News
Insurgents Helped on Six Days in Fallujah
This Should Go Over Really Well
by Sean
A week ago Konami announced that Atomic Games is developing Six Days in Fallujah, an game based on the 2004 battle between American Marines and insurgent forces in the Iraqi city of Fallujah. Although the majority of voices that have weighed in since the announcement have claimed the game dishonors the deceased, there are others, including some Amercian veterans, who feel that the game can be pulled off in good taste. There was never much doubt that the game was going to stoke the fires of controversy, and a statement recently made by Peter Tamte, President of Atomic Games, will only serve to fan those flames.
Speaking to Kotaku, Tamte stated that the game's development included input from not only the Marines, but from the insurgents as well.
"It's important for us to say that there are actually three communities that are very affected by the battle for Fallujah," Tamte said. "Certainly the Marines, certainly the Iraqi civilians within Fallujah, and the insurgents as well. We are actually getting contributions from all three of those communities so that we can get the kind of insight we're trying to get."
While Tamte does not elaborate on how much the insurgents have contributed, nor on the actual lines of communication that existed between the developer and the revolutionaries, he did say that insurgents were "involved in the creation of the game". Further, Tamte is of the opinion that the game would lack any real impact without the contributions of the enemy, saying "we can't recreate [the battle] without getting the perspectives of all the people who were involved."
Although I am in agreement that the game is best served by getting all sides of the battle to weigh in, I once again have to question the wisdom of actually enlisting the help of America's stated enemy, as it raises a whole host of questions. First of all, were the insurgents paid for their contributions? And if so, could Atomic Games face serious repercussions as a result of providing material aid (money) to enemy combatants? Further, although I understand the desire to make a game that is an accurate representation of actual events, how entertaining will it be to see American Marines, even virtual ones, being killed or injured using the exact methods the insurgents used in 2004?
I am left thinking that Atomic knows that this game, and these kinds of quotes, will serve to stir up controversy, and thus get people talking about Six Days in Fallujah. This is the kind of stigma that, whether or not it is true, can in the long run hurt the developer.
What do you think? Is this a case of a developer making sure their game is as accurate as possible, or is this just a bad move?
[Source]
Related Articles:
Comments
Wow...just when I started being okay with it since several veterans have supported it, I read this? I can't argue that getting that contribution isn't bad from a design standpoint, I'm surprised they are making it publicly known. I guess Atomic thinks any news is good news I guess.
I don't think I would get this even if IW would have made it.
i really don't understand why everyone is so bugged out by this. nobody freaks out about any other war game, but all of a sudden "oh we used input from all the parties involved" and it's like they're developing the anti-christ of games.
At first I was sort of shocked at the game's premise, or maybe I didn't understand it, but now I think they're going for more than entertainment. Though they may not admit it, I'm sure they're trying to get something thought-provoking out there. I'm keeping an eye on this one and I wish Atomic Games good luck while making this game. I want to try it out.
@00.19: I guess it's a little too recent for me and that war is still ongoing with the insurgents. You bring up a good point, if this was the story of two fictional forces based off of real events, I probably wouldn't have given it a second thought.