Rumor: Six Days In Fallujah Developer To Close Doors

[TheBluesader]

The belief that it must be "fun" to be a good experience is one of the things holding back video games in general. I mean, would you call Schindler's List fun to watch?

I'm actually playing through Silent Hill 2 on PC as we speak, and you've given me just cause for reflection. Silent Hill 2 is not "fun" in any traditional sense, yet I find myself impelled to keep going back to it. I suppose I could say I just find it fun to be scared, but Silent Hill 2 isn't so much scary, as it is overwhelmingly depressing, jarring and unsettling.

A really realistic war game that tries to accurately capture history as well as Schindler's List would be a very valuable thing. Even as a gamer, I sometimes forget how powerful games could be if given the chance.

I still stand by the core of my post, though. Business is business. But...yeah.

 

[ElephantGuts]

Well that sucks. I guess I'll have to keep playing ArmA 2 for an awesome realistic modern shooter. Ah, ArmA. I love you.

 

[Avatar Roku]

Shouldn't they have had close talks with their publisher BEFORE they went ahead and dumped time and money into something they were never going to sell?

I mean, I'm the first guy to come out on the art side of the "art vs. money" debate. But at the same time, the modern gaming industry is not the 3 Guys, 4 Months industry it was 20 years ago. If making games is going to be your business, then you have to have some business savvy when you make your creative decisions.

Personally, I question how "real" war shooters really have to be. My brother-in-law and cousin are both Iraq War veterans. Listening to their stories, I see few "real" aspects of real war that would be all that fun to play.

The belief that it must be "fun" to be a good experience is one of the things holding back video games in general. I mean, would you call Schindler's List fun to watch?

Even though I've never seen it, films similar to it don't have to be fun, they just need to be great.

But games are made for the purpose of fun. If this game was created I would like it to have some deep combat with a compelling storyline with great characters, but that won't happen because people are crying pansies.

Again, this attitude is holding out medium back. Just because the public's preconceived notion is that games are little more than high-tech toys, that means they can never be more? Games are a (comparatively)young medium at the moment, and for it to be taken seriously enough to fulfill films' niche and more (in the same sense that films did for books; the older medium is still there and in some ways preferable to the newer one, but the new one can still tell the same story in a manner easier to comprehend), we must accept the possibility of a game that can be enjoyable and enriching without being "fun".

 

[Avatar Roku]

Shouldn't they have had close talks with their publisher BEFORE they went ahead and dumped time and money into something they were never going to sell?

I mean, I'm the first guy to come out on the art side of the "art vs. money" debate. But at the same time, the modern gaming industry is not the 3 Guys, 4 Months industry it was 20 years ago. If making games is going to be your business, then you have to have some business savvy when you make your creative decisions.

Personally, I question how "real" war shooters really have to be. My brother-in-law and cousin are both Iraq War veterans. Listening to their stories, I see few "real" aspects of real war that would be all that fun to play.

The belief that it must be "fun" to be a good experience is one of the things holding back video games in general. I mean, would you call Schindler's List fun to watch?

Even though I've never seen it, films similar to it don't have to be fun, they just need to be great.

But games are made for the purpose of fun. If this game was created I would like it to have some deep combat with a compelling storyline with great characters, but that won't happen because people are crying pansies.

Again, this attitude is holding out medium back. Just because the public's preconceived notion is that games are little more than high-tech toys, that means they can never be more? Games are a (comparatively)young medium at the moment, and for it to be taken seriously enough to fulfill films' niche and more (in the same sense that films did for books; the older medium is still there and in some ways preferable to the newer one, but the new one can still tell the same story in a manner easier to comprehend), we must accept the possibility of a game that can be enjoyable and enriching without being "fun".

Tell me, have you ever enjoyed a game that wasn't fun? Because even the most compelling and thought-provoking games were fun. And that doesn't mean games can't be more than what they are.

"Fun" can mean many different things, which is why I was putting it in quotes. It seems to me that you're using it to mean simply an enjoyable experience, whereas I mean the sort of thing that makes a popcorn flick enjoyable compared to a more thought provoking one. Possibly a poor choice of words on my part, and I'm still finding it hard to word properly. Perhaps an example is in order.

