Report: Amidst protest, Konami abandons 'Six Days in Fallujah'

I agree. What a bunch of pussies. Either go through with it or don't do it at all. They had to know that the protests would come.

yeah, i'm pretty disappointed.

also, maybe they could have charged $70 for the game and sent $10 of every sale to veteran's organizations/charities. i would've paid for it.

They made an excellent point on a listen up about this game.

"Who the hell said games had to give you a good experience while you played them?"

I think it could be quite a powerful anti war statement if they actually went through with it.

That is a good point, but is that the approach they would take? Or are they just out to make another graphics-showcase action game?

It's attitudes like this that will keep publishers turning out more WWII games. So the next time someone complains that we have yet another WWII game, I'll point them to this argument.

There is the possibility that they would just pump out some generic action game and slap the fallujah name on it, but they also had an opportunity to go deeper into the struggles and the actual events of the conflict. It could have been just like any war movie, either straight up meaningless action, or try and say something about war. I thought that showing the conflict from three points of view could have been really interesting, and they should have at least waited till people got a look at the game before responding to the knee jerk reaction of "omg this just happened! How can you make a game on it?" No one said that about the movies (like Black Hawk Down) and t.v. shows (Over There) that happened so soon after the conflicts. I'm not sure why people just assume games can't offer the same perspective on a situation that other mediums can.

i vaguely remember BHD (the movie) getting some criticism. I don't remember the game getting any.

I guess maybe the difference is that BHD (the game) came out after the movie and after the conflict had finished. It seemed more like "the game of the movie" than "the game of that tragic event recently".

In reply to rasters comment, I strongly disagree, yes, some games are for purely entertainment purposes, but I believe some are very educational, I give Konami credit for being morally conscience of their idea, but I do not respect their decision. Firstly lots of the games we play are based on gruesome real world events or reflex horrible real world possibilities, but who care weather they are current events or not. The reality of this issue is, the events or possibilities are true and hiding that fact to better sooth the hurt someone is feeling is not going to change the fact that it is still true. I admit COD4 was fun for me but also opened my eyes to the horrors of a nuclear strike, and made it more personal to me, bringing tears to my eyes for fictional characters. While making me more afraid of the reality of the age we live in. I knew nukes were horrible, but the sense of horror was never more life threatening for me, and because I connected on a deeper level with the hero in COD4, I honestly fear nukes more now than I did before I played the game, while I was hoping my character was going to live and earn more of my praise for such defiance of real world laws, as he crawled from the helicopter wreckage I soon realized as he crumbled to the floor even in games nukes are devastatingly deadly. For me games are just now earning the right to be considered a social norm and a mainstream form of entertainment and believe me this is a well deserved title. But as with all forms of entertainment there is always controversy on the subjects they encompass, but none the less the public has a right to their opinion and if they do not like the product they are by law allowed to voice their opinions and to deny the purchase of such products for personally use, but to deny everyone else of such a privilege I dare say is illegal and unjust, because to some no matter the purpose of the said product, it can be entertaining or educational, but now we will never know, because someone deemed it to be to controversial. If you ask me I say that the choice Konami made is morally justified but it is also morally unjustified in the sense that every other form of entertainment has already used the war to promote some sort of product or message for example movies, news and music (I'm sure you guys can think of more than a few examples yourself), and regardless of the sensitivity of the subject the world has a right to choose whether to listen or play or watch whatever form of entertainment we want on a personal level, and to me Konami is morally obligated to voice their opinion and not let anyone deny them the right to voice those opinions and ideas on a sensitive subject, otherwise we send a message that anyone who has an idea that is controversial that they can be silenced with the proper amount of pressure, proving that our opinions do not matter, I say forget those who do not want to hear your message and remember all the ones that do, all the controversy will do is breed more curiosity and in essence more acknowledgement of what is really happening in the world of today, the world of now, the world were our choices will affect the world of tomorrow, the world that needs that acknowledgement, so fatten your pockets but be true in your work and to your fans. If it breeds even one good idea or response then it will be worth it and you deserve to reap those rewards. Not to mention all that controversy is free publicity.

every single war game does this. whats your point.

