Six Days in Fallujah Triggers Outrage

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

dcheppy:

nilcypher:
People really trip over the word 'game' don't they? If it were a movie, they'd be no problem at all.

Movies and TV and Books about war are different then games about war. They have the ability to not be "fun" experiences and still be good so they can handle war in a mature light. Games can do that too, but they don't. I read somewhere that the game director says the first priority is making it a good entertainment product, not any sort of commentary on the Iraq war. Mind you this is going to be a Call of Duty clone with an Iraq War skin. That's offensive. It would be one thing if the game doesn't have auto-regenerating health. It would be one thing if your soldiers couldn't fire their machine guns while running backwards. It'd be one thing if their wasn't infinitely spawning enemies.

The fact remains that video games trivialize war. They turn the loss of human life into a fun diversion. That's fine when it's a fictional war, or a fight versus aliens, but in a real life war, that has not resolved, that is not fine. Movies and Books don't do that. They merely document and/or dramatize war.

So yeah, people trip over the word 'game'. Because there is a big f***ing difference.

For the record I find World War II games borderline offensive, and I find dramatized stories about the Iraq War do be in poor taste. I am in the minority on those points, but World War II was a real war that does not deserve to be trivialized and people need perspective on the Iraq War before making blockbuster Hollywood movies exploiting it.

You read a great deal into a very short comment.

The point I was making, which you have effectively echoed in your reply is that there is no reason that a video game couldn't examine difficult and sensitive issues in a mature way, but people stumble over the word 'game' and get it into their heads that it has to be like Pac-Man.

Everything I've read about Six Days in Fallujah suggests that the developers goal is not to make another Call of Duty, but to try and present the conflict in a much more realistic light. Whether they succeed or not remains to be seen, but just because the medium is a video 'game' does not automatically mean it will be shallow and disrespectful.

How about, just for once, we try giving a developer the benefit of the doubt. If they make some gung-ho, jingoistic shooter, then they're fair game, but don't go on the offensive before they've released even a single screenshot.

Cliff_m85:
I think we won't really know if the game is appropriate until we see the achievement list.

That is very, very true. I actually wonder how this game will handle the achievements for the 360 and trophies for the PS3. I imagine that there will be six achievements, one for each day. You'd probably get it at the end of the day. I really hope they don't have "shoot four people in the head in a row" like CoD4.

Got to give Andy McNab props for sticking up for this game.

Fire Daemon:

Cliff_m85:
I think we won't really know if the game is appropriate until we see the achievement list.

That is very, very true. I actually wonder how this game will handle the achievements for the 360 and trophies for the PS3. I imagine that there will be six achievements, one for each day. You'd probably get it at the end of the day. I really hope they don't have "shoot four people in the head in a row" like CoD4.

Got to give Andy McNab props for sticking up for this game.

"Ultimate Fallu-re +10" You gots pwned.
"Iraq and roll +50" Rolled a grenade to a group of 3 or more enemies.
"Mission Accomplished +100" You completed the last level
"Suddammit! +20" Defeated the last robotic boss.

nilcypher:

You read a great deal into a very short comment.

The point I was making, which you have effectively echoed in your reply is that there is no reason that a video game couldn't examine difficult and sensitive issues in a mature way, but people stumble over the word 'game' and get it into their heads that it has to be like Pac-Man.

Everything I've read about Six Days in Fallujah suggests that the developers goal is not to make another Call of Duty, but to try and present the conflict in a much more realistic light. Whether they succeed or not remains to be seen, but just because the medium is a video 'game' does not automatically mean it will be shallow and disrespectful.

How about, just for once, we try giving a developer the benefit of the doubt. If they make some gung-ho, jingoistic shooter, then they're fair game, but don't go on the offensive before they've released even a single screenshot.

From Joystiq:
Konami's VP of marketing, Anthony Crouts, gives the impression that the publisher's still playing it safe, saying, "We're not trying to make social commentary. 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."

After a comment like that I'm not willing to give the developer the benefit of the doubt. I'm willing to be proven wrong, but there is a lot of inherent obstacles in games that they're going to have to overcome. How do you handle the loss of real human lives in a way that doesn't trivialize the enemies? Are we expected to believe that the insurgents are akin to zombies in this so called "survival horror" game? What about the civilians who died? I think these are obstacles that might be overcome in a game one day, but they won't be possible in a game that's "a compelling entertainment experience" and they'll certainly "make people feel uncomfortable"

Ray Huling:
for games.

