Kotaku 
Enter your username and password.
Denver, 12:22 PM
Mon Dec 7
27 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip us:
Editor-In-Chief:
Brian Crecente
| AIM | Twitter
Deputy Editor:
Stephen Totilo
| AIM | Twitter
Senior Editor:
Michael McWhertor
| AIM | Twitter
Senior Contributing Editor, Japan:
Brian Ashcraft
| AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editor, East Coast:
Michael Fahey
| AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editor, Oceania:
Luke Plunkett
| AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editor, Weekends:
Owen Good
| AIM | Twitter
Correspondent, San Francisco:
AJ Glasser
| AIM | Twitter
Columnist:
Leigh Alexander
Columnist:
Tim Rogers
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
07/29/09
07/29/09
Also Konami gets it just fine seeing how much MGS4 touches up on real world events / situation in regards to modern warfare. Not to mention the poking the US in the eye with the privatization of war itself. Though since most folks are not familiar with said field that they dont realize basically thats what it is.
The issue was the PR was done wrong which caused internal problems for Konami itself which they had to distance themselves from said developer by dropping the project itself.
Its never good for company image to have a group under wing who "consulted insurgents".
Dont think too hard on that one since the answer isnt that difficult.
07/28/09
I think the big point that a lot of people seem to be missing it that this game was going to be focusing on a real unit with real Marines at a real battle. It's not like Call of Duty or any other game depicting modern-day conflicts because of that fact.
I've got an example to explain my point:
Think how in Gears of War how during one cutscene the guys are all sitting around behind cover and the guy with the helmet covering his face, who we never really get to learn much about (the red shirt), gets taken out by a sniper.
Take that same cutscene and put it in Six Days. Suddenly you have a Marine being killed, regardless if he's important to the "plot" of the game of not.
People involved in that battle or had friends or family die in that battle know generally how someone was killed, whether by a sniper, IED, RPG, etc.
Now suddenly there a video game showing Marines dying in those exact same situations.
Only around 100 Marines were killed in that specific battle, so if the developers are focusing on a specific unit and then show a specific attack based on recent history (as the developers claim), odds are you could almost narrow down exactly what real life Marine is being "killed".
To anyone who has lost someone they knew in Iraq, myself included, that's a pretty fucked up thing to have to reckon with, knowing that some people out there will be watching a depiction of a real person dying and thinking about how cool it is or how realistic and awesome the violence is.
I'm all for developing games as a deeper and more powerful medium, but this really is too soon for this specific game.
07/28/09
07/28/09
Media - Fictitious games with extravagant circumstances get slammed for training bad guys. They would tear this apart.
Multiplayer - This would send the insanity over the edge. Imagine coming into an xbox live party having 15 year olds screaming obscenities as they blow up U.S. troops with IEDs. Needless to say, not good.
Marketing - How do you market a game like this? Ever notice that the smallest section of a movie store is the "Indy, Special Interest, Documentary" section? When people pop in a game most of them want to get a few frags, hear an okay story. There is a market for it but how do you reach them and convince them in an industry filled with fun, yet immature circumstances?
As always though please be as safe as you can be over there. Thanks for what you do for all of us.
07/29/09
If that was the case there'd be more Operation Flashpoints out there and less Call of Dutys (not to be knocking CoD, it's just not a very realistic game).
Like you said most gamers want to just rack up some kills and unlock new weapons, and aren't necessarily looking to play something as realistic as going out on patrol, finding nothing, searching cars at a traffic checkpoint for hours on end and then after days of gameplay getting attacked by a dozen insurgents with 30-year-old assault weapons and RPGS.
I don't doubt that Atomic won't make a well thought out and powerful product, especially after seeing the video I'm posting, I just question whether we gamers deserve to actually play it. Also in this video I think the mother makes a much better point than she did in the NPR interview.
07/29/09
Btw you must excuse me if I dont write out something really long myself, have already done so on multiple occasions with other stories related to this game / dev team / etc.
