Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
Customize
User Settings
Styles:
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:

Regularly scheduled events

Six Days in Fallujah Revealed

Konami announces Six Days in Fallujah, based on 2004 Iraq battle on the Los Angeles Times profiles an upcoming third-person survival/horror shooter set in Iraq being developed by recently revived developer Atomic Games. There is also an article on the game in the Wikipedia offering details from the May 2009 issue of Gamepro magazine, quoting Atomic's Peter Tamte describing this as "a meticulously recreated in-game version of Fallujah, complete with real life Marines lending their names and likenesses, as well as recreations of specific events from the battle. It's almost like time travel. You're experiencing the events as they really happened." The survival/horror theme is ascribed to the game based on the atmosphere created by clearing a city house-by-house, rather than the presence of zombies or their ilk, and word is the game will also include destructible environments. The game is in development for PC, Xbox 360, and PlayStation 3, but no release date is offered.

View
60 Replies. 3 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 ] Older >

60. Re: Six Days in Fallujah Revealed Apr 9, 2009, 11:55 Amillennialist
 
Bill is afraid of the truth about Islam, as are most pundits, nearly all politicians, and all liberals.

http://amillennialist.blogspot.com

This comment was edited on Apr 9, 2009, 16:57.
 
"The Christian religion, when ... brought to the original purity and simplicity of it's benevolent institutor, is a religion of all others most friendly to liberty, science, and the freest expansion of the human mind."

Thomas Jefferson, 1801
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
59. Re: Six Days in Fallujah Revealed Apr 9, 2009, 06:13 CreamyBlood
 
O'Reilly sent you, didn't he.  
Avatar 19418
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
58. Re: Six Days in Fallujah Revealed Apr 8, 2009, 04:12 Amillennialist
 
Good comments, cappy. I'd like to offer a few additional thoughts . . .

First, regarding Pakistan, the question is not "if" it will skew toward "radicalism," but when the jihadists will have control of its nukes.

Second, Sunni "extremism" is just traditional, Qur'anic Islam.

Third, Iran, though Shiite, is just as troublesome for non-Muslims, since like the major schools of Sunni jurisprudence, neither does Shia Islam reject offensive warfare against "infidels" in establishing the tyranny of Allah over all Mankind. Why? Because of this:

"the Messenger of Allah . . . would say: 'Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war. . . . When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. . . . Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them. . . . If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them . . .'" (Muslim Book 19, Number 4294).

"fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war) . . . " (Qur’an 9:5).

"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued" (Qur'an 9:29).

Truth is not hate speech.

This comment was edited on Jan 4, 2010, 03:01.
 
"The Christian religion, when ... brought to the original purity and simplicity of it's benevolent institutor, is a religion of all others most friendly to liberty, science, and the freest expansion of the human mind."

Thomas Jefferson, 1801
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
57. Re: Six Days in Fallujah Revealed Apr 7, 2009, 22:22 Prez
 
Fair enough. I know enough not to piss off the owner of the sandbox in which I'm playing.  
Avatar 17185
 
“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”
- Mahatma Gandhi
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
56. Re: Six Days in Fallujah Revealed Apr 7, 2009, 20:22  Blue 
 
Is calling someone a moron somehow more taboo (and thus requiring it to be censored) than calling an entire nation of people hateful murdering racists for the crime of being American?

Well in the simplest sense, one is a personal attack, and the other a general one. I am not trying to parse taboos here, just preventing specific language that can degenerate into fights.

I tried to avoid any moderation whatsoever, and all hell broke loose. I find enforcing the rule against personal attacks has mostly curtailed this.
 
Avatar 2
 
Stephen "Blue" Heaslip
Blue's News Publisher, Editor-in-Chief, El Presidente for Life
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
55. Re: Six Days in Fallujah Apr 7, 2009, 18:37 Kxmode
 
"It's basically FPS with better graphics, but if I lag out there, there's no respawn!" - FPS Dave  
Avatar 18786
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
54. Re: Six Days in Fallujah Revealed Apr 7, 2009, 16:01 cappy
 
Iran was not being neutralized by Iraq. After GW1 , Iraq was no longer a check, thus the presence of US bases in Iraq actually reestablished that deterrence. And the US support of Kurds and others in the area willing to help us against Iran gave us HumINT on the Iranian weapons programs.

