Why I believe that brutality should be focused on.

[Squinto]

I know that the devs have previously stated that they aren’t going to invest time into building gore or anything graphic related. However, I want the developers to know that by avoiding extremes, you are indirectly glorifying war and de-sensitizing people to what really happened. I understand the argument that “over the top” gore will glorify violence, etc but I need to get this point across. No, I am not asking for a game like doom with excessive gore and explosions. I want realism. War is not pretty. People need to feel the effects of shooting people/getting shot. People need to feel emotions. I also do not believe that players should automatically fail a mission after killing civilians. While they should still be punished, I think it would be more effective for a person to hear the death screams of an unarmed combatant with his leg blown off after a careless grenade throw compared to a black “mission failed” screen. The natural feeling of shock and discomfort is normal. Look at saving private Ryan. That movie is more of an anti war movie, because it portrays war correctly. War is not clean. War is hell. I encourage everyone to watch this video.

[Kean_1]

You paint a picture as if the devs intention was to create a sterile environment without any gore. ....that's simply not true. What we do know is that they don't feel that taking it to an extreme is needed to relay a sense of realism and quite frankly, I agree. I

Fact is that at the end of the day, we are talking about a game that is an authentic, tactical shooter which people will be playing for entertainment. The story and history is certainly a key point but I'll wager most will also be attracted to SDiF for the unit tactics, gunplay, procedural architecture technology for replayability, the co-op feature, the player controlled AI, etc.

I would also have to disagree completely that they would otherwise be glorifying war or somehow desensitizing players to it.

I replied in another one of the other threads brought up on the same subject so instead of typing out a new reply, I thought I would simply cut and paste since it still applies to this one.

My take.....

"I get the desire to make SDiF more realistic in many respects and I for one am all about that. It's what I like in any military, tactical shooter personally. ....but at the end of the day, SDiF is a game and as such will also have to be a fun, enjoyable gameplay experience so there are going to be elements that will need to be balanced, tempered, etc. (to an extent) with that in mind. Even more so in this game given it's reputation.

As mentioned, I think we all know the target that's been painted on SDiF's back. I think they need to take care in bringing too much focus to elements like gore in the gameplay that can be easy fodder for detractors. Besides that, I never considered realistic levels of gore as an integral component necessary for immersion in games. I think they can still come up with a solution that will look / feel believable while not appearing over the top and still make the players feel emotionally involved in the stories they want to tell."

As for the ability to kill civilians unabated, again, I disagree. Over the top levels of gore and unabated violence on civilians is not the kind of message I think these folks want to send to people about their game. ....especially the critics looking for anything to justify their criticism of the game.

Personally, I don't think there necessarily needs to be a mechanic in the game where the mission ends but there needs to be a penalty of sorts to discourage players from indiscriminately killing all targets. Again, because it's a game, risk, reward and penalties like that can help add to the tension and immersion IMO.

[AmperCamper]

Thanks for taking the time to share more perspectives with us.

I want realism. War is not pretty. People need to feel the effects of shooting people/getting shot. People need to feel emotions.

We agree with you, and we're on the same page on this. We're confident that nobody is going to walk away from Six Days wanting more war. These are real experiences from participants in a real-world conflict, and there are many avenues in which players will be face to face with emotion. Of course, there are many different ways to achieve these goals. And, we welcome feedback on this as it gets the team talking and asking questions.

[aggimajera]

While I personally agree that gore should be visceral, I think stating that the absence of extreme gore acting as a desensitizer is a bit unfair. The entire goal of the game is to de-glamorize warfare in video games and every facet of it so far has been built to that end. Again, I agree gore needs to be realistic but I feel your view on it is just a bit unfair towards the devs. You should understand, the project is directly in the sights of the mob who wish to deplatform this game while they have fun playing ACTUAL desensitizing games such as Battlefield and Call of Duty.

IMO as well, the deaths of civvies needs to be allowed and severely punished. I agree with you that cutting to black when you mess up is not fair to the real story of the battle and undercuts the intent of portraying wars true nature. A game over in a civvie death isn't right for a game like this. But I am also not a developer, same as you. This game is a HUGE risk to all of them. One false move can spell disaster for this game and other projects that want to follow suit. Risk mitigation on their end is their business. It is not right of you to be so upfront about it from the safety of your position.

