Six Days in Fallujah

galenblade

Well, this is interesting.

In a darkened hotel room just south of San Francisco's downtown, Peter Tamte, president of Atomic Games, is excitedly running through the details of the company's latest project, "Six Days in Fallujah." Mr. Tamte and his team tapped dozens of soldiers who were involved in the real-life 2004 battle for the Iraqi city to add realism to their action game, which the company plans to release next year.

Verisimilitude is par for the course for military games which often tout their faithfulness to real battles and wars. As the capabilities of videogame hardware have burgeoned, the bar for realism in games has been raised. But Atomic Games wants its new release to be more than a game. The company sees it as a new kind of documentary.

"For us, games are not just toys. If you look at how music, television and films have made sense of the complex issues of their times, it makes sense to do that with videogames," Mr. Tamte says.

I won't lie when I say this unsettles me a bit. Modern Warfare games are all well and good. But this particular war is still pretty controversial. And I remember the flare-up when Vietnam War games were being made. Is this a case of "too soon"? Or is it, as the developers claim, a way of making games into something that deal with difficult and controversial subjects that have impacted our lives?

Zombiemambo

People need to say whatever needs to be said, even if it's "too soon." Any person in his right mind would agree that this war was a terrible idea.

Duffel

IIRC, there were Iraq War II videogames being made and played while the invasion was going on.

At the time even we dumb high school kids thought it was pretty tasteless.

Archonex

Just because something is controversial and modern doesn't mean it should be excluded from media. There's no cut-off line for when something becomes tasteful, or it's meaning is reduced. If you want to wait for it to become appropriate, then you'll be waiting forever since there'll always be someone who objects to it.

Now, if this is just a bunch of rednecks running around shooting the natives, that'd be tasteless, but the fact that they're consulting actual soldiers says to me that they're aiming for a realistic interpretation of the war.

randombattle

Archonex wrote: »

Just because something is controversial and modern doesn't mean it should be excluded from media. There's no cut-off line for when something becomes tasteful, or it's meaning is reduced.

Now, if this is just a bunch of rednecks running around shooting the natives, that'd be tasteless, but the fact that they're consulting actual soldiers says to me that they're aiming for a realistic interpretation of the war.

That still doesn't really make it a good idea.

I dunno this just sounds like a terrible idea for a game and will probably be mediocre at best so they are cashing in on some controversy to play it up.

Buttcleft

Duffel wrote: »

IIRC, there were Iraq War II videogames being made and played while the invasion was going on.

At the time even we dumb high school kids thought it was pretty tasteless.

I wonder who captured Baghdad first, The US Military or XxPlayaboi662xX

Archonex

randombattle wrote: »

Archonex wrote: »

Just because something is controversial and modern doesn't mean it should be excluded from media. There's no cut-off line for when something becomes tasteful, or it's meaning is reduced.

Now, if this is just a bunch of rednecks running around shooting the natives, that'd be tasteless, but the fact that they're consulting actual soldiers says to me that they're aiming for a realistic interpretation of the war.

That still doesn't really make it a good idea.

I dunno this just sounds like a terrible idea for a game and will probably be mediocre at best so they are cashing in on some controversy to play it up.

You can't really say that they're cashing in on a controversy until we know more about the plot and the game itself. It's entirely possible that they could portray the war in a respectful manner.

randombattle

Archonex wrote: »

randombattle wrote: »

Archonex wrote: »

Just because something is controversial and modern doesn't mean it should be excluded from media. There's no cut-off line for when something becomes tasteful, or it's meaning is reduced.

Now, if this is just a bunch of rednecks running around shooting the natives, that'd be tasteless, but the fact that they're consulting actual soldiers says to me that they're aiming for a realistic interpretation of the war.

That still doesn't really make it a good idea.

I dunno this just sounds like a terrible idea for a game and will probably be mediocre at best so they are cashing in on some controversy to play it up.

You can't really say that they're cashing in on a controversy until we know more about the plot and the game itself. It's entirely possible that they could portray the war in a respectful manner.

What are the chances that it won't? Probably more.

Food

It's about time that someone made a video game with a thoughtful, realistic, and meaningful take on war. I have severe doubts that this game will accomplish that, however.

Metal Gear Solid 2 Demo

randombattle wrote: »

Archonex wrote: »

randombattle wrote: »

Archonex wrote: »

Just because something is controversial and modern doesn't mean it should be excluded from media. There's no cut-off line for when something becomes tasteful, or it's meaning is reduced.

Now, if this is just a bunch of rednecks running around shooting the natives, that'd be tasteless, but the fact that they're consulting actual soldiers says to me that they're aiming for a realistic interpretation of the war.

That still doesn't really make it a good idea.

I dunno this just sounds like a terrible idea for a game and will probably be mediocre at best so they are cashing in on some controversy to play it up.

You can't really say that they're cashing in on a controversy until we know more about the plot and the game itself. It's entirely possible that they could portray the war in a respectful manner.

What are the chances that it won't? Probably more.

I think it's a bit quick to jump them for making it only for the controversy.

Read the article, they seem to be doing their best to keep it as close to the combat as possible

What would be controversial is if they made this and just threw it in some Battlefield 2 like game. Then you can jump on them

BloodySloth

The way they talk about the game says to me this isn't a game where you're just going to run around in body armor shootin' the fuk outta sum brown peepol olol. I mean, really, the fact that Army of Two and Blood on the Sand took place in some fantasy version of the Middle East does very little to disguise the fact that they were tasteless lifts from real life situations. On the other side, Modern Combat may have been a fake conflict, but one would have to be dense not to see the immediate parallels to what is really happening. Just because this time they aren't veiling the subject doesn't make it any more or less offensive, in my eyes.

I'm all for a well done game based around this. If movies can (and have) been doing it throughout the entire conflict, I don't see why video games can't. That just strikes me as some weird sort of market-wide inferiority complex.

Metal Gear Solid 2 Demo

And as this article states
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2009/04/fallujahgamekonami.html

The soldiers came to the game developers, so it seems that the soldiers on board aren't just your typical throw-away 'advisers' but are really ingrained into the production process.

Rent

*/me waves*
Hey, soldier and gamer over here
Personally, I'd love to play a video game about the current conflict, as long as it's handled tastefully
I don't really want a game that either paints us (soldiers) as fucking amazing human beings, supermen amongst the human race, nor do I want it to be some cheap shot at how awful and fucked up this conflict is, just using us for their soapbox.
Basically, I want Generation Kill: The Videogame
I dunno if this can deliver
Oh, by the way, people in the army will snap this shit up like crazy. Fucking flying off the fucking shelves, I predict

Nuzak

i'm not entirely sure you can cover an actual war in a meaningful, let alone tasteful way in a vidyagame, especially one so fresh

G Rol

galenblade wrote: »

Well, this is interesting.

In a darkened hotel room just south of San Francisco's downtown, Peter Tamte, president of Atomic Games, is excitedly running through the details of the company's latest project, "Six Days in Fallujah." Mr. Tamte and his team tapped dozens of soldiers who were involved in the real-life 2004 battle for the Iraqi city to add realism to their action game, which the company plans to release next year.

Verisimilitude is par for the course for military games which often tout their faithfulness to real battles and wars. As the capabilities of videogame hardware have burgeoned, the bar for realism in games has been raised. But Atomic Games wants its new release to be more than a game. The company sees it as a new kind of documentary.

"For us, games are not just toys. If you look at how music, television and films have made sense of the complex issues of their times, it makes sense to do that with videogames," Mr. Tamte says.

I won't lie when I say this unsettles me a bit. Modern Warfare games are all well and good. But this particular war is still pretty controversial. And I remember the flare-up when Vietnam War games were being made. Is this a case of "too soon"? Or is it, as the developers claim, a way of making games into something that deal with difficult and controversial subjects that have impacted our lives?

Oh, what the fuck ever. My eyes can't roll back far enough. I'm sure this action game will rock my political world.

Olivaw

I think that, if this is handled in a mature manner with respect for the people and the events being portrayed, and they don't try and censor stuff or make it more accessible, then this could be a potent, powerful game that could be a breakthrough into a sort of "documentary" genre of video games, as they say. If done well it could even be one of those games that could be considered art

But the chances of that are exceedingly slim considering what the video game industry looks like nowadays, so it'll probably turn out more like Terrorist Hunter or whatever the fuck that game was called where you could kickbox Osama Bin Laden

BloodySloth

G Rol wrote: »

galenblade wrote: »

Well, this is interesting.

In a darkened hotel room just south of San Francisco's downtown, Peter Tamte, president of Atomic Games, is excitedly running through the details of the company's latest project, "Six Days in Fallujah." Mr. Tamte and his team tapped dozens of soldiers who were involved in the real-life 2004 battle for the Iraqi city to add realism to their action game, which the company plans to release next year.