Militarily speaking, Iran was outpacing Iraq because of the deterioration of Iraqi armed forces during the sanctions.

However, if you reach back into 2002 and 2003, you will recall that the U.S. and other Western military intelligence services weren't sure exactly what Saddam had available. As with any intelligence gathering, it involved a lot of supposition and of course ended up being shaped by wishful thinking and worst fears. Also by Ahmed Chalabi and other Iranian-supported Iraqis living abroad since it was in theirs and Iran's best interests for the U.S. to take out its rival.

It's possible Iran had great doubts about what exactly Saddam did possess, but wasn't sure. Recall also our own surprise (despite considerable overflights and satellite recon) to discover a lot of their aircraft buried under the sand, and the rest in non-flight condition. There was also our pre-emptive warning to Iraqi forces during the invasion itself against using their chemical weapons and Saddam's people at one point believing they had chemical weapons available to use to defend Baghdad.

It turned out that the inherent fear of Saddam by his own people kept them from apprising him of how bad shape his military was actually in. If Saddam wasn't aware, and the U.S. wasn't aware and ended up being surprised, you can bet Iran wasn't entirely aware either - and still cautious after the brutal war they had already endured and lost millions of their own people fighting to a stalemate.

So yeah, in hindsight, Iraq wasn't as big a threat to Iran as everyone and Iran thought it was.

American bases in Iraq are not establishing a deterrence to Iran. Iraq has already stated numerous times well before the election that they do not intend to allow long-term bases to continue. Since the borders with Iran are huge, people go back and forth there all the time.

The Kurds aren't welcome in Iran and both Iran and Turkey would be willing to go in after them if they could. Be assured that what the Kurds can provide by way of human intelligence is rather limited, given their very weak or non-existent ties to the Shias in Iran. Their border areas are also not where the flow of arms and people are coming into the country. Kurdistan is almost a self-contained province separate from the remainder of Iraq.

Here's a primer on all the Prime Ministers and religious leaders of Iraq who have gone to Tehran in the spirit of cooperation, as well as Ahmadinejad's well-received visit complete with honors and flowers when he came to Baghdad:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=sistani+tehran&rlz=1W1GGLL_en&aq=f&oq=

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=allawi+tehran&aq=f&oq=

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=maliki+tehran

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=jaafari+tehran

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=al+sadr+tehran

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=chalabi+tehran

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=ahmadinejad+baghdad

The simple fact is that Iraq as a Sunni-led nation whose military capability had once been formidable and whose status was still worrisome, plus its tacit support from neighboring Sunni countries who would be willing to side with it and support it against a Shia transgression from Iran (not that Persia has invaded anyone in centuries, but people have long memories) did indeed provide a counterweight to Iran. That counterweight is gone. There is no current or potential militarily powerful Sunni nation standing between Iran and Saudi Arabia anymore. I'm sure Saudi Arabia has worries about that.

It's not a hopeless situation even granted that Iraq will prefer its close relationship with neighbor Iran, while just making use of what the U.S. provides. The U.S. like most countries is ultimately pragmatic about its relationships, despite the weird skew toward idealism we did over this whole thing (while embracing dictatorships like Uzbekistan, Pakistan, and Libya as our vital partners in the war on terror - Reagan must have been rolling over in his grave when we made nice with Libya for symbolically "abandoning" the WMD programs they had already abandoned a decade earlier and "promising" to be good world citizens while putting nuns on trial for trying to destroy Libya with AIDS).

