New Challenger: 3 Reasons Why Gaming Will Destroy Itself Part 1
19 hours 54 mins ago
Binge Gamer's James Walker, an Iraq War veteran, sounds off on Konami's pulling their support for 'Six Days in Fallujah' and calls for Konami and other game publishers to "show some chutzpah" in supporting games that go outside the box.
I’ve been one to avoid the whole Six Days in Fallujah argument, but this is depressing news. Here was a golden opportunity to convey the harrowing, nerve-racking events that the men of the 3rd Battalion 1st Marines went through during the battle for Fallujah. This was a prime chance to tell the story of what happened from the perspective of those who were there, instead of through the voices of dipshit protesters that infect the nightly news programs.
But no. You had to cave to the outside pressure of a group of ignorant hypocrites.
Hypocrites?
Yes, hypocrites.
News story attached to:



Comments
I agree with this man, man. A salute from carouselambra. But it's not just warfare that;s trivialisized, it's life. Everything. People switch on their consoles, and they think that what they're playing, is the same as the real thing. Ergo they become desensitized. Ultimatly, it's them that lose out. Not everyone thinks like that of course; but a lot do. maybe it's just a certain age group or intelligence group, who knows; but something's not right about that. For example; when you hear on the news, 500 people died here today, or 400 were injured there today; do you really stop to think, that 500 PEOPLE, are dead? you dont. Its just figures, numbers. It's not happening on your doorstep, it's happening a million miles away, it doesnt affect you, why should you care? It's still 500 people though, innit? DEAD. They should name them all one by one, name by name, picture by picture, show their families. maybe then people would have a reality shock and go do something. Why bother though, when you can play a game instead eh?
Sure, that can be called cowardice but at the end of the day that's business and I think most game companies would have done the same if a game they were making was receiving as much bad press and complaints and whatnot. Don't get me wrong, I would have loved for the game to come out and I think most of the protesters are ignorant on the subject, but I understand why they canned it, because the majority being ill-informed are still the majority.
It is also sad/amusing to see how the game from 2003 'Fugitive Hunter: War on Terror' wasn't given the time of day on the news when you get to fight against Bin Laden himself.
If they wont make a game that's gonna rock the boat, then they simply cannot claim that they're "working outside the box". The box is safe, the box is "in". If they wont step out, then nothing will change. Thats fine if you dont wanna change anything. But there's this trend of big game companies dressing up quite mundane boring games as something "new and ground-breaking and controversial", when in actual fact, there's nothing controversial or new about it, it's just a safe game, thats a bit different. Whereas something like this, that actually GROUNDS the warfare genre, WOULD have been controversial. Forget about "flower" or "jimmy bongo's music lessons" or whatever other crap is pretending to be changing the face of gaming. This would have got people thinking, about what it actually means to pick up a gun and fight for your country. To kill, or die even. Game over dude.
This news story is archived and is closed to comments now.