The Game Boy: Why Six Days in Fallujah’s Doing It Wrong, and How We Can Make Things Right
The Game Boy: Why Six Days in Fallujah’s Doing It Wrong, and How We Can Make Things Right
Posted 04/21/2009 at 3:03am
| by Nathan Grayson
14
Comments
Print
In an understandably controversial move, Konami and Atomic Games recently demonstrated their upcoming “realistic” shooter, Six Days in Fallujah. The game – apparently supervised by the hardened eyes of soldiers who actually fought the debatably good fight – will focus primarily on the Second Battle of Fallujah. And as much as I enjoy the beautifully orchestrated, occasionally tear-jerking fictional plots of games like Call of Duty 4 and Brothers in Arms, I think Konami’s bold leap is a necessary one.
There’s just one problem, though: They’re doing it wrong.
Many publications were recently invited into the trenches of the still deep-in-development title, and – as many dejected “first impressions” articles can attest – Fallujah’s gameplay’s paradoxical lack of realism stands out like, well, Rambo in a shootout. Take this bit, for instance:
“In another clip, the player broke off from his squad, crouched up behind two insurgents who were firing on US soldiers, and took them out from a few feet away like some kind of renegade commando. I may be ignorant of this particular battle, but I've certainly never heard of any Army ninjas breaking off from their squads and capping insurgents solo. Maybe something like that has happened once or twice; either way, the videogamey nature of the moment seemed entirely out of place,” said Shacknews reporter Nick Breckon.
In essence, the game handles like a slightly less testosterone-splattered Gears of War. Characters slide from cover-to-cover, pay bullets no more heed than buzzing flies, and regenerate health after a few moments of downtime. Where’s the grim and gritty reality the game’s developers have been touting so vehemently? I mean, I’ve never had the pleasure of eating lead outside of a videogame (and even then, many of said bullets had faces), but if I had snuffed out lives in the streets of Fallujah, I’d be offended.
War isn’t a game. It’s pulse-pounding, strategic, and exciting, sure – but it’s not fun. And that’s why Fallujah falters.
But really, it’s not entirely Atomic Games’ fault. Listening to USMC veteran Michael Ergo talk about Six Days in Fallujah, it sounds like the development team entered the fray with good intentions.
“It's an all-encompassing experience,” he said, speaking of his time on the battlefield. “There were a lot of times that were intense; there were a lot of times that were boring. I went on patrol and we adopted a puppy. There's so many things that go into my experience in Fallujah that there's no one word that encompasses that.”
It appears, then, that while Six Days in Fallujah ‘s structure is taking pointers from movies like Blackhawk Down and Fullmetal Jacket, it’d be better served by Tivo-ing a few documentaries. After all, realism and entertainment rarely go hand-in-hand, and artistic liberty’s a volatile substance when mixed with freshly controversial subject matter. So why have Konami and Atomic Games decided to flip logic the bird and take the landmine-laden road of potential controversy?
Because otherwise, they’d risk tarnishing their record with a “bad” game.
Let’s be honest here: videogaming is an entertainment medium. Books can be “boring” (that is to say, their speech-to-explosion ratio can be greater than 1:1) and still have critical worth, as can movies. But modern-era games, at the end of the day, won’t garner anything more than a morbidly curious glance from the mainstream if their gameplay’s fun factor isn’t dialed up to at least an 8.5 out 10. You can probably guess where I’m going with this now; we need to change our judging criteria if we really want big-budget games that aren’t about wise-cracking, emotionally vacant bullet sponges.
More like this
14
Comments
Comments are closed on this article
justchad
April 22, 2009 at 8:36am
If you shooting for realism and you think there's a market out there for it (I would agree) then do it 100%. But don't advertise your game as uber real and do what they're doing. There is a market for just about any type of game if you spend the time and make it right.
-Chad
plaskon
April 21, 2009 at 2:01pm
"... soldiers who actually fought the debatably good fight"
There's nothing to debate other than how offensive this remark is to our military.
