horrible game idea

Questionable? COD4 anyone? Just because they call it what it is than try to hide the obvious doesn't make it any more questionable. And of course the game won't try to convey the real horror. What kind of fun FPS would that be, if it made people have actual thoughts, and disturbing ones at that? It'll just be more graphic than usual I iguess. Hey, it's a battle you "won" with minimal casualties compared to the "enemy" so yeah, reason to celebrate and stuff. If the casualties were the opposite numbers between the two sides, you'd not see them be so "bold" (they really aren't) about it. This game has guaranteed success written all over it. At least in one particular region.

umm ye bad idea, i mean it was not too long ago it actually happened i mean young people's family could have died in that battle

The only way you could even remotely make someone feel that way about killing someone is if you make the insurgents  really nice, everyone love them good guy and the soliders you play as, complete dicks that no one likes, but thats not *completely* accurate compared to real world, thus, making this another pointless FPS
***EDIT***

Why dont konami make a ww2 pacific theather fps in which you drop an atomic bomb on japan, then we'll talk =)

Too soon indeed. Hopefully they treat the matter with respect, at least.

I can remember an America's Ten Most Wanted game a few years back where you hunted Bin Laden, I think? Goin' off of memory here, but I found that even more distasteful.

also another point, realism is over rated

one of the soldiers in the screenshot is shooting backwards lol, nice.

I don't think most of the gaming crowd would get it.  Too many people I see in gaming, online or in forums are too immature to undeststand the significance of life.  My guess is the game would be turned into an action movie like any other war game and any attempt to appeal to human emotion would be lost.  If they try to make it hard to kill people, mentally that is, the desensitized youth wouldn't understand it and things would only become worse.  Think of anybody you've ever played a game on Xbox Live with, you think they can appreciate the value of another human's life?  Yeah right.  The problem isn't this game, it is the idiots that it would inevitably be marketed to.

Yeah Iraq vs America is very touching for Japanese developers, considering that how much they were involved.
Lol.

"also another point, realism is over rated"

Well, I can see parts of this game working, such as the gameplay being akin to Ghost Recon or Operation Flashpoint, but the subject matter is still too sensitive for most people. It will undoubtedly cause some strife among the media.

I think Al3xand3r nailed it.

CoD4 was completely fictional, this is not.

I think it's a little too soon for this, I'm quite surprised this is coming from Konami also. Konami have a wealthy back catalog of games they could produce new current gen versions of. Instead  they are opting for this, as a way to making in roads in the western market. Since when did Konami show any interest in such games?...

This is no fricking Contra!, this is real war!

That felt good.

I'm not saying I agree with it. Just the cynical ol me seeing how this title will be received by the mainstream majority of gamers than the actual human beings that reside in these forums. That compliment's not meant for all of you, just acknolweding the existence of some. Caesius6, the game's made for moneyz, not in honor of anything. They're just being all "you played the imitations, now play the REAL thing" or something.

Props for using verisimilitude, does not at all sound like dodgy corporate semantics. I'm sure some people over there want to make a tasteful depiction of what happened but it's probably just gonna be another military shooter.

"horrible game idea "

Stupid.

I love how everyone will exhaustively talk about how games need to advance further and mature in order to gain the same respect as other forms of media, but then as soon as a developer decides to take on a really heavy premise, such as the Iraq war, then all of a suddden everyone is like BUT VIDEOGAMES R SUPPOSED 2 B DUMM! DEY CAN'T B ABOOT REEL LYFE!!!! DEY IS JUSS VIDDDEOGAMMEEZ! I JUS WANNA SHHOOT STUFF N GET POINTZ!! WOOO!!!

You can't have you cake and eat it too, folks.

It's not that i think it's "too soon"...i just think it's a played out-boring setting in general. Only this time it's "real", real contrived.

I do agree that the direct choice of content is morally dubious at best.  At the same time, this kind of experience I feel perfectly showcases the capabilities of games as a narrative medium.

Let's take the example above and make it more generic.  In this game there are three separate campaigns, the attacking forces, the defenders, and the civilians.  The attacking campaign could be a standard, third person shooter ala Gears of War.  As the defenders there are multiple missions where you play as different leaders trying to keep the attacking forces back but die at the end of each mission.  Playing as a civilian could have you trying to protect your family from both sides and get them out of the city.

What would be even more amazing is if each of the campaign's progress was recorded so that the three campaign's climax all happen in the same spot leading to the finale as the civilian where you know you're leading your family into the most intense firefight.

The ultimate point here is that there is no need for them to use Fallujah besides trying to play on feelings and I personally find that pretty disapoining.

Does anybody actually care about this games setting, or are you just following the crowd?

No Dauragon, the problem is that the game won't do anything more mature than any other FPS, when the subject matter should require that much. What's worse is that if it did that, it would be both a bad game and a game few would want to experience. No company will make that.

First day purchase for me. Great idea.

The fact that this is in Iraq probably just makes me less likely to purchase it, since I don't give a rats ass about setting.