I disagree with you. I have been to Iraq and I wanted ot play this game. I think it should be made.

If they can make an RPG about school shooting then why not about a war that's on-going?

Look at ALL the WW2 games where millions of soldiers and civillians died that makes the Iraqi war look small (and it is compared to the amount of lives lost in WW2)... but it's seems to be okay to make WW2 games? Why is that?

So I guess the standard is as long as the war is over it's okay to make video games about them? If the war is still ongoing it's considered to make "light" of the situation?

@ZenGaijin: Yeah, that would be interesting. But nine times out of ten, war sims are all about the fighting/killing and not about the consequences. And I'm okay with that in a fictionalized setting. But putting our current war into this kind of simulation strikes me as disrespectful to the people who actually are going through these events.

@Woz: I agree that WWII games are "safe" considering that a relative minority of people still remember that time with clarity. And it is true that the industry errs on the side of safety. But I don't think that they're chugging out more and more WWII games because they're afraid of going into other timeperiods; I think it's because they lack the guts to try something that doesn't fit the [WWII Game ---> Profit] model.

I'm not saying that all wars should be off-limits, but I do think it's too soon to start having twelve-year-olds on Live screaming into their headsets about bullet-raping US troops in a context that, for many families, is a very real situation.

@Bananarama: I agree that we should be mature enough to handle a thoughtful examination of war in any medium. I'm with you on that. But experience has shown me that people aren't really capable of doing that - instead they want a mindless action game. Even if this was going to be the most thought-provoking, gritty anti-war message to ever hit the gamer submarket, people would still treat it like an afternoon worth of playtime. For better or worse, I don't think gaming... no, more specifically, gamers, have hit the point where they can as a group treat this matter with the respect that I think it deserves. It's not a fictional place with imaginary problems - the wars being waged in Iraq and Afghanistan are real-world events that affect people right now.

To me, this game would have been as tasteless as a Newgrounds flash game about swimming away from Katrina.

@SlAIv3: Dude, I had to catch my breath after reading your comment. :) But I agree that censorship is wrong. But I don't see this scenario as censorship so much as I see it as regulation. It strikes me as immoral to profit off of something that's currently causing so many people such pain. It's like, as I said above, if someone made a game about surviving Hurricane Katrina. Would it be interesting? Maybe. Would it trivialize - that is, make entertainment of - the suffering of lots of people? Yes.

@acme: My point is that we don't currently have people dying in WWII. But we do have people dying in Iraq. It's personally relevant to many people.

but it doesn't HAVE to be entertainment. it could have be done similar it america's army with the "real heroes" and stuff. it doesn't have to be COD4, they could have made it really work, really MEAN something, and give honor to those who fight and died.

Yeah, man. The only form of legit entertainment derived from horrible experiences should be movies, TV, books, documentaries, and people chatting idly on street corners. Video games should never receive such privilege, because it shows no respect for the dead..unlike FOX News. Oh wait..

You say this as though this doesn't apply to World War 2 games.

OR it could be used as a vehicle to help people understand what those soldiers had to deal with.

Or are Black Hawk Down and We Were Soldiers immoral as well?


Konami, you should be ashamed of your spinelessness here.

Why stop there? Why not cancel all war movies and documentaries?

Very disappointing, Konami.

war is indeed all that. But are games?

freedom isn't free, it cost $1.05

So its okay to release a flash game on the Navy Seal vs. Pirates rescue but not on Fallujah? I just don't think its right to criticize a game before it was ever released. How is that different from barring an author from writing a book about it or and a director making films on it? People are making money out of it and audiences get entertained from these mediums. The only difference is that when we're playing a game about war, it feels more immersive.