Regardless, I think we are in for something unique here. Lets save judgement until the game is out.

[Kean_1]

The entire goal of the game is to de-glamorize warfare in video games and every facet of it so far has been built to that end. Again, I agree gore needs to be realistic but I feel your view on it is just a bit unfair towards the devs. You should understand, the project is directly in the sights of the mob who wish to deplatform this game while they have fun playing ACTUAL desensitizing games such as Battlefield and Call of Duty.

I don't think that has ever been the message Highwire Games has tried to send in any of their marketing for SDiF.
That's not to say the game may have different meaning to some vs. others (I think that will be inevitable based on personal experiences, point of view and so on), but I never heard them say their goal was to take on the glamorization of warfare in the gaming industry. This was never about that. Just look at the SDiF home page:

https://www.sixdays.com/

"Six Days in Fallujah® is a first-person tactical military shooter that recreates true stories of Marines, Soldiers, and Iraqi civilians during the toughest urban battle since 1968."

That's what the game is about. Not a platform to deride other developers / games for glorifying war or otherwise. If it had been, I would have never been interested in it to begin with as they would be no better than those trying to censure SDiF IMO.

If I'm wrong, please let me know so I can pull the ripcord now. SDiF to me has always been about an authentic, tactical shooter with a stories to tell about Fallujah from the eyes of soldiers and civilians who were there. That's why I'm interested personally.

[Squinto]

You paint a picture as if the devs intention was to create a sterile environment without any gore. ....that's simply not true. What we do know is that they don't feel that taking it to an extreme is needed to relay a sense of realism and quite frankly, I agree. I

Fact is that at the end of the day, we are talking about a game that is an authentic, tactical shooter which people will be playing for entertainment. The story and history is certainly a key point but I'll wager most will also be attracted to SDiF for the unit tactics, gunplay, procedural architecture technology for replayability, the co-op feature, the player controlled AI, etc.

I would also have to disagree completely that they would otherwise be glorifying war or somehow desensitizing players to it.

I replied in another one of the other threads brought up on the same subject so instead of typing out a new reply, I thought I would simply cut and paste since it still applies to this one.

My take.....

"I get the desire to make SDiF more realistic in many respects and I for one am all about that. It's what I like in any military, tactical shooter personally. ....but at the end of the day, SDiF is a game and as such will also have to be a fun, enjoyable gameplay experience so there are going to be elements that will need to be balanced, tempered, etc. (to an extent) with that in mind. Even more so in this game given it's reputation.

As mentioned, I think we all know the target that's been painted on SDiF's back. I think they need to take care in bringing too much focus to elements like gore in the gameplay that can be easy fodder for detractors. Besides that, I never considered realistic levels of gore as an integral component necessary for immersion in games. I think they can still come up with a solution that will look / feel believable while not appearing over the top and still make the players feel emotionally involved in the stories they want to tell."

As for the ability to kill civilians unabated, again, I disagree. Over the top levels of gore and unabated violence on civilians is not the kind of message I think these folks want to send to people about their game. ....especially the critics looking for anything to justify their criticism of the game.

Personally, I don't think there necessarily needs to be a mechanic in the game where the mission ends but there needs to be a penalty of sorts to discourage players from indiscriminately killing all targets. Again, because it's a game, risk, reward and penalties like that can help add to the tension and immersion IMO.

I agree with most of your points. However, I would like to clarify my statement. I am not saying that the game needs an excessive amount of gore. What I was trying to say is that the game needs to feel brutal and gore would be an easy way to represent the harsh reality of war. I believe that when an average civilian picks up this game and shoots people for fun with no emotional repercussion, that in itself is glorifying violence. I believe that without gore, it is easy to become emotionally distant from your enemies. For example, in call of duty I do not care one bit about the people I kill. However, in red orchestra 2 I would feel bad about shooting some people… especially when they started screaming and crying for their mothers with limbs missing.

[Squinto]

Thanks for taking the time to share more perspectives with us.

I want realism. War is not pretty. People need to feel the effects of shooting people/getting shot. People need to feel emotions.

.

We agree with you, and we're on the same page on this. We're confident that nobody is going to walk away from Six Days wanting more war. These are real experiences from participants in a real-world conflict, and there are many avenues in which players will be face to face with emotion. Of course, there are many different ways to achieve these goals. And, we welcome feedback on this as it gets the team talking and asking questions.

