Poll: Six Days In Fallujah: Opinions, regrets and hopes

[P912]

So... this game. The controversy. The setbacks. The fact that we will probably never see this reach the light of day. What do you think? What do you think about the game that was being made? What do you think about being based on real events? What do you think of Konami backing out of publishing it? What do you think of Fox News criticizing it so harshly?

Personally, I think it looked like a great game, something that really could have pushed the boundaries of video games as an art form. The fact that they were asked by the Marines who fought in Fallujah to make this, and were planning to make it a survival horror game says a lot about how Atomic Games were trying to create something more meaningful and respectful than empty COD spectacle. I also can't stand Fox accusing them of being disrespectful of the Marines who ASKED THEM TO MAKE A GAME LIKE THIS AND WERE ACTIVELY INVOLVED IN ITS DEVELOPMENT SO THAT PEOPLE WOULD UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY WENT THROUGH. This feels like a thoughtful game that we were denied courtesy of fear mongers and a cowardly publisher.

Though part of me has had another thought about this game: Yager would be the perfect studio to revive this. After Spec Ops: The Line, they have immediately established themselves as pioneers of intelligent gaming, and their attitude towards the horrors of war evidenced in that game make it seem like they wouldn't turn this into offensive war porn.

But this is about what you guys think, so feel free to share. I won't ask that you completely remove your personal politics regarding the US and Iraq out of it, just please don't use this as an opportunity to give out about their military or foreign policy, unless you feel it's relevant to Six Days In Fallujah.

Here are some links you might find useful:

Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Days_in_Fallujah

Interview with Atomic Games: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNqDMnukWT4

Fox and Friends interview Atomic Games (if anyone can find a link to the full segment, please post it here): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x16NPKtdUks

Extra Credits mentioning Six Days with regards to video game controversy (very articulate defense of the game) : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSm-UzWzO2E

 

[P912]

Apologies, last option should read: I know about this, but ultimately don't care either way.

 

[Diablo2000]

I can understand why some people would be upset, it's way too soon after Fallujah and some people was still suferring effects from effects.
Whoever that being said, if was a movie called "Six Day in Fallujah" then it would be a "great way to honor the dead and the soldiers that fought in the battle". Since it's a videogame it's "offensive and the developers are sadistic people who eates babies at launch".
I find that type of stupid fucking double standard needs to go. That's what is real offensive about this whole ordeal.

 

[NihilSinLulz]

The main problem imo was that video games were seen (and still are seen) as toys, void of artistic merit.

 

[Eve Charm]

Ya pretty much that, If it was a movie, it'd be an art piece, if it's a game, it's being disrespectful.

It's like how medal of honor was going to use "Taliban" instead of "Opposing Forces" when your using names like navy seals, army, It's like whats the point it's current real life events.

If this happened 3 years in the future they could of turned to kickstarter and got funded easily if they asked for what they needed.

 

[Greg White]

Rather sad a game with such potential had to die in its crib, but both sides raised their points, some valid, some nonsense, and after enough outcry from people who would never have bought the game in the first place, Konami decided they didn't want to touch the game with a 10 ft pole.

Games based around WWII, Vietnam, and Korea have all been done without any outcry from the veterans and families of vets crying foul, so it was ultimately just a shame it ended like that. Shows how well rewarded good intentions are these days as well.

 

[TehCookie]

I think people overreacted, but then again I saw it as another boring military shooter. I don't care about the game, but it disappoints me that non-gamers can shut down a game's development due to whining. They're not even the market, if the gamers (aka people who would buy the game) wanted it, it should of been made.

Also the Escapist doesn't like apostrophes in polls for some reason, it happens to everyone.

 

[Vausch]

I would have liked to see it. There are very few historical documentary style games, and honestly I don't know anybody that even knew about Fallujah. I'm guilty of this myself until I heard about the game.

If it had been an accurate portrayal of what happened and was able to show you first hand what they went through, then I say it should have been done and it would have been a great service to those soldiers.

Because, again, in the general public films are art but games are toys. And for that among many other things, I say the general public is stupid.

 

[Fireaxe]

Controversy about this is bloody ridiculous when we were able to basically watch the war on TV.

 

[Pawkeshup]

After playing Spec Ops: The Line, I see this as an even greater missed opportunity. The makers weren't going to glorify the war, and it was going to be an incredible game that honoured the heroes of that fight.

