bit-gamer.net

Konami drops Fallujah war game

Konami drops Fallujah war game

Konami has decided to drop Six Days in Fallujah after continued controversy and poor critical reactions.

Konami has decided to drop the controversial Iraq-based war shooter, Six Days in Fallujah, after continuing controversy and negative critical response

The game had supposedly attempted to tell the stories of real marines in the battle of Fallujah and was being developed by Atomic Games for the PC, PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360. Though the team was claiming that it wanted to portray the realism of the conflict however, several critics who saw the game reported that the game was little more than a Gears of War clone.

The game also drew criticism for the subject matter it was attempting to deal with too, with the controversy eventually getting too hot for Konami to bear and forcing the publisher to drop the third-person squad-based shooter.

"We had intended to convey the reality of the battles to players so that they could feel what it was like to be there," said a Konami spokesperson in a comment to Asahi.com.

"[But] after seeing the reaction to the videogame in the United States and hearing opinions sent through phone calls and email, we decided several days ago not to sell it."

It's currently unclear if the game, which was never announced for Europe but which was set for release next year in the US, will be picked up by a new publisher or if Atomic Games will drop the project too. If we hear any more then we'll let you know.

Can games be effectively used to portray the horrors of war, or does their status as interactive entertainment make that aim too difficult to realise? Let us know your thoughts in the forums.

14 Comments

Discuss in the forums Reply
johnnyboy700 27th April 2009, 12:30 Quote
Is this an indication that in some quarters, video games are still seen as something for children and should not be used to "trivialise" adult subjects like war?
Mentai 27th April 2009, 13:41 Quote
I don't think it has anything to do with video games being associated with children, but has everything to do with a current war being trivialised. Soldiers are still risking their lives in Iraq. To have the option of playing themselves with regenerating health thanks to a cover system designed to enhanced gameplay simply isn't respectful. How can you claim to be trying to convey the horrors of war when you are enhancing the experience to do the opposite?

They could have done this well. They could have made it ultra realistic and creatively dealt with death to make it less trivial in games. But they chose to mainstream it. I don't see how they could have expected a different reaction.

Having said all that, I'm surprised they dropped it to be honest. I would have thought all this publicity, whilst negative, would have guaranteed a high level of sales. I still expect this to be published by someone else.
Psytek 27th April 2009, 14:21 Quote
I think americans just want to preserve the idea that their armed forces are noble and to be idolized... acurately depicting the realities of combat would probably destroy all enthusiasm for the armed forces amongst all the 'patriots' who 'support the troops.'
bowman 27th April 2009, 15:58 Quote
Weak.
Skiddywinks 27th April 2009, 16:42 Quote
I think Psytek has a point.

Personally, I think it's a shame that, what is in essence a creative company, has been forced to not create the "art" they wanted to. I realise people are dying out there, but no one is forcing them to. I'm sure the majority of soliders you asked would not give a ****. The war is much bigger than the game. So what if it comes out? Is it going to affect squadies on tour at all? No, it wouldn't.

Usually, the only people that get offended are the ones with the least relevance.
biebiep 27th April 2009, 17:03 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mentai
I don't think it has anything to do with video games being associated with children, but has everything to do with a current war being trivialised. Soldiers are still risking their lives in Iraq. To have the option of playing themselves with regenerating health thanks to a cover system designed to enhanced gameplay simply isn't respectful. How can you claim to be trying to convey the horrors of war when you are enhancing the experience to do the opposite?

They could have done this well. They could have made it ultra realistic and creatively dealt with death to make it less trivial in games. But they chose to mainstream it. I don't see how they could have expected a different reaction.

Having said all that, I'm surprised they dropped it to be honest. I would have thought all this publicity, whilst negative, would have guaranteed a high level of sales. I still expect this to be published by someone else.

The entire point of the game was to make combat look like hell, to have 1 bullet kill you, to have misery and pain as the main theme.

The game WASN'T meant to be some unrealistic shooter in Iraq
Star*Dagger 27th April 2009, 17:20 Quote
The full correct name of the game was to be Imperialism:Six Days in Fallujah?
thehippoz 27th April 2009, 17:39 Quote
wow props to konami.. they could probably release it without any controversy if they had just waited- makes you wonder what mental midget came up with this idea.. looks like the game critics thought it was alot less original than the hype created (what's new) :D

I would think this would offend iraqi's too- mean sure you can look at it and say it's just a game- get over it.. it's still in bad taste until everyone is back home..
LeMaltor 27th April 2009, 19:49 Quote
Lame.
Redbeaver 27th April 2009, 20:26 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by bowman
Weak.

very.
Sheiken 27th April 2009, 22:24 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skiddywinks
I think Psytek has a point.

Personally, I think it's a shame that, what is in essence a creative company, has been forced to not create the "art" they wanted to. I realise people are dying out there, but no one is forcing them to. I'm sure the majority of soliders you asked would not give a ****. The war is much bigger than the game. So what if it comes out? Is it going to affect squadies on tour at all? No, it wouldn't.

Usually, the only people that get offended are the ones with the least relevance.

So true!
choupolo 27th April 2009, 23:24 Quote
Only from what I'd read, my impression was that it was shaping up to be a Delta Force: Black Hawk Down clone but in Iraq instead of Somalia.

That game was too easy, and pretty much a shooting gallery which made you as an American soldier seem invincible. Would make you want to shout "Hoo-rah!" in various comical ways.

If this was the case then props to Konami for bailing out on a game which could have been embarrasingly flag-wavingly pro U-S-A.

If the game was a considered representation of the middle-eastern conflict as a whole (which I doubt if you have regenerating health), and bailing was merely because they were scared of diving head first into a pool full of controversy then yep - weak.
liratheal 28th April 2009, 11:05 Quote
..Pathetic.

If Atomic drop this I'll lose all respect for the company. Christ, RWS didn't drop the postal games, and they're banned in a huge number of countries.

Konami seem to have forgotten that critics are, well, critical by the nature of their job. Of course they're going to slag it off at every given opportunity. It's what they do.

I doubt this is, or was, a 'gears of war' clone by any stretch of the imagination.

Bah. I'm so infuriated I can't even put together a cohesive argument at the moment.
MrMonroe 28th April 2009, 17:30 Quote
Aww weak. I was looking forward to this, and in the way I was looking forward to Bioshock.
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums