For the record, I have no problem with what they're describing. It's political because the game will present a variety of opinions about the politics of the war? Is that what people mean by "being political"? The impression I got from many comments was that the game damn well better come out in support a particular political narrative, else it's "inherently propaganda" against that narrative. Much of the disconnect might have to do with how people interpreted Tamte's original comment. I took it as "our purpose isn't to push a political narrative."

The opposition is much more thoughtful than that. It is worth a read.

https://www.ign.com/articles/six-days-in-fallujah-is-complicated-and-painful-for-those-connected-to-the-real-events

Choice bits:

What they're doing in Six Days in Fallujah is actually using the [stories] of Marines...and having the player act out scenarios in which real Marines were actually involved. So now, you've made a promise, which is something that films don't do, certainly not something that Saving Private Ryan did. You're making a promise to transport people to the battlefield. You're making a promise to gamers to let them experience what it was like in Fallujah. It doesn't matter what the battlefield is -- that's empty, that's a hollow promise. You can't do that. There is no way you are going to portray anywhere near what it's like to be on a battlefield digitally.

John Phipps, a veteran involved in the Second Battle of Fallujah, expressed similar worries about the messaging surrounding the game, agreeing that a Western, military perspective on Fallujah was not a trustworthy one. "There is a massive unwillingness on the part of American media, no matter what form of media it is, to portray US soldiers as the antagonists or the bad guys, which, in that instance, we were," he said.

Tamte has attempted to counter concerns that the story will be solely focused on the US military perspective by noting that in at least one mission in Six Days in Fallujah, players will be in the shoes of an Iraqi civilian trying to flee the city. But many of those we spoke to mistrust this framing… None of this is helped by the fact that, as many of those we spoke to said, the group making Six Days in Fallujah seems very far removed from the reality of the situation they’re exploring. Highwire Games, they say, is a Western studio, and at least in appearances doesn't seem to have much Iraqi representation in its ranks -- or doesn't care to put that representation forward to lend itself authenticity.

Ultimately, Alex and several of the others I spoke to wish that the games already being made by Arab game developers -- regardless of whether or not they cover deeply traumatic events -- received the same kind of mainstream attention and consideration as Six Days in Fallujah. If games are to be used to build empathy, they said, it is better to uplift the art already being made by those who have been harmed by the Iraq War and its widespread consequences for Arabs and Muslims globally. Better, certainly, than making yet another war game with stories, true or otherwise, told through the intermediary of a Western, military-connected studio.

https://www.pcgamesn.com/six-days-in-fallujah/politics

We understand the events recreated in Six Days in Fallujah are inseparable from politics. pic.twitter.com/N7nkPilp1Q

— Victura (@VicturaGG) March 8, 2021

I guess they admit it's political now. The article is worth a read if you care at all about this. This is probably all beside the point now. The actual text of the game will be the true look.

For the record, I have no problem with what they're describing. It's political because the game will present a variety of opinions about the politics of the war? Is that what people mean by "being political"? The impression I got from many comments was that the game damn well better come out in support a particular political narrative, else it's "inherently propaganda" against that narrative. Much of the disconnect might have to do with how people interpreted Tamte's original comment. I took it as "our purpose isn't to push a political narrative."

We understand the events recreated in Six Days in Fallujah are inseparable from politics. pic.twitter.com/N7nkPilp1Q

— Victura (@VicturaGG) March 8, 2021

I guess they admit it's political now. The article is worth a read if you care at all about this. This is probably all beside the point now. The actual text of the game will be the true look.

Especially around and after Last of Us 2, there was a vocal outcry of "Keep politics out of games". What the folks who say this mean is that they don't want issues of social justice to be inserted into the games they want to play.

Perhaps all Tamte was trying to do is tell those people (who also happen to be the people that tend to enjoy military shooters, which is ironic since those are themselves highly political ), was "Don't worry, this game isn't going to be a dumb liberal anti war game".

I'll be charitable since I don't think he is dumb enough to think you can actually make a game about a super controversial battle in a super controversial war and not have that be political. I wonder if he was simply trying to assure players it wouldn't be political in the same way Call of Duty isn't political.

Which is to say, very political, but just in a way that won't offend your sensibilities.

Anything a person (or company) creates and brings to life is an artifact of its context and the perspective of the creator at that time.

Yes, but that's not the same thing as being political. There is more context than political. There is more perspectives than the political. Most of all, there is more to creators than the political. At least if they don't themselves subscribe to the belief that that's the motivation behind why they create, in which case, they aren't creating art, but I repeat myself.

You're not actually disagreeing here - with Mal's words. You're disagreeing with what you think Mal is saying (and I don't think he's saying what you think he's saying).