Like I said, one week's enemy is the next week's friend. Watch what happens if Pakistan skews toward radicalism and ends up posing problems not just for our efforts in Afghanistan but also India, especially if Sunni nations do their usual mix of tacit and passive support. Suddenly the grand Iran-Iraq coalition with its burgeoning military strength might seem a pretty good check against Sunni extremism. Funny, that. But Russia went from ally in WWI to being invaded by the U.S. and Great Britain in the waning days of the war with Allied troops occupying its soil well past war end, then an ally of convenience in WW2, then Germany going from being the great enemy of both World Wars to our friend, buffer, and protectorate after World War 2.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
53. Re: Six Days in Fallujah Apr 7, 2009, 15:22 Kedyn
 
You need to log in to see the vid (proof of age or something).

Notice any similarities (especially in the voice dialogs)in the video to a level in the game? I found the similarities disturbing (and tasteless). Sure, it's realistic I suppose, but making it parallel so closely actual events seemed tasteless to me.

I don't find it tasteless at all. In CoD4 it was a shooting gallery. In reality, it's probably very much hurry-up-and-wait.

I guess I'm just less sensitive than others. I don't see what the big fuss is over an AC-130 gunship "simulation" when we've been shooting each other for years in countless other games.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
52. Re: Six Days in Fallujah Apr 7, 2009, 14:00 Old_Geezer
 
And speaking of COD (modern warfare), has anyone who's played it seen this video?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0CzApoSHnFg&feature=PlayList&p=64174636A88C6924&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=9

You need to log in to see the vid (proof of age or something).

Notice any similarities (especially in the voice dialogs)in the video to a level in the game? I found the similarities disturbing (and tasteless). Sure, it's realistic I suppose, but making it parallel so closely actual events seemed tasteless to me.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
51. Re: Six Days in Fallujah Revealed Apr 7, 2009, 13:05 Kedyn
 
Wow. Slippery Jim is kind of racist, isn't he?

Funny, he's the one calling everyone else racist, but he's here going "all white people like watching non-white people die."

Heh, yeah. "Reverse" racism is still racism.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
50. Re: Six Days in Fallujah Revealed Apr 7, 2009, 12:51 Beamer
 
Wow. Slippery Jim is kind of racist, isn't he?

Funny, he's the one calling everyone else racist, but he's here going "all white people like watching non-white people die."

Racism.
 
-------------
Music for the discerning:
http://www.deathwishinc.com
http://www.hydrahead.com
http://www.painkillerrecords.com
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
49. Re: Six Days in Fallujah Revealed Apr 7, 2009, 10:06 VultureMAN
 
Iran was not being neutralized by Iraq. After GW1 , Iraq was no longer a check, thus the presence of US bases in Iraq actually reestablished that deterrence. And the US support of Kurds and others in the area willing to help us against Iran gave us HumINT on the Iranian weapons programs.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
48. Re: Six Days in Fallujah Revealed Apr 7, 2009, 03:36 Dr. D. Schreber
 
Tasteless? Other than it being based on an actual battle that happened only a few years ago, compared to CoD4 where you're invading a fictional Middle Eastern country, how is it really that tasteless? If the game ends up not sucking, I'll probably check it out. I guess I'm in the minority, wondering what the battle was really like, rather than just judging it from a distance.

An interesting note here, watch the loading-screen briefings very closely in Modern Warfare when the map is zooming in; I'm pretty sure the "fictional Middle Eastern country" would have a big fat "IRAN" over it if the map had labels. So the game is about attacking a country that has attracted Western attention in the form of rising tensions for the past few years now, but it's perfectly tasteful, as far as everyone is concerned, because it's never named and the beginning of the game hints it to have been going pro-US before some bad dudes threw a coup.

To say nothing of the Russian Federation in Modern Warfare, which is home to an insurgency of such military might that the actual state army can't stop them from seizing a nuclear missile base and has to rely on the big damn (Western) heroes to stop it.

