Insurgents Contributing to “Six Days in Fallujah” Says Developer

Just when you thought Six Days in Fallujah couldn’t get any more controversial…

The developer of Six Days in Fallujah told attendees at Konami’s recent Gamers’ Night event that Iraqi insurgents are contributing to the project along with U.S. Marines and Iraqi civilians.

Joystiq’s Randy Nelson has a detailed report, including the startling remarks by Atomic Games president Peter Tamte:

It’s important for us to say, you know, that there are actually three communities that are very affected by the battle for Fallujah. Certainly the Marines. Certainly the Iraqi civilians within Fallujah, and the insurgents as well. We are actually getting contributions from all three of those communities so that we can get the kind of insight we’re trying to get.

I need to be careful about the specifics that I give… I think all of us are curious to know why [insurgents] were there. The insurgents [came from] different countries. And I think we’re all kind of curious about you know – they went there knowing that they were going to die… And I think that that’s a perspective that we should all understand.

[Insurgents are] involved in the creation of the game as well, as are Iraqi civilians. That’s important to us. It’s true. The game — the influences for the game came from the Marines that returned from Fallujah. But quite frankly in talking with them, it’s um, many people would just like this to be a recreation and we can’t recreate that without getting the perspectives of all the people who were involved.

Although Tamte doesn’t give a straightforward answer to whether or not Atomic has actually communicated with insurgents, his comments indicate that some type of input has taken place. It’s unclear whether that input was direct or indirect.

The news that there is an insurgent perspective is likely to provoke renewed outrage among some Iraq War veterans as well as families of military personnel killed and wounded in the conflict. Dan Rosenthal, a veteran of the war who now operates the site, reacted strongly to word of Six Days in Fallujah’s insurgent perspective:

Absolutely unbelievable that Peter Tamte and [creative director] Juan Benito would try to make an "entertainment" experience about a war that we’re actively fighting, while soliciting advice and input on how to best kill Marines in game, from people who have worked to kill Marines in real life. The hypocrisy and double-speak coming out of Atomic’s leadership is beyond unbelievable. 


The game is a "communications tool"…..a communications tool for who? The insurgency? And then out of the other corner of their mouths, they try to pass the game off as a "telling of stories"; but that’s a rude slap in the face to the approximately 100 Marines who died in the battles of Fallujah when the "story-telling" game includes Halo-style health regeneration. I’m pretty sure I don’t remember that being standard issue when I was in Iraq.

GP: We’re struggling to recall another game that generated this much controversy this early in its development cycle.

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


  1. 0
    farenfox says:

    I disagree with your thought that games cannot be created like documentaries due to the purpose of providing entertainment… As much as people hate to admit it, documentaries ARE entertainment. News and current affairs shows ARE entertainment. People might not find it ‘fun’ to watch a documentary, but they are entertained the whole way through otherwise they wouldn’t watch it. This is why even documentaries need some form of story structure or character arcs, because without these people would find them boring. Documentary makers often manufacture such structures by creative editing of materials to ensure that the documentary is compelling and entertaining for viewers to watch. Imagine if "The King of Kong" was just about the competition for the Kong high score, and not about the dramatised rivalry between Billy Mitchell (the villain) and Steve Wiebe (the underdog challenger).

    Furthermore, even the news relies on ratings to survive, and with a limited time slot they need to cover what they believe will entertain viewers… There are many wars going on around the world, but news shows choose to focus on those that can be related to by viewers, and on the occassional heartwarming ‘light news’ story, as they would rather keep viewers by selectively choosing what to report, than have to objectively report ALL world events.

  2. 0
    rdeegvainl says:

    To be honest, I couldn’t care less about your history on GP or not. My comment was a flipping of your sweeping statement, and directed not at any individual. If it struck a cord, maybe you should think about it. If the shoe fits and all that.

  3. 0
    GamesLaw says:

    Nobody’s shilling for anything. There’s a vast difference between a comment someone makes in a personal capacity and a story they write in an editorial capacity. I hope you choose to visit GamesLaw for your gaming legal analysis anyway.

    — Dan "SWATJester" Rosenthal; Executive Director,

  4. 0
    G-Meister says:

    Opprotunism or not, I think I would still like to hear why the Insurgents felt justified in what they did. All too often, war is painted in colors of black and white; the good Americans, coming to put a stop to the evil Germans with the help of Great Britan and occupied France. War isn’t that simple, not normally anyway, and it couldn’t hurt to know more about what motivates the other side in this conflict.