L.B. Jeffries:
Games taking place in relevant settings and dealing with current issues has to occur somehow

No; they really don't.

Look; I know we're getting into a fundamental difference between us: you approach games as a critic; I approach them as a cultural reporter. You see games as part of an artistic tradition; I see them as a platform for play.

This brings me to agree with dcheppy above: the play of a shooter is just not commensurate with the weight, not only of this particular theme, but of a whole host of themes available to other media.

I think the difference is that I highly doubt the game is going to just be another shooter. Depending on how far they intend to take the game, it will probably be incredibly disturbing to play. There have already been games that explored tragedy, Super Columbine Massacre RPG comes to mind, and if that game convinced me of anything it's that most forms of media which this topic is "available" to don't even come close to expressing it.

The ability to recreate a tragedy and experience it, as close as you can get the subject mentally, strikes me as a far better way to communicate a cultural injustice.

dcheppy:

nilcypher:

You read a great deal into a very short comment.

The point I was making, which you have effectively echoed in your reply is that there is no reason that a video game couldn't examine difficult and sensitive issues in a mature way, but people stumble over the word 'game' and get it into their heads that it has to be like Pac-Man.

Everything I've read about Six Days in Fallujah suggests that the developers goal is not to make another Call of Duty, but to try and present the conflict in a much more realistic light. Whether they succeed or not remains to be seen, but just because the medium is a video 'game' does not automatically mean it will be shallow and disrespectful.

How about, just for once, we try giving a developer the benefit of the doubt. If they make some gung-ho, jingoistic shooter, then they're fair game, but don't go on the offensive before they've released even a single screenshot.

From Joystiq:
Konami's VP of marketing, Anthony Crouts, gives the impression that the publisher's still playing it safe, saying, "We're not trying to make social commentary. 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."

After a comment like that I'm not willing to give the developer the benefit of the doubt. I'm willing to be proven wrong, but there is a lot of inherent obstacles in games that they're going to have to overcome. How do you handle the loss of real human lives in a way that doesn't trivialize the enemies? Are we expected to believe that the insurgents are akin to zombies in this so called "survival horror" game? What about the civilians who died? I think these are obstacles that might be overcome in a game one day, but they won't be possible in a game that's "a compelling entertainment experience" and they'll certainly "make people feel uncomfortable"

We'll just have to agree to disagree then. I think the use of the word 'compelling' is significant there, but clearly you don't. No big deal, our differences are what make the world interesting.

Fire Daemon:

Cliff_m85:
I think we won't really know if the game is appropriate until we see the achievement list.

That is very, very true. I actually wonder how this game will handle the achievements for the 360 and trophies for the PS3. I imagine that there will be six achievements, one for each day. You'd probably get it at the end of the day. I really hope they don't have "shoot four people in the head in a row" like CoD4.

Got to give Andy McNab props for sticking up for this game.

If they have a lick of sense, they'll just be 'Survived Day 1' etc.

Apologies for the double post.

nilcypher:

We'll just have to agree to disagree then. I think the use of the word 'compelling' is significant there, but clearly you don't. No big deal, our differences are what make the world interesting.

I think we can both also agree it'll be interesting to see how it turns out. It might offend me like no other, but I'll certainly be watching how well its received by gamers and the enthusiast press, as well as how well it sells. It's certainly the most ambitious game to ever try anything like this, so it's going to have real importance in the industry on whether we see more of this in the future.

My guess is it doesn't do well. I just don't think a game based on an ongoing war is going to have much mainstream appeal in a medium dominated by escapist adventures. It didn't do well in Hollywood, and I don't expect it to do well in the video game world.

Ray Huling:

L.B. Jeffries:

If not this massacre, then which one?

That's something of a bizarre question. It will not--and cannot--be any massacre. There is no way any commercial game can approach this kind of experience. Possibly no game at all.

L.B. Jeffries:
If the game fails, then it will fail instructively.

Again, this is a strange question. It's not a matter of failure. What would failure be? Failing to deliver the experience of shooting a little girl in the stomach by accident?

This kind of thing is simply beyond the pale for games.

L.B. Jeffries:
Games taking place in relevant settings and dealing with current issues has to occur somehow

No; they really don't.

Look; I know we're getting into a fundamental difference between us: you approach games as a critic; I approach them as a cultural reporter. You see games as part of an artistic tradition; I see them as a platform for play.

