The Official 'E3 2009' Thread

[Darkmoon]

It's gonna depend an awful lot on just how accurately they portray the actual battle...and a comment at the end of that little video, 'If you shoot a civillian the game is over for you' certainly doesn't suggest the game is going to be very accurate in at least some important regards. Civillians died during the assault of Fullajah. Quite a lot of them.

Honestly? All I can see this game doing is dreging up a shit storm. You can't portray the American forces as some kind of pure white hat super hero's riding in to save the city from the evil insurgents, because the insurgets were defending there home and there Faith as far as they were concerned from an aggresive attack from another country. You can't protray the American forces as oil grabbing bastards because many of the people were there to serve and protect there country, and got thrown into this war by Bush.

There are too many shades of grey for a game to capture. How are they gonna show the teenage 'insrugets' with an old gun that has as much chance of blowing himself up as it does hurting a marine trying to defend his family from an attack by this foriegn army that as far as he knows has come to force him to break his faith?

A game like this is just a game. And at this point all it's gonna do is make cash from the controversy, if it gets published at all, and dredge up bad memories for a lot of people.

And to be clear, I don't like ANY historical war games. I don't own ones about Vietnam or World War II or any real world battles either.

[missvalentine]

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.

Maybe so. But if the game is based on stories the marines told the developers, I'm betting there is at least some form of story. Nothing compared to MGS or anything, but some sort of story in the least. It is based on a true story.

Lol. How exactly am I 'ruining' anything?

Because if people are opposed the making of this game, then publishers don't want to make it, if less people oppose it, then there would be no controversy, and it will get made.


Anyways, the gameplay on the video looks pretty good, I'm very interested in historical games, especially war games, so i want this.

[Member_of_STARS]

Darkmoon, let me guess. Youve never played Battlefield 2 nor its Project Reality mod?

These two nullify your argument. The game and mod both portray sides we may see as evil, with absolute neutrality.

As for killing civillians argument. SWAT4 penalizes you for killing civillians. Youre missing the whole point of this mechanic. Its meant to severely discourage you from shooting at unarmed folks and first assess whether the target has a gun or not. Its the typical NORG vs realism argument. And it appears this game does utilize NORG to some extent. You will be discouraged from shooting civvies because there will be consequences. The way the game has been advertised so far- it aims to deliver the most authentic combat *experience*, I have yet to see it claim to be a simulation.

*NORG- Natural Order of Realistic Gameplay or "if I was in that situation, what would I do".

Missvalentine, preparation and general overview of the situation in a neutral fashion can be a story, if thats what you mean. I really doubt that it will play out like "Jarhead" though, with inner monologue and personal opinions aswell as taking a side in a "good vs evil" kind of way.

[Zombie Fred]

It seems that BF3 will be their answer to the market share of Modern warfare's success in sales, and has been in the work for some time it seems.

"We have a lot of IP in that [shooter] area, and we have not not noticed that Call of Duty has a significant share of that business," Pleasants told analysts during a question-and-answer session. "We are putting a real concentrated effort behind those titles. Battlefield happens to be one of them…I've had the luxury of looking at Battlefield 3 over at DICE over in Sweden. I was highly impressed by the way the people were working on that product. That's not for this fiscal year [ending March 31, 2010], but that is a product that is looking very good."

I wonder if Bad Company are using the engine they have been working on for BF3? I'd imagined they wouldn't throw away the BF numbered series, considering how huge 2 did in sales, and then the spin offs in total. But the question is on what they are going to make it a good successor.

[missvalentine]

Missvalentine, preparation and general overview of the situation in a neutral fashion can be a story, if thats what you mean. I really doubt that it will play out like "Jarhead" though, with inner monologue and personal opinions aswell as taking a side in a "good vs evil" kind of way.

I was thinking something similar to the story in the "Brothers in Arms" series, or the "Band of Brothers" movie. Just the stories of what the soldiers themselves went through and felt over there.

[Darkmoon]

Darkmoon, let me guess. Youve never played Battlefield 2 nor its Project Reality mod?

No, I've never played those. Which war are they based on? If they can acutally accurately portray a real war they may be worth a look. A neutral look at all the factions in a war would be a rare treat, especially the sides usually portrayed as super good...such as the Allies in World War II

And yes, killing civillians is a bad thing. It also happened, whether by accident or on purpose. And not all the marines or British Soldiers involved would have been caught. For a game that's supposed to be part documentary to remove it is...troubling in regards to the realism of the game. Now, if you got punished if you were seen, then that would be better.

[Member_of_STARS]

No, I've never played those. Which war are they based on? If they can acutally accurately portray a real war they may be worth a look. A neutral look at all the factions in a war would be a rare treat, especially the sides usually portrayed as super good...such as the Allies in World War II

BF2 pits USMC against Middle Eastern Coalition and Peoples Liberation Army in a fictional conflict and it appears to be for resources. The point is that you can take modern stereotypes, throw them into a modern setting and not come out biased.

