Time heals all wounds, but doesn’t forget them. World War II touched many an honest citizen’s life, be it through war rationing, direct conflict, even the tough task of breaking the news to next-of-kin. As time went on we began to identify behind the evils of the war. As more time passed and Wolfenstein 3D released, shooting Nazis was suddenly fun. Be it their obscurity or the entire one-sided nature of Wolf 3D, little hue and cry was raised over games commercializing a world-changing conflict.
After Medal of Honor: Allied Assault was announced, the influx of WWII shooters was huge; each developer had his own take on history. As evidenced by the number of devs that worked on both Medal of Honor and Call of Duty, in their portable, PC and console forms, WWII was a fine wine that could be packaged in a million different bottles, maintained for a set number of years, enjoyed on many different occasions. Was there much anger, more than half a century later, of games commercializing WWII? Controversies emerged every now and then but like Wolf 3D, it was a non-issue.
However, look at Six Days in Fallujah. It’s a modern warfare game, aiming to recreate a major operation of the Iraq War. Are we suddenly back in 2004, where criticizing the war brands you as a traitor or terrorist sympathizer? Were it that simple – a game on the Vietnam War would most likely be welcomed as a means to show up the US administration for it’s shoddy handling of the conflict (several Pentagon Papers and Hollywood propaganda films, later).
“These horrific events should be confined to the annuls of history, not trivialised and rendered for thrill-seekers to play out, over and over again, for ever more,” stated Reg Keys, whose son was a lance corporal KIA. The Guardian’s reasoning goes: “When commissioning a project based around a war that’s not yet over, in which people are still dying, did the publisher believe that the game would be welcomed by the tabloid press, and by families of those who have lost loved ones? Could a global corporation have been so massively naive? Why even greenlight the game in the first place?”
Is this saying that people only suffer when a war is taking place? There are still plenty of individuals, soldiers and historians, who can’t forget the horror of WWII – to say nothing of those imprisoned in Nazi concentration camps or who lost family, friends and neighbours to the same while emerging, scarred but alive. The key factor has never been whether a war or horrific event is over or not. Just as no developer would include a 9/11-style mission in their game, in the same way were some of our Bollywood film-makers rushing to the Taj and Oberoi after the recent Mumbai terror attacks to scope out the scenery.
Time works both ways. Some incidents need more time. For others, not even a year is necessary before the commercialization begins – as films on the Nithari killings and the death of Jessica Lal prove. How long it too long before you can develop games based on horrific events of warfare or society? Is the consequence of nuclear war, showcased in full realistic horror in games from Fallout to Call of Duty 4, second to specific incidents of modern history, or less relevant? Our teachers and parents often told as, as kids and otherwise, that we need to know about World War II; to know what our soldiers fought for. This was applauded when translated into WWII shooters (what better way to learn about history then to experience it?). How is it a controversy when we apply the same practice to modern war events?
Whether Six Days in Fallujah still sees release or not is debatable. Konami pulled out of the title, though Atomic Games have stated their continuing development. Support exists for the game, both within and outside the games industry, and may contribute to it’s release.
How long before non-gamers who’ll probably never buy the game and gamers who aren’t as easily fooled by their games, as others are by their cinema, can (‘can’, not ‘will’) accept this and further such titles in the future? Let’s see if Call of Duty 6 (reportedly set in Vietcong) and Medal of Honor: Operation Anaconda (set in Afghanistan during the 2002 war) receive the same criticisms for “commercializing” controversial and on-going wars, respectively.
Leave a Reply