Gamer War Vet Fears That Six Days in Fallujah Will Dishonor Those Who Served in Iraq

Just announced on Monday, Konami’s upcoming Iraq War game Six Days in Fallujah is already into its third day of controversy.

Yesterday, GamePolitics reported on concerns expressed by several critics in the U.K., including a decorated former army colonel and the father of a Royal Marine who was killed in Iraq.

Today’s interview with Dan Rosenthal is a little closer to home. Actually, make that a lot closer to home.

Dan (left) is a veteran of the Iraq War. He’s a longtime gamer. He’s also a law student and edits the excellent gameslaw.net blog, which we cite with regularity here on GamePolitics. I first met Dan at PAX 08. He attended GDC last month on on IGDA scholarship. So when he speaks from the heart about his war experience and his feelings about Six Days in Fallujah, I listen. As it happened, yesterday Dan and I interacted on Twitter about Konami’s controversial game. Afterward, Dan was gracious enough to consent to this interview:

GP: Dan, when were you in Iraq? What unit did you serve with?

DR: I served in the U.S. Army, 3rd Battalion 124th Infantry Regiment… Our unit was based out of Florida with the Florida National Guard, but during our time in Iraq we were attached to several units… I arrived in Kuwait in February 2003, participated in the invasion of Iraq in March, and left around a year later.

GP: Where were you stationed for the bulk of your Iraq tour?

DR: During the invasion, we drove upwards through southern Iraq, helped secure the area around Nasiriyah, then moved northward and conducted operations out of Baghdad for the remainder of the time… If you’ve ever seen the movie Gunner Palace, that base was a few hundred meters away from our compound, a former Republican Guard general officer’s quarters.  

GP: Did you see any combat?

DR: Well, we were an infantry unit, so that’s pretty much what we were designed for. During the invasion we were assigned as security for various elements… and helped to screen and cover the advance northward.  Once we were in Baghdad, we did security patrols in the city, as well as provided escort security for other units as needed. So, as you can expect, we found ourselves in trouble a fair bit of the time.

GP: When did you return from Iraq?

DR: March 2004. When I left, I was midway through my sophomore year at Florida State University, and when I returned, I found that the university had removed us from the university roster, and that we’d all have to re-take the SAT and reapply in order to come back. I had to fight with the university, all the way up to the president and the Adjutant General of the state, before we were allowed back. That’s when I first became involved with the Iraq War Veterans Organization, which I was a board member of for several years.

GP: And you jumped into law school when? Which school?

DR: Not until after I graduated and was out of the military, at American University, Washington College of Law in D.C.

GP: What are your gaming preferences? Have they changed since your tour?

DR: My gaming preferences have always been FPS games. I was a member of the development team for the Firearms mod for Half-Life, which eventually was acquired by Valve. I’ve always liked RTS games but I’m god-awful at them because I like to turtle and tech up, which never wins. I also like flight sims… and the Ace Combat series are still some of my favorite games. Since my tour in Iraq, I don’t think my preferences have changed much, except for hating the Metal Gear Solid series, especially the 4th installment which I feel paints PMCs [private military contractors] in an unrealistically negative light.

GP: What are your thoughts on Six Days in Fallujah?
 
DR: A "realistic" war game is not going to be fun — who wants to play a game where you sit around doing nothing, punctuated by raiding the wrong house and tearing apart the home of an irate Iraqi family, or sitting around on a convoy until your vehicle gets hit by an IED and your character dies, with no clear enemy in sight? Who wants to play that? In order to make the game fun (it’s a "game" after all), it simply has to sacrifice some amount of realism for fun factor.  When you do that with a war game based on a real war, with real people, you run the risk of dishonoring their memories and sacrifices, and I think that this game has a dangerous potential to do that.

I have worries that Konami, whose war game track record includes Boot Camp, Top Gun, Rush’n Attack/Green Beret, and of course, the wonderfully inaccurate Metal Gear series, cannot give the game the level of respect that it deserves.  The war in Iraq is an incredibly complex topic; the Middle East is an incredibly complex location, and I have major doubts that a company like Konami understands it enough to honor the memories of the soldiers around the world who have fought and died in Iraq.  It’s not a great start that the Creative Director at Atomic Games is on the one hand talking about trying to "present the horrors of war" and on the other hand make "entertainment". His own words. Or that the VP of marketing thinks that soldiers weren’t "men" before the war.

Will this game recreate what I felt watching one of my close friends die less than 10 feet away from me? Will this game recreate my experience of being shot at by children? Will this game recreate the positive experiences of Iraq, the endless hours spent with community leaders to rebuild schools and hospitals?  …The questioning of the reasons for getting into the war? Probably not. And let’s be honest, who would want to play that anyway, even if you could?

But for a developer who claims to want to "tell the stories" of soldiers, there’s a lot that they’re going to leave out. They’re certainly not telling my story. They’re not telling the background to the story. They’re not talking about how we got into Fallujah in the first place. They’re not talking about Scott Helvenston, who was pulled from his car, beaten, lit on fire, and his corpse hung from a bridge, which prompted the first battle of Fallujah. So what stories are they telling? Just another war game?

One of the things COD 4 did really well, is it used war as a backdrop. The real story in COD 4 was the hunt for Zakhaev… It didn’t reference the actual Iraq war, and didn’t need to get into the politics behind it, and Infinity Ward was able to tell a story without getting bogged down. This issue is unavoidable in Six Days. The game isn’t set in some unnamed country, it’s in Iraq, and it’s not some "unnamed city", it’s Fallujah. There’s no way for them to avoid that they chose to place this game in a location where 20,000 homes were damaged or destroyed, reportedly over 6,000 civilians were killed, and over 150,000 displaced.  Who is going to tell those stories?

One thing I’d like to make clear is that this is NOT an issue of censorship. I will fight to the death to defend Konami’s right to make this game… At the same time, I strongly protest their decision to actually do it. I think it is foolish, I think it’s inappropriate, and I don’t have very high hopes that they’re going to do a good job of it. I’d love to be proven wrong. I’d love for this game to be a Medal of Honor, or Call of Duty. Hey, I’d even love for it to be Operation Flashpoint or Armed Assault (two of my favorite games). But I’m not holding out hope.