This brings me to agree with dcheppy above: the play of a shooter is just not commensurate with the weight, not only of this particular theme, but of a whole host of themes available to other media.

Maybe now games can't (or simply haven't) tell stories to the level that movies or books can, but why? Why can't a game be more than "a platform for play"? I mean, the only major difference between a game and a movie is the interactivity, which, in the right hands, can make the user even more emotionally invested in the experience.

Good lord. This... it's just like saying that we should ban every war novel. It's profiteering, after all!

*sighs* Sarcasm over. I don't think it will succeed anyway, so who cares. No one will get it.

dcheppy:

nilcypher:
People really trip over the word 'game' don't they? If it were a movie, they'd be no problem at all.

For the record I find World War II games borderline offensive, and I find dramatized stories about the Iraq War do be in poor taste. I am in the minority on those points, but World War II was a real war that does not deserve to be trivialized and people need perspective on the Iraq War before making blockbuster Hollywood movies exploiting it.

I'll agree with you that people need a better perspective, but that doesn't mean that there aren't good war games out there. COD4 was a step in the right direction: it showed us the horror and grittiness of armed conflict. More games with stories like that are needed. And dcheppy is right. If this were a movie, it would catch absolutely no flak, because movies can easily bang the art drum to pass by criticism. Games don't yet have that priviledge in the eyes of the public.

These horrific events should be confined to the annuls of history, not trivialized and rendered for thrill-seekers to play out, over and over again, for ever more," he said

Well thats complete and utter stupidity right there. Just have it written down in a book and forget all about it huh? Lets not educate the youth of today in a way they will understand, its better to keep it out of sight, out of mind.
From what this said they are getting actual testimonials from people who were there and witnessed the horror. Just because other jackass games developers would have you pissing on the corpses while you and your american buddies laugh and form pyramids with your prisoners, this game seems like it will be emphasizing what really went on.
I have not played it but from what I hear the game Band of Brothers mainly focused on the psychological strain and difficulties experienced by the troopers. Also lets not forget the nuke death scene from Call of Duty 4. If done right games can be quite moving.
People should shut up, let the game be made, give it a shot and then decide if its doing it justice.

Edit: Also like people have said, why is WWII games okay but this is not? Why is it okay to shoot germans in the face but not these iraqi troopers? Like him or not even Hitler was a real person so if you claim killing him in games is fine then you have no choice but to say its okay to kill everyone in a game.

What have we learned?

Documentary / Hollywood / Made for TV movie = OK
Video Game = Spawn of the Devil and EVIL!

Honestly, I would really like to see this game. The other news article presented it as an isightful approach to a game - making it a look back at a historic event presented sort of as a documentary, seen through the eyes of those that were there, with the stories from those that were there. What is to hate about that? Should we pretend it never happened as Germany does so often about the Nazis? Pretending something didn't happen is the first step to walking down that road again in the future.

*shakes head* People are missing the point. This is a story that SHOULD be told, must be told. The purpose isn't to glorify violence, it's to show you how terrible it was. Show you the reality. Show you, for good or bad, what the Americans were doing and feeling then.

Not right to display? Bullshit. Movies and comics have been made about war while it was going on since ww2. The difference is, now they're telling the truth. And that scares people.

dcheppy:

nilcypher:
People really trip over the word 'game' don't they? If it were a movie, they'd be no problem at all.

Movies and TV and Books about war are different then games about war. They have the ability to not be "fun" experiences and still be good so they can handle war in a mature light. Games can do that too, but they don't. I read somewhere that the game director says the first priority is making it a good entertainment product, not any sort of commentary on the Iraq war. Mind you this is going to be a Call of Duty clone with an Iraq War skin. That's offensive. It would be one thing if the game doesn't have auto-regenerating health. It would be one thing if your soldiers couldn't fire their machine guns while running backwards. It'd be one thing if their wasn't infinitely spawning enemies.

The fact remains that video games trivialize war. They turn the loss of human life into a fun diversion. That's fine when it's a fictional war, or a fight versus aliens, but in a real life war, that has not resolved, that is not fine. Movies and Books don't do that. They merely document and/or dramatize war.

So yeah, people trip over the word 'game'. Because there is a big f***ing difference.

For the record I find World War II games borderline offensive, and I find dramatized stories about the Iraq War do be in poor taste. I am in the minority on those points, but World War II was a real war that does not deserve to be trivialized and people need perspective on the Iraq War before making blockbuster Hollywood movies exploiting it.