Anything you create, at any given point in time, is a product that has been affected by who you are. That means that all art is political. And all art is cultural. And all art is trauma-based, to the extent that you've experienced trauma (and most of us have, to some degree or another). Saying "all art is political" is NOT saying that art is not affected by other aspects of your psyche, or your environment, or the world you live in. DENYING that all art is political, however, is asserting that you can create something that's outside your own frame of reference, you can make things that have no relation to who you are. I don't think you can. (I'm not talking about you, Kermit - I'm talking about humans.) I'm not an art historian, but I'm pretty sure that if you pointed to any particular piece of art, SOMEONE could explain how it was tied to its creator.

I'll agree that art can be created that transcends the mundanity of the world it was born in - that we can consciously ignore the world around us to create something that's bigger than we are, bigger than we can normally be. But that doesn't make it non-political.

I see you arguing pretty hard against this because (as you've said) you believe that any politically-influenced art is propaganda. That's where I think you're wrong.

Not a pull a GV here, but I've been thinking about your post for a while. First up: politically-influenced art. I just reread Animal Farm. It's obviously influenced by the politics of its day (and is relevant to our day). What makes it relevant today is less the obvious parallels to and inspiration drawn from the particulars of the rise of Stalin, but more the humanity of the characters and how these characters are corrupted by their power over others. Yes, it has been used by governments as propaganda (notably altered in some manifestations), but at this point it's as likely to be used by the left or the right to highlight the corruption and hypocrisy of either. The fact that it can be used to criticize both speaks to its power as art, which can transcend the particulars of political beliefs (even the artist's) to reveal larger, more important truths. There are wheels behind the wheels of politics.

Regarding the particulars of Iraq, consider two relatively opposite positions: one says the US (shorthand for brevity) were right to go there, did much good while there, and should not have left, another says we had evil intentions in going there and committed war crimes while there. I'm not an expert or a scholar, but I find both positions controversial and debatable, and I won't be measuring the worth of this game by how well it litigates the truth of those positions, nor would I endorse the mindset that, to coin a phrase, "the game is either with us, or it's with the warmongers/anti-American peaceniks." And that's where saying "they can't help but be political" seems to take us.

I THINK I understand INSANE when he says war is political commentary, but to me the comment is politics has failed or, as someone said, war is politics by other means. Within any war, there are individual stories that are the grist of art, and those stories, artfully told, affect us more than any political argument about war could. (This is where I have less humility--I've been pretty obsessed with stories for about 50 years, and I've also cared about how games make us feel about war for a long time*.)

I do agree with Malagate if he's saying that all art exists in time, and that time has a political context, and that context is worth taking into account while evaluating art. I think that's similar to Cruel's point when he said you can find a political angle to almost any subject. That doesn't mean that's the best angle, the most valuable angle for the work at hand, or the only angle that matters. It's worth nothing that most people in this thread did not say all art is political--they said EVERYTHING is political. I think that's what bothers me about this cultural moment, because that belief is a product of our moment, and where has that belief gotten us? We live in a culture dominated by (in my view unstable) reactionary obsessives, who judge everything by its relevance to Red vs. Blue (and not the fun machinima series). I give the benefit of a doubt to everyone reading this--I'm not referring to you, but if I've pushed back hard against certain statements, there's a reason.

I remain hopeful about the game while acknowledging the challenge they've undertaken. Our interest of games involving combat brought most of us here, and this is an opportunity for something new and useful in that genre.

*disclaimer: all views expressed by Gorehead do not necessarily reflect my current views (I was a kid [sorta]).

We know that their goal is to attempt to show something close to the objective reality of what happened to certain people at a certain time in a a certain place. If such a thing is not possible, why do we bother to communicate?

Why is this game a first person shooter?

Seriously.

This author picked up on it:

"90% of the challenges that players face will be consistent with what the actual Marines and soldiers faced: tactical challenges, not moral challenges [that are] effectively completely independent of the controversy surrounding the game. Challenges where the player needs to think through, 'How can I use my toolset to overcome this challenge?'"

That isn't too enlightening. The tactical challenge could well be 'there are four enemy combatants firing at you from behind cover' and that toolset is the selection of guns and grenades at your disposal.

"I hadn't thought about that till you said it that way, but you're right," Tamte admits, reiterating that he's not ready to talk about features yet.

If your goal is to really get people to sympathize emotionally with the soldiers, then don't you think it's undercutting it when the majority of the game is spent with this line of thinking? Putting you in problem solving mode? Why not make the game something like an RPG or a quantic dream type adventure game where story and emotion is the main way of interacting? Reducing their story to the mechanics of an FPS seems rather uncreative for the stated goal.

