Play the news: kill Al Qaeda's al-Zarqawi
by Ludwig Kietzmann 
{ Jun 26th 2006 at 9:55PM }
If you've recently witnessed the news on TV or your disagreeable neighbor's house getting blown to smithereens, you'd likely be aware that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq, was killed in a decisive US air strike earlier this month. If this is the first time you're learning of it, the news is reaching you in a way quite dissimilar to the way in which the people behind Kuma Reality Games want it to. Reaching you is just the beginning for them -- they want it to grab you by the arm and yank you into a Source-powered, 3D recreation.The goal of Kuma\War is elaborate and intriguing, though much like a minefield, it's also laced with topical traps that require careful movements to navigate successfully. For every major battle or newsworthy event that takes place in the ongoing war on terror, Kuma\War offers a free, downloadable counterpart, plunging you right into the war-torn boots of an American soldier and tasking you with carrying out the very same mission. Just a scant few weeks after al-Zarqawi's death, Kuma\War will be offering "players" the opportunity to call in the airstrike that killed him or, alternatively, rush his house with a group of comrades in tow.
Keith Halper, CEO of Kuma Reality Games, doesn't view this strictly as basing a game on real-life events. The word he would prefer is "reporting," a word that would indicate playing through the al-Zarqawi situation is a way of learning and experiencing the news firsthand ... or should that be first-person? "Our job is to set up these variables exactly as they were at the beginning of one of these events and then allow the player to go through and do what they will," says Halper. "Anybody who's played a game like 'Grand Theft Auto' understands that the free-form nature is what makes this a wonderful experience. I can go in and interact with the environment and see what would happen otherwise."
And therein lies the dilemma. The idea of reliving major world events in a game is fascinating and certainly holds some merit as an interactive form of conveying news, but when considering the actual content of the presentation, it seems somewhat sensationalistic and insensitive. If games are primarily meant to entertain, what happens when the subject matter comes directly from a real war with real people? Is it a "wonderful experience" to derive pleasure from reliving and replaying these events?
Then again, we've all had a blast playing through Call of Duty 2, a game praised for its intense recreation of one of history's greatest wars. Is it because nazis, much like giant insects and aliens, are disposable and decidedly inhuman villains? Is al-Zarqawi and the war on terror just a little too real for comfort? Perhaps for us to fully enjoy a more realistic game then, we need it to soften the edges of reality just a bit. Pad it out with nazis, hazy history and nameless bodies. Just to soften the edge.
Read - MTV news article
Read - Kuma\War official site
Read - Kuma\War al-Zarqawi video
Get a WordPress.com Blog
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Blink @ Jun 26th 2006 10:34PM
What next? A game where you play as terrorists, and you have a sandbox style gameplay system where it gives you hundreds of ways to destroy the world trade center? Insensetive indeed, I don't think the game industry should be the bold ones to be first on these grounds, let a movie be made about a war/battle/attack first, then it's fair game to be made into a game.
Jason @ Jun 26th 2006 10:38PM
I played this briefly to review it last year. Unless they've made major changes to the game (I mean overhauling the entire thing), it's not even worth mentioning, let alone downloading, installing or playing.
renaldo @ Jun 26th 2006 10:49PM
NYARRRRGHHH THATS INSENSITIVE TO KILL A MAJOR PLAYER IN A TERRORIST ORGANIZATION IN REAL LIFE IN A VIDEO GAME GRAJINDN.
Matt @ Jun 26th 2006 11:04PM
Do you also get to kill the five (including one child) that died near or in the house? I agree with number one; just put me in the cockpit of an F-16 so I can be impersonal about it.
Ziegler @ Jun 26th 2006 11:06PM
its insensitive to make a game that simulates killing a man who decapitated numerous americans? what a strange time we're living in
minus_273 @ Jun 26th 2006 11:06PM
"What next? A game where you play as terrorists, and you have a sandbox style gameplay system where it gives you hundreds of ways to destroy the world trade center? "
I think Hamas or Hezbolla already has a game similar that where you play as suicide bomber called Resistance fighter or something like that. You win by killing as many infidels and before dying. You beat the game by dying at the end for allah.
I only wish i was making this up.
Keith L. Dick @ Jun 26th 2006 11:12PM
Maybe if we supplied the World with Laptops & Pc's loaded with these kind of games they could just do all their killing in Cyberspace and not in the Real World...
