Iraq Game Sparks Outrage, Soldiers Have Mixed Reactions [Slashdot]

[DP ServBot]

We recently discussed news that Konami will be releasing a video game based on a 2004 battle in Fallujah. Many people have now had a chance to react to the game, and there has been a great deal of criticism voiced over the game's choice of setting. A group of families of soldiers who lost their lives in the war questioned "how anyone can trivialize a war that continues to kill and maim members of the military and Iraqi civilians to this day." Others criticized the game's glorification of the "massacre." Conversely, some soldiers and veterans have responded with optimism, hoping the game can raise awareness of the realities of war. Dan Rosenthal, Iraq veteran and long-time gamer, worries whether Konami will be able to do justice to the experience. Eurogamer posted a related story about the controversy over increasingly realistic war games.http://games.slashdot.org/slashdot-it.pl?from=rss&op=image&style=h0&sid=09/04/12/0552207 (http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/04/12/0552207&from=rss)
Read more of this story (http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/04/12/0552207&from=rss) at Slashdot.
http://feedads.googleadservices.com/~at/QOJe_k22d1PB4g1XZHMQU-MP4GY/i</img> (http://feedads.googleadservices.com/~at/QOJe_k22d1PB4g1XZHMQU-MP4GY/a)
http://feeds2.feedburner.com/~r/Slashdot/slashdotGames/~4/ipcw7S3U_SA

More... (http://rss.slashdot.org/~r/Slashdot/slashdotGames/~3/ipcw7S3U_SA/article.pl)

[Diosoth]

This is no different from all the games set in WWII.

[Cobra Commander]

People love being offended.
I presonally can't for a game set in Vietnam.

[roushimsx]

This is such a fucking stupid topic. Everyone keeps throwing "KONAMI KONAMI KONAMI" and then they bring up Konami's list of classic arcade games and crap. Contra, TMNT, whatever.

Jesus christ, this is just being published by Konami and is being developed by Atomic. Fucking. Games.

They're the same dudes that got showered with shittons of love for their attention to modeling a realistic morale model. Educate yourselves, foolz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Close_Combat_series). Their only other FPS was Close Combat: First to Fight (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Close_Combat:_First_to_Fight), which didn't get a terribly good reception because it wasn't as pretty as everything else, but it also got lauded for it...what's this?...gameplay and realism! Who would have thunk it!?!

I'm looking forward to this game, sensationalist cuntrag hack bloggers be damned.

[NayusDante]

I don't think anyone should get worked up over this sort of thing. Yes, it's going to make a very real and very current conflict interactive, but it's not going to use anybody's image or name without permission. In the end, it's going to be a game, not a history book.

Besides, I'm sure that the mod community will have a field day with it. Imagine the new character skins. I, for one, would LOVE to see Chuck Norris fighting in Iraq, alongside Batman, Cloud Strife, and Master Chief.

The key to this sort of thing is going to be making it lighthearted, not heavy and realistic. If it went for the realism route, you'd have something like Counter-Strike, where American players can actually play as Al Quida forces, and we all know that would cause the biggest gaming controversy ever.

Use the maps and data from the actual conflict, but don't tie it so closely to the current event.

[roushimsx]

If it went for the realism route, you'd have something like Counter-Strike, where American players can actually play as Al Quida forces, and we all know that would cause the biggest gaming controversy ever.

You used the word "realism" to describe Counter Strike.

You may as well use the word "arcadey" to describe iRacing.com.

[Kitsune Sniper]

I didn't know the terrorists kept screaming "LOL NOOB PWNED FAG" at you. I mean, if CS is supposed to be realistic.

I'm interested in this game a bit. Let's hope it doesn't suck.

[NayusDante]

I meant that the design of the CS is INTENDED to be realistic. I would never imply that it actually IS in any way realistic.

[RPG_Fanatic]

I've been playing Call Of Duty 4 online every day it's the same thing, what's the difference?

[roushimsx]

I meant that the design of the CS is INTENDED to be realistic. I would never imply that it actually IS in any way realistic.
No, it's not intended to be realistic. It uses real life weapons but models them in very unrealistic ways for the sake of playability and fun.