  5. 0
    G-Meister says:

    Actually, now that I think about it, the pre-order bonus must be a dancing instructional video from the terrorist on the left in the image that was posted with the article.

    "I like to sing-a and a dance-a, about the moon-a in the june-a!"

  6. 0
    Good Lord says:

    Based on your first comment in the thread, I see no compelling reason to go there seeking any kind of thought-provoking legal analysis. Just because the comments section of this site often turns into a political pissing contest for the soapbox-deprived doesn’t mean you have to contribute to the problem.

    If you’re shilling for a site promoting a thoughtful legal discussion of gaming in every signature, you may want to raise the level of your discourse.

  7. 0
    G-Meister says:

    Some of the insurgents were only fighting because they thought that all America wanted was to subjicate Iraq and take all of it’s oil. After the Americans sent out to some of the villages and towns to explain that, no, we really do want your country to stabilize, that way we can buy your oil from you, people started giving up the insurgency.

    I’m guessing these are the type of people that the developer is currently/going to interview.

  8. 0
    G-Meister says:

    I wouldn’t say that Halo messed everything up, it just tried to eliminate the abstract concept of health packs in a video game by replacing them with regenerating sheilds. Then everyone just said, "screw it" and now regenerating health bars are all the rage.

    The point is, there is plenty of opprotunities for a slightly more realistic health system, such as squad medics or (presumably) first aid kits from humvees. Or they could skip a healing system, and go for something I saw in a shooter a couple of years back, where if you died, your perspective switched to another computer controlled soldier on the battlefield and you took control of that person. It might have been Ghost Recon: Advanced Warfare, but I can’t remember for sure.

  9. 0
    DarkSaber says:

    Japanese people shooting at U.S. forces would be an act of war, not treason.


    I LIKE the fence. I get 2 groups to laugh at then.

  10. 0
    DarkSaber says:

    All your ranting about ‘if it’s accurate it wont be fun’ just shows your ignorance of Atomics previous games.


    I LIKE the fence. I get 2 groups to laugh at then.

  11. 0
    F__ked up says:

    Hmmm… Just some thoughts

    Can we draw that their are some similarities between insurgent input and super columbine massacre RPG? maybe along the lines of understanding what has happened through their point of view?

    Is getting insurgent input vastly different than the movies Dances with Wolves and The Last Samurai where the protagonist fights against Manifest Destiny and American Imperialism in what would be consider a traitorous act?

    Are we really that shallow and believe that the insurgents dont have a story to tell? Could their reason(s) to fight back be the similar reason(s) why people joined the military after 9-11?

    I really hope this game doesnt turn into Quest for Saddam / Quest for Bush, etc…

  12. 0
    TBoneTony says:

    Also the Japanese are the only country of people who have suffered a neuclear attack, so I think that Konami might be onto a good thing.

    As long as they are not preachy, this could be an interesting game that could well be worth playing.

    But at the same time, I will wait for the review of the game from someone who has already played it before I make a final judgement.


  13. 0
    TBoneTony says:

    Wow…this is really a good step.

    It will be interesting on how they can play out the storyline with all 3 sides.

    The US Marrines, the Iraq sivilians and the Militants.

    I think this is a really good thing in trying to make a game out of a current war where each side can have their own voice and perspective.

    Also this would lead to other sides of the debate trying to moral outcry the other, but honestly I could not care any less from these people unless if they are willing to just sit down, shut up and play the game before jumping to conclusions.


    Play the game, THEN decide.


    In any case, this goes allong with the idea that all sides should have their stories to be told in the war, not just one side.


    Plus it will be interesting to see how the game fares with the sales and the game reviews.


    This could perhaps be a really important step for Videogames to become a serious social commentator on various social and political issues, but at the same time the game needs to be fun and enjoyable and of course evoke some sort of emotion when we are playing the game. If a game is not fun, then you will not want to play it.



  14. 0
    Liz Surette says:

    My comments here on GamePolitics in no way reflect the opinions of GamesLaw. If you want legal analysis, go there. If you want punditry, stay here. I don’t see any legal issue in this situation, so why should I only talk law all the time?

  15. 0
    Faceless Clock says:

    "This whole thing still goes back to Dan’s original complaint: Atomic Games will 1) fail at their stated goal of "accurately recreating the experience" of being in Fallujah, or 2) create a game that no one wants to play, because the experience of being there WASN’T FUCKING FUN."