When creating art you are putting out something that will inherently reflect your perception. Those who receive that art will be shaped, in some way, by that art.

Highwire choosing to ignore the politics of the situation can either mean:

A. They're not going to pay attention to the matter and all and are therefore not being mindful of the way their art could be received by and shape others. Irresponsible, IMO. No, you can't predict how everyone will respond but you could at least put forward a best effort, especially when folks are actively pointing out that there are glaring issues that are being ignored.

B. They're going to pay active attention in trying to shape a politically-devoid narrative. This isn't physically possible. They'll be shaping what they believe to be a politically-devoid narrative, which is just a product of their own perception of what "politics" even means, which is in itself political.

What makes this whole thing a clusterfuck is that the troops on the ground, regardless of their personal feelings, were the villains of the stories of the countless innocents that died. What they did there is widely agreed to be an atrocity. The US committed war crimes. Even if you were to tell the story of the best people on the ground in that battle, who did the least awful things of our soldiers, who tried their best to do the right thing...is that story the right story to tell about this specific event? What does it say when a developer decides that telling the story of the "best of the bad guys" is more important or more worth telling than the stories of the victims of the event? There's nothing wrong with telling the stories of good people in bad situations or even the stories of villains as the protagonists...but should we be telling the story of a real life event, in this way, from this perspective?

Just because you can doesn't mean you should.

I may be misinterpreting what Kermit is saying, but I think the second word would fit with what he is saying while the first what Mal is saying?

*usually pejoratively, but that's besides the point

Anything a person (or company) creates and brings to life is an artifact of its context and the perspective of the creator at that time.

Yes, but that's not the same thing as being political. There is more context than political. There is more perspectives than the political. Most of all, there is more to creators than the political. At least if they don't themselves subscribe to the belief that that's the motivation behind why they create, in which case, they aren't creating art, but I repeat myself.

You're not actually disagreeing here - with Mal's words. You're disagreeing with what you think Mal is saying (and I don't think he's saying what you think he's saying).

Anything you create, at any given point in time, is a product that has been affected by who you are. That means that all art is political. And all art is cultural. And all art is trauma-based, to the extent that you've experienced trauma (and most of us have, to some degree or another). Saying "all art is political" is NOT saying that art is not affected by other aspects of your psyche, or your environment, or the world you live in. DENYING that all art is political, however, is asserting that you can create something that's outside your own frame of reference, you can make things that have no relation to who you are. I don't think you can. (I'm not talking about you, Kermit - I'm talking about humans.) I'm not an art historian, but I'm pretty sure that if you pointed to any particular piece of art, SOMEONE could explain how it was tied to its creator.

I'll agree that art can be created that transcends the mundanity of the world it was born in - that we can consciously ignore the world around us to create something that's bigger than we are, bigger than we can normally be. But that doesn't make it non-political.

I see you arguing pretty hard against this because (as you've said) you believe that any politically-influenced art is propaganda. That's where I think you're wrong.

We know only that they're not going to try to address the politics. That doesn't mean that the game can't have an impact on how people feel about war. That impact could very well persuade them to take a political position that many of the critics agree with. That's not good enough for some people--even though it might be more effective than making a game leaning into a political narrative.

We know that their goal is to attempt to show something close to the objective reality of what happened to certain people at a certain time in a a certain place. If such a thing is not possible, why do we bother to communicate?

Way late to the party here, but such a thing certainly is possible. The undeniably political issue here is the context from which they are attempting to render it. Even if the last thing the devs want to do is delve into the geopolitical (or boots-on-the-ground locally political) effects of the conflict; they are going to be doing so by default. This echoes a point Cody made up-thread.

Because a historical event has controversial political narratives around it doesn't mean it's not worth focusing on individual stories connected to that event without addressing the potltics. You say they can't help but be political, but that denies any objectivity from anyone, in which case why not just present whatever best serves their preferred political narrative?

It is quite the privileged (and I would go so far as to say bordering on ignorant) stance to take that rendering a contemporary conflict as entertainment could somehow be selectively done and not incur some serious backlash.

Do you think they take that stance? Do you think they don't know it's a challenge? They surely expect some backlash, because it's 2021 and...

All art is political, full stop. This is a fairly well-established school of thought.

It is, and I'm very familiar with that school of thought, and I believe it is wrong-headed and lacks imagination. It inevitably leads to people saying things like "everything is political." Worse yet, they believe what they're saying and act like it, thereby making everything political in their domain, using politics as the measure of all. It's quite depressing.

