Outrage Over Konami’s “Six Days in Fallujah”

It has been only a day since the news broke of Konami’s plan to publish Six Days in Fallujah, but the game is already sparking anger as well as calls for a ban.

To be sure, releasing a video game based on one of the bloodiest and most controversial actions of the Iraq War is a public relations gamble for Konami and developer Atomic Games – especially since the war is still going on.

Early negative reactions to Six Days in Fallujah have been both sharp and diverse, with a decorated British Army officer and a representative of a U.K. peace group both expressing outrage over the game.

The U.K.’s Daily Mail reports complaints about Six Days in Fallujah by the father of a Royal Marine who died in the Iraq War. Reg Keys, whose son Thomas was killed in 2003, said:

Considering the enormous loss of life in the Iraq War, glorifying it in a video game demonstrates very poor judgement and bad taste… These horrific events should be confined to the annals of history, not trivialised and rendered for thrill-seekers to play out…

It’s entirely possible that Muslim families will buy the game, and for them it may prove particularly harrowing. Even worse, it could end up in the hands of a fanatical young Muslim and incite him to consider some form of retaliation or retribution…

I will be calling for this game to be banned, if not worldwide then certainly in the UK.

Meanwhile, former colonel Tim Collins OBE, a decorated Iraq War veteran, was equally aghast:

It’s much too soon to start making video games about a war that’s still going on, and an extremely flippant response to one of the most important events in modern history. It’s particularly insensitive given what happened in Fallujah, and I will certainly oppose the release of this game.

Tech Radar offers withering comments from Tansy Hoskins of Stop The War Coalition, a U.K. peace group:

The massacre carried out by American and British forces in Fallujah in 2004 is amongst the worst of the war crimes carried out in an illegal and immoral war. It is estimated that up to 1,000 civilians died in the bombardment and house to house raids…

The American led assault on Fallujah pretended there were no civilians left in the city [but]  over 50,000 people remained in their homes and took the brunt of the violence and chemical weapons…

To make a game out of a war crime and to capitalise on the death and injury of thousands is sick… The massacre in Fallujah should be remembered with shame and horror not glamorised and glossed over for entertainment.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on RedditEmail this to someone

99 comments

  1. estetika says:

    Now what would be the at the point of making a game like this if it were not fun to play or at least engaging enough to keep the player interested long enough to finish the game? If the game is not engaging on some level, they may not be able to earn enough money to cover development costs and start work on their next engaging piece.
    http://www.estetik1.org/

  2. mondog says:

    Er…neither of your statements is true. Iraqi insurgents took hostages, not the Iraqi army or the general population (if the general population did then your clearly doing something they don’t want i.e. your in the wrong, not them) and the Stop the war coalition never called for troops to be killed.

  3. Magic says:

    It depends how we define glamorising here. Company of Heroes, Medal of Honor and Call of Duty all treat WW2 sincerely and with respect. War is shown as the brutal death of hundreds of young men. It is ‘fun’ in the do-or-die aspect of war, but it’s not enormously historically inaccurate or misrepresenting anything, not like the cliche Hollywood movie.

    I think this game -would- necessarily be offensive if it went the same way, if it does indeed (IIRC) show the conflict from three viewpoints.

    I don’t understand this issue as there were plenty of comics glorifying WW2 during and after it – a different time and attitude, surely?

  4. Im_Blue says:

    Of course this game might not glamorise the battle. Bui mean come on right? It probably will. In fact i know it’s a big statement but I can’t think of any War game which doesnt glamorise war. Isn’t that kinda the point of a viedo game….. to be fun and stuff. Know one would play a real war game cause A) it would be fucking boring and B) most people would think it was evil, or anti-american or some such shit.

     

    Point is of course this game will glamorise the war. Is the Fallujah part un-called for? Probably, i mean but loads of civilians and children have been killed for no reason. So yeah it seems sorta fucked up to then bring out a game which will more than likley just gloss other all that shit.

    But yeah some people are right, the same wouldn’t be happening with a movie, and that does kinda suck….. but then again movies have a tendency to handle these cases with a little more dignity, or at least on a deeper level.

     

    Whoever the hell thinks a came like COD4 deals with the heavy issues of war is just silly.

  5. Elegant says:

    Even if this is the most insensitive whoring of a real tragedy, I don’t know why people would be upset that they’re getting the name Fallujah out. It’ll create controversy and shine a light on a very real event that isn’t talked about enough. When it finally does come out, call it out for being wrong, get people talking.

    If you ban this game, you are doing more of a disservice by silencing the discussion.  That’s what freedom of speech is all about. Once the game is made, pick it apart, not before.  Kneejerk reactions don’t serve anyone’s better interest.

    — XboxLive Tag: JuiceLayerJihad

  6. Iron Curtain says:

     Iraq was under a mean and bad dictator, Saddam Hussein was killing his people by genocide. 

    There are so many dictators around the world, like Kim Jong Il of North Korea or Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe for instance. That doesn’t mean we should invade them.

     Saddam would have killed more people if we didn’t came in. 

    True, but since we overthrew him, over 655K Iraqis have been killed. Finding how many people Saddam had killed was harder, seeing that there are very few good sources, except sides with axes to grind. This NY Times article will do, with this quote:

    DOING the arithmetic is an imprecise venture. The largest number of deaths attributable to Mr. Hussein’s regime resulted from the war between Iraq and Iran between 1980 and 1988, which was launched by Mr. Hussein. Iraq says its own toll was 500,000, and Iran’s reckoning ranges upward of 300,000. Then there are the casualties in the wake of Iraq’s 1990 occupation of Kuwait. Iraq’s official toll from American bombing in that war is 100,000 — surely a gross exaggeration — but nobody contests that thousands of Iraqi soldiers and civilians were killed in the American campaign to oust Mr. Hussein’s forces from Kuwait. In addition, 1,000 Kuwaitis died during the fighting and occupation in their country. 

