Have any of you seen this (http://videogames.yahoo.com/events/plugged-in/new-game-based-on-iraq-war-sparks-anger-outrage/1302257)?
I love the comments: "they're judging it beforehand", its a "Documentary Game", "it will be able to inform people about the issue".
What a load of fucking bullshit tripe. They've turned one of the worst atrocities of the Iraq war into a First Person Shooter so that you too can go drop White Phosphorus on ali baba.
Its sickening.
RPGPundit
what do u expect from fps developers? they already ran ww2 into the ground so now they need a new war to exploit for cash.
What atrocity?
Quote from: Werekoala;297514What atrocity?
Please tell me that you are joking?
Wow. A Fallujah game. What do you know...
Now, that's really stupid and insensitive.
I am confused by the outrage. Do WW2 games and Vietnam games get a pass just because American's have no concept of history?
Spinachat has the right of it.
One offended Colonel said,
"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."
Why Fallujah rather than any other particular battle in any particular conflict? Is it merely that this one is in our generation, and the others in past generations? Was the use of white phosphorous and indscriminate use of weapons worse than over Kosovo, in Hue or Okinawa? Worse than the firebombing of Dresden or Coventry?
Let's turn the question around: if Fallujah cannot be used as a video game because of its particular nature, please describe to us the characteristics a battle or war should have for it to be allowed to have a game about it? Please list them.
I mean, I can tell you mine: a game should not be about being the perpertrators or victims of a genocide. That's going too far. Atrocities can happen in a game, but they ought not to involve the PCs, and the PCs should be fighting such people. Short of that, I'm not too fussed.
What are your particular standards?
This is not "new".
Technically such a game scenme is already possible - its called "CALL OF DUTY 4" MODERN WARFARE for the X-Box 360.
At the game store we 4 gaming pods that are basically X-Box 360s linked up with nice gaming chairs. Marines and Soldiers that have been over in Iraq say that the generic Middle East urban environment scenes are damn close to what they experienced while over there. Many of these guys get on there and say its pretty realistic....they even use Marine Corps tactics while playing.
The only real difference between this new game and the one from two years ago for X-BOX? Its a named city and infamous battle.
- Ed C.
Quote from: Venosha;297559Please tell me that you are joking?
Well, our soldiers commit so many, I just want to make sure I know which specific one his indignation is directed against. There was, after all, a stunning lack of detail in his toss-off comment. Fallujah was a battle, made up of many engagements spread out over a protracted period, after all.
Quote from: Werekoala;297614Well, our soldiers commit so many, I just want to make sure I know which specific one his indignation is directed against. There was, after all, a stunning lack of detail in his toss-off comment. Fallujah was a battle, made up of many engagements spread out over a protracted period, after all.
QuoteThe U.S. military first denied that it has used white phosphorus as an anti-personnel weapon in Fallujah, but later retracted that denial, and admitted to using the substance in the city as an offensive weapon.[16]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallujah
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4440664.stm
I sympathize Koala. The world today has so many atrocities, it's pretty hard keeping track of even a small subset.
Have you seen the still photos of DIME victims, for example? It's not recommended before meals.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dense_Inert_Metal_Explosive
How about the paragraph before that, for context (emphasis mine):
This led to an abortive US operation to recapture control of the city in Operation Vigilant Resolve, and a successful recapture operation in the city in November 2004, called Operation Phantom Fury in English and Operation Al Fajr in Arabic. Operation Phantom Fury resulted in the reputed death of over 1,350 insurgent fighters. Approximately 95 American troops were killed, and over 1,000 wounded. After the successful recapture of the city, U.S. forces discovered beheading chambers and bomb-making factories, which were shown to the media as evidence of Fallujah's important role in the insurgency against U.S. forces. They also found two hostages--an Iraqi and a Syrian. The Syrian was the driver for two French journalists, Christian Chesnot and Georges Malbrunot, who had been missing since August, 2004. The Iraqi's captors were Syrian; he thought he was in Syria until found by the Marines.[14] Chesnot and Malbrunot were released by their captors, the Islamic Army in Iraq, on December 21, 2004.[15]
So our troops used WP against terrorists, not civilians, as indicated in the BBC article. That's an attrocity now, is it?
