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."
Release it anyway (Score:4, Interesting)
Why not just change the name and the story and release it?
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: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: (Score:3, Interesting)
As opposed to imaginary wars like World War 2 and Vietnam?
WW2 wasn't all that controversial at the time, and especially not now. Everyone is pretty clear that we did (mostly) the right things and the good guys won. Vietnam is another story completely, but look how long it took to make video game about it, and even then I'm not sure they were based so closely on real, historical battles. Maybe 50 years from now we'll have games with Saddam running around in a mechanical battle suit [wikipedia.org], but not today.
Re: (Score:2)
That analysis makes no sense because a bunch of war games were already made with a fun factor and thus
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Yeah, I'd certainly play "A Week in Hajullaf"!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
The Germans were not insurgents. They also weren't in Iraq, but mainly Libya, Egypt, Algeria, Tunisia, and Morocco.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_African_Campaign [wikipedia.org]
Also, did they have Hummers back then? Or any of that technology? It seems to be much more work than its worth.
Re: (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).
Pla
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, my dad was forced to "play" exactly this, for his whole youth, lost, and got probably tortured in Russian jail, you insensitive clod!
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Thanks a whole fucking bunch (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Thanks a whole fucking bunch (Score:5, Insightful)
kneejerk army bashing (Score:5, Interesting)
The army didn't pull it. Konami did.
Re:kneejerk army bashing (Score:5, Funny)
You just keep thinking that if it makes you feel better.
Re: (Score:2)
So, your theory is the Army has sway over Konami? The same Konami who's headquarters is in Tokyo?
Seriously, you conspiracy types need to try and stick to at least the realm of remote possibility.
Re:kneejerk army bashing (Score:5, Funny)
Re:kneejerk army bashing (Score:4, Informative)
QED
I mean, really. If the army had just a shred of the decency that this conspiracy theory alleges (protecting people from the horrors of war), they'd have had Konami pull DDR first. The horrors! I'll never be able to erase the memory of fat aunt May doing the ... <shudder>
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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
Re: (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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
This is not the way to get people outside of your circle to try and understand your point of view. And seriously, I doubt you have tried looking from their point of view to try to explain things better.
The key word is desensitized. Younger people and gamers tend to be more desensitized to violence through media than older people. You have to step outside of your circle to realize why "shooting a person in the head and seeing all the blood spurt out" is a general basis for discomfort for some people. Gam
Re: (Score:3)
When you cannot distinguish between work of fiction and a simulation of a real event happened a couple of years ago how can you honestly describe yourself as being able to distinguish between videogames and reality?
I can easily distinguish between the two. I can also distinguish between a simulation and an "inspired by real events" fiction. What I cannot see is why even if it *was* a simulation of a real event it'd be somehow "inmoral" given that no actual person would be hurt in the simulation of said event.
Also, you pretty much outed yourself as a nationalistic arsehole. Admit it, you are only disappointed that you cannot shoot some sand niggers singing "america fuck yeah"
How *that* piece of idiotic flamebait got modded up Insightful is something I cannot entirely comprehend. But for your information, you little prick-with-an-axe-to-grind, I am not even a US citizen, it's just that
Re: (Score:2)
John Kerry? Is that you?
Re:Thanks a whole fucking bunch (Score:5, Interesting)
So it was going to be a game in which the player spent years growing and being nourished by self, family, friends, community and the state until the late teens before being shipped to another country and then unexpectedly killed without warning, after which the game becomes locked and unplayable?
I understand your point - but it is extremely hard to see how this game could have been a serious depiction of war. Would it include horrible brutality by some of the soliders on your own side? Would it throw up the extreme moral quandraries surrounding civilian casualties and the invasion of Iraq itself? Would it even include civilians? Animals? Disease?
Re:Thanks a whole fucking bunch (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
The Oregon Trail didn't delete itself when you lost but people still considered it valid edutainment.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
...the crude reality of war should only be depicted in movies, TV shows and documentary...
As it should be, IMO. The only TV show you see the current war in is appropriately somber and analytical (at least as somber and analytical as most of our journalists can get). If you want realism, watch al-jazeera. If you want to inform the general populace about a war, I don't care how realistic a game is, it'll still be a pale comparison against the real thing.