HeartBurnKid
April 21, 2009 at 4:25pm
Nobody's questioning the bravery of our soldiers. What's being questioned is the motives of the politicians that sent them in in the first place. But you can't ever say anything about that without getting an earful of "WAH WAH YOU HATE THE TROOPS!"
Keith E. Whisman
April 21, 2009 at 2:19pm
I too was going to mention something about that but I stopped myself. You see I've been posting here for a while now and it's gotten fairly political. Not a single time has a MaximumPC staff member tried to change my point of view when it comes to politics or tried to hinder my speech at all.
So although I whole heartedly disagree with the above statement the MaximumPC staff has every right to feel however they feel about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. And as long as I am being aloud to speak my mind freely in support of War I will whole heartedly support everyone elses right to speak against it. It's hard but you have to try to not get offended. It's politics.
So I will carry on with posting things as I see them and I will carry on supporting other peoples right to post things how they see them. And I will not try to change anyones mind because I know I get really annoyed and offended when people try to change mine.
And I'm a veteran and I gotta tell you that when I was in the Army I didn't care about what anyone thought of me. If they didn't like me I didn't care. The Army will survive just fine.
So rather than get upset at other peoples point of view just post your own.
God bless and HooAh!
MAJORzer0
April 22, 2009 at 6:15am
If we poke our head out of the sand box and look around it's not hard to notice what a few people may say about us at home. Wile I could never delude myself enough to belive we are over here for any respectable reasons, I did joined with all intentions to protect and serve every person. I have no doubt that not all of these people would want or need help. Some would abuse our loyalty as a soldier to their own ends to get what they want.
I chose to protect this nation in an attempt to keep it free and gave up all rights to that freedom wile serving. We give up our civilian life to allow people to make any comment they so choose. I would never hold what they say aginst them because they simply lack the facts that require them to pass good judgment on each and every soldier. We are soldiers doing the jobs that have been handed to us from a long list of officials. Speaking out aginst the Army, Navy, Marines, or Air Force shows a lack of understanding. Yes, we have been given a task or tasks to complete. We complete those tasks in a way that meets situational requirments.
I never have believed in politics or most politicians and so you may ask why I even joined at all. I joined because I still believe in the United States as a whole and the dreams it was built on. We see every act and hear every voice but move on. We are here because we choose this and we're not the type to just quit when someone doesn't agree. We live in a nation that agrees to disagree about everything(except ISP caps). Asking life to wait wile every one comes to an agreement would only bring things to our door step instead of over seas.
In the end of of it all I had no real direction for this outside of a small ammount of pride I get for serving. Like my fellow soldiers, we chose to protect our way of life instead of complaining about it.
Thankyou for your time and support.
~ No one said it was easy.... They just said it was worth it.~
Keith E. Whisman
April 23, 2009 at 1:00am
I whole heartedly support war. I dropped out of high school and joined the army during the build up in Saudi Arabia when Iraq invaded Kuwait because I wanted to serve in a war. A member of my family has served in ever single war this country has been in since and including the Revolutionary war. I have always been a patriot and have always looked at war as The Furthering of Diplomacy by Other Means.
If you are deployed right now then I suggest you enjoy it while you can. It wont last. It's the memories that you will cling onto for the rest of your life. Memories are what you really are. Only as a soldier in War Time do you truely learn and live what it is to be the nature of humanity, the true nature of humanity.
And remember to Support and Defend the constitution of the United States of America.
Just do not go into the Guard or the Reserve. You'll get fat like I did and won't be able to pass your PT tests and you'll end up requesting an early out to save face.
And thanks for your Service and HooAh. Never forget that your mission is the most important thing. Complete the mission. Don't worry about nay sayers. You take your orders from the President and the officers appointed over you so like I did don't give a crap about anyone else but yourself.
Have fun.