As to DIME, it is stated that its purpose is to limit collateral damage (per your link) - surely a worthy goal? Sorry if it messes up the corpses a bit in the process.
Face it, some people would bitch if we hung the enemy with a new rope.
Given that this is "just" a game, will we be able to play either side?
perhaps this would be less distasteful if it waited a few years until the war ended (if it ever does) before release. That said I have no problem with Call of Duty and CoD4 is a very well made game that most certainly doesn't glorify the modern warfare it portrays.
E2A: the opinion of someone whining to the Dail Mail holds little water with me. As soon as I saw the name of that hate rag I stopped reading.
I don't see how this game is any different from any other FPS set in a war, all wars are tragic and probably shouldn't be portrayed in a game, but I don't see you whining and crying about COD4 or COD5.
Quote from: RockViper;297746I don't see how this game is any different from any other FPS set in a war, all wars are tragic and probably shouldn't be portrayed in a game, but I don't see you whining and crying about COD4 or COD5.
Speaking as someone who has (in games) slaughtered thousands of Gauls and Britons, inaccurately dropped bombs from B-17s, sunk thousands of tons of merchant shipping, and nuked entire cities, I think we have a winner.
Quote from: Bohemian;297643Given that this is "just" a game, will we be able to play either side?
You know, Arabic insurgents in Iraq or Afghanistan are actually an awesome FPS scenario. It's got all the classic elements. You're outnumbered and outgunned by futuristic cyborgs, and all you've got is your trusty assault rifle and your cleverness to defeat them. It'll never be made. of course.
It'd make a fun roleplaying game, too. Or, some people might find it fun.
I'm not sure that Australia's current sedition laws (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_sedition_law#Current_Law) wouldn't proscribe it, as some idiot might construe it as urging engagement or assistance to those engaged in armed hostilities against the ADF.
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;297755You know, Arabic insurgents in Iraq or Afghanistan are actually an awesome FPS scenario. It's got all the classic elements. You're outnumbered and outgunned by futuristic cyborgs, and all you've got is your trusty assault rifle and your cleverness to defeat them. It'll never be made. of course.
See, that's the question. It *would* be an awesome scenario, but it's won't get made any time soon. There's a tacit understanding that a certain sets of values and tactics are "okay" to portray in a game, while another set isn't. The implication, it seems to me, is that putting the player into the shoes of one side during a real life conflict is read as an endorsement of that side's actions.
If this game were really trying to serve as a "documentary", then it would allow the playing of either side. Instead, it seems like propaganda at best.
A documentary can be factual AND told from a point of view. The story of WWII told from the point of view of cryptologists makes it a focus piece, not a propaganda piece. A factual documentary will only underscore the factual depravity of those involved even if the story is presented from their point of view.
I don't know enough about the game to comment on it directly, but since the gulf vets are all rabid X-box players anyway, catering to them is nothing more than good business sense.
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;297755You know, Arabic insurgents in Iraq or Afghanistan are actually an awesome FPS scenario. It's got all the classic elements. You're outnumbered and outgunned by futuristic cyborgs, and all you've got is your trusty assault rifle and your cleverness to defeat them. It'll never be made. of course.
...AGAIN, this has already been - on a technicality. In the game
CALL OF DUTY 4: MODERN WARFARE.
In the online multi-player mode, players have the option to choose a side represented by crossed arab-styled swords. It is portrayed in the game as a fictional militant Islamic insurgent kind of group. (IF you go by the clothing the game designers chose to put on the members of that faction)
- Ed C.
I'm reserving judgement. At worst I'll ignore it as long as it doesn't play like
Postal: The Iraq War.
Quote from: Koltar;298012...AGAIN, this has already been - on a technicality. In the game CALL OF DUTY 4: MODERN WARFARE.