Also the point of you saying that "this specific game" is too soon to be made, but still at the same time that has not stopped other forms of "entertainment" from comming out based on said point in time. As for myself am a real big reader on the history / various incidents that went down during OIF. One thing though is I think if there is a way to tap the gaming community with such said medium it might help start a trend not only among the users but the developers / publishersto try seriously to take the medium to a next level in maturity.
While of course its not going to reach everyone in the desired manner and there will always be idiots who "never see the light". As long as said message reaches some Id say thats a battle worth fighting for.
Since not everyone is / likes reading books about war or history, watching documentaries, seeing movies, but they play games. Bringing said medium into a realm that they are comfortable with can have the potential to help open minds faster than other methods stated in the previous sentence.
Though to have it work in the correct manner (not get shot down by the public or publishers) the team behind the PR work along with the publisher will have to be very careful with how they "pitch" the idea / image of the game to those in power along with the public. Truthfully so far with how they started off that was not exactly the best way to do it. Granted that Im sure there is no ill will behind what was said, just that apparently it was not very well thought out. Which brought them to the shitstorm that eventually led to the game getting tossed out the window by said publisher.
Also do agree with your strong point in regards to that its going to be difficult / distasteful for those who served / family / friends of those who might appear in said game and are wounded or killed in action. Cant really say anything against that statement since I do feel for the most part its true. Its really a subject that not everyone will be able to agree on. At the same time though if education to others in regards to what those people who fought in said conflict can be told to others, let their story be told so that people who purchase the game can see what they experienced can also be a positive thing. Even more so if it helps those who are not familiar with the military or conflict understand a bit more of the kind of things our men / women fighting overseas go through.
This may sound a bit off, but Id say those of us who are US citizens it would be our civic duty to support this game and see it get made. Why? Because it is also at the same time supporting our troops and trying to tell their story a part of our modern history. To see it be turned down just because a few ruffled feathers occured would be the un-american thing to do.
The only main concern that I have though is the devs fix the game so that it realistically depicts what goes on and the biggest problem that I had was the regen health that was reported to exist within said build of the game that some press got to check out. Though if they make an easy mode to allow for that for those who want to see the story and a separate mode that allows for more realism thats fine. Please do not get me wrong also, the realism isnt for the entertainment factor, its more to convey what those who fought in said battle experienced better.
In closing I do wish Atomic Games finds a new publisher who wont shy away from the topic or force "PC" changes to be made to the game killing the overall message behind it. Plus really must ask them to be more careful in the future with PR speak if the game does get a new publisher.
Cygnus_Mal in regards to your redeployment - stay safe brother and best of luck out there.
07/29/09
I think that if you're trying to have a realistic depiction of war, then purposely leaving out deaths to avoid controversy is taking the sissy way out. War is about people dying. It's about who has more people to sacrifice and who can afford to lose more before giving up. It would be great if wars were fought and nobody ever die, but that's just not how it works.
07/28/09
07/28/09
07/28/09
1. Most modern video games have 2 components, (Author's) Narrative and Gameplay.
2. Gameplay is the Game in Video Game, and what most people think of as being the entirety of Video Games. Similar items include Frisbee, Chess, Hungry Hungry Hippo. Gameplay is amoral, i.e. outside morality. Gameplay is the process of accomplishing a mutually agreed-upon goal within set rules. Gameplay is fundamentally boring. Doing laundry is gameplay. Photoshop is gameplay. Consider replacing the shooting and driving shooting in GTA with sweeping floors by pressing x buttons and setting up appointments with circle button, it's not really that different. No, really it's not. You're still pressing the same buttons on the same controller; you just feel a greater sense of accomplishment while playing GTA.
3. (Author's) Narrative is the story, the series of events that pull the Gameplay together in a coherent package. I emphasize (Author's) because Narrative is not Reality. It is an artificially constructed sequence of causes and effects filtered by the Author (e.g. scriptwriters, directors, producers). Narrative expounds a world view. Our Morality, our Laws all operate within a Narrative, and that's how we arrive at the concepts of responsibility, liability and guilt. This is a little philosophical and slightly complicated to explain but I hope most people understand that this is mostly true. (In other words, causality is a product of comprehension, not the other way around. Otherwise satire and irony cannot exist.)