If the subject matter is treated fairly, then it can be a very effective in showing audiences what its like to be in a serous war. Look at how Gearbox did Brothers in Arms for example. They took World War II very seriously and it is one of the most immersive games I've ever played. I learned a great deal how hard and tragic it is to be a soldier fighting in a war from BIA. Hopefully in another 10 years we can actually see a decent mature game on our current war.

Next thing you know people will cancel wars all together! pfft

lol at the downvote. I agree with this person entirely.

obviously konami downvoted me, bastards!

+1

you stole the words out of my mind

I disagree. When it comes to the "artist" who pretended to starve a dog to death, was that a symbol of "artistic creativity," or was it just crass sensationalism?

In other countries, the video game industry is regulated heavily by the government. Here, we don't have that problem - yet. I believe that this is due in large part to our ability to regulate ourselves.

This is that. Self-regulation.

Endangering a living creature is one thing, a digital thing is another. Fake things. That's different.

It shouldn't be restricted BECAUSE people whine about it.

This isn't self policing. This game could come out, get the 7 (maybe 8)/10 rating that we all know it would have gotten, and then it would have been forgotten about. No damage would have been done to the video game industry.

This is self-censorship. There is a big difference between this and making sure that, for instance, the next baby-shaking or hot coffee fiasco doesn't happen.

I could see this as being considered "sensationalism" if it were a game where you throw puppies in a woodchipper, just for the sake of being crass in order to garner attention. But this game was about a REAL conflict. I agree that if it were turned into an Army of Two-type game, then that's bad juju, and it would be 100% acceptable for Konami to drop it like it's hot...but were those people protesting TRULY certain of how the struggle in Fallujah was going to be presented? If it were handled with the same tact as Brothers in Arms, I would say it needs to be published...show the horrors of war so that people will learn the consequences of such extreme situations.

Your comparing a war that occurred over 60+ years ago versus what occurred fairly recent, many individuals have fresh memory of the incidents that occurred there including soldiers and family members. Something like this is too soon to publish.

Last I checked, WWII was pretty damn hard. Hell, our best strategy was throw as many of our men as we can on a beach that's heavily enforced and hope to God they can't shoot them all fast enough.

I mean, basically, if China attacked America, that's what I imagine their strategy would be too. Overwhelm with numbers.

This is either political or frankly the game was REALLY bad.

I mean how long after Sept 11 did the studios start gearing up and filming moves, documentaries, etc. about the attack? Hell HBO just ran a series on the war, so did, oh and also, not to mention.... ? Something doesn't make sense.

Maybe Obama doesn't like the idea of his friends getting shot, just saying =)

"Yes I did just say that" Saying that real war is not a joke, remember to say thanks to a active or even retired soldier some time, agree with or not.

-Rohan, the fact that you think a Japanese company didn't publish this game because America was embarrassed of the outcome (we still won) is asinine.
-"Maybe Obama doesn't like the idea of his friends getting shot, just saying =)." This is what you should have said Rohan. Blame someone who had nothing to do with game not getting published for a reason so stupid and false I actually want to punch the idiot who said it in the face.
-Pretty much any war, aside from the Spanish-American war, was difficult to achieve victory in.

Aw, man, I've been using the 20 year rule for calling back girls! No wonder none of my relationships work out...

Well, strangely enough, you get some movies out of the Middle eastern conflict, and never do you see protests of "too soon". Hell, there was an Adam Sandler comedy about a 911 survivor! Try making ANY game with 911, see where that gets you!

uhh..it wasnt a comedy dude.

Agreed. Let the market decide what is right and wrong. In this case, the market was in control because it was Konami's call wheither or not to pursue the game, and they decided on their own to pull the plug. Thats perfectly fine. Unfortunate yes, but fine. I just don't want the government deciding what is appropriate for me.

This isn't the same thing as the government banning the game. This is a case where free-market capitalism stepped in and took action.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivor_(2008_video_game)

ugh...supposed to be a reply to @Raster above....it's not working out for me...