Joystiq impressions: Sixty seconds of Six Days in Fallujah

by Randy Nelson { Apr 13th 2009 at 2:11PM }

We didn't have a stopwatch at the ready during Konami's unveil of gameplay footage from the controversial war game, Six Days in Fallujah, but it definitely seemed to go by fast. The video, shown during a very high-concept presentation at the publisher's 2009 Gamer's Night, primarily focused on two things: environmental destruction and squad AI.

Atomic Games, developer of the title, seemed very proud of the fact that its game engine allows for buildings to be destroyed down to the individual brick level. While that aspect of the game looked decently realistic, we couldn't help but look confused when the player character magically regained health and US troops seemed to be able to take several more bullets than their adversaries before clocking out. We expected a little more realism from a game being touted as a realistic depiction of a very real battle.

One aspect that did come across was the game's civilian factor. At one point, an unarmed Iraqi throws up his empty hands and the squad stands down -- only to come under fire from an insurgent who's jumped out behind the friendly. Truth be told, the footage did little to convey anything truly unique about a game that's getting a fair amount of attention based on subject matter alone. We sat down with Atomic Games following the demonstration to get its thoughts on the reception and what it hopes to accomplish. Check out our interview with the game's creators:

JOYSTIQ INTERVIEW >>

Gallery: Six Days in Fallujah

Tags: atomic-games, konami, konami-gamers-night-2009, six-days-in-fallujah

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)

MystileArmor @ Apr 13th 2009 2:19PM

Oh oh, here we go again...

rov947 @ Apr 13th 2009 2:25PM

If a game company is going to cash in on a real life battle, they should make it as true to life as possible, now excuse me while I go play nazi zombies.

B3astofthe3ast @ Apr 13th 2009 2:28PM

Um....

So, anyone else can't wait for Modern Warfare 2?

NitroMikeo @ Apr 13th 2009 3:18PM

That made me lol.

Gaucho @ Apr 13th 2009 2:29PM

I don't know if the game will be good or not, but making it controversial to this level just for the sake of garnering attention and boosting sales is a bit messed up. Shock Value sells I guess... though CoD4 did a fine job even though it set the game in an 'unnamed Middle Eastern territory.'

WiredKnight @ Apr 13th 2009 3:24PM

Sorry, what?

How are they "making" it any more controversial than the actual scenario it's based on?

The Dark Wayne @ Apr 13th 2009 2:39PM

Ugh, why did it have to use the regen health system? When you're going for a realistic game about modern events cant you at least do the medic stuff from GRAW?

MystileArmor @ Apr 13th 2009 2:46PM

I guess they didn't really thought hard enough about their "realism"-sales pitch....

Companies should know that when they make up a story to back their product, they should atleast back it up with facts.

It's like selling a car that's ugly, but then justifying it cause it's good on the environment.... when it turns out the car goes 5 miles a gallon.

ill trooper @ Apr 13th 2009 2:47PM

Good call, I agree. I can accept it in sci-fi games like Halo, but it's a scourge of war video games, and especially in this case.

ill trooper @ Apr 13th 2009 2:43PM

I like the idea of a civilian presence in the game mentioned here, that's an element that is left out so often (and truthfully will probably be minimal here too), likely due to processing resources on the machines we play these games on, but it reminds me of something these games lack so often: the general public.

I think games like Rainbow 6: Vegas and GRAW have been lacking in this area, taking away from the realism by making cities like Mexico City and Las Vegas feel like ghost towns, attributing it to 'evacuated areas' and only having a handful of people in a normally crowded city. Basically, in GRAW or R6:V, if anything moves, it's military and you kill it. Rarely a target that you have to decide about firing on at all. Even GTA IV, for all it's 'real city' hype, felt empty compared to the actual NYC, although it at least had a population.

Probably one of the things that more powerful machines will allow - wild crowds of panicked people. New possibilities in these sort of games.

WiredKnight @ Apr 13th 2009 3:25PM

Hitman 4. New Orleans.

MarkHawk @ Apr 13th 2009 3:58PM

ha ha, thanks. I'd love to move from the Motion Graphics/Visual Effects business to the game industry.

To discuss the game a little more, this has been done before. Brothers in Arms tried to put you in a more realistic scenario. In my opinion the first game really did a great job for it's time to get me to care about the characters and keeping them alive. Losing them did weigh in on me (not as much as some games today) but for the time it was the first game to do that.

Flash forward to now, the only major difference in the story of these games is that the BiA story happened almost 70 years ago and Fallujah happened 5 years ago. In theory blocking this type of media from the public feels like a cover up of what really happened or IS really happening. I haven't been to the middle east, I haven't had this experience. Especially from a Civilian viewpoint or the opposing side.

I'm realistic when I say I don't think this game will hit many of these Marks. I just think games can do this. I don't think I need it to be a "game" I just feel this medium has much more potential. We can change things from being watched to being experienced. That just blows my mind...

MarkHawk @ Apr 13th 2009 4:16PM

wtf? Can someone delete the one above this?

dan @ Apr 14th 2009 12:25AM

Now this is some of the correct thinking, I never really realized it, but you make some very valid points and some really great ideas!

Video Games Blog @ Apr 13th 2009 2:43PM

Here's the ONLY reason why this game is controversial: Because the actual war is controversial.