GP: Thanks, Dan.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on RedditEmail this to someone

87 comments

  1. CRaftsman1459 says:

    People, people. This is a GAME. A video game created by Konami and Atomic Games for ENTERTAINMENT PURPOSES. Everyone needs to understand that the story of our troops sacrifice in Fallujah is a good story. Reading a book, watching a documentary, or even playing a game about the events of the battle for Fallujah gives a person an insight to the actual battle. Whether or not it is completely accurate is irrelevant, if the person finds the book, movie, game interesting enough. Then they will go look into it for themselves to get the truth. Now. First, it would be very difficult for any game developer to tell ALL the stories revolving around the events of Fallujah. Second, as an avid hater of Blckwater, I will say that Scott Helvenston was a private military contractor and former Navy SEAL, the youngest in history, may I add. He was in an unarmored SUV without a light or heavy machine gun, anyway I don’t want to go into the whole story because it is too long. My point is his story, as well as the other Blackwater contractors killed in this event, is irrelevant to the Maines story. Third, the Metal Gear  Sold series is an amazing GAME series. Thank you for your time.

  2. lumi says:

    I addressed a statement you made that I believe to be false =P

    As for your question, you’re treating the situation as if it’s completely black and white.  There is a whole spectrum between flatly demonizing a real group of people in the name of producing "edgy" antagonists, and making a completely "mush" game, as you call it.

    Believe me, I am totally in favor of reducing publisher influence on developers, especially in the name of being politically correct.  But I also understand how someone who has had first-hand experience with a particular group or demographic (PMCs, in this case) being upset when a game (or a movie, or a book, or a song, etc.) portrays them in an unrealistic (or unrealistically negative) light.

    Did I say MGS4 shouldn’t have been made?  No, not once did I say that or anything like it.  I think games that upset people aren’t automatically devoid of worth.  But just as we ask that developers be given the right to make any kind of game we want, we have to allow that any particular person in the audience have the right to be offended by the content of said game.

    I think it’s reasonable for him to be offended in this case.  I don’t think the game should necessarily care if it offends him.  No one’s calling for anything to be banned, just stating opinions…

  3. gaspar says:


    The average person knows that PMCs are real…and that’s about it.  So in the absence of any other information, it’s not illogical for them to believe the only information they’re given.  They know giant robots are fake, but that doesn’t mean everything in the game is, or that nothing in the game is based on real-world sources (which, of course, they are).  How is the average player supposed to know "this is the part of the game that is accurate, and this is the part that isn’t"?

     

    You have restated your previous argument but have not addressed my questions:

    Even if I grant that average people may be negatively misled by the content of a game that does not address the crux of the issue as I stated before:

     

    You cannot make a video game that will cater to the lowest denominator; that game would be complete mush.

    Or are you telling me that you would like publishers to only make mush games that offend no one, have no antagonists based on real groups, and never step on anyone’s toes?

    Or is it just you don’t want the publisher to step on your toes?

     

     

  4. asmodai says:

    In contrast, when I was confronted (multiple times) with the decision to shoot at a kid shooting at me, the decision had life-or-death ramifications for the kid, but also critical moral and spiritual decisions for me as a human being. "Is this OK? Should I be doing this? Will I go to hell if this happens? Is my life worth this? What about the lives of people around me?" None of these questions are raised in the game environment, because it’s simply not real.

    I won’t debate there is a vast divide between really deciding to shoot a child and doing so in game, and some people will automatically think "game = fine = shoot".

    Some people would have a problem.  Think harvesting little sisters in Bioshock as opposed to saving them.

     

    The concept that this game will give insight into the kind of choice that will drive a person to kill themselves in grief and agony is misleading at best. Due to the medium, it CANNOT give that kind of insight. If the game didn’t pretend that it could, it would be a lot less objectionable.

    You are conflating "insight" with "full and detailed knowledge of every facet of the experience", something which does you little credit.

    Saving Private Ryan, the beach scene, gave me an insight in to how it would be to try and charge up a beach with an entire army trying to stop you.  It certainly didn’t equip me to do it, and I can’t say "I have done it", and I don’t know exactly what it’s like to have half my head blown off, but I have an insight in to what those poor bastards had to do, what they went through.

    I never said that it will give you the full experience including the emotional aftershock, but that isn’t what insight means anyway.

  5. lordlundar says:

    This doesn’t surprise me in the slightest, as it has gone on for years. M*A*S*H* for example was considered offensive because it was considered too soon. So was platoon, jarheads, etc.

    It’s not the message, or the medium, but the timing.

  6. D Panek says:

    But isn’t that what the "games as art" movement wants? For games to be able to give that kind of insight? I agree with your points on Atomic Games sending mixed messages on the content of the game (is it a realistic portrayal or is it entertainment?), but I’m not sure that it can’t be done. Sure, it hasn’t happened yet, but there’s a first time for everything. The medium has evolved so much since it’s started, and it’s still relatively young. Will Six Days be that game? Who knows.

  7. lumi says:

    "Mr. Rosenthal is completely correct that some people will form a negative opinion of PMCs based on MGS. However, those people are fantastically uninformed and willing to base their opinions on nonsense. These people cannot be helped. You cannot make a video game that will cater to the lowest denominator; that game would be complete mush."

    No, those people are not "beyond help", and they’re not "willing to base their opinions on nonsense"; they’re willing to base their opinions on the only information they’re given.  PMCs aren’t exactly something that the average person is exposed to in their daily lives.  In fact, of the few instances I can think of where PMCs have been depicted at all, in my experience, it has been negatively (stereotypical "mercs").

    The average person knows that PMCs are real…and that’s about it.  So in the absence of any other information, it’s not illogical for them to believe the only information they’re given.  They know giant robots are fake, but that doesn’t mean everything in the game is, or that nothing in the game is based on real-world sources (which, of course, they are).  How is the average player supposed to know "this is the part of the game that is accurate, and this is the part that isn’t"?

  8. lumi says:

    I addressed a statement you made that I believe to be false =P

    As for your question, you’re treating the situation as if it’s completely black and white.  There is a whole spectrum between flatly demonizing a real group of people in the name of producing "edgy" antagonists, and making a completely "mush" game, as you call it.

    Believe me, I am totally in favor of reducing publisher influence on developers, especially in the name of being politically correct.  But I also understand how someone who has had first-hand experience with a particular group or demographic (PMCs, in this case) being upset when a game (or a movie, or a book, or a song, etc.) portrays them in an unrealistic (or unrealistically negative) light.

    Did I say MGS4 shouldn’t have been made?  No, not once did I say that or anything like it.  I think games that upset people aren’t automatically devoid of worth.  But just as we ask that developers be given the right to make any kind of game we want, we have to allow that any particular person in the audience have the right to be offended by the content of said game.

