Konami announces 'Six Days in Fallujah,' based on real battle in Iraq
by Ben Gilbert 
{ Apr 6th 2009 at 2:31PM } 
"We replicate a specific and accurate timeline -- we mean six days literally," Atomic Games president Peter Tamte told the Wall Street Journal. "We track several units through the process and you get to know what it was like from day-to-day." Unfortunately, for all the realism touted by the game's developer, Konami's VP of marketing, Anthony Crouts, gives the impression that the publisher's still playing it safe, saying, "We're not trying to make social commentary. We're not pro-war. We're not trying to make people feel uncomfortable. We just want to bring a compelling entertainment experience. At the end of the day, it's just a game."
With little go to on other than the handful of screens you can see below in the gallery, we'll just have to wait and see more on Six Days in Fallujah before we cast any judgments. One thing's for sure: With the battle this game is based around having occurred so recently, its developers have a built-in audience to appease (who grew up with video games, mind you) and we wish them luck.
Gallery: Six Days in Fallujah
_thumbnail.jpg)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 4)
Bobby S. @ Apr 6th 2009 2:33PM
Hmmm
Do we really need another one of these shooters?
baby sea tuna @ Apr 6th 2009 2:51PM
Your avatar says...maybe.
Bloo @ Apr 6th 2009 2:52PM
Yes because, at the end of the game, Sean Penn comes to visit Iraq and you get to shoot him in the face.
kentuckyfried @ Apr 6th 2009 3:11PM
^ Actually, if Bono showed up, I'd be more excited about shooting *him* in the face, lol.
Marty @ Apr 6th 2009 3:13PM
Why would you want to shoot either of them in the face? Because they say war is bad? What the heck is wrong with that?
Bissy Boy (PSN johnnynumber5) @ Apr 6th 2009 3:19PM
No it's probably because both of them act like total douche bags and say outrageous things (especially Penn) all the time. War is bad but it's certainly necessary and will never cease to exist.
dronesensor @ Apr 6th 2009 3:44PM
bissyboy,
Wow, shoot people who you disagree with? Maybe you should go live in Saudi Arabia or Pakistan, I think you might find their ideologies not too dissimilar from your own.
What did Sean Penn say that was so outrageous, anyway?
P.S.
It's pretty much consensus among all but a very small, fanatic minority that the occupation of Iraq was completely unnecessary. So what the hell are you talking about? I don't see any liberals saying we shouldn't have fought in WW2, because it was obviously a necessary conflict. It's the unnecessary wars we're lied into (Vietnam, Iraq, etc.) that they're against.
Great Golem+ @ Apr 6th 2009 4:11PM
Just flush that Bono down, no need to shoot him.
chispito @ Apr 6th 2009 4:24PM
@Dronesensor
You're way off. You can easily argue the invasion was a mistake, and you would find reasonable people who disagree, but once there were boots on the ground and the previous regime fell, the occupation was absolutely necessary.
As for Penn and Bono, I don't think Bono was especially concerned with the war. He's more concerned with getting governments to send aid to Africa while sheltering his band and himself from taxes.
Leobebes (BDF: Braid Defence Force) @ Apr 6th 2009 4:40PM
@chispito
I haven't met one reasonable person who believes the Iraq war was necessary. It was a war based on either lies or bad intelligence of epic proportions. Basically it was illegal. Especially during a time where we really needed to go after the real culprits who lit a match to our imploding empire.
Let me guess you support the building of the infrastructure of Iraq with our tax money, but call any investment within our own border pork? Go away, history will look upon you with great shame, and thanks to the internet your names will be etched in stone.
chispito @ Apr 6th 2009 4:52PM
So what you're saying is that everyone you know and like agrees with you, and this surely means you're right?
Bissy Boy (PSN johnnynumber5) @ Apr 6th 2009 5:12PM
dronesensor
I'm not saying to shoot them in the face and I don't think the other guys were saying shoot him literally. I'm just saying both of those guys are huge douche bags who say some really dumb stuff in public. Penn even acknowledged as much during his award speech not that long ago.
Leobebes (BDF: Braid Defence Force) @ Apr 6th 2009 5:12PM
@chispito
All I am saying is that history will not think you were right. So yea you're not right.
Other sections of the population that history has deemed wrong in America.
The Confederacy
The KKK
John McNamara and the handling of the Vietnam War
Those opposed to Woman's Suffrage
Those opposed to the Civil Right's Movement and equality for all
Joseph McCarthy
Warren G Harding
Dick Nixon
Soon to be...