/.ers equate with gaming, 99% of the population still thinks of gaming as a fancy toy. It's a pretty tough
And despite the seriousness some
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Thanks a whole fucking bunch (Score:4, Interesting)
We got *this* close to at last having a war game that was even vaguely anything like war.
Uh... games are supposed to be fun. Pretend wars where you tend to kill lots of bad guys without being killed are fun. Shooting zombies and aliens is fun. I'm not sure I'd really have any interest in getting home from work and sitting down to relive the most horrifying nightmares of human history.
Who cares, not every one agrees, and want something different. What matters is this, and the fact that people like you want to prevent anyone from doing something that doesn't fit to what they want.
Re: (Score:2)
Well Jack Thompson was on a campaign to have them renamed as "Murder Simulators" and "Rape Simulators" is that serious enough for ya?
To stay on topic I would have loved to see this game produced, maybe in a few more years when things are dieing down in Iraq.
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
More off-topic: The most disturbing songs I've heard, IMHO, are all a capella.
But I haven't seen Barbados, so I must get out of this.
Re:Cowards? Howbout fiscally responsible (Score:2)
Who would be their target audience...the anti-war crowd would be out because they would claim it was glorifying the role of a soldier, the pro-war crowd is out because its too soon and the war is still going on. That leaves the indifferent who couldnt even be counted on to buy "Blood In The Sand" despite good reviews. The chances of recouping development costs were slim to none while the chances of creating enough ill will to damage Konami's reputation long after the game was relased were high. Canceling
Re: (Score:2)
the pro-war crowd is out because its too soon and the war is still going on
I don't get it. Why would the pro-war crowd be bothered by depictions of the war while it is ongoing? They think the war is a good thing, so what's their problem with it being depicted?
Re: (Score:2)
They're probably anticipating the point when you've reached the final boss and the game suddenly cut off with 'To Be Continued...'.
Remember Halo 2 + 3?
Re: (Score:2)
If its done well it could easily not glorify the war at all. A cold harsh look at the realities of what happened, would defiantly get me to buy a copy and i think both wars were entirely retarded. I also think a lot of gamers are fairly could put their political opinions aside and just enjoy the game.
Re: (Score:2, 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: (Score:2)
Yea, and you don't think that publishing a book in 1936, almost 80 years after the fact, softened any blows or claims to compensation. It's a good thing you posted AC.
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)
Uhm, death of millions (acccording to wikipedia).
It's not just the tiny amount of dead americans that counts.
Re:Cowards. (Score:5, Interesting)
After seeing the realism of the first Call of Duty I refused to play any more WWII FPS. I've convinced many of my gamer friends to do the same. Obviously that's not enough to turn the tide of an entire industry. But I continue trying to reach out and change minds. Posts like yours give me hope that more people will start to think about what they are simulating when they play these types of games.
Re:Cowards. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Every war game I know of, lets the player pick a side - you can play as Nazy Germany, Allied forces, USSR or Japan (or any combination of allied forces) in any WWII game. No game tries to protray any side on way or the other. Your moralizing does not have basis in the reality of computer games.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I'm still waiting for the game about Vietnam where the Vietcong are portrayed as covert freedom fighters
They weren't actually called the Vietcong, they were called the Vietminh. Vietcong was a derogatory name used by the US to belittle their enemy. Much as 'Jerry' or 'Jap' was used by the allies in WWII. Just so you know... :)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course you can't have a baby-killing game by having zombie babies, because you can'
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.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Right, they "capitalize", like anyone who writes books about it, makes movies, TV shows, documentary, reports about it on the news, and so on. The real reason here is it's because it's new for this media.
See, for some strange reason, we react very differently to the same content depending on the media. Everybody loves a Schwarzenegger or Stallone killing people, cops included, by the dozen in movies, but if you talk about the same thing in a song or do a video game about it you'll get protests against you.
Re: (Score:2)
NYT is right to show the cost of the war (Score:2)
It's the role of the press to bring us the story, especially if the powers that be want it hushed up. I think the Pentagon was chickenshit to hide the homecomings up to this point. Did you see that under the new process, 3/4 of families are fine with the photographs? Someone struck exactly the right note, giving families the right to make the call.