Verisimilitude is par for the course for military games which often tout their faithfulness to real battles and wars. As the capabilities of videogame hardware have burgeoned, the bar for realism in games has been raised. But Atomic Games wants its new release to be more than a game. The company sees it as a new kind of documentary.

"For us, games are not just toys. If you look at how music, television and films have made sense of the complex issues of their times, it makes sense to do that with videogames," Mr. Tamte says.

I won't lie when I say this unsettles me a bit. Modern Warfare games are all well and good. But this particular war is still pretty controversial. And I remember the flare-up when Vietnam War games were being made. Is this a case of "too soon"? Or is it, as the developers claim, a way of making games into something that deal with difficult and controversial subjects that have impacted our lives?

Oh, what the fuck ever. My eyes can't roll back far enough. I'm sure this action game will rock my political world.

Something doesn't have to "rock your world" in order to touch on valid issues. Black Hawk Down didn't "rock my political world," but it was still a well done and meaningful take on the situation (even if it was just an action movie).

Wibod

Brothers in Arms in the desert? I'd say if it's on par with the first two BiA games it could be considered tasteful considering how well presented the first two were.

twmjr

Olivaw wrote: »

I think that, if this is handled in a mature manner with respect for the people and the events being portrayed, and they don't try and censor stuff or make it more accessible, then this could be a potent, powerful game that could be a breakthrough into a sort of "documentary" genre of video games, as they say. If done well it could even be one of those games that could be considered art

What is done in these areas will tell us what the creators are going for. I don't have a problem with this if it's done well.

The facts behind the war are never going to change, but people's perceptions can. Granted, they may be far and few between, but there will be some people who will sit back after playing this with a new realization about just how much war sucks (and that's an understatement). This is especially true given how much this sort of thing can hit home as opposed to playing a character in a far-in-the-past or fictional war. Instead of just some character getting killed, maimed - whatever - this time it could be your [buddy/sibling/father/whomever]. The only way to have an accurate opinion on whether or not a particular war is justifiable is to understand the sacrifice being made to wage it. If this helps even a few people better understand that sacrifice, then I say kudos to the developers.

TekDragon

Could be interesting education for both sides. If gritty and real enough, gung-ho conservatives might think twice about the need to send young men to war.

If it properly covers the foreign insurgent presence in Falluja (and the rest of Iraq) that was torturing and butchering the Iraqi civilians - it might educate all the naive little liberals running around thinking Saddam was an "ok guy" and the insurgents are "Iraqi freedom fighters fighting against imperialist aggressors".

Then again we all know the truth. It won't educate anyone. Ultra righties will complain it doesn't portray our soldiers as heroes and the liberals... well, no one cares about the neo-hippies anymore.

Stolls

I think a good example of how this can be done well can be found, of all places, in the Soviet Assault expansion to World in Conflict. It was one thing when the Reds were this faceless, unstoppable wave of machines and men you simply had to hold out against, but it was another when the roles were reversed and it was on you - playing the Russian officer - to pacify the countryside around Seattle. Officers openly argued with each other; one drew direct parallels to Afghanistan in dealing with local guerrillas and civilians, and advocated collective punishment against the Americans for every fallen soldier.

Now this by itself doesn't make a compelling war game, but where it fits in with a take on modern, existing conflicts is how the game structure was laid out. You weren't there to win the whole war. You played as the Americans, you know what happens. Your job was to follow orders, achieve your objectives, and get home alive, and not necessarily in that order.

A similar approach may help a game about Iraq, and specifically Fallujah, be more intellectually honest - if not more interesting. Some playable sections may not even be about the action; it may involve the military equivalent of police work, figuring out which locals can be trusted and which can't (and which are outsiders posing as locals), maintaining supply lines and communications, and so on. The action segments may focus more on accomplishing objectives than on clearing rooms, on doing your part rather than always leading the charge. If it's wise, it will keep a tight focus on the ugly, complicated reality of war. Less of the broad, vague "war is terrible and should be a last resort," and more of the "holy shit, is that what we've been sending men and women into?"

I don't know. There are a lot of ways this could boil down to a Modern Warfare redux, and that's still being generous, but I think there is fertile ground for a new kind of war game here. That actual soldiers with experience in the region are involved in its development is a positive sign, and I'll at least keep an eye out for it if and when it's released.