Its Project Reality modification goes a step further and takes place in numerous modern warzones, Iraqi included. One of the factions is the insurgency. The mod aims for realism (not NORG though) in its classic sense and the sides are portrayed authentically in modern setting.

Not for a second in both games will you consider the side youre on good or evil.

And yes, killing civillians is a bad thing. It also happened, whether by accident or on purpose. And not all the marines or British Soldiers involved would have been caught. For a game that's supposed to be part documentary to remove it is...troubling in regards to the realism of the game. Now, if you got punished if you were seen, then that would be better.

Keyword is "part", its main purpose is to deliver an authentic feel of the conflict and one of the "feels" in the conflict was the fear that comes with avoiding killing civillians. Youre running in circles here, trying to tell me that the game is "troubling" because it doesnt give you an electric jolt because you just killed someone yet turn around and take the side that says its too soon for this game to be made.

You cant make a 100% combat simulation. What you can do, is to create a authentic as possible recreation of the atmosphere and so far, it appears that theyve got the basic fundamentals down, which so many games do not. Including COD4.

It seems that BF3 will be their answer to the market share of Modern warfare's success in sales, and has been in the work for some time it seems.

PR damage control.

I wonder if Bad Company are using the engine they have been working on for BF3? I'd imagined they wouldn't throw away the BF numbered series, considering how huge 2 did in sales, and then the spin offs in total. But the question is on what they are going to make it a good successor.

Frostbite? Frostbite was done for BC and BC2, there are hints that BF3 will have a new engine but Im not sure. Either way, FB was for BC in mind, not BF3.

There have been zero news on BF3, DICE has been extremely secretive about it and the timing is absolutely horrendous, along with how much theyve actually given away.

[Darkmoon]

Yes, I know my arguments are somewhat contradictory. I need more sleep, but the gist of what I'm trying to put across is this;

They can either make a completely accurate game, warts and all, which will upset a lot of people who lost loved ones in Fallujah. OR they can make a game that's been sanitized but lacks the realism necessary to show the conflict in Fallujah, in which case it seems more sensible to go with the fictional scenario you mention for BF2 where the death of people is artistic creativity for the story not the actual tale of some kid getting there head blown off for trying to protect there family.

That's the issue I have with this game. It looks as though it's going to try and do both of these things. And while you may be able to have a game made with gritty realism in a fictional setting, one that takes place in a real setting has to take into accounts the feelings of those involved, possible law suits from the living or relatives of the dead and a ton of other things.

I don't think they can have there cake and eat it too. I think they're either going to have to insult and upset the people and the family of those who died in Fallujah, or they're going to have to tone it down to a point where it's pointless setting it in the city.

But if they manage to strike a balance, and actually do it as a half video game and half documentary, well, maybe it will work. As it stands? I don't think they will be able to.

[Vector]

Because if people are opposed the making of this game, then publishers don't want to make it, if less people oppose it, then there would be no controversy, and it will get made.

Shame on the families who lost loved ones in the battle. missvalentine wants his video game, guys. SHAME on them for having lost a son/daughter/brother/sister/uncle/aunt/cousin/father/mother in that battle, and shame on them for having an opinion on wanting to honor their memory.

And in case you didn't notice, controversy sells. Don't think that Atomic Games didn't think about this at one point during the early development meetings. Controversy = word of mouth = sales = money.

[missvalentine]

Shame on the families who lost loved ones in the battle. missvalentine wants his video game, guys. SHAME on them for having lost a son/daughter/brother/sister/uncle/aunt/cousin/father/mother in that battle, and shame on them for having an opinion on wanting to honor their memory.

Hay, don't try and make me the bad guy here.

Making a game or film about a war is not dishonoring the men and women who died in it at all. If i had died in a war fighting for my country, the greatest honor i could think of, even greater than any medal would to be featured in my most beloved thing on earth, a video game or a film. But that's just my opinion. I don't think this is disrespectful at all. It's no different that writing a book about it in my eyes.

Anyway, this is not much different that Conflict: Desert Storm, that was released about 11 years after Desert Storm, and this game is being released about 6 years after the Battle of Fallujah. If this exact same game was released in 5 years time would you have any objection to it?

[Vector]

Anyway, this is not much different that Conflict: Desert Storm, that was released about 11 years after Desert Storm, and this game is being released about 6 years after the Battle of Fallujah. If this exact same game was released in 5 years time would you have any objection to it?

Like I said...right now, I think it's too soon. Give it a few more years for the family's wounds to heal, then maybe.

[Darkmoon]

Hay, don't try and make me the bad guy here.

Making a game or film about a war is not dishonoring the men and women who died in it at all. If i had died in a war fighting for my country, the greatest honor i could think of, even greater than any medal would to be featured in my most beloved thing on earth, a video game or a film. But that's just my opinion. I don't think this is disrespectful at all. It's no different that writing a book about it in my eyes.