    So that’s about 900K from 1980-2003, or 23 years, and we did 655K in 3. By now, we should have overpassed the most liberal estimates of the people whom Saddam killed.  

    should we let the jews die durng World War 2 when Hitler was killing a lot ofthem by not entering the war

    We entered WWII because of Pearl Harbor, which was a result of us Embargoing Japan because of what they did to China. If Roosevelt was really concerned about the Jews, he wouldn’t have turned so many of them away as they were fleeing Europe. Look it up. 

    To be honest, I do not think this game should be banned, because nobody should have the "freedom" not to be offended. If you’re so offended, don’t buy it.

    That being said, I’m sad so many people here are fact-challenged about the Iraq war. 

     

     

  7. TBoneTony says:

    lol

    People still don’t have a clue…

    Movies and Books are being made based on the Iraq War…

    Why not a Videogame?

    Like we do have Serious Videogames that look at current real world issues.

    I think people should SHUT THE HELL UP, PLAY THE GAME and THEN ask themselves does it glorify the war…

    Like the war has already happened, why try to stop a game of it being made when you can’t even stop the real thing from happening.

    It is not going to bring back all those people who died…

    Let others decide if they want a game based on the Iraq war or not.

    Plus Konami is one of the companies that have done videogames based on fictional wars in Metal Gear Solid.

    So they know how to make an entertaining game, all they need to do now is to make it a serious and thoughtful game and perhaps if these nuts ever bother to PLAY THE GAME…they will soon find out that it is not really glamorizing the war at all.

     

     

  8. Shahab says:

    When it comes to bloody games about death and killing, the First Amendment says: "Grip it and rip it!"

  9. axiomatic says:

    Just like beauty, appropriateness is in the eyes of the beholder.

    I think Konami should be able to make whatever game they want. If you are offended by it, don’t buy it.

    Our US politicians are far more embarrasing and inappropriate than any game, fiction or reality based, could ever be.

    If I were a Konami marketing rep I would revel in the knowledge that you’ve already got a winner on your hands if you actually make the game. Nothing sells product like political controversy.

    I think also you can not judge wether this is potentially insensitive or not until they actually pen the story. Who knows, they could handle the source material with the utmost respect just like Treyarch and Infinity Ward do with the Call of Duty games. then again they could also turn out a sensationalist piece of crap.

    The end all be all should be "No one told Konami what to do, they just did what they wanted." Thats the world I want to live in.

  10. XerxesQados says:

    To be fair, there haven’t been many war-focused games that do a good job of not glorifying the conflict. Recently, games like Brothers in Arms have leaned towards the fact that the American soldiers weren’t exactly having a great time getting killed, but I haven’t really seen any such games that effectively convey emotions other than "OMG THAT TANK JUST BLEW UP AWESOME!"

    Of course, gaming will never have a Saving Private Ryan as opposed to 7000 G.I. Joes (the cartoon, not the 1945 movie about Ernie Pyle) unless developers are allowed to try. I’d be interested in seeing if Six Days can pull it off, so banning it would be rather counter-productive.

    If the hype campaign focuses on the cover system and what types of competitive multiplayer modes there are, then I think we’ll know what they’re really trying to acheive with the current events setting. But if this game turns out to be more about emotional impact over the impact of your rocket-propelled exploding Michael Bay on The Bad Guys, I’d be very pleased.

  11. JessJames says:

    Right.

    Because that’s my whole point. Everyone has an agenda. Everyone has a slant that they want to put on things.

    It’s now almost impossible to be impartial about an issue like this, because if you have an opinion, your reporting will reflect it – even in the most subtle way.

    So while it’s not surprising that there will be people making assumptions about your intentions, and vilifying any piece of media or reporting which covers such things, it’s to be taken with a pinch of salt.

    There’s nothing wrong with presenting your side of a story – especially if your side is based on your own experiences.

    The trick is not to take anything as absolute truth, and to make sure that there is room for every side of the story, and every attempt to tell it – whatever the chosen medium might be.

  12. State says:

    Will the Stop The War Coalition remember all the illegal things that the Iraqis did? Such as hostage taken and beheadings? No because they want to pretend that the coalition troops are all evil people out to destroy all the "nice" people that live in Iraq.

    It should also be remembered that many in the Stop The War Coalition called for all the troops to be killed. Whether you agree or disagree with the war that is just plain wrong.

  13. insanejedi says:

    It’s not like games are the only medium of controversy when it comes to the Iraq war. There was a TV series "Over There" that got equally as hit even with it’s maturaty to the subject matter. Granted it also came out a lot eairlier than this. About 3 years eairlier.

  14. JessJames says:

    I’d like to throw another line of thought into this debate, if I may… (upfront apologies if I offend anyone – this is not my intent… Just offering a different point of view for the sake of discussion)

    There is a school of thought, already voiced in this news post, that America didn’t handle this very well.

    In fact… "It is estimated that up to 1,000 civilians died in the bombardment and house to house raids…

    The American led assault on Fallujah pretended there were no civilians left in the city [but]  over 50,000 people remained in their homes and took the brunt of the violence and chemical weapons…"

    Now, let’s assume for a moment (and I’m in no position to make a judgement either way – just for the purposes of conjecture) that this is in fact what happened. That American and British forces went into the town and wiped everyone out, killing thousands of civillians, and then stated "but they were all military – all the civillians had left… honest".

    Perhaps some mass media propaganda, which paints a sympathetic picture from the Allied point of view might help.

    Now while I am not saying that this is the case… I can definitely see that people might assume this. Bear in mind the developer of this game is an American company.

    If I had lived through the horror of this attack, or any part of the war, on either side of the conflict, I might not appreciate a piece of media which paints the events as a valiant victory for our brave boys against evil terrorists, completely failing to discuss any atrocities, misrepresentations or even bad decisions which occured.