I've been playing Call Of Duty 4 online every day it's the same thing, what's the difference?
Doublestandard having ass clowns take umbrage with it modeling a real life conflict because, oh no, it's "too soon" or something. Either that or they're too stupid to realize that Konami is only the publisher and they think that it's going to be some shitty first person Contra game.

[kedawa]

Contra in Iraq would still be Contra, and therefore awesome.

[boatofcar]

So you don't see anything wrong with making a game about a real battle in a real war that's still going on?

[boatofcar]

This is such a fucking stupid topic. Everyone keeps throwing "KONAMI KONAMI KONAMI" and then they bring up Konami's list of classic arcade games and crap. Contra, TMNT, whatever.

Jesus christ, this is just being published by Konami and is being developed by Atomic. Fucking. Games.

They're the same dudes that got showered with shittons of love for their attention to modeling a realistic morale model. Educate yourselves, foolz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Close_Combat_series). Their only other FPS was Close Combat: First to Fight (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Close_Combat:_First_to_Fight), which didn't get a terribly good reception because it wasn't as pretty as everything else, but it also got lauded for it...what's this?...gameplay and realism! Who would have thunk it!?!

I'm looking forward to this game, sensationalist cuntrag hack bloggers be damned.




Doublestandard having ass clowns take umbrage with it modeling a real life conflict because, oh no, it's "too soon" or something. Either that or they're too stupid to realize that Konami is only the publisher and they think that it's going to be some shitty first person Contra game.

Dude, we get it. You're pissed off about Konami...something...publishing...not developed...something..OK nevermind, I have no idea why you're getting all nerdraged up.

[NayusDante]

Let's put a hold on more comments until we get a demo. Once we can see the actual scope of the gameplay, then we can pass judgement.

[roushimsx]

Contra in Iraq would still be Contra, and therefore awesome.

You need to play Delta Force: Black Hawk Down, then. For whatever reason Novalogic made the game essentially a first person run and gun and it was quite awesome, if completely different from what everyone was expecting. Never got around to playing Team Sabre... :(


Dude, we get it. You're pissed off about Konami...something...publishing...not developed...something..OK nevermind, I have no idea why you're getting all nerdraged up.

Because by placing the emphasis on the publisher and conveniently ignoring developer, they're (and by "they" I mean every second rate hack blogging about it on major sites) automatically creating the impression that this is just going to be some cheap, shitty cash in looking to sell on controversy alone. That's just absolute bullshit. The developer has a rich history of doing military-related games (including building a version as a training tool for the USMC).

In terms I'm sure you could understand, it's like talking about Activision's Guitar Hero series and talking about Harmonix' music games. One gives an entirely different impression than the other. Likewise, it'd be akin to referring to discussing Star Ocean as a Square Enix game and using that to draw comparisons to Final Fantasy.

And no, I don't see anything wrong with making a game about a current conflict and actually basing it on real events. It'll make for a nice distraction from the onslaught of war games that directly crib from hollywood movies and tv series. They seem to be making some interesting decisions in balancing the gameplay with historical accuracy, but the depth that these guys are going into researching the events really put other studios to shame.

From reading interviews and previews, it sounds like if anything the game is going to carry a pretty anti-war subtext with it anyway. It focuses on the real story of the servicemembers and how the fighting affected them while also showing the effects on the insurgents and innocent population as well.

FWIW, the battle that it depicts occurred five years ago; it's not like it just happened last week. If you want that (or simply want to shit on the idea), you can get it from Kuma War (http://www.kumawar.com/).

[Cobra Commander]

So you don't see anything wrong with making a game about a real battle in a real war that's still going on?
No. Is there something wrong with it? WWII is the only "safe" real war setting we have, and I must say it's getting old really fast.

[Half Japanese]

No. Is there something wrong with it? WWII is the only "safe" real war setting we have, and I must say it's been old for years.

Fixed that for ya.

[boatofcar]

No. Is there something wrong with it?

Personally, I think it's too soon. Just my opinion though.

[kedawa]

It's not really too soon.
The war is just taking way too long.

Maybe we'll get a srebrenica massacre game next.

[AZ Legend]

I don't see the difference between games and movies or even documentaries that portray the current war we are in. If they want to make a realistic game about a true event, they have to make it as accurate as possible.

