Quality Or Quantity: War Games

Here's a surprise: A game based on an actual, ongoing war, is going to have an uphill battle to climb.

The response to a feature on Six Days in Fallujah on Kotaku has been interesting. Some people have come right out of the gate saying that there's a double standard here being placed on videogames about the battle, that other mediums of communication are allowed to get away with and game aren't. I know I went over this elsewhere, but I really just skimmed over it.

Nestled in the comments to the feature, a lot is put forward in short, sarcastic sentences. (Oooooh, alliteration!) One rewarding conversation path is the idea of the anti-war videogame. (Apparently, the Metal Gear Solid series does not count.) Can a videogame based on a war be realistic and enjoyable?

I don't think so. War, to me, is horrible, visceral and sickening. It's not terribly often going in guns blazing into the enemy's compound with the element of surprise and the fate of the universe in the balance. From my limited understanding (in the current Iraq quagmire), it's far more often about pounding the pavement, talking to people who may or may not be shooting at you with a mask the day before, or if you're not in combat, watching employees of KBR, Titan or another multinational with no clear chain of command do your job for six times more money. That's not entertaining or exciting. When it gets exciting, the soldier the imaginary player is following usually isn't on the good side of the gun (if such a side exists) and members of the platoon tend to die, in the heat of battle, with or without a medic screaming and crying for help.

The player is used to having precise control over the soldiers movements and the ability to distance themselves from what's going on. Ignoring the mechanical challenge of engrossing the player into avoiding the pause button, do players really want to see what happens to troops when they lose control over their emotions, tempers and selves and be forced to carry it out?

Take this possibility: Let's say you, the player is pinnned down and you are given orders: Lay down some covering fire over where you think the enemy is. It later turns out they're not in there, and you might have lit up an unrelated grocery store or pizza shop.

Even worse, having to enter a building without information about hostiles that might be waiting for you inside the door and standard operating procedure is throwing 3 or 4 frag grenades to soften up the inside for intrustion. These grenades buy you a crucial amount of time, if enemies are in there, because otherwise, they'll shoot you (and likely kill you) when you enter. What if the enemy is hiding in a school building or hospital? Or if it's in a building that's been abandoned, but you've heard reports of civillians running out of screaming?

Do players want that? That's more realistic, I think, but I doubt it would be enjoyable or entertaining. I doubt the experience would be one where the replay value would be discussed so much as shock and abject horror.

I suppose I am tipping my hand here, but would one call this game anti-war? Or, to actually use some of the education I've recieved, would it be a hyper-war game?

Perhaps I'll write on the questions it brings up for tomorrow: Would anyone care? Would it be boycotted? Would parents shelter their children from it? Is it better for children to be sheltered from it and grow up later to support it?