Supposedly there was a video game that was developed, where gamers play as a soldier during the battle of Fallujah November of 2004. I guess family memebers of Iraq war vets did not want the game to hit stores. Does anyone know anything about this story?
That's stupid, with that kind of logic what would they ban next? Call of Duty games? War movies? What about video games, or movies, that cover other wars or skirmishes that are already out? Should they take them off the shelves too?
you probably play as a marine not a soldier
It's simple. I don't agree with it, but videogame companies aren't willing to invest the time and money into developing a game that they don't think will sell well. If they truly believe the common American would be disgusted by a game, it's a no go. Also, that's why you don't see any AO-rated games...
R.I.P. Thrill Kill
Well, the problem with the game I heard is that the Marines that helped develop the game also gave perspective from the other side. People don't want to hear the other people's perspective.
I forgot that Fallujah was a marine corps affair, thanks for reminding me.
The news articles make it sound like the game is almost finished. My question is, if so many people really thought this was such a bad idea, why did it go so far? 4 years and 20 million dollars.
Because if we heard the other side then we'd be wrong and guess what were FUCKEN AMERICA we are never wrong.
Not entirely. Plenty of Soldiers paid the price there as well in November 2004.
I dont think that the problem is that it's a video game based on a battle, I think its just that its a video game based on a battle that is still extremely fresh in the minds of the friends/family of the Marines and is still in the minds of the Marines who are still stressing about that battle. I would venture to say it's more of a respect deal than anything else
And Brits too.
I saw on the news it was like 2/3 done and konami dropped the game from its label because they considered it offensive to certain groups of people. They haven't banned it because the company is just looking for new investors.
Supposedly it is going to be the most realistic military game out there, that opinion is coming from the marines who are sitting in on the game and directing it who actually fought in the war.
Edit: Well how long do we wait before it's acceptable? I mean how do we decide something like that. Once you set a precedent, you have to stick to it...
Whats the precedent? If it is games like COD, I believe that those were all fine and dandy on account of the release dates in relation to the battles (the main theme being WWII) which had happened decades earlier and had already been made into movies and games and such.
That being said, the million dollar question is when it's acceptable. Nobody can accurately gauge exactly when it will be allright to feature a real-life battle in anything. IMO it all boils down to how fresh the battle is in the minds of the American people. (Specifically the Marines who fought over there and the families of the fallen soldiers) I'm not opposed to video games about war, I think the COD series is Bad A. I just think that they need to exercise a little bit of discretion when releasing a game based on such a sensitive subject to the world