If movies and books about war were not on some fundamental basis entertaining enough to watch or read through then no one would make them. Look at the tv show MASH. Yes it was about the Korean War but it was aired almost immediately after the end of the Vietnam War and before MASH we had Hogan's Heroes a slapstick comedy about a Nazi run POW camp. Last year's top grossing comedy was Tropic Thunder which was about a film version of a fake Vietnam War book by a fake amputee starring insane Hollywood actors.
We can only gain perspective by looking at how ludicrous every war is. War is when Men decide to defend the things they hold dear usually by destroying what someone else holds dear and then come home to discover that they lost no matter what.
How many war vets are currently unemployed, homeless and in need of serious mental and or physical care?
Now I have played games a good chunk of my life and I can say that the original Silent Hill was so terrifying I could not finish it. As for Resident Evil I only played 2 all the way through but I cannot say it was fun so much as it was immersive and I felt like I was really fighting for my life against zombies and wanted to see the characters alive at the end so I trudged through.
Good games like any good book or film make you care for the characters enough to see it through to the end and neither have to be fun in a playground sort of way.
I hope that Six Days in Fallujah raises the bar for games as an art form and not devolve into a brain dead shoot fest. That fact is for the Millennial Generation theses games will became their "Platoon" or "Apocalypse Now".
As for me I don't think any film made has made me concern about nuclear proliferation as much as the game "Metal Gear Solid" on the playstation. A movie or book forces another persons view and actions on you but a game makes you contemplate the full ramifications of your actions in a way few mediums can because you decide whether or not to pull the trigger or save the day or in the "Metal Gear Solid" torture section whether or not to sacrifice Merryl.
Those are deep haunting decisions that you had to make and I think that gives games a power only the best of film and literature can meet.

L.B. Jeffries:

I think the difference is that I highly doubt the game is going to just be another shooter. Depending on how far they intend to take the game, it will probably be incredibly disturbing to play. There have already been games that explored tragedy, Super Columbine Massacre RPG comes to mind, and if that game convinced me of anything it's that most forms of media which this topic is "available" to don't even come close to expressing it.

The ability to recreate a tragedy and experience it, as close as you can get the subject mentally, strikes me as a far better way to communicate a cultural injustice.

Your assumption here is that games provide a more immersive, realistic experience of events because of the way the player interacts with the game.

This is precisely the opposite of what is actually the case.

Games cannot maintain the same emotional intensity as other media. The core aesthetic experience of a game is always in the play. Everything else is always just an undertone.

For a shooter, the pleasure of figuring out the control inputs necessary to kill motherfuckers will always be paramount. You can do this with a gung-ho atmosphere, a scary one, a goofy one, even a disturbing one, but the game must always be a game first.

In order to maintain the emotional intensity appropriate to the topic of Fallujah, a game would have to circumscribe the actions of the player--drastically.

For Orannis:

Games are not like movies. Games are like games. I think you're confusing games with interactive virtual reality. Games are one thing. Art is another. Virtual reality still another.

You can have interactivity without the interaction constituting a game. This exchange, for example.

From the other way, playing a game is a special kind of interaction. If I start looking at this conversation as the means for a drinking game, well, we may still exchange ideas, but the primary purpose of my interaction would be to get drunk. This would change everything.

Ray Huling:

L.B. Jeffries:

I think the difference is that I highly doubt the game is going to just be another shooter. Depending on how far they intend to take the game, it will probably be incredibly disturbing to play. There have already been games that explored tragedy, Super Columbine Massacre RPG comes to mind, and if that game convinced me of anything it's that most forms of media which this topic is "available" to don't even come close to expressing it.

The ability to recreate a tragedy and experience it, as close as you can get the subject mentally, strikes me as a far better way to communicate a cultural injustice.

Your assumption here is that games provide a more immersive, realistic experience of events because of the way the player interacts with the game.

This is precisely the opposite of what is actually the case.

Games cannot maintain the same emotional intensity as other media. The core aesthetic experience of a game is always in the play. Everything else is always just an undertone.

For a shooter, the pleasure of figuring out the control inputs necessary to kill motherfuckers will always be paramount. You can do this with a gung-ho atmosphere, a scary one, a goofy one, even a disturbing one, but the game must always be a game first.

In order to maintain the emotional intensity appropriate to the topic of Fallujah, a game would have to circumscribe the actions of the player--drastically.