There is some sensitivity about the subject with some, but for many people this will just be another game about a historic event.

[Nature Boy]

There is some sensitivity about the subject with some, but for many people this will just be another game about a historic event.

There will be sensitivity for *lots* of people, just like there would have been had realistic WWII video games been possible and in production in the 40s. It's too close to the real event to be easily digested as entertainment of this sort.

Apocalypse Now came out what, six years after the end of the Vietnam War?

[Bojay1997]

There will be sensitivity for *lots* of people, just like there would have been had realistic WWII video games been possible and in production in the 40s. It's too close to the real event to be easily digested as entertainment of this sort.

Apocalypse Now came out what, six years after the end of the Vietnam War?

Throughout history, literature and more recently, movies have been made that were released while the conflicts were still going on. Some were serious, some were designed as propaganda, some were meant to create public questioning of a war and others were just escapism. Was Generation Kill too soon? What about the Conflict Desert Storm games? Americans died in the first Gulf War too you know. Should living WW II vets be upset when they see all the WW II shooters out there, especially those who lost friends or family in the war? This game is no different.

As someone who comes from a multi-generational military family, I think you guys greatly underestimate the range of opinions on political and social issues in the modern military. Plenty of veterans and active duty military personnel voted Obama and would like us to get out of the war immediately. I'm sure plenty also voted McCain and support the continuation of the war.

I think you underestimate the artistic and social value of video games and I really hope this game does come out if for no other reason than to spark debate about why some people might be offended by a game about a controversial war.

[Nature Boy]

Should living WW II vets be upset when they see all the WW II shooters out there, especially those who lost friends or family in the war?

Who are you or I to say what they should or should not think? Some will be, some won't be. Everyone is different.

I have played some games I would consider outstanding, but if you ask me to name even one that stimulated a conversation about social issues or religion or war I'd draw a total blank. It's one reason I'll never see my hobby as 'art' per se.

[Half Japanese]

A wise person once quipped in a comments section (about a completely unrelated matter):

Being butthurt on someone else's behalf is the internet's favorite pastime.

[Nature Boy]

Being butthurt on someone else's behalf is the internet's favorite pastime.

Except for maybe trolling on the internet...

[PapaStu]

The reason we've seen few Vietnam shooters and why we'll see few Iraq shooters is because these wars were either 'lost' (Vietnam) or won't really end in the way a war used to end (with a surrender, total destruction ect). It's hard to play these games that have a very drawn line in the sand of this is a good guy, this is a bad guy, and with the bad guy's death it gets us closer to beating the level and us winning the battle and the war.

That's why if we're going to have any more modern war shooters, they'll have to be like CoD4: Modern Warfare. A fake war that we can beat the bad guys and thus feel good in the end about.


Besides, there is a mantra of working on wars 'too close' to when its happened for those involved. The Vietman stuff is just coming into that range of something developers would think to look at, but since we lost that war, how do we portray it in a way for the player to beat the game in the usual sense?

[NayusDante]

The Vietman stuff is just coming into that range of something developers would think to look at, but since we lost that war, how do we portray it in a way for the player to beat the game in the usual sense?

Easy, Gundam Crossfire did it. After you finish the Zeon campaign, the game gives you an epilogue explaining that even though you won the final battle, Zeon still lost, and your pilot was eventually captured as a POW.

You can say a lot more with a sad ending than a happy one.

[PapaStu]

Easy, Gundam Crossfire did it. After you finish the Zeon campaign, the game gives you an epilogue explaining that even though you won the final battle, Zeon still lost, and your pilot was eventually captured as a POW.

You can say a lot more with a sad ending than a happy one.

I realized that right after I wrote it. In both of the Civil War games (not that they are good, but work with me here), you play missions on both sides. The actions in this case are contained specifically in that mission. I'm doing X task to take out some Union thing as a confederate and they mention nothing of the whole outcome of the battle/war, just the completion of my task. It was an ingenious way to handle the fact that though I played Gettysburg as the south and their route was at hand, it didn't matter in the small scale as I was just the one soldier doing that specific mission.

So if games were tooled that way it could be quite a non issue and if done properly it could be a very moving level/game (much like CoD4 was when the nuke dropped in the middle of the game and you played the final moments of one of your characters, that had me stunned honestly).