Atomic Games: Six Days in Fallujah

[Thomm]

Atomic Games (of former Close Combat fame) develop a third-person shooter based on the battle of Fallujah:

http://www.gamecareerguide.com/industry_news/23084/atomic_games_konami_announce_.php

Interesting, or so I think. I wonder how many CC guys are still employed there ...

Best regards,

Thomm

[DASman]

There are no CC people working on it.

I think Keith is a "unpaid consultant" on the project.

E

[Field Marshal Blücher]

Still, looks like an interesting game concept at the very least; I'll probably give it a shot.

[dieseltaylor]

I hope it never gets published as a game. A training sim for the army maybe but there is a lot of bad feeling about a war that was created and sold to many countries by some unprincipled politicos.

To make money out of it as a game seems to be ghoulish/unsavoury/ and probably not very helpful in improving relationships between Arab/Iraqui nations and the West.

Probably as useful in restoring good feeling as a a game on the MyLai massacre with the winner judged on speed and least number of bullets used

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_massacre

[Field Marshal Blücher]

Uhh . . . the Second Battle of Fallujah has very little in common with the My Lai massacre . . .

And how is this any more damaging to international relations than the tons of other games about there about playing as the US military killing Islamic insurgents? Do you think that just because CoD4 didn't name the country in which the operations take place somehow makes it OK for the arabs/muslims?

[dieseltaylor]

As for any similarities, well it is true there are less deaths in the Vietnam case. And in fact few if any combatants to fight which makes the whole thing more horrific.

In Iraq there were somewhere between 30000 to 90000 civilians in the city of which "only" up to 6000 died. The Allies claim to have fought, and presumably killed 2000-3000 enemy fighters. So the ratio of civilian deaths to fighters is much better than My Lai.

There are parts in which the game might be interesting such as will they include the use of white phosphorus.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Battle_of_Fallujah

As I am not an Arab/Iraqi or Muslim I have not seen the other games you claim are on the subject I cannot say how many people are offended by these games. I am .

From what I read of CoD4 it seems sufficiently well written to include any Arab country and specifically mentions an abstract Russia. It does not take a specific recent battle and pretend to re-enact it so I think there is a difference may be in your ideas slight but in my eyes significant.

Do I take it that you would not be uncomfortable with a My Lai game then?

[Field Marshal Blücher]

There's a difference between dropping a bomb on a suspected insurgent position that kills nearby civilians and deliberately shooting a baby in the head at point-blank range. I've read a lot more than a wikipedia article on Second Fallujah, and I can't recall a single example of deliberate, personal cruelty to civilians.

Pretty much, if you hold your analogy, then every single urban battle in the 20th century is equivalent to My Lai. In urban battles, tons and tons of civilians die, but there's a difference between having them killed in the crossfire and deliberately executing them. AFAIK the only deliberately killed civilians during Second Fallujah were killed by the insurgents that the US was trying to get rid of.

Furthermore, if you actually read the wikipedia article, you'd see that most of the evidence for the use of WP is as an illumination round. There is some stuff in there about deliberately using it on insurgents (which is OK in my book). There is also some stuff about deliberate use on civilians, all of which has been sufficiently discredited within the article itself.

I'm not happy about the Iraq war. I've opposed it since the start. But I think you're taking this a little too far.

From my point of view, making a game about Second Fallujah is no different from making a game about a hypothetical conflict in the Middle East. Anyone with half a brain can tell what those other games are based on anyway. The only group of people I can see a Second Fallujah game antagonizing specifically are the actual relatives and friends of people killed in Fallujah, and it seems to me that those people are pretty much not going to like the US regardless of what video games come out.

There's enough media and material out there already, and probably more on the way, about the Iraq War or about unnamed or hypothetical Middle Eastern conflicts (hmm, I wonder what inspired them?). Making or not making this game probably won't make a big change in the way Iraqis, Arabs, and Muslims see the US.

And no, you may not take it that I would be comfortable with a My Lai game. I find that offensive and totally unfounded by anything I've said.

[dieseltaylor]

So is rapprochement helped or hindered by "games"?

You will note originally that as an Army trainer simulation I have no problem with Fallujah as a battle.

Making a commercial product :

The only group of people I can see a Second Fallujah game antagonizing specifically are the actual relatives and friends of people killed in Fallujah, and it seems to me that those people are pretty much not going to like the US regardless of what video games come out.

