Rumor: Sony Considered Publishing Controversial ‘Six Days in Fallujah’

Remember Six Days in Fallujah, the super controversial shooter that focused on the real-life Second Battle of Fallujah in Iraq? Well it now appears that Sony might have played a part in the game’s development, at one point considering publishing the title. - PSLS

[doctorstrange]

Thankfully they didn't, the whole idea of an entertainment based product focusing on a recent battle in a region soldiers were still in just isn't right.

[dbjj12088]

can't tell if troll....

[Foolsjoker]

I think for the industry to mature, we need to approach all topics, and not avoid a topic bc some ppl dont like to talk about.

[doctorstrange]

But not with a runofthemill shooter (judging by the previews) that did little to elevate the discussion. There's a difference between being controversial because you address a tough topic, and being controversial to get extra media attention.

[Baka-akaB]

How do you even know it isn precisely adressing a tough topic in a serious manner ?

Besides why shouldnt run of the mill "anything" be addressing such topics ?

Seems arbitrary and ridiculous to me when every other medium can do it in all impunity , even in a comedy or bad taste fashion .

At last , not everyone is american . There is usually no qualm about using other countries and factions as a foe or even source of ridicule , why should USA be so protected and spared from exposure ?

[BALLARD32]

Well said. It would be a great way to teach history, honestly.

[Dee_91]

the chances of a video game showing america in a bad light is highly unlikely.according to vallencer comment bellow about actual soilders helping with the game further proves my point.I agree it would be great for people to know what happened over there but not the american "right winged" version that this game would have told.But what really happened.

[ziggurcat]

this isn't quite the same as this, but the recently released sony exclusive papo & yo touches on some pretty uncomfortable issues...

[LNDCalling]

Pedophila game.. here we come!

Where do you intend to draw the limits then eh?

I can't believe you got 76 agrees for games including whatever subject you want including Pedophila!

Wronguns!

[Enigma_2099]

... and at the same time, people need to mature and accept the fact that some people are decent enough to say "I don't feel comfortable doing this." Give and take.

And excuse me, but when does "Allan Becker, my former Sony boss and the man who started Sony Santa Monica" stand for SONY as a whole?

@dudeOplenty

I hear you... but you think a video game is the best way to do this?

[NJShadow]

Very true. And didn't I hear something awhile back about these shooters helping soldiers deal with PTSD (Post-traumatic stress disorder)?

People constantly think that these games will freak out soldiers, or push them over the edge, when in reality many of them are fighting a battle in their own minds every day, and need something to help relieve the tension. Because to them, extreme stress and awareness was just another day at work. Now they're in a civilian setting with that same psyche of stress and awareness.

I say Sony should have went for it.

[dudeOplenty]

They weren't solders.. They were Marines. As someone who was infantry during fallujah, I don't mind this game and was disappointed when it was dropped. The public is afraid to hear the story as it was the worst war the US fought since Vietnam. But our story deserves to be acknowledged and told. Not ignored for the sake of bliss.

[vallencer]

I don't know how much you've kept up with it but they have guys that were IN that battle working on the game with them. Not only that but there were plenty of parents that had their sons die in the battle that wanted the game made to show people what war is really like. And to also show everyone what happened over there. I think it should get published because taboo topics need to start appearing in games for us to go anywhere.

[Hufandpuf]

Medal of Honor 2010 had worked with real soldiers too, yet not many people liked the game because the campaign wasn't "exciting" enough.

[gtr_loh]

Actually IIRC; the people that got this game un-published were those who had their son's and daughters currently in the war hence why the game wasn't published in 2011 as planned by Konami, and thus scrapped. Sony would need quite a bit of winning over angry parents once they release this game.

[SPAM-FRITTER-123]

LOL. Never coming out so don't get your Y-fronts in a twist.

i wanted the game from get go but not gonna happen.

R.I.P 6DIF. may we only hope someone has the nuts to release you.

[TekoIie]

Dude it did eventually come out (sorta)...

Basically it got a name change and a new setting and is called breach. Its on the XBL marketplace not sure about anywhere else though. Its actually a really good game :)

[rdgneoz3]

Guessing you never heard of the movie Black Hawk Down. Came out in 2001, based off a book that came out in '99, about a battle that occurred which was part of Operation Gothic Serpent and was fought on October 3 and 4, 1993, in Mogadishu, Somalia.