    What I’m trying to say is that if there is already some feeling that Western governments are already misrepresenting these events, it doesn’t surprise me that an American made piece of media on the subject would be assumed (rightly or wrongly) to be biased, and to not accurately represent events.

    We don’t have a good track record on unbiased reporting in any media format to be honest.

    Even taking into account that the creative process here is led by soldiers who were there, these are American soldiers.

    While it is perfectly possible that this game will represent an accurate, balanced and sympathetic view on the events it’s covering from both points of view… personally, based entirely on precedent, I don’t think that "it’s an American game, so it’s bound to tell a biased pro-American story" is an unrealistic assumption.

    We are talking here about movies based on WWII, Iraq and 9/11 being analogous to this games release ?

    Anyone who looks to Hollywood for an accurate representation of history is really not looking closely enough at these things.

    The word is : Agenda.

  15. Wormdundee says:

     Another inane call for banning from people who have no idea what they’re talking about. Excellent.

    The idea for this game came from the heads of the Marines who lived it. They wanted to tell their story via video games instead of film is the only difference between them and many many other stories of battle.

    I don’t know where they get off calling it ‘glorifying’ war. This is not some arcade shooter based in Fallujah. Atomic Games specializes in combat sims, like Close Combat.

    The fact that real soldiers who fought there are consulting on this game makes me think that this will probably be one of the most emotionally charged games ever made. I know this will hit home a lot harder for me than yet another WWII game. I wasn’t alive when that happened, I wasn’t around to hear what was happening on TV and newsprint. We’ve all lived through this time period and now it’s time for the people who fought there to tell their story.

    I really hope this game doesn’t get banned anywhere, but you never can tell what with the stupidity of bureaucrats and politicians.

  16. sirdarkat says:

     Thank you that is a perfect anaology of the crap that is going on in Iraq.  Reminds me of a story my brother told me while he was on patrol they would go by an appartment complex.  Some days that complex would open fire on them and other days it was quiet.  I asked him why they didn’t level it and his response was there might be people that actually call it home and how could they tell if the person in the window was hostile our not until someone was being shot at.

  17. NovaBlack says:

    LOL the irony of trying to get a game banned…

    yet not causing enough of a fuss to get the real war stopped.

    priorities mixed up much?

     

  18. Chaltab says:

    That may be Konami’s reason for agreeing to publish it, yes, but that doesn’t mean it will be tasteless.

    And even if it does turn out that way, there’s always the option of, you know, not buying it.

  19. cpt crunchie says:

    this is terrible. the guy says it is "glorifying" the battle. what does that even mean? if by "glorifying" he means, giving a sense of respect for the men who fight to the gamer, then yes, it glorifies. and i don’t think it’s too soon. i mean, they made the movie, the book and the multiple games called black hawk down not even a decade after that debacle, and they were all tastefully done, and did nothing to "glorify" whatever the hell that means. these people just don’t like what they don’t understand.

     

    It is not murder; I am merely advancing the hands of the clock, just a bit.

  20. mdo7 says:

     

    Dude, history repeat itself.  They always blame anything for society’s ills.  They blame:

    Music

    films

    Rock N Roll music

    Dungeon and Dragons

    Rap Music

    and currently: Video game

    and in the future: anime/manga.

     

    I guess history repeat itself.  Look at the financial crisis, it’s worser then the Great Depression.  Ypu’re right, maybe according to their logic, let’s forget about Hitler, USSR, and Bin Laden.  Maybe we can put blame on video game for those.

  21. mdo7 says:

     

    Hypocrites don’t pay attention where the game took place,  If it looks like a Middle Eastern Country, they would still attack it.  Russian American would still attack and so would people in Russia, because they would think this game is anti-Russian.  Anybody can make Call of Duty 4 a big deal.  Have you ever thought of that.

     

    Hypocrite are stupid they don’t even know about the game, and they don’t even research on it.

  22. Puck says:

    Am I the only one out of all these kneejerk commentators who’ve actually read the LA Times article announcing the game? If it were Konami themselves stroking their beards and deciding unilaterally to make a game based on a very recent and bloody battle for their own gain, then yes, that would be rather tasteless.  But, as the article states,

    "’The soldiers wanted to tell their stories through a game because that’s what they grew up playing.’"

    That’s a quote from the senior brand manager at the Konami location, but it’s backed up by the input of multiple soldiers in the article.

    "One reason revolves around the stories told in the game. More than a dozen Marines are featured in documentary-style video interviews that are interspersed with the game’s action. The Marines reappear in the game itself, doing pretty much what they did during the war. One tells the story of how he furiously wrote a letter to his wife and begged a chaplain to give it to her if he died. Another, Eddie Garcia, talks about how his right leg was shredded in a mortar attack, and how he suffered survivor’s guilt after he was taken out of combat. Their actions are recreated in the game as players encounter the soldiers’ avatars."

    So this could be the arcade-style shoot-em-up that the peace groups and older veterans are villifying, or it could be the closest thing to showing the horrors of war that a videogame has ever done, and the fact that it’s based on a battle most people remember seeing in the news makes it potentially the most relevant and salient political statement in gaming, ever.

    Hopefully.  There are more details on the game than GP has mentioned, but there’s still room for it to become a disaster.  We’ll have to wait and see.

  23. vellocet says:

    What about the TV show Generation Kill?

    I fully support this game as long as they actually do it right.  And by right I mean, show proper meaning behind the situation.  An exploration of the humanity in this horrible conflict.

    I hope that this is the first step to having it’s own "Schindler’s List".  Now that would be real survival horror.

  24. chadachada321 says:

    Did you even READ his entire post? What the hell are you supposed to do when you’re put in his sort of position? Damned if you do, damned if you don’t, and you’ll still be being shot at no matter what you do. That’s why I say just pull out and let the idiots kill each other, it’s unwinnable unless we literally bomb the entirety of Iraq…

    -If an apple a day keeps the doctor away….what happens when a doctor eats an apple?-

  25. chadachada321 says:

    "These horrific events should be confined to the annals of history, not trivialised and rendered for thrill-seekers to play out…"

    So much for "learning from the past"….By his logic we should just forget about World War II because that was "horrific," hell, let’s just forget about the USSR, Hitler, Osama Bin Laden, and every other sick/twisted thing that ever happened! That would be a good idea!