Interesting viewpoint that as it only offends a few thousand Iraqi's then its an OK commercial idea. I think is offensive to more than the people you think.

Turning to this sentence:

I've read a lot more than a wikipedia article on Second Fallujah, and I can't recall a single example of deliberate, personal cruelty to civilians.

I am curious whether accidental impersonal actions that cause civilian death are in any way better than "deliberate,personal" actions. The closing of the hospital at Fallujah and the turning back of men of military age into a battlezone may seem to be in essence cruel behaviours. However that is irrelevant to the thread.

Anyway I am glad you disapprove of a My Lai game , I think the idea gross. But as a commercial venture presumably it would be no less acceptable than many shoot-em up games. But, just possibly, do you think people would be offended in the US if it were referred to as My Lai rather than shoot the zombies or grooks?

Lastly

Pretty much, if you hold your analogy, then every single urban battle in the 20th century is equivalent to My Lai. In urban battles, tons and tons of civilians die, but there's a difference between having them killed in the crossfire and deliberately executing them.

I cannot claim to know all urban battles of the 20th century but my impression has always been that dead and captured combatants normally outnumber dead civilians - other than lengthy sieges where starvation and disease alter the result. However if you have specifics in terms of urban battles lasting around ten days please let me know.

[Field Marshal Blücher]

I think is offensive to more than the people you think.

That's possible. We have diverging opinions on this, and I will respect that.

I am curious whether accidental impersonal actions that cause civilian death are in any way better than "deliberate,personal" actions.

The end result is the same. However, since we are talking about a video game, it's much more suitable to have a game about a battle in which lots of civilians were killed unintentionally than to have a game about killing civilians intentionally.

Anyway I am glad you disapprove of a My Lai game , I think the idea gross. But as a commercial venture presumably it would be no less acceptable than many shoot-em up games. But, just possibly, do you think people would be offended in the US if it were referred to as My Lai rather than shoot the zombies or grooks?

I doubt it would be terribly acceptable, primarily because most of the action would consist of shooting (and doing other bad things to) people who can't resist. In spite of what people frequently say about the video game industry, there are no popular games that I can think of where the gameplay consists of shooting completely helpless opponents. The fact is that both gamers and non-gamers would oppose it on moral standards, and the reprehensible few who didn't would rapidly become bored, because the gameplay would be, well, boring once you got past the horror of what it is you'd be doing.

The main point I have about a Fallujah game vs a My Lai game is that you could easily make a Fallujah game where killing civilians is not a part of the gameplay. This is not really possible for My Lai, and that's where I think the main difference lies. In fact, I hope that if they do make a Fallujah game, they include civilian deaths but portray them in an appropriately negative light.

I cannot claim to know all urban battles of the 20th century but my impression has always been that dead and captured combatants normally outnumber dead civilians - other than lengthy sieges where starvation and disease alter the result. However if you have specifics in terms of urban battles lasting around ten days please let me know.

My statement was an exaggeration, but I fundamentally stand by my beliefs. I don't have any specific statistics, as most of my reference materials are located 7,000 miles from me at the moment, but most civilians who refuse to leave an urban area that is attacked suffer horrible losses in general. It's the nature of urban warfare. Collateral damage is immense, even if the soldiers on both sides attempt to limit civilian casualties. In industrialized warfare, it's simply impossible to prevent catastrophic civilian casualties when assaulting an urban area short of, well, not assaulting the urban area.

[Battlefront.com]

Civilians die in any conflict, period. Look at the civilian body count in WW2... tens of MILLIONS of civilians died. Some were deliberately targeted, but most died due to neglect for their safety. There were few Dresden type operations compared to farmers killed when their farm house was obliterated by artillery fire because "the enemy could possibly be in there, so let's not take any chances". There is no such thing as a clean war, so if war is something you're interested in experiencing in a game you have to put some distance between yourself and reality. Nobody wants to play a wargame where you see dead civilians killed by your actions unless you're twisted in the head.

In fact, I bet as a percentage fewer civilians died in Fallujah than died in any similar sized action in WW2. Just a guess because in WW2 there were no journalists reporting on civilian casualties at the front, nor were such reports even compiled on a regular basis for the military.

We've had discussions like this on our Forums dozens of times over the years. If someone has a problem with civilians getting killed in the crossfire, then wargaming is absolutely not something that should be on your game playing menu. Trying to split hairs is morally unacceptable.

