• 26Apr 09

  Should there be a limit with war games?

  Recently I came across a game that has sparked a bit of controversy. It raised issues over whether war games should only show one point of view andwhether real life battles should be shown more sincerity in games, or whether they should be shown at all.

  The game is 'Six Days in Fallujah', and it is designed to be an accurate portrayal of a battle fought between American soldiers and Iraqi insurgents in the city. There has been a reaction to this from some people bemoaning the bias towards the American military in games such as these, with a disregard for the lives of the opposition. It is a very valid opinion that definately questions whether we should have more variety in our games in creatingan accurate version of events that perhaps we dont know, and have never understood, ourselves. Obviously this may raise complaints from in and outside the gaming community about a scenario that, for arguements sake, shows an Iraqi soldier as the games hero. There are bound to be those who will be angry that, in a western society, a game showing enemies of your country as the heroes is acceptable. Therefore, maybe there should be a revised thought on what the games leading character provides for the player. Should he or shebe a hero when they are killing others? Or would thisdetract from our experience in the game? Should we always take the side of the leading character? Or can we seperate ourselves from them? And should we get caught up in the morals of the story and action? Or should we simply remember that we are playing a game? After all, games were created to provide an alternate reality, different from our own to bring entertainment and enjoyment, like many other Medias, such as film or literature.

  However, we've got to remember that this game's intent is to show an accurate account of the real threats and dangers of this war. Therefore, should we be allowed to show real life depictions in games, when we take sidesand encourage the suffering of others? For a long time games have come out with the objective of showing a real life situation in the past. The list is endless; with popular titles such as 'Call of Duty' and the 'Total War' games perhaps heading the pack. This would surely mean that real world simulations are not a problem and there is no way or reason to hault the production of them. But does the proximity of this game to right now, in comparison to the vast time difference between us and the times the previously mentioned games are in, make a difference? The generation of those who fought in World War 2 is fading away, and most of those people will never have experienced the games based on that time. Consequently, there is little complaint over the games. But 'Six Days in Fallujah' is a very recent and seemingly more real time for us. There are those who still feel the affects of it, not to mention those who took part in it.

  This brings me to my final point, it is the things closest to home that hit you hardest and this is why 'Six Days in Fallujah' seems so much more unsincere than previous war game titles. Games set in the past, and the future, bring us a world that we have never known and therefore we can't fully understand the meaning of what we are doing in the game. But 'Six Days' is different. We know that what we are simulating happened in our lifetimes, to people that we could have known, or do know. What happened then, could immediately affect what happens to us now. And that seriously makes us think of how we ourselves could have made the difference, not just in the game, but in real life, in preventing the atrocity of war.

  This takes me back to my first point, should we realise that this is a game or does the fact that it happened in our lifetimes mean that we should be morally obliged to respect its consequences and those affected by it?

  • Posted Apr 26, 2009 4:45 am PT
  • Category: Editorial
  • 16 Comments
  • Tag
  • Print
  • Email
  • Facebook
  • Digg

See Previous Blog Posts »