stance or offending anyone, executives who think in these ways relegate creativity to bland mediocrity.

However, there's something else I find disquieting about Crouts' statement. There is a great deal of media about war, even about wars of the recent past and those still ongoing now. Books, films, music and TV shows which deal with the topics emerging from the War on Terror abound. Even those which don't directly address the war address the issues it has raised - the recently completed Battlestar Galactica, for example, has won widespread acclaim for its nuanced and intelligent handling of issues which mirror those of the War on Terror.

If a game like Six Days in Fallujah is to have any value, it must come from adding something to that discussion. This isn't about taking a pro-war or an anti-war stance - although both are valid starting points, there are countless others. It's about making people think, informing them through their entertainment experiences, and commenting, as creators, on the media we create and the events we portray.

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.

Game developers working on war games need to take a lesson from the creators of books and films on modern warfare. They always have a stance, something to say, a lesson they want the public to learn. This is what makes their work valid and relevant - and what separates it from the shameless war pornography peddled so often by newspapers and TV networks.

If we're just going to get lost in an orgy of tech specs and polygon counts, slapping ourselves on the back over realism without ever considering reality, then perhaps, for all its hypocrisy, the Daily Mail has a point in the end. 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.

I don't believe that Six Days in Fallujah will turn out to be remotely as deplorable, nihilistic and pointless as its marketing boss seems to want the world to believe - but if we continue to treat war games as popcorn entertainment which should aspire to nothing greater than giving people a comfy ride through a shattered warzone, it won't be long before we reach those depths. Attitudes need to change in the games industry before we can start changing minds outside.

For more views on the industry and to keep up to date with news relevant to the games business, read GamesIndustry.biz. You can sign up to the newsletter and receive the GamesIndustry.biz Editorial directly each Thursday afternoon.

Picture of Rob.

About Rob Fahey

Read more articles from Rob by visiting the Rob Fahey archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (58) Latest comment 3 years ago

Comments for this article are now closed, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • AphoticCosmos #1 3 years ago

    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.

  • nocutius #2 3 years ago

    Good read, nothing to disagree with here.

  • kevwinter #3 3 years ago

    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.

  • Metalfish #4 3 years ago

    @Kev, what we need is some kind of "truth index" to randomly be applied to stories published by major newspapers, with the results forced upon the front page by law. "The Daily Mail, 60% true, 20% speculation, 20% other" or something....

  • Kenshin001 #5 3 years ago

    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.


  • Shinji #6 3 years ago

    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 #7 3 years ago

    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 #8 3 years ago

    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 by Kenshin001 at 11/04/09 @ 11:31

  • Shinji #9 3 years ago

    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.

  • lolife.se #10 3 years ago

    [link url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PiYuq6Ac3a0
    ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PiYuq6Ac3a0
    [/link]

    Huh-huh-huh..

  • FWB #11 3 years ago

    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 #12 3 years ago

    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 :)

  • Freek #13 3 years ago

    Interesting stuff, about time somebody held a up a mirror to the general media.

  • busboy33 #14 3 years ago

    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 #15 3 years ago

    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 by dirk_aircool at 11/04/09 @ 13:07

  • MisterCraig #16 3 years ago

    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 by MisterCraig at 11/04/09 @ 13:54

  • NKSR #17 3 years ago

    i think the point has been missed, over 6000 civilians died in fallujah alone

    how about making games of the rwandan massacres, the bombing of the west bank, a game where we can play as nazis or a game about september 11th?

    its bad taste

  • sonicgoo #18 3 years ago

    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 #19 3 years ago

    @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 by captain_ShortRound at 11/04/09 @ 14:56

  • YourMessageHere #20 3 years ago

    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 by YourMessageHere at 11/04/09 @ 16:41

  • TheBoyChris #21 3 years ago

    Brilliant article.