    I think it’s reasonable for him to be offended in this case.  I don’t think the game should necessarily care if it offends him.  No one’s calling for anything to be banned, just stating opinions…

  9. rdeegvainl says:

    I think it can be done. I also think it won’t be done, cause while it award worthy, it ultimately won’t sell well, and would probably take alot more work (and time) that publishers wouldn’t be willing to give the developers.

  10. Firecracker22 says:

    Metal Gear Solid has never claimed to be a realistic military game.

    It’s basically a sci-fi espionage game with a war back drop.

    I think nitpicking about "negative" view of the PMC’s in a gamer where the world is brought to it’s knees by an A.I., is a little unfair I think.

    I mean, I respect his opinions and his service to our country. Godbless him.

     

    I just find it odd that realism doesn’t matter, but MGS is bad for not being realistic. I dunno. Ehh.

  11. JustChris says:

    Critic #1: "Video games are just kids’ toys and can’t be taken as a serious form of creative expression."

    Critic #2: "Video games are supposed to be educational and serious, otherwise they are just trivializing the matter."

    Stick to one, already.

    GameSnooper

  12. gaspar says:




    I am serious; and you do make a good point. However, you have to consider the difference between rational people and idiots.

    You and I can tell the difference between PMCs and Giant Robots. We can also tell the difference between real PMCs and Metal Gear PMCs.

    We can tell the difference in a game about a battle and an actual battle.

    I think that I understand your point, and I agree with you. People could be given a negative idea of PMCs or Giant Robots or police or whatever by playing a video game.

    My point is that if you take what happens in a fictional game as fact, then you need a reality check.

    Mr. Rosenthal is completely correct that some people will form a negative opinion of PMCs based on MGS. However, those people are fantastically uninformed and willing to base their opinions on nonsense. These people cannot be helped. You cannot make a video game that will cater to the lowest denominator; that game would be complete mush.

    Or are you telling me that you would like publishers to only make mush games that offend no one, have no antagonists based on real groups, and never step on anyone’s toes?

    Or is it just you don’t want the publisher to step on your toes?

    I have to disagree with Mr. Rosenthal’s dismissal of "Six Days." Even though I agree that it will probably be tasteless and sucky. The merits of a fictional game should not be determined by how it portrays groups of real people. Let the fiction stand on its own. Does it tell an interesting story, are the characters well developed and motivated, is the soundtrack compelling, is the cinematography clean, etc.? If the game is indeed tasteless and sucky then people will not buy it (or at least they shouldn’t).

    I appreciate that Mr. Rosenthal has not cried “Ban!” Clearly he has thought about his position and realizes that it is not his place to inflict his opinions on others through legislation. However, protesting its release is still implying that your feelings should be placed above those of the consumers. Just because you don’t look to the government for assistance does not change that you are seeking to bypass capitalism and enforce your feelings on the market.

    Please just consider if you are saying: "Never offend anyone with the games you make" or "Never offend me with the games you make"

    Edited for typos =)

  13. G-Meister says:

    I like where you were going with about the first half of your post, with the game tracking your pychological health, likely along with your physical health. Also, I like the way you tried to include some of the more mundane things that people might do to relieve stress.

    I’m hoping that the guys working on this game are brainstorming similar ideas right now, and working to downplay the more action-oriented parts of gameplay.

    However, I’m going to have to say that I’m joing Dan Rosenthal in not holding my breath, waiting for them to do so.

  14. Inimical says:

    That IS Dan you’re responding to 😉

    Haha, oops… Now that you’ve replied I can’t edit my post so as not to look stupid. Thanks.

  15. lumi says:

    Just a heads-up, if you’re not watching it already…

    The current season of 24 would make you pretty upset 🙁

  16. lumi says:

    "You bring up a great point, and I think that’s the point that Dan is trying to make that so many people are missing here."

    That IS Dan you’re responding to 😉

    Well said.  Making a game set in the Iraq War, as opposed to WWII, Vietnam, Korea, etc.?  Alright, we use real world conflicts as the settings for our games all the time.  Claiming it will accurately relay the experience of the people involved in that conflict?  No, you’re simply not going to be able to do that, and to claim such is disingenuous at best.

  17. lumi says:

    I have a hard time determining if you seriously can’t see the difference between "a negative portrayal of giant robots" and "a negative portrayal of PMCs". 

    One is real, the other is not. 

    No one is going to play the game and say "wow, giant robots suck, look at this shit they’re pulling here!", but it’s far more conceivable for someone with no exposure to PMCs (read: most gamers) to play MGS4 and say "wow, PMCs suck, look at this shit they’re pulling here!"

  18. Inimical says:

    You bring up a great point, and I think that’s the point that Dan is trying to make that so many people are missing here.

    I’m getting the impression here that if Konami is going to be portraying the horrors of the war, which involves kids shooting at you, there won’t be a "Have a moral crisis" button. All you can do is either shoot or not shoot. If you shoot, it’s going to look like Iraqi soldiers didn’t think twice about it and just did it. If you don’t shoot, I would imagine that makes the game a hell of a lot harder but again, it’s not about living or dying for the soldiers, it was about what was morally right.

    So hell yeah, I agree with Dan. If Konami expects to realistically portray some of the terrible moral crises these soldiers went through every day without portraying them as brutal children killers, it’s a little questionable.

  19. gaspar says:


    I didn’t miss the context, I am aware of what he said. I shall quote:

    "Since my tour in Iraq, I don’t think my preferences have changed much, except for hating the Metal Gear Solid series, especially the 4th installment which I feel paints PMCs [private military contractors] in an unrealistically negative light."

    "I have worries that Konami, whose war game track record includes Boot Camp, Top Gun, Rush’n Attack/Green Beret, and of course, the wonderfully inaccurate Metal Gear series, cannot give the game the level of respect that it deserves."

    "A ‘realistic’ war game is not going to be fun"

    Allow me to clarify: (Metal Gear 4 Spoilers below)

    1. The Metal Gear Solid series is one of the greatest epic stories ever told in the video game medium. I will refrain from listing the reasons here, but suffice to say Hideo Kojima has created a form of art that cannot be replicated in film or on paper. He has created a definitive video game.

    While this game is excellent, it does play a neat trick on you by mixing the plausible with the inexplicable. During the course of the game this makes for excellent story telling. It makes things that would otherwise seem completely alien much more feasible (such as the gecko or the Metal Gear its self).

