Konami Cuts and Runs From Iraq War Game 321
Less than a month after the announcement of Six Days in Fallujah , a video game based upon a real-life battle between US Marines and Iraqi insurgents in 2004, Konami has decided that it is too controversial, and abandoned plans to publish the game. The developer, Atomic Games, has not commented on Konami's decision other than to say an announcement will be made soon. Konami told a Japanese newspaper, "After seeing the reaction to the video game in the United States and hearing opinions sent through phone calls and e-mail, we decided several days ago not to sell it." While the game did receive a great deal of criticism, others were optimistic, including several outspoken veterans of the Iraq war. One of the major complaints was that in researching the battle, Atomic Games reportedly interviewed several insurgents. This prompted speculation that the insurgents were compensated for their help, though Atomic later denied that was the case. Konami's decision also may have been influenced by the fact that they seemed to represent it as entertainment, whereas Atomic's president, Peter Tamte, was more hesitant to describe it as "fun." He said, "The words I would use to describe the game — first of all, it's compelling. And another word I use — insight."
Thanks a whole fucking bunch (Score:5, Insightful)
Cowards. (Score:3, Insightful)
They'll make any number of "Demonic hordes of Hell storm earth bloodly" games but won't publish something that really happened?
Strange.
Re:Thanks a whole fucking bunch (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Cowards. (Score:5, Insightful)
Yep... Margaret Mitchell should have been made to pay out royalties to the families of every poor sap who got killed in the Civil War just to give her something to write about in Gone With The Wind.
Re:Release it anyway (Score:5, Insightful)
Why not just change the name and the story and release it?
Maybe because they were counting on the realism? And, dare I say it, the controversial attention was its biggest guarantee to sell?
I haven't read any of the articles linked above but I submitted it this morning [slashdot.org] and found a quote from a developer making it sound like information had been gathered for the game from all parties [gamepolitics.com] involved in the conflict.
Also, Dan Rosenthal, a blogger and veteran of the Iraq War, gave this insightful analysis of Konami's situation:
In order to make the game fun... it simply has to sacrifice some amount of realism for fun factor. When you do that with a war game based on a real war, with real people, you run the risk of dishonoring their memories and sacrifices, and I think that this game has a dangerous potential to do that.
Re:Cowards. (Score:5, Insightful)
Countless games capitalize on the deaths of millions of real people in World War II. There are also plenty of games that capitalize on the deaths of thousands in Vietnam. Hell, there are even games based on Desert Storm.
The only difference here is the war is still ongoing and also just happens to be a major politically divisive conflict. Give it 10 or 20 years after the end of the war, after we've had time to sanitize our memories and glorify the war in our own minds and they'll start making games based on it that people will accept.
Re:Cowards. (Score:5, Insightful)
>I know a single mom of 2 who has to raise her kids by herself because her husband was killed in that specific battle. Demonic hordes of hell don't capitalize on the death of her husband or the kids fathers. It would seem that they should be owed a portion of profit made from their own blood (literally).
Perhaps there is a difference?
Should a journalist who writes a best-selling book about the Battle of Fallujah (or any recent military action, for that matter) be required to donate the profits from the up-front fees or sales to the families of the fallen soldiers?
Do the makers of the mind-numbingly large assortment of World War II games owe a large percentage of their profits to families of World War II casualties and organizations like the VFW?
For-profit news organizations are reaping huge advertising windfalls off of human tragedy, calamity and bloodshed.
Shit happens in the world. It's time to end the mindset of being automatically owed money because of it.
The medium (Score:2, Insightful)
In most cases, the answer is no. Books vs. TV is really not that huge of a difference if you've got an author good at descriptive writing. However, in a video game, you are an active participant. You are doing things. And worse, when you finish doing that stuff, you just get up and go eat dinner/go to school/whatever.
I am of the opinion that games like this actually function to divorce us from taking any real action to prevent the events they portray. One of those things where you are trained again and again to look at an atrocity, recognize it is evil, and then go on with your life.
I am NOT saying that war is always evil (although I think most would agree it is -- even if it is a necessary evil), but rather that this specific medium used in this specific (real world) context trains us to divorce the substance of what is being viewed with the process of reaction.
Exploiting the Fallen for a buck. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Thanks a whole fucking bunch (Score:5, Insightful)
By telling them they will respawn in the next life... Or respawn in heaven or some variation of that.
At least, that's the reasoning and rationale behind a lot of people who fight on both sides.
GrpA
If Iraq bombed and invaded America (Score:5, Insightful)
If Iraq bombed and invaded America, then Americans who fought back would be terrorists and insurgents.
Re:Exploiting the Fallen for a buck. (Score:1, Insightful)
How about setting aside some money for all of the Iraqi's butchered as well.
Re:If Iraq bombed and invaded America (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah and Resident Evil 5 is RACIST (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Cowards. (Score:1, Insightful)
While I can sympathize. He was the one that joined the military. Either his wife married him with the knowledge that he may not come home one day, or they made the decision together that him joining was worth the risk.
This sounds harsh, but such is life, at the end of the day if you don't want to die in war, don't join the military. That's not a guarantee in all cases but it certainly is in this case.
Re:controversial to interview participants? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Thanks a whole fucking bunch (Score:3, Insightful)
Gee, and we should probably ban Grand Theft Auto as well, that thing is nothing more than a murder simulator!
