I don't know how anyone can watch that Adam Sessler on anything regularly. I was sick of him after that 5:43 even if I do completely understand his point. The idea that every game has to be fun is what's holding the industry back. It's not like you watch Schindler's List for the same reason as you watch Crank so why play all games for the same reason too?

Interesting points but I can't help but feel that the instant they included regenerating health they've lost any good will that they are attempting to convey and bring home the struggles of being a soldier. Still, I'm not one who cares. You look at any number of games out there today that take place in "Unnamed Middle Eastern Country" and it's not as if you're retarded and have no concept of where this game is taking place. All this game is doing is taking away the previous title and actually giving it's audience a little bit of credit.

As for games needing to be fun, I'd say yeah, they need to be fun. It's a different situation for other forms of media and art really, you take those in and don't need to participate where as video games you must interact with the game and if the interactions are not enjoyable then the game is doing something wrong.

i completly agree with him games dont have to be fun.
and on the topic of the setting if nothing else the game has made me interested in what happend at Fallujah.

"Interesting points but I can't help but feel that the instant they included regenerating health they've lost any good will that they are attempting to convey and bring home the struggles of being a soldier. Still, I'm not one who cares. You look at any number of games out there today that take place in "Unnamed Middle Eastern Country" and it's not as if you're retarded and have no concept of where this game is taking place. All this game is doing is taking away the previous title and actually giving it's audience a little bit of credit.As for games needing to be fun, I'd say yeah, they need to be fun. It's a different situation for other forms of media and art really, you take those in and don't need to participate where as video games you must interact with the game and if the interactions are not enjoyable then the game is doing something wrong."

I absolutely agree that video games (which is a term that, like "comic books", is showing its age) don't necessarily have to be a fun experience to be worthwhile. I don't think there are any games that have yet captured that quite succinctly, though there are some that have put you in very awkward or uncomfortable scenarios, all in the name of entertainment.

The problem, then, isn't that there is a game about Fallujah. The issue is that, from everything I've heard thus far, this game isn't separating itself from other shooters on the market in any significant way. Sessler talks about CoD4, which is a great game and I think he sells short some of its more artful points: there are several moments in the game that, despite its breakneck pace, I am given pause to think about what I am doing, why I am doing it and so forth. Those moments are the most remarkable moments of that game, for me. But what has had the most staying power seems to be the multiplayer, deathmatch advancement.

(On an aside, Fallujah absolutely cannot have a deathmatch multiplayer; if it does, it trivializes the whole experience into being that entertainment box explotation.)

So in short, CoD4 did seperate itself from other games at moments where it gave a since of weight to the actions you're taking. The biggest question then becomes can Atomic Games create something that takes those moments of weight from CoD4 and spin an entire game out of it. Perhaps the most interesting (and possibly promising) aspect of the game I've heard so far is the developer describing the game as "Survival Horror." While the whole "Horrors of War" card is pretty played out at this point, that point of reference of tenseness and terror might be something that could seperate it from other titles. If that becomes just a buzz word they throw around (CoD: WaW had a similiar song and dance early one,) then it becomes doubly disappointing.

Interactions don't have to be enjoyable for you to continue to participate in them. Interactions with movies, while passive, are still going on. While watching a seriously toned film my mind begins to pass over and analyze the scenes and information that's being portrayed. The difference between a game and a movie isn't the lack of interaction but that there are different levels of interaction. If the end result of my interaction gives me something I find useful, then why not continue to participate in it. In the case of games, there are some cases where something other than fun was being felt. Shadow of the Colossus, a beaten to death example, has you doing something that you aren't entirely sure you want to do. What this game needs to do is take that to the next level. Not only am I sure that these things are unsettling to do but I also feel I am learning something about the experience there and gaining a new perspective on modern warfare. Granted, it won't be for everyone. For some, simply reading about the event is enough to help them formulate an opinion on the matter but others may appreciate the ability to gain a new perspective on the situation. Everyone has their own reasons for partaking in a certain medium and this game gives players with a particular reason a chance to exercise it."

While it may be true that interactions can be uninteresting, a game leans heavily on it's interaction with the player which means, lacking enjoyment, a game is lacking in it's interaction. This is the major difference between the passive and active interactions in media, the fact that a movie doesn't require you to be interacting with it, even though you may enjoy seeking out deeper meaning from them, a game requires this and the player to give response to what is happening. Enjoyment it pivotal to the experience in a medium that requires player input.

You show for example Shadow of the Colossus and I enjoyed destroying Colossi, not because the story presented it as a good thing but because the game play that was presented was enjoyable. Can you tell me that this game would have been anywhere as good if the controls,the camera, or any other aspect in the player's control were absolute trash? A game can make you think, it can make you feel emotion outside of 'fun' but it must be an enjoyable experience in terms of basic gameplay. If it's not fun it's not a game worth playing.

 In any case this is all very subjective, so I make no claim to be stateing the one truth, simply my view on the dispute."

However, I have to disagree with the idea that films don't have interaction. Yes, the vast majority of films don't directly engage or implicate you, but I think the ones that do are perhaps the most profound. I think of films like 2001, Jarhead, Strange Days, even certain aspects of the Godfather films where you, the viewer, are asked to make decisions about what it is you're seeing. Yes, you have no direct control or input of what is happening  in a film, but much like a game is nothing but strings of code without a player, a film is nothing without a viewer but a selection of images in a certain order with an accompanying soundtrack. The things that make great films is not the images themselves, but the reaction that they create in the viewer. Thus is it the reaction and response of the viewer/player that determines the greatness of the art itself."

I'm gonna laugh when they review this sucker.
"It successfully conveys the tension and fear the real Marines felt while on the battlefield, but the framerate is iffy in places, there aren't that many weapon choices, and the driving sections are a bit too easy.  I'm giving it 3 out of 5 stars!!!  Look for DLC in a few months."