    Metal Gear portrays a near future where the PMCs are controlled by the Patriots and by Liquid Snake’s group. The negative light they are portrayed in is a result of them being controlled by the 2 (completely fictional) antagonist groups in the game. I think you will all agree that games, in general, require antagonists. The PMCs in MGS are also completely fictional, they use armored robots, they control war across all countries, and obey an overlord skynet style computer AI which perpetuates war in order to generate revenue. What part of that is realistic? At what point am I supposed to say "Well all this other stuff about PMCs is fiction, but I believe the part where they are all jerks"?

    To be blunt: I truly don’t understand how we can say "OK giant robots, that’s fine, its fiction no problem!" and then turn around and say "Hey that guy tried to kill me and he’s in a PMC! They are portraying PMCs in a negative way!"

    This problem is not Mr. Rosenthal’s alone, but rather a problem we all face constantly from every direction. This is the same problem people have with RE5 and any number of other games: The inability to separate fact from fiction.

    2. The wall of text above is only to prove one small point. If you can dismiss such an excellent piece of art as the Metal Gear series because it paints the line between realism and fantasy, in such an eloquent way, then I have a problem taking your opinion seriously on games. Specifically, I can’t take your opinion seriously on a game that has not come out yet, that will probably feature a mix of realism and fantasy, and will probably portray someone as the antagonist.

     


    EDIT: Let me also add this: If the primary concern is that this game will suck, and therefore do a disservice to the people who fought in the battle, then I am completely with you. Chances are it will suck; most games now days do. However, if it does, I simply won’t buy it. (I probably won’t buy it anyway)

  20. HarmlessBunny says:

    Actually part of the game, during a flashback…you did see the Sickle and Hammer. It was in the Ukraine in the Soviet Union, just after the Chernobyl nuclear disaster. So yes…that was the old Soviet Flag.

    The enemies never really were pro-Communist as much as they were Anti-western influence. In fact they were backing the Ultra Nationalists ( scary bunch. Right wing nuts. ) in modern Russia. Hell the game didn’t even really protray the Arabs as the bad guys. I remember it as a militant leader seizing power with an army…and with the blessing and backing of an arms dealer/political manipulator associated with the Ultra-Nationalists in Russia. All on a gambit to drive out the west in a horrific attrocity.

    Never really mentions Western Capitialists are good either. In the game: Marines screwed the pooch, and the SAS look like scary thugs (along with an epic moustache from Capt Price). Actually it was pretty damning towards everyone. Everyone acts like idiots and it is the SAS that cleans everything up 😛

  21. Shaoken says:

    I think you’re missing the point of MGS4. PMCs weren’t really potrayed all that badly in MGS4. With the exception of two incidents throughout the entire game they were potrayed as being no different from any solider and the game mentions the other roles of the PMCs that you yourself stated.. Hell Snake fights along two PMCs in the game, while the antagonists aren’t members of PMCs themselves.

    MGS4 doesn’t potray PMCs negatively, it potrays the idea of having War as the pillar of the global economy as being a bad idea. And Kojima didn’t come up with said idea. He just used it.

    You don’t the MGS series, fair enough. But don’t go accusing it of something it didn’t do.

  22. Aliasalpha says:

    Am I the only person thinking that they could do a really good game of this type if they just planned it properly, dumped the "shoot everything that moves" mentality and make it more of an RPG? 

     

    As Dan said, much of the stress on soldiers was psychological, why not include a farenheit (indigo prophecy) style psychology system? You shoot a child (armed or otherwise) and you’d take a hit, you shoot an innocent & you take a hit, you take too long in enclosed and dangerous spaces and you take a hit. Take too many and you could get PTSD of some other form of psychological condition.

    You could have various ways to relieve the stress, music, conversation with other soldiers, sleep, alcohol/medicine, prayer, having a wank, even something like playing an FPS in game. Enough of the good things and you feel human again, enough of the bad and you get nasty side effects that could make it much harder to survive the next firefight (like hairy palms if you’ve been wanking too much, makes the gun harder to hold & could promote weapon jams)

    Hell making a custom character from the start could fiddle with the system a bit. For example someone who didn’t care about killing children would take little or no penalty from shooting one but might lose the conversation with soldiers option because they all think he’s a psycho. Likewise claustrophobia might make indoor fighting pretty interesting. Athiest soldiers wouldn’t have the option to pray as a psych healing technique & religious soldiers might not be able to wank.

     

    Seems like plenty of opportunity for a really interesting and at least semi-realistic portrayal.

     

  23. Im_Blue says:

    yeah point taken. I was more meaning pro-american ideals, policy etc. rather than pro-America per say. You know I just mean the whole enemies being commie-arab-terrorists just felt like such a sterotypical American world view…. communism= evil, arab = evil, terroism = evil….. Western capatalist style democracy = good.

     

    Mostly it was that awful enemie flag…… can’t find a pic of it. but the one which was like a combination of the communist flag with the arab swords instead of the hammer and sickle. Just instantly reminded me of that McBane where he fights the Com-Nazis.

  24. ColdFury says:

    I think what’s ironic is probably everyone who complains that this game is in poor taste is probably a fan of World War II shooters, or other war based games.  It’s kind of a slipperly slope, opposing games based on one war while consuming seemingly hundreds of games based on another.

  25. Wormdundee says:

     Hmm, I think I can agree with this interview for the most part. Although I can say what I would like to see in this game. I would want it to be sort of like Half Life 2, but taken even more to the extreme. From what I understand, there are actually very few firefights when you look at the ratio of a soldiers downtime to actually being involved in an active gunfight.

    So less firing a gun, and more of the interactive story bits. There were similar bits in GRAW2 where you were in a convoy and it was ambushed and stuff like that. I can see the possibility of them doing something like COD4 where it’s generally constant gunfire, but I really wish they would do something more like what I described.

    Such as busting into an Iraqi families house, and as you leave you can have some dialogue between squad members discussing the ethics and whatnot.

    I believe there was a recent article that had some discussion about ‘fun’ being a requirement for a game. I really don’t think it is. I really really want a game where you are seriously questioning what you are doing, where you don’t get the happy ending.

    How awesome would it have been if at the end of COD4, you didn’t get Zakhaev and you utterly failed? Sometimes things really are futile, and I can’t think of a game where the ending is you completely failing the whole objective of the game.

  26. funkyj says:

    So, is it perfectly alright to portray WWII "unrealistically" in games, but not Iraq?

    What about all the millions who died in WWII and yet whose grand children happily fry Bonsai screaming Japanese with flamethrowers on COD:WAW?

