Fallout from Fallujah fiasco continues

"the project DIED", spelling fail

You just managed to eloquently and efficiently express many of the concerns that I have with this project in a way that was much more effective than what I was able to muster in the comments of the story originally announcing its cancellation.

High five. Expect flamers soon, though.

I'm not going to flame you but I vehemently disagree. I'm more concerned about the implications of censorship of future gaming endeavors. This just shows a publisher is willing to fold to public pressure and is going to cost all of us down the road. We can't have it both ways. There isn't a difference in killing someone in this game or in a Call Of Duty game. They are both nothing more than pixels on a screen.

If you want to be the happy the project died then thats your own heart in the wrong place. The only people who can be hurt by this announcement are the people who could lose their jobs if the developer has to fold.

In my opinion it's a terrible travesty that this game was dropped and everyone loses.

I respect your opinion Kenny Powers, and it's indeed sad should the developers lose their jobs. Konami should let them develop another, less provocative game. I'd say however that this has nothing to do with censorship, but with respect for the victims of the war.

Also, whoever designed Joystiq's comment and avatar system clearly hates internet users.

People are too quick to shout 'censorship'. There is no presiding body refusing this game to be published. Publishers simply do not want to be associated with it.

Salman Rushdie wrote "The Satanic Verses", which infuriated many Muslims, yet it was published without government interference and is still on sale. A fatwa was issued by the ayatollah in Iran to murder Rushdie and the publishers of the book, and although he is fine, several connected with the book have been murdered. Yet the book is still on sale. There is no censorship in that it was not prevented from being published, but if you anger people, there are consequences.

I'm not saying that the fatwa is justified or that anything like that should happen here - Lord, no! My point is that controversial works, whether they be games or books, can cause outrage that the publishers do not want to be associated with. This is entirely different from censorship. It's pragmatic.

I would like to see games becoming more of an interactive story-telling medium. Games have been restricted by the need for everything to be fun. That sounds weird, but sometimes I'd like a different experience. I'd like a game which, rather than being fun in the sense of shooting aliens to pass the time, challenges my mind or provides me with some new insight or experience. I'd love to see that change happen, but on a practical level, creating a game set in an active warzone is perhaps a little too bold a first step.

Dave

The thing is that it has everything to do with censorship. How do we now decide who's rights as victims are more or less important than others? How about someone who's family member was killed in a violent car jacking objecting to Grand Theft Auto? How about someone's son or daughter who was disfigured after Chernobyl objecting to Fallout 3? How about the family member of a soldier who was killed in WW2 objecting to Call Of Duty World At War? Where do we draw that line and who gets to decide what is and what isn't offensive? What's the line between being respectful to the victims, telling a story and not having your hands tied as a developer?

This goes back to a point I made that if this game were called Call Of Duty Dessert Assault no one would have an issue with it. It's not as if they were going to use peoples actual names within the title. The reason we have issues is because people aren't mature enough to vote with their pocketbook. Instead, they make it their personal crusade to push their morality on the rest of us and want to dictate what is and what isn't acceptable because they are offended.

I think one of the problem that gaming never reaches that level of sophistication is because how it is treated in the first place.

Let's look at Star Ocean 3.

For most, it's just a silly game, with lots of fighting, explosions, and horrible plot twist.

To me (I'm an SO freak), I see a great piece of commentary on existentialism, and on definition of humanity. The game delve very deeply into what makes us humans. Is it perception? Our will to survive? Is it free will, and ability to write you own destiny? It even attempt to discuss the possibility of "after life" in the final credits.
Sure, it wasn't perfect. But if one is willing to spend 5 minutes to really look at video games, then you will find that most games offer very thoughtful messages. However, it is our perception that prevents us from seeing it.

You should channel that anger at the policy makers who sent those people into harms way instead of this developer. I don't expect much else from you outside of hyperbolic sensationalist statements. Maybe you can start deciding what content is acceptable for everyone else.

"Maybe you can start deciding what content is acceptable for everyone else. "

I've been doing that for quick minute now, Johnnyboy. You're not as sharp as you used to be.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFWea3Eu97E

It just shows you how much they care about "recreating the war"... This game is probably gonna be a shoot-em-up.

but there is a difference between Dubai and Fallujah. for one, Dubai is in the UAE -_-;

maybe that truck belongs to a PMC out of the UAE.