4. Most video game 'controversies' arise because people intentionally or unintentionally confuse the Narrative and the Gameplay. Often times, non-gamers look at recent video games and their concept of video games and they only see the Gameplay part, because the Narrative is a fairly recent addition (since the last 2 decades or so). Usually it leads to criticisms such as: "Killing is not a game." "Rape is not a game." "There's no reset button in real life." (paraphrase of quote in post) Also, most serious behavioral research on video game violence focus on Gameplay only.
5. Examples: Even gamers can make mistakes. I.E. The Gameplay Goal of Mario Brothers is not to rescue the princess. It's to jump over crap and hug the flag. The Narrative is about rescuing the princess. Mistakes like these are particularly problematic for people conditioned to propaganda and Narrative strictly in positive-reinforcement mode, i.e. people who think Reality itself is a Narrative. E.g.: "The Holy Bible is the literal truth." "The history of humanity is a history of class struggle." People who make mistakes like this on a Narrative often cannot detect irony. The same people will want to ban books such as "Lolita" and the "Catcher in the Rye," unaware or unable to accept that the narrator is different from the author, and that the narrator's thoughts may be someone completely contrary what the author thinks.
6. What is "video game"? Video games don't HAVE to have a narrative. Pong didn't have a narrative. Most people here on Kotaku despise Japan's eroge and visual novels because there's little Gameplay. "I'd rather watch porn or watch a movie if I want masturbatory aid or experience a story." Other common complaints on the subject here are "too many cutscenes" and "walls of text." Most people who criticize video games are often not aware of the Narrative component, or even confuse the PLAYER with the PLAYERCHARACTER, which are as different as Christian Bale and Batman. E.g. "The goal of GTA is to kill hookers and get their money." Really? The goal of GTA is to complete missions by pressing buttons. The Narrative of GTA (well, Niko Bellic's anyways) is one foreigner's discovery that the American Dream is a a steaming pile of dog poo. The Narrative of Rapelay is one man's f*cked up life getting more f*cked up through crime and he finally dies for his crime. A better moral argument against these games is that they are too nihilistic, but you can say the same about Kurt Vonnegut.
7. Video game will never become an art form or mature enough for tough subjects. Narrative in video game is uselessly detached from Gameplay. Players don't want it, critics don't like it. Just like Bob Dylan's music will never win a Nobel Literature prize, Video Games as the concept it currently is will never be able to hold up to scrutiny. If Gameplay exists separate from the Narrative, then the story can easily be turned into other forms; if Gameplay and Narrative converge, then the game can never progress beyond juvenile "I'm the good guy beating up bad guys" propaganda.
8. Personally I'd love to have games with deeper plots discuss weightier issues, but sometimes it just doesn't seem worth the effort. Kind of like interpretive dance, trying to fit a square peg in a round hole or something like that.
07/28/09
I'm not 100% convinced we will get such a game in the mainstream. The really ballsy thing to do would be one life, no continues, and the saves are wiped when you die. Can anyone see this in a mainstream game? Dwarf Fortress has an equivalent (as do many Roguelikes) and a lot of people save scum to get around it. In being such a good story mechanic it might be a disasterous gameplay choice.
But I could very well be wrong about that - we won't know unless people start trying such things. And the most important thing there, I think, is to have publishers willing to back controversial products.