    You can’t be upset about a game about the Iraq war and NOT about other wars because games aren’t realistic – that makes you a hypocrite.

  27. DanHoyt says:

    You do realize that you play the majority of COD4 as a British SAS soldier right, and that the Americans fail miserably and are mostly blown up in a nuclear bomb? I think that really is showing that America isn’t invincible by any means.

  28. Michael Brooks says:

    While I can understand why some people would be upset about the portrayal of PMCs in MGS4, I think it’s important to remember that what’s being depicted is a worst-case-scenario future, and the potential dangers of them.

    That said, I think the Metal Gear series is awesome, and a great example of how to tell an amazing story through video games. I love its anti-war, anti-nuclear weapons themes, and the stealth nature of its gameplay.

    As for "Six Days," I think due to the nature of a video game, it’s very hard, if not impossible, to convey the true horrors of war through gameplay. The best game developers can do is add a moral system, like Bioware often does with its games. It will be interesting to see if the developers of this game try and do that in their own unique way, but somehow I doubt it.

  29. Im_Blue says:

    Yeah this game will totally glamorise the whole affair, and consequently will be insensitive, offensive and all that jazz.

    Also am I the only one who found the whole COD4 setting /story just kinda dumb and pro-war. Even though it wasnt based on a real war I just found the whole fight the com-arab-terrorist group thing so stupidly pro american in the redneck sense. I really hate to say things like pro-american but that game ‘s single just really ticks me off.

     

    Fun Multiplayer though.

  30. Obi says:

    He said pretty clearly he didn’t like Metal Gear because it was negatively unrealistic, not just normal unrealistic.  And he highlighted the fourth one more than the others.

     

    — Obi

  31. Alex says:

    That’s true, but I’m not sure it’s reasonable to be anticipating a clone of some of Konami’s worse games based on that. Using EA as an example here, I’m not a huge fan of most of the games they make themselves (not counting Maxis games) but they publish a lot of games that I do like, like the Anno/A.D. series.

    I just reread the interview and noticed this bit, by the way.

    It’s not a great start that the Creative Director at Atomic Games is on the one hand talking about trying to "present the horrors of war" and on the other hand make "entertainment". His own words. Or that the VP of marketing thinks that soldiers weren’t "men" before the war.

    I was really tired when I made that last comment and somehow totally missed that bit of what you said, and I can see where you’re coming from here (and obviously from that part you do know who’s really making the game =p).

    I’m not under the affluence of incohol as some thinkle peep I am. I’m not half as thunk as you might drink. I fool so feelish I don’t know who is me, and the drunker I stand here, the longer I get.

  32. GamesLaw says:

    I know the incident, but I did not work with anyone involved in that paricular incident. I’ve heard conflicting stories, though I think the consensus is that evidence shows that Blackwater was clearly in the wrong.

    — Dan "SWATJester" Rosenthal; Executive Director, http://www.gameslaw.net

  33. GamesLaw says:

    What’s disrespectful about an Oliver Stone Vietnam movie? Criticism does not equate to disrespect; in fact it can be the highest form of respect.

    — Dan "SWATJester" Rosenthal; Executive Director, http://www.gameslaw.net

  34. GamesLaw says:

    No, I understand they’re the publisher. Atomic Games is the developer. But Konami holds the purse-strings, which means they have the ability to make broad decisions about the fate of this game. Furthermore, they control the almighty marketing dollar, which is where the real offenses are likely to occur.

    — Dan "SWATJester" Rosenthal; Executive Director, http://www.gameslaw.net

  35. GamesLaw says:

    Over There was politically charged tripe. It was nothing close to representative.

    Generation Kill, however, was very much representative of what day to day life was like (and also happened to be filmed by units that I was located parallel to. Occasionally you can hear my unit being referenced on the radio.)

    — Dan "SWATJester" Rosenthal; Executive Director, http://www.gameslaw.net

  36. JDKJ says:

    Blackwater, in an attempt to clean up its tarnished image, is now calling itself Xe. 

    Did you ever work with any of the folks involved with the Nisour Square incident? The one where 17 Iraqi civilians were killed by Blackwater operatives? Seemingly without provocation and while attempting to flee? If so, I’d love to hear your opinions on what working with those particular persons was like. 

  37. GamesLaw says:

    You say "People aren’t afraid of in your face entertainment, your characters mortality dragged out and executed in front of your unbelieving eyes.  If you play a game where kids shoot at you, do you hesitate to shoot back because the are kids?"

    The point is, the inherent virtuality in games prevents that hesitation or decision from meaning anything. In contrast, when I was confronted (multiple times) with the decision to shoot at a kid shooting at me, the decision had life-or-death ramifications for the kid, but also critical moral and spiritual decisions for me as a human being. "Is this OK? Should I be doing this? Will I go to hell if this happens? Is my life worth this? What about the lives of people around me?" None of these questions are raised in the game environment, because it’s simply not real. But for the soldiers who had to experience them, these questions linger for years and years, in some cases causing immense trauma and, in at least once case I was personally involved in, suicide.

    The concept that this game will give insight into the kind of choice that will drive a person to kill themselves in grief and agony is misleading at best. Due to the medium, it CANNOT give that kind of insight. If the game didn’t pretend that it could, it would be a lot less objectionable.

    — Dan "SWATJester" Rosenthal; Executive Director, http://www.gameslaw.net

  38. GamesLaw says:

    Well, to start, you already have the wrong portrayal of PMCs. 99% of what PMCs do is logistical: repairing planes and trucks, driving supplies from point to point, cooking food. Most of my meals I ate during my second half of the tour were cooked by a PMC.

    PMCs also do security. For instance, the base at Camp Doha in Kuwait, is guarded by DynCorp. PMCs do medical patrols. They do all sorts of things.

    The concept that they are slaves to the almighty dollar is a blatant myth. Most PMCs are staffed by professional soldiers, largely from the US, who are sick of being paid paupers wages to do dangerous work. Blackwater, for instance, is largely staffed from former U.S. Army. Triple Canopy, one of the most elite of the PMCs, recruits almost exclusively from those who wear a "triple canopy", i.e. Special Forces, Ranger, and Airborne scrolls on their left arm.

    These men are highly patriotic. All of them have volunteered at least twice for their country: once to join the military, again to join the infantry (a requirement for PMC recruitment). Then, typically again to join Rangers, SF, or some other special operations unit. And now they continue to serve, AT THE DIRECTION OF DOD, (extremely important to note), except instead of being paid $40,000 per year, the get $100K+. When you’re putting your life on the line daily, that seems a fair wage.

