The Official 'E3 2009' Thread

[Vector]

It's too soon because people are still dying there, American or not. And before anyone says "what about games like Call of Duty 4?", games like Call of Duty 4 and other 'modern warfare' titles are not direct "re-enactments" of events that are still fresh in our minds. It's too soon.

[Darkmoon]

I've got to agree. It might make money but it's rather disrespectful. Plus it'll almost certainly fail to establish a middle ground between, 'We're here to free these people from evil!' and 'We're here for all the oil!' which means it's gonna really be a slap in the face to some of the men and women out there.

[Carnivol]

I dunno. People still fail to see the benefits of a game based on certain (recent) events.

Oliver Stone makes a film about 9/11 and people are mostly thrilled and excited about it, but if someone makes an interactive experience out of something without the blessing of the American Army or some sort of deal with an educational program, it's a disaster.

Someone writes a book depicting the events of something (even if the book is mostly made out of fictive content mixed with key elements of reality) imminent praise, awards and public respect and love is inbound from all directions.

It was pretty funny when Replay Studios (makers of "Velvet Assassin") first announced "Survivor" in 2004 and one of the in-game scenarios were to be based on 9/11 (probably still is, after the change to current gen) There was a lot of hate going on for that one on the old public forums for Replay Studios. Velvet Assassin's also a title that is rather interesting, as it's a WW2 game made by a German studio, and it contains a lot of small details that tries to make the enemy a bit more "human". Attempting to remove the label of the krauts, or nazis if you want, being just 110% pure evil out to get you.

To some, games are just entertainment and fun. So a game based on recent and on-going war events is the worst that could happen for them, 'cause that's serious business and totally not entertaining, fun or a laughing matter. While at the same time, games based on blatantly obvious near-parodies of similar events are often praised by the very same people for their serious storylines, parallels and realistic portrayal of a similar scenario.


Another rather funny thing is how random public hate and stuff on certain titles (such as the one discussed here now) create additional attention (and demand) for a title that to begin with wasn't exactly very attractive to many to begin with and probably wouldn't get any mention worthy market attention to begin with if it weren't for the hatred for it. Rule of Rose and Manhunt 2 ring any bells?

[ValentineKnight]

Actually that's two fold if someone parodies 911 or "humanizes" the terrorists that bombed the towers a volcano of hate usally erupts. anyway I agree too soon to be making games off this

[Member_of_STARS]

What isnt fresh in our minds? Like I said, its *only* too soon because US hasnt won yet and thus hasnt been able to make themselves the victors and the good guys.

The second that happens, any controversy seizes to exist. Why? Because the losers will always be the antagonists and victors will be the protagonists. The latest most exploited theme has been what? War on terror? The first gulf war? Both of these portray anta and protagonists which are purely debatable and their roles rely heavily on where one comes from. Yet you have no problem with that?

As for COD4. It rides heavily on stereotypes. So what do you do? You slap "reenactment" title on it and shrug it off.

Its not too soon. Provided that it gives us a way to play through a couple of missions, without taking sides, keeping it neutral, I see no real problem with it.

German soldiers have been antagonized enough, yet the fact that rape and murder of innocening civillians took place on all fronts and was done by everyone.

If anything, this game just gets released before the new history books are written and "the ragheads" are portrayed as "the evil people". It has nothing to do with people still getting killed. Especially when they are involving dozens of people from both sides into this project.

[Vector]

When has there ever been a game created that was based on a war that was still being fought? Like I said, my disagreement with this title has nothing to do with America "not winning" the 'war.' And that's another thing. This 'war' has more shades of gray than any conflict I can think of. It's no secret of the Bush regime's goals with their involvement and military occupation of Iraq. I think even this topic is way too controversial for any publisher to handle. It's simply way too much heat for anyone to take on.

Aside from that, this game will be boycotted by people who realize that the game you are playing is really happening as you are playing it, except the soldiers have guns in their hands instead of controllers, and instead of feeling vibration in their hands when they get shot, they bleed and die.