*Wishful thinking I know*...
TheGsusFreek @ Jun 27th 2006 12:11AM
@#1:
Uh... big difference b/t the two, dude. Seriously. Terrorists purposely targeted and killed well over two thousand five hundred innocent civilian lives in the WTC attack. We purposely targeted and killed one guy... the kind of guy who plans those kinds of attacks. He was pretty well known for his heinous acts of violence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zarqawi#Terrorist_and_guerrilla_attacks
@#3
Yes, there were other casualties. It's a war; it is sad but it does happen. If you don't want to get "blowed up", you should be hiding in a safehouse 30 miles outside of Baghdad with a well-known terrorist.
Brian (Magus) @ Jun 27th 2006 12:23AM
I think people are too sensitive about modern-day occurrences. We play games based on the realities of WWII all the time, both on the eastern and western front, and even from the grim perspectives of the Russians, and sometimes from the German side. And we don't even give it a thought.
I, for one, think this is a really cool idea for a 'game'.
Eric @ Jun 27th 2006 12:39AM
1) I'm not going to be PC or sensitive.
2) If America is at war with terrorists, since I am not in any armed forces, I will gladly partake in a game in which killing said enemy is an objective.
Also, if America was at war with (insert country here) I would gladly partake in a game in which killing said enemy is an objective.
Don't like it?...See #1, rinse and repeat.
WamBam @ Jun 27th 2006 1:08AM
As with any video game, especially those dealing with matter that is distasteful in real life (and to be certain, killing is), one must draw boundaries between reality and fantasy. Though many politicians and misguided, showboating lawyers might disagree, the vast majority of gamers can realize the difference between what is real and what is not. As personally unpleased I am with this game, I believe that people are intelligent enough not to fool themselves into feeling any sort of pride or satisfaction about killing effigies, let alone civilians.
However, as video games do strive for a certain amount of realism, how often do violent war games take into account such variables as civilian deaths or the political ramifactions of war? Except for the few games that do include hostages, most titles are staged in theaters devoid of non-combatants. Black Hawk Down, the game, is a perfect example of this. Here was a situation in real life made worse by the fact that the line between combatants and civilians was blurred. Yet the game hardly, if ever makes that distinction. One simply kills everything that moves, so long as they aren't in an American uniform and they are black. Not even the governments own game, America's Army, considers this very real and very important facet of war.
I do lover shooters, I admit, but I think it would actually be an improvement to the genre, especially those titles that strive for realism, if we include such factors in these types of games.
neale @ Jun 27th 2006 1:23AM
poster number 1: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8260059923762628848&q=loose+change
will we get to beat him to death because the air strike never killed him in the game?
Blink @ Jun 27th 2006 2:26AM
#6, if you'll notice, I directly phrased my statement starting with "What next?" as to imply that this is the first step towards a world where all sides will make their own video games supporting their own countries and actions in war. If we were fighting the Japanese right now, you could bet that there would be war games supporting them over there as well if this came out over here. No matter who, every country thinks they're doing the right thing. It's called Nationalism.
#7. People are used to the idea of creating media and entertainment off WWII. I'm saying that the world usually isn't ready for "entertainment" being found in something as modern and current as this, so it may shake up people even more. I suppose they are coming out with 9/11 films now, so a 5 year wait period sounds like a reasonable down time to let it settle in peoples' minds to me.
#8. You provide a perfect example of Nationalism. ;)
#9. Even Ubisoft has admitted that they intentionally avoid having civilians in games. The only thing they have in GRAW remotely like a civilian is someone in their home hiding behind the window in the intro video, totally prerendered.
#10. I was only able to watch 24 min of it...I was just making an example of what some people consider to be patriotic or nationalistic.
matthew @ Jun 27th 2006 2:45AM
TheGsusFreek: You're making a subjective judgement over what constitutes war and for what purposes they can be fought. The "terrorists" who attacked the U.S. believed they were at war with this country when they did what they did. And why would they be any less "right" for thinking so? They killed 2500 "innocent" people who they saw as members of a country who has influenced (mostly criminally so) the actions of their country for the last 30 years in an effort to extort oil from their native land. Yeah, no sympothy for those guys. Lets just kill who we need to, to get to that one guy who doesn't really run the show.