    Then again, I’ve worked with these people closely. I’ve been recruited for Blackwater (though school prevented me from joining). I know what these people are like, and it’s NOT what Kojima portrays them as.

     

    — Dan "SWATJester" Rosenthal; Executive Director, http://www.gameslaw.net

  39. asmodai says:

    You cannot dishonour someone who has not done something to dishonour themselves.  You can slander them, shame them and bring them low in the court of public opinion, but you cannot take away their honour…

    If the game is realistic, mebbe it tells a few too many tales that cut a bit too close to the bone.  Maybe it won’t shine the brightest light on the forces of "goodness" as it were…  Seems a far more likely reason why everyone is up in arms about this but no one seems to have a problem with endless shooters where you get to plink away at German’s, Japanese, Vietnamese or other "Middle Eastern Country guys".

    The only other reason to fear these games is if they misrepresent what happened.  Remember the visceral feeling when the bomb went off in CoD modern war.  It was gritty, in your face, jaw dropping (almost literally) and your character actually expires.  People aren’t afraid of in your face entertainment, your characters mortality dragged out and executed in front of your unbelieving eyes.  If you play a game where kids shoot at you, do you hesitate to shoot back because the are kids?

    It’s a confronting game and it’s supposed to be.  It could give insight in to a lot of hard choices soldiers make in the field that people criticise while they are safe in their homes.  It’s art.

  40. black manta says:

    Dan is a personal friend of mine, as he along with Awol and myself share the responsibility of running the ECA’s DC/Baltimore chapter.  He’s one of the greatest guys I have ever met and I consider it a pleasure to know him.  He’s related to me a few of his experiences in Iraq, so considering all of that along with this interview and what Konami’s game is supposed to be like, I have to agree with him on this.

    The only thing I have to question, and Dan if you’re reading this, please enlighten me, is why he takes exception to the negative portrayal of Private Military Contractors, which I’m assuming is the polite name for Mercenaries.  Having never played MGS4, I don’t have any idea how exactly they were depicted in that game that he felt put them in a bad light, and I don’t want to be talking out of my ass about something I haven’t seen or played.  However, if it’s anything like how action movies and TV shows have portrayed them, mercs have almost always been depicted as the bad guys.  When you have a group of people who owe no particular allegiance to any country or anything other than the almighty dollar, who follow their own moral code which can be seen as murky at best, and as such are largely prevented from being held accountable for their actions beyond their own agency, it’s easy to have them viewed as the bad guys.  The character of Johns from Pitch Black and the mercenary outfit Ravenswood from Jericho (which was said to have been based on Blackwater itself) are just a couple of example off the top of my head.  Even games like the self-titled Mercenaries where they’re the main characters depict them as amoral and unprincipled.  And real-life mercenary outfits like Blackwater do nothing to diminish that perception. 

    So I’m a bit puzzled as to what Dan’s saying here.  Are we to believe, then that outfits like Blackwater are being misunderstood and unfairly demonized and that they’re not resposible for some of the things they’re accused of doing?  That mercenaries aren’t all bad and unscrupulous?  Because by and large that’s the reputation they have.

  41. Paul T. Farinelli says:

    This is strange to me, as I know of plenty of soldiers, some of which hate and others who love Metal Gear Solid. I think it has to do with your interpretation of the series’ main theme. Either MGS can be viewed as a sympathetic look at the plight of soldiers in the modern world, or a heavy-handed, slightly anti-american protest of the atrocities of war. I disagree with his "inaccurate" comment, though. Kojima has even admitted that MGS4 doesn’t accurately convey what real PMC’s are doing in the Middle East. The point was to show how things could go wrong in the future, similar to 1984 or Brave New World.

  42. gaspar says:

    This guy hates on metal gear, and I’m suposed to take his opinion seriously?

    He says "games shouldn’t be realistic"

    "I dont like metal gear because its unrealistic"

    ummmm…. right. Moving on.

  43. DanHoyt says:

    I’ve put a great deal of thought into why WWII games work so well and games about Vietnam, for example, don’t. I don’t think time is the main factor. I think it helps, but it is still not what makes WWII playable.

    WWII has several turning points that can be done in video games. They can be expressed fairly clearly in levels such as "storming the beaches of Normandy," "storming the beaches of Pelelieu," "Operation Market Garden" or even "The Battle of Stalingrad." Many of the aspects of WWII that were seen through the eyes of most soldiers are really hard to convey in a video game, such as sitting in the rain, in a foxhole on Okinawa, in the dark, covered in mud and surrounded by rotting corpses. ("With the Old Breed" by E.B. Sledge). Those are hard to show, but can be overlooked since that is not what nearly every soldier saw and there were often times that can translate into gaming.

    WWII was fought in so many different places with so many different things going on that we can find smaller conflicts that are very unique and can be shown fairly easily.

    Think about other wars and what you would do in a game:

    WWI: Sit in a muddy foxhole, get gassed, then charge blidly into no-mans-land and get shot.

    Korean War: Sit on a hill and aim artillary at other hills to blow them up. Try to retreat when the Chinese hurl wave after wave of soldiers at your hill in vain attempts to make you run out of bullets.

    Vietnam: Trudge through the jungle, get ambushed.

    Desert Storms: Bomb everything that looks Iraqi or is making a run for the border.

    Iraq War: Break doors down, demand guns or other weapons, apologize for breaking the door, leave. Do it again until you leave in a jeep and your jeep is blown up by an IED.

     

    Other than in the first several months of the war when we were still fighting the Iraqi military, the Iraq war was confusing, frustrating, and had few objectives, goals or other clear ways to show conflict or give a sense of achievement. Marine snipers were faced with difficult situations where they were not allowed to shoot someone who was obviosly an enemy, simply because they didn’t have a gun at the time. Soldiers walked through destroyed neighborhoods for hours before suddenly being in firefight that ends almost as quickly and unceremoniously as it began.

    Maybe they could do a game about the Battle of Falujah, but like Rosenthal said, "I don’t have very high hopes that they’re going to do a good job of it."

  44. lumi says:

    You can do things that are entertaining in movies that don’t work in games.  Games are meant to be played, not watched.

  45. Michael Brooks says:

    That’s not his point. He’s offended that a company is claiming to portray the battle in a realistic manner, from the soldiers’ point of view, which he feels is impossible to do in a game.

    Will the game even address the issue you’re talking about? Not from what I’ve heard it isn’t. Then this would be a completely different discussion.