In the online multi-player mode, players have the option to choose a side represented by crossed arab-styled swords. It is portrayed in the game as a fictional militant Islamic insurgent kind of group. (IF you go by the clothing the game designers chose to put on the members of that faction)
- Ed C.
I love CoD4 but it hardly counts Ed. Online play is evenly matched regardless of which side you play. Weaponry, battlefield advantage, etc. Everything about online play makes the clothing and curved swords irrelevant.
Battlefield 2 if anything did a
much better job of setting a more believable scenario.
Quote from: Werekoala;297625So our troops used WP against terrorists, not civilians, as indicated in the BBC article. That's an attrocity now, is it?
If you believe Wikipedia, you believe a lot of things. I don't believe Wikipedia. (Edit: Yeah, it was lazy of me to link to a source I don't put much stock in, but if I linked to something silly like the United Nations you would just report me to Senator McCarthy...)
I hear rumors that sometimes Americans give money and weapons to non-American soldiers and civilians get killed. Oddly enough this does not make Americans more popular.
However, to hear some Americans tell the story, sometimes American soldiers do indeed kill civilians.
In fact, here are the words of an American Marine who claims that Americans kill civilians. The first part explains the killing and the second part explains the motivation.
QuoteHe explained that the military goes to great lengths to avoid bombing weddings, that wedding-avoidance is practically an obsession, and they would try to keep from doing it too much in the future. I reckon it must have made any survivors feel good.
Funny, I too try to avoid bombing weddings, but I’m a lot more successful at it, despite a much smaller budget.
Now, I don’t want to sound cynical or anything. Still, I’d like to know how the good colonel would look at things if his daughter, if he has one, were having her wedding and kerblooey! Daughter and forty members of the family and close friends suddenly become clotting goo over a fifty-yard radius and the bombers say, “We’re sorry, kind of, but that wedding looked just like a troop concentration.” Troop concentrations always feature a woman in a white dress holding flowers. It’s what they teach at West Point.
http://www.fredoneverything.net/Body%20Scan.shtml
QuoteNow, we read a lot of PR about “surgical strikes” and “precision weapons.” Think carefully about this. Intel says a terrorist leader of indescribable potency is in a house in a flimsily constructed suburb. The Air Force then makes a surgical strike with a five-hundred-pound bomb, taking out half a block. Pretty surgical, that. Perhaps it was the right block—it is possible—but still kills seventy-five people. The male relatives of the dead then join the insurgency. Ray-rah air power. The Air Force can’t afford to understand this, as then it would have to find a day job.
So why does the Air Force engage in counterproductive tactics with totally inappropriate airplanes? Because it’s the only kind of airplanes it has. Why? Because fast, screaming, roaring, flashy zoom-buggies with lots of screens and switches and rockets are fun. Never, ever underestimate fun as a driver of military policy. A hot fighter is the world’s pizzazziest, priciest, swooshiest video game, an air-borne dirt bike with all the fixin’s. Really. You may think I’m trying to be snotty and clever. Think again. (All right, I’m trying to be snotty and clever, but what I’m saying is still true.)
Do you think I spent thirty years covering the military because I wanted to butcher puzzled third-world illiterates tending goats? No. It was fun. Low-level pop-and-drops in an F-16 out of Shaw AFB, F-15 air-to-air against Guard A-7s over Holloman, bomb runs at four hundred feet over hazy Wyoming badlands like the doorway to hell in a B-52—god, what a freaking trip, far better than growing up. Snazzy mask and helmet, five-g turns with your face flowing back behind your ears, world going inverted, burners kicking in…Hoo-ah!
It’s not called a joy stick for nothing.
And jet jocks get paid to do this. Whether it serves a practical purpose doesn’t matter. Not with rides like those. If you think these things don’t matter, you are out of your mind.
http://www.fredoneverything.net/Air%20Power.shtml
All you have to do to shut down that criticism of American bombs is to shut down those traitorous reprobates like Fred Reed. Heck, he's old, he'll kick off from old age real soon now. You just need to prevent the younger generation of American veterans from following his reprehensible example.