The book came out 6 years after the battle, and the movie around 8 years after. Never got a chance to read the book, but the movie is damn good. Some products are not just for entertainment, but they help to educate people about things they never knew about or never knew that well.

[duplissi]

.... not sure if trolling either.

first of all this is sony, and i dont believe they would be considering publishing a game that does the war injustice- it seems to me that sony has more integrity than that.

if your not, how is this different than something like jarhead, generation kill, act of valor, hurt locker, green zone, medal of honor, etc? there is no difference. sure some devs/movie studios may make someting with no taste just for shock value, however most of the time its made with careful reverence and to honor and remember those who were lost, also to educate.

we cant just bury our head in the sand and stick our fingers in our ears just because something tragic happened, it is better to honor them by learning about what happened, you also cant expect the world to stop spinning either. if you truly care honor them in your own way and dont get the game if it comes out, otherwise i think it is better to remember those who died by learning about what happened, whether it be a movie or a game.

[AtomicGerbil]

I don't see the problem when it was fully endorsed by those that were there, or so I was led to believe.

Edit: After a quick search, turns out the marines involved asked for it to be made.

[triplev16]

If it's done in good taste and can tell the story accurately, I think this game can play a role informing the general public, rather than (hopefully not) using the source material as a means to simply "glorify" the recent events. IMO it has to be done in a mature way. Just my thoughts.

[topgeareasy]

they should of published it. IMO

media backlash would of been entertaining

[DisgaeFanJason]

that will be cool and released it on the vita for some more hype imagine the press.

[noorizer]

This game should be published. Our rights are slowly being taken away... even your rights to play a video game.

[LOL_WUT]

It would've been a first day buy for me if this were true.

[Eamon]

A lot of Iraqi children born in the city of Fallujah in the last decade have birth defects due to aftermath of chemical weapons used in the battles that took place there.

The Iraq war was an illegal war and to base a game that glorifies one of the worst and most ruthless battles that took place in the illegal war is as bad and insensitive as developing a game glorifying the Nazis.

Over 1 million Iraqis were directly effected by the illegal War - destruction of homes, death of family members, becoming orphans, subject to unemployment and countless other forms of sufferng.

At least 100,000 were killed. Of course, you would have to have little to zero sympathy or hummanity to warrant such a game.

[dudeOplenty]

how are you so certain it was being created to glorify the war?

your points are exactly why the story deserves to be told rather than be ignored. with your logic, everything that is uncomfortable and sensitive should be lost to the annals of history. it would be like forgetting the Japanese concentration camps in the US during WWII. it would be like not acknowledging the trail of tears ever happened.

despite what the average joe looking from the outside in may think, video games are as a legitimate source of story telling as literature and other visual medias.

you don't get it all.

[Eamon]

Actually I remember this game many years ago and I do know what the story was intended to be.

It was supposed to be about you the player, fighting for the American army, and fighting against the 'terrorists' that have taken Fallujah. It was definitely intended to glorify.

My point is, this was a very nasty battle in a war that was illegal. You'd have to be a nasty person to want to make a game about that.

And many critics who probably aren't entirely against the iraq war still said the timing of the game was very insensitive.

And yet, if someone decides to make a game central about German soldiers invading France or Poland, there would be global outcry - and that was more than 60 years ago.

[Angels3785]

While I agree with everything you said I resent the fact that you called the american round up of the Japanese "Concentration camps" THEY WERE NOT CONCENTRATION CAMPS and if you do any sort of research on the topic the United sates was using INTERNMENT camps. YES there is a BIG difference. I am not disputing the human rights violations of either and I am also not disputing the fact that BOTH of these acts were completely and totally wrong, but you must see that one is worse than the other. The Webster's dictionary definition of an "internment camp" is "The imprisonment or confinement of an ethnic group, or people of political reasoning, commonly in large groups, without trial or the due process". The definition of a "concentration camp" as defined by webster's is "A place where large numbers of political prisoners or members of persecuted minorities are imprisoned without the due process commonly associated with crimes against humanity and eventual evolution into "death camps" as a means of the gradual extermination of said group".