07/28/09
Also everyone including Owen Good, Karen Meredith and the NPR seems to be forgetting about another game involving recent and current conflicts, namely "America's Army" the wiki page can be found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America%27s_Army
An article about it posted on official U.S. Army website:
http://www.army.mil/-news/2008/08/27/11935-improving-americas-army/index.html
In both the wiki and official U.S. Army site, it is quoted that the creator Col. Casey Wardynski, director of the Office of Economic and Manpower Analysis at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, N.Y., and head of the "America's Army" program "developed a concept study in 1999 that "envisioned using computer game technology to provide the public a virtual Soldier experience that was engaging, informative and entertaining," according to "America's Army" officials." Interesting on how it mentions "engaging, informative and ENTERTAINING" and yet it's been out since 2002, but not once has people like Karen Meredith, a member of Gold Star Families Speak Out, a group made up of families of soldiers who died in Iraq ever once spoken out against it, never. Even though soldiers have spoken out against it, demonstrated, the media has covered it from time to time, stating that it was a cleverly disguised "recruiting" tool. So Karen Meredith keeps her mouth shut when the U.S. Army makes a "entertaining" game about the horrors of war, but when someone not backed by the U.S. Army makes a game that may or may not be a entertaining game about the horrors of war, she chooses to call forth a ragefilled cry to rally to killl the non U.S. Army backed game, and totally ignores the already released U.S. Army backed game America's Army, which clearly also states "envisioned using computer game technology to provide the public a virtual Soldier experience that was engaging, informative and entertaining," according to "America's Army" officials." The hipocrisy and ignorance of Karen Meredith and the weird ignorance of NPR and Owen Good is clearly shown as they totally mowed over the fact about America's Army.
07/28/09
Make a video game?!?!?! Are you nuts!?!?!?
So the soldier who died can't "restart".. well how does that not apply to a book. I can choose to stop reading before my favorite character dies or go back to an earlier part. How is it different from a movie I can rewind?
It is different because it is a game. Games have been vilified even before Dungeons and Dragons. Games have been blamed for crimes long before GTA or Mortal Kombat.
It is a new form of art. Some get it, others rally against it.
07/28/09
I definitely agree with you that the ability to restart is a bit of an ignorant, pointless argument. Would she be in favor of the game if consumers couldn't play the game anymore after dying?
(Note to self...copyright that idea immediately)
I think that, to date, games have really only served as a form of escapist, enjoyment fantasy. Entertainment is the goal of a game.
In contrast, a lot of movies and books produced about wars have dealt with the subject matter with an emphasis on ideology, education, philosophy, history, etc. Entertainment was the medium chosen for expression, not the goal of the product, and I think that's the main difference between games vs. books and movies. So I can definitely understand why people might be a little skeptical about games dealing with subject matter that has very serious social ramifications.
Still, Casablanca was released in 1942 to take advantage of the free PR the Allied invasion of North Africa was generating at the time (http://www.vincasa.com/indexkoch.html). It isn't though our generation is the first to blur the line between entertainment, art, tragedy and profits...
07/28/09
07/28/09
07/28/09
I understand Meredith's position and I know its probably very hard for her to deal with all this media about a "game." However, this is a learning experience for the arts and its too bad that she is limiting that learning experience. She has the right to feel the way she feels, but I believe the company has the right to release whatever it wants to in accordance to the laws which I believe is what it would do in order to make any other video game come out...
So it seems that theres this taboo boundary between emotions and being politically correct which is hindering the growth of an art form. I know that flash games have more that likely traversed this ground before, making actual events into games that occurred in the recent past, however, allowing a company like Konami to follow in their footsteps would help pave the way for other video "games" to become important pieces of digital literature.
07/28/09
How can you make a game fun when following the rules of war? The whole point is to get across that war is not fun.
The difficult part of this all is that in order to make a game in this industry, it has to be fun, else you wont make money. If it doesnt make money, it doesnt get made. A game that comments on the brutality of war can't be fun by definition. Therefore, Six Days will be hard to release.
For what its worth, I'd get this game- for the reason THAT its a commentary on the human condition, not because its fun. This kind of game has to be made, something has to get across to our desensitized population who does think that war kicks ass.
07/28/09
07/28/09
07/28/09
If not has the Gold Star Families group gone after Modern Warfare 2 as well?