My agenda is truth. The truth is some of our people come back dead. It dishonors their memories to pretend otherwise, and to minimize their sacrifice. So I'
Re: (Score:2)
Dieing for your country while serving it isn't really the problem here. Some people will consider that heroic while some will look at it as stupidity. Obviously the objective is to get more of them to die for their country then those willing to do it for your country. This has little to do with the like or dislike for the wars. I'm of the belief that it's heroic in that he died doing something he believed in as he was serving his country when they asked him to. The problem with creating a game out of a real
I think that's a shame (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:I think that's a shame (Score:5, Funny)
They could have made the Iraq War game really realistic. You play a member of the Missouri National Guard who has to give up his job and not see his wife or two young children for five tours, so you can go to a country where the people who live there don't want you, and you get to drive around, waiting for an IED to kill or cripple you.
Oh, and when you are done playing the game, you are forced to sit down and play again, and again, and again, and again, while your kids grow up without you and you've lost your job and you lose your house, which you bought with a adjustable rate mortgage and the payments have tripled and now you don't have a job and when you go home the economy will suck.
Gamespot gives it an 8.9
controversial to interview participants? (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm not any kind of gamer, but if you accept that video games are a legitmate form of artistic expression enjoyed by a growing number of people (and you're an idiot if you don't), the idea that interviewing insurgents is somehow sinister is ludicrous. Would it be evil for a filmmaker making a movie about Fallujah to interview people on both sides of the fight?
Plus, I hate to break it to people, but a lot of the guys the Americans were fighting in 2004 and 2005 in the Sunni Triangle were later recruited into the Awakening Movement, which then turned against foreign fighters and our now allies (albeit uneasy ones) with the US military. Enemy of my enemy, shifting alliances, etc.
Re:controversial to interview participants? (Score:5, Informative)
when i was in ramadi (05-06), AQI shot themselves in the foot by trying to muscle out the local boys. started a war-within-a-war between themselves and groups like 1920 Revolution Brigades and MML...at times there was more "red on red" violence than anything else. we (people above my pay grade...WAY above) saw the opportunity to play nice (read: pay nice)...and it worked out pretty well... probably not forever, but those suni's can be a pragmatic bunch. sons of anbar, awakening counsils, desert patrol...all started thanks to AQI being voilent and stupid.
case in point: at one point, while we were recruiting locals for the Iraqi police and army...all the local insurgents declared no attacks on the recruitment: they wanted to get people in...to influence, grab power, spy, whatever. well AQI said fuck that...and sent a suicide-vest-wearing dude who proceeded to kill several iraqis and a guy in my battalion [stripes.com]. AQI never learned that there was no I in retard...
little story behind that story for ya.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Define "significant". Define "rivals". Heck, define "art". Then we can begin to talk about how to make that game.
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 funct
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The problem isn't the medium of videogames, it is the presentation of the subject matter within the game. But how are we to know whether the presentation in Six Days In Fallujah approached the subject matter effectively (or not), when outcry from people like you prevent such works from being created?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
History implies distance - perspective.
The action game is mostly about the dynamics of small unit combat - which never really change all that much.
The technical problem is similar to that of the stealth shooter - the genre which begins with games like S.W.A.T and Rogue Spear. There your decisions are shaped by formal Rules of Engagement. The need to minimize civilian casualties and other unintended consequences. You can achieve you
I hope Atomic finds another publisher (Score:2)
or they publish it themselves. Seems like they already put a lot of work into it.
In other news.. (Score:3, Interesting)
An executive from Atomic Games, the maker of the unreleased game Six Days in Fallujah was seen handing over the complete source code on a 1.44MB floppy disk to an executive from 3D Realms. Gamers around the world rejoice that this controversial title might yet see the day of light in the latest release from 3D Realms.
Exactly what title that be, we're not authorize to report here.
Re: (Score:2)
Exploiting the Fallen for a buck. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
than using the unfortunate and sad situation these young kids had to endure and the families have to live with this the rest of their lives. This is one that should never have been thought of.