To say that the United States were creating death camps is just completely wrong. What they did was more to keep an eye on the japanese to try and establish obedience within the country even if it sacrificed peoples basic human rights. Also to find and scare spies out of the country. Not to say people didn't die within those camps. But they didn't die from abuse or lack of food, or extermination. The Internment camps in the US were more like prisons (minus a trial to get there). They were not like the prisons of today that are way over accommodating, but people could live! The only people who died within the camps were depressed and committed suicide, tried to escape, or died of natural causes or disputes with each other during their incarceration. Most of the people who died however died of natural causes. Over the years of the people who died the percent who died of natural causes was around 70 or 80 percent if Im not mistaken. If you even noticed many japanese camp survivors never came back and said they were raped, underfed, systematically murdered, or extremely mistreated. They will however disputed the human rights violations (not to say that they shouldn't because they were violated, but death for no reason vs human rights violations for a short time are two completely different things).

Just giving my two cents. I don't want you thinking I'm some loyal US citizen who agrees with everything our government says and does. I am not trying to defend what was done because I stand by anyone who says that what the US did was wrong. But when you say "Concentration camps" so lightly not only does it come with this VERY bad stigma, but by definition it means something that was NOT done by the United States.

[Angels3785]

If you don't agree with my above statement just do a simple google search........here I'll do it for you.
Internment camp definition: http://www.google.com/searc...

Concentration camp definition: http://www.google.com/searc...

The definitions are at the top of the page and all definitions google posts are taken from Webster's dictionary. THere is a difference between the two!!!! Why be so ignorant not to see that. Unless you just blindly hate the US. Did anyone actually read my comment...all of the info is FACTS. I took them from here! http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...

[ShoryukenII]

@angels3785

Nobody cares about the difference between concentration camps and internment camps. The fact remains that the U.S. government took all Japanese (Korean, Taiwanese and abused anyone with that looked Asian), obviously innocent children included, from their homes into these camps and did bad things to them.

You think that your Americans didn't kill any prisoners? If you actually did any sort of research, you would know that their sentries did kill some prisoners and that not everyone died of natural causes. Some did die because of lack of medical care.

They were only allowed to bring certain things into the government's internment camp storage. But the workers stole and destroyed most everything in there. Farmers had to sell their land at a huge loss if they couldn't find someone who had kept their reason to take care of their things while they were gone and peoples' homes were looted and ruined.

So you kind of do seem like a loyal U.S. citizen that agrees with everything your government says and does.

Maybe you should ask yourself why your government did this instead of denying it. They did this because they were at war. They used their propaganda to make stupid Americans think what they wanted to think. The ones that weren't stupid were drowned out by the loud and powerful idiots. This happened in WWII and it happened with the "War on Terror."

[Angels3785]

@ShoryukenII

OMG did you read my comment? every argument you brought up I said in my comment.

"Nobody cares about the difference between concentration camps and internment camps. The fact remains that the U.S. government took all Japanese (Korean, Taiwanese and abused anyone with that looked Asian), obviously innocent children included, from their homes into these camps and did bad things to them."

-People do care because There is a BIG difference, eve in the museum here in LA that is specifically for the history of the camps that always say that they were not concentration camps.

- I am completely aware that not everyone died of natural causes, If you read my comment it says the percentages that did and I mentioned that not everyone died of natural causes, I even listed some other types of deaths that I got from my source in my other comment. The small percent of people who died of abuse were not controlled by the US government and the people responsible were prosecuted for it. IT was not a death camp. it was like a prison under martial law, if you tried to leave you were killed 9 which is how 20 percent of the people died, 70ish percent of natural causes and around 10% in actual abusive situation/disputes within the camp.....Thats a lower percentage that annual prison deaths in the US.
- I also made it very clear that I know that NOTHING the US or Germany did was right, even if the US's situation was not as severe I even said they were both violating basic human rights.
- How do I sound like a US loyal when I even said that I denounce all they are doing? Also about your destroying belongings argument.....I also addressed that, but again....it was martal law, just like a prison....By definition an internment camp is a prison...do the prisoners get to take their belongings with them? Ond no not everyon had to up and sell their stuff. Only if they didn't have someone to leave it to...and many of them did. Farmers like you said however were the ones who got the worse deal.
-Lastly I NEVER denied it happened...what the hell were you reading? Also their was no propaganda for the internment camps...they were done largely in secret so people didn't know about it. Lastly the war on terror. You can say all you want about propaganda but the reality is 9/11 was a REAL event not a synthetic propaganda device. We all wanted to go to war after that, but now everyone agrees we should be done and that is what we are beginning to do. remove troops from the middle east. Do you see that same invasion force in the middle east as in 2002? NO. Maybe you should try reading and comprehending my comment rather than jump to conclusions because essentially we agreed on everything.