Indecisive @ Jun 27th 2006 3:39AM
I've heard many horrifying stories of actual ancient structures and items being destroyed by soldiers on the ground. Now I wonder, if this war had took place in a different country, lets say Greece, would the US launch a tomahawk missile at an ancient palace or holy structure if the dictator took refuge inside one of them?
Loon @ Jun 27th 2006 4:28AM
If America is at war with (insert country here), since I am not in any armed forces, or american, I will gladly partake in a game in which killing said americans is an objective. :P
T-Bag @ Jun 27th 2006 5:24AM
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8260059923762628848&q=loose+change
Watch it, know you're fighting a meaningless battle.
Oh and as for #13, can we get his brainwashed ass banned?
Jay @ Jun 27th 2006 5:29AM
I sure as god hope they make games that depict American "heroism" in a bad light. Heaven forbid they make a game about torturing prisoners in Iraq POW camps. Can you imagine the backlash?
Now me. I'm all for equality. I'd like to play a cowboy who steals as much land as possible off a native Indian.
PearOfAnguish @ Jun 27th 2006 5:44AM
Brainwashed? Hehe, good one!
http://tinyurl.com/pkyfk
http://tinyurl.com/qg7bl
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haditha_killings
Might want to have a rethink about who it is being brainwashed.
Ki @ Jun 27th 2006 6:26AM
"I sure as god hope they make games that depict American "heroism" in a bad light. Heaven forbid they make a game about torturing prisoners in Iraq POW camps. Can you imagine the backlash?"
Guess the historian who said America reflected Nazi Germany, wasnt wrong. A world liberator thats believe in facist democracy, people only allusion of human rights, freedom and justice. I guess hating terrorism must be hatred of their own kind.
Simon @ Jun 27th 2006 6:35AM
I'ld like a game where you start as a stupid son of a rich guy with a lot of rich backers, and your goal is to buy your way into becoming president to start a war and make those backers of yours even richer. Yeah, that would be so cool ... NOT
At least it would be very realistic ...
Shore @ Jun 27th 2006 7:57AM
I'd actually like to play a game as either:
1) College kids who think they know everything about geopolitics and so they decide to share it with everyone on a gaming blog's comments section, showing that they only can agree with what Che said, everyone else is WRONG!
or
2) Europeans who either gave up to the Germans in World War II with little or no fight, let the people in Eastern Europe live like pigs for 50 years under communist rule, let the Balkans become a complete quagmire (while BEGGING America to help), have let Northern Africa fall into complete disarray after having raped the land (and some of the people), and who never take a stand on anything unless it's how horrible the U.S. is. That would be a fun game too!
Fan @ Jun 27th 2006 8:15AM
I would like to see a game were I can blow up joystiqs comment section in an attempt to hinder it from going political.
T-Bag @ Jun 27th 2006 8:30AM
PearOfAnguish, the reason I called you "brainwashed was because of your comment, not the truth behind it in the real world. I pictured you as a hick with nothing better to do then to listen to your commander and chief to the death with no remorse or common sense whatsoever.
Exbzurg @ Jun 27th 2006 9:00AM
when i read the title i thought " o great we get to input coordinates into a computer and push a button to launch a bomb..." cuz you know thats basically what happened.
anyways the actual game also looks boring either way... ehh
PearOfAnguish @ Jun 27th 2006 9:16AM
T-Bag, now you're making even less sense. I think you spectacularly misinterpreted what I wrote, you seemed to think I was serious about using Iraqi civilians as target practice. I don't have a commander in chief either. In future try not to take comments at face value.
Phranctoast @ Jun 27th 2006 9:26AM
#19.
best comment I ever seen on these blogs......
Anon @ Jun 27th 2006 9:39AM
19. Shore, what a queer view of history you have,
1. College Kids usually have a better sense of history than geopolitics because they the have research to do and essays to write on subjects like geopolitics and history and don't just hold onto what their own government and uneducated masses say.
2. Europeans and one north american country (canada) were fighting Hitler and the fascists for years before the US decided to join the fight after making as much money as they could supplying to the allies and before the war to the germans. America joined the war after russia broke the back of the german army and victory was assured and to keep Russia from taking all of europe.
As for the Balkans, yugoslavia was broken up because of external pressures because it's economy was closed but successful and did not want to join the EU, read a book or two.