    -If an apple a day keeps the doctor away….what happens when a doctor eats an apple?-

  26. Chaltab says:

    This outrage is so hypocritical. Saving Private Ryan is worthy of acadmey awards; there have been half a dozen major theatrical releases dealing with 9-11 or the events of the Iraq War. What makes this video game any different?

  27. DarkSaber says:

    Or you could do it the US way, bomb the crap out of the place, then pick through the ruins sorting bodies into piles labelled ‘Terrorists, probably’ and ‘Possibly civilian’.

    ————————————————–

    I LIKE the fence. I get 2 groups to laugh at then.

  28. USMC Colonel James Slate says:

    I’m rather divided on this topic really, I’d like to see it well put together and done so that it shows the sides well, rather than a media drama.  I can’t say what I think about the actual game until it comes out.

    I do have this to say about those that talk about the Iraq War bad, and those that say that we kill civilians when ever we feel like it.

    I want you all to know that the Iraq War is not a war, it was over the day we went in, Saddam had no hope at all of winning or getting away.  This "war" is a classic example of military doctrine and strategy, and if you think you know about war, and you’re still calling us dirty bastards, then you obviously don’t.

    Imagine walking down your street, or better yet, imagine walking into Wal-Mart, it’s a busy day at Wal-Mart, well over a hundred people there.  Your mission is to tell me how many of your fellow shoppers are Catholic and how many are Baptist, without asking them.  Now imagine that you need to know this, because they are going to try and kill each other.  Now imagine again that since you know so perfectly who’s Catholic and who’s Baptist, when they all pull out weapons and open fire at you and everyone around you chase them, or open fire, assuming you have a weapon. Now for the last bit, imagine that you fire off a few rounds and they fire off a few rounds, the power goes out in the walmart, everyone runs in random directions, and they leave guns on the ground.  Who shot at you?

    You don’t have a clue, and that’s what the "war" is really like, don’t tell me about it, till you’ve lived it.

  29. Brokenscope says:

    Cause it was set in bumfuckitstan and not iraq, and no one cares if you are shooting russian ultranationalists.

  30. GusTav2 says:

    On a sidenote: Did anyone notice the peopel complaining were all either British or decorated by the British royalty?

    It is based on a story in the UK media …

  31. mdo7 says:

     

    So how come nobody complained about Call of Duty 4 when it came out.  It had Russian and Arab/Persian as bad guys?  Nobody complains at all.  I didn’t hear the Japanese complaining about the world war 2 game (and guess what most of the MOH and COD series did a splendid job in Japan without any controversy). 

    Once again the press failed at this.

    It’s entirely possible that Muslim families will buy the game, and for them it may prove particularly harrowing. Even worse, it could end up in the hands of a fanatical young Muslim and incite him to consider some form of retaliation or retribution…

    So how come the Japanese played Medal of Honor: Rising Sun and Call of Duty: World at War with no controversey.  I don’t see the Japanese complain about those game, as a matter of fact I know one AV Idol who played Call of Duty: World at War.  She found that game to be a lot of fun for her.  I didn’t hear her calling this game blasphemy or racist or promoting anti-Japanese settlement.

    The massacre carried out by American and British forces in Fallujah in 2004 is amongst the worst of the war crimes carried out in an illegal and immoral war. It is estimated that up to 1,000 civilians died in the bombardment and house to house raids…

    uh, I think I recalled there were secterian killing committed by other people not American or British, or other peacekeeping troops.  People died in war, what do you expect?  Did you think we can bomb without killing civilians?  I don’t like it either, but this is war.  Anyone can die, what can you do.  Iraq was under a mean and bad dictator, Saddam Hussein was killing his people by genocide.  Saddam would have killed more people if we didn’t came in.  So according to this guy logic, should we let the jews die durng World War 2 when Hitler was killing a lot ofthem by not entering the war, and should we not fight back when Pearl Harbor was attacked.  Geez, this guy should have lost a relative during a terrorist attack, that way he would know what revenge and retribution is.

     

     

  32. esotericalekim says:

    Handled well, this could be a powerful and significant game. Whilst I can see that some may find it too soon after the event, I certainly believe it should be allowed to see the light of day.

    Surely there have been films already made about the conflict? If games are ever to evolve as a medium, why are they singled out when they try to tackle a serious subject matter?

    Moreover, games have the power to touch people beyond films and documentaries. Look at the scene in COD4, after the nuclear strike. I can’t believe that anyone played that and thought that the game glamorised war.

    I also agree that we’re obsessed with the fact that, because something "offends" someone, it gives them certain rights to prevent that thing being publically avaliable. You get it with T.V. and games all the time. If you don’t like it, don’t play it.

  33. Brokenscope says:

    The question is, will it be a game attempting to be Band of Brothers or a game attempting to be inglorious bastards.

  34. Praetorian says:

    While I don’t really approve of war as a whole…

    JFC!!! It’s war, people get killed! Even civilians! You honestly can’t expect a bomb to descriminate can you?

    This is a game, not the real thing. I don’t see how it’s really any different than all the damn World War 2 games that are out! WWII lost far more people than the little conflict in Iraq. I fail to see the problem with this game.

    One last thought–confining things to history books is just stupid. It’s just as bad as China removing all mentionings of Teineman Square from their history books and web pages.

    Praetorian

    "If you sit by the river long enough, you will see the body of your enemy floating by."

    http://www.myspace.com/pree_tawr_ee_uhn

  35. Pixelantes Anonymous says:

    Wow. That was quick.