Have you heard of The Path? It's a sort of reimagining of Little Red Riding Hood, although much deeper than that makes it sound. In it, there are 6 "Reds", each a girl at a different age, with different responsibilities and personalities. They go through a metaphorical version of the classic story, each with their own personal "Wolf", a person or experience which robs them of their innocence (and, despite how it is presented at first glance, they are not raped). It could simply be the jaded, misanthropic emo having a relationship and realizing she is not as prepared for the world as she thought, or the little 8 year old having a run-in with nature (the only literal wolf in the game) and realizing that maybe not everything in the world is safe and fun, you get the idea. I would not call this game fun. I'm certainly glad I played it, I've literally spent hours pondering it and it has to be the subtlest horror game I've ever played, but it is not fun. I really have no idea how else I can word it.

 

[Therumancer]

Well, consider that there are a few "Booyah go America" types like me who would love a game like the one they were developing, especially if it was everything the critics feared. Unless they were going for somekind of blockbuster mainstream success I don't see the problem.

I think it's a sign that the gaming industry really needs to grow a pair when you get down to it. Firing 75 people because of a protest is kind of silly in this case. If anything they should have used the publicity to help get information about their game out. I'm pretty sure that if they stuck to their guns they would have found another publisher.

 

[Deleric]

I understand if people who actually know enlisted soldiers feel that seeing all the ways their friends and family could be dying isn't all that appealing, but I think this would be a nice look at a real life issue. Besides, if I recall, it was brainstormed by a guy who was actually there.

 

[Avatar Roku]

I understand if people who actually know enlisted soldiers feel that seeing all the ways their friends and family could be dying isn't all that appealing, but I think this would be a nice look at a real life issue. Besides, if I recall, it was brainstormed by a guy who was actually there.

True. Apparently, some soldiers came back and wanted to tell their story, but they wanted it to be in the medium they actually felt was relevant to them. The kicker is, if they chose to make it a movie, it would have been a box office smash, I guarantee.

Wow, but I'm bitter tonight.

 

[Veylon]

My first thought when I heard about game that (supposedly) protrays the war in Iraq in a realistic way and convey a message was that it would be insanely preachy.

I don't think there's anything wrong, per se, about wanting to get a message out, but a game is a very difficult media for that. Sending a message is a very one-sided experience, whereas games are interactive. Edutainment tries to bridge the gap, but rarely succeeds.

I feel that this (an possibly other games like it) are being pushed by the Artsy wing, people who want games to Be Art and Have a Message, without caring whether the game is good as a game, which should (in my opinion) by paramount.

There are ways a game about Iraq could be educational without being dull. You could have a strategy game playable from both sides, where they both try to gain local support through various aggressive and friendly acts. It would show the strengths, weaknesses, and limits of both the US and Al Qaeda. Shooters are nice, but they don't really illustrate what anything's about, it's just one fellow in the wrong uniform after another. With neat weapons. And vehicles.

 

[jamesworkshop]

Shouldn't they have had close talks with their publisher BEFORE they went ahead and dumped time and money into something they were never going to sell?

I mean, I'm the first guy to come out on the art side of the "art vs. money" debate. But at the same time, the modern gaming industry is not the 3 Guys, 4 Months industry it was 20 years ago. If making games is going to be your business, then you have to have some business savvy when you make your creative decisions.

Personally, I question how "real" war shooters really have to be. My brother-in-law and cousin are both Iraq War veterans. Listening to their stories, I see few "real" aspects of real war that would be all that fun to play.

The belief that it must be "fun" to be a good experience is one of the things holding back video games in general. I mean, would you call Schindler's List fun to watch?

Even though I've never seen it, films similar to it don't have to be fun, they just need to be great.

But games are made for the purpose of fun. If this game was created I would like it to have some deep combat with a compelling storyline with great characters, but that won't happen because people are crying pansies.

I did find it funny how people went on about the girl being the only one in colour and me being colourblind didn't notice during the entire film

 

[SilentHunter7]

No! No! They never had a chance to make Close Combat VI! I refuse to believe. Now that crappy Matrix games will keep reboxing the old games and charging an arm and leg for them. This is the worse news I've had all week.

I will slaughter a small village if I never get my CCVI. I swear it.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

Maybe they can have an extra section where US gunner mistakes cameramen and journoes as enemy militia holding rifles? :|

If you're going to make a 'realistic' war game you should tell the story from BOTH angles otherwise you're not only just ruffling feathers, but being damn nationalistic about it.