War in Iraq the Game - will it be made?

[dmase]

I don't think they could remain true to the war while making an Iraq game. In WW2 Americans went up against well trained soldier with better weaponry then them for the most part, but in Iraq we demolished them through superior tatics and firepower. How can you base a game off an enemy that really wasn't that tallented until the actual "war" was over, I remeber hearing a line said by an American soldier along the lines of they can't hit us except with RPGs. Enemies in a game with RPGs/bazookas are almost standard in game, but they shouldn't make up every enemy.

 

[Crash486]

War in Iraq. Will it be a game? Now I may be a bit slow in the gaming world, but as far as I know, this game hasn't been made yet. And it god me thinking, since we have numerous games on World War 2. Will they make a game on War in Iraq?

I know they most certainly won't in the nearest future. Obviously, because it's probably too soon. It's barely over yet. But for the sake of this question, let's travel forth in time. Now we're at a time where it's been long enough since this actually happened for it to be okay to make a game about it. Kinda like Vietnam and World War 2.

Would they? Would they make a game about this? If they would, would it be Americans? Would Europeans dare take this event into a game? Asian? As for Americans I think they would rather want to shove this under the carpet. From what I know, it wasn't really a very good idea in the first place (another discussion, wich I know there's a thread about). Would the Americans drop the making of this game, due to there being some unfairness in this?

If they did make the game - who would be the victim? Would the AMercains make themselves the world defenders or would they make Iraquios' the victim of a powerful attack. If Americans did go through with creating this game, would they rely on the fact that other European countries participated (Stupid as-licking politicians) to make themselves look less brutal? Would they include Kuwait, since they weren't on the completely good side?

Bottom line is this: Would such a game be made? If so, who would make it? And how would it follow the story?

So I guess you didn't hear about 6 Days in Fallujah being developed by Atomic Games. Konami dropped the project due to the criticism it was drawing. Atomic games is still looking for a new publisher for the game though. I think there is a very good chance someone might pick it up.

 

[Sparrow]

America will consider it a "tradegy" and not do it.

Also it wasn't a war, it was a scuffle.

This.

 

[TylerC]

6 Days in Fallujah was in production, look it up.

 

[MagnumJoe]

I don't know how you would call it a tragedy. We won.

OMG lol! Won? Won against whom? The Iraqi people? This was not a war against anyone.

US army didn't fight in this "war". I know Iraqis who were present during the conflict. This is what happened:

The Iraqis, didn't want Saddam. But also, they didn't want USA at ALL. If anyone in the USA thinks for one minute, that Iraqis were happy to have you, you are very wrong. They wanted Saddam out, but Without USA in.

So, some people fought USA, and they weren't Saddam's army. They were just Iraqi people!
And some others, just did want Saddam out, thinking about throwing off USA later.
And some others, who were just under the command of Saddam, and afraid of him.

So you have this scenario:

First, people were fighting USA, That's why at first the fights were so strong and aggressive.

Then, when these people (whom were Iraqi militias) were defeated, they the rest of them, thought of joining the section that wants to throw off USA after Saddam's gone.

Then in the Baghdad final showdown, people who were under the command of Saddam, didn't blink an eye: they saw defeat if they tried to fight. So what they did was easy, they took off their military uniforms, and that's it!

So all these sectors, joined forces against USA once Saddam was out! That's why the fight intensified so much after the war!

People go to work at morning, and fight at night.

Plus, what kind of war are you talking about when in the first few days, thousands of civilians died from bombings?

This is one of biggest failures ever. USA invaded a country with no real army. And made the whole world think it did a great job.

 

[Chipperz]

Vietnam doesn't work because America didn't win so noone would buy it

Depends on the game - just because America were the bad guys doesn't mean the game would be bad, it's just that games like Shellshocked try so hard to paint Americans as black-and-white good guys that they're awful. I could see a stealth based game playing as a Viet Cong recruit, stalking through the jungle, watching out for mines and laying traps. There could be some decent set pieces where you have to defend villages from an infantry platoon for long enough to get some RPGs into position to deter the attack choppers and napalm.

OOH! Or night raids on patrols that are getting too close to your weapons cache! What about a sniper level where you're ambushing an American column going through the remains of a city? There could even be morality choices based on whether you kill captives or take them back to POW camps. Damn, this game is sounding awesome!

 

[jamesworkshop]

Vietnam doesn't work because America didn't win so noone would buy it

Depends on the game - just because America were the bad guys doesn't mean the game would be bad, it's just that games like Shellshocked try so hard to paint Americans as black-and-white good guys that they're awful. I could see a stealth based game playing as a Viet Cong recruit, stalking through the jungle, watching out for mines and laying traps. There could be some decent set pieces where you have to defend villages from an infantry platoon for long enough to get some RPGs into position to deter the attack choppers and napalm.

OOH! Or night raids on patrols that are getting too close to your weapons cache! What about a sniper level where you're ambushing an American column going through the remains of a city? There could even be morality choices based on whether you kill captives or take them back to POW camps. Damn, this game is sounding awesome!

I agree but who would release it?