Realistic war games suck anyhow. Who the fuck wants to minimalize what gave real soldiers PTSD, Shell shock, whateverthefuck ya wanna call it?
I'd rather be a pilot at the Battle Of Yavin, or the Battle of Endor.
Battlefield II completely kicks ass.
Quote from: StormBringer;298668Battlefield II completely kicks ass.
QFMFT!
I wasn't that ever into realistic shooters until BF2 and now CoD4.
Quote from: Idinsinuation;298671QFMFT!
I wasn't that ever into realistic shooters until BF2 and now CoD4.
Eh. Neither of those games really constitute "realistic" in any sense but that they technically model real world weapons.
You want realistic, try Rainbow Six 3.
Quote from: J Arcane;298712Eh. Neither of those games really constitute "realistic" in any sense but that they technically model real world weapons.
You want realistic, try Rainbow Six 3.
I meant "realistic" as in no energy weapons, plasma grenades, power armor, force fields, and so on. Rainbow Six 3 was fun but I'll trade it's realism for the fun of CoD4 or BF2 any day.
I'm not a huge CoD4 guy myself, though I own it and like to play the campaign.
I'm much more of a Halo 3 fan, in fact. I can't get over this game. I just love it.
It's been cancelled apparently.
Though i'm more offended by the army retuitment ads on tv.
Quote from: Ghost Whistler;298839It's been cancelled apparently.
Not quite. Konami won't be publishing it but after 3-4 years of work the developers aren't giving up yet. I've also been reading how insurgents were interviewed for research into the game's developement so at least a token effort has gone into seeing the other side of the story. Whether that apparently unbiased approach will actually be represented in the final product remains to be seen.
Documentary my ass. (http://www.shacknews.com/featuredarticle.x?id=1110)
QuoteImmediately it was apparent that Six Days is not aiming for a very realistic take on modern warfare. I never did imagine that Atomic would create a plodding, Operation Flashpoint-esque shooter in the sacrifice of action-packed combat. But considering the extensive marketing on the point of realism, I certainly didn't expect to see soldiers running out into the middle of the street during a firefight, taking a half-dozen bullets in the chest, and then regenerating their health safely behind cover. Not in a planned demonstration for press, at least.
In fact, from what Konami showed us, Six Days is far closer to Gears of War than America's Army. It has the same Gears D-pad weapon selection, the same style of cover system, and the same action-oriented gameplay.
In another clip, the player broke off from his squad, crouched up behind two insurgents who were firing on US soldiers, and took them out from a few feet away like some kind of renegade commando. I may be ignorant of this particular battle, but I've certainly never heard of any Army ninjas breaking off from their squads and capping insurgents solo. Maybe something like that has happened once or twice; either way, the videogamey nature of the moment seemed entirely out of place.
Later on, a soldier fired a rifle-mounted M203 grenade launcher into a building--then fired it again, and again, in a rapid-fire Rambo tactic that you'd only ever see with a controller in your hand.
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;297755You know, Arabic insurgents in Iraq or Afghanistan are actually an awesome FPS scenario. It's got all the classic elements. You're outnumbered and outgunned by futuristic cyborgs, and all you've got is your trusty assault rifle and your cleverness to defeat them. It'll never be made. of course.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Under_Ash
There you have it. A game where you get to play an Arab militant and pwn Zionists. I think Hezbollah made a game too...
New from the Ministry of Defence toy department (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1115462/Hes-MoD-launches-Action-Man-range-toys-boost-profile-Armed-Forces.html).
Satan laughing indeed spreads his wings.
Quote from: Ghost Whistler;299868New from the Ministry of Defence toy department (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1115462/Hes-MoD-launches-Action-Man-range-toys-boost-profile-Armed-Forces.html).
Satan laughing indeed spreads his wings.
Thought this "Action Man" looked very familiar:
Quote1964 - GI Joe action figures introduced in U.S. by toy firm Hasbro, generating huge sales.
1966 - Action Man launched in UK by Palitoy - a simple copy of GI Joe produced under licence.
- Ed C.