  • Silvervein #22 3 years ago

    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 by Silvervein at 11/04/09 @ 16:39

  • MisterCraig #23 3 years ago

    @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 #24 3 years ago

    @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 by Silvervein at 11/04/09 @ 17:38

  • Rodchenko #25 3 years ago

    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.

  • sirtacos #26 3 years ago

    "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 by sirtacos at 11/04/09 @ 18:09

  • LewisResolution #27 3 years ago

    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 by LewisResolution at 11/04/09 @ 18:09

  • barnard666 #28 3 years ago

    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 #29 3 years ago

    "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 #30 3 years ago

    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.

  • FWB #31 3 years ago

    Where are the games with civilians? If you wanted to make a statement about war then omitting them seems bizarre. They're included in films. Let's not pretend that game representations of war are anything but fun.

  • YourMessageHere #32 3 years ago

    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 #33 3 years ago

    @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 #34 3 years ago

    @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.

  • FWB #35 3 years ago

    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.

  • Stoatboy #36 3 years ago

    @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 by Stoatboy at 11/04/09 @ 19:52

  • hiddenranbir #37 3 years ago

    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 #38 3 years ago

    "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.

  • MisterCraig #39 3 years ago

    oh dear...

  • joeymoto108 #40 3 years ago

    "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.

  • RexRunti #41 3 years ago

    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 #42 3 years ago

    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.

  • dudefella #43 3 years ago

    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 #44 3 years ago

    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?

  • FWB #45 3 years ago

    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 by FWB at 12/04/09 @ 04:01

  • Ferral #46 3 years ago

    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 #47 3 years ago

    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 #48 3 years ago

    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).

  • matt6666 #49 3 years ago

    The daily mail ran a campaign for stricter immigration and refuse access to Jews during the exodus in the build up to the second world war..

  • Silvervein #50 3 years ago

    Certainly not to stone age. They didn't have oil derricks back in stone age, and uncle sam needed those badly. Having good propaganda machine is handy. They invented weapons of mass destruction as a reason to come there. And then they fought terrorists who had a problem with foreigners coming to their place and stealing their resources. At the end, they got puppet government there giving them free oil, big contracts for rebuilding the place (which they bombed themselves) and huge weapon sales. Every(rich american)one wins.
    And now they will even have games based on those events for extra profit.

  • joeymoto108 #51 3 years ago

    Silvervein +1

    I think the problem with this war is that it's shown the ignorant side of the most powerful western countries. No one really knows why we went to Iraq and I doubt there are many people living in the UK right now who want to know. The UK is so far up it's own backside that people are more bothered about shit like Britain's Got Talent and the latest football scores than wanting to learn what is ACTUALLY happening in the world right now.

    In my opinion, that's actually pretty fucking disturbing.

  • collateral89 #52 3 years ago

    i want to see loads of BOOBIES in games

  • lmephisto #53 3 years ago

    One thing only! We overvalue human lifes and critisism.

  • Farzlepot #54 3 years ago

    If you think that games can only be violent in order to portray something meaningful, such as the horrors of war, I would suggest that you play Desert Bus for a while. It'll do you good.

    When I fork over £40 or however much the damn discs cost these days, I expect entertainment. Thoughtful entertainment has its place too of course, and personally I prefer a thought-provoking game over a mindless romp, but sometimes I just want to have some ridiculous, escapist fun. This is why the medium was given the name 'game' in the first place, hmm?

    I don't think anybody here will claim that war is a jolly good time, despite most of us having not even experienced the real thing. In fact, I don't believe I've ever met anybody who believes such a thing, young or old. To proclaim that games will foster such an idea is to agree with the tripe that the Daily Fail has been feeding us all of these years about games fucking with our minds - the same line they trot out whenever they try to get the next game banned.

  • cyber_nicco #55 3 years ago

    Wow, what a crap article.

    You feel the industry has some sort of duty to supply gamers with something more than "war porn"? Fuck off. While I agree that we can all hope for something that is more, support something that is more, buy something that is more, the idea that we are OWED something more is bullshit.