    You make the assumption that games are supposed to be fun. This is incorrect, and so your arguement has no merit.

    The Honest Game –

  16. 0
    DarthCadeous501 says:

    This was already in the GamePro issue featuring the game. Still, its awful to see the media try to blacklist this game. Censorship is NEVER good. Besides, does anyone know HOW they got the information from insurgents? Jail maybe? I don’t know so I won’t assume.

  17. 0
    Galthromir says:

    What pisses me off about this whole thing is how blatant the use of controversy for advertising is. I mean, why else would they speak like they have in the past besides to generate as much controvesry as possible. While I know this  is nothing new, it nonetheless irks me.

    As for the "quality" of their insurgents, there is no way the rank and file ‘hardcore’ would participate is such a thing. The leaders might, but their "contribution" would likely be little more than "America is Satan!, etc. etc." It would be like trying to get a ‘hardcore’ christian fundie to comment on a film that involved either homosexuality or abortion.

    Moderates people!

  18. 0
    Shaoken says:

    You’re accusing a Japanese developer of committing treason. -_-

    Freedom of speach and all that. Unless they, you know, actually picked up a gun and shot at US forces then it’s not treason.

  19. 0
    Fredrick2003 says:

    I know this won’t happen, but it would be nice if this game was brutally, brutally real.

    A few hits, you are down.  No regenerating health, only medics which can do very little.

    No "learning curves" or any of those convieniences, first mission is just as hard as the last mission.  No saving your game, once you die you die and you can start again if you wish.  If there are cutscenes, you can’t skip them, the soldiers couldn’t skip through thier life.

    Perhaps an online mode, where each person takes control of a marine in the squad.  However, same rules apply, once you die you are instantly booted from the game and you cannot rejoin that game in progress.

  20. 0
    Good Lord says:

    "Atomic Games will 1) fail at their stated goal of "accurately recreating the experience" of being in Fallujah, or 2) create a game that no one wants to play, because the experience of being there WASN’T FUCKING FUN."

    You haven’t played this game and neither has anyone else. Yet, you’re already convinced that you know how the game’s going to turn out. No offense, but that’s pretty classic knee-jerk material.

  21. 0
    lumi says:

    "I believe there are too many people ready to knee-jerk react to anything military related and automatically assume that it is disrespectful."

    I think someone needs to stop making sweeping statements about other posters.  If you knew anything at about me or my history at GP, you’d know that "knee-jerk reactions to anything military" is about as far off-base as you can get when describing my positions.

  22. 0
    lumi says:

    Nightwng, I think that without specifically trying to tell the story of the Marines involved, then it does cross into the realm of insensitive opportunism.  That was the one saving grace this game had, and it was impractical, at that.  This isn’t a documentary.

    And again, I’m going to approach this from the "fun vs. accuracy" angle.  If they went about their research and managed to accurately recreate the experience of being an insurgent, or a civilian, would you expect that to be at all fun?

    Claiming to accurately recreate experiences that simply aren’t fun is just not something that a game should be doing.  It’s going to succeed in its goal and fail as a game (not fun, by definition), or it’s going to fail in its stated goal, in which case it’s just making money off of an inaccurate commercialization of an on-going war, and that I see as a reasonable thing for survivors to be upset over.

  23. 0
    DarkSaber says:

    A glimmer of hope on the health front is that Atomic are responsible for the Close Combat WW2 RTS games, widely heralded for their innovations towards realism. Troops had morale levels, fatigue levels, and as they received injury performed and moved noticably worse until they were killed off entirely.

    This sort of thing was unheard of at the time, RTS units tended to perform indetically at full or 1% health. We can only only hope they are going to approach this FPS with a view to trying to add similar innovations.


    I LIKE the fence. I get 2 groups to laugh at then.

  24. 0
    Wormdundee says:

     I’m not sure what you mean by ‘this whole thing is retarded’, but I agree that it shouldn’t be censored in any way.

    Now, this whole thing with the regenerating health, that is stupid as hell. When a soldier gets shot, they go down. Yes, their armor can protect them somewhat, and if they get winged in the leg or something it can probably be patched up in the field and they can continue on. But if you are able to be shot by 5 bullets and then go hide behind a wall and regen, I am not buying this game.