Mind you, I don't consider these things tasteless at all; Modern Warfare is fiction, and fiction is more powerful when it uses the real world. I sure as hell felt more attached to Sergeant Jackson than I did anyone in Full Spectrum Warrior while they invaded Zekistan. But it seems strange that something like this gets a free pass just because it's fiction, whereas something grounded in very specific reality is immediately tasteless (and the brains behind it are people who were actually there, seriously, did anyone actually read the article? Actual veterans of Fallujah who have undoubtedly suffered battle fatigue are interested in nothing more than controversy caused by the subject matter increasing sales? Right.)
 
Avatar 51686
 
NOT THE BEES! NOT THE BEES THEY'RE IN MY EYES AARRGRHGHGGAFHGHFGHFG!
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
47. Re: Six Days in Fallujah Revealed Apr 7, 2009, 02:00 Ari
 
Guys I'm new here, where can i find this cool game....  
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
46. Re: Six Days in Fallujah Revealed Apr 7, 2009, 01:31 Kedyn
 
If the game actually had any real merit (ie. it doesn't suck), they'd probably avoid using such a stupidly tasteless (and hence risky) premise. In other words, the controversy is likely all this game has going for it.

Tasteless? Other than it being based on an actual battle that happened only a few years ago, compared to CoD4 where you're invading a fictional Middle Eastern country, how is it really that tasteless? If the game ends up not sucking, I'll probably check it out. I guess I'm in the minority, wondering what the battle was really like, rather than just judging it from a distance.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
45. Re: Six Days in Fallujah Revealed Apr 6, 2009, 23:06 Old_Geezer
 
This game sounds like it'll likely be a steaming pile of crap that's going to count on controversy as a marketing ploy, much like that one that came out a while ago that put the player in the role of JFK's assassin. I suspect that if anything, it'll be a way for teens from the east and west to death-match and hurl insults at each other via the in-game chat (and even then, probably only for a hyper-patriotic minority).

If the game actually had any real merit (ie. it doesn't suck), they'd probably avoid using such a stupidly tasteless (and hence risky) premise. In other words, the controversy is likely all this game has going for it.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
44. Re: Six Days in Fallujah Revealed Apr 6, 2009, 22:55 tuddies
 
American foreign policy is the very definition of HORROR/SURVIVAL, but mostly from civilians and those that don't agree with their hegemonic dreams.  
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
43. Re: Six Days in Fallujah Revealed Apr 6, 2009, 22:38 Kedyn
 
Thank you, cappy, that was very enlightening. I hadn't thought about some of that before.

So the author of this book you post from is also the founder of a group promoting the advocacy of victory in America's ongoing War on Terrorism? Ever herd of propaganda?

I'm not saying that the guy is not a great solider who maybe fought amazingly, I'm say that what he wrote and how it is precentied can be just as bias as some jihad leaflet handed out by 'drug-crazed Mahdi militiaman'

I call white phosphorous a illegal weapon, by the Geneva Conventions, which was used in Fallujah.

I wonder if I'll get to burn innocent women and children with it in Six Days in Fallujah? That really would be horror.

One man's "propaganda" is another man's "information". I suppose I could just call anything you say to be anti-war propaganda, and immediately just ignore it, right?

The book, to me, was neither pro-war nor anti-war. It was merely his experiences before, during, and after the Battle of Fallujah. If anything, the book is definitely pro-military. The most recurring theme in the book is how much he cares about the men under him, and how much he respects those above him (who were pretty much all killed), and around the end of the book, how difficult it was for him to give up what he truly loved doing for the sake of his family.

Regarding White Phosphorous :

Article 1 of Protocol III of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons defines an incendiary weapon as 'any weapon or munition which is primarily designed to set fire to objects or to cause burn injury to persons through the action of flame, heat, or combination thereof, produced by a chemical reaction of a substance delivered on the target'. The same protocol also prohibits the use of incendiary weapons against civilians (already forbidden by the Geneva Conventions) or in civilian areas. This protocol is only binding upon those who have signed it; the United States, along with the other major military powers, has not signed or agreed to Protocol III and is not bound by it.