This is just one big pile of disrespectful bullshit. Games will never convey real life wars and battles. Some films make the battles so real and intense that you dont wont to carry on watching but games will never be like this games are meant for fun and enjoyment.

Bunch of pansies in here.

I see no difference between this and COD4. I only hope Konami doesn't make a propaganda game like so many other shooters.

Think this way, it can't be worse than we already have in terms of games.

I don't understand what the controversy is. I'm in the military, and I don't feel insulted, or however I "should" feel. The industry's been pushing out games about war forever, and it's about time they make it less of a "game", and more of an experience. If anything, it's more insulting to portray combat as a fun and enjoyably experience. A game that'll paint a portrait displaying the reality and horror, is a game that should be praised. Movies and books have been doing it forever, and gaming can't evolve withot tackling some elephants.

Gaming's meant to be entertaining, and I would find it entertaining to play through an emotional "Saving Private Ryan" experience. We'll always have Call of Duty, but the industry needs to grow some balls. I don't believe in some things are"too soon", people are just afraid to deal with experiences that are going on today. In 15-20 years, I'm sure military action games taking place during the War on Terror will be ubiquitous in stores. Make a game dealing with the genocide in Sudan, it doesn't matter. Make an impact publishers.

Judging by the screenshots it looks like their going for more realistic tactics not emotion. Bunch of fucking retards.It's so bad a idea it's unbelievable. Raelly ultra life stuff isnt even  fun to play i imagine. I mean in games that claim realism you can still be shot numerous times without being slowed down and you can shoot an enemies leg that wont hurt them it would seem. This is stupdity to the max. I mean..........

I wonder if the Iraqi government is going to get on Konami's ass about this or something similar

I think it provides a great opportunity to create a more serious game about war and the effects it has on real people. They can use solid cover mechanics and intelligent AI were everyone doesn't just shoot at you or continuously spawn and create a realistic game. Where you enter the battle with a squad with real objectives to over take  the terrorist in Fallujah and create a real high concept FPS that is strongly based on the actual battle creating a more strategy based FPS with real life consequences. If you die you should lose the squad member forever causing the game to be life like and 12 year olds to more closely value each life.

I am optomistic about the possibilities to create a thoughtful and engaging game. Then again it could be just crap and play like Army of Two with no recognition of the seriousness of the topic.

People they cant make this a touching experince.Too do that theyd need to make a game that starts at birth and ends with you joining the military going into a battle with people youve grown up with having them all die or tortued next to you.

I think the problem of why we think this is offensive is because it was so recent.

The main example is World War 2. For the most part, the generation that plays video games doesn't have any real connection to it. Maybe you had a grandparent that served or was alive at the time, but the horrors are so far removed that it's hard to feel the same kind of emotional connection. I don't know what this says, but how many times have you stormed the beach front at Normandy and what kind of emotional reaction does that elicit?

But, World War 2 was a lot more Manichean than today's war on terror. Nazis were very bad. However, no matter what side you're on, the War in Iraq was executed very poorly. But, who knows. If it's not okay today, how long do you need to make it okay?

I am really interested in how they pull it off, though. Especially whether or not they allow you to play as an Iraqi. I think that'd be the most interesting social commentary.

"I don't understand what the controversy is. I'm in the military, and I don't feel insulted, or however I "should" feel. The industry's been pushing out games about war forever, and it's about time they make it less of a "game", and more of an experience. If anything, it's more insulting to portray combat as a fun and enjoyably experience. A game that'll paint a portrait displaying the reality and horror, is a game that should be praised. Movies and books have been doing it forever, and gaming can't evolve withot tackling some elephants. I personally know several scouts who've died in the past month in Afghanistan, and they should be honored. Gaming's meant to be entertaining, and I would find it entertaining to play through an emotional "Saving Private Ryan" experience. We'll always have Call of Duty, but the industry needs to grow some balls. I don't belive in some things are"too soon", people are just afraid to deal with experiences that are going on today. In 15-20 years, I'm sure military action games taking place during the War on Terror will be ubiquidous in stores. Make a game dealing with the genocide in Sudan, it doesn't matter. Make an impact publishers. "

I guess I don't really see why the passage of time should be much of a factor. We've all played  games that used horrific battles from WW2 as subject matter. The bravery of the men who fought and died on those battlefields is of course no less than that of those  who fought and died in Fallujah, and is no less worthy of honor and respect just because of the amount of time that has passed, but we all still managed to enjoy those games and not feel too weird about the whole thing, taking their struggles and changing them into a game where your health regenerates and you kill more Nazis than most entire platoons of Allied soldiers probably killed in reality. To me, this shouldn't be all that different. Either we take issue with all of it, or we decide that it's all sort of fair game.

