We can do this but not that

[deonte9109]

After watching Extra Credits regarding 6 Days of Fallujah, I realized that there was a sligh tissue in many peoples arguements and this could even be attached to the recent Medal of Honor issue. Why is that recent battles and wars receive controversy (6 DoF and MoH) but older battles such as WWII (the massive list) don't even receive an angry letter? Both battles have involved the death of loved ones be it fathers, sons, or brothers but why is it that if a developer wants to make a game about a more recent conflict they receive so much hate.

 

[dududf]

Because one's already done, and it happened a long time ago. It has less of an impact on peoples daily lives, however in 6 days of fallujah it just happened. People are still mourning the deaths of the people that were in the battle.

It's just poor taste.

 

[Thyunda]

Because if you went around telling everyone your great grandfather died in the war, they'd say 'Oh, that's interesting', but if you said your father, or worse, your son, had died in the current war, it'd be 'I'm sorry for your loss'.
Old wars are history, nobody's lost any overly close relatives these days, whereas the wounds from the current wars are still very, very fresh and sore.

 

[hittite]

My guess is that there hasn't been time for the grief of those lost to wear off. In other words, the pain is more... fresh, I guess.

 

[hittite]

Because one's already done, and it happened a long time ago. It has less of an impact on peoples daily lives, however in 6 days of fallujah it just happened. People are still mourning the deaths of the people that were in the battle.

It's just poor taste.

In my own less-than-humble opinion, it's even poorer taste to pretend like it never happened.

 

[SnootyEnglishman]

Fallujah was a more recent conflict and for those who not only experienced the events in the field but also those who had to hear they lost friends and family in that conflict are still dealing with the grieving and potential Shellshock (now known as PTSD). It was a controversy that those who survived didn't deserve to come home to.

 

[Janus Vesta]

Because one's already done, and it happened a long time ago. It has less of an impact on peoples daily lives, however in 6 days of fallujah it just happened. People are still mourning the deaths of the people that were in the battle.

It's just poor taste.

How is it poor taste? I was made along side people who were in the battle and asked for it to be made into a game.

 

[newfoundsky]

I fail to see the difference between reporting on the battle and experiencing the battle through a video game. As the video said, the soldiers supported it because they wanted people to know what they went through.

As far as I'm concerned it's the same thing and it is not for the few to decide what is and is not appropriate of "in good taste."

Besides, My grandfather fought in the World War 2. Would it be different if he wanted games like Call of Duty of Medal of Honor (the originals)removed because he actually experienced those things going on the game? If your answer is no, then you have no ground to stand on when saying that Fallujah was "to soon" or "in bad taste."

 

[badgersprite]

I found it even weirder that the controversy wasn't about glorifying the war in Iraq, which is still an unpopular war which a vast majority of people in the world consider to be unjust. Maybe that's because it was a right-wing fearmongering attack on video games, whereas the left tends to actually value free speech or at least hasn't resorted to stirring up that sort of media about video games. I don't know.

All I'm saying with that is that I just found it weird that people on the right wouldn't be all for a game that has you on the American side in Iraq. Wouldn't they want to use that as a vehicle for encouraging people to support the war? I mean, it's not like that kind of propaganda or rapid response media to ongoing wars is new. Do I need to show you images of comic book superheroes punching Hitler in the '40s?

Mind you, I'm anti-war, so, yeah, my objection to the game would be along the lines that I personally wouldn't want to play as an invading American soldier killing Iraqis in their own country, but that doesn't mean I think this game shouldn't have been made or that it doesn't deserve to exist. Of course this game deserves to exist! It just means I personally wouldn't buy it because it conflicts with my political views, but everyone else who wants to play this game should damn well have the right to do so!

I feel outraged that this game had its funding cut, even more so that these soldiers have had their opportunity to express their experiences to the rest of the world denied to them. Censorship is never the answer. Whether we agree with a game's message or not doesn't give us the right to invalidate its existence, or say it should be banned or censored. If you believe in the market, then use what it's there for; don't buy shit you don't like, and let others make their own decisions.

On another note, it's funny how there was never an outcry about movies like The Hurt Locker, Jarhead or Black Hawk Down being too soon, or being in poor taste for this very same reason. Apparently it's only bad taste or too soon if it's a video game.

 

[oplinger]

Because one's already done, and it happened a long time ago. It has less of an impact on peoples daily lives, however in 6 days of fallujah it just happened. People are still mourning the deaths of the people that were in the battle.

It's just poor taste.

How is it poor taste? I was made along side people who were in the battle and asked for it to be made into a game.

It's poor taste, because taste is subjective.

In reality, it should not have been a problem. At all.