And comparing a non-combat killing of civilians, like My Lai, to civilians killed in a military operation is silly. Using that logic then being in command of a infantry platoon during the battle Stalingrad is no different than a game where you command an SS Einsatzgruppen rounding up Jews and murdering them in the woods. That's like saying a game where you're a batter in a baseball game is the same as a game where you're a Mafia guy with a baseball bat whacking some guy in the head.

Steve

[Thomm]

The last time I was "offended" by a video game was when I watched some Medal of Honor: World at War videos (if I am not mistaken) and saw for the first time the knife attack to the throat of a Japanese soldier! In that moment I just thought to myself: "WTF, how can they show something like this in a mainstream video game!" It was not Fallujah, but offending nonetheless!

Best regards,

Thomm

[dieseltaylor]

As I play CM I obviously have no problem with warfare games per se. It is an intellectual exercise like chess but a little more grounded in fact. The fact that civilians in all wars can be killed is not news to me.

My beef all along has been that a commercial game should have some degree of respect otherwise you can antagonise the still living who suffered first hand, their brethren, and those who feel it was an unjust war. As a military trainer game I have no problem with it.

The invention of a My Lai game was not that there is a direct relevance but I was seeking something for an American audience that might seem inappropriate as a game. It is a totally tasteless concept. And apparently poor game play.

FM Blucher

In industrialized warfare, it's simply impossible to prevent catastrophic civilian casualties when assaulting an urban area short of, well, not assaulting the urban area.

As we know men of military age - 15 to 55 were not allowed to leave the battle area despite the US saying that AFTER the battle they would carry out checks on survivors to see who had been handling weapons. So the avoidance of civilian casualties was apparently not prime at that part of the battle.

Incidentally this is interesting in it shows how things have improved

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/23/AR2008032301990_5.html

[Los]

This is standard selective morality. There's still victims from WW2 all over the place but I guess this doesn't hinder you're enjoyment of combat mission. If you think it's immoral feel free not to play it. No doubt there are plenty of people that would recoil in horror at the thought of you playing a game out of WW2. But that's OK though... The whole irony of your post pretty silly.

[dieseltaylor]

Thanks for that Los. Its nice to know that if I feel it immoral I am free not to play it.

On a practical level and with my some say cynical view I was suggesting that it would not help any rapprochement between the various parties to have this game commercialised. I think conflicts are best settled with grace and given the views expressed here by people more connected to the war I am not alone:

http://www.gamepolitics.com/2009/04/07/outrage-over-konami039s-quotsix-days-fallujahquot

[Battlefront.com]

Yes, the point is selective morality doesn't work so good It's perfectly fine to draw a line and say "I don't mind playing wargames where the basic principles of war are the focus, but I'm not going to be put into a situation where the point of my actions is to kill those who can not defend themselves". That would mean playing a Vietnam wargame centering around combat would be fine, but playing a game where you go into villages and rape/murder the inhabitants and burn their houses would be a no-no. That seems to be a pretty easy line to draw Another one would be to say "I think this particular war was immoral and therefore I'll have nothing to do with it, but this one I think was just so I'll play it". Of course, you had better play only from the "just" side or that would undermine your position.

Again, we've had this debate a million times before and we arrive at the same place every time.

Thomm... I know what you're talking about... big turn off for me too. I love running around in an FPS game and blowing away the enemy just as much as the next FPS guy, but at some point it becomes too... personal. Too real. I play FPS games to have fun, and as far as I'm concerned slitting someone's throat crosses the line. Doesn't matter who is getting the throat slashed, so I'm consistent

Steve

[akd]

Yeah, I just finished World at War a couple nights ago, and I'll admit it left me with an odd feeling. Not so much that it was over the top exploitive, but rather that it featured some surprising nuance juxtaposed against complete and utter nonsense.

[gunnergoz]

At the same time, it is worth noting that in the Middle East, they have a series of FPS games where the objective is to kill the most Americans that you can, and the games seem to have a very large and enthusiastic fan base. Needless to say, there are absolutely no qualms or debates in public over there about the morality of these games.

[Battlefront.com]

There's no qualms about games where you're killing terrorists either, so unfortunately it's a matter of perspective. Of course I think they're wrong, but the world is a rather wacky place.