    I believe there was a comment saying that you would need some sort of regenerating health in order to complete the mission or objective. Well, no you don’t. The first thing that came to mind is the fact that soldiers always work in squads. If the guy you are controlling gets taken down, control switches over to someone else in the squad and you continue. There’s also the point that they are talking to the guys who survived the battle. If they recreate that exactly, then you will be playing the part of someone who survived. So if they survived the real thing, surely you can survive a virtual version of it?

    Not saying that this game is guaranteed to be great. I don’t hold much hope that they’ll do it right, but I leave open the possibility that they might.

  25. 0
    DarkSaber says:

    There were plenty of ways to regain health in games before Halo came along and fucked everything up.


    I LIKE the fence. I get 2 groups to laugh at then.

  26. 0
    DarkSaber says:

    Which is why they say they are in contact with insurgents. There is more than one side to politics as well as combat.


    I LIKE the fence. I get 2 groups to laugh at then.

  27. 0
    nightwng2000 says:

    There’s that perspective thing again.

    YOU are assuming that to create something that tells the story about the battle, it MUST be the story of the Marines, rather than the battle and the events in general.  Having the perspective of all involved, rather than just one side’s perspective, makes it far more complete.


    NW2K Software

    Nightwng2000 has also updated his MySpace page: Nightwng2000 is now admin to the group "Parents For Education, Not Legislation" on MySpace as

  28. 0
    NekoNari says:

    I think this again has to do with where "game" stands in our society. From Dan Rosenthal’s quote, it’s clear that video games are, at least for him, nothing more than a toy. A entertainment.

    Well, can a game be created to be like documentary? I think that’s what this whole argument is about.

    My thought: No. The purpose of game is to provide entertainment. It gives players some objectives to achieve, and by doing so, players have fun. If we’re talking about real, serious issue that just happened, I do not think game is just a good medium to deliver anything about it.

    If someone were to adamently go ahead and create an interactive experience recreating such event, it’d have to be something that’s less game, but more of an interactive, yet highly scripted scenario simulator. Now that’d accurately recreate the situation.

    XBL: NekoNari

  29. 0
    GamesLaw says:

    Not from me. I’ve been notably critical of the war since I left IWVO. That’s precisely my point. Atomic has pledged not to get into the politics behind the game. Yet the politics ARE the reason we were and still are in Fallujah. If they’re not getting into that, they’re not telling the story.

    — Dan "SWATJester" Rosenthal; Executive Director,

  30. 0
    rdeegvainl says:

    I believe there are too many people ready to knee-jerk react to anything military related and automatically assume that it is disrespectful.

    I think more people need to stop acting like things are off limits. The freedoms that military members fight for include the freedom of speech, and to try and chill that, is hypocrytical from a military members perspective, and direspectfull to the military from a civilian perspective.

    military personnel here

  31. 0
    DarkSaber says:

    Speaking as non-US person, I would much rather play as the insurgents than another generic marine. (Albeit a named generic marine who was there.)


    I LIKE the fence. I get 2 groups to laugh at then.

  32. 0
    DarkSaber says:

    Some people seem to be drifting away from the game issue into a ‘How dare they even suggest there might possibly be some criticism of why our marines are there’.


    I LIKE the fence. I get 2 groups to laugh at then.

  33. 0
    lumi says:

    Which has what, exactly, to do with telling the story of the soldiers we sent over there?  That’s what the game is allegedly supposed to be about.

  34. 0
    DarkSaber says:

    Wouldn’t give you much of an insight into WHY they were shooting hostile invaders though would it.


    I LIKE the fence. I get 2 groups to laugh at then.

  35. 0
    lumi says:

    Man, there are too many people here who are just too damned ready to offer knee-jerk defense of anything game-related.

    And before anyone thinks of going all ad hominem on me, don’t bother.  Scan my comments on this site; note that I have been playing games all my life, and I’m now a professional game dev.  Games are my life, and I have always fought tooth and nail for them to get the recognition and validation they deserve.

    This whole thing still goes back to Dan’s original complaint: Atomic Games will 1) fail at their stated goal of "accurately recreating the experience" of being in Fallujah, or 2) create a game that no one wants to play, because the experience of being there WASN’T FUCKING FUN.

    So let’s make the only remotely logical assumption: they’ll make a game that they think will sell.

    Look at this from a soldier’s perspective.  You survive Fallujah (probably watched at least one friend die, though), come home, and find out that a game company is interviewing the guy who killed your fellow soldiers, about how he killed them, so they can put it into their product.  Do you really expect any of the guys who were actually there to believe this game is going to accurately recreate that experience?  Ergo, do you really expect any of them to be okay with this?  Again, if you want to know how they’re doing what they’re doing, ask our own military.

