Somehow, Six Days In Fallujah’s Publisher Says The Game Is ‘Not Trying To Make A Political Commentary’

Somehow, Six Days In Fallujah’s Publisher Says The Game Is ‘Not Trying To Make A Political Commentary’
Screenshot: Six Days In Fallujah

In 2009, Konami tried to release Six Days In Fallujah as an apolitical depiction of the Iraq War, before canning it when pretty much everyone said that was a bad idea. Now, with the game back from the dead, its publisher is trying to…peddle that exact same message?

The game was originally cancelled not long after Konami’s then-VP of marketing told the Wall Street Journal in April 2009 “For us, games are not just toys. At the end of the day, it’s just a game. We’re not trying to make social commentary. We’re not pro-war. We’re not trying to make people feel uncomfortable. We just want to bring a compelling entertainment experience.”

Yikes. You’d think that a decade’s worth of perspective might have changed a publisher’s view of the game and the war it was set in. Realising how destructive the war (and the lies that led to it) has been to the Middle East and American politics. Knowing there have been multiple cases involving US atrocities in Fallujah specifically. Remembering the outcry from the families of soldiers killed in the war the first time this game was announced. And also just generally being aware that the video game market has matured and evolved since the 2000s, and that if this game was tone-deaf in 2009, it’s a lot worse than that now.

Nope! In an interview with Polygon, Peter Tamte, from the game’s new publisher Victura, says “For us as a team, it is really about helping players understand the complexity of urban combat. It’s about the experiences of that individual that is now there because of political decisions. And we do want to show how choices that are made by policymakers affect the choices that [a Marine] needs to make on the battlefield. Just as that [Marine] cannot second-guess the choices by the policymakers, we’re not trying to make a political commentary about whether or not the war itself was a good or a bad idea.”

He then goes on to dodge questions about the US military’s use of white phosphorous in the battle (essentially a war crime), “isn’t interested” in addressing the fact the US invaded Iraq after lying to the world about WMDs and when asked about the choice to depict the city’s suffering in such detail says “Almost all the outrage I’ve heard are from people who were not in Fallujah. I think we live in a culture where we feel the responsibility to defend people, whether they want to be defended or not, on social media, and I am sure that there are people who are in Fallujah who will be offended. But I will tell you that from my experience and conversations that I’ve had over 15 years on this project […] nearly all want people to know what happened in Fallujah. Whether you are an Iraqi civilian or you are a member of the Coalition. Either side.”

OK, man. OK. The whole interview is a mess of contradictions and confused messaging that makes me wonder just why the hell they ever wanted to make this game once, let alone twice, so you should definitely go read the full thing over on Polygon.

Comments

  • What an absolute mess.
    I can respect the guys want to make a war simulation that avoids the complex politics but can’t wrap my head around why he’s still trying to set it within one of the most politically charged battles and the belief that you can portray the tough conditions and decisions that took place their without actually covering the horrifying results.

    I will say that this is nothing like the Divison 2 kefuffle about politics though, that was a lot easier to seperate than some folks wanted is all.

    • “I can respect the guys want to make a war simulation that avoids the complex politics but can’t wrap my head around why he’s still trying to set it within one of the most politically charged battles and the belief that you can portray the tough conditions and decisions that took place their without actually covering the horrifying results.”

      Dev says none of is. Read the actual quote.

      • I read the actual article and my comment stands, politics relates to a lot more than I think you realise.
        The guy isn’t interested in the external politics of the war and I get that but he’s pretty clear on wanting to avoid the complex politics of the very thing he wants to portray.

  • So like polygon, luke complete misunderstood what the person said.

    They did not say the game is not a political commentary, nor that it wouldn’t be political. They said the game is not a commentary on wether the war was a good idea or not.

    It’s bad enough polygon didnt understand their own interview and jumped straight down the throat of the dev, now luke is doing the same in a vain attempt inflate his ego.

    You guys are repeating the exact same mental deficiencies that fox news vomited out to stop this game.

    You look like a bunch of window lickers.

    • Its almost as if, (like the original game before it was shut down), the game is about the horrific things the soldiers experienced during the battle. They want to portray what they experienced.

      You’d know that if you:

      A: Properly read the interview
      B: Did the smallest amount of research on the development history of this game.

      Instead, we have the journalists going:

      “I TINK HE SAY NO POLITIK, THEREFORE I TINK HE NOT WANT ANY POLITIK, UGGGGGGGGGHHHH”

      https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Er1R6dkUYAAdxeW?format=jpg&name=360×360

  • We’ll soon reach the point where any piece of entertainment in any form of media can be considered political just by existing. Well, in ameridumb anyway. On the other hand I’ve said it before but there is zero reason for games to apolitical, nothing else is, and just because conservatives are too weak to face how wrong and damaging they are an entire industry is supposed to bow down to their demands that everything be apolitical in order to spare their feelings when confronted by their own twisted evil and stupidity? It makes no sense.

    • ^Another person who clearly didnt read the interview at all, Nor has no clue what the game actually entails.

      Instead, like usual Ody has a sook about conservatives. At least you didn’t call for a genocide of conservatives this time ody.

    • “On the other hand I’ve said it before but there is zero reason for games to apolitical,”

      What politics should Tetris contain then? What political messaging should there be in pong?

      I eagerly await your reply ody.

Show more comments

Log in to comment on this story!