Ages ago someone made a first person shooter called Konzentrationslager, or something like that. The goal was to kill as many Jews as possible. Obviously that caused a bit of a ruckus.

Steve

[gunnergoz]

I don't have problems with wargames in general because I understand the interest in history that underlies the enthusiasm that many of us have for them. What I am more mystified by are the games such as Grand Theft Auto and some others like it, that basically feed whatever enthusiasm there is out there in the community for criminal thinking and amoral viciousness. I could no sooner play a game like that than I could play the game mentioned earlier about killing Jews. Of course, killing Nazis in Wolfenstein was no problem for me. So it is not about the killing, it is about the who, why and when that is the core of the problem for me.

[Michael Emrys]

I don't have problems with wargames in general because I understand the interest in history that underlies the enthusiasm that many of us have for them. What I am more mystified by are the games such as Grand Theft Auto and some others like it, that basically feed whatever enthusiasm there is out there in the community for criminal thinking and amoral viciousness.

I'd have to emphatically agree with this. There is a whole genre of computer games that I wouldn't play even if I received them as a gracious gift. And frankly, I am a bit dismayed by their popularity. While granting that there might conceivably be a reason to play something like this that I could accept as legitimate, I really don't think that's where a majority of players are coming from. I think what we are seeing here is one more symptom of the disintegration of civil society. Not the most serious one, to be sure, but still one.

Michael

[Pak_43]

While granting that there might conceivably be a reason to play something like this that I could accept as legitimate, I really don't think that's where a majority of players are coming from. I think what we are seeing here is one more symptom of the disintegration of civil society. Not the most serious one, to be sure, but still one.

Actually I think GTAIV is a great game, with a fantastic storyline and deep characterisation. Of course if you want to run around jacking cars, dealing in drugs and shooting innocent bystanders while ignoring the plot etc. you can, but it's a very, very clever game that deserved all the accolades it got in my opinion.

Of course it's the poster child for the "video games are all nasty and horrible and are bringing down society" collective but that's chiefly (imho) because the company that produced it correctly worked out it can use the "moral majorities" moral outrage to good advertising effect and thus clean up financially. The irony of which allowed them to laugh all the way to the bank and home again wearing their huge money hats...

[gunnergoz]

Actually I think GTAIV is a great game, with a fantastic storyline and deep characterisation. Of course if you want to run around jacking cars, dealing in drugs and shooting innocent bystanders while ignoring the plot etc. you can, but it's a very, very clever game that deserved all the accolades it got in my opinion.

Of course it's the poster child for the "video games are all nasty and horrible and are bringing down society" collective but that's chiefly (imho) because the company that produced it correctly worked out it can use the "moral majorities" moral outrage to good advertising effect and thus clean up financially. The irony of which allowed them to laugh all the way to the bank and home again wearing their huge money hats...

I can see that you found this game to have a "fantastic storyline and deep characterization" and in that sense it may be a bit like the Godfather film that garnered great critical and public acclaim for its character portraits - but unlike the film the game allows you to go off and do all this other anti-social stuff.

The fact that the game allows this perambulation into lawlessness, chaos and deliberate cruelty was a design decision that, in my thinking, was the actual reason for the game's creation. I suspect that the storyline and deep characterization were added on later and that many players never bother to explore them much, if at all.

By giving players the choice to explore these themes, the developers tipped their hand as simply being in business to make a profit, no matter what the social consequences. I absolutely detest that because it is the epitome of what is wrong with society today.

You, as an individual, may well be able to play such a game without any side effects that would alter your perception of reality or goad your lesser angels into trying to play out such fatal scenarios in real life - but such is clearly not the case with many other players, who go on to do horrific deeds in their homes and communities, in part inspired and fired up by what they've seen and done in some game or another.

And even if one argues that this is never happening, no one plays a game and then is led to go out and kill real people, the argument still remains that we are releasing such games upon youth and children (and lets face it, the ratings don't prevent this at all, and rather may encourage rebellious curiosity in children) who are still forming their internal definitions of moral right and wrong. And parents are not always there to help them through these mine fields of the mind.

I would like to live in a land where a publishing company offered a potential game like this would ask itself first, "who would gain and who would lose if we were to publish this?" - and then would go on to conclude that the ethical decision would be to not publish the game so as to not impose more gratuitous violence upon the public and especially upon impressionable youth and children.