The definitions are different and to say no one cares is simply ignorant because the same acts of criminal violence were not equally apparent.

[Hicken]

So, smartass, since you're spouting numbers, how about you tell us all how many Iraqis were killed by Saddam during his illegal actions as dictator? Tell us how many lives were affected by people disappearing in the night, never to be heard from again, because they opposed him? How many children were born with defects because of the chemical weapons Saddam used on his own people? How about how many of those SAME people are bombing their neighbors even now?

You've got the numbers and facts on how wrong America was; I'm certain you've got the other side of things, too, right?

Right?

Edit: And I guess those guys weren't there with Saddam's blessing or anything. No, they were in Iraq with no one in power knowing about it, nor were they bothering anybody while they were there.

You've gotta be kidding me. What the hell was ANYBODY ELSE IN THE WORLD DOING? Oh, that's right: NOT A DAMN THING. Talking about sanctions, I guess.

Since we left without taking down Saddam last time, I suppose that meant we couldn't finish what was started, regardless, huh? He could be nuking his own people, and while the UN would sit on its own thumb and spin in time to Kumbaya, people would be wondering, "Where's the USA? Don't they usually stick their noses in this stuff?"

You tell me, genius: when the bad crap is happening anywhere in the world, when people are getting killed by their leaders, when terrorist organizations are bombing hotels and shopping centers, when Rwanda's population is cutting itself in half, who's DOING something instead of talking about it?

No, stupid. I hate war. I'd be happy if war were just the invention of movies and video games. I hate all loss of life, period. I've watched an infant die before my eyes and had to bury people I've grown up with and I'm not even 30. My stance on such things has brought me in contention with my family, because I'm essentially anti-God: I don't like all the suffering I see.

That said, if you for a second think I'd rather sit and watch or hear about people getting massacred than have somebody, ANYBODY step in, you've lost it. I don't even call such numbers an "acceptable loss" or "collateral damage." But I'd rather have it be 100,000 dead than a few million.

Or tell me you've forgotten how things turn out when we DON'T stick our nose in "somebody else's" business? Tell me, how bad do you think WWII would have gotten if other nations did what we do now and got nosy early on in conflicts?

More to the point, since you seem to hate America for this, what was YOUR country doing while all of these things happened? Because, wherever you're from, your nation sure as hell wasn't leading the charge to put an end to shit like this; that was US.

What were you doing, Eamon? Condemning what transpired while hoping your nation stayed out of it? That what it sounds like. And that's hopelessly pathetic.

[Eamon]

Dumbass. If you had any knowledge of simple facts, Fallujah was not under the control of Saddam's army. It was an Iraqi insurgency consisting of Iraqi militias and Al-Qaeda.

So your feeble attempts at trying to make it like I support Saddam Hussein are just that, feeble.

And where was America when Saddam was using mustard gas on the kurds? Nowhere. Exactly. Saddam wasn't in the middle of butchering his people when you lot invaded. Your time for intervention had already passed.

Everyone knows the real reason for invasion. There were no WMDs. And sanctions were stopping you from a sea of oil. Ironically, your retarded Bush administration was so incompetent, they handed Iraq to Iran. The current Prime Minister who is in completely in charge of the entire of Iraq's security apparatus is loyal to Khamanei, the ruler of Iran. And the Prime Minister didn't even get 1st place, let alone a majority in the last elections, yet he is still in power. One Dictator just replaced another.

And I love your logic. It's okay if America killed 100,000 Iraqis because Saddam killed thousands of Iraqis too.

What are Iraqi civilians to you? Simply a killscore?

[Gazondaily]

Really showing your maturity there Hicken.

Actually read what Eamon has typed because unlike your ranting post, he actually knows a thing or two.

Who gave Iraq it's weapons by the way? Do you remember that famous hand shake? Educate yourself before making yourself look like a fool.

[Eamon]

Replying to your edited comment

Actually I'm British. So the country I was born and live in, the United Kingdom, was with the United States leading the charge.

2 Million People in Britain marched towards the Houses of Parliament AGAINST the war in Iraq. Yet the British government of War criminal Tony Blair ignored all that and marched in anyway. Great job at democracy there.