    Another batch of moral masturbation all over my face. Arghhh!

  • Omroth #56 3 years ago

    The problem is that all media turn big traumatic events like wars and terrorist attacks into entertainment products. It's games, books, films, and yeah newspapers like Rob says. Books are probably worse than anything in this regard to be honest - they run the complete gamut from very educational to incredibly silly, and the silly ones are purported to be "true" a lot more often. How long is long enough with this stuff? I find it hard to get upset about because it just happens to everything, and it's part of the democratic free market we live in... the greater evil would be to censor it.

    We talked about this this week on the games-and-industry podcast Visiting The Village.

  • Chrissd21 #57 3 years ago

    Excellent article. Love the final paragraph. Would it be possible for you to combine it into one page and make a permalink? And yes, I like it that much. Didn't expect that on a video game site. Which is fairly silly considering I only find those types of thoughts on video game sites and general forums..

    I do have one minor gripe with this. Games aren't considered educational by anyone yet it seems ok to jump all over 'em. Make an article that instead of calling for games to be as sophisticated as high art, acknowledges that they are still an infantile form of entertainment that isn't taken seriously by anyone. You're only allowed to flame something if you first admit that it's more than "just a game" which no-one will do. There's been games that teach streets of a city (forget the name) and even one that placed you inside a Shakespeare play. But on the whole, they aren't that advanced so shouldn't get the kind of flaming they seem to attract. Both sides to an argument. But again, that's only a minor gripe in general. The article was brilliant.

    @notmyrealname
    "Well technically both the war and the hard core of the insurgency are long over. Our job is done and the war is finished."

    Not quite. The war is to get bin Laden. The job isn't even close to being done. Same as 'Nam. Public outcry after media says "Oh noes!!1! Evil dudes is gettin beats! Evry1 sai noes!", then army pulls out, the current prez is voted out for being in the war. From one side for going in, from the other side for pulling out. And if you take a look at Vietnam, USA and South 'Nam were winning. Even with the horrible troop rotation. The USA pulled out and North won almost instantly. The masses are stupid. But the vocal minorities control the world through them.

    @joeymoto108
    "No one really knows why we went to Iraq "

    Damn.. That's pathetic. I'm Aussie, from the middle of freakin nowhere as far as tech is concerned, and even I can remember 9/11. Afghanistan was first off to go get bin Laden. Then intelligence (didn't really take that much but still) found out that Iraq was being used to funnel people into Afghanistan. So to control Afhghanistan and find bin Laden, they needed to stop the usage of Iraq as an express highway. Course, it didn't quite work out as Syria and Iran decided to open up 2 new paths.

    I'm assuming you don't know much about the Middle East. Over there, it's a patriachal society ruled by religion. So male dominated and Islam plays a large part. Now, there's several branches of Islam, the 2 main ones are Sunni and Shi'a. They just differ on who the last major prophet was. And these dudes are fanatical about their religion. They will waste each other over it. Most people say Christians are violent.. Most Christians aren't really Christians and don't even come close to the devotion these guys have. So a country over there is generally one sect with the other "cleansed".

    What we're seeing at the moment, is.. Actually a strange occasion in history. Sunni and Shi'a aren't blowing each other up. They're going at USA aka the Coalition of the Willing. They've started to go at each other now, Iraq is a religious war with western countries caught in the middle. But Iran, which is composed of Shi'a muslims, is funneling Sunni through. You'd never have seen that if US wasn't over there. So US can't win in Iraq. Unending numbers and an opponent that hasn't signed the Geneva Convention. But America did have a reason for going into Iraq. Turks are the only ones that have won in the Middle East. Brits failed, Russia failed and America is going to fail.

    Personally, I'd have dropped a small nuke into an unpopulated region of Afghanistan, then told the warlords to hand over bin Laden or I'd glass the whole country. But America decided to not kill civillians and just go for the main terrorists. Oh, terrorists kill civvies, guerilla warfare does NOT involve killing civvies. Kill a kid and you're fked in my book. Chechnyan, Iraqis, etc. But the reason America is losing is because they're not as bad as you people are saying.