Olivaw

Honestly I'm not sure how much of what they say is true and how much is bullshit

A lot of it sounds like it's trying to drum up hype or anticipation for a game that is just gonna be a Modern Warfare clone or somesuch

I mean, they talked to Iraqis involved in the conflict as well? What, were they civilians or army? Because they sure as shit weren't insurgents. And did they know what they were doing? Making a video game of the war? Because I doubt they'd participate if they knew

Unless they got paid gobs of money I guess, I really don't know

Drake

Considering that it's still unclear exactly what happened in the siege of Fallujah, I think this is a very bad idea.

It's going to come off as propaganda, one way or another.

Buttcleft

TekDragon wrote: »

Could be interesting education for both sides. If gritty and real enough, gung-ho conservatives might think twice about the need to send young men to war.

If it properly covers the foreign insurgent presence in Falluja (and the rest of Iraq) that was torturing and butchering the Iraqi civilians - it might educate all the naive little liberals running around thinking Saddam was an "ok guy" and the insurgents are "Iraqi freedom fighters fighting against imperialist aggressors".

Then again we all know the truth. It won't educate anyone. Ultra righties will complain it doesn't portray our soldiers as heroes and the liberals... well, no one cares about the neo-hippies anymore.

More like, they'll look at it and think that its a vidyagaem and must be for children, and them showing that kind of shit to children is Satan's work then we'll have Hillary's panties all in a twist again over how video games are trying to pervert our youth or some shit.

Olivaw

Hillary is the Secretary of State now, she's out of the political game

But I wouldn't put it past the GOP to try and grope desperately for a hot button issue they can campaign against

SniperGuy

Reminds me of Kuma: War just from the outset.

And that is not a good thing

TekDragon

Olivaw wrote: »

Hillary is the Secretary of State now, she's out of the political game

But I wouldn't put it past the GOP to try and grope desperately for a hot button issue they can campaign against

Yeah.. like the Democrats didn't use Social Security reform as a hot button issue for the 06 elections, like they didn't use the Iraq War as a hot button issue in 08.

And yet what do you see? ZERO change in policy in Iraq, and now the Dems finally agree SS needs looking at to remain solvent.

I'm so sick of all the little kids running around acting like their party is the sole holder of virtue and the other party is made up of morons.

For every racist redneck in the conservative party there's an ignorant race-card pulling, naive little utopian ideologing neo-liberal smack-tard on the right.

Drake

TekDragon wrote: »

Olivaw wrote: »

Hillary is the Secretary of State now, she's out of the political game

But I wouldn't put it past the GOP to try and grope desperately for a hot button issue they can campaign against

Yeah.. like the Democrats didn't use Social Security reform as a hot button issue for the 06 elections, like they didn't use the Iraq War as a hot button issue in 08.

And yet what do you see? ZERO change in policy in Iraq, and now the Dems finally agree SS needs looking at to remain solvent.

I'm so sick of all the little kids running around acting like their party is the sole holder of virtue and the other party is made up of morons.

For every racist redneck in the conservative party there's an ignorant race-card pulling, naive little utopian ideologing neo-liberal smack-tard on the right.

D&D is around the corner.

BloodySloth

TekDragon wrote: »

Olivaw wrote: »

Hillary is the Secretary of State now, she's out of the political game

But I wouldn't put it past the GOP to try and grope desperately for a hot button issue they can campaign against

Yeah.. like the Democrats didn't use Social Security reform as a hot button issue for the 06 elections, like they didn't use the Iraq War as a hot button issue in 08.

And yet what do you see? ZERO change in policy in Iraq, and now the Dems finally agree SS needs looking at to remain solvent.

I'm so sick of all the little kids running around acting like their party is the sole holder of virtue and the other party is made up of morons.

For every racist redneck in the conservative party there's an ignorant race-card pulling, naive little utopian ideologing neo-liberal smack-tard on the right.

You really inferred quite a bit from that little post, didn't you?

Olivaw

TekDragon wrote: »

Olivaw wrote: »

Hillary is the Secretary of State now, she's out of the political game

But I wouldn't put it past the GOP to try and grope desperately for a hot button issue they can campaign against

Yeah.. like the Democrats didn't use Social Security reform as a hot button issue for the 06 elections, like they didn't use the Iraq War as a hot button issue in 08.

And yet what do you see? ZERO change in policy in Iraq, and now the Dems finally agree SS needs looking at to remain solvent.

I'm so sick of all the little kids running around acting like their party is the sole holder of virtue and the other party is made up of morons.