The fact is, the native combatants of Iraq/Afghanistan do not wear military outfits, so any civilian you encounter out there could in fact be a militant, not an ordinary civilian.

I expect the game will have moments where characters are a civilian one moment and busting out an AK47 from a nearby cache the rest, just like the real deal.

People are going to cry foul about this game and that's that.

MarkHawk @ Apr 13th 2009 2:50PM

I really want something out of this game. I don't need it to be a game. I need to sit there and know what it is like. I need to know that these actions matter in this world. I want to walk away knowing that I made wrong and right decisions and have those weigh in on me. If I don't care about my characters needs/wants then I wont even connect with it the way it seems to be intending to.

WiredKnight @ Apr 13th 2009 3:26PM

How do we get you on the team?

MarkHawk @ Apr 13th 2009 3:58PM

WiredKnight @ Apr 13th 2009 11:05PM

I feel the same way. As of this moment, I feel like the game that pulls it off most successfully was CoD 4. Some of the fates that befall the main characters (including some of your own) haven't really been explored much in action/shooter games.

On that note, I'd also love to see a game in a modern wartime setting, where you're actually playing as a civilian, simply trying to escape the warzone with your life.

Another game that comes to mind is Full Spectrum Warrior. It doesn't present a lot of narrative, but through the game you learn how vital each member of your squads are to your survival and success. Though it's a decidedly slower-paced game, I still feel like it realistically represents modern combat tactics and scenarios.

A major hurdle they're working with is simply representing the events with a non-biased viewpoint. With such an open-ended medium, it's very challenging to balance faithfully representing a historic event without omitting detail while maintaining its entertainment value. And even if they miraculously manage to accurately reconstruct this scenario, there's ample opportunity for player misinterpretation.

NitroMikeo @ Apr 13th 2009 3:24PM

The first few comments are always the best :D

Slaziman @ Apr 13th 2009 4:07PM

I hope this game isn't ruined by poor gameplay, it sounds interesting.

Uncontrol @ Apr 13th 2009 5:38PM

"At one point, an unarmed Iraqi throws up his empty hands and the squad stands down"

that's not very realistic

knight2208 @ Apr 13th 2009 6:22PM

You can never achieve proper realism in a game, it just wouldnt be fun. The scenario, location, enemys and squad members can be made as realistic as possible but when it comes down to the playable character, realism would be getting hit by one bullet and thats game over.

CH3BURASHKA @ Apr 13th 2009 7:05PM

For some reason, I find it offensive and demeaning when the squad's tactics, trying to save each others' asses and stay alive, is referred to as AI. The term boils down the experience into a quantifiable, understandable thing, which I don't think is right.

Nick8708 @ Apr 14th 2009 3:06AM

Are you kidding me? Regardless of the setting, it's a computer game. Actions taken by non-player controlled characters are controlled by an artificial intelligence system. No matter whom they represent, the characters in a game are AI unless controlled by players. How is it demeaning to refer to virtual representations of people as AI?

CH3BURASHKA @ Apr 14th 2009 12:15PM

I understand what AI means: I'm just saying that it sounds very dry and detached when talking about war and your Army buddies who are there to watch your back.

Paul @ Apr 13th 2009 9:49PM

Lots that I'd love to say about this game but I'll stick to talking about an improper assumption in the article. in today's conflicts, the US really can take more hits and keep on fighting, on average, than their opponents. Our soldiers' body armor has very significantly changed wounding and death for our soldiers. Although I have no reason yet to believe this game handles this realistically, this fact should be an important part of any game meant to show how modern conflicts work.

An important example of how this has changed this particular conflict in unexpected ways is the rise of the roadside bomb. Where in other conflicts, snipers, or relatively small explosives might have been used by the enemy, in Iraq, they use some pretty massive explosions to make sure they can actually bypass the body armor and kill our soldiers. Another example is that rocket propelled grenades have often been used directly against individual troops in this conflict where in others they might have been used exclusively against vehicles or squads.

Paul

Imran @ Apr 14th 2009 2:51PM

The massacre in Fallujah was a war crime and many of the Marines are therefore war criminals. And the commanding officers going all the way to the Oval Office are war criminals.

And the one Atomic Games guy said that the insurgents were all foreigners?!?!? This line alone reveals the bias as he unwittingly spits out US propaganda. MOST "insurgents" were IRAQIS!!!!! Technically, they are not insurgents. They were fighting against the ILLEGAL occupation of their own nation. Usually, people refer to those people as freedom fighters. Remember Ronald Reagan: "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." Yes, if you fight against the USA's imperial ambitions, you are surely to be labeled a terrorist.

Freeing the World to Death - essays on the american empire
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Blum/William_Blum.html

Frangible @ Apr 14th 2009 1:04PM

Uhh, US troops can in general take more bullets than the OpFor; it's called body armor (USMC: Modular Tactical Vest) with SAPI plate inserts that block multiple shots from an AK-47 and most small arms, even with armor piercing rounds like the M855/SS109.

As far as getting back up goes, US troops also carry powerful hemostats like QuikClot that have been shown in medical studies to prevent exsanguination from a severed femoral artery.

Course, there's a bit of difference between mitigating blood loss and magically being healed faster than Claire from "Heroes."