07/28/09
07/28/09
07/28/09
07/28/09
Also, I'm not sure if I read the following idea here, but someone at some point has said that this war shouldn't be in a game because games are for fun. I don't engage in any form of entertainment solely to have "fun". That's ridiculous. I can play games and watch movies and read books to have fun, but fun and entertainment are not mutually exclusive.
When it's all said and done though, I don't blame these families for being upset. Personal emotion and what's "correct or fair or justified" just don't go hand in hand. The fact that they are upset by this game is probably the "right" reaction, considering the loss they have experienced. And, with the track record games have by and large, who would blame them for having a dim view of games being able to handle serious business. Once again, World War 2 and zombies. That's the message we're sending.
07/28/09
The Gold Star mother, who is against the game, said she was bothered by Atomic wanting the game to be entertaining, but I think she's more bothered that it's a game and that games are played for fun. As you noted, many of us don't just "solely" play for fun, but I personally can't think of a game I didn't play for some element of fun (unless I was trying to prove a point regarding a game I hated, or some other atypical reason). I think this because the mother notes that she's fine with books and movies on the subject, and we know that in most cases (namely in the case of reference books) entertainment is definitely a factor (even in documentaries; they want to tell a story in an appealing way after all to keep the viewer interested).
But games are played. And the word "play" is tied to "fun", and so to some people (like this Gold Star mother) are bothered that a medium (gaming) so associated with playing around might take on a war they have a personal, tragic stake in.
Anyway, just an interesting thing to think about. I agree with you, I am not surprised that these families are upset and it's fine with me that they are. Likewise, though, I won't judge the game outright simply because it offends. Art often does.
07/28/09
Anyway, here's a better example: HBO ran a documentary some months after the World Trade Center. It was informative and upsetting all at once. It certainly was NOT fun nor enjoyable.
Was it entertainment? Was it interesting? If a video game could do that to me, it could be worth experiencing without ever being "fun" or "enjoyable". Even if the fact remains that you are still playing a "fun" or "entertaining" game, at that point it would be less than the sum of the game's parts.The overall experience could be something intense and frightening and eye opening, something that you would not want to necessarily play over and over again, because it would wear you down, and in that, it would be successful.
One more great example: "Requiem For A Dream". Ask someone about it; it usually sounds something like this: "Oh, yeah, Requiem is a great movie. You're just gunna' feel like shit after it. You should watch it."
Once more: when you watch it, are you enjoying yourself? Maybe. Is it entertainment? Definitely. Does the totality of the experience transcend above simple concepts like fun,enjoyment, and being entertained? Absolutely.
Finally, since when did the term "game" directly imply fun? People play chess, and something superior to simple fun is occurring when they do. People play head games with one another, and they are anything but fun for either party. Why does a video "game" have to be interpreted as being simple fun and nothing more?
07/28/09
NPR's pretty responsible with their journalism, assigning the stories to those that understand what they're reporting on, not just sending X anchor or Y cub reporter to do it.
I firmly believe they're the last great hope for responsible journalism.
07/28/09
07/28/09
I also don't think it's fair to release a game - especially in a time when games are treated as pure entertainment - that will ultimately capitalize on the deaths of combatants on both sides.
Movies and books have proven that they can treat painful subjects with respect and dignity, while games have not yet earned that right.
Finally... the entire point of a game is interactive entertainment, no? That there can be a different outcome dependent on a player's level of skill and involvement? Tough sell to advertise "New result every time!" when you're dealing with a war that's just barely ended.
In summary--right on, Fahey.
07/28/09
They released a Black Hawk Down game a mere 10 years after that conflict occurred. That game didn't cause a big stir. People bought it. People played. All the while, families of people who died in that very conflict went on living their lives.
Assuming this game gets released in 2010, that is six years after the conflict it seeks to re-create.
Heck, the movie Apocalypse Now came out a mere four years after the Vietnam war ended.
It can certainly be too soon for a callous or crass look at something. But I would argue it is never too soon for a sober inquiry into what happened.
And the different outcomes this game offers are the same outcomes soldiers face in real wars. Survive, Die, Get wounded, shoot an innocent, etc.
07/28/09