    I do wonder how the critics actually know that the game will be "glorifying" anything given the fact that there is practically no information out about the game, other than the fact that real soldiers’ interviews will be featured prominently in the game. I have a hard time believing soldiers would be glorifying anything.

    http://pixelantes.blogspot.com/

  36. Freyar says:

    Is it offensive? Really? Watchdog groups, I’d really like to hear why it’s so offensive. So far all I’ve heard is that it was because of an action that they viewed as immoral/illegal.  Either way, I doubt that’s the point of this game.

    A game can be just as sad or terrifying as a book if not moreso. These people haven’t even seen the story yet for this game and already they’re chomping at the bit like seagull shouting "Ban!".

    You don’t like it? Don’t fucking buy it. I’m sick and tired of these knee-jerk reactions these groups have ALL THE TIME.

     

    On a sidenote: Did anyone notice the peopel complaining were all either British or decorated by the British royalty?

    —- There is a limit for both politicians against video games, and video games against politicians. http://www.goteamretard.com

  37. estetika says:

    I have hard time believing that Atomic Games is appropriately addressing the legitimate goal of sharing some stories. Aside from the fact that they have to seek to make money, which surely conflicts with the goals of story-telling and aside from the fact that without confidentiality, few people will really tell it like it was… the stuff that Atomic’s CEO is spewing about this game shows that the company is led by a person who doesn’t have a clue about the nature of traumatic experiences.
    http://www.estetiks.com/

  38. marine0331 says:

    Well first things first, I was in Fallujah during this fight, it was my first deployment and now im currently on my fourth to Iraq. i would like to see this game and play it and i can speak for many others who where there that i know would say the same, it will give us a chance to see what others think of our efforts during the fight. when were are there we only see the small picture of whats in front of us, we dont see any outside effects our actions have untill things like this and other media show it. another thing that can come from this is it will give the children of the MARINES who lost ther lives to see in some way what their dads went through and give them the chance even if it is a game to get revenge on the dam hajis.

  39. USMC0311 says:

    Well I hope the f*ckin bleedin-hear liberal hippies are happy. Konami is not going to release the game. You f*ckers were scared of harmless digital images on a plastic disk. This is one of my growing lists of reasons I hate liberals, they cry all the time and b*tch about everything. Thanks a lot hippies, thanks for nothin. Now I have to go back and play COD4 for the 1.8 Billionth time. Bunch of crybabies I swear, can’t have anything that could be a learning AND entertaining experience. I was lookin forward to this game, I noticed only a few people here were even near Fallujah, and we wanted the game!

    Again, thanks bleading-hearts. Thanks for denying my Marines the same rights they fight for for you. If someone was wanting to shut your lifes story down I bet you would cry and cry till someone felt sorry for you and let you have it. Can’t have a game, but sure as hell can have movies and books on it. I know we do because I have 3 different ones on Fallujah.

  40. DashiWarhawk03 says:

    That just irritates the hell outta me.  I can’t wait for this game to release!  I was there in Fallujah (an 0311 SAW Gunner at the time) and I can honestly say that there is nothing insensitive about this game.  USMC0311 and Nick Arnet got it down right:  By trying to ban this game they are taking away the very right that ANYBODY in EVERY branch of the military that has ever fought, died, bleed, sweated, and got hurt for.   And gaspar hit it right on the head as well.  This game is not insenstive as those who are being dipicted are damn near 100% on board with it and im willing to bet any amount of money that even those who died there would be as well.  F*ck the politics and f*ck their lack of understanding… let me go up against these people…ill tell these boots how things really are.

  41. syn079 says:

     

     Any subject that can have a movie or book created about it is fair game to be in a video game. Games are another medium of entertainment and art and I am excited about playing a game that can convey a strong message of what soldiers experience in war. People need to respect games more and realize that they are evolving. Creating games about real messages and real events is part of the evolution of gaming, deal with it.
  42. CRaftsman1459 says:

    OMG ITS A GAME!!! A GAME! FOR ENTERTAINMENT! PEOPLE DON’T PLAY VIDEO GAMES AND GO, "Wow! I bet this is exactly what it was like when we attacked Fallujah! This game is sooooo realistic and 100% accurate. I’m so glad it doesn’t hurt anyone’s honor or glamourize war" WAY TO BE MATURE PEOPLE OF THE WORLD, YOU’RE COMPLAINING ABOUT A GAME!

  43. USMC0311 says:

    Yes mr, nickarnett I am a combat vet and yes you are right, no game will ever be able to capture the panic, chaos and confussion of the battle field. Who is saying the story will be a bad plot, or they are after money or the the money factor will conflict with the accuracy factor? If they are serious about this game, they will be accurate. Hell they are using the words, maps, imagery, and tactics used in the fight and the stories of those who were there. Ya there may be details left out or some hollywood added, but I’m sure it will be fine. There is so little known about this game that how can anyone pass judgement? We don’t know enough about it. There is nothing keepin a game developer from acidentally making an accurate game, even a broken clock is right twice a day. Even though I have seen combat and lost a few friends and heard the cries of our wounded, I still want to see this game hit the shelves. Also, thanks nick for being diplomatic, I anticipated some negative stuff.

  44. Arkannis says:

    The United States will not join the International Criminal Court, because it would be unconstitutional for it to do so. There may be other reasons, but because of that, they are totally irrelavant.

    When it is impossible to tell the difference between hostile combatants and innocent civilians, the only prudent course is to publicly announce that anyone inside the combat zone is to be considered hostile.

    Of course, at such a juncture, it would be wise to reconsider the justification of engaging in combat in the first place.

  45. NickArnett says:

     Re: "I actually am looking forward to this game to learn what my Marines went through in different parts of the fight, what THEY saw and what THEIR STORY is. "

    That is totally legitimate.  It is definitely good for people who been through any kind of violent, chaotic cluster-f* to tell and hear each others’ stories.  It helps people live with what they experienced.  I lead those kind of debriefings frequently in crisis intervention, but I can only do that because I have sufficient training and experience.