    "The UK is so far up it's own backside that people are more bothered about shit like Britain's Got Talent and the latest football scores than wanting to learn what is ACTUALLY happening in the world right now.

    In my opinion, that's actually pretty fucking disturbing. "

    Damn right it's disturbing. And you've swallowed propaganda whole. In wars, while they're going, you will never know who's telling the truth. They all spin it. You've bought the one where "America is evil, 9/11 was ok" story. Guess what, that's as bad as being a gun toting hick from Texas who shoots everything. *using a steretype here, not all Texans are like that.* If it helps, you're not the only one. We can't get the info ourselves, so we only know what we're told. And it's damned hard to find the truth in all the BS that's spun.

    @everyone saying the game should be banned.

    [link url=http://www.kumawar.com/
    ]http://www.kumawar.com/
    [/link]

    What are you all whinging about, it was possible to play Fallujah the day after it happened. :p Could arrest Sudam the same day it went down over there. It's been done before. In CoD4, you shoot people that are distinctly of Arabian descent.The new "in" enemy is arabian. No more nazis. At long bloody last too.. But stop flaming the game.

    Yea, as the article says, "it's not just a game". But none of it is. I dislike watching Battle Star Galactica because of what they get into. Which is a shame as I think it's a reasonably accurate sci fi. Dog fighters control like a real one would. But watching rape and torture is slightly too much for my palate. But I can (usually) watch a movie that involves dead ppls without blinking. Course.. Most of it is so stylised that it's nothing like life. And I still freak at some movies. But why ban it. It doesn't minimise the effects in any way. I saw news reports that involved journalists. Wait for it. In a flak vest ON THE FRONT LINES!!! I saw ppl get shot on tv.. By a journalist in a combat situation.. That shouldn't happen. My lil sis was in the room cause everyone was hyped that there was a major war on so was watching the news. And there was nothing else on anyway. But if that can be shown on tv, then why can't I, a 20 year old, play a game which will be rated at least M. Which would be more censorship that the news broadcast got.


    Summing up: (how to tell you've posted too much.. lol)

    No point banning the game if you: 1) Let every other form of media milk the same issue for all it's worth with less censorship. 2) If something else has already done it.

    Stop hating America based on flawed knowledge. If you want to appear to knowledgable, try making a post that includes some decent facts, not just "an appeal to emotion" as my English teacher would say.

    Addenum: (how to tell post is reallllllly long.)
    [link url=http://www.americasarmy.com
    ]http://www.americasarmy.com
    [/link]

    /\
    Here's a game that tried to bring a realistic depiction of warfare to gaming and was slammed for it. I quite like it. The physics are nicely done. Best sniping ever. But it tried to do the whole "it's not just a game" thing and it didn't work. It isn't a "jumping/shooting point and click and be done with" type of game. You die easily, you have to pay attention and teamwork is an extremely good idea.

    Yea, it was developed by the USA army. Big. Freakin. Deal.

    1) It's free and a pretty decent game.
    2) It's trying to portray a war as seen from a soldiers P.O.V. and not just a killfest. So hype it up with as much flame as you're giving to Six Days in Fallujah for trying. Then, one day, we can see kids in classrooms playing games to learn. :p Or at least get the game continued on for as long as possible. :p

  • Chrissd21 #58 3 years ago

    *Updates links*

    [link url=http://www.kumagames.com/
    ]http://www.kumagames.com/
    [/link]

    Specifically:

    [link url=http://www.kumagames.com/kw2_free_game.html
    ]http://www.kumagames.com/kw2_free_game.h...[/link]

    Play in Fallujah. Or Karbul. Wherever. Iraq and Afghanistan with everything from 1998 missions to missions in 08 to "The Surge" that went so badly.