For every racist redneck in the conservative party there's an ignorant race-card pulling, naive little utopian ideologing neo-liberal smack-tard on the right.

First of all, aren't they looking at getting out the majority of combat troops in Iraq? Because that seems like a policy change to me

Secondly, those were at least issues. Video game violence and content is not an issue. That is what I meant by "hot-button." Perhaps a better term would have been "bullshit bandwagon"

And why even bring any of that up, I barely even said anything about anything

Why the fuck are we even talking about this

What the fuck, guy

tetsuoZshima

All due respect to everyone in the military, or supportive of the military, but I'm really sick and tired of people saying shit like "the Iraq war" -- there was no Iraq war. The last war declared by our country was in 1941.

A jackass president can not declare a war. No matter how much he wants/tries/says it. And people fighting for our country are fighting for our beliefs, our constitution, and should know and respect it -- an important part of which says that CONGRESS declares war; not a single hot head trying to remove attention from himself.

Military conflict, engagement, whatever, but a war it was not, nor has there been. And it's not just semantics, there is a very large difference.

This is no way demeans the people that fought for our country, or have died for our country; much respect to them all as well as their families; but when the public stops questioning the man on top is when we all end up in the toilet.

Zoel

tetsuoZshima wrote: »

All due respect to everyone in the military, or supportive of the military, but I'm really sick and tired of people saying shit like "the Iraq war" -- there was no Iraq war. The last war declared by our country was in 1941.

A jackass president can not declare a war. No matter how much he wants/tries/says it. And people fighting for our country are fighting for our beliefs, our constitution, and should know and respect it -- an important part of which says that CONGRESS declares war; not a single hot head trying to remove attention from himself.

Military conflict, engagement, whatever, but a war it was not, nor has there been. And it's not just semantics, there is a very large difference.

This is no way demeans the people that fought for our country, or have died for our country; much respect to them all as well as their families; but when the public stops questioning the man on top is when we all end up in the toilet.

actually while we do define wartime periods by law we never actually legally concluded the present iraq war, which has been going on since 1990.

refrence: VA.gov

(i) Persian Gulf War. August 2, 1990, through date to be prescribed by Presidential proclamation or law. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 101(33))

38 CFR 3.2

But that's legal mumbo jumbo that nobody cares about

I know that people don't really understand law and stuff but holy god it's called iraq war two because it's the second one we've followed there is not some sort of tinfoil conspiracy here

if you try to say it's still the first war or that there was no iraq war two then nobody is going to understand what you're talking about, sorry.

chasehatesbears

tetsuoZshima wrote: »

All due respect to everyone in the military, or supportive of the military, but I'm really sick and tired of people saying shit like "the Iraq war" -- there was no Iraq war. The last war declared by our country was in 1941.

A jackass president can not declare a war. No matter how much he wants/tries/says it. And people fighting for our country are fighting for our beliefs, our constitution, and should know and respect it -- an important part of which says that CONGRESS declares war; not a single hot head trying to remove attention from himself.

Military conflict, engagement, whatever, but a war it was not, nor has there been. And it's not just semantics, there is a very large difference.

This is no way demeans the people that fought for our country, or have died for our country; much respect to them all as well as their families; but when the public stops questioning the man on top is when we all end up in the toilet.

I don't think one needs to declare war through proper means for a war to actually occur.

TychoCelchuuu

Anyone notice that the Close Combat guys are making this? I'm actually pretty hopeful. Close Combats one through five were awesome.

Wibod

So I'm wondering what role civilians and stuff like IEDs will play. It would be interesting if they turned it into something like ArmA or OpFlash from a gameplay perspective but had it focused on the story just prior to the events of Fallujah and then following through. I'm also wondering if they're going to try and make the player feel as if they are in danger and that as a single man you're more or less helpless.

Edit: ^^ If this is true I wouldn't be overly worried about a lot of things since the CC guys definitely know what they're doing.

BloodySloth

Dictionary.com says...

1. a conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation; warfare, as by land, sea, or air.
2. a state or period of armed hostility or active military operations: The two nations were at war with each other.
3. a contest carried on by force of arms, as in a series of battles or campaigns: the War of 1812.
4. active hostility or contention; conflict; contest: a war of words.
5. aggressive business conflict, as through severe price cutting in the same industry or any other means of undermining competitors: a fare war among airlines; a trade war between nations.
6. a struggle: a war for men's minds; a war against poverty.
7. armed fighting, as a science, profession, activity, or art; methods or principles of waging armed conflict: War is the soldier's business.