    Interviewing insurgents isn’t going to make this game fail any less at its stated goal.  It’s just a slap in the face.

  36. 0
    DarkSaber says:

    Well, the marines WERE sent in so that other individuals and groups could profit.


    I LIKE the fence. I get 2 groups to laugh at then.

  37. 0
    hayabusa75 says:

    Did I misunderstand something here?  Isn’t the crux of the game to tell the stories of the soldiers who lived through the experience?  How are you supposed to get through the game, and hence the story, if you can’t regenerate your health?

    I sort of feel like I’m asking a silly question, my apologies.

    "De minimus non curat lex"

  38. 0
    lumi says:

    No one’s saying they can’t.  They’re saying it’s upsetting that they are.

    I dunno…I can see this one as a legit complaint.  Interviewing the people who are killing our Marines, while they’re still killing our Marines, about how they kill our Marines, for the purpose of ultimately making money off of it (yes, gaming is a COMMERCIAL endeavor)…

    Yeah, I really don’t see why anyone is surprised that this isn’t being received well, or even thinks it’s uncalled for.

  39. 0
    hellfire7885 says:

    I would love ot share youir vision, but sadly, the people who speak out agaisnt video games are unlikely to play or even see parts of this that aren’t objectionable, and since it’s not public knowledge tat insurgents are helping with the game, it will likely be pointed out that Konami is a terrorist company and is now making games where you play as an insurgent killing American soldiers, and the ignorant masses will likely eat it up.

    It won’t help that Konami is a Japanese company and not an American one, as in some eyes that will just validate the claims.

  40. 0
    hellfire7885 says:

    Well, time for the claims that Konami is a terrorist company. Makesme doubly glad the morons that comment on other blogs with things like "video games and atheists are ruining america, and need ot be deported" haven’t bothered to come here.

  41. 0
    Praetorian says:

    I don’t see this issue with insurgents adding to the game, if they want realism–it can’t be any better than that!

    Besides, what if, a very, very, LARGE IF, this turns out to be the one thing that shows how we as humans from all over the world can work together without killing each other?

    What better thing to see than an idea that brings everyone in the world together — even if it keeps them apart spatially.

    I guess I can dream, but I don’t think it’s too much of a dream.


    "If you sit by the river long enough, you will see the body of your enemy floating by."

  42. 0
    JDKJ says:

    "Absolutely unbelievable that Peter Tamte and [creative director] Juan Benito [would] solicit[] advice and input on how to best kill Marines in [the] game, from people who have worked to kill Marines in real life."

    Umm, should they solicit advice and input from those who have absolutely no experience working to kill Marines in real life?

  43. 0
    DarkSaber says:

    I think the blueprints are only available to people who pre-order.


    I LIKE the fence. I get 2 groups to laugh at then.

  44. 0
    MaskedPixelante says:

    Anything by Rockstar. There you go, there’s a bunch of games that are basically BUILT on controversy

    —You are likely to be eaten by a Grue.

  45. 0
    ChuckLez says:

    Because everyone takes "I need to be careful about the specifics that I give…  I think all of us are curious to know why [insurgents] were there."

    as "We asked them how to make an IED and will put all the blueprints in the game" (soliciting advice and input on how to best kill Marines in game, from people who have worked to kill Marines in real life.)

    Well, you sort expect this kind of ranting but I would would expect better rants by now; but, who am I to think that people can grow up.


    There are only 10 types of people in this world, people who know binary and people who don’t.

  46. 0
    Shahab says:

    Press and historians can interview insurgents all day long and no one gets "outraged". If they are trying to make a realistic game it monly makes sense they would talk to insurgents too. I am sure the game is going to br pro-american. Some people get their panties twisted for nothing. Freedom of speech means you don’t get to tell Atomic they can’t make a game about any legal thing they want.

  47. 0
    Clever says:

    I’ve heard conflicting rumours on health regeneration, however I think it’s safe to say that this is one game where, should they actually go for the "realism" and the "experience" as they’ve so often reminded us, virtually no-health regeneration should occur of any kind. Medics can only patch you up but never fully restore you sort of deal at the most. Thankfully I’m not talking from personal experience but it would be quite a stark contrast to our normal "hide behind this wall until you’re better" to see accurate wound and animation models that mirrored reality. Would this destroy the "game" portion? Perhaps, but it was one of my favourite features of the ill-fated WWII Online and if they’re going out of their way to interview insurgents for the "real" angle they might as well get the perspective of "I’ve just been bloody shot – There’s no safe area – they’re still fucking shooting at me – what the hell am I supposed to do? Will I ever get to see my family again?"