Like I said, if you want 'survival horror' in Iraq, join the fuckin' military. There's no need for a video game to experience this war, unlike the countless World War II games out there. Just enlist, grab a gun and get attacked with roadside bombs and I think your opinion on this game just might change.


Anyway, let's agree to disagree. If this piece of shit game ever comes out, I won't be buying it so it doesn't matter. Ten, fifteen years down the line when(and if) this conflict is over, sure...go for it. But right now, it's too soon. I don't care what you say about it.

[Carnivol]

When has there ever been a game created that was based on a war that was still being fought?

Since we're excluding big Hollywood movies and solely focusing on games:

The first one that at least comes to mind is last year's multi-million selling Electronic Arts title; Army of Two. It kindly sent you off on a Gears of War-styled, co-op filled, high-five-packed, mischievous third-person action adventure with Elliot Salem and Tyson Rios, PMCs for hire, at the narrative steering wheel, setting course for both Afghanistan (2001) and Iraq (2003) (amongst other fictive and real war settings scattered across time).

[Vector]

Since we're excluding big Hollywood movies and solely focusing on games:

The first one that at least comes to mind is last year's multi-million selling Electronic Arts title; Army of Two. It kindly sent you off on a Gears of War-styled, co-op filled, high-five-packed, mischievous third-person action adventure with Elliot Salem and Tyson Rios, PMCs for hire, at the narrative steering wheel, setting course for both Afghanistan (2001) and Iraq (2003) (amongst other fictive and real war settings scattered across time).

Thanks, I honestly didn't know about that one. Even still, that game was based on Private Military Contractors, and not the United States Marines. PMCs are fair game and I guess so can be games based loosely on current events. Six Days in Fallujah, however, is based on real events that happened five years ago.

This is the last time I'll say it...it's too soon.

[missvalentine]

I don't think it's too soon at all. How on earth is it too soon? Besides, it's not like the developers just want the money, the devs had friends that fought in the war and were specifically asked by some of the marines that were in Fallujah to make a game about what happened over there.

So if the actual marines themselves are ok with it, then fuck everyone else's opinions about it and make the damned game.

If they made a movie about 9/11 only a few years after it happened, then there is no reason this cannot be made. I bet if this was a movie then everyone would be fine with it, but because it's one of those evil video games it must be bad.

If you don't like it CR29, simply don't buy it, but don't ruin it for others that may want to see how bravely there brothers, fathers or friends fought over there.

Besides, it's not like there being disrespectful or anything to the soldiers, i bet it has a deep and meaningful story to it, because there basing the game of story's the marines told the developers. I thought you would have learned that video games can be serious after you played MGS.

[Member_of_STARS]

Im willing to put my money on the idea that there wont be any story. The game aims to deliver an authentic combat experience and as such the whole game will probably be a simulation-reenactment of the 6 worst days in Iraqi war. Thats it.

[ValentineKnight]

Well as long as it aint offensive it's alright I guess

[Vector]

I don't think it's too soon at all. How on earth is it too soon?

I've said numerous times why I think it's too soon...I'm not gonna repeat myself.

So if the actual marines themselves are ok with it, then fuck everyone else's opinions about it and make the damned game.

First they need a publisher that's willing to take on the heat, then they can "fuck everyone else's opinions."

If you don't like it CR29, simply don't buy it, but don't ruin it for others that may want to see how bravely there brothers, fathers or friends fought over there.

Lol. How exactly am I 'ruining' anything?

[Member_of_STARS]

This thread is full of doublestandards...

[Carnivol]

Some footage and news report on "zomg, violant game!" (aka. Six days in Fallujah). Seeing that thing made me notice that the game is being developed by Atomic Games... interesting....

Color me slightly more interested now than I actually was back when the game, in the eyes of most people, was just another war title to be released by Konami.

[Member_of_STARS]

I have never seen a better running animation.

The interesting thing about this footage is that, apart from one realism aspect that is inaccurate (the back-against-the-wall-cover-system), the game looks pretty authentic, despite being a third person shooter. Its agressive, fast and violent.

Now all thats left is to ask, where does the "survival horror" come in?