GeekStrike

It seems like controversial 6 Days in Fallujah may yet see the light of day even though Konami has decided not to publish it. The game is still in development by Atomic Games despite coming under fire from various anti-war groups and families of marines who died in the battle.

The game is a first-person shooter with an ambitious goal: to replicate a soldier’s experience of war by making it ‘as realistic as possible’. It also includes ‘real war footage’, in effect turning it into some sort of documentary shooter. The game, however, will not include the names of fallen marines in order to honor their deaths. Parents of the deceased marines are nevertheless none too happy about a game which people can derive entertainment from a battle which killed their sons. Which is understandable, really.

But the real issue here is not whether Atomic Games can convince those parents to back off, because it can’t. The real issue is whether Atomic Games can convince publishers and the majority of gamers that 6 Days will be a resounding success. Will it do so by promoting it as a ‘documentary shooter’, appealing to their sense of patriotism? How can they persuade gamers that 6 Days is not just another first-person shooter in a looooooong list of first-person shooters? Now, I won’t go so far as to say that American gamers aren’t patriotic, but the fact of the matter is that, at the end of the day, what a gamer wants from a game is entertainment, not an objective lesson in history.

This brings to mind another issue: will gamers be mature enough to appreciate what 6 Days is trying to convey? Even if age restrictions are placed, most stores don’t make it a habit of checking people’s ID when they purchase  mature games. A twelve year old could just waltz in, pick up a copy of GTA IV and chances are, the cashier wouldn’t even bat an eyelid. I have had my fair share of experiences with ‘keyboard warriors’, and if those same people were to play 6 Days, they would most probably go ‘Postal’, laughing as they play it. And that would totally defeat the purpose of the game.

The only way it seems to make the game a success would be to go through the traditional routes: graphical prowess and game-play. On graphics, from what I’ve seen, the game looks pretty, though it is nothing like Crysis. The game is also said to have 100% destructive environments, which is a plus point. And if the guns were modeled perfectly, down to the smallest details, could certainly capture interest.

Gameplay is the one factor which could make or break an FPS. By promoting it as a ‘realistic military shooter’ where the AI can simulate the tactics of real soldiers would be awesome. With its destructive environments, gamers can be encouraged to think creatively by ‘rearranging architecture’ . That would help to differentiate it from the Halo and Battlefield clones.

With over $20 million invested in the game, I think it would be a shame if the game was stopped from being published. Atomic games should not try too hard to convince the anti-war groups and focus on getting a publisher. If it does so, its next step should be to promote it to the masses. Revolutionary game-play helped GTA become the success it is today, in spite of the controversy it generated. 6 Days should do the same.

You can also read more here.