Article Entry
07 Apr 2009
Comments:11
C.I.A. Funded Video Game Getting Sour Reception; What Do You Think?
Added by USGIF Category: Daily Intelligence Brief
In case you all have not seen the recent news about the C.I.A./In-Q-Tel-funded video game called “Six Days in Fallujah,” it is something worth noting. Here’s the scoop on it. It is a new video game from Atomic Games that takes a real-life 2004 battle in Fallujah and brings it to life in a video game that is slated to be released next year. And, bloggers and the parent of a soldier killed during that battle do not want the game to go to market.
The Britain’s Telegraph reported on this earlier and ran this quote from Tim Collins, a decorated colonel who experienced the battle: “It’s much too soon to start making video games about a war that’s still going on, and an extremely flippant response to one of the most important events in modern history.”
And Brier Dudley, a writer/blogger for the Seattle Times had this to say: “I thought the return of “Leisure Suit Larry” (in ‘Box Office Bust’) would win the most tasteless game of the year award, but it may be bumped aside by ‘Six Days in Fallujah,’ an action shooter based on a horrific 2004 battle in Iraq.”
What do you all think about this? Is it too early to launch this game because the wounds are still fresh? We want your thoughts and insights on this!
Tags: Atomic Games, CIA, In-Q-Tel, Six Days in Fallujah, video games, war video game
From Linked-In:
“I think it’s probably a little too soon to do this game. As much as I love my computer games, just out of respect and decency, I wouldn’t pick this one up.”
From Linked-In:
“The Army did something similar with America’s Army; however, it wasn’t based off a particular battle. It was a tool to enhance recruiting. If this is something people can learn from and it can help prevent death the next time, then it is great. The downside is that the enemy could use it, too…. Why even bring it up that it is based off an actual battle? They could have easily mixed it into multiple battles and never even mentioned it.”
From Linked-In:
“I think it is in pretty bad taste.”
From Linked-In:
“I am a former Infantry grunt and my brother was in Fallujah right before this horrific battle. I enjoy playing 1st person shooters and many of the games I play are geared towards urban warfare in environments that compare to Fallujah. To name a video game after a battle that was one of the worst conflicts in recent US military history is wrong. Though, we have to ask ourselves if they still based the game off of the Batlle of Fallujah and called the game “Terrorist Hunter” (there is a reason why I am not in marketing.) No one would of said a thing other than “first person shooters are not good for children to play.” I think that if this game was named differently, and it truley could show how scary and how ugly war is; maybe people would truley understand what are soldiers are going through! This posting in no way reflects the views of ISYS Technologies and I am speaking on my own behalf.”
In 1972, my gaming buddy had a similar reaction to the board game, ‘Year of the Rat – Vietnam 1972′. He refused to play it, even though it was just cardboard squares on a hex-grid map. Renaming the game might help. Try test-marketing with focus groups.
Army medical research indicates that playing FPS games like this may reduce post combat stress in veterans, whether used as a therapy afterwards, or as recreation beforehand.
From Linked-In:
I don’t like the idea but how many WWII games are on the market. I know many veterans of the D-Day invasion would probably not appreciate the games based on that battle. How many of their fellow soldiers and friends died on that beach?
There are series upon series of games around WWII.
Where did you get that this was funded by CIA & In-Q-Tel? Certainly not from the linked WSJ article.
An alternative point of view perhaps.
How ever hurtful it is, possibly the horror and waste of war can be better understood, with a stronger impact, by using real and fresh instances of war that bear a relationship to real people.
If we are against war, then what better way than to personalize it. These are not imaginary avatars falling over in an virtual battle, but our neighbours sons and brothers dying.
By sanitizing and generalizing we will never stop war. The greatest peacemakers have been leaders who have faced the battlefield.
Hi JZ…per your question about where did we find information about the CIA/In-Q-Tel funding, here are some links:
http://blog.seattletimes.nwsource.com/brierdudley/2009/04/07/most_tasteless_game_of_the_yea.html
http://www.gamearena.com.au/news/read.php/4932261
War is bad, and exploiting the recently slain is disgraceful. But is that happening here?
What if the game is accurate? If the names of the dead are in the game, living on to teach both fellow soldiers and people all over the world the horror and sacrifice of war, is that not a public good and a testament to them?
How many people now have a sense of the madness on June 6th, thanks to bunches of WW2 shooters? How many kids have been exposed to the HUGELY important lessons learned in WW2?
If this were a private company running a money grab, then it’s not reasonable to allow them to use real names, etc. Since this is ‘A registered part of the gov’t responsible for the battle’ (I know CIA isn’t Army, but technically they be on the same side, no?) and the game is assumed to be not for profit but for public good, then there may not be problems here.
As for ‘too soon, disrespectful!’… too soon to state that, no? If the game sucks, doesn’t portray truth, distorts facts, DOESN’T have non-evil bad guys and/or civilians in line of fire, then the game has issues.
If it does a fine job of showing what’s going on RIGHT NOW, what people are up against RIGHT NOW, then not soon enough.
We’re SUPPOSED to know about the stuff going on; the people elect the politicians who decide on the wars, and the people fight the wars. Shouldn’t the people know about the wars, so we can elect the politicians who’ll do a good job?
Reminds me of when Tour of Duty came out in the 80′s. (Vietnam TV show) “Can America handle 1 hour a week of gritty war?” Well, ye damned well BETTER, you sent the men to fight, kill, and die.
It ain’t ok to just turn your head away. War’s a dirty business, and the human race does NOT have clean hands. Better to know it so as to limit it.
Or we could just level North America like Europe was leveled by ’45, so as to remind the current generations about the true horror of war. But that seems a little painful, rather than seeing a real soldier fighting a real battle in a fake vid.
Games and strategy simulations were based
on specific historic battles well before the
invention of computers and video games.
Such games are seen as part of the study of
the history of the conflict.
It looks like a pretty cool game and should
give those who are interested some insight
into the nature of that type of battle.
Little boys have played “war” since the
dawn of the human race.
Maybe we should get over it.