Choze Posted April 7, 2009 Posted April 7, 2009 http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2009/04/fallujahgamekonami.html http://www.gamepro.com/article/previews/209611/six-days-in-fallujah-revealed/ I am interested. Lets see how they handle it. Would be nice having a break from the silly COD4 type nonsense stories. Having said this game could fall flat on its face. All the Vietnam games never worked out and some of what i am reading is contradicting other articles and interviews of the same game already.
dwarf Posted April 7, 2009 Posted April 7, 2009 I'm definetly not buying this. Seen too much of that midle-east environment and there's too many other large profile shooters anyway. Is it FPS or 3rd person?
Kurtle Squad Posted April 15, 2009 Posted April 15, 2009 (edited) Six Days in Fallujah controvercy as reported by the Telescaremongeroffendedbyeverything; I mean Telegraph: Xbox game based on Iraq conflict battle angers veterans A video game based on one of the bloodiest battles during the Iraq conflict has been branded 'crass and insensitive' by those affected by the fighting. Six Days In Fallujah, published by Japanese games giant Konami, is described as a 'survival horror' title for the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 consoles. Developed in collaboration with a handful of Iraq veteran US Marines - who have lent their videos, photos and diaries to the designers - the controversial action game is due for release next year. A highly-decorated British Army colonel and the father of a lance corporal killed in action in Iraq have criticised the game and called for it to be banned. Tim Collins OBE, a former colonel of the 1st Battalion Royal Irish Regiment whose inspirational eve-of-battle speech made history in 2003, was appalled by the game's setting. He said: "It's much too soon to start making video games about a war that's still going on, and an extremely flippant response to one of the most important events in modern history. "It's particularly insensitive given what happened in Fallujah, and I will certainly oppose the release of this game." Reg Keys, whose son Thomas was a Red Cap killed by an Iraqi mob in June 2003, added: "Considering the enormous loss of life in the Iraq War, glorifying it in a video game demonstrates very poor judgement and bad taste. "It is particularly crass when you consider what actually happened in Fallujah. "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. "Even worse, it could end up in the hands of a fanatical young Muslim and incite him to consider some form of retaliation or retribution. He could use it to get worked up and want to really 'finish the game'. "I will be calling for this game to be banned, if not worldwide then certainly in the UK." Six Days In Fallujah takes inspiration from the Second Battle of Fallujah - also known as Operation Phantom Fury, which took place between November 7 and December 23 2004. An estimated 1,500 insurgents were killed - reportedly in white phosphorus attacks - along with 38 US troops during the battle. Six Days In Fallujah is being developed by US-based Atomic Games. The firm's president Peter Tamte said: "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." John Choon, senior brand manager for Six Days In Fallujah at Konami Digital Entertainment, added: "The soldiers wanted to tell their stories through a game because that's what they grew up playing." In 2003, electronics giant Sony was forced to abandon plans to launch an Iraq War video game called Shock and Awe after attracting a barrage of negative publicity. It later admitted the idea had been 'an exercise of regrettable bad judgement'. Anyway....How retarded: 1. It's a Survival HORROR...It's not supposed to glorify anything, like people seem to be suggesting 2. Developed with help from pleanty of veterans who obviously aren't offended. 3. It's probably better to make it now, than later, so people feel like it's not something that happened AGES ago and therefor irrelivent; thats how people feel about everything from the past, which is why you can glorify the Romans and such but not more modern empires things strongly tied to negativity, despite popular belief. 4. Videogames are annuls of history; just like EVERY OTHER form of media. 5. They do realise there are Muslims who fight in the "Western" Forces right? If a Muslim family was going to be "offended" by the game, surley they'd realise what it was about before buying and playing it. I also don't get why they would, and it seems a little retarded to say they would. What does being a Muslim have to do with it anyway? Appart from the crazies that believe an attack on one is an attack on them all... 5.5 If a fanatical young Muslim was somehow converted to "terrorism" by a videogame then he can "bring it" so we can kill him before he breeds any more idiots. 6. The game sounds pretty balanced in the viewpoints it will show I really hate it when people jump to the guns on things, especially with talks on bans, they should go and fight for a strict Muslim country if they want to live and fight for disgusting things like that. None of the soldiers quoted even had anything to do with the fighting in Fallujah, and it seems from things said by Konami etc that the game with be balanced in its views. Edited April 15, 2009 by Kurtle Squad
Daft Posted April 15, 2009 Posted April 15, 2009 Good for Konami for running with this. If Generation Kill can cover the Iraq War then I don't see why a computer game can't if done correctly. I hope it does deliver.