Or perhaps, 99.99% of the world's population is perfectly able to distinguish between videogames and reality, and you're just doing a Jack Thompson strawman only to satisfy your petty war against the US army. Fuck you.
Re:Cowards. (Score:5, Insightful)
Uhm, death of millions (acccording to wikipedia).
It's not just the tiny amount of dead americans that counts.
Re:Exploiting the Fallen for a buck. (Score:5, Insightful)
If China invaded tomorrow, would you fight the invaders? If so, are you going to all stand in a row and fire like good soldiers? Or are you going to use IADs, set ambushes, etc? If you want to have any real effect you're going to do number two. Just like we did in the revolutionary war. Just like they do today. They're fighting what they see as a war of independence in the most effective way.
Re:Thanks a whole fucking bunch (Score:5, Insightful)
Ridiculous (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, I think that this game would be VERY fun. Why hide the damn fact? Yes, I think it would be VERY fun to act as a terrorist and kill U.S. forces, while afterward, it would be VERY fun to play on the U.S. side and kill the terrorists. Why fun? Why should I say its fun to play a video game character that kills Americans? Why the hell not? The strategy and tactics involved in both sides would be interesting, no matter what it's actually meant to depict. In fact, simulating a defeat of the Marines would be quite fun to do, since they obviously won and outgunned their enemies.
Aside from that, killing anything and everything is fun in video games, and that's just how it is. I'll shoot a baby with a rocket launcher, and then get off the PC and go about my peaceful day in real life. It's a fucking game. Hence the name.
Anyone heard of Counterstrike? That game is notorious for being VERY fun, despite the fact that one of the teams has to play the terrorists. Whoever is sensitive to this needs to not play, and stop trying to ruin the time of those who want to play.
This is more ridiculous than the people who protested against Resident Evil 5, a game set in Africa, where (surprise!) a majority of the zombies are black.
Re:Cowards. (Score:5, Insightful)
This decision makes no business sense (Score:3, Insightful)
They gave in to the opinions of people who would have never bought the game anyway and killed it off. Why would they not let the opinions of the fans of the game dictate their next move instead of those of people who will never buy it, no matter what?
Re:Release it anyway (Score:5, Insightful)
In order to make the game fun... it simply has to sacrifice some amount of realism for fun factor.
I'm not sure wargamers would agree.
When you do that with a war game based on a real war, with real people, you run the risk of dishonoring their memories and sacrifices, and I think that this game has a dangerous potential to do that.
As opposed to imaginary wars like World War 2 and Vietnam?
Re:Cowards? Howbout fiscally responsible (Score:2, Insightful)
That said, I would be horribly nervous. I'm imagining settling in for a quiet evening of serious introspection with my 360 until an achievement pops up for 30 headshots with a pistol (bonus for maximum damage with a fragmentation grenade!) The evening ends with my vomiting for half an hour before drinking alone, wondering when 4chan became my last bastion for finding some kind of ethical center for the human race.
Re:Release it anyway (Score:2, Insightful)
Why not just change the name and the story and release it?
Or release it for free? I doubt there would have been much, if any controversy in that case. "Six Days in Fallujah" is not the first OIF based game.
http://www.insurgencymod.net/
"Insurgency will take you across the modern battlefield, engaging in intense firefights and battles as a member of either a highly organized and equipped conventional force (US Marines), or as an unconventional fighter that uses a combination of firepower and bravery to take on their sometimes overwhelming opponent (Insurgents).
Players will find themselves caught in explosive battles across Almaden, Baghdad, Haditha, Karkar and Ramadi, moving from the dusty, battered streets, to taking cover behind vehicles and inside store fronts. keep your eyes open for the enemy as you and your team seek out to accomplish the mission's objectives."
(The above text was taken from a 2008 snapshot of the website, courtesy of archive.org)
2007 Player's Choice Mod of the Year - ModDB
SteamFriends - Best Source Mod 2007
2008 - Now on Steam - Source MODs ... comprised of: Age of Chivalry, D.I.P.R.I.P., Insurgency, Synergy, and Zombie Panic
"Valve today announced the availability of five _leading_ Source MODs
Not only was it released, it won several awards and was handpicked by Valve to be one of the first non-commercial Source mods hosted through Steam. Without the media attention, this game would not have had any trouble reaching a release stage, although as stated, it wouldn't have had the sales potential either.
Re:If Iraq bombed and invaded America (Score:4, Insightful)
For homework, go reread the wankfest history books you were spoonfeed in school. Specifically the parts where the Brave And Clever American Patriots outfought superior British numbers by hiding behind rocks and trees instead of forming lines on open ground.
[Not] Correct (Score:5, Insightful)
Invading armies waging illegal wars of choice don't get to then complain about "rules of war" when the civilian populace starts using guerrilla warfare to resist occupation.
Soldiers are in uniform, vehicles are marked, etc. Basically the soldiers aren't pretending to be part of the populace and launching attacks.
You mean like Minutemen during the Revolutionary War? Those damn terrorists, I mean patriots, I mean...
And then there's the fact that the U.S. has supported un-uniformed "illegal combatants" for decades, some of them quite nasty, as long as they were fighting socialists.