@Kunasha @Jake518 It's in part down to how the hardware itself is developed. Sony took a 'we know best' approach and just did it, with little input from anyone else. Microsoft generally nurture their clients further down the supply chain a little better - not just with Xbox, but all of their products. They create an ecosystem - a bunch of studios famously rallied to get the memory in the original Xbox increased.

The positive here is that I recall reading something about Sony adopting that approach more prominently with the hardware development of the PS4.

Games have to go through certification before they can be released on the PS3 OR the 360. In time though, there will be repercussions for releasing a borked game - the repercussions will probably come in the form of lower sales on that platform for the next one. And if those repercussions aren't realised... well, that'll be the fault of the gamers.

@victorlamy Sorry, I think you're wrong on that. Since it launched, there have been numerous regular updates that have fixed a lot of bugs and included some nice free added extras (kills cams, mounted combat etc). These have been made available on the 360 and the PS3, and have successfully solved a lot of the issues that plagued the early days of release. This issue is with DLC. DLC and bug fixes aren't the same thing.

@WhataName2 It's not a 4.5 game in YOUR OPINION. In Kevin's opinion, it IS. Hence his rating. He's the one who gets to decide that - he's the one reviewing it. Call it one of the perks of the job.

I had no plans to buy this. So at least I'm not disappointed by the verdict.

@DeusGladiorum That video is just ridiculous. I live in hope that as people my age (I'm 33) rise to positions of authority, games will stop being demonised - because we've grown up with them, understand them, and are in a position to comment on them in an adult and rational way, rather than the knee-jerk stupidity that video demonstrates.

The vets being in favour of it lends weight to the argument (I'd hope) of it being the genuine attempt to expand the medium I mentioned.

@GrahamZ You make a solid point, but you can apply that to a lot of history teaching. There's a famous quote from someone: 'History is written by the victors'.

Using games to actually teach history will be an issue for exactly the reason you describe. However - if a game piques someone's interest enough to actually go and find out more information (hopefully from balanced sources), surely that's a good thing.

@nyran125 Out of curiosity, did you watch 'Band of Brothers' or 'The Pacific'? If you're interested in WW2, you could do far worse than watching either of those.

I think one of the big issues here running under the surface is that 'Six Days in Fallujah' is referred to as a game. It seems to me from reading the article that the intention was for it to be more an interactive history lesson than a game. I have mixed feelings about it all though - I can't decide if this is a shallow attempt to cash in on a current war, or a genuine attempt to expand the medium from what it is to something newer, bigger and somehow more valid.

@seekerofangels For starters, they'd have to manage to actually produce that many... I recall they failed to do that with the Wii - quite spectacularly!