Of course, it isn't going to happen anytime soon, but I am hopeful that some day we will attain enough civility that decisions to forgo profit to benefit the public, would be more common.

[TempV]

The last time I was "offended" by a video game was when I watched some Medal of Honor: World at War videos (if I am not mistaken) and saw for the first time the knife attack to the throat of a Japanese soldier! In that moment I just thought to myself: "WTF, how can they show something like this in a mainstream video game!" It was not Fallujah, but offending nonetheless!

Best regards,

Thomm

Actually, it's Call of Duty: World at War. Recent game and not very successful comparing to CoD4.

[Pak_43]

You, as an individual, may well be able to play such a game without any side effects that would alter your perception of reality or goad your lesser angels into trying to play out such fatal scenarios in real life - but such is clearly not the case with many other players, who go on to do horrific deeds in their homes and communities, in part inspired and fired up by what they've seen and done in some game or another.

I'm no different or more special than any other individual of 18 years plus, no more able to differentiate between a video game and reality than anyone else. Let's put down the "of course I'm only thinking of the plebian masses and what's best for them the poor deluded ignorant peasants" and give them the same credit your apparently giving me.

You presumably have some examples in mind when you talk of "in part inspired and fired up by what they've seen and done in some game or another"?

[Boeman]

This is the oldest story in the book.

"Artwork depicting gratuitous violence and erotica are eroding the very fabric of society

"Literature with gratuitous violence and erotica are eroding the very fabric of society"

"Films with gratuitous violence and erotica are eroding the very fabric of society"

"Video games with gratuitous violence and erotica are eroding the very fabric of society"

The supposed corruption of the youth via external works has been a concern since Ancient Greece (if not earlier) and I have yet to see any evidence that it has harboured the end of any civilization.

I am a second generation gamer (post-Pong) and have been exposed to electronic entertainment since I was six.

I have played the aforementioned title discussed by Steve of Battlefront on the Commodore 64. It was a game consisting of a target reticle that you controlled with unlimited ammo. Your task was to shoot as many objects as you can in an attempt to prevent them from reaching the bottom of the screen (i.e. dynamite, bombs, etc.)

Upon successfully completing this stage, you're rewarded with a line up of prisoners to execute. It was extremely graphic as the bodies literally exploded with very detailed animation (down the the individual chunks of flesh). Following this, you would be greeted with rather shocking lines such as "Funny, isn't it?".

Being only five at the time, I had no comprehension of the subject matter depicted. I simply wanted to blow stuff up and at my cognitive level, I abstracted the game down to its core; a twitch exercise on a monitor screen with pixels varying in colour. As such, the impact it had on me outside of the home was minimal.

Fast forward to Call of Duty 2.

There is one particular mission with the British where you stumble on a few Germans behind a house who quickly surrender and point out that there are wounded American POWs in the back.

The first time I played it through as it was scripted. When I replayed the mission, I thought to myself "I wonder what would happen if I just tossed a grenade in the center of that mass of critically injured men. Instead of seeing no effect (customary for COD), I was surprised to witness numerous limbs and bodies being tossed in the air as a result of the explosion. With that, I spent some time chucking as many grenades as I could to get the maximum number of bodies flying before the screen went black with "Friendly fire will not be tolerated".

An hour later, I simply moved on with rest of the game to its inevitable conclusion. Never once did I conjure images of myself doing this in the real world nor would I have been interested in seeing it demonstrated elsewhere.

I have been through hundreds of scenarios like this with the various games I've played and in the end, I perceived them all as little more than a humourous episode that deviated from the designer's linear path, nothing more and nothing less.

If anything, the greatest threats to our youth today are overly permissive parenting and the lack of support structures upon which to build a healthy foundation. While I do not believe that it is entirely possible to safeguard children from exposure to negative influences in this information age, it is ultimately the parents' responsibility to ensure that time limits for recreational activity are set and enforced in addition to keeping the lines of communication open.

For the record, I would not condone any game whose sole purpose is to promote racial bigotry or instill hatred towards others.

With respect to Six Days in Fallujah, I cannot see maliciously portraying Muslims as the underlying intentions of the author. Rather, it is just another FPS formula applied to recent newsworthy material in an effort to make a buck.

Often times I do wonder if the production of such games are accommodated by the military in an effort to step up recruitment at a time when joining the US armed forces is currently an unpopular endeavor.

Wait. What I saying? Of course they are!