However, the use against military targets outside civilian areas is not explicitly banned by any treaty. There is a debate on whether white phosphorus should be considered a chemical weapon and thus be outlawed by the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) which went into effect in April 1997. The convention is meant to prohibit weapons that are "dependent on the use of the toxic properties of chemicals as a method of warfare" (Article II, Definitions, 9, "Purposes not Prohibited" c.).

The thing about white phosphorus is also in how it's used. It's one of the best tools for making a quick smoke screen, and it's also used for illumination at night, and it's universally legal for these purposes.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
42. Re: Six Days in Fallujah Revealed Apr 6, 2009, 21:58 cappy
 
Iraq is simply a better place to fight terrorists.

What I don't understand is why the hell we are pulling out of Iraq! Sure, lots of people cry that it was an "unjust war", but I think it'd be even more unjust to bail on a fledgling democracy NOW, when they are so weak and easily influenced by other, more powerful neighbors; namely, Iran. We made the mess, and now we are abandoning them. Where's the justice in that?


Which ones? The Shia or the Sunni insurgents (and of the latter, the home-grown nationalists or the imported Al-Qaeda types)? We won't count the Kurds since they've mainly annoyed everyone other than the U.S., including externally Iran and Turkey.

In a very simple nutshell, the invasion's best aspect may have been preventing Saddam's two sons who were even worse than him from succeeding him one day.

Other than that, it completely shifted the balance of power in the Middle East by removing a check against Iran. That was not its intent, but it should have been a no-brainer from the start.

You had a predominately Shia nation ruled by a Sunni minority despot. You want to install "democracy," implying elections by majority. Your result will be a Shia-dominated government, whose members happen to take a lot of trips to Tehran and sponsor reciprocal visits by Iranian leaders. What other result was expected?

Iran is secretly very grateful. We took out their greatest enemy, converted his country into a key ally of Iran against the Sunni nations, and we paid for all of it.

Iran has shown tendencies to moderating toward the West for several years, owing to a large younger demographic that has less memory and interest in the revolution, and occasionally allowing moderates like Khatami to run for the figurehead post of "President" which most people still can't seem to wrap their minds around is an administrative role and is subordinate to the Supreme Leader (aka Khamenei, the one pulling Ahmajenidad's strings and laughing while people point at the puppet's antics).

I suppose someone had pointed to past "successes" the U.S. had a hand in promoting democracy. But consider that Germany and Japan are still very distinctly their own countries with their own interests. Greece and South Korea went through long periods of dictatorship after the U.S. intervened against Communist threats. South American nations such as Ecuador and Venezuela have flipped and flopped in and out of democracy so many times in the past 50 years it's difficult to keep track.

The good thing is that all things change, often unpredictably, so one week's enemies become the next week's friends just like in high school - except on a longer time scale and with bloodier consequences to the downside. It's foreseeable that Iraq might end up as a leverage point for better relations with Iran, just as continued Sunni extremism from spots like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia may make that actually a good thing. But frankly, the previous administration's attempts to instill "democracy" and formulate a semblance of order was like watching someone herd cats to get the perfect picture. It was an idealism seeking the perfect snapshot and hoping it would last forever, not seeming to understand that it was going to inevitably form and re-form into different patterns. There is no "end-result" because stable governments that are not autocracies are pretty rare, and particularly when the underlying country is unstable. Even predominately stable countries have their governments fall, although in a mostly orderly manner.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
41. Re: Six Days in Fallujah Revealed Apr 6, 2009, 21:45 Kosumo
 
So the author of this book you post from is also the founder of a group promoting the advocacy of victory in America's ongoing War on Terrorism? Ever herd of propaganda?

I'm not saying that the guy is not a great solider who maybe fought amazingly, I'm say that what he wrote and how it is precentied can be just as bias as some jihad leaflet handed out by 'drug-crazed Mahdi militiaman'

I call white phosphorous a illegal weapon, by the Geneva Conventions, which was used in Fallujah.

I wonder if I'll get to burn innocent women and children with it in Six Days in Fallujah? That really would be horror.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
60 Replies. 3 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 ] Older >


footer

Blue's News logo