    I have a hard time believing that Atomic Games is appropriately addressing the legitimate goal of sharing stories.  Aside from the fact that they have to seek to make money, which surely conflicts with the goals of story-telling… and aside from the fact that without confidentiality, few people will really tell it like it was… the stuff that Atomic’s CEO is spewing about this game shows that the company is led by a person who doesn’t have a clue about the nature of traumatic experiences.  

    When stories are shared badly, people don’t get healing, they are re-traumatized.  That makes Atomic’s atitude toward the game deeply worrisome to anybody who has a grasp of the psychology of critical incidents.  He fails to acknowledge that in a game, the player has ultimate control over the "situation."  I’m sure that if you are a combat veteran, you know that that just doesn’t happen in the real world.  It is out of control and no game can reproduce that.  If the CEO would admit that it is *just* a game and falls far short of the reality of war, a lot of us who are criticizing him would not have said a word, except maybe to urge the company to share its profits with veterans.

    The First Amendment protects Atomic and I wouldn’t have it any other way.  But it also protects our right to criticize the way the company is talking about it, which is naive, at best, and shows that they don’t know what they’re doing and easily could do more harm to people who are already hurting.  They have, in fact, by minimizing the reality of our losses.

    Nick, survivor of a Marine killed in Fallujah, former paramedic, current Bay Area Critical Incident Stress Management team

  46. USMC0311 says:

    I’m a Marine who has been to Iraq twice and seen firefights and what not. My unit did a screenline for the Fallujah battle and after seeing what little info there is right now for this game, I actually am looking forward to this game to learn what my Marines went through in different parts of the fight, what THEY saw and what THEIR STORY is. I know my story, I want to know theirs. Every person sees a fight different, I didn’t see what they saw. Its their story, let them tell it they way they want it told. If they want a book, ok. If they want a movie, ok. If they want a video game, ok. I see very few of you in here who know what war is really like. I see a lot of armchair generals and bleeding heart cry babies. Like some have said, if you don’t like it, don’t buy it. I know Mr. Common scence has died because of everyone getting stupid and whiny but use some common scence. We have the 1st ammendment for a reason, those of you who want to ban it because it "offensive", your infringing on their 1st ammendment right they fought for! So what if a few weak people can’t handle it? Its obviously not a game for them. Let these Marines tell the story from their perspective. I don’t recall many people wanting to ban "Fahrenheit 9/11" or "United 93" where were the outcries for them to be banned? They came out barely a year or two later. This battle was in 2004, its 2009. Almost 5 (five) YEARS LATER!! Instead of denying these warriors their right to tell their story, how about you consentrate on "stopping" the war. Imagin that, an infantry Marine with a brilliant idea! I respect everyones posts, even like a few, but come on, its a game. Its not killing anyone and its not hurting anyone. Its just digital imagery on a plastic disk. If your hurt by that… you got issues. I hope this game does get released, don’t knock it till you try it and don’t cry over something you know nothing about.

  47. NickArnett says:

     The Atomic CEO’s comments just get worse and worse.  Latest: "I can put you in the exact dilemma and situation he was in, and when you have to make those decisions yourself, you will get insight  you cannot get from any other means. You will understand that situation on a deeper level."

    I’m just flabbergasted at this hyperbole.  No game will put anybody in the exact situation.

    Will the game send Casualty Assistance Officers to notify the widows?  Will they ask if they want to be notified if they find any more parts of their husbands’ bodies?  That’s a reality of war that will never end up in any simulation.

    There’s no way a game can duplicate the psychological trauma of being in a chaotic, out-of-control situation where lives are on the line.  Game players can always step away, the ultimate control.

    To me, as survivor of a Marine killed in Fallujah, the horrible thing isn’t so much the game as the insane things that Tamte is saying.

  48. Sukasa says:

    If people are having issues with this game being made, where were they when every other war game was made?  Could it not be debated that someone could be offended by a game that sims the normady invasion?  If its ok to make a WW2, Vietnam, First Gulf War, etc then it should be ok to make an even more recent combat war game.  Otherwise, when is an acceptable time to make a game based off a war…50 years later?

  49. sirdarkat says:

     I thought the Kirby response made it more obvious I will place a /sarcasm next time 

  50. Shadow D. Darkman says:

    Seriously, people, make it more obvious. I thought he was serious.

    ——————————————————————————

  51. E. Zachary Knight says:

    Well, it still seems to me that you are saying that something cannot be entertaining and informative at the same time. That a game cannot be a "compelling entertainment experience" and a moving educational experience"

    Personally I think gaming has a great potential to pull both off at the same time.

    E. Zachary Knight
    Oklahoma City Chapter of the ECA
    http://www.theeca.com/chapters_oklahoma


    E. Zachary Knight
    Divine Knight Gaming
    Oklahoma Game Development
    Rusty Outlook
    Random Tower
    My Patreon

  52. SS says:

    ah dang i should elaborate further.  it seems i keep cutting of my posts without proper elaboration.  I apologize for that.

    What i meant was most books and movies I know about treat themselves more seriously than "an compelling entertainment experiecne" and have messages.  True they may profit and I have no problem with that.  I just hope that this game is actually tasteful.  Whether it is tasteful should be left to servicemembers and civilians in Fallujah.

    It just seemed insensitive to me, but again I am no position to judge.

  53. E. Zachary Knight says:

    Okay, had you said that in the first place this conversation would have gone a whole different direction.

    That said, what is wrong with making money off of your work? Do you think that all the books, articles and films based on the Iraq war were made solely for information value? Do you honestly believe they were not done to make either the author/director or the publishing body money? If so, I think you may be a little niave.

    Now what would be the point of making a game like this if it were not fun to play or at least engaging enough to keep the player interested long enough to finish the game? If the game is not engaging on some level, they may not be able to earn enough money to cover development costs and start work on their next engaging piece.