Don't you think you're limiting the context of the way people experience games to the way you yourself experience them? There are numerous forms of play, from the casual to the incredibly serious. The rules they are interacting with communicate a message just as readily as a film or book, with the exception that the player is free to make up their own mind.

By what metric does any media maintain "emotional intensity"? Documentaries, news broadcasts, and now films are all taking place in Iraq and Afghanistan. Why does having the exchange be purely one-sided somehow validate it when a game frees to the player up to offer their own approach?

Sure, disturbing people will do disturbing things with the game. People watch Full Metal Jacket and think it's a comedy. I understand you want to preserve the nature of the tragedy and not allow people to distort it but how are films or books not going to have that happen anyways?

L.B. Jeffries:
Don't you think you're limiting the context of the way people experience games to the way you yourself experience them?

No; I think I'm doing the opposite of that.

L.B. Jeffries:
There are numerous forms of play, from the casual to the incredibly serious.

Yes.

L.B. Jeffries:
The rules they are interacting with communicate a message just as readily as a film or book, with the exception that the player is free to make up their own mind.

No. This is the crux of our disagreement.

You're talking about games as if no one plays them. As if they deliver meaning in just the same way that movies or books do.

The meaning of a video game isn't there on the disc. It's in the play, which is determined by the interaction of the player with the game. This is why a game cannot control the outcome of play enough to deliver a coherent message.

L.B. Jeffries:
Why does having the exchange be purely one-sided somehow validate it when a game frees to the player up to offer their own approach?

Validation isn't the issue. Coherence is. Freeing up the player means relinquishing control over the meaning of play.

L.B. Jeffries:
People watch Full Metal Jacket and think it's a comedy.

Yes; but they don't change the action of the film. No matter how the audience reacts to the film Private Pyle will always kill his Sergeant. The script is always the script. This is not so with games.

L.B. Jeffries:
I understand you want to preserve the nature of the tragedy and not allow people to distort it but how are films or books not going to have that happen anyways?

I'm not out to preserve anything. I'm simply pointing out that films and books are static. What happens in them never changes. Different people react to them differently, yes, but the thing people react to remains constant.

Of course, all of this touches only on the issue of interactivity. You seem to be equating 'game' with 'interactivity'. A game is a special kind of interaction. Games have their own ends, which must be satisfied. If you don't meet those ends, then you're not playing the game. You may still be interacting with someone or something, but you're no longer playing the game.

I think you want video games not to be games, but some other kind of interaction. I don't think you're alone in this! I think a whole lot of game developers want the same thing.

Ray Huling:
Teh Snipz

Gah, we're back at the start again. Agree to disagree then.

I suppose the main reason I'm in support of it is that I want games to evolve into something more and products like this, however flawed they may be, seem like the only way to do it.

Ray Huling:
Validation isn't the issue. Coherence is. Freeing up the player means relinquishing control over the meaning of play.

Yes; but they don't change the action of the film. No matter how the audience reacts to the film Private Pyle will always kill his Sergeant. The script is always the script. This is not so with games.

I'm not out to preserve anything. I'm simply pointing out that films and books are static. What happens in them never changes. Different people react to them differently, yes, but the thing people react to remains constant.

What do you mean, 'games aren't static'? You cant talk about most games today without hearing one comment about it being too linear.

Gaz always gets shot by Zakheiev, the Flood always get loose, and as far as I know, people have yet to find a way to keep Aeris from dying.

SilentHunter7:
What do you mean, 'games aren't static'? You cant talk about most games today without hearing one comment about it being too linear.

Gaz always gets shot by Zakheiev, the Flood always get loose, and as far as I know, people have yet to find a way to keep Aeris from dying.

Yes; games do include set plot-points, but how you get to them is not at all static. Think about 'Kimahri-only' play-throughs of Final Fantasy X. Or 'handgun-only' play-throughs of Resident Evil.

But this is also why I said: "I think a whole lot of game developers want the same thing."

These days, game developers take great pride in delivering stories to players. In order to do this, developers remove control from players, i.e. they do their best to make their work into something other than a game.

Look at Metal Gear Solid 4 or Bioshock, you'll see what I'm talking.

Or to put it another way: complaints about the linearity of games are often not about linearity as such, but really about the non-gameness of games.

Honestly? For once, I'm with the Daily Fail on this one (and I never thought I'd say that).

