Iraq Game Sparks Outrage, Soldiers Have Mixed Reactions

We recently discussed news that Konami will be releasing a video game based on a 2004 battle in Fallujah. Many people have now had a chance to react to the game, and there has been a great deal of criticism voiced over the game's choice of setting. A group of families of soldiers who lost their lives in the war questioned "how anyone can trivialize a war that continues to kill and maim members of the military and Iraqi civilians to this day." Others criticized the game's glorification of the "massacre." Conversely, some soldiers and veterans have responded with optimism, hoping the game can raise awareness of the realities of war. Dan Rosenthal, Iraq veteran and long-time gamer, worries whether Konami will be able to do justice to the experience. Eurogamer posted a related story about the controversy over increasingly realistic war games.

Comments

This is clearly different...

[Smoke2Joints]

..to all those other FPS war games where simulated humans get shot and killed. Clearly. Seriously tho, this is a case of someone feeling like the game is somehow directly targetting them and having a moan about it. Should we be mindful of veterens families? Sure. But just because a game is set in a warzone that someone you know happened to be near or involved in, doesnt mean said game is intended to slap their faces.

Re:This is clearly different...

[erroneus]

Fuck the veterans families!

I am a veteran. I am very anti-war. If realism and expression of battle simulations upset people, maybe they should re-think their position on ACTUAL war. This isn't about "support your troops" it is about whether or not it is a good idea to put on a uniform and kill strangers in a foreign land.

I don't think it is and the more people that finally get that into their heads, the better.

All these kids are seeing recruiting ads and such about "being strong" and all this crap? They never know what they are getting into. If it takes a game to get the message through to people that wars kill and permanently damage people, their lives and their families lives, then let that game out for people to get that message. If my sons ever join the military service, I can't say how I would feel about it, but I can promise you I won't be proud or happy.

People with money hire people with leadership skills who hire people who can carry and use weapons. The people with money tell their leaders what they want done, the leaders tell their fighters to go threaten, kill and destroy and they do it. It is really as simple as all that. And when people see it all for what it is, they will be a lot less "patriotic."

People fighting and dying for independence? Great. All for it. People invading other countries and killing strangers "because they told me to?" I'll have none of it.

Re:This is clearly different...

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

Yeah, but the same ones that will play this game were the same ones that played the Vietnam War && WWII games. If those don't convince them that war is a bad idea, this one won't either. Worse, it will desensitize them to the real loss that occurred.

Re:This is clearly different...

[gandhi_2]

I was an Infantryman from 96 to almost 2003 in the Regular Army. I've been a National Guard Artillerymen ever since. I was in Ramadi for OIF5, where I spent time on FOB defense and patrolling. I've been shot at with RPGs, SAF, and indirect fire more times than I can remember. I don't talk about shooting people unless it's with my fellow troops, but I've "killed" probably thousands of cans of soda, gatorades, and partially-moldy blueberry muffins there. Did I beat Iraqis? Damn right, I beat an Iraqi soldier at rock-paper-scissors once! It went two out of three, I let him have my can of Coke anyway.

I was in during Clinton and Bush, I did my duty. I will continue to do it under Obama. Why? I'm good at it. The fact remains, appeasement doesn't always work. Sometimes you have to take the trash out.

BTW, if we are the chicken hawks, what do you call France and Russia for refusing to get involved? They were selling weapons and buying oil under the table, undermining the UN oil-for-food program the entire time. Is that the honorable alternative?

Re:This is clearly different...

[Kell Bengal]

I want to see a game where when you shoot the 'bad' guys, one of the others screams out "Billy! Oh god, noo!" I want to see games where the enemies are people and not just targets, and where civilians cry over the fallen.

One of the most powerful scenes I recall seeing on TV involved two brothers ambushed by mobsters in a field. They beat one brother to death in front of the other, and the actor did a fantastic job bringing to life the grief and horror the character felt - he didn't care that he was about to die too, only that his brother had been slain and he was helpless to prevent it.

Maybe if players get to see the effect on civilians and combatants, we will have a little less rah-rah-kill-them-all. It will certainly give the game world more depth.

Yeah all those WW2 games are offensive too

[discord5]

Yeah, those WW2 games are offensive too. That's why there are so many of them that hardly anyone complains about. Let's all stop playing FPSs set in a warzone, and make it all happen in a magic land with evil ponies that shoot lasers from their mouth.

If they think this is offensive, wait until someone makes a game where you get to eat babies.

Re:Yeah all those WW2 games are offensive too

[GF678]

Put simply (very simply) - WW2 games are tolerated without outrage because it's an OLD war, a long-gone war that doesn't have any resonance with most people these days. It doesn't get portrayed in the media every day because, unlike the Iraq war, it's over and done with. There's very little for people to associate with in WW2 because we're not continually reminded of it in our daily lives, or when we read/watch the news.

Games set in unresolved warzones are a tricky subject simply because the fight hasn't finished. They're still way too raw among people's minds, whereas WW2 is condemned to the history books and a decreasing pool of veterans. Once the war in Iraq is finished, and enough time has passed for reflection and consideration about how it went, a game released about the war probably wouldn't result in as much outrage. "Time heals all wounds" might not hold up so well with people, but it works well enough for video games.

Re:Yeah all those WW2 games are offensive too

[meringuoid]

On the other hand killing an soldier of US or GB army, even in a video game, seems to be... well, another story.