Iraq War Sympathizers
Gay Marriage Opponents
I am not saying that you are horrible human beings for supporting the figures or events above, its just that you are on the wrong side of history and thank goodness your views are not the pinnacle of a progressive society.
Douche Bigalow @ Apr 6th 2009 5:17PM
"I haven't met one reasonable person who believes the Iraq war was necessary."
Probably because you define 'reasonable' as 'agrees with me'. In any case, it's a moot point: everyone believed it was necessary when we went, and in real life there's no do-overs or time-rewinds (that's a great idea for a game - a liberal Iraq war game where you can be against it after you're for it and rewind time Prince of Persia style based on opinion polls).
Once you're at war, you win or lose. No reasonable person wanted the United States to lose this war. And we didn't. And anyone who thinks staying wasn't the right thing to do should read "Moment of Truth in Iraq" by Michael Yon.
And for the tard who tried to equate rebuilding a country over which we have provisional authority with spending trillions on Democrat earmarks and pet projects: get bent.
Bissy Boy (PSN johnnynumber5) @ Apr 6th 2009 5:32PM
Leobebes
Aren't you the guy that has an eternal kojima boner?
kentuckyfried @ Apr 6th 2009 6:16PM
As Bissy was saying, I didn't mean *literally* shoot bono. I have nothing against the man.
I just find it funny that stars keep parading around the world, like they're the voice of reason, and that they should have a say in diplomacy. I'm sorry, but just b/c somebody's a movie star doesn't make them qualified to do every other job.
Leobebes (BDF: Braid Defence Force) @ Apr 6th 2009 6:17PM
@Douche Bigalow
Wait a minute here...
You are saying that once we were in the war I wanted us to lose? Why do some of you imply this? This is the same logic that inspired the rhetoric; if you're against the war you are against our troops? Why is it so black and white for some of you? What kind of worldview shapes you?
The reason I spoke up against chispito had to do about shooting Sean Penn in the face for speaking out against the war. Guess what? Whether you like it or not he was right. Sure he's an actor and some of you say the dude should STFU because no one wants to hear his opinion yadda yadda yadda, but Saint Reagan took advantage of his free speech and political involvement all the way to the White House in 1980. This is what is so great about this country.
Also...
"And for the tard who tried to equate rebuilding a country over which we have provisional authority with spending trillions on Democrat earmarks and pet projects: get bent"
Really? If you read the actual bill you would see that the majority of the funding is for rebuilding of roads, bridges, and other infrastructure that you use on a daily basis but take for granted. If I think rebuilding the infrastructure of our own country is a priority over losing (remember billions of dollars have completely dissapeared due to crooked subcontracted obligations and through a corrupt process of non bidding) then by God I am a TARD.
unrealy2k @ Apr 6th 2009 6:49PM
@dronesensor
Just thought I'd give you a little history lesson democrats did not try to get us out of vietnam. In fact they were the ones who got us there in the first place, with Kennedy sending in advisors and you should hear what Johnson said after the gulf of tonkin incident, which gave him an excuse to attack Vietnam. As far as I know they were both liberal democrat. so make sure you know your history before you make a opinionated comment. as for Iraq I couldn't agree with you more it was a waste of time. on a side note the graphics for this game look weak come on konami give us the MGS4 engine to use.
Marty @ Apr 6th 2009 7:07PM
This is way, way off topic, but to blame Vietnam on Democrats is absurd. Go study a history book, and stop spreading this ignorant garbage on the internet.
Leobebes (BDF: Braid Defence Force) @ Apr 6th 2009 7:32PM
@Marty
In all fairness to unrealy2k, the Vietnam War was an example of the mentality exhibited by politicians on both side of the aisle post World War II. It was to defeat communism regardless of the cost to human life and money. Eisenhower started it, Kennedy explored it, Johnson inflamed it, and Nixon had to end the experiment. In fact Mcnamara, the architect of the Vietnam War when it was at its full blown form was a Democratic appointee. He was basically LBJ's Rumsfeld.
Go and rent the Fog of War its a good watch!
Douche Bigalow @ Apr 6th 2009 8:25PM
"You are saying that once we were in the war I wanted us to lose? "
I'm saying if you wanted us to lose you wanted to lose. It's "black and white" because war is black and white: you win or lose. So yes, if you were one of the people screaming and crying about how you don't know why we're there and we should bring 'em home and all that, yes, you wanted us to lose, and yes, you're anti-American.