Shooters are, first and foremost, about shooting people. Shooting people in games is fun. That's why so many games are shooters- because games have to be fun. It's part of the nature of games.

Fallujah isn't fun. And that's why it won't work as a game. Because, no matter what message the developers try and put across, they're going to have to make shooting those insurgents enjoyable enough for players to keep going. Films and books aren't like games. They don't have to be 'fun'. Saving Private Ryan isn't a fun film. It's bleak, depressing, grim... however, it's also compelling, which is why it's so watchable. Games can't make do with compelling. They have to be...

fun.

Wouldukindly:

oliveira8:
Shindler's List is also crass and tasteless. Those horrific events should be confined to the annuls of history, not trivialized and rendered for thrill-seekers to see it, over and over again.

Bah...

All nasty history must be forgotten, after all, if the children forget, it didn't happen, right?

Exactly this. There is a difference between remembering poignant events in history, and trivialising them. Shindler's list doesn't turn the Holocaust into a comedy, and it seems the Six Days in Fallujah won't turn it into a run & gun, salute the flag, down a keg, hoorah event either.
I think it's better to remember than to forget, as long as the medium is tasteful.

Well, allow me to be an insensitive prick and say that I am actually really looking forward to this game, provided it plays well.

oliveira8:

Wouldukindly:

oliveira8:
Shindler's List is also crass and tasteless. Those horrific events should be confined to the annuls of history, not trivialized and rendered for thrill-seekers to see it, over and over again.

Bah...

All nasty history must be forgotten, after all, if the children forget, it didn't happen, right?

Totally agree. If you close your eyes and wish really hard all the bad things will go away!

Hell, it's worth a try. You lied, it didn't work. Well, now to eat those brussel sprouts.

I too agree with Andy Mcnab (awesome name, too!).

While I can understand both Mr. Keys and Ms.Hoskins' points of view.

(Mr. Keys from the perspective that it is an incredibly painful memory that could, in some people's eyes, be trivialised, and that Ms.Hoskins condemns the fact that "to make a game out of a war crime and to capitalize on the death and injury of thousands is sick").

I agree with Sgt. Mcnab that a game is one way of making people aware of the events that happened in Fallujah in a manner that is much different from reading about it, or seeing it on a screen.

Immersion helps alot to make something stick. As a side note... I've never heard of "Fallujah" until now. So the game has filled it's purpose so far: making people aware of it all.

How is this insensitive? Honestly, think about it, which would be a better way to respect the men who died in this battle: by allowing people all over the world to experience the horror their friends went through when they died, or by allowing the vast majority of the world to forget about it just like they did every single other battle in the history of, well, history! This is something that hasn't been tried before: A detailed and accurate video game documentary. They've been able to sit down and interview the people who went through this just a few years after it took place. Why then are so many people too thick to allow a battle to be remembered accurately by millions around the globe? Just because it also comes with entertainment value? So did every single World War 2 game. So then people start saying that it shouldn't be about something this recent, to which I ask, WHY? Why is everyone so incredibly sensitive about something that's actually RELEVANT to what's going on today? Something important in modern history for a change! There are tens of thousands of people out there in America alone who learned more about World War 2 by playing WW2 games than anyone learned in a classroom or a documentary, and I can bet you they respect the men who went through those horrors far more than anyone who just read the words "x people died in battle y." So why are we going to not allow there to be tens of thousands of people who know about the wars going on today, and instead allow only the handful of people who do in-depth research on these battles know exactly what's going on? Does anyone care to answer? Isn't it better to have this remembered than have this forgotten?

By the way, a fun fact: When Rambo came out, Vietnam veterans were pissed off at it, so pissed off that some people involved actually received death threats. That was because they absolutely hated how it made it seem like one man could win the Vietnam war. That was a movie about a then-recent war that was pretty much ENTIRELY cheap thrills, and it became a smash hit. Now flash forward to today, what's different?
This war isn't over yet? So what? That just makes it more relevant.
This is made to be realistic instead of a fantasy? If anything that just makes this better.
This battle involved the killing of innocent civilians-oh wait, that happened in Vietnam too.
No. None of that is the reason people are whining about this. The reason is that the media is too thick to accept video games as a respectable medium. Otherwise, this would be stirring no more controversy than the guys at street corners that yell the end is near.

I can't wait until games become as respected as movies and other forms of media. The only real difference is that they are interactive. This is just the way the soldiers that actually fought in the battle wanted their stories to be told.

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here