You seem to not understand history or international law. If you consider yourselves law-abiding humans then practice what you preach. International Law restricts any country of acting in aggression to another. So of course we can agree without a doubt that the Iraq war was illegal. The pretext of WMD was a lie even before the war started - confirmed by independent UN inspectors. Also, search on google, the 'dodgy dossier.' A dossier that was conducted by the British government that contained so much irregularities and false information to do with Iraq.

Also, the insider who leaked to the media that the government KNEW that the dossier had false information, was mysteriously found to have committed suicide. This was BIG NEWS in the UK and let to numerous national enquiries to find out why he died.

There were many other dictators in the world. Bashar Asaad, Robert Mugabe, Muammar Gaddafi, Hosni Mubarak, Kim Jong Il. Why didn't America invade those countries?

The fact is, the entire world is sick and tired of America and its wars.

America supported Saddam Hussein in the Iraq-Iran war. Double standards, eh? Support one dictator if he serves your interests but it's time to get rid of him when he doesn't serve them anymore?

As for the Iraqi insurgency in Fallujah. Of course they weren't there with Saddam's blessings. Saddam's army was almost completely dead by the time the battles in Fallujah started. The Iraqi army was no longer a player. The insurgency was the only remaining resistance against American invasion. Saddam was in the meantime hiding in a hole.

Majority of Iraqi civilians agree that life in Iraq post-war has become much worse than pre-war. Most wish America and Britain never invaded.

Did you ask the Iraqi people if they wanted liberation before you decided to invade?

[JellyJelly]

"And where was America when Saddam was using mustard gas on the kurds?"

Just like they've been ignoring the genocide that's been going on in Darfur the last 10 years.

Americas "interest" always depends on what financial gain there is to be made. It's never about saving civilians etc. Iraq was all about the oil. At the time Saddam killed the kurds the oil prices were lower, so no need to invade.

[Elwenil]

@JellyJelly

So what is your country doing about it? Sitting around watching the BBC and CNN? Personally I wish the US would pull back from policing the world. If you people want to sit and watch it burn, so be it. We will seal our borders and let it all come crumbling down around you while we keep our soldiers safe at home.

You people are never happy with anything. You see something wrong and you wonder why doesn't someone do something about it. When you see someone doing something about it, you want to bitch and moan about what is being done and how you would do it better. Fine. YOU spend YOUR money to solve the world's problems. YOU do something about what you see as "wrong". We will keep our $50 billion a year in foreign aid here to solve our own problems.

[Dark_king]

the old "people died we can't do this are that"
argument is complete bullshit.When someones dead there dead,there feeling no longer matter there family's feeling about them no longer matter.If there is money there to me made it will be.
As if people are something special people are animals nothing greater then the cattle we slaughter are the animals we cage to look at.The idea that humans are special is just foolish nonsense.
Enjoy you life while you can because this is not how I feel this is how this world acts.Kind of sad no.

[PirateThom]

@Elwenil

So, let me get this straight. The world will burn if America doesn't police it and the US will be a sort of closed borders haven?

[Dee_91]

@Hicken " because I'm essentially anti-God: I don't like all the suffering I see."
The fact that your "anti-god" because you believe the " GOD causes suffering " bullshit people spout so often and not "unforeseen occurrence" which was said in the bible to actually cause " suffering" shows the type of person you. And the fact that you think that saddam killing them and "the same people bombing their neighbors now" ( Not even true) would justify what US soilders or Marines did to those people further proves my point.Before you call someone a dumbass actually do some research so you could have your own opinion instead going by what other people said.

[Elwenil]

@PirateThom

Don't be immature, you know exactly how that was meant. Since the US has been overtaxed with it's own conflicts in recent years, we have seen just how well the other nations in the UN have taken care of various conflicts. Libya and Syria are two fine examples of countries all standing around screaming "Somebody do something!" and then looking at the US to come to the rescue and when we don't step in, you either screw it all up or stick your heads in the sand. I'm not saying anyone is wrong or at fault for doing this or doing that, but the idea that it's cool to hate the US now and then still act like we should do something about all this chaos and then take even more hate for doing it is simply ridiculous. The world is spending our reputation to pay for it's own piece of mind.