Keith E. Whisman
April 21, 2009 at 1:14pm
It would seem to me that using the Brothers in Arms game as inspiration for design would have been better. I truely enjoy the Brothers in Arms games as they are the most realistic from the point of view of an Army Infantry Squad Leader. IMO I think any game based on modern combat should use Brothers in Arms as a model.
Brothers in arms makes you the squad leader. You have to direct your squad for maximum effect. If you screw up you'll get your men killed and then your screwed. It's an awesome game. In order to survive yourself you need your squad and you have to use tactics to be successful like breaking your squad up into fire teams and sending a fire team on to the enemy flank to kill him. Just wicked.
dry white toast
April 21, 2009 at 10:29am
Realism on PC = Project Reality. A BF2 mod.
The closest thing to reality I have played.
Bravo_18
April 21, 2009 at 9:21am
Many have tried to get as much realism as possible in a game, trying to make it unquie or total immersion.
The review by Shack is more likely biased in a sense its still in developement..such comments should be reserve for the beta or pre final release..
Realism should not be the complete aim and expectations in a shooter game, but more likely on how to get the player totaly immersed to the game environment and situation, but still staying true that its still a game, players expect that on the next bldg or turn they can get a help pack or ammo to help the survive a bit longer before the game loads up to the next stage. I still like the idea in searching on the killed enemies for ammo, health kits and some new weapons to trade...rather that seeing them floating around..a good story and how they deliver it in the game as you play it...
Another thing they missed out on their review is that, most players of FPS hate linear games, not allowing the player to explore and exploit the battlefield..a Soldier do go on Ninja mode provided his squad gives him cover fire..i guess they never herd the word flanking ..in any given situation the main goal it to take out the enemy in the most effective way and quickly...
Ctrl-Alt-Del...Restart..
AntiHero
April 21, 2009 at 8:20am
People don't seem to get the fact that any realistic game, 90% of the world is going to bitch about for being "too difficult" or "you die to easily" or "when you get hit it ruins your aim" and i can go on. As a plaer of Americas Army, back before it went a bit more Counter Strike-y (aim got easier, little more health, some game engine changes, 2.6 was the best version), it was pretty solid. You sprint for a bit, you breathe heavy, and then can't aim as well till you regain your stamina. You take a bullet, it messes you up, and you have to re-aim, but you'reless steady beacuse the injury. You can bleed out, our weapon jams, you can't do 10 things with your hands, if you're sprinting, you can't shoot, ready your weapon, or fix it because you're focused on where you're going. You don't get an automatic reload feature, if your weapon stops spewing bullets, you figure out why and fix it (be it a jam or empty clip), you also can't just spray and pray, gotta take controlled shots or your bullets are going everywhere unless you're laying down with a bipod down. Your health isn't a lot, and even if you get meds, it only stops bleeding, doesn't heal you, like a real bandage does. About 3 bullets to the chest will drop someone permanently, which is a little false, but it is a game. That is seriously the most realistic shooter i've played, and 90% of my friends who've played it, bitch that it's too hard, or that you die too easily. Any racing simulator, people hate it because you can't handbrake into a turn, let's face it, it doesn't work like Need For Speed displays, it really does not. People don't want realism, they want the shit they can't do in real life, no matter how hard they try to do it.
I don't like Microsoft, I associate with it.
Muerte
April 21, 2009 at 8:46am
Its unfortunate but AntiHero is nails on. The only way your going to see a realistic war game is if an independant and wealthy developer decides they can throw money away at a niche game. America's Army is just that type of game.
Hell even World of Warcraft has dummied down its gameplay to cater to the greatest common denominator of game players for that genre. Sucks for the hardcore guys because now they have to find something else to challenge themselves.
When it gets right down to it, its how many people you can get to drop the cash on your game and that directly relates to how much fun it is for the majority of people.