Anything a person (or company) creates and brings to life is an artifact of its context and the perspective of the creator at that time.

Yes, but that's not the same thing as being political. There is more context than political. There is more perspectives than the political. Most of all, there is more to creators than the political. At least if they don't themselves subscribe to the belief that that's the motivation behind why they create, in which case, they aren't creating art, but I repeat myself.

All they are doing by insisting that they aren't going to be engaging with the political aspects is leaving it up to everyone else that experiences their efforts within the context of the real world.

Perhaps the way to look at it is they're trying to present a limited slice of the real world, and they respect their audience enough to know that the audience will provide context and knowledge of larger events, or, this game will spark their audience's desire to know more.

Personally, I think that's kind of reckless, but if they want to handle things that way it's their perogative. I have a feeling they're going to come to regret it.

That sounds ominous, like they could have some punishment coming their way for making something the authorities won't approve of. Let's face it, the game could be very political in the correct direction, and it wouldn't be enough for those in twitterville who won't like it because they believe someone at that studio is a fascist or some other grotesque distortion.

~m

In other words, isolating the for-profit model or any other single factor is difficult. It's not like my example is fantastical, people come here for medical treatments all the time.

I’m so tired of this claim. People don’t come to the US from western countries with universal healthcare all the time and it’s rarely because they think the average level of care is better. It’s because they are uncommonly wealthy >

Plenty do, and not just the wealthy.

and they know that will allow them to get preferential treatment in America. It’s not an indication of better care; it’s an indication of care inequality at best and a willingness to exchange fairness for greed.

To the extend I understand what you're saying, I don't think I agree with the characterization.

Yes, in any other industry that is just called “capitalism” and if you think capitalism is a good model for healthcare then so be it, but be it honestly. I’m tired of seeing people that claim that because they personally own a ZR1 that Americans drive the fastest cars in the world.

I'm not fan of provincialism, either. I have plenty of criticisms of America, including of our health care system. We could debate this, but this isn't the place, and the example was brought up only to illustrate that stories honestly told, even about the same subjects, rarely push easy political narratives.

We know only that they're not going to try to address the politics. That doesn't mean that the game can't have an impact on how people feel about war. That impact could very well persuade them to take a political position that many of the critics agree with. That's not good enough for some people--even though it might be more effective than making a game leaning into a political narrative.

We know that their goal is to attempt to show something close to the objective reality of what happened to certain people at a certain time in a a certain place. If such a thing is not possible, why do we bother to communicate?

Way late to the party here, but such a thing certainly is possible. The undeniably political issue here is the context from which they are attempting to render it. Even if the last thing the devs want to do is delve into the geopolitical (or boots-on-the-ground locally political) effects of the conflict; they are going to be doing so by default. This echoes a point Cody made up-thread.

It is quite the privileged (and I would go so far as to say bordering on ignorant) stance to take that rendering a contemporary conflict as entertainment could somehow be selectively done and not incur some serious backlash. All art is political, full stop. This is a fairly well-established school of thought. Anything a person (or company) creates and brings to life is an artifact of its context and the perspective of the creator at that time.

All they are doing by insisting that they aren't going to be engaging with the political aspects is leaving it up to everyone else that experiences their efforts within the context of the real world. Personally, I think that's kind of reckless, but if they want to handle things that way it's their perogative. I have a feeling they're going to come to regret it.

~m

In other words, isolating the for-profit model or any other single factor is difficult. It's not like my example is fantastical, people come here for medical treatments all the time.

I’m so tired of this claim. People don’t come to the US from western countries with universal healthcare all the time and it’s rarely because they think the average level of care is better. It’s because they are uncommonly wealthy and they know that will allow them to get preferential treatment in America. It’s not an indication of better care; it’s an indication of care inequality at best and a willingness to exchange fairness for greed.

Yes, in any other industry that is just called “capitalism” and if you think capitalism is a good model for healthcare then so be it, but be it honestly. I’m tired of seeing people that claim that because they personally own a ZR1 that Americans drive the fastest cars in the world.

I've pointed out the latter, and that's why I'm hopeful aboul the game, not that I hope it presents a picture of war that makes people romanticize it, but that it paints a picture that helps people understand the reality of war (and hopefully not casually or eagerly support it).

The reality of war they want to show you. This is the key. You cannot show objective reality in storytelling. So ask, what are they showing you and why?

I don't know what's IN the game, but after that interview we sure know what ISN'T.

We know only that they're not going to try to address the politics. That doesn't mean that the game can't have an impact on how people feel about war. That impact could very well persuade them to take a political position that many of the critics agree with. That's not good enough for some people--even though it might be more effective than making a game leaning into a political narrative.

