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."
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.
They told me stories of teams of people that would go into apartment buildings and shoot every single thing in it. These people were all "insurgents". Entire families of insurgents.
I'm sure I'll get modded down for this, but screw it. What if someone made a game glorifying Rhwanda? Cambodia? I realize its not the same thing, but there are certain "battles" that shouldn't be immortalized as heroic actions.
.
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
You seem to be under the delusion that wars are meant to be fair. That, somehow, an equal number of people should be killed on both sides and that's the good way to do a war.
That is stupidest thing imaginable.
The fact is, we spend 500B a year on the military so that when we do fight people, it is a massacre. We do not want our guys to die. We want their guys to die.
If you don't want massacres, then don't fight the USA. That the USA can massacre its opponents is a GOOD thing, as it brings more American soldiers home alive.
Now, if you don't want this, then don't send soldiers off to war, but that's a different debate. Once they are there, you want Americans to be able to kill enemies like a Power'd up dude in a video game.
This is my sig.
Libertarians. They're free to shoot whoever the hell they feel like.
hundreds of games exist whee you murder people for fun and profit. you even kill prostitutes o take their money in GTA.
now, finally, actual soldiers want to make their own game, and slashdotters think it is 'sick'.
what is truly sick is the utter disconnection of slashdotters with reality. the site is replete with stories on 'cool new weapons', the video game reviews and mentions are legion, star wars is almost a religion.... the political and history and philosophy discussions are strictly on a high school level.... this article is a perfect example of that.
people who sit around pretending to be soldiers for hours a month, are 'discomforted' by the real stories of actual soldiers. they find it 'sick' and 'disturbing' that actual soldiers want to tell a story.....
but if anyone protests against video game violence, they are instantly shouted down as 'prudes' or 'against freedom of speech' by the slashdot legions.
it is no wonder the the USA makes bad decisions, its own people are apparently repulsed by reality, and prefer to live in a fantasy world.
I like how "defending your country from a foreign invading army" suddenly becomes "insurgents that needs some killing".
War sometimes is a necessity, invasion, hardly.
--- "When you gotta do something wrong. You gotta do it right. (Fighter)"
"If you don't want massacres, then don't fight the USA."
Ummm...they didn't "fight us", we invaded them, based on our president's dislike of their ruler and a bunch of trumped up "evidence".
Yes, they fought back, but think of what would happen if some foreign power invaded us. Certainly, there would be some who would choose to fight back.
Guerilla war is like that...the innocent die along with the insurgents, who shelter among them.
But, let's remember who started it, and not place *all* of the blame on the opponent.
Until "it" can be "proven" otherwise, those "figures" are only cause for "thinking", without "evidence" to back "them" up.
I think the men and women that go overseas are some of the bravest and most honorable people around, and that while a few may be gung-ho and shoot everything in sight, most do their best to keep civilian casualties to a minimum.
At least, I don't recall reading of any pits with thousands of bodies in them, or our GIs beheading "insurgents" on live television for everyone to watch. Instead, I read of our GIs helping rebuild hospitals and helping to rebuild the infrastructure that was destroyed during the initial fighting.
Go ahead and live in your dream world where you read only about our guys being the bad guys, and those who think nothing of purposefully attacking civilians with suicide bombers are just victims.
And I'll live in mine.
I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
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.
If you are colluding with the enemy, providing them aid and shelter, you are fair game if you ask me. [...] If your city/village is providing support to the enemy, we tell you to out them or we will level your city. If you don't out them, we level your city. Once enough cities have been leveled, people will get the idea.
that particular tactic is called terrorism
18 USC 2331:
the term "international terrorism" means activities that - (A) involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State; (B) appear to be intended - (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping;
Incendiary Weapons are Protocol III of V of the 1980 Geneva Conventions. The United States is a signatory to Protocols I and II. Protocol I is no x-ray invisible fragments and Protocol II is certain types of Landmines and Booby-Traps. The US does not consider itself bound by Protocol III so WP is not an illegal weapon for the US.
This is an example of the problem with International Treaties, like the Geneva Conventions.
They only apply to countries who voluntarily agree to have them apply.
Except that it is also not supposed to be used against combatants. Weapons that are considered to be exceptionally cruel or needlessly destructive of dead bodies are banned from use against all human targets... this includes WP. You aren't supposed to target (note that this provides some leeway for collateral damage and inaccurate fire) civilian populations AT ALL, even with acceptable weapons.
If you are firing WP at people, you are in violation of the Geneva Convention... it doesn't matter whether they are civilians or not.
That's not to say WP doesn't have any legitimate uses, because it does, but none of them involve killing people. It's great for destroying munitions and (unoccupied) armor, it works well for smoke screening large areas, and various other para-combat uses.
Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.