"Really? If you read the actual bill you would see that the majority of the funding is for rebuilding of roads, bridges, and other infrastructure that you use on a daily basis but take for granted"
Which just proves that you haven't read the bill. Virtually none of the money actually goes towards infrastructure, just as virtually none of the money goes to 'saving or creating jobs'. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office found this to be the case long before the thing came to its rubber-stamp vote and nobody cared. Because nobody bothers to report on Democrat lies.
Even if 10% of the bill actually went to serious and necessary reconstruction projects it doesn't justify the other 90% that is definitely wasteful pork spending - and that's a GENEROUS estimate.
Funny how when Bush has a couple hundred billion deficit it's ciminal (Bushitler!) but when Obama has a 9 trillion dollar deficit - in a recession no less - it's smart.
"This is way, way off topic, but to blame Vietnam on Democrats is absurd"
John F. Kennedy was the man who ramped up our presence in Vietnam. Ignoring his involvement in escalating that into a full-blown war is absurd, but what can you expect from a Democrat sympathizer - you never hold your candidates responsible for anything.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_f._kennedy#Vietnam
Imran @ Apr 7th 2009 3:30PM
Hopefully (not likely), this is not some bs pro-US propaganda and actually discusses and presents the massacre of civilians in this war of attrition.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallujah,_The_Hidden_Massacre
How about that? A REAL perspective on war American style! Not the sanitized and glorified US excuse for securing oil resources to exert control over others with ie China. And to demonstrate in real terms the notion of US hegemony and unilateralism. I'm sure most you 15 year olds won't understand what the heck I'm talking about. Do this thing called READING. Books that is. And news sources outside the US.
So, this is what we have come to a video game on an illegal invasion by the current Empire that was also a field run of the privatization of war. How pathetic. Go and try to sell your war profiteering in yet another way. The US has the privilege of being the most war like society today. And yet most of them will never even go to war. Chickenhawks is what they are called.
"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex." - Dwight D. Eisenhower, former President and General
Cr4sh Dummy @ Apr 9th 2009 12:36AM
Leobebes you're a giant fucking moron! You can't possible compare "Iraq War Sympathizers" to the fucking KKK with a straight fucking face can you? Or do you have your head so far up your ass that you'll belive any crap you'll read on the Daily Kos? If you actually care about taxpayer's money you would be against Obama's crazy expenditures but judging from your post I'll say you're just another partisan hack!
And Imran, are you fucking serious? Do you actually believe the crap you're regurgitating? If you do buy a fucking brain retard, I've heard that pathetic argument over and over again and it sounds more fucking ridiculous each time I hear one of your types say it. You're the prime example on why we need genetic engineering and abortion!
The Dark Wayne @ Apr 6th 2009 2:34PM
I wouldn't mind a game like this if that screen didnt look so bad
Emperor_Den_Den @ Apr 6th 2009 5:57PM
omfg no one fears the big bad bat I've never seen batsy downvoted
Markez @ Apr 6th 2009 2:36PM
IMO they should be classy and maybe wait until the current occupation is over.
samfish @ Apr 6th 2009 2:49PM
Yeah, this is probably the most insensitive thing I've seen come out of the games industry in...maybe ever.
Obie @ Apr 6th 2009 2:57PM
I dunno, maybe "Ace Combat: 9/11 edition" has it beat.
Ridgecity @ Apr 6th 2009 3:00PM
You are forgetting Super Columbine Massacre RPG. I still remember the creators saying they weren't trying to be controversial. lol.
Marty @ Apr 6th 2009 3:12PM
I agree. And don't gamers play games to, you know, forget about this sort of thing anyway?
butaneko @ Apr 6th 2009 3:14PM
Out of curiosity, would you be offended by a movie based on this conflict?
Ridgecity @ Apr 6th 2009 3:46PM
@butaneko:
only if it stars Shea LeBouf as the President.
Courtney @ Apr 6th 2009 4:13PM
@Ridgecity, ummm, SCMRPG may not have been an attempt to be controversial, but it was a serious attempt to create social commentary through a video game, exploring multiple themes, myths, facts and facets of the Columbine tragedy. There is a serious difference between trying to create something controversial, and creating something that will be controversial, but that isn't the point of it.
I have less of a problem with SCMRPG because it was an effort to explore that tragedy through a different medium and explore the nation's reaction to it. To me, this is just Konami and Atomic Games trying to cash in on American and Iraqi deaths.
Temidien @ Apr 6th 2009 4:35PM
So we should avoid having games with controversial topics? I don't see how it's any more disrespectful than having Vietnam and WWII shooters with vets from those conflicts STILL ALIVE.