Is that because gamers are a jingoistic bunch who wouldn't want to shoot their own side? Or is it just that the British and Americans mostly won their wars, and games tend to cast the player as part of the winning side?

I'm actually surprised there aren't more games where you play a guerrilla or terrorist, especially with the current topical interest in the whole subject. There was a rather good strategy game I picked up long ago called 'Central Intelligence' in which your job is to organise a revolution on behalf of the CIA in some banana republic. Set up safe houses, establish contacts with sympathisers in the media and among the student radicals, organise a leaflet campaign, put up propaganda posters, raid the quarry and steal explosives, send a letter bomb to the chief of police... Wonderful idea, but crippled by a terribly clumsy interface.

There's got to be a market for this. 'Freedom Fighter' - play as Lenin, Collins, Mao, de Gaulle, Guevara, Khomeini! Overthrow the corrupt puppet government of the oppressors! Establish liberty and justice for the common people! Intimidate and beat up collaborators! Execute informers! Blow up police stations!

Re:Yeah all those WW2 games are offensive too

[Zumbs]

Tell me then, which WWII games lets you play a German soldier assaulting the Jewish ghetto in Warsaw?

The problem is not realistic war games

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

If a war game is realistic, they will push people to avoid war if possible. However pain, disability, and choices that are bad either way (someone's firing from within a crowd, do we return fire ?) and their consequences (getting sued for saving 99% of the protestors (this means a few innocents dead by your bullets, for the idiots) for the terrorists' guns), they might actually get a realistic view of a bad situation.

But what are the chances of that ?

A bigger problem is unrealistic war games. If people start believing, even a tiny little bit, that you do actually respawn, that will be a sad day for world peace. Of course the same goes for people believing "god" rewards killing women or "unbelievers" after death. And the same goes for systems that encourage doing nothing at all very strongly, not showing the consequences of refusing to go to war when confronted with certain situations.

...families of dead soldiers...

[haggus71]

I always noticed how they seem to know what the soldier would feel if he were alive. Families of soldiers still with us, who have lived through this experience, don't say anything, because the soldiers would tell them to shut the hell up.

I just remember how people used to treat Vietnam Vets before First Blood came out. My uncle credited that with a change in viewpoint that allowed him to feel human again. Considering it is the largest money maker in entertainment, maybe this game will allow people to get an idea what happens in combat, and what decisions you have to go through, split-second, every day.

For those "offended" by this, the game play is based on first-hand accounts by VETERANS. I think they have more of a right than any civilian to speak for themselves. If you are offended, fine. Everyone is allowed to have an opinion. It's in the constitution I swore an oath to protect and defend. Don't go dragging out the names of the dead, however, to support your own sensibilities.

I just hope they don't allow you to "save game". You don't get that option in war.

Re:...families of dead soldiers...

[Zumbs]

The "insurgents" controlling Fallujah were overwhelmingly local Iraqis, some of which were islamists. Fallujah had for a long time been a center for the resistance to the US occupation, and some of the first larger confrontations between the occupation and the Iraqis happened in Fallujah. You may remember that the citizens of Fallujah demonstrated to get the occupation forces to leave a school, but were fired upon.

This led to widespread anger in Iraq and particularly Fallujah. As the strength and resolve of the resistance grew, it were able to force the occupation out of Fallujah, and for a time Fallujah were controlled and rebuild by Iraqis. When the US decided to crush the rebellion, the local leaders wrote an appeal to Kofi Annan.

After the assault and massacre at Fallujah, the Iraqi resistance drew one important lesson: Taking control of an area were too dangerous for their families, because of the US onslaught. Thus, they shifted their strategy from large scale uprisings to hit and run tactics.

NO different than Black Hawk Down

[PrescriptionWarning]

and as I recall Black Hawk Down was an entertaining movie first, and then a video game. How exactly is this different? I think the excuse "because we're still in Iraq" is exactly why this game needs to push on to release date.

Re:Lot's assumptions

[AngelofDeath-02]

Well, there are always people like a friend of mine:
Who volunteered for deployment AGAIN, and is now disappointed that he isn't shooting people.
Who was part of the initial invasion force.

Who was probably changed by his experiences and now feels civilian life is boring and dull.

Oh well, I wonder if he'll still not regret it if he loses a limb or something ..

Re:If they really want to cause offence..

[ben0207]

I really don't think the Ferengi would get involved in a stand-up fight! They'd just buy the opposition, surely!

Oblig Penny Arcade ref.

[adamofgreyskull]

Not the usual funny stuff, and I don't necessarily agree, but it is an opinion of a WWII veteran, and pertinent to this discussion...so...
Interview with 'Grandpa' on 12/6/07 about WWII and Gaming:

Q. What do you think about gamers playing video games based on World War II?
A. I haven't really paid enough attention to the games themselves to be able to tell you truthfully, but I would think, if it's just people shooting one another, I don't think it's a proper thing for young people to do. I think it sets a bad example for them, because they get into the mood of doing that, and that begins their lifestyle. And that's not the lifestyle you want.


Q. When groups of gamers are playing these games together it is common for some of them to play as the enemy. They might play as Germans defending the beach at Normandy for example. What's your opinion of that?
A. Well, it ties back in to what I already said. I don't think it's an appropriate game. I think they can make games that will interest kids, that don't have to include war. We don't need to be killing each other in games. There's other ways of strategizing and using the kind of skills that make those games popular.