Well, we now know that naming a video game Six Days in Fallujah isn't a great call if you're trying to steer clear of political statements, which is exactly what Highwire Games and Victura claim they're doing.
We're not trying to be mean here - we've just grown accustomed to controversies lasting for about two weeks before everyone moves on to the next grievance
And this is one surprisingly resilient controversy - Six Days in Fallujah had been slated for launch in 2010, but the same discussion eventually led to its cancellation and bankruptcy of the original studio, Atomic Games.
"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", they told Polygon.
We can only hope Highwire Games doesn't meet the same fate as their predecessor, especially since the conversation barely goes beyond the dreaded title. Difficult narratives have a tendency to be genuine and more impactful, and we could all use more of that, especially when the alternative is the mob screaming at the wrong people for the right thing.
Six Days in Fallujah developer is adamant that the game is not delivering a political message, and that the focus is entirely on ordinary people who end up in extraordinary circumstances.
It's well worth saying that the US political climate seems to be playing an important role in this retroactive finger-pointing. It would be lovely, though, if some of the anger ended up with the people who were actually responsible for these crimes, as opposed to forcing poor devs to come up with ethical and moral justifications for their art.