I dunno. I can see a lot of sensitive issues. One is that the historical accuracy of this is in doubt, at least for now. Can you inmagine if the game gives you the ability to save people who did die? Essentially saying you know better than the guys who got themselves killed...of course, it's not likely they'll be any soldiers who were actually there actually named.

And, obviously, a lot of people don't consider it an honour. A lot of the families of those who died in the battle are not impressed, not impressed at all, that someone is using the story of there loved one's death to make themselves some cashy money. Whether they're right or wrong, or wether this thing lives up to it's documentary part, it's going to hurt people. That can't be argued, sadly.

Yeah, maybe five more years are what is needed here. Time for the pain to fade somewhat. Of course, it helps that Desert Storm was something that most people feel is a good thing, while a lot of people are in serious doubt as the exact nature of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars (I.E they felt there loved ones were sent in for money and oil) but this isn't really the place to talk about such things.

[Member_of_STARS]

Its as simple as putting 1 + 1 together.

The only reason you two dont want this game is because your country hasnt won this war yet. Im pro-US, but its exactly your kind of attitude that gives you that much problems from foreigners.

What was the last major conflict that involved the US? The first Gulf War, I presume? The generation that fought there is about 40-50 year old now, and theres no objection against making games about it.

This war is without a conclusion, its still going on. You havent been declared the victors yet and theres a lot of media flack surrounding it. This talk about "honoring the people" or "respecting the families" is utter bullshit and a cheap copout.

Were you respecting anyones families when you were killing Nazis in the landing of Normandy? Oh wait, you didnt have to, because Nazis were evil and you were on the good side. What about Vietnam? Oh wait. The VC were the bad guys and you were on the good side, so you were "honoring" your veterans. What about the Gulf war? Carnivols example of PMC action in modern conflicts?

Quit your doublestandards, and this complaining is sickening. With the risk of sounding like a sensitive prick, families that truly cared about their fallen loved-ones and pack a healthy IQ in the 90-110 range will not object the game.

We, the ones that do not live in the US, are treating this as just another game, in another conflict. But obviously you cant immerse yourself without being able to play on the "victorious" side and pointing fingers at the "bad men".

Seriously now... Where were you when RE5 was being called racist? Im willing to bet that you were on the reasonable side then.

[Darkmoon]

...what in the blue hell are you on about? I consider the Iraq and Afghanistan wars to be illegal and think George Bush and Tony Blair should be tried for crimes against humanity, due to torturing people for information and holding people without trial in sub-human conditions.

And as I mentioned earlier...I don't play any of the World War II games either because they fail to represent the horror and misery of the War, or the Vietnam Wars, or any other games that are supposed to be based on true events. They cannot or do not portray the situations accurately. And if you can't do it right then don't do it at all.

You wanna argue with me? The explain to me why someone should make a game to line there own damned pockets while causing others emotional pain. Maybe it would be different if all the profits to this game were going to help the families of those killed and those wounded then it might be a little different.

Don't have a go at me personally, however. And make sure you know about my beliefs before you try attacking them. I don't support the wars, but I do support the men and women who died for there countries trying to do what was right.

[Member_of_STARS]

...what in the blue hell are you on about? I consider the Iraq and Afghanistan wars to be illegal and think George Bush and Tony Blair should be tried for crimes against humanity, due to torturing people for information and holding people without trial in sub-human conditions.

And as I mentioned earlier...I don't play any of the World War II games either because they fail to represent the horror and misery of the War, or the Vietnam Wars, or any other games that are supposed to be based on true events. They cannot or do not portray the situations accurately. And if you can't do it right then don't do it at all.

So, you dont play war games because they fail to represent the horror of war? What? And then we have 6DIF, which is supposed to portray the fighting as accurately as possible, and you talk about families? Its like youre jumping arguments, clinging to what works best for you. It has nothing to do with you personally, just at the moment youre representing the collective opinion on why the game should not be released.

You wanna argue with me? The explain to me why someone should make a game to line there own damned pockets while causing others emotional pain. Maybe it would be different if all the profits to this game were going to help the families of those killed and those wounded then it might be a little different.

Erm, again. Check my above post for hypocrisy regarding masses and gamers on games about real military conflicts and what they can and cannot accept. Noone is ever objecting when youre using flamethrowers in Normandy against Nazi germans. How the hell can you raise a red flag now? Especially considering that videogame industry has shown that its able to keep a neutral stance even in very controversial situations?

Don't have a go at me personally, however. And make sure you know about my beliefs before you try attacking them. I don't support the wars, but I do support the men and women who died for there countries trying to do what was right.

You represent what I personally consider a faulty idea and even though the points listed above may not specifically effect you, they are still valid and standing. You dont have the right to raise a red flag on a war game, just because its not with a clear conclusion.