Douche Bigalow @ Apr 6th 2009 5:26PM
"it was a serious attempt to create social commentary through a video game, exploring multiple themes, myths, facts and facets of the Columbine tragedy."
Oh, bullshit. You know what the big 'tell' was? Calling it SUPER COLUMBINE MASSACRE RPG!
No 'serious discussion' or 'social commentary' is called SUPER or has a frickin' EXCLAMATION POINT at the end of its name.
Markez @ Apr 6th 2009 10:37PM
Just to be clear, I don't necessarily have an issue with someone making a videogame out of it. If I had any say over it, I wouldn't ever make a game on it. Something like this, with the fad of war games, it's inevitable.
I just think it's a little tasteless to go guns blazing on this and move forward on it while we're still there.
DaveMcRae @ Apr 6th 2009 2:36PM
Isn't that, like, too soon?
baby sea tuna @ Apr 6th 2009 2:49PM
My thoughts exactly.
Swagman @ Apr 6th 2009 4:49PM
Well they did say the game won't be out until next year. And Obama did promise the occupation would be over and the troops would be out by August. So . . .
dantebk @ Apr 6th 2009 2:38PM
I definitely prefer third-person shooters where the enemies are human beings and not monsters, aliens, zombies, demons, parasite-people who act like zombies, grubs, or eyeballs with legs ---- BUT I'm not comfortable with this level of abstraction, which is to say virutally NO abstraction.
It's only okay to pretend you're killing real people when they're nazis. Otherwise they should be imaginary people. Come on now.
Dirty @ Apr 6th 2009 2:41PM
"Its just a game".... then make it about something fictional. Waaaayyy too soon.
Temidien @ Apr 6th 2009 4:38PM
To you, maybe. if you don't like it, don't buy it. I'm tired of developers ignoring controversial topics because they're "too soon".
It's an important part of our ongoing history and I don't want it swept under the rug for generations because you're too sensitive. Don't play it.
CH3BURASHKA @ Apr 6th 2009 4:50PM
I agree with both of you, Dirty and Timidien (how diplomatic of me). However, I do think they need to take this EXTRA seriously: they say they have actual soldiers with knowledge of events, but they are still coming from a foreign perspective.
Also, although this is pretty cool in terms of history, I'm sure that this will attract a lot of negative attention from CNN and FOX and the like, and they need to promote it correctly. I'm willing to see what they do but I'm very skeptical as of now.
oxymoronx420 @ Apr 6th 2009 2:42PM
While another FPS is always welcome, I worry that this will SUCK.
Sadly these fuckers are pretty much creating a game that'll be compared directly to other 'modern' shooters set in that part of the world.
Hopefully they'll try and clone the current formula, then if we're lucky this will have decent co-op, and maybe a not-cumbersome control scheme.
At least it's not yet another cookie-cutter WWII **cough**wolfenstein**cough nazi hunting excursion.
Matthew @ Apr 6th 2009 3:20PM
"the third-person shooter"
it's not a FPS lad... So at least they're trying to mix it up a bit.
Bissy Boy (PSN johnnynumber5) @ Apr 6th 2009 3:25PM
So now Wolfenstein is cookie cutter?
A game about Nazi mysticism, occult and dark magic which is an alternate take on reality is cookie cutter?
I think you meant to say Call Of Duty World At War and not Wolfenstein. That is unless you were just being sarcastic and I missed it completely.
I must be missing something here because you said you want the developers to clone other unnamed popular games formulas but that it's at least original and not Wolfenstein (which is completely original sans Nazis).
RudyHuxtable @ Apr 6th 2009 2:42PM
Too soon.
Shadow Hog @ Apr 6th 2009 2:42PM
Also Solid Snake is in it, and the insurgents have Metal Gear.
copa @ Apr 6th 2009 2:45PM
"We just want to bring a compelling entertainment experience. At the end of the day, it's just a game."
The young American soldiers, and the civilians who got caught in the crossfire are happy that their deaths didn't bum you out too much.
Andrew Ryan @ Apr 6th 2009 3:30PM
Sure this conflict is highly arguable but look at it at what it will be in the next 20 years. It'll be called a part of history. Just like the 1,000,000 WWII games out there, time now factors what you believe is a right game & a wrong game? It's not to soon. Tell me now that you're insulted by the 100's of WWII games out. Of course you aren't because it's now a part of history.... I can't honestly see the inappropriateness of a modern conflict sim at this point. Again CoD4 wasn't that far off. I'll be expecting this shooter, just like other modern day shooters. Except this one has a real premise. Big deal...