We know that their goal is to attempt to show something close to the objective reality of what happened to certain people at a certain time in a a certain place. If such a thing is not possible, why do we bother to communicate?

I've pointed out the latter, and that's why I'm hopeful aboul the game, not that I hope it presents a picture of war that makes people romanticize it, but that it paints a picture that helps people understand the reality of war (and hopefully not casually or eagerly support it).

The reality of war they want to show you. This is the key. You cannot show objective reality in storytelling. So ask, what are they showing you and why?

I don't know what's IN the game, but after that interview we sure know what ISN'T.

I'm old enough to remember when censorious types who demanded everything be made according to their moral specifications were considered the bane of creative expression by free-thinking people.

Do you think that's me? I fully support all types of creative expression. I truly hope this game doesn't get canceled again. Nor would I cancel Mario.

No, I don't. Just making a point that in 2021, the line between "I don't like the message I'm interpreting in this thing" and "This thing shouldn't exist" is pretty thin.

All I am saying, is that the totality of the media influences our culture and what we think. And we should be examining that. Especially since, as others have pointed out here, media is often our only way to see war.

I've pointed out the latter, and that's why I'm hopeful aboul the game, not that I hope it presents a picture of war that makes people romanticize it, but that it paints a picture that helps people understand the reality of war (and hopefully not casually or eagerly support it).

I'm old enough to remember when censorious types who demanded everything be made according to their moral specifications were considered the bane of creative expression by free-thinking people.

Do you think that's me? I fully support all types of creative expression. I truly hope this game doesn't get canceled again. Nor would I cancel Mario.

All I am saying, is that the totality of the media influences our culture and what we think. And we should be examining that. Especially since, as others have pointed out here, media is often our only way to see war.

Tamte is unconvinced: "Very few people are curious what it's like to be an Iraqi civilian. Nobody's going to play that game. But people are curious what it's like to be in combat.

https://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2021-02-16-six-days-of-fallujah-dev-i-dont-think-we-need-to-portray-the-atroci...

He's right, and that is exactly the problem.

What happens when you come back from a war, and nobody really gives a shit about what you did there?

You write "The Things They Carried," and get nominated for a Pulitzer, and you raise that number from zero to several million.

This kind of proves my point.

And if you know that book, you'll recognize parallels to Six Days in Fallujah in terms of its scope and intention.

Also ask any women ever if she's had to deal with a guy who thought she owed him affection because he did something special. Nearly all will say yes.

Yep. Men should not expect sex. Women should not judge men by the size of their ... wallets. News flash, people suck. If you're trying to tell me that one shouldn't depend on Mario games as the source for their moral instruction, I'm with you. I'm perfectly okay with games not having any moral instruction, or games being a form of wish-fulfillment or games being fantastical in the way they present characters. Everything should be labeled appropriately, and parents should teach their kids judgment and how to treat others. I'm old enough to remember when censorious types who demanded everything be made according to their moral specifications were considered the bane of creative expression by free-thinking people.

What happens when you come back from a war, and nobody really gives a shit about what you did there?

You write "The Things They Carried," and get nominated for a Pulitzer, and you raise that number from zero to several million.

This kind of proves my point.

Also ask any women ever if she's had to deal with a guy who thought she owed him affection because he did something special. Nearly all will say yes.

It’s a lot easier to accept Super Mario as just a video game that’s supposed to be fun without really considering the values of the Mushroom Kingdom.

Mario perpetuates the notion of women as reward. Rescue the Princess, get a kiss.

I think this is 100% why in Mario Odyssey at the end of the game Peach leaves on her own and doesn't get with anyone.

If we’re really going to poke at that angle, we could just as easily say the game is presenting the idea that bravery, determination, and the willingness to self-sacrifice are behaviours that other people admire and find attractive. Which happens to be generally true.

And when you are a hero in real life, what happens when you then DON’T get the girl? How would the message you just expressed affect you then?

You put a lot of responsibility on one story. If you have been formed by a culture the inherently values bravery, determination, and self-sacrifice (which by definition means you've been exposed to more sophisticated morals than "do good, get a cookie), you already realize that disappointment is a possibility. One hopes that by a certain age you've witnessed unhappy endings or heard stories about them and in the process have gained some psychological tools that make disappointment more bearable. But it's not a bad thing that fiction is satisfying in ways that life is not. Fiction can often help us by presenting the possibility of a satisfying ending, if not now, in the future.

What happens when you come back from a war, and nobody really gives a shit about what you did there?

You write "The Things They Carried," and get nominated for a Pulitzer, and you raise that number from zero to several million.