[gamesmaster]

@Elwenil

I think you're missing the point, what americans seem to think is that the world expects them to do something, when really no one is actually asking you to do a thing, seriously you have this misguided sense of responsibility that really no one is laying on you. I think its down to the fact that in modern terms america's population has never had to live and fight a war on its own soil. where your population is starving and fighting a war in thier homes. think how decicrated europe was after world war I and II? belgium? france? england were all bombed to shit, civilians. This culture of fostering war in america and policing the world is down to the fact that really your civilian polulation has no idea what its like to be invaded savagely from land, sea and air. the reluctance of teh rest of teh world to use force is evidance that they understand the price paid, not in soldiers lives but incocent peoples, americans almost always fail to grasp that. Its always liberty or death.

[Dmarc1]

@gamesmaster Fortunately for me, I went to school with a few eastern europeans and somalian kids who were both actually in war.I know what you mean.I remember one of my friends saying something similar to what you said.I learned at young age how weird it was that american soilders are stationed in almost every other country yet if another country army was stationed here there would be an uproar.Not only from the government but the citizens too.

[Omegasyde]

Wow too many self righteous people in here especially Eamon.

"Illegal war?" you say, you must of forgotten desert storm where Saddam "illegally" invaded Kuwait or go even further back in when he was using "illegal" tactics against the Iranians in the 1980's?

Do 2 wrongs make a right? Hell no. But I know Britain is not a land of angels either.

War, war never changes. Its all about ideals and showcasing strength. The U.S., less than 2 years prior to the invasion had 2 planes full of explosives, fly into buildings killing many innocents.

IF the same instance happened in the U.K. at such a magnitude - I would bet my bottom dollar the U.K. would react in a similar way especially (at the time) - that there was significant evidence that your enemy was growing and gaining conspirators.

(PS - I have been all over Iraq. Some hate the U.S.; Some love it. The exit plan for the U.S. sucked, and the Iraqi people can only be governed through fear and intimidation. Hopefully one day it will change.)

[gamesmaster]

7/7 bombings in london? do some research, and when iran was fighting iraq, you were pretty happy to stand by and watch then after selling saddam the weapons.. do. some. research...

[Eamon]

I don't understand. Saddam did illegally invade Kuwait and you stopped him. The Gulf War was technically legal. You had UN security council backing - therefore it was legal.

However the Iraq War in 2003 was illegal because you acted in aggression without any UN Security Council Resolution. International Law makes it clear that without UNSC consensus, aggression is illegal.

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. It was all proven to be a lie. Saddam was not sponsoring Al Qaeda. Iraq had no WMDS. The US lost 3000 lives in 9/11 whilst 100,000 lost their lives for absolutely no justifiable reason. They just happened to be Iraqi and that was their punishment.

The UK experienced much much worse than 9/11 only a couple of decades before. So no, don't try to speculate like that.

"the Iraqi people can only be governed through fear and intimidation"
^ Nice ending there. The words of a fascist.

[Rivitur]

Still hoping the game comes out been waiting for couple years sad that Konami dropped their deal with atomic games though..

[BigDog55]

Didn't Sony trademark Shock and awe also at the same time??

[mt]

glad sony didn't, please don't publish craps

[Bonerrr]

Nothing wrong with shooting scum.

[LOL_WUT]

LOL

[floetry101]

It's another media bang-up that stopped it from being released because it coincided with the words "video-game". The moment they take 'Fallujah' out of the title, it'll probably get released without anyone thinking otherwise. They took a gamble that sadly, didn't pay off.

Look at Spec Ops: The Line. It was marketed as a generic military shooter to appeal to the masses, when in fact, it had much more to say. If they'd highlighted some of the horrible things you're forced to do in the game, it could've been canned. Instead, we've been left with a powerful gaming experience that really surprised people.

[DontShoot-Me-Bro]

If its based on facts then its all good, but I highly doubt it will be. So no point of putting Fallujah in it, and just make it another copy & paste military shooter. Play as a American solider/marine whatever, invade a country because there is a bad guy, shoot a couple of people, win the hearts and minds of the people and everyone lives happily ever after.

Or are they going to actually come out with how corrupt governments are and the real reasons behind the war, because if they do that, then day 1 buy.

Even if it was nothing to do with the Iraq war, we do not need another copy & paste military shooter on the market, we have enough.

[Rivitur]

Actually the game is based on the actual accounts of some of the marines that fought they interviewed them to help make the game. So to say it's just a generic military shooter is off this is history that should be told.

[AO1JMM]

The completely ignorant opinions above and the complete lack thereof of actual facts is the reason why gaming and actual recent events should not mix. A lot of you need to educate yourselves before posting on such topics.