 

[Not-here-anymore]

Essentially, because people are silly. Any game based on a war involved a lot of people dying, whether it's a current war or one that happened 50 years ago.
It's just that it's a lot easier for people to object about a war that's still going on because they're actually alive to complain about it...

 

[Simalacrum]

I dunno actually... there are films, after all, which are based within modern wars (Jarhead being one, rather good, example).

I think that, in the end, the reason that it caused so much controversy is because it's a 'game' - people consider it entertainment, for fun, rather than something with serious intent.

 

[MasterOfWorlds]

I think it's because WWII wasn't a really debated war. We didn't exactly question whether or not we were fighting for the right reasons. All we saw was an evil empire trying to spread its influence around the world that needed to be stopped.

I think it's because the war(s) now are so controversial. I've played combat sims before that were based on designs used by the US military (or so the games said) and they bore a striking resemblance to the current war(s) going on, but the comflict was renamed. Although there were targets you were supposed to capture alive if you could that were ranked by cards.

 

[technoted]

Because the majority of people are fuckwits and think that unless it's happening right this very moment it doesn't matter. If the war in Afghanistan was suddenly over tomorrow, everyone would gladly accept a game where you go round shooting the Taliban into tiny little pieces, but since it's not over people feel that "exploiting" a war currently going on is in poor taste. When really what they mean to say is, we don't want a game of a war we could possibly lose, as is why there is a lack of Vietnam and Korean war games.

The people who say WW2 games are fine because no one in this generation died are just ignorant and possibly incompetent. There are families that lost grandparents, mothers and fathers, brothers and sisters, aunties and uncles that still care about what happened back then. I never got to meet any of my grandad's brothers because of that war something I'd loved to have done. Millions of people died but that's fine because it happened before we were born? That is a completely flawed logic if you ask me.

 

[dududf]

Because one's already done, and it happened a long time ago. It has less of an impact on peoples daily lives, however in 6 days of fallujah it just happened. People are still mourning the deaths of the people that were in the battle.

It's just poor taste.

How is it poor taste? I was made along side people who were in the battle and asked for it to be made into a game.

And those people totally represent the entirety of everyone else, including the mourning friends and families.

Because one's already done, and it happened a long time ago. It has less of an impact on peoples daily lives, however in 6 days of fallujah it just happened. People are still mourning the deaths of the people that were in the battle.

It's just poor taste.

what is this "6 days of fallujah" the people are speaking of?

A game that was made to talk about the battle of Fallujah. Plenty of fatalities on both sides, it was a big battle.

Because one's already done, and it happened a long time ago. It has less of an impact on peoples daily lives, however in 6 days of fallujah it just happened. People are still mourning the deaths of the people that were in the battle.

It's just poor taste.

In my own less-than-humble opinion, it's even poorer taste to pretend like it never happened.

I fully agree, but don't make it on a medium that isn't all *that* widely accepted yet, where people still look at it like toys. If I had to put it in the parents of the fallens shoes, fuck yeah I'd be annoyed that people are going to make fun of my son or daughters death. I respect the lives of the people that have died, and I'd like them not to be forgotten, but do it on a more socially acceptable medium. If this was done maybe 1 or 2 years later, then the blow would have been worse.

It's bad taste, as it was essentially putting salt in the not yet healed wounds. This shouldn't be hard to understand. Go tell a holocaust joke to a jew that just got out of a concentration camp, you'll yield a similar feeling.

Give it time to heal, or suddenly if the medium becomes more widely accepted, then yes make a game out of it.

 

[Kuchinawa212]

Just to recent. WW2 is already done and over with. This we still don't know who the 'real' victor is yet

 

[deonte9109]

Just to recent. WW2 is already done and over with. This we still don't know who the 'real' victor is yet

Technically there will never be a victor because we're not fighting a nation we're more so fighting a group within a nation or the ideas/policies of a nation. Much like in Korea/Vietnam we were not fighting the nation but more so the opposing force.

 

[voetballeeuw]

It's because the video game medium isn't respected. People don't think games can be about serious issues, they still see it being made up of "toys." Movies and novels can vividly describe the Iraq War and other events, but games can't. Even though, playing a game about Fallujah would probably only help the player respect the battle and the soldiers who died. Since, games put the person directly into the event.

 

[The Bum]

Because, it just happened, more people are still alive to rember the current wars.

It's also kinda bad taste.

But mostly it's because games are still pictured as "toys" for kids not art, not meaningful, not important. This won't end until we prove that games matter

 

[zehydra]

It'd be like making a 9/11 game. We have games with Pearl Harbor in them, and to many people, Pearl Harbor was like today's 9/11, but it's long done and most of the people who can still remember it probably won't be playing video games.