The Battle Over the Battle of Fallujah

I agree with Shadow. It's just not possible to create an accurate documentation with a video game unless it has very strict winning conditions. Perhaps Atomic should include a full-length video about the war. This would let them recreate the emotion they want while still providing a documentation that stays true to life.

as an avid gamer, not precicely first person shooters (i've dabbled in medal or honor but never actually finished one), but a gamer none the less, i think they can portray the emotions and feeling of being there, but they can't accurately call it a documentation, as, for example, in halo 2 i believe, a soldier is being mawled, if you get there fast enough you can save him, if you take your time, he dies. its a similar concept, a game can be taken from more angles than a real life aspect. you can replay a game with different results, life, well you get one shot. i support the concept and idea, but the actual portrayal, as a game, you can't make it a literal documentary.

Thank you clanmcstump i could not agree with you more. I am an avid gamer as well as a son of father who served for 24 years in the military growing up i never heard him speak of the war or the things he saw i learned many of the facts from recreation in movies as well as games. I went to a predominantly black school being the only white student in a class of 30 made it hard to learn all that happened due to the history class was mainly studying black history which i loved learning about but if a game can teach someone more of what happened then i welcome it whole heartedly. We as Americans often hide behind our past as well as future endeavors not telling how it really happened or about he facts that need to be taught its a shame that so much controversy is hitting this game. clanmcstump i would like to thank you as well as all the other men and women in the military for my family as well as others so we have our rights and freedoms

This is a touchy subject. Some Marines would want the story told, done with reverence for those who did not return, and should NEVER be forgotten. The families see it as disrespectful, but it does not have to be that way. Its all in the presentation of this event, its not some bubble gum "war game" this actually happened. Maybe some of the proceeds could be given to a fund to create a memorial, I just don't want to see this thing be a commercial money making enterprise. I would think it would be a tribute to all those who were there. Including members of the 1st ID, who did not get much recognition. They were there too. Let us NEVER forget them, those we lost.

As much as SDiF doesn't look like its going to reach its goal (regenerating health anyone), to say that it CAN't is truly disgusting. People are stuck in this imndset that video games need to be "fun." We now have the technology and skill to develop games which aren't necesarily "fun" persay, but enjoyable in the same way that watching a serious movie is. What wee seem to lack is someone with both the skill and artistic drive to do so. I know that one day we will be playing games that aren't fun, but are ethicly and intellectually challenging. However, sh*t like this makes me fear that I'll be dead by then... and I'm 18...

Blah, Blah, Blah,.....Take the company to court and drive up the cost to release the game so much, they don't make a dime.
Then ever one will see what's really important....exploiting the dead to make a dollar off the simple....

Case closed....the rest is all BS.

As someone who is interested in games, the controversy over Fallujah is frankly infuriating. While there are some valid arguments against the game -- it could reinforce anti-arab sentiments and desensitize people -- many of these points could also be applied to a film about the subject -- something which many of those crying foul would object to much less. Games are capable of conveying moral dilemmas and complex emotions, and have in the past. Look at Call of Duty IV, or BioShock, or Mother 3. Games can be powerful. It's a pity more people don't understand that.

Many of the ones not raising hell over these ''war''format games are other veterans [while my own service with the 24 MAU in Lebanon did not raise itself to the level of what can be considered a subject for war gaming, it follows that eventually, wars in Iraq or even the earlier al-Khafji battle in the first Gulf War would be revisited at some point]
Hence the partnership between such gaming giants as ELECTRONIC ARTS, TRYPTCH , UBISOFT and veterans to bring ''the closest to battle without being shot at'' in its many WWII to modern era warfare series.
Inherent problems with those such as CALL OF DUTY involve keeping the player within a tight tracked path, similar to remaining on a one-lane labyrinth where you are guided forward without much more than a minimal ability to perform flanking manouvre,improved upon by the BROTHERS IN ARMS series which depends upon these tactics, and also creates a more expansive ''world'' in which to move. Realism is enhanced by the absence of ''stimpaks'' or ''medical packs'', that lead themselves to a diminished quality based upon the players survival .[In RED BARON a WWI flying game format, if ''wounded'' your character is either sent home or hospitalized for a period commiserate with the passage of months or even years, and if ''killed'' is removed entirely along with the players stats which are entered into a log. Cowardice in the face of the ''enemy'' is rewarded by hard labour, and captured pilots can ''escape'' from POW camps, and this is a much older format developed in the 1990s that can be improved upon in this gaming age].
It becomes the Russians who go back to RED BARONS highly successful format to create AGE OF FLIGHT which is another WWI flying combat platform that currently has aviation military gamers going bananas over the stylized graphics and more realstic handling of the major German, British and French machines [the Americans,using the French SPAD that included the top ace ''Hat In The Ring'' squadron headed by Eddie Rickenbacker]. This game is scheduled for a Fall 2009 release while getting the last bugs out and organizing the final draft.
It thus figures that more modern conflicts would be the subject of games that ,with the passage of time in technological advances, offer players more realistic and thus more griitty interpretations of wars and battles even more recently fought by real soldiers who appear to approve of the creation of FALLUJAH or have involved themselves in the production of such games.

www.military.com for a more extensive lineup of upcoming video wargames.

