Slashdot Mirror


Konami Cuts and Runs From Iraq War Game

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."

39 of 321 comments (clear)

  1. Release it anyway by Entropy98 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Why not just change the name and the story and release it?

    1. Re:Release it anyway by eldavojohn · · Score: 4, 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 and found a quote from a developer making it sound like information had been gathered for the game from all parties 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.

      --
      My work here is dung.
    2. Re:Release it anyway by dasmoo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Why not just change the characters to Nazi's and Americans, call it Afrika Korps, and people won't be offended.

    3. Re:Release it anyway by KDR_11k · · 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?

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    4. Re:Release it anyway by meyekul · · 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, but not today.

  2. Thanks a whole fucking bunch by 4D6963 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    We got *this* close to at last having a war game that was even vaguely anything like war. A chance we've avoided that, the crude reality of war should only be depicted in movies, TV shows and documentary, as God intended!

    --
    You just got troll'd!
    1. Re:Thanks a whole fucking bunch by Sylos · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It was too close to real life. How can the Army recruit kids if the kids realize they don't respawn at the end of the round?[SEE:America's Army]

      --
      'Number-memorizing Chinese people.'-Anon
    2. Re:Thanks a whole fucking bunch by GrpA · · Score: 4, 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

      --
      Enjoy science fiction? "Turing Evolved" - AI, Mecha, Androids and rail-gun battles. What more could you want?
    3. Re:Thanks a whole fucking bunch by caitsith01 · · 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?

      --
      Read Pynchon.
    4. Re:Thanks a whole fucking bunch by Draek · · 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.

      --
      No problem is insoluble in all conceivable circumstances.
    5. Re:Thanks a whole fucking bunch by 4D6963 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The fact that you can't see how a game could be a serious depiction of war only says something about your imagination.

      --
      You just got troll'd!
    6. Re:Thanks a whole fucking bunch by 4D6963 · · Score: 3, 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.

      --
      You just got troll'd!
  3. Cowards. by Kid+Zero · · 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.

    1. Re:Cowards. by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    2. Re:Cowards. by eln · · 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.

    3. Re:Cowards. by Stickerboy · · 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.

      --
      Light a fire for a man and he'll be warm for a day. Light a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
    4. Re:Cowards. by Zedrick · · Score: 5, Insightful

      deaths of thousands in Vietnam

      Uhm, death of millions (acccording to wikipedia).

      It's not just the tiny amount of dead americans that counts.

    5. Re:Cowards. by foo+fighter · · Score: 4, 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.

      --
      obviously no deficiencies vs. no obvious deficiencies
    6. Re:Cowards. by plasticsquirrel · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm still waiting for the game about Vietnam where the Vietcong are portrayed as covert freedom fighters, and the Americans are the evil imperialists who napalm villages and destroy your countryside with Agent Orange. That's a game I've wanted to play for years, but I'm sure that even after decades, America wouldn't have the stomach for it. I wonder if the same people who want this game to be published would also advocate a Vietnam game like this?

      --
      Systemd: the PulseAudio of init systems
    7. Re:Cowards. by hairyfeet · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Not to mention the fact that in EVERY war there is seriously fucked up shit that nobody wants to admit. Wars are simply brutality on a very large scale. My great uncle talked about shooting a pregnant woman in WW2. He was one of the guys that went into Germany and by that time Goebbels has declared total war and that pregnant woman had blown the brains out of the guy he was sitting beside in the jeep.

      But war changes people. Perhaps that is why we need realistic depictions in mediums such as games, to let us feel like what it was like "in their shoes". Like I have always felt that shooting a pregnant woman or kids(which is what he said they had got down to when they went into Germany) would give me nightmares. Not him though. He said "I had buried over half of my buddies by that point. Most had died horribly within 10 feet of me. By that time I said 'fuck them,I'm going home' and that was what I kept going through my mind. That they had started this and I wasn't going home in a box."

      That is why I think a more realistic depiction might be needed, to understand the situation. Because I never would have been able to understand the times if someone had just told me "the war was brutal and they shot pregnant women and kids" but listening to my great uncle talk about holding his buddies guts in while he screamed for a medic, or seeing the guy you were just talking to turn into "red vapor" because he got a mortar hit at ground zero allowed me to see that by that time it wasn't about women and kids, or any polite rules of war. It was simply about survival in a living hell that most of us simply can't imagine. And the truth of those situations is not something we have really seen depicted in the 3d medium. Whether you could actually make a "game" out of it while keeping the reality is anyone's guess. But the only way to know is to try.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  4. I think that's a shame by Chuck+Chunder · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I think it's certainly an event worth trying to convey. Whether they'd have pulled it off with appropriate levels of gravitas is unknown at this stage and ultimately open to interpretation in any case but it's a shame if people who choose to be offended by the idea alone have caused it to be shut down.

    --
    Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
    1. Re:I think that's a shame by PopeRatzo · · 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

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
  5. controversial to interview participants? by jfruhlinger · · Score: 4, 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.

    1. Re:controversial to interview participants? by gandhi_2 · · 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. AQI never learned that there was no I in retard...

      little story behind that story for ya.

  6. In other news.. by bronney · · 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.

  7. kneejerk army bashing by doug141 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The army didn't pull it. Konami did.

    1. Re:kneejerk army bashing by stonedcat · · Score: 5, Funny

      You just keep thinking that if it makes you feel better.

      --
      You can't take the sky from me.
    2. Re:kneejerk army bashing by robthebloke · · Score: 5, Funny

      The army has tanks. Konami has... dance dance revolution.

    3. Re:kneejerk army bashing by Tanktalus · · Score: 3, 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>

  8. Replacement by SuperKendall · · 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".

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  9. If Iraq bombed and invaded America by MrMista_B · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If Iraq bombed and invaded America, then Americans who fought back would be terrorists and insurgents.

    1. Re:If Iraq bombed and invaded America by 4D6963 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Only if the government/armed forces surrendered. Because then that's no army, that's... an insurgence!

      --
      You just got troll'd!
    2. Re:If Iraq bombed and invaded America by Uberbah · · Score: 3, 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.

  10. Yeah and Resident Evil 5 is RACIST by CreamyG31337 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Because it's set in Africa, and there's black zombies! I saw one attack a white woman, so clearly the zombie was a racist! Honestly, I played through the whole game, and I didn't see anything that seemed racist to me. But I thought it's worth mentioning because it's another recent case of video games that bother some tiny minority of overly sensitive people. They make a big fuss and somehow it gets picked up by the press, which apparently scares away retailers, publishers, parents, and whatever else. I guess my point is that I don't really believe this game could be that bad or offensive. Maybe not quite what Konami is comfortable publishing, but I'll still check it out when it gets published. Or at least wait for a review of the actual game, not just listen to statements from people that are offended by war or that battle or whatever.

  11. Re:Exploiting the Fallen for a buck. by AuMatar · · 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.

    --
    I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
  12. Ridiculous by dvs01 · · 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.

  13. This decision makes no business sense by Anonymous Coward · · 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?

  14. [Not] Correct by Uberbah · · Score: 4, 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.

  15. Kudos to Konami. . . by MistaE · · Score: 3, Funny

    . . . for actually having an exit strategy!