flameboy Posted April 15, 2009 Posted April 15, 2009 I don't get all the controversy to be honest..To me it is no different to the accurate depictions of stuff such as the normandy landings, I know obviously its more recent, but in terms of what it is attempting to depict. Sad news is we might not actually see it if rumours are to be believed; http://www.destructoid.com/rumortoid-six-days-in-fallujah-may-not-come-to-europe-128746.phtml There's no denying that Konami's documentary-styled Six Days in Fallujah will be one of the most controversial titles of all time, regardless of how sensitively the content is treated. It would seem that the game is so hot, however, that the publisher may choose to skip Europe altogether and avoid the furor there. The story goes that a European release all hinges upon how developer Atomic Games chooses to portray the action elements of the game. The suggestion seems to be that if the game is too violent, it won't come to Europe. As sad and annoying as that is, who can blame them after the Daily Mail jumped down the game's throat less than twenty-four hours after it was announced? This Iraq-themed game is going to be an incredibly interesting release, as it pushes the boundaries of what a game is allowed to be by mainstream society. It will be a huge shame if Europe is made to miss out on that, all for the want of a bunch of whining crybabies who denounce anything as "tasteless glorification" just because it's in a videogame.
Daft Posted April 15, 2009 Posted April 15, 2009 Region free PS3 means I'll import it. Censoring it would only just spur me to buy it more. To be honest, as soon as the Daily Mail started yammering against it they also sold it to me.
flameboy Posted April 15, 2009 Posted April 15, 2009 Region free PS3 means I'll import it. Censoring it would only just spur me to buy it more. To be honest, as soon as the Daily Mail started yammering against it they also sold it to me. Same here tbh...My dad buys the Daily Mail and they are always on their stupid crusades against this that and everything...what a shit paper..
Daft Posted April 15, 2009 Posted April 15, 2009 Same here tbh...My dad buys the Daily Mail and they are always on their stupid crusades against this that and everything...what a shit paper.. "WILL THE INTERNET INFECT YOUR DAUGHTERS WITH AIDS?" http://www.qwghlm.co.uk/toys/dailymail/
dwarf Posted April 15, 2009 Posted April 15, 2009 Region free PS3 means I'll import it. Censoring it would only just spur me to buy it more. To be honest, as soon as the Daily Mail started yammering against it they also sold it to me. To be honest just because it is controversial doesn't mean it'll be any good. Personally I think it'll end up being a run-of-the-mill shooter that makes an extra effort to evoke emotions through badly synced audio delivery.
Dan_Dare Posted April 15, 2009 Posted April 15, 2009 Good for Konami for running with this. If Generation Kill can cover the Iraq War then I don't see why a computer game can't if done correctly. I hope it does deliver. true enough. Unfortunately, games have to date been utterly tactless and dumb with regards to real warfare. never mind one that's still going.
Daft Posted April 15, 2009 Posted April 15, 2009 To be honest just because it is controversial doesn't mean it'll be any good. Personally I think it'll end up being a run-of-the-mill shooter that makes an extra effort to evoke emotions through badly synced audio delivery. It's more the fact that they want to censor it. I resent being told what I am allowed to buy.
dwarf Posted April 15, 2009 Posted April 15, 2009 I know why did they make bombs illegal? shit gag And I can't be bothered to dig up my thread but inFamous was said to release slightly ealier than planned - for US late May so about a months time Although I seem to be the only one here that's enthusiastic about it.
Daft Posted April 15, 2009 Posted April 15, 2009 I know why did they make bombs illegal? shit gag lol, within reason. Still, you can buy ammonium sulphate pretty easily.
