Immediately it was apparent that Six Days is not aiming for a very realistic take on modern warfare. I never did imagine that Atomic would create a plodding, Operation Flashpoint-esque shooter in the sacrifice of action-packed combat. But considering the extensive marketing on the point of realism, I certainly didn't expect to see soldiers running out into the middle of the street during a firefight, taking a half-dozen bullets in the chest, and then regenerating their health safely behind cover. Not in a planned demonstration for press, at least.
I've recently come to the (tentative) conclusion that Atomic's claims to authenticity are, for the most part, a defensive contrivance. There are good reasons to doubt that their intent from the beginning was "to create the most realistic military shooter possible." Rather, I think it's more likely that the "authenticity" argument came after the criticism started (or was anticipated).
If I'm right about that, it was a pretty stupid decision to go this route. It's not just that Atomic is making extravagant promises about Six Days in Fallujah that they obviously aren't going to be able to keep. They also seem rather eager to pimp the controversy as a marketing tool, which is more evidence of their tone deafness.
I can't see this ending well.
No comments:
Post a Comment