Iraq War Video Game-"Six Days in Fallujah" Too Realistic

Ok...

So here we have a story of a video game that was pulled do to the reactions of the families who have lost loved ones in combat but was supported by the men who fought the battle. Trying to bring the next level of realism the company pulled out all the stops in this game. I'm on the fence about this one. I am an avid gamer have been since pong and I have even worked for a couple of PC game companies back in the day. So I have a unique perspective on how this works. I can see both sides of this argument.


It seems to me that they should have released the title and those who care not to play it simply should not purchase this. Anyway with all the publicity I think if they turned around and did finally release the title they would have a windfall


Six Days in Fallujah

The plug's been pulled, for now, on "Six Days in Fallujah."

Japan's Asahi Shimbun newspaper reported Tuesday that game publisher Konami has decided not to release the ultra-realistic Iraq combat game, which is based on the bloody 2004 battle between American and Iraqi uniformed personnel and Iraqi insurgents.

"After seeing the reaction to the videogame in the United States and hearing opinions sent through phone calls and e-mail, we decided several days ago not to sell it," a public-relations official at Konami told the newspaper. "We had intended to convey the reality of the battles to players so that they could feel what it was like to be there."

[edit on 28-4-2009 by SLAYER69]

Originally posted by SLAYER69
So here we have a story of a video game that was pulled do to the reactions of the families who have lost loved ones in combat but was supported by the men who fought the battle.

Once again I have to ask the question...

What of the World War 2 games? The Vietnam games? What of all the other games that could have possibly offended a few people in one way or another.

I have never, and will never see the "I am offended therefore you cannot have..." side of any argument; it is a selfish and disgusting one. How do you think those on the other side of the fight feel, constantly being demonized by the west?

[edit on 4/28/2009 by eNumbra]

They should do what games like "Ghost Recon" and "Call of Duty" do...and dont name it something that has real world - easily identifiable locations...well atleast not in the title.

Call of Duty:Modern Warfare



-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

U.S. Navy Seals: Socom 4: Confrontation



-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

It all comes down to the great american mentality, "well...I dont like it...so i dont want you to have it either"

reply to post by epitaph.one


I'm not sure if it's really the location or the realism?
We have seen many games based on actual campaigns in the past but what I think has created the controversy is the amount of Gore and the realistic portrayal of the dead and wounded. Some feel of course that this yet another game glorifiying war. Yadda Yadda Blah Blah Blah

Originally posted by eNumbra
I have never, and will never see the "I am offended therefore you cannot have..." side of any argument; it is a selfish and disgusting one.

A line does have to be drawn when you begin to name specific individuals. It’s one thing to portray a particular unit it’s another to actually name and depict an individual who was killed, and simulate that death. If you take that step then you have to accept that family may have a problem with it. Not that I’m saying that’s what’s happening here though, just that there is a genuine case for the “it’s offensive argument”.

Slayer, think you can get your hands on an unreleased demo/trial/copy?

reply to post by DEM0N


I'm sure there are some out there trying to do that very thing but as far as it being discussed further here at ATS that may violate some of the rules regarding possible piracy.


[edit on 28-4-2009 by SLAYER69]

Originally posted by Mike_A

Originally posted by eNumbra
I have never, and will never see the "I am offended therefore you cannot have..." side of any argument; it is a selfish and disgusting one.

A line does have to be drawn when you begin to name specific individuals. It’s one thing to portray a particular unit it’s another to actually name and depict an individual who was killed, and simulate that death. If you take that step then you have to accept that family may have a problem with it. Not that I’m saying that’s what’s happening here though, just that there is a genuine case for the “it’s offensive argument”.

Of course there is a line when dealing with real people and real events, but as long as the events depicted are the truth (verifiable as such anyways) then how should there be a problem?

Let's suppose for a minute Staff Sgt. Jones died in a gun battle while attempting to drag a wounded comrade back behind cover. Depict it according to the accounts of those who were there as witnesses to the events and there shouldn't be anything wrong with it. If we start taking artistic liberties with the facts, tossing in the perfunctory disclaimer of "Based on a true story" at the beginning and merely hoping that people understand the loose usage of the term base then we start to do a disservice to everyone involved.

The families have every right to be concerned that the TRUTH of the matter was conveyed. If Sgt. Jones had only joined the military because he couldn't find any other jobs he certainly shouldn't be depicted as the thick-headed racist American soldier character archetype just because it was convenient to the story; unless he really was a racist asshole. Crying over a less than stellar yet indescribably accurate depiction of a person is offensive. Hiding the truth because one doesn't like what it represents is selfish.

When the truth starts being considered offensive, the world will drown in its own filth; and only when the veil of "Hollywood" is removed from the issues of war, death, violence etc etc etc... will we ever improve our understanding of our nature as humans.


edit: As I may have gotten off on a tangent, my mind being a million places at once today I will add that though yes, a real person and real place carries weight upon one family; a generalized depiction carries weight on far far more. So once again, how must those we demonize feel every time these games are released?


[edit on 4/28/2009 by eNumbra]

[edit on 4/28/2009 by eNumbra]

There are already rumours Konami are going to drop it anyway due to the controversy..

So unless we see another Company pick it up or Atomic comes up with alot of cash we will never see it how its supposed to be and see something else using the same engine..

There are a few others who may pick it up. If that's the case then it's a race to see who could bring it to market first. Not only that but this is the most realistic engine so far made so I'm sure as they mentioned in the video that they have done work for the military making training software. Chances are they will recover at least some of their investment by maybe selling to the military as a newer training tool.