The fish Posted April 16, 2009 Posted April 16, 2009 As much as I respect Tim Collins (and admire his oratory skills), whilst he makes good points which I agree with, banning the game is not the right approach. The idea behind the game, however, is a little tasteless, as it's a bit too recent. As for the game itself, I like the idea - a truly realistic war game should be a horror, and the 2nd battle of Fallujah is no exception. The idea of making you scared in a war game is worryingly under-used, and technically this game looks very good. It looks like it'll be a good game to play, providing it's not buggy. However, they need to choose another war, or at least another battle - picking the one thought by some to be 'the new Hue' is probably a mistake. Whether I'll buy it or not will be decided closer to the time. I'm interested to see just how they handle such a sensitive situation. It had better get a European release. Oh, and talk about a media coup for the developers....
Daft Posted April 16, 2009 Posted April 16, 2009 The idea behind the game, however, is a little tasteless, as it's a bit too recent. I don't get why it is tasteless?
The fish Posted April 16, 2009 Posted April 16, 2009 (edited) I don't get why it is tasteless? It risks trivialising what happened, especially something so horrific - the US used MK77 (the successor to naplam - there's a UK government report on its use) and white phosphorus, the latter being used not only recklessly on areas with civilians, but liberally. EDIT: on reading up on it, the US later said they wrongly informed the British government about MK77's use, so it all seems a bit fishy. I personally have no problem with a setting as such, but I can see why others might. Edited April 16, 2009 by The fish
Daft Posted April 16, 2009 Posted April 16, 2009 I'd agree if it weren't for the media sensationalising certain aspects and trivialising others already. I think, most of the time, the more interpretations we have of an event the better.
Mundi Posted April 16, 2009 Posted April 16, 2009 From what I have read this interests me but promising a realistic take on war has been a promised dangled in front of us for years so forgive me for wearing my skepti-goggles. But all this publicity will just give the game free coverage, I bet that the most people crying fowl will not play the game.
Aimless Posted April 16, 2009 Posted April 16, 2009 This game has regenerating health. Do I really need to expound on what's wrong with that? I think it's entirely possible for a game to capture the various aspects of war better than any other medium. This, however, will be a saleable shooting game. It might have one or two interesting ideas, but I can guarantee it won't do the subject matter justice because to do so would be commercial suicide.
flameboy Posted April 16, 2009 Posted April 16, 2009 I don't see it as trivializing it at all. I also don't think the fact that it's recent makes it tasteless. For me its no different to the slew of war films about areas that we are still engaged in coming out, yet they get praised for their gritty portrayals of war. I actually think it could have a positive effect, if done correctly and played by open minded people going into with the right mindset it could serve as a wake up call to the horror of modern warfare.
Daft Posted April 16, 2009 Posted April 16, 2009 This game has regenerating health. Do I really need to expound on what's wrong with that? I think it's entirely possible for a game to capture the various aspects of war better than any other medium. This, however, will be a saleable shooting game. It might have one or two interesting ideas, but I can guarantee it won't do the subject matter justice because to do so would be commercial suicide. Baby steps.
Choze Posted April 16, 2009 Author Posted April 16, 2009 This game has regenerating health. Do I really need to expound on what's wrong with that? Yeah seems odd. I'll give it a chance though because of the bold claims. Lets see the finished product.
The fish Posted April 16, 2009 Posted April 16, 2009 I actually think it could have a positive effect, if done correctly and played by open minded people going into with the right mindset it could serve as a wake up call to the horror of modern warfare. So do I, it just seems unlikely. If they pull it off, I, for one, will be very impressed (not to mention happy). As for recharging health, I think what's needed is a balance between all 3 (realism, recharging and health meters) I'd like to see something like this: when you get shot square on in, say, the head of chest, you die. When it just clips you, your screen goes blurry, as with recharging health. It clears, but a second (or, to stop it being too hard, third/forth) minor wound kills you. More simply, a very short invisible health meter is what's needed in realistic games.
Dan_Dare Posted April 16, 2009 Posted April 16, 2009 the best health bar system is in Riddick: minor wounds can be recharged in 4 blocks, but if you get hurt below a block, you loose it untill you get medical attention.
Cube Posted April 16, 2009 Posted April 16, 2009 the best health bar system is in Riddick: minor wounds can be recharged in 4 blocks, but if you get hurt below a block, you loose it untill you get medical attention. Sounds similar to Far Cry 2 and Condemned 2. If so, then I agree - those health systems were great (oddly, both games were absolutely terrible).
Recommended Posts