AntiHero
April 21, 2009 at 8:53am
You are 100% right my friend, dead on indeed. Especially on the WoW thing, I really like that game but I can't be bothered to play anymore, and I really enjoy that storyline, all because it's just gotten boring. Video games are something i enjoy, so i guess i remain playing my older ones, like Counter Strike Source and stuff, those are the same old same old, but they're fun because they're the original's of that game style. Left4Dead keeps it fun..most certainly. I only remain playing wow when i can stand to, because i want to see what happens when they openIcrcrown citadel, and i clear it. I want to know if they basically say "Arthas is dead" or if he breaks out of there and leaves or something. Or if they destroy the game and have it implode by having the scourge destroy all level 80's, so you have to start again or quit. (that would be cool...not lying there)
Here's a breakdown of how I see video games now. Call of Duty 5 completely
ripped off Call of Duty 4 (and left for dead, you know what i mean), to the last little bit, which was lame. All
of the Call of Duty games done by Infinity Ward changed somehow. 1 was
original, 2 had different health and some changes to things, and the
multiplayer wasn't ridden with tanks, 4 had a neat new multiplayer
system, along with helicopters, air strikes and some other little
tidbits of interesting stuff thrown in like knives, and some cool blood
splatters and stuff. Valve is the most original group. Team Fortress 2:
cell shaded balanced team play mass bullet orgy. Portal: no bullets
from the user, just portals and puzzles. Counter Strike: Somehow
addictive, but yet so simple. Half Life: interesting, unique, and with
some new ideas for FPS games, like puzzles and use of physics. Now we
get to Halo for example, run and gun, non stop running and
shooting...crysis, run and shoot, FarCry 2, interesting idea, run and
shoot..little dull. Splinter Cell, unique multiplayer and single
player, got high raves because of the unrealistic nature. Battlefield
2: great concept, fun gameplay, first game with servers that large,
very, very fun. FEAR: good single player, boring as hell multiplayer
because it's like every other game out there for multiplayer, except
the unarmed combat, otherwise run, shoot, duck, repeat. (From a small article i wrote for a class a couple years ago, wih the COD stuff added in.)I don't like Microsoft, I associate with it.
jnutley
April 21, 2009 at 6:55am
Even movies and books ocassionally present the same story multiple ways. Doing it in a video game is trivial. At the options screen, choose between "Cinematic" and "Realistic" game play. For people who want to feel like Marines, they go for the Real. People wanting gratification, or hero fanticization stick to the Cinema mode. Critics review the path appropriate to their prejudices (or not, go on and be a hard ass about how "Real" was no fun, or "Cinema" was disrespectful; be as much of a jerk as your editor will allow!)
These developers may have already done this, I havn't read any detailed review, but is there a hard or very hard mode? Did anyone review that? If they didn't, this media push may be disinformation.
rjreisch
April 21, 2009 at 6:53am
I too have wondered when game reviews would grow beyond the fascination of FPS, graphics, GPU intensity et al.
I think games should be reviewed on their overall experience vice just concentrating on the same criteria time and again.
Connect with MaximumPC
Featured Content
The gang discusses the GTX 690, Trinity, Ivy Bridge, Amazon, big-box stores, MMOs,...
This month's issue
Feature
Build a PC On Any Budget
Feature
Cloud Services Showdown
How-To
Encrypt Your External Drive
Build It
Upgrade an X58 Rig
Most Commented Articles
Latest Max PC Tweets
- maximumpc: Fraps 3.5.2 fixes lots of bugs, so if your motto, like @PCGamer's, is "always be frapsing," you should pick it up http://t.co/3DW3WUI02 hours 54 min ago
- maximumpc: Google Chrome Becomes World's Most-Used Web Browser, Kinda http://t.co/Xqgscmrp20 hours 48 min ago
- maximumpc: Don't call 'em Kepler: Nvidia's GeForce GT 610, 620 and 630 are rebadged Fermi parts. http://t.co/OjQvoLgk22 hours 28 min ago