Nobody's crying that I can see. Well, it is the internet, so I guess I can't see anyone. But you get my point. Being a condescending namecaller isn't going to contribute to anything.

The point is, there are certain subjects that should have a statute of limitations. If I had a game company and I wanted to make a game about the Holocaust, would you consider that something distasteful, or would you consider it a bold foray into the world of art? Just an honest question, not hyperbole. I want to know where you stand.

Kenny I agree, I think it sucks that so many video game players bitched and moaned Konami into dropping the game. Who needs Jack Thompson? We're our own worst enemies.

It also just goes to show that these same video game players aren't ready to look at games as a legitimate form of expression the same way they look at books and movies. This whole debacle tells me we're going to have a hard time moving forward.

have you also thought that maybe konami felt the game would underperform and lose them millions of dollars?
something atomic games the developer will never back up, guarantee, or pay back..

is it right for a publisher to continue to make a game that they feel will underperform and lose them millions of dollars?
im sure that had something to do with it.
and the japanese are generally sensitive anyway, fallout 3 was censored in japan.
mass effect was censored in brazil, the land of sexual desires/dreams.

it sounds like there is actually more cry babies that this game is not being made from what i see out there....

Raster

"If I had a game company and I wanted to make a game about the Holocaust, would you consider that something distasteful, or would you consider it a bold foray into the world of art?"

It wouldn't bother me in the least bit because I can decide for myself if thats the type of game I want to purchase. I would have no problem what so ever with the game being made. I would consider it purely art. It's a slippery slope.

sk8

"it sounds like there is actually more cry babies that this game is not being made from what i see out there...."

The reason you see it that way is because you have your head shoved up your ass, as usual. The only reason this game has been scrapped by Konami is because of the public outcry after it was announced. Just go back through the last 4-5 posts discussing the game and you will see nothing but protest and outcry because the game was "too soon." I don't expect you to have a modicum of understanding on the issue because you have proven yourself incapable of critical thinking and comprehension. Seems plausible that you would pull something about them losing money out of your ass without having any understanding of what is actually happening.


Neuromancer

I agree with you that we don't need Jack Thompson when we marginalize our own hobby with petty double standards. It seems to the average gamer that content is OK so long as it doesn't offend them personally. I like to take the rational approach of simply not purchasing a product whose content I find objectionable. Gaming will never be taken seriously so long as we have double standards where we are Ok with games that allow us to kill hookers and innocent citizens in a fake New York but cry foul when a game is based around a real event like Fallujah.

Everyone Else

Those of you who have objected to this game should be careful what you wish for in the future. You might see your favorite game offends a certain sect of the population and gets pulled.

Well said Kenny but these guys minds aren't going to change. Unfortunately, in the world we live in, people know that if enough of them act offended about something, they can ruin it for everyone else.

I guess you could lump me into the crybaby category. I think it's too soon to make a game like this. However, my sentiment was never to the extent that I don't think they should be allowed to make it, or that Konami should necessarily totally cancel the project. That's their business, and I think that's a key point here. It's a business, and they had to make a business decision. On its face, yeah it's controversial, but also none of us know whether what was in development was actually remotely quality or not.

Here's a ridiculous comparison, that somehow makes sense to me as to how I feel about this. I'm pro-choice. However when it comes to close friends, family, etc., I'm fiercely pro-life. Yeah, I don't think the timing on this game is good, so I just wouldn't buy it. I don't like FPS war games anyway. Haven't ever played any of 'em. But I wouldn't have a huge problem with them going forward, and people buying it if they want, that's their decision.

Hopefully that wasn't too asinine a comparison. My feelings on it never went so far as to think things like this should be censored/canceled.

Regards,

Widdle Cwybaby :)

Yknow it's also worth pointing out that the makers of the game knew they were taking a risk with this subject matter, and should've been (likely were) prepared for this controversy to happen. I don't really hear them crying foul, so maybe they were expecting this to some extent.