32_Footsteps @ Jun 27th 2006 9:39AM
I really hope you mean WW2 was "great" in the sense that it was enormous. It was certainly a necessary war, but I imagine that if it hadn't been necessary, we would have been better off.
On the topic of nationalism coming out in video games, it does beg the question of what to do about Capcom's 1942 and 1943. For those unfamiliar with the two, they're top-down shoot-'em ups taking place during WW2. The strange thing about it is, Capcom, a Japanese company, made the American planes the heroes and the Japanese planes the villains. You could have a field day on the meaning behind that.
I think the reason people are able to enjoy WW2 games is because time has been spent to remove some of the immediate horror of what happened then. You don't think about people dying from being forcefed too much castor oil when fighting Mussolini's troops. Nobody thinks about the concentration camps when fighting the Nazis. Nobody thinks about Unit 731 whilst recreating the Battle of Midway.
However, due to how recently it all happened, we can't help but think of the world events and atrocities that have happened which led up to the events depicted in game. From September 11 to Daniel Pearl, it's all too fresh in our heads. It creates a level of emotional impact that uneases many people.
It's really just as right to make a game about all this as it is to make a game about World War II. We just have fresher memories about what's going on now, so the reaction is much different.
Anon @ Jun 27th 2006 9:42AM
how did #19 turn into #18
DG @ Jun 27th 2006 9:47AM
To #6: Zarqawi had nothing to do with the WTC/Pentagon attacks. I'm still waiting for our government to get around to catching those responsible.
Let's not be confused into thinking this Iraq War has anything to do with what happened nearly five years ago.
Blue Spotted Frog @ Jun 27th 2006 10:30AM
Shame on Joystiq for giving stars to people's comments that are way off topic. This comment section is about the Kuma game, not geopolitics or morality.
Tush @ Jun 27th 2006 11:05AM
"Europeans who either gave up to the Germans in World War II with little or no fight"
This person got a star, is this a joke?
This could go right next to, "Jesus was caucasian with blonde hair and blue eyes."
Pickypants @ Jun 27th 2006 11:39AM
^^
Tush, you now deserve a star.
Ludwig Kietzmann @ Jun 27th 2006 1:48PM
I haven't awarded any stars in this thread. If someone has a star, it's because they got them by commenting on a different post.
irob @ Jun 27th 2006 5:35PM
28) Please, enlighten us on how zarqawi had nothing to do with 9/11, and go watch loose change for the 70th time to make sure who REALLY took down the towers.
I know its cool to come up with conspiracy theories about 9/11, but its getting really old.
Back to kuma, they released the first couple of episodes in 2003, they werent very good, after you get over the "cool" factor of fighting in a battle that took place a month ago, you notice that the game is broken and the enviornments look relatively old
funnelbc @ Jun 27th 2006 6:14PM
@ #30 "This comment section is about the Kuma game, not geopolitics or morality."
I'm pretty sure you're off base there. If the game leverages a person from geopolitics, and then uses it as a key game mechanic then discussing the ramifications and understanding the political situation that made this character play a part in the game is pretty valid (& obviously from the other comments, fertile) grounds for discussion.
EatingPie @ Jun 27th 2006 6:33PM
"People are used to the idea of creating media and entertainment off WWII. I'm saying that the world usually isn't ready for "entertainment" being found in something as modern and current as this."
If we're not ready now, should we EVER be?
Millions of people died tragically in WWII, and yet we have fun playing games that re-create these battles. I find this morally disturbing, especially in the past few years as the games have become much more realistic.
Sure, we can tell the difference between games and reality. But does that mean we are not influenced by the game? If not, why be disturbed by Kuma/War at all? If not, why would the Government make America's Army, or Hezbollah make Special Force?
-Pie
Austin @ Jun 28th 2006 1:18PM
DG #31 Have you lost your mind? Zarqawi was a high ranking member of the group that carried out the attacks. Or is that just my brainwashed media-fed version of things.
I honestly can not believe that joystiq or whoever rates these comments would give 3 stars to such a ridiculous statement.
Oh and Ludwig, to answer your "dilemma" Hopefully by having to carry out what it takes to secure freedom and stop terrorists first hand (at least in a simulation). It will give some people an idea of what our soldiers are willing to do to protect our freedom. (Including the freedom to comment on blogs and play games that other people may not like… umm like GTA)