Slashdot Mirror


Konami Announces a Game Based On a 2004 Battle In Fallujah

The LA Times reports that Konami has announced Six Days in Fallujah, a video game due out next year that is based on an actual battle fought in Iraq in 2004. Quoting: "The idea for the game ... came from US Marines who returned from the battle with video, photos and diaries of their experiences. Instead of dialing up Steven Spielberg to make a movie version of their stories, they turned to Atomic Games, a company in Raleigh, NC, that makes combat simulation software for the military. ... 'The soldiers wanted to tell their stories through a game because that's what they grew up playing,' said John Choon, senior brand manager for the game at Konami... More than a dozen Marines are featured in documentary-style video interviews that are interspersed with the game's action. The Marines reappear in the game itself, doing pretty much what they did during the war. One tells the story of how he furiously wrote a letter to his wife and begged a chaplain to give it to her if he died. Another, Eddie Garcia, talks about how his right leg was shredded in a mortar attack, and how he suffered survivor's guilt after he was taken out of combat."

11 of 644 comments (clear)

  1. Entertaining horrors of war by Anonymusing · · Score: 5, Interesting

    FTA: "For us, the challenge was how do you present the horrors of war in a game that is also entertaining, but also gives people insight into a historical situation in a way that only a video game can provide? Our goal is to give people that insight, of what it's like to be a Marine during that event, what it's like to be a civilian in the city and what it's like to be an insurgent." ... "Our opportunity for giving people insight goes up dramatically when we can present people with the dilemmas and the choices that faced these soldiers... It's a chance to really give them a better understanding and empathy."

    Seems like this is more of a "real" first-person-shooter: it's not only based on history, it's actually built with living combatants in mind.

    Some folks are going to call it tasteless to "present the horrors of war in a game that is also entertaining," but how is it any less tastless than playing a fictional character in such a game??

    --
    Liberal? Conservative? Compare perspectives at Left-Right
    1. Re:Entertaining horrors of war by saider · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Video games, blogs and podcasts will be the memoirs of the 21st century.

      --


      Remember, You are unique...just like everyone else.
  2. Re:This is sick by vertinox · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I've spoken to some people that were at Fallujah. I guess everyone sees it differently, but they saw it as a massacre. Over 1300 "insurgents" dead, less than 100 Americans.

    As opposed to every other wargame in history that glosses over war crimes and touchy topics?

    I mean how many D-Day games were there that never even mentioned the fact that the Allies were under orders not to take prisoners for the first 24 hour of the invasion and that they were often killing 16 year old German reservists.

    And to be fair Germans, Japanese, and Soviets did far worse things...

    Yeah, sometimes war is really brutal and people do bad things and have to do bad things in order to survive (at least they think they do).

    And then sometime in the future someone will make a game about it, but they are probably not going to include the really bad parts.

    I mean in Silent Service series... Do you get to machine gun the Japanese sailors after sinking the merchant ship?

    No.

    But did it happen sometimes in the real war.

    Yes.

    --
    "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
    -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
  3. Re:Well so much for gamers being able to say... by meringuoid · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Maybe we will have a Columbine game or some such.

    Like this one?

    --
    Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
  4. Re:An unfair fight is the point of war by meringuoid · · Score: 5, Interesting
    I'd put this to you - if civilians understood that they would get killed in wars too, they might be a lot less likely to build, finance and cheer on the armies to fight them.

    This was more or less the reasoning behind the 2005 bombings on the London Underground.

    --
    Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
  5. Re:An unfair fight is the point of war by u38cg · · Score: 3, Interesting
    From a military point of view, yes. If they want to fight, rock their world. But the calculus changes when you are talking about operations in an environment where substantial numbers of civilians are present. You have serious and substantial obligations under military law and you cannot ignore them just because it is convenient. A great deal of what supposedly went on in Fallujah falls under that.

    Western militaries are still tooled and trained to fight WWII. We need to wise up and move on and recognise that blindly teaching the doctrines that won the last war may not win the next one.

    --
    [FUCK BETA]
  6. Re:Who's the target audience? by kabocox · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The left won't play because they don't support the war.
    The right won't play because they don't want to glamorize American soldiers getting shot at.

    Everyone else won't play because it's tasteless.

    Um, there kids on both sides. Heck if it is really historically accurate, I could actually see it be used to teach. I haven't played FPS games in awhile, but I'm sure 1/2 of /. would play it even if they called it tasteless here.

    Heck, if this was really good, I could see the military paying for it just for a training aid. Historically, the hardest part of military training is getting your average civilian where they will kill other humans on command. So in that respect, this game series could have an extremely long life span if it can take your average civilian and get them to mentally accept performing these acts.

  7. Re:Scumbags by Miseph · · Score: 5, Interesting

    No, it's not a valid weapon of war. Like wooden bullets, white phosphorous was deemed to simply be too cruel for use as a weapon. There are other, actually more effective, ways to kill people which do not mutilate the corpses or run afoul of the Geneva Convention, and white phosphorous simply should not be used as a munition.

    --
    Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
  8. Except that by manekineko2 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Except that a group of these soldiers are the ones who wanted the game to be made.

  9. Re:Scumbags by tibman · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I agree that there are more effective ways of waging war but WP is but one tool in an arsenal, not the main weapon. Also, WP does not violate the Geneva Convention at all UNLESS it is used to target a civilian population. Like firebombing a city or napalming vast areas. Indiscriminate use would be illegal. But that isn't just WP, it's a LOT of things.. like land mines.

    But i think what makes WP such a hot topic is Fallujah. It WAS a civilian area. The US gave ample time and warning for the population to leave safely before hand though. So everyone within the city after that point would have been considered a combatant. Even though we know that isn't true.. there will always be civilians mixed in, right? That's why the use of WP is such a big deal. If there was 100 clearly identified enemy combatants.. the Geneva Convention wouldn't bat an eye if they all burned to the ground. But because it took place in a formerly occupied city it's iffy.

    It's possible WP was used as an offensive weapon in Fallujah, i don't know. But i honestly have the feeling it was not.

    --
    http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
  10. Re:This is sick by Machtyn · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Having talked with some guys who came back from Iraq, the insurgents use the spray and pray method of shooting their guns. Very inaccurate.