I appreciate the feedback. I have faith in you developers. I just don’t want this to be a game where people kill people for fun. If you want a true experience, there needs to be some emotional value. While a lot of people will argue that gore will only make this game more controversial, I believe that the games controversy comes from the “glorification of war.” I believe that shooting people with no emotional attachment is glorification of war. When people see reality, war is no longer being glorified. An example I like to use is comparing call of duty and red orchestra 2. In call of duty, I kill for fun (glorification of war). In red orchestra 2, I feel bad whenever I see an enemy screaming/crying. I feel bad when I see the damage I have done to someone

[aggimajera]

The entire goal of the game is to de-glamorize warfare in video games and every facet of it so far has been built to that end. Again, I agree gore needs to be realistic but I feel your view on it is just a bit unfair towards the devs. You should understand, the project is directly in the sights of the mob who wish to deplatform this game while they have fun playing ACTUAL desensitizing games such as Battlefield and Call of Duty.

I don't think that has ever been the message Highwire Games has tried to send in any of their marketing for SDiF.
That's not to say the game may have different meaning to some vs. others (I think that will be inevitable based on personal experiences, point of view and so on), but I never heard them say their goal was to take on the glamorization of warfare in the gaming industry. This was never about that. Just look at the SDiF home page:

https://www.sixdays.com/

"Six Days in Fallujah® is a first-person tactical military shooter that recreates true stories of Marines, Soldiers, and Iraqi civilians during the toughest urban battle since 1968."

That's what the game is about. Not a platform to deride other developers / games for glorifying war or otherwise. If it had been, I would have never been interested in it to begin with as they would be no better than those trying to censure SDiF IMO.

If I'm wrong, please let me know so I can pull the ripcord now. SDiF to me has always been about an authentic, tactical shooter with a stories to tell about Fallujah from the eyes of soldiers and civilians who were there. That's why I'm interested personally.

Perhaps I shouldn't have used that exact terminology, but I stand by my statement.

The tempo this game has alluded to is a different take on the gameplay and mood that warfare in other games depicts. This is not the sort of game where you kill in a devastated city for unlockable new weaponry and laugh at insane kill cams or go on a massacre to uplifting or powerful soundtracks. The game doesn't appear to take that commonly used approach to war. That approach to war was almost all of the reason this game faced flak in the first place; families were terrified their sons' suffering and demise would be turned into a trivial gameplay moment.

Times have not changed. Despite our tech advances AAA game devs are pumping out the same sort of material. In fact, virtual war has become an E-sport. Latest game example, BF2042's marketing campaign depicted a resource depleted Earth, where desperation was rampant. As we got to release, what was the games tagline? "What a time to be alive", exclaimed by soldiers appearing to be having a blast killing each other. And after a match, what do our heroes say in the victory screen? "Well well well, that was fun", and "I'm ready for round two!". As if they arent fighting in a war.

My only point was that Six Days appears to be removing that aspect we see far too often today in shooters. It aims to not be trivial and show why Operation: Phantom Fury was so terrible through the eyes of those who lived it. Fallujah was not a fun romp nor a fun time to be alive for anyone who was there. Six Days seems to want to be respectful of the Iraq Wars nature to the best of its ability.

[Kean_1]

I agree with most of your points. However, I would like to clarify my statement. I am not saying that the game needs an excessive amount of gore. What I was trying to say is that the game needs to feel brutal and gore would be an easy way to represent the harsh reality of war. I believe that when an average civilian picks up this game and shoots people for fun with no emotional repercussion, that in itself is glorifying violence. I believe that without gore, it is easy to become emotionally distant from your enemies. For example, in call of duty I do not care one bit about the people I kill. However, in red orchestra 2 I would feel bad about shooting some people… especially when they started screaming and crying for their mothers with limbs missing.

I get what your saying and they have mentioned that they too are interested in conveying that tone but not necessarily in respect to an emphasis gore. ....although with that too I think they will be looking to be perhaps more authentic than most.

Quite honestly, I'm not bothered by arcade shooters like CoD, Battlefield and similar. I think they are rated appropriately and while it's not something I would let my 10 year old kid play, I have no problem enjoying them myself with friends. .....many who like me around the same age (50+), retired military, law enforcement and other walks of life. We even how other adult family members of theirs join in. ....one just joined the Marines about a year ago.