 

[Grimm91]

It will never be made for the same reasons that Vietnam games will never be any good.

 

[Chipperz]

Vietnam doesn't work because America didn't win so noone would buy it

Depends on the game - just because America were the bad guys doesn't mean the game would be bad, it's just that games like Shellshocked try so hard to paint Americans as black-and-white good guys that they're awful. I could see a stealth based game playing as a Viet Cong recruit, stalking through the jungle, watching out for mines and laying traps. There could be some decent set pieces where you have to defend villages from an infantry platoon for long enough to get some RPGs into position to deter the attack choppers and napalm.

OOH! Or night raids on patrols that are getting too close to your weapons cache! What about a sniper level where you're ambushing an American column going through the remains of a city? There could even be morality choices based on whether you kill captives or take them back to POW camps. Damn, this game is sounding awesome!

I agree but who would release it?

Well, anyone could, but hell, let's start the list with NCSoft - I'm fairly certain they're a Korean company...

 

[MagnumJoe]

That proves you have your head WAY up your ass. Biggest failure? HAHAHAHAHAHA! Wow.

First, i reported you for your language. Second, i have proof and solid proof for what i said. Third, ask anyone who has brains in USA, he will tell you the same. Fourth, stop watching USA mainstream media and you will see what i am saying.

O and by the way, none of the strategic aims of the war were fulfilled. Except oil. Other than that: WDM didn't exist, Al-Qaeda is still functional, and civil war is still there. And once USA goes out, it will be worse. Yes, by all measures this is a failure. If you measure victory by presence of troops on ground, then the battle of Thermopylae should be considered a victory for the Persians. But it wasn't.

 

[DM.]

America will consider it a "tradegy" and not do it.

Also it wasn't a war, it was a scuffle.

This.

This.

Also, Its more likely that a FPS based on Columbine would be made.

 

[samsprinkle]

I think this sort of game could be very thought provoking. For instance, you are a U.S or U.N. soldier and you are in an interactive cinematic and your squad is relaxing in this restaurant and talking to some locals in a friendly way. Then someone outside screams and there are some gunshots then a suicide bomber runs in and only you and a few civilians survive the restaurant collapsing. The you run outside and have to knife a terrorist, take his assualt rifle and link up with your platoon. I think it would be epic.

 

[Sparrow]

America will consider it a "tradegy" and not do it.

Also it wasn't a war, it was a scuffle.

This.

This.

Also, Its more likely that a FPS based on Columbine would be made.

I would play that game...

 

[MagnumJoe]

Oh so now your calling me stupid because I wont say we LOST? Thats messed up.

Dude! You are not living in this world! Did you understand anything from what i said? What are the criteria of winning? Is it just going in a country? Or strategic aims fulfilled?

THINK! Strategic aims were not fulfilled! War is a failure!

If you consider victory by number of people dead, killed, infrastructure destroyed, and number of troops on the land, then yes you have won! But still after 6 years from the invasion, USA CAN'T go out of Iraq because STILL what USA wanted in Iraq is not fulfilled!

Dude open your mind!

 

[Naeo]

Too much bad publicity. It's the reason there were so many WWII games- we were the good guys and no one save the neo-Nazis are willing to argue that (or so the common perception is). In Iraq, there's very little support save from the farther/conservative right. Which is a relative minority.

 

[Bretty]

Oh so now your calling me stupid because I wont say we LOST? Thats messed up.

Dude! You are not living in this world! Did you understand anything from what i said? What are the criteria of winning? Is it just going in a country? Or strategic aims fulfilled?

THINK! Strategic aims were not fulfilled! War is a failure!

If you consider victory by number of people dead, killed, infrastructure destroyed, and number of troops on the land, then yes you have won! But still after 6 years from the invasion, USA CAN'T go out of Iraq because STILL what USA wanted in Iraq is not fulfilled!

Dude open your mind!

The Strategic Aims were to construct a military pressence in Iraq to be able to bolster support for both the Arabian and Kuwaiti oil supplies --- I think they did this?

Your apparant lack of understanding of anything militarily related to this conflict is obvious.

America did 'Win' but the point you are trying to make is that the victory is infact a cheap one...

The problem with America is that politics are involved at all levels of your Gov't and military. Because of this there was no cohesive plan for Iraq, minus maybe arriving and surrounding Baghdad. That and the army 'HAD' to go in first after the first invasion where the airforce did everything.

Infrastructure is the first thing to be blown away in a war, fact. People are then hit as inter-populace targets, HQs, power stations and Barracks are then hit. So whats your point? If it is a loss because of this then guess what...... every war in the past has been a loss (ok some would claim this is the point but it wasnt the point you were making).

And what about your earlier posts about a huge amount of civies fighting the US? Are you fucking kidding me? You do know most Iraqi's hid in their homes as much as possible right? And that the people in the streets fighting and kill were theives, criminals and people with vendettas from Sadam's regiem?

It was not a loss.... It was a cheap and poor victory that cost a lot of Iraqi, American and British lives due to poor planning and execution. Your uneducated generalizations just show that most people are just not clever enough to LISTEN and understand that they truly may not grasp what happened.