  48. 0
    E. Zachary Knight says:

    The internet is really bad for jokes.

    I understand the importance of maintaining an independant view of an event such as Fallujah, especially when there are so many sides of the story.

    I do wonder just how and in what manner they are getting information from insurgents. Are they people who fought against the US and later became allies or neutral? Are thy prisoners of war captured there? It is a really important question to ask.

    E. Zachary Knight
    Oklahoma City Chapter of the ECA

    E. Zachary Knight
    Divine Knight Gaming
    Oklahoma Game Development
    Rusty Outlook
    Random Tower
    My Patreon

  49. 0
    nightwng2000 says:

    It would be easy to CREATE historical views.

    It’s not so easy to actually preceive events from actual participants and write a story "rationally" from the "rationale" of the perspective you’re having to look through.

    Who can say that a truly complete story of the Civil War/War of Northern Aggression/etc has ever been done?  I’m not familiar with a single one that takes a truly and total neutral view.


    NW2K Software

    Nightwng2000 has also updated his MySpace page: Nightwng2000 is now admin to the group "Parents For Education, Not Legislation" on MySpace as

  50. 0
    DarkSaber says:

    Just so long as Starcraft remains historically accurate *rolls eyes*


    I LIKE the fence. I get 2 groups to laugh at then.

  51. 0
    IsoNeko says:

    I love how the west is reacting to this. The Media outlets are in uproar! The media forget these people have stories to tell too. They aren’t fighting us because they "want to", they are also fighting for a cause…A much better explained cause then our vague "Eliminate Terrorism" cause.


    "These guys are bad, so were not allowed to talk to them, and anything they say is hypocrisy against us and therefore makes the entire thing bad."


    I’m sorry, but I’m sticking by the Dev’s here. They’re creating a game, that gives both sides of the story, and the story of those in the middle. For someone going into the British Forces, it would be wrong of me to not be clued up about my opponents, and for a game to give a completely biased one way arguement would and more than likely could put people in the wrong state of mind if they do sign up. One such example is my Mothers-Friends-Boyfriend who is a 15 year Sniper of the Army. His stories are usually among the "Today, I shot this raghead straight in the head, and then his mate turned round and started looking for us but then I capped that paki bastard as well."

    Oddly enough, the guy is white…And also very friendly.

  52. 0
    Neeneko says:

    *nod* if the game were actually built to be accurate, getting the perspective of all three groups and integrating it into the story would be facinating.  A game following in the footsteps of "Flags of Our Fathers"+"Letters from Iwo Jima" would really be something.


  53. 0
    E. Zachary Knight says:

    Yes it must really be hard for the Zerg and Protoss knowing that their stories will not be told for several years after the Terrans. Blizzard must be pro-Terran and want to indoctrinate all the gamers with their pro-Terran propaganda.

    E. Zachary Knight
    Oklahoma City Chapter of the ECA

    E. Zachary Knight
    Divine Knight Gaming
    Oklahoma Game Development
    Rusty Outlook
    Random Tower
    My Patreon

  54. 0
    nightwng2000 says:

    I’m sure lots of folks would like any story to be from their own viewpoint and their own viewpoint alone.  Everyone else’s view be damned.

    If there were three seperate games, each one from each of the groups’s perspective, each group would be claiming that the games of the other groups are inaccurate or filled with revisionism.

    It’s be interesting to see a mesh of the three views in one product and how that is handled.


    NW2K Software

    Nightwng2000 has also updated his MySpace page: Nightwng2000 is now admin to the group "Parents For Education, Not Legislation" on MySpace as

  55. 0
    DarkSaber says:

    All the more reason to try and get as much information from all sides involved as possible then.


    I LIKE the fence. I get 2 groups to laugh at then.

  56. 0
    GamesLaw says:

    It was included in Kotaku’s coverage of a press alpha demo.

    I don’t think the story should be told only from the side of the Americans. I think the Iraqi civilians have a very important story to tell. That does not excuse the developer for actively working with or soliciting the opinions of those who worked to kill US Marines, on a game that allows you to simulate the deaths of US Marines, while said US Marines are still in the country. That’s not "entertainment". And it’s certainly not their job to be a "communications tool" for the insurgency.