What's going on in Iraq comfortably fits within almost every single one of those definitions. Just because congress was sidestepped doesn't mean it's not a war.

Drake

Wibod wrote: »

So I'm wondering what role civilians and stuff like IEDs will play. It would be interesting if they turned it into something like ArmA or OpFlash from a gameplay perspective but had it focused on the story just prior to the events of Fallujah and then following through. I'm also wondering if they're going to try and make the player feel as if they are in danger and that as a single man you're more or less helpless.

Edit: ^^ If this is true I wouldn't be overly worried about a lot of things since the CC guys definitely know what they're doing.

Yeah, actually I think they are just the type of dev to handle something like this.

chasehatesbears

I'm not sure how crazy I am about the whole idea. I would feel weird playing a game about a real event that people are still dying because of.

It's not the most rational objection. I've enjoyed plenty of WW2 shooters. But I guess WW2 doesn't seem as real to me, because I was born in the 80's.

Zoel

Well, I will probably watch it very closely. For various professional reasons I already read innumerable terrible books about the present conflict, so I don't see why I wouldn't play a terrible (or good, whatever) video game about it-- a video game will probably have a larger effect on perceptions than the 1000 page manifestos written about the war anyway. I am hoping that they manage to translate the interviews of the soldiers into a cohesive timeline, at the very least.

Stolls

chasehatesbears wrote: »

I'm not sure how crazy I am about the whole idea. I would feel weird playing a game about a real event that people are still dying because of.

It's not the most rational objection. I've enjoyed plenty of WW2 shooters. But I guess WW2 doesn't seem as real to me, because I was born in the 80's.

It's part emotional distance due to time and part the relative clarity of WW2 that makes it an easier subject for gaming. Yes, there are worthwhile nuances to explore, but at the end of the day the Axis powers are clear aggressors, making them (especially those lovable Nazis) a defensible choice for game villains. Short version, it's easier to market a game about shooting obvious bad guys.

Or something like that. Anyway, conflicts since then have become increasingly more complicated and less clear-cut, which in turn makes it difficult to tell a conventional game story. Here, you run into problems because some of the people shooting at you are bad guys, and some are just pissed off because they haven't had running water or electricity for months. That's just for starters; any game that's going to adequately depict what happened in 2004, even just the combat and tactical side of it, is going to have to grapple with a lot of ugly realities.

So, yeah. Feeling a little weird about this is normal, I think. I still want to see where they take this.

G Rol

BloodySloth wrote: »

G Rol wrote: »

galenblade wrote: »

Well, this is interesting.

In a darkened hotel room just south of San Francisco's downtown, Peter Tamte, president of Atomic Games, is excitedly running through the details of the company's latest project, "Six Days in Fallujah." Mr. Tamte and his team tapped dozens of soldiers who were involved in the real-life 2004 battle for the Iraqi city to add realism to their action game, which the company plans to release next year.

Verisimilitude is par for the course for military games which often tout their faithfulness to real battles and wars. As the capabilities of videogame hardware have burgeoned, the bar for realism in games has been raised. But Atomic Games wants its new release to be more than a game. The company sees it as a new kind of documentary.

"For us, games are not just toys. If you look at how music, television and films have made sense of the complex issues of their times, it makes sense to do that with videogames," Mr. Tamte says.

I won't lie when I say this unsettles me a bit. Modern Warfare games are all well and good. But this particular war is still pretty controversial. And I remember the flare-up when Vietnam War games were being made. Is this a case of "too soon"? Or is it, as the developers claim, a way of making games into something that deal with difficult and controversial subjects that have impacted our lives?

Oh, what the fuck ever. My eyes can't roll back far enough. I'm sure this action game will rock my political world.

Something doesn't have to "rock your world" in order to touch on valid issues. Black Hawk Down didn't "rock my political world," but it was still a well done and meaningful take on the situation (even if it was just an action movie).

I agree that Black Hawk Down is a powerful film, but focus of that flick is characters' reactions to a situation, not the situation itself. I don't doubt the developer's ability to make something emotionally stirring with the subject matter; I do doubt that they'll "make sense of the complex issues of the times". I don't think any Operation Iraqi(sp?) Freedom media analysis of any sort has accomplished this yet.

I'm just matching the developer's over-promising with hyperbole of my own. They know that they're making something controversial; but using this particular argument for it's development is weak sauce.