Markez

I totally understand what your saying and where you are coming from. I respect your opinion and all but I always come back to the point that who should be able to decide what's acceptable and what isn't in terms of our digital media content. I don't see what all the fuss is about because at the end of the day it's a video game. No difference between this game and the movie redacted in my opinion.

I wish Konami would of had some balls and went ahead and published the game because I was very interested in playing it to get an idea of what it was like having boots on the ground in the battle.

Hopefully another publisher picks it up because I welcome the change of pace in the industry and the FPS genre.

Yeah I'd welcome a serious foray into documentary style gaming, *IF* that's actually what this was. Has the potential to be a genre onto its own if done appropriately.

Funny thing is that if this was called "International Conflict" or "Call Of Duty: Iraq Assault" it would have made it OK in everyones eyes. It's a bad day for gamers and people who support a free society.

Thank you!

unfortunately there are no answers to those questions...that I can think of at least...

I don't think it has anything to do with legitimizing the situation, and more to do with possibly glorifying it. If you can run wild in Iraq blowing people away, based on historical events, that hypes people up for war.

When you're watching a movie, it's a passive activity that you don't participate in. The events unfold despite you getting up to take a leak at the 30 minute mark. Since games are interactive, you as a player push the story forward directly through actions (or inactions). This demands much more mental involvement.

As art, I think this game deserves to be made and released by someone with the guts to do it in the face of controversy. As a game, it could suck or it could be fun, we haven't been shown enough to make that determination. Still, regardless of the minority outcry, it should still hit the shelves. At the very least it could be a preachy game showing you the true face of war, from a first-person perspective.

What the hell are you talking about? When Black Hawk Down was released, some Republicans complained that it glorified a Democrat humanitarian war effort. Bush Sr. initiated the humanitarian effort in Somalia, but never approved of direct military involvement. Clinton ramped up the military effort and when the Battle of Mogadishu occurred, the GOP skewered Clinton for it. GOP pressure was the direct reason for America's speedy withdrawal from Somalia. In the film, none of the US soldiers are critical of the war, and the main character is seen as some kind of heroic warrior saint figure. All this in a conflict that was extremely divisive at the time.

As for World Trade Center, do you have any idea how controversial the director of the film, Oliver Stone, is to people? Right-wing people hate the guy with a passion. Trust me, there WERE complaints about his making the movie. People were shocked to see how neutral the movie came out to be, due to his pedigree.

To say there was "no fallout or complaints" is just absurd. When you make claims like that, do some research first.

This.

It's Durkadurkastan, get it right!

This.

Just to point out something. well a child's life is more important, because they have yet to experience this world unlike an adult who has been here for far more years and has gotten the change to live their life.

I think Otis is referring to the International Treaty that would intrude on our rights as Parents to raise our children as we see fit. The U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) is approaching a possible ratification by the United States Senate. This treaty, as harmless as it may appear, is capable of attacking the very core of the child-parent relationship, removing parents from their central role in the growth and development of a child, and replacing them with the long arm of government supervision within the home.

I could be wrong but I think thats what he is talking about ... it's sickening and scary

http://www.parentalrights.org/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC=%7B53D4DCA7-5899-4242-B244-54A253AFC137%7D

Well, I'd say, generally speaking, one child's life is probably more valuable than an adult's life, but you get some really far out there shit. Look at how people react to a thousand adults dying, versus like, one or two kids. They care more about the kids.

100% agree, especially the point about children. In reality, while any death is tragic, I would imagine an adult's life is more tragic, because they have a huge social network and maybe children of their own that depend on them for survival.

Instead of losing a daughter, more people are losing a brother, an uncle, a father, a coworker, etc.

/flame on

Otis, how is your basic understanding of capitalism so poor?
Bad art should be made no matter what? What the hell? Are video games made out of thin air? Last I checked, video games cost millions of dollars to make. These video game companies are BUSINESSES designed to make MONEY.

"Killing art", give me a fucking break. Here, let me shit on a US flag and ask you for $50 afterwards, then bitch about it when you refuse to buy it.

What the hell does that have to do with anything?
God, that's about the worst defense ever.

Glad you admit businesses are cowards, though!