The given reason to invade was wrong but Saddam needed to be taken out.

"Did you ask the Iraqi people if they wanted liberation before you decided to invade?"

LOL, What would you do? send out a mass email to all Iraqis?

[PirateThom]

But... you can't just send people to war on the basis of a lie.

Where does that end once you start it?

[Omegasyde]

@pirateThom

The worse possible thing happened - Civil War (Shia vs Sunni's). There is absolutely no way to combat that except to bring both sides to combine against a common enemy. Being that the Sunni's were in charge for so long, there was no way they were going to give up power.

The shia were not going to share with the Sunni's because A) they were a minority in the country and b) the Sunni's years prior treated the Shiites like second class citizens.

However the US, has an excellent track record rebuilding with countries after major wars.
Look at Japan, Germany, South Korea for example - South Korea.

[BlackPhoenix]

@Omegasyde
You forgot Afghanistan after it was used against the Soviets.

[TheDivine]

Afganistan=Righteous war ( I think we all agree we had reason to catch OBL after 911)

Iraq=Techniacally legal war (Suddam was denying UN inspectors to facilities believed to be making weapons so we had a valid reason although i dont believe invasion was the right path at all). If we cared for Iraqis we wouldve stopped him before all the horrific attacks on his own people. We used an opportune moment to get him out and secure oil. Iraq was cheering as the US rolled into Bagdad, they loved us and wanted that bastard gone. Where we messed up is letting the whole country fall to shit. We disbanded the Army who wouldve kept the peace (most insurgents were the army). We let water get shut off to millions, killed innocents, and mistreated people (and prisoners). This is not how you "liberate" people. Iraq could be a much better free country today if the US cared half a shit for the people instead of the money.

I support our troops who honestly believed they were fighting for freedom but they arent free from responsibility. Ask the nazi's who claimed they were following orders and soldiers cant question. If someone invaded the US (say the UN for us invading other countries) claiming our leader is a criminal i would def grab a gun and make bombs to kill all them sob's. When we do it (say revolutionary war) we are labeled as freedom fighters and patriots. Middle Easterners are labled as terrorists. The only difference is the perspective. No nation should ever invade another except to prevent genocide like the holocaust, rawanda, and all the other horrors.

On the game i dont think its in the best taste. I do think they have the right to make any game no matter how poor of taste or how offensive it might be. Its our freedom and people have got to grow some balls and use it instead of cowering scared of bad press.

[b_one]

I think US should stick to its borders... nothing more...

[Ruggadagod]

So pretty much sony was the only one brave enough to even think about publishing it. Gotta give them credit where it's due.

[SSKILLZ]

publish that game Sony!

[beerkeg]

Sony must have thought it would be crap, and didn't take it on.

Welcome to the world of publishing.

[blackhammer]

I've wanted to see this creation for a long time. I want to see what they have documented and how they may have managed to capture the horror.

Maybe it will be the "We Were Soldiers," of video games. It doesn't cover the war, it just covers only a battle that, alone, should be able to throw us all into a trance.

I want to see this. I want to see this damn game so damn bad.

Edit: Fuck the politics. This isn't about the politics. This is about people.

[jayman1]

WOW I really liked this game it looked really good. The whole thing about using dead soldiers names was weird but if the families got the proceeds or a cut of the profits maybe it would have worked. To bad though this game did not come out looked amazing.Ea Had the medal of honor controversy with using the taliban in the game. They switched it to opfor. I wish sony did something like that for six days.

[jayman1]

Ya I dont see any difference in other shooters. If anything it brings to light what actually happened rather than the battle being forgotten. Medal Of Honor touches on all of these subjects in a respectful way. I think these people are forgetting that this battle will only be remembered at the time it happened. When a game like this comes out it forces you to think about it and the people that died in the battle.Then you go and look it up on the internet and read about it. This keeps the memories of that war around and is a reminder to people about what soldiers go through and why they die. I think the victims families should have thought about that before they made a big stink. That battle is long forgotten now by average people. If this game came out it would be on everyones minds for a long long time. A daily reminder about the cost of war. A game is the biggest tribute to the memory of the ppl lost in the battle. It brings that battle into daily discussion not brushed under a rug of time to be forgotten by everyday people who dont know about what happened.

[Yodagamer]

Controversy creates Cash, an excellent example would be Sony and rockstar both made cash off the controversial gta/manhunt games back in the ps2 days