    But war is war. People do awful, terrible things to each other in every war. Blame the assholes who put the soldiers in that position in the first place, not the soldiers themselves.

  46. PHOENIXZERO says:

    Not to mention give vetrans flashbacks to similar experiences of their own, making it hard for them to watch.


  47. Charax says:

    It’ll dishonor the soldiers who killed 17 and injured 70 unarmed civilians for wanting a school reopened? the soldiers who lied about the use of WP?

    Yeah, it’s a game that’ll dishonor the soldiers who served in Iraq, not the dishonorable actions of the soldiers themselves.

  48. Michael Brooks says:

    Is this a joke post? I admit, it’s hard for me to tell. If it’s not, I seriously suggest you reread the interview, thoroughly.

     

  49. axiomatic says:

    So basically just because it’s "a game" it’s dishonorable?

    BIAS MUCH?

    I’ve watched movies and read books that dishonor war more than any of the Americas Army, Call of Duty, Medal of Honor games.

    Is he actually implying that he has more respect for an Oliver Stone movie on the Vietnam War that the respect he would give to lets say Call of Duty 1 which handled three different countries soldiers in a very respectful manner?

    Sorry, I’m calling BIAS against games.

  50. Galthromir says:

    The thing that differentiates this from WW2, etc. is that the war is still ongoing, and if it paints U.S. troops in a negative light it is much like the soldiers comming home from Vietnam; coming home only to be looked upon as monsters.

    Now in 15-20 years? Thats different, then it become acceptable to use actual places. Don’t ask me why, it just seems the cultural standard. By then such memories as watching your friend die have somewhat healed, though such things can never really go away.

  51. Chaltab says:

    I think it’s a false premise to say that a game can’t depict war with respect and a certain level of realism and still be entertaining.

    Once again, I’m gonna turn to the example of Saving Private Ryan. The D-Day scene is bloody and violent and gives the viewer a hint of the kind of chaos there was that day, yet overall the film still managed to entertain.

    In theory, a game could do the same with Fallujah. Whether Atomic Games pulls it off or not, who knows.

  52. RevenChrist says:

    Whatever you thought of what he said, you got to respect that he didn’t say "Ban, Ban, Ban!!!"

    "Who I am is not important… my message is"-Reven

  53. insanejedi says:

    You should have asked him about similar depictions in other mediums, such as the TV show "Over There". I dislike this notion that fun-factor should always be the biggest priority in games. It’s rediculous, I know, that I think games should be designed with fun not first in mind, but when tackling a serious issue like the Iraq war, you have to make some resignations in order for your social commentary to actually be effective. Vietcong and Brothers in Arms, and a couple of games stuck with a realistic tone and autheticity to keep it more as a virtual doccumentry about these soldiers, than it is a game.

  54. Alex says:

    One thing I’d like to make clear is that this is NOT an issue of censorship. I will fight to the death to defend Konami’s right to make this game… At the same time, I strongly protest their decision to actually do it. I think it is foolish, I think it’s inappropriate, and I don’t have very high hopes that they’re going to do a good job of it. I’d love to be proven wrong.

    Gotta respect him for this, that’s an important distinction to make. Having said that, he seems to be under the impression that Konami is doing the actual dev work, which they aren’t.

    I’m not under the affluence of incohol as some thinkle peep I am. I’m not half as thunk as you might drink. I fool so feelish I don’t know who is me, and the drunker I stand here, the longer I get.

  55. Pirce says:

    Shouldn’t these people also be complaining about all the WW2, Vietnam, and Desert Storm games?

    Eggy Weggs

  56. Murdats says:

    Movies do it all the time, I think what he is trying to say is they want to tell a story, they want to use a game to tell that story, they want people to actually play the game.

     

    the game needs to be entertaining, the story does not need to be though, the story can be sad, scary or contraversial but its all a moot point if no one actually wants to play it because the game mechanics suck

  57. NickArnett says:

    I became angry when I read the CEO of Atomic, Peter Tamte, saying, "The challenge was how to present the horrors of war in a game that is entertaining."  Any sane person who has lived with the horror of deadly violence knows that it cannot become entertainment.  The fact that it is based on real events makes it intolerable as a game. Peter Tamte’s boasts about it have re-traumatized hundreds of thousands of survivors, at a time when violence is on the rise in our nation.

     
    Nick Arnett, grief counselor with the Bay Area Critical Incident Stress Management Team and extended family of a Marine killed in action in Fallujah 11/10/2004.
  58. mr_mlk says:

    I’m sure Op Flash had a mission or two that for 15+ minutes was just following a road.


    A house is not a home unless it contains food and fire for the mind as well as the body. Benjamin Franklin

  59. JC says:

    I’m not sure how you can truly dishonor another soldier, especially with a game. Makes me curious if he thinks it’ll have another soldier that states, "There was this one soldier that never did anything, he was named Dan Rosenthal, who never did anything but sit around and complain and cry."

    I doubt it be anything like that however. I understand his concerns, but I believe it can be presumptious to just say that anything they make will be horrible even though he hopes to be wrong. He is a bit biased against Konami, and perhaps they are aware of this and don’t want to tell his side, but it could just be because they already have more volunteers than what they know what to do with.

    I doubt they’d do the moments of sitting around and waiting and doing whatever to pass the time and the constant shaving with a tiny shard of mirror with a small blade and poking a hole to get water on the face. They’d likely just say "x amount of time has passed and everyone is bored, then an explosion happens."

    Anyway, lets face it, the most we can do is speculate until some actual gameplay segments come into light.

  60. Godkarmachine says:

    And I still see about 2 nerf ads a week.

    – Stand back! I have an opinion, and I’m not afraid to use it.

  61. Monte says:

    Well Dan did not give his opinion on COD2, only that of COD4… as such you could not say he is holding any kind of a double standard by calling out 6 days and not cod2

    As for movies, i said earlier why movies can usually cover actual events without recieving any kind of controversy… Postal being an obvious exception to that…

  62. Kajex says:

    "Again, the crucial difference is that 6 days is actually based off of a real event"

    So was Point Du Hoc in CoD2, the movie We Were Soldiers, and Black Hawk Down. Yes, there were fictional elements in each of them, but they were still based off actual events- yet people are beyond those things because they’re already out and about.

    If one feels the need to raise a complaint over something like this, they’re certainly welcome to- but eventually these things do die down. The reality is that anything is subject to entertainment, even serious events. Even the WTC event.