 

[bug_of_war]

At first I was disappointed and threw up the whole, "Video games are art" defence, but now that I'm a little older I kinda see things a little different. Yes had this been a movie it probably would have been seen as a respectful way to remember those past, however there is one huge difference between video games and other artistic media. Video games are not passive experiences, unlike books, music, film pictures etc. video games allow interaction and thus there are those who would not view the game with respect or interest in the real life events and would simply want a fun shooter. On top of this, it was just too soon. Nearly all video games are based off of wars in the past/fiction because we have had time to heal from the devastation that was caused.

I know many people are asking for video games to be treated as equals to film, but I would prefer video games to be their own form of media that doesn't follow films. I would like to point out the subtle yet very prominent differences between different forms of media.

Novels are able to be much more grim, darker and (for lack of a better term) fucked up than films/television. Look at Game of Thrones, the novels have characters being way younger, sexually provocative and violent than the tv show.

All music is experienced for free upon first release, you are allowed to hear a song or album in full before deciding to purchase it/the album.

In short, I feel as though video games are not the right medium to explore recent disasters that are still fresh in many peoples minds.

 

[Pawkeshup]

Why can't a game be current? Just because it is an interactive experience, it doesn't make it better or worse at handling the events. That is all on the developer. SO:TL is far from fun as fun can get. It's grim, violent, with a dark storyline and harsh message. And yet I'd say it's better than all of the COD titles I've played for how well it does what it does.

If we want games to grow up and be able to take on more important storylines, we have to not segregate them to only this story or that story.

 

[P912]

Yes had this been a movie it probably would have been seen as a respectful way to remember those past, however there is one huge difference between video games and other artistic media. Video games are not passive experiences, unlike books, music, film pictures etc. video games allow interaction and thus there are those who would not view the game with respect or interest in the real life events and would simply want a fun shooter.

I understand your point, but I would completely disagree. Yes, some people want dumb fun shooters, same way that some people want dumb fun war movies like the Rambo sequels. The survival horror thing is an aspect that really convinced me of the game's potential: Make the players confused, afraid and fighting to survive, to let them experience "War is hell". Maybe they were going to make a COD ripoff, but a lot of evidence strongly suggests otherwise, and I believe they still shouldn't have been shut down because of what their game MIGHT have been.

 

[Windcaler]

Six days was and still is a controversial game and there were excellent points to the debate on both sides. However in all that controversy I never remember hearing the soldiers come out to say anything. Its true that extra credits mentioned they wanted that game to be made but where was the public outcry of these soldiers when things really started to heat up? I dont recall seeing it and if we had seen it Im sure many people would have shut up.

From an artistic standpoint I believe that nothing is off limits so purely on that basis I think six days had a lot of merit. However as a veteran I also believe that the soldiers themselves should have final say on how the story is told and that just doesnt happen in games. The very interactive nature of games changes that, sometimes for better and sometimes for worse. So for me its a complicated issue but I do fall more into the "approve" camp then the "disapprove" one.

Looking at the fox news thing, the dev really dropped the ball IMO. All he had to say was "these soldiers asked us to tell their story through a game." Im not sure what that grieving mother really wanted, she seemed to be conflicted about her sons presence in the game so I would have liked to hear more from her. I think the major issue was this wasnt an actual debate. No one sat down and really talked about their point of view and why they held it. We didnt get to hear from the surviving soldiers who went through the conflict and we didnt get to hear what the fallen soldiers (not their famialies) thoughts likely would have been

As a game I still believe that six days has merit as an educational tool and as a piece of art

 

[CrazyCapnMorgan]

Well, it would have been nice to have seen it done, as a game, but I wonder if they would have to have edited things out of the game like this:


A link to the article Professor Chomsky mentioned: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/toxic-legacy-of-us-assault-on-fallujah-worse-than-hiroshima-2034065.html

And I was there when we helped barricade that town from the southern end. It would have been nice to see the game made, but as a former soldier, something like that isn't easy to develop without governmental oversight and surveillance making sure the game that got made was one to their liking.

 

[TheRiddler]

Though part of me has had another thought about this game: Yager would be the perfect studio to revive this. After Spec Ops: The Line, they have immediately established themselves as pioneers of intelligent gaming, and their attitude towards the horrors of war evidenced in that game make it seem like they wouldn't turn this into offensive war porn.

I'm not sure whether or not Yager really would be the best pick, though I'm not sure who else I'd choose. Thing is, that while I concur that Spec Ops: The Line was a intelligent, harsh critique of the modern military, I feel that, like Spec Ops before it, the message would be applied fairly heavy-handedly. We might get a game that bitterly condemns the armed forces, and while that was a welcome change in Spec Ops, I think it would be better to get a studio that's more subtle and moral ambiguous in breaching real life events like those in Fallujah.