    Not all informative works need to be done for free. They are intitled to make money off of it.

    E. Zachary Knight
    Oklahoma City Chapter of the ECA
    http://www.theeca.com/chapters_oklahoma


    E. Zachary Knight
    Divine Knight Gaming
    Oklahoma Game Development
    Rusty Outlook
    Random Tower
    My Patreon

  54. SS says:

    i should have elaborated.  The publisher’s themselves say "in the end, this is just another game" and its its "compelling entertainment".  Their main goal seem to trying to make a entertainment product and profit of it. 

     that’s why i think its insensitive.

  55. Wraith108 says:

    In the Wiki article about the game some of the Marines that were in Fallujah met some people in the company that’s making it and suggested that a game should be made.

  56. Liz Surette says:

    Whether something is in poor taste or not is entirely up to the viewer/player, and no one should try to trivialize another person’s feelings on the matter one way or the other. Having said that, we don’t allow the feelings of some to have veto power over the speech of others.

    I don’t know the real motives of anyone involved in this creation process, whether they want to make a significant statement or just capitalize. But consider this: playing a WWII game feels quaint and fantastical, no matter how realistic it is. "Oh well that happened before I was born so whatever." If a developer wanted to really depict the horror and heartbreak of modern warfare, wars we haven’t lived through just won’t do it.

    http://www.gameslaw.net

  57. metroidprimegmr says:

    ———> joke

        (0_0)   your head

    _____________________________________________

    Jack Thompson: future Good Burger employee of the month

  58. CMiner says:

    I thought Iran had already made something like that?

    Regardless: Yes, if it were developed it should not be banned.

    I would be angry.  I wouldn’t buy the game.  But I wouldn’t want it to be banned simply because it would be offensive, or in opposition to my viewpoint.

    Because then, later down the road, what would be stopping the government from telling me that -my- viewpoint was offensive, and could not be expressed?

    And that’s why this is such a larger issue that just video games.  When we get the government to ban things like this, we effectively empower the government to decide what is or isn’t okay to say.  And that is a very dangerous power for a government to have.

  59. E. Zachary Knight says:

    Are you suggesting that such a thing should not exist? That is what I am getting at. Remember that Virtual Jihadi game that was supposed to show at that schools art show but everyone complained because it was from a terrorist’s point of view? What happened to that? Hint: http://www.gamepolitics.com/2008/07/21/renewed-controversy-over-iraqi-artist039s-virtual-jihadi-game

    Personally, I see no problem with games expressing themselves from any point of view. If a certian culture or developer favors one point of view over another, that is their decision. Whether  I will play the game or consider that point of view after palying, is entirely my decision.

    Just because a game brings up a controversial subject, does not mean it should not be made or allowed to be made. That is why we have the freedom of speech.

    E. Zachary Knight
    Oklahoma City Chapter of the ECA
    http://www.theeca.com/chapters_oklahoma


    E. Zachary Knight
    Divine Knight Gaming
    Oklahoma Game Development
    Rusty Outlook
    Random Tower
    My Patreon

  60. Shadow D. Darkman says:

    Video games are not just for kids. Adults play them too.

    ——————————————————————————

  61. chadachada321 says:

    To be completely honest, I think that a truly unbiased game about the events of 9/11 and everything leading up to it/the aftereffects of it would be a good thing to have. Interactive, educational, unbiased. Sounds perfect to me

    -If an apple a day keeps the doctor away….what happens when a doctor eats an apple?-

  62. JB says:
    Just to pay devil’s advocate…
     
    What about a game based on 9/11 from the terrorist’s point of view, developed in Iran (just because their vocal about anti-Americanism)?
  63. lumi says:

    "IMO I thought the onslaught of 9/11 movies was more distasteful…"

    I think I agree with this.

  64. Ganjookie says:

    +1

    Why can others profit from this, yet game devs/publishers are again singled out as being insensative clods.  Maybe profit is the wrong word for this even.  This is an interactive documentary on the incidents that took place in Fallujah.

    IMO I thought the onslaught of 9/11 movies was more distasteful…

     

    Trevor Gray ganjookie@yahoo.com

  65. sirdarkat says:

     But it might hurt someones feeling and therefore is not allowed as a topic for video games … after all video games are only for little kids and should never ever address anything relevant.

    Now I have to go back to playing Kirby of course since Kirby has an eating disorder (eats everything and throws it back up OMG) and hes chubby I might have to place it also on the list of games that are insensitive and not allowed.

  66. E. Zachary Knight says:

    So? Gang violence is still quite prevalent throughout the world, but that does not stop games like 50 Cent, 25 to Life or GTA from being made.

    The fact that the war is still going on has not stopped people from writing books essays and articles ro making documentaries etc. So why can we not make a game based on current events?

    E. Zachary Knight
    Oklahoma City Chapter of the ECA
    http://www.theeca.com/chapters_oklahoma


    E. Zachary Knight
    Divine Knight Gaming
    Oklahoma Game Development
    Rusty Outlook
    Random Tower
    My Patreon

  67. gaspar says:

    "It’s much too soon to start making video games about a war that’s still going on, and an extremely flippant response to one of the most important events in modern history. It’s particularly insensitive given what happened in Fallujah, and I will certainly oppose the release of this game."

    allow me to paraphrase:

    "As a member of the millitary I am willing to fight and die for freedom. However since I don’t take your medium seriously, and I personally wouldnt enjoy it, I would like to deny you those same freedoms. In this way, I am essentially the same as the tyrants I sought to overthrow."

    sound about right?

  68. abeck99 says:

    If anything it can look at the situation more critically than most war movies do: Look at CoD4:MW, that doesn’t glamorize modern war.

  69. Ganjookie says:

    Ya know if I saw a game called "Super-Mormon Killing RPG" and then read the description that it was a game based on the persecution of Mormons through Missorui, Ohio and New York, from the point of the persecutors I’d probably get a basic understanding of what it is and not introduce it to my 10year old nephew, though I may not be "traumatized", he may have issues.