1234

As Samuel Fuller, movie director once admonished some critics saying that his film "brought them" into war for real: I paraphrase, Unless you can smell war off the screen and realize that you can die; you have not experienced anything except a film."

As I have read over some of the comments posted, I understand the points that are being made. The war is not over and this game looks more like a cash cow than a tribute, but I can see where the developers are wanting to honor those who have fought and are fighting. The saying here is, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." Using the medium as a teaching/historical tool is wonderful, case in point the "Call of Duty" series and the "Total War" series are good examples of this, but given the current environment I see the controversy. More current themes of this can be found in "America's Army" and "Call of Duty: Modern Warfare", both were generally well received with little resistance. We must acknowledge though, that this war will be made into a game-like format, when it will be is uncertain but the fact remains that it will happen.

"I wonder if this game could actually DECREASE tensions about the war by showing some people what the soldiers in Fallujah had to go through? " That's the fantasy that keeps coming up when the company talks about the game. It is dangerous, hurtful fantasy that a simulation could ever show people what the soldiers and Marines went through in Fallujah. It can simulate the thoughts and actions, but no simulation can show what it is like to be in the midst of life-and-death chaos, coping with the fact that it is mostly out of control and you're helpless to keep your friends or innocents from being injured or killed.

I haven't been in combat, but I was a paramedic, so the comparison I make is a triage simulator. It is possible to simulate the medical decisions made in a triage situation, but it is utterly impossible to simulate what it is truly like to decide to let one person die in order than the greatest number will live. In a game or other entertainment, you are always in control; the sense of being out of control, which is the biggest stressor, cannot be simulated. That's what Atomic Games and anyone else who claims this game shows what it is like live through something like this has trivialized.

As people have pointed out repeatedly, we do turn war into entertainment. It can be very good to deal with grief through art. But the way Atomic has talked about this, calling it a "game," would be like selling "Saving Private Ryan" as great fun for the whole family. It was a wonderful movie, but it wasn't fun and it didn't let anybody really know what it was like to be on the beaches at Normandy. We cannot know that and basic respect calls for us to acknowledge that, which is what Atomic has failed to do, over and over.

I am not a disinterested observer to this. My niece's husband was killed in action in Fallujah. But I have also been a consultant to the military and others on using multimedia simulations for training and other purposes. I've played and enjoyed strategic military games. I am deeply involved in helping first responders, including veterans, deal with post-traumatic stress, in which simulations can be helpful in the course of therapy. I am 100 percent in favor of combat vets telling their stories in multimedia - I've done that myself, in tribute to my niece's husband. Telling our stories is one of the ways we heal. But I also know that telling and hearing stories of traumatic events can re-traumatize people if it isn't done with a solid understanding how to go about it... and the statements from Atomic lead me to think that there's no way they understand that. Otherwise, they would never make the claim that the game can let you know what it was like to be there.

You can certainly tell when someone has NEVER experienced such a loss...they think it so easy to sit down, shut up and move on with their lives. If you're used to dying in video games, I suppose that WOULD be your outlook; but when you actually experience such a death in REAL life... Maybe we should draft up these young video game players and really put them in the action...I think they could totally UNDERSTAND the situation if they, themselves were actually in it, rather than playing a GAME, don't you? I mean, what could be a better teacher? Certainly not a TV or video game system!

I don't even know what to say...that they could try to make something like this "entertaining" ...when many Americans live with the pain and horror of this war every day; so many of us will live it every day for the rest of our lives. Sick. Is the public-at-large still THAT much in denial about the REAL consequences of WAR that they create the "demand" for this product? Double sick!

I lost my brother in Iraq, though not in this particular battle. When our loved one's 'health meter' dropped to '0', they didn't get to 'retry' the mission. When they took a bullet, they didn't just get to pick up a health pack and keep 'playing'...they suffered, they cried, they died.

I think it's disgusting that anyone would create this video game, and encourage people to just give a "donation" (equal to the price of such a game) directly to a charity that supports troops and their families. If you really want to understand what this war is like, reach out and TALK to a veteran, visit a military hospital, spend time with the children whose parents are off in another country or buried 6-feet deep. CONNECT WITH REAL PEOPLE and actually learn - actually come to UNDERSTAND what you would be missing by playing (yes, PLAYING) a video game.

Video games are arguably our society's most powerful and most popular medium.

War is something we need to understand, not ignore.

So why shouldn't we use this powerful medium to increase our understanding of what our friends in the armed forces have been through?

Movies, books, and television can be crass and trivial, or they can be sensitive and appropriate. Same goes for video games. They can be sensitive and appropriate, too.

From what I've heard, seems like the guys at Atomic are making a lot of effort to make sure the game is accurate, sensitive and appropriate:

http://trippenbach.com/2009/06/09/six-days-in-fallujah-and-the-dirty-g-word/

If you make it, I will play!