    … And on that note, I finish by saying this- you can call me evil all you want, but the WTC scene in the movie Postal was hilarious. XP

  63. Monte says:

    Again, the crucial difference is that 6 days is actually based off of a real event… The soldier made that distiction when he was talking about COD4… Gi Joe is only based of the military in the loosest sense, where as 6 days is taking an actual real world event and turning into a game… he is not about the glamorization of war, he is talking about respect for those involved in the events that transpired, and stuff like that

  64. Rodrigo Ybáñez García says:

    Games and GI Joe are both pretend. Even when war videogames are more realistic than toys, they are still fiction.

    Doesn´t G.I. Joe "glamorizes" war? I would say even more than games, because they turn war in some childish game where is just "good guys vs. bad guys" and nobody dies and good guys always win.

    But of course, nobody is saying that because they are just toys. But with videogames comes double or triple standards. They can´t be realistic. They can´t be fiction. They can´t not exist at all.

    Same old song.

    The cynical side of videogames (spanish only): http://thelostlevel.blogspot.com/ My DeviantArt Page (aka DeviantCensorship): http://www.darkknightstrikes.deviantart.com/

  65. Alex says:

    "I haven’t seen a GI joe advertized in decades…"

    I’m 20 and I remember seeing GI Joe ads on Cartoon Network when I was in middle and high school.


    I’m not under the affluence of incohol as some thinkle peep I am. I’m not half as thunk as you might drink. I fool so feelish I don’t know who is me, and the drunker I stand here, the longer I get.

  66. Monte says:

    even if it’s not 100% accurate it is much closer than what a video game is likely to be…

    "Will this game recreate what I felt watching one of my close friends die less than 10 feet away from me? Will this game recreate my experience of being shot at by children? Will this game recreate the positive experiences of Iraq, the endless hours spent with community leaders to rebuild schools and hospitals?  …The questioning of the reasons for getting into the war? Probably not. And let’s be honest, who would want to play that anyway, even if you could?"

    These are many of the things you would likely not end up seeing in a game, but they are things that you might see in a movie… some of these things would be used by movie director’s as a point of building drama and plot and a more mature audience will follow along; but FRS games tend to be geared towards action and thus cut out anything that’s slow paced, or keep it to a very strict minimal… even if the movie is not 100% accurate, a movie is still likely to do a better job at grasping the overall experience of the war. A war video game tends to focus much on the action aspect of the game and does not go very deep into the more subtle moments or the more emotional and tramatic moments.

    not to mention that GI JOE and Nerf guns are rather irrelevant… his problem with 6 days is that it is based off an actual recent war, where as gi joe and nerf guns are something purely fictional. He makes that distiction when he goes into the differences to how COD4 was done

  67. JC says:

    I rarely see Nerf guns advertised these days. You’re thinking of 80s and possibly 90s era…

    I haven’t seen a GI joe advertized in decades…

  68. Rodrigo Ybáñez García says:

    Still, the problem again is the media, not the topic. No war movie is 100% accurate with real facts. Not even documentals have the complete truth.

    I´m desagree with him, but I respect his opinion, and it´s hard to believe (for me) that a person who comes from a society which rises their children with G.I. Joes and Nerf guns can be so discriminative against a war videogame.

    The cynical side of videogames (spanish only): http://thelostlevel.blogspot.com/ My DeviantArt Page (aka DeviantCensorship): http://www.darkknightstrikes.deviantart.com/

  69. sheppy says:

    Well yes and no.  Metal Gear Solid as a franchise is supposed to take the greatest "fears" of the day and crank that scenario to 11.  Take a look at MGS1.  Nuclear stockpiles and genetic engineering.  MGS2, fear of a control state forced onto an unsuspecting populace.  MGS3, cold war.  MGS4, the influence of corporations in the modern war machine.

    Wall of Text Simulation- Insert coin to continue.

  70. NovaBlack says:

    ”and of course, the wonderfully inaccurate Metal Gear series”

    um i wasnt aware that Metal gear was meant to be ‘accurate’ to anything in real life…

  71. HarmlessBunny says:

    Most people have the similar concern that it isn’t the game itself that they have a problem with, but the fact Konami is trying to paint it as the ‘real story’ that happened in that city during Iraq. If that is the case, that would be nasty and brutal enough that most companies would veer clear. However no doubt it is being made to be an attempted Call of Duty set in Iraq. (I agree with Dan, CoD4 did this successfully without actually saying this is the Iraq War, and had a good intertwining Clancy-ish story to it.) I really hope Konami knows what it is doing…seems like everyone though doubts they are.

  72. Necromancerxd says:

    My brother just got back from Iraq. USMC i told him about this game.He said as long as it dosen’t suck. But after reading this I think he’ll agree with me in the fact that it will probably suck. For some reason he does not like MetalGear Solid either. I like it though.

  73. GoodRobotUs says:

    I think people who like to play this kind of game will buy it regardless. ‘The Dam Busters’ was considered, at the time, to be the finest war-films made, nowadays we know it’s full of inaccuracies, completely one-sided and, generally, little more than Pro-UK propaganda that was rife at the time.

    I have a suspicion that this will go the same way, any soldier who’s served in the war in Iraq will probably say it’s not even close to realistic, as the interviewee quite rightly said, it’s supposed to be game, but people who like FPS games will still buy it, especially with the controversy it will cause.

     

    Edit: Reminds me of KumaWar.

  74. ZippyDSMlee says:

    Advertisement spewage aside let the work show how bad it is once its made….

     


    Gore,Violence,Sexauilty,Fear,Emotion these are but modes of transportation of story and thought, to take them from society you create a society of children and nannys, since adults are not required.


    http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com

  75. gamadaya says:

    He’s right, this game isn’t going to tell the story of those who fought in Fallujah, and Konami shouldn’t be painting it that way. But it still has the potential to be a fun game, which is what I think should matter the most. He also seems to dislike the Metal Gear Series because it portrays war and PMCs in an unrealistic manner. Of course it does, it’s Metal Gear! It portrays everything in an unrealistic manner.

    ——————————————————–

    Believe in something! Even if it’s wrong, believe in it! -Glenn Beck

  76. lumi says:

    Well, I think that depends upon the actual content of the movie.  If it turned out to be an inaccurate or highly selective action flick (the way Dan envisions this game, and I have to say, it’s hard to disagree), then I could certainly see people complaining.

    He does have a point, no one would want to play the game that actually gives the player the experience of being in Fallujah.

    I admire his willingness to come out and say that he objects to the decision to make the game, but does not dispute Konami’s right to make it.

Comments are closed.