    Very disappointing all in all.

    — Dan "SWATJester" Rosenthal; Executive Director,

  57. 0
    DarkSaber says:

    When did they say it was going to have health regeneration? Or is that pretty much a given do you think?

    Funny how these people seem to think that the story should only be told from the side of the invaders and not the people resisting them.


    I LIKE the fence. I get 2 groups to laugh at then.

  58. 0
    Wraith108 says:

    Me either. I think it’ll be interesting to hear from all sides. In some ways the lack of communication between the US/West and the Middle East is part of what made the terrorists in the first place. Also has the ability to play from the insurgents side been mentioned in other places or is it just being guessed? I think that playing the insurgents would be kinda sucky actually, the individual would probably not last long in any prolonged fight.

  59. 0
    DarkSaber says:

    "That does not excuse the developer for actively working with or soliciting the opinions of those who worked to kill US Marines, on a game that allows you to simulate the deaths of US Marines, while said US Marines are still in the country. That’s not "entertainment". "

    Depends which country you are from. I don’t have a problem shooting at marines in the context of a game.


    I LIKE the fence. I get 2 groups to laugh at then.

  60. 0
    Neeneko says:

    Not to defend the zealots, but keep in mind not all insurgents are the same.  To say that all insurgents (even within this conflict) are the ‘same crew’ as the ones doing the beheading are like saying that the marines involved in Fallujah are the ‘same crew’ as the squad that took an old man from his home, gave him a shovel, executed him, and then raped/killed his daughter.

  61. 0
    DarkSaber says:

    Or alternatively, people defending an area against a western invasion/land & oil grab. Context is everything. Insurgents are not the same as extremist terrorists, despite what CNN might tell you.

    Remember that the U.S. army are the same crew of zealots that were torturing prisoners in Abu Ghraib. (Spelling?)


    I LIKE the fence. I get 2 groups to laugh at then.

  62. 0
    Zerodash says:

    This is kinda sick.  Remember that these insurgents are the same crew of zealots that were doing all those beheadings of civilians a few years back.  Unbelievable.

  63. 0
    Kajex says:

    It’s a method of free advertising- you get a bunch of hoopla over a single product, it gets plastered all over the news for everybody to see because it’s a huge controversy, and you don’t have to spend another cent in advertising to let people know about it.

  64. 0
    HarmlessBunny says:

    It doesn’t surprise me that they are interviewing former (possibly current) Insurgents. However it baffles the shit out of me that they are making this information PUBLIC. I mean…what are they thinking? Are they trying to piss majority of the United States off? Oy oy…

  65. 0
    BearDogg-X says:

    I have no opinion on the game, but I do think that it’s hypocritical to complain about a game based on the current war when there were hardly any complaints about some of the movies that came out based on the current war or even complaints about certain country music artists from Nashville making money off both this war and 9/11.

    Geaux Saints, Geaux Tigers, Geaux Hornets, Jack Thompson can geaux chase a chupacabra.

    Proud supporter of the New Orleans Saints, LSU, 1st Amendment; Real American; Hound of Justice; Even through the darkest days, this fire burns always

    Saints(0-3), LSU(3-0)

  66. 0
    deathvanquished says:

    Casablanca, Behind the Rising Sun, Bombs Over Burma, So Proudly We Hail, Wing and a Prayer, and many, many more movies about WWII were made during the actual war.  Most of them now are considered propoganda, but still this has happened before.  This is nothing new.

    Why do we have a double standard on art forms?  How can a film visualize the past but a game trivialize the past?

  67. 0
    Kajex says:

    … I can’t say I’m angry. I’m just not. To be honest, I’m alright with it. I’m pretty sure they didn’t just build the Call of Duty series from the ground up with strictly American/British views taking the forefront- it was an undertaking with facts.

    You want facts, you do gotta get the scoop from both sides.

  68. 0
    GusTav2 says:

    If one is trying to portray a ‘realistic’ version of a recent historical event (which in this case remains to be seen) it is vital that the perspective of all the participants is taken into account. If it is not the portrayal will be partial at best and propoganda at worst.

    I can’t see how it is any more distasteful to be aware of one sides perspective as opposed to the other’s.

    Taking account of a view does not denote the acceptance of it.

Leave a Reply