Why? Should this event be erased from our memories, erased from public consciousness, just because some people got killed?
You know, there is a small chance that this could be a portrayal that is shocking and illustrates the futility of war. In that case, wouldn't it be in the best interests of the families of the fallen that it be seen, as a warning to society not to continue down that path? Whitewashing over these incidents only increases the chance that they will happen again and again. Because when the p
Re: (Score:2)
I would expect that no one want's it erased from memory or history. But Taking something that was horrific on both sides and making it something that for most whom would play it FUN is not the way to go about it. Make a documentary, Movie, Book anything but a game. It's called respect for those that through no fault of their own lost their lives and a GAME is no way of showing respect.
There are lots of games based on WWII. Do you feel the same way about those?
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: (Score:2)
in the most effective way.
There is also a most effective way of fighting insurgencies, perfected over several thousand years of warfare.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
in the context of the people fighting it is perfectly acceptable to lie to infidels (and shoot them, and cut off their heads, and so on).
Just about every type of evil imaginable has been perfectly acceptable to large numbers of people fighting in every war, ever.
Replacement (Score:5, Funny)
In a follow-up press release, Konami states they plan instead to produce a game where you pilot Air Force One in the skies above NYC, performing daring acrobatic feats like "buzz the highly populated pier" and "read all the hats of the tourists at the top of the Chrysler building".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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:If Iraq bombed and invaded America (Score:4, Insightful)
Correct (Score:2)
Something many people miss about this, and other, conflicts is that there are actually ARE rules for war, terms spelled out and so on. The Geneva Conventions are the big ones. One of the big things is definitions of fighters and such. One of the basic ideas is that war is supposed to be between armies. So there's rules like no attacking hospitals and so on. However, for this to apply, one of the requirements is that the armies are identified as such. Soldiers are in uniform, vehicles are marked, etc. Basica
[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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
and .... ?
If Martians invaded Earth, they'd have big three-legged walking machines with death beams!
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Maybe we'll see it later... (Score:2)
Yeah and Resident Evil 5 is RACIST (Score:5, Insightful)
article title (Score:2, Funny)
Konami's insight (Score:2)
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.
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?
LOL. Those stupid idiots... (Score:2)
What's the stuff that makes the most money? Ask a TV producer. Or a rapper. ^^
It's the stuff that's most controversial. It stirs up the most dust.
Of course, you have to be sure of your own values, to produce something like that. Know yourself, what's right and wrong. And stand by that.
But then, the controversial stuff, when well executed (very important), makes the best stuff.
Books, movies, music, games... does not matter.
The following spectacle would be enough to sell 10 games on it's tide wave.
Well, it's
Kudos to Konami. . . (Score:4, Funny)
Conflicting Feelings on This (Score:3, Interesting)
I have conflicting feelings about this.
I am all for free speech and I love games that try and tell a story. I get honoring our sons who fight in war with a medium that they enjoy.
In this case, however, I'm wondering if it's the proper time for something like this.
It almost seems tacky to create a game based on the battles of soldiers who are still around and still fighting.
I know that we have world war 2 games and vietnam games, but those conflicts are over with and done with. There are soldiers still over there fighting these battles and maybe that's why i feel this decision by Konami might be on okay thing.
I don't agree with making movies about a war during the time of war, either. I feel there is a time and place, and normally these things should be at least a decade after the conflict has ended.
I know we didn't have that long after vietnam ended, and it seems more and more studios try and push out content based on our wars faster and faster.
I know I don't feel right about this, I think people should be able to come back and have time to heal before being bombarded with war movies and war games based on what they did.
Re: (Score:2)
Right because a game, suggested and supported by the some of the troops who actually served in iraq, and wanted to get across the harsh realities of war, is totally the same as a crappy killbinladen, team-america-ftw game!
Re: (Score:2)
Do we get to use Willy Pete and MK77 too?
http://www.tradoc.army.mil/pao/ProfWriting/2-2AARlow.pdf [army.mil]
get across the harsh realities of war
Your inner Oliver Stone?
a crappy killbinladen
Discern food rations from unexploded cluster bomb shells!