"EpicSteve said:

"I don't understand what the controversy is. I'm in the military, and I don't feel insulted, or however I "should" feel. The industry's been pushing out games about war forever, and it's about time they make it less of a "game", and more of an experience. If anything, it's more insulting to portray combat as a fun and enjoyably experience. A game that'll paint a portrait displaying the reality and horror, is a game that should be praised. Movies and books have been doing it forever, and gaming can't evolve withot tackling some elephants. I personally know several scouts who've died in the past month in Afghanistan, and they should be honored. Gaming's meant to be entertaining, and I would find it entertaining to play through an emotional "Saving Private Ryan" experience. We'll always have Call of Duty, but the industry needs to grow some balls. I don't belive in some things are"too soon", people are just afraid to deal with experiences that are going on today. In 15-20 years, I'm sure military action games taking place during the War on Terror will be ubiquidous in stores. Make a game dealing with the genocide in Sudan, it doesn't matter. Make an impact publishers. "

Woo hoo, good for you, others have been there too, it doesn't mean people who haven't don't know what they're talking about. Good luck to you if you expect this game to be a NOT FUN depiction of war,  and instead an experience. You jump to defend them as if you have seen any company ever show the true horror of war when they try to sell the next hot FPS. All that stuff about the realism they talk about is just for hype for yet another copycat FPS. World War 2 games, also based in real life, hardly ever attempted to make war NOT FUN, did they now? If they did, they WOULD NOT SELL. The same goes for this game. They're out to make a buck, but they can't make yet another COD4 clone so they are being all, you played the imitations, now play the REAL thing. That's all there is to this.Anyway, I don't consider this offensive, I consider it stupid. It'll just sell to 16 yo kids that wanna shoot them some arabs in a depiction of a war their side won with minimal casuelties over the thousands of casualties of the enemy. Harsh, but likely the reality of this release. They will NOT make it disturbing more than thyey will make it FUN. That would be suicide for the studio, nobody buys UNFUN games (see The Path)."

As long as they treat the source material with respect, I don't see any major problems with it.

It's like Hollywood movies based on the subject.

...I could go either way on this one.

So are you trying to say that a game can't actually have mature themes? "

as long as they give it a happy ending, everything will be fine.

I think it's theoretically possible to make a good game about real life, tragic events, but it's very, very difficult. I think Konami's making a mistake, but there's no way to know until we see more, so I'll reserve final judgment.

However, I think by coming out and saying they're trying to make this like a documentary, they're making things even tougher for themselves. Will they deal with the white phosphorus controversy:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4440664.stm

If they're trying to be accurate, I don't see how they can avoid it, and if they bring it into the story, it'll have to be done with a deft touch. I think a great model for how to handle these kinds of stories is the HBO mini-series Generation Kill, which shows a lot of the horror of war and was meticulously researched. It also shows main characters killing innocent civilians. Is that something we'll see in this game? It's not something I'd want to play. And of course most soldiers didn't kill innocents, but plenty of innocents died. If the game doesn't deal with these issues then it's not being documentarian, and if it's not doing that, I think setting it during a real, recent tragedy is probably a bad idea.

I really hope they go full out on this and try and recreate the horrors that occured there as faithfully as possible. Make us angry, make us afraid, make us disgusted, make us think! 

Sure, it's being published by Konami, but this is really the brainchild of Atomic Games.  Atomic has not so far had success in the console arena, but from my experience with their older PC titles and even in their poorly received Close Combat console title, Atomic has generally taken a serious view of the subject matter, going for a realistic take on the tactical/strategic problems of war and with a sober historical grounding.  (I also believe Atomic has a history of producing sims for the military only.)

From reading the article and their description of the gameplay, it sounds like this is a game in the military sense, where it is more about solving the tactical problems by using the resources at hand and applying military doctrine and not a "hey ho, let's run & gun" game.  I have no problem with that kind of a serious simulation game. Such a serious minded game could work very well with coop, which makes a lot of sense if it (or a modified version) is also intended as a simulation for the military.

The article does not make clear whether this is intended as a PC only title, or whether they may bring it to 360/PS3.  I know there is a following for hardcore military sims (usually more of a strategic type) on PCs, so I will be curious to see what Atomic will do with this.

If people want to load this game down with their own ideological baggage, that's their problem.

They're loading the game down themselves by using that subject matter and not treating it as they should. Why did it have to be a real situation and not just another generic battle situation that has the same problems and gameplay opportunities you describe in your post? If they only present such a particular side of it, and none of the actual human emotion and drama involved, then why pick this subject at all, other than the hype it adds? At least you are aware enough to agree that they aren't likely to present the "horrors of war" as they claim and instead are simply going for a playable fun game that will sell as much as possible. As I said in my first post, for the majority of its audience it's not controversial and it WILL be a guaranteed success if it's a good game. That doesn't mean those who know better shouldn't be annoyed at the exploits...

In terms of PR, this game name is terrible.  In terms of gameplay and setting other games have done it before, so its fairly inoffensive in that regard.

I don't think gaming audiences as of right now are mature enough to handle subject matter like this. In time as the people who play games mature I think there can be a place for games like this. This game might just be ahead of its time.