Soon soldiers will be the new hero. The new Kobe Bryants, Micheal Jordans. People will play as both and some will be fans of the soldier heroes instead of the sports heroes.
I can see why the families (Moms.) do not want this game to make it. Even though mom doesn't fully understand why she doesn't want it to hit the shelves.

Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by epitaph.one

 

I'm not sure if it's really the location or the realism?
We have seen many games based on actual campaigns in the past but what I think has created the controversy is the amount of Gore and the realistic portrayal of the dead and wounded. Some feel of course that this yet another game glorifiying war. Yadda Yadda Blah Blah Blah

Yea didn't they release a black hawk down game ?

What is the difference between that and this.

People complain to much and are selfish and just want their way. I understand the families are sad but why censor what happened?

It won't take the pain away or make your son or daughter come back.

It will show the horror of what they went through, it would help people realize just how important they were for our country and help us respect them more if anything.

Or at least IMO.

Originally posted by LucidDreamer85
Yea didn't they release a black hawk down game ?

Quite some time ago they did.

There's also Kuma War which has been making real world battle into playable scenarios for years now. They can get a battle up in playable form within a few weeks of the actual battle having taken place.

In a world full of people who arent idiots this is just a marketing ploy to increase awareness and hype. In a world full of idiots these complaints are completely asinine and anyone making them should be slapped promptly and the subsequent slapping of these hyper-sensative idiots should be made into its own game.

Of course there is a line when dealing with real people and real events, but as long as the events depicted are the truth (verifiable as such anyways) then how should there be a problem?

Because it involves a very recent traumatic bereavement that is recreated in an entertainment medium.

I have no problem with this if it has the family’s consent but they must be allowed a say in how and if their loved one is portrayed. I’m sure if their dad/husband/brother/son died saving someone’s life then they may be fine with that being depicted but what if they had half their face blown off and spent the next hour screaming in agony before they died? Is that ok to recreate so long as it’s what happened?

It’s a matter of common courtesy and decency imo. People have the right to privacy, including the dead. Since the dead cannot make these decisions then it falls to the next of kin.

Originally posted by eNumbra
Of course there is a line when dealing with real people and real events, but as long as the events depicted are the truth (verifiable as such anyways) then how should there be a problem?

Perhaps the family of the dead wants the story of their lost loved one to remain a private matter and does not wish that person's death to be publicly recreated. That should be their right.

If Sgt. Jones had only joined the military because he couldn't find any other jobs he certainly shouldn't be depicted as the thick-headed racist American soldier character archetype just because it was convenient to the story;

My brother is in the air force of his own choosing. He could have easily done a hundred other things with his life, he had the opportunity to go to Embry-Riddle, but he chose to go to the Academy instead. He didn't join because he couldn't find any other jobs. He is a far cry from the "thick-headed racist American soldier" you insinuated, as are his classmates.

unless he really was a racist asshole. Crying over a less than stellar yet indescribably accurate depiction of a person is offensive. Hiding the truth because one doesn't like what it represents is selfish.

"One who gives publicity to a matter concerning the private life of another is subject to liability for invasion of privacy, if the matter publicized is of a kind that:

1. would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, and
2. is not of legitimate concern to the public. "
www.cvc.sunysb.edu...

What ever happened to common decency? Why is it so bad that the families of the dead should at least be able to expect their privacy to be respected? Why not just use generic fictional characters in a real setting? Saving Private Ryan anyone?

Originally posted by ngchunter
My brother is in the air force of his own choosing. He could have easily done a hundred other things with his life, he had the opportunity to go to Embry-Riddle, but he chose to go to the Academy instead. He didn't join because he couldn't find any other jobs. He is a far cry from the "thick-headed racist American soldier" you insinuated, as are his classmates.

I didn't insinuate your brother or anyone in the military was a thick-headed racist.

You need to look up what a Character Archetype is, and how they are used in literature. That whole statement was a hypothetical, I'd prefer you not spin it, whether purposely or not, into something it wasn't.

been following this game for a while, and from what ive read it was dropped because it wasnt as "realistic" gameplay wise as they had said it was going to be, it was "more gears of war than operation flashpoint"

I think a reason this was dropped was because of potential propaganda use?

something along the lines of this

Google Video Link

But with more realistic results?

*disclaimer* I'm an avid gamer, and the Battlefield series is among my most prized posessions, I would not use it as a political tool though.

But maybe some people in Homeland defense would be worried about that.. remember how even certain songs by respected musicians were banned after 9/11, like Metallica and Bob Dylan, preventing a game from releasing seems a small feat really.

to add, I think I would not like the game much.. I also did not like CoD:WaW because there is too much realism on screen, pretty, most certainly, but never saw the enemy much with all the plants :p

Games can be beautifull in it's simplicity, too much realism isn't allways a good thing.. personally, I wouldn't ever have objected to this game though.

even if I had relatives over there.. heck, I'd maybe even see it as a good thing, so people could better envision what my loved ones would be going through. Possibly even as an hommage to them.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
In a world full of people who arent idiots this is just a marketing ploy to increase awareness and hype. In a world full of idiots these complaints are completely asinine and anyone making them should be slapped promptly and the subsequent slapping of these hyper-sensative idiots should be made into its own game.

Much the same as Bioware's Mass Effect and its "Hardcore" sometimes lesbian sex scene.

Was more tame than what goes on on Television, yet the it blew up in the media. I don't doubt sometimes that the people making the initial complaints are on the marketing boards of the companies... or at least know those on the boards.

The Irish Author Brendan Behan once said: "There is no such thing as bad publicity except your own obituary."