None of us feel these games warp our sense of reality or make us have a cavalier attitude towards real life violence, war, etc. We actually like the teamwork aspect of a lot of these games and with the more milsim among them, the unit movement / tactics.

Quite honestly, I'm not buying SDiF because of any kind of statement it makes in respect to what you folks are talking about or because I think other games are immoral since they introduce arcade elements into a military shooter, etc. I'm buying it because the subject matter is interesting to me but more importantly, the more authentic, tactical aspects of the gameplay and the Procedural Architecture really has me intrigued as that means my friends and I can enjoy the game (hopefully) for months to come after purchase.

....but like I said earlier, I know SDiF will mean different things to different people and that's fine. For me, it's simply not any deeper than what these folks are describing about the history and the stories these folks have to tell as well as the gameplay components.

In the end, I'm sure they will deliver a game that has an impactful story(s) and immersive gameplay which is all I'm looking for out of it. ....personally.

[Kean_1]

Perhaps I shouldn't have used that exact terminology, but I stand by my statement.

The tempo this game has alluded to is a different take on the gameplay and mood that warfare in other games depicts. This is not the sort of game where you kill in a devastated city for unlockable new weaponry and laugh at insane kill cams or go on a massacre to uplifting or powerful soundtracks. The game doesn't appear to take that commonly used approach to war. That approach to war was almost all of the reason this game faced flak in the first place; families were terrified their sons' suffering and demise would be turned into a trivial gameplay moment.

Times have not changed. Despite our tech advances AAA game devs are pumping out the same sort of material. In fact, virtual war has become an E-sport. Latest game example, BF2042's marketing campaign depicted a resource depleted Earth, where desperation was rampant. As we got to release, what was the games tagline? "What a time to be alive", exclaimed by soldiers appearing to be having a blast killing each other. And after a match, what do our heroes say in the victory screen? "Well well well, that was fun", and "I'm ready for round two!". As if they arent fighting in a war.

My only point was that Six Days appears to be removing that aspect we see far too often today in shooters. It aims to not be trivial and show why Operation: Phantom Fury was so terrible through the eyes of those who lived it. Fallujah was not a fun romp nor a fun time to be alive for anyone who was there. Six Days seems to want to be respectful of the Iraq Wars nature to the best of its ability.

There is a page that explains exactly what their influence was in creating the game and the controversy. Again, I don't see anything in this taking issue with other games, the glorifiction of war in those games, etc. Only their own struggle to make a game about real life events while still trying to be respectful about it which I agree 100% can be done. ......and I believe they will do it.:

"Six Days in Fallujah is a video game about the real experiences of Marines, Soldiers and Iraqi civilians who fought Al Qaeda during the Second Battle for Fallujah in 2004 -- the toughest military conflict for Western forces since 1968.

When we originally announced Six Days in Fallujah in 2009, we learned that some people believe video games shouldn’t tackle real-life events. To these people, video games seem more like toys than a medium capable of communicating something insightful.

We disagree.

Throughout history, we’ve tried to understand our world through events that happened to somebody else. Six Days in Fallujah asks you to solve these real-life challenges for yourself. We believe that trying to do something for ourselves can help us understand not just what happened, but why it happened the way it did. Video games can connect us in ways other media cannot.

More than 100 Marines, Soldiers, and Iraqi civilians have shared their stories with us so you can participate in them through this new, interactive format. This includes everyone from a corporal kicking down doors to a Deputy Prime Minister of Iraq.

Based on their stories, we’ve invested more than three years building technologies to explore specific parts of the combat experience more realistically than other games have so far. We hope that participating in these real-life “moments of truth” will give each of us a new perspective into events that have already shaped so much of our century.

Perhaps now, more than ever, the best way to understand what’s actually true is by experiencing reality -- for ourselves."




On a side note, I find it funny that the detractors of SDiF have nothing to say about pretty realistic games like HLL, etc. ....games that depict real battles that have occurred throughout history. Honestly? .....I think they just latched on to this particular title as they normally do without any real understanding otherwise they'd be up in arms about a lot of other games trying to censure those too. ....but who knows, maybe they are which puts them on my "not worth my time" list anyhow.