    Of course this comes from a Jack mormon who has not gone church in 14 years, and I wasnt alive for the persecutions…..

    Just saying…

    Trevor Gray ganjookie@yahoo.com

  70. Kojiro says:

    If it was a movie, you wouldn’t hear anything about it.

    I always wonder, what is the expiration date on these things?  It’s bad taste until what date?  I suspect that is a relative answer.  Survivors of victims would probably have a much later expiration date that detached bystanders, while actual participants might never be ready.  I remember Jacob’s Ladder, a lot of vets just couldn’t watch it, and that was 15 years after the war ended.

  71. mondog says:

    No, let the people who lived there and had white phosphorus dumped on them be the judge. I’m sure it was horrible for some of the service men but a whole lot more terrible for the people that lived there and are still living there. 

    Next they’ll be making Israel vs Hamas, Russia vs Chechan rebels, Sri Lanka vs Tamil Tigers and other tasteful takes on a completely one sided battles with questionable ethics.

  72. DarkSaber says:

    "When did we become a society that banned everything that might be offensive to someone else?"

    Here in the UK that would be when Carmageddon was released, and then again with Manhunt 2.

    ————————————————–

    I LIKE the fence. I get 2 groups to laugh at then.

  73. CMiner says:

    Sure it may be in very poor taste, and very offensive.  But is that justification for a ban?  No.

    When did we become a society that banned everything that might be offensive to someone else?  I find cursing offensive, but do I think it ought to be banned?  No, because the right to free speech is far more important.

    Once the government has the right to ban things that are "offensive", or in "poor taste", it opens the door for all sorts of censorship.  Look at China and all the things that it bans that might offend ‘national pride’.  Its just another door opened for a totalitarian government to develop.

    Boycott the game, if you find it offensive.  Lobby the makers of the game.  Organize protests to publicize your reasons for boycotting the game.

    But the government should not step in.

  74. Vake Xeacons says:

     This is one I can’t actually comment on. I never saw battle. I can’t tell you how it really feels, although I’ve heard the horror stories from fellow veterans. 

    I say let the troops who’ve actually been in Iraq judge.

  75. GusTav2 says:

    You know what if you are stupid enough to stay in a city that you know is about to be ground zero for hell then you sir are an idiot and natural selection is at work.  I understand the desire to not "give up your home" but frankly there is a time to make such a stand and a time not too.  The US forces tried to give as much notice as possible so the cilivians knew to get out of dodge and that if they stayed they were in harms way.  On top of this I question their numbers; when the enemy doesn’t wear a uniform is not actually part of any military then who gets to label who as a combatant and non combatant.

    That’s exactly why the US won’t sign up to the ICC. Crimes against Humanity are only things you prosecute – not things you are subject to.

    The protection of civillians in combat is important – you can simply require them to get out of ‘Dodge’ – this is not the Wild West (TM).

  76. sirdarkat says:

    It’s entirely possible that Muslim families will buy the game, and for them it may prove particularly harrowing. Even worse, it could end up in the hands of a fanatical young Muslim and incite him to consider some form of retaliation or retribution… 

    What a poor argument … I guess we shouldn’t do anything that would upset anyone because god knows they might go nuts … I guess this person also failed because this statement is pissing me off I wonder if he worries this statement will be the one that pushes me over the edge probably not because I’m not a Muslim which just says a whole lot about him.

    It’s much too soon to start making video games about a war that’s still going on, and an extremely flippant response to one of the most important events in modern history. It’s particularly insensitive given what happened in Fallujah, and I will certainly oppose the release of this game.

    But movies and books those are A-OK

    illegal and immoral war

    Glad we have a group such as these to tell us which wars are illegal and immoral and which ones aren’t.

    It is estimated that up to 1,000 civilians died in the bombardment and house to house raids… 

    You know what if you are stupid enough to stay in a city that you know is about to be ground zero for hell then you sir are an idiot and natural selection is at work.  I understand the desire to not "give up your home" but frankly there is a time to make such a stand and a time not too.  The US forces tried to give as much notice as possible so the cilivians knew to get out of dodge and that if they stayed they were in harms way.  On top of this I question their numbers; when the enemy doesn’t wear a uniform is not actually part of any military then who gets to label who as a combatant and non combatant.   

  77. NovaBlack says:

    Considering the enormous loss of life in the Iraq War, glorifying it in a video game demonstrates very poor judgement and bad taste…

     

    um… who says the game glorifies it? What evidence is that based on? because its a video game it must be glorifying it? that makes NO sense. Thats like saying you cant write a book on the war, because it glorifies it. Or you cant write a book about an experience of child abuse, because it glorifies it. Or you cant make a movie like schindlers list, because it ‘glorifies’ genocide . Geez. The irony of that last one is immense since it does the exact opposite.

     

  78. Alex says:

    Bingo.

    Also, what the frick is this about "A Muslim family might buy it and be traumatized by it?" It’s not like Konami’s going to hide the title and put a fake description on the box. If a Muslim family sees it in the store and thinks they might be traumatized by it, why the HECK would they buy it?

    I’m not under the affluence of incohol as some thinkle peep I am. I’m not half as thunk as you might drink. I fool so feelish I don’t know who is me, and the drunker I stand here, the longer I get.

  79. Cerabret100 says:

    These horrific events should be confined to the annals of history, not trivialised and rendered for thrill-seekers to play out…

     

    And yet the entirety of our lecture in my Asia And The World class composed of Previews and Clips of Vietnam movies…confined to the annals of history my ass.

     

    Do see why this is a bit stupid on Konami’s part though.

  80. CMiner says:

    A very good point.  Games have been used to send a political message before, why would it be wrong for a commercial entity to do the same?

  81. MartyB says:

     If done right, this game should be encouraged IMO.  If they get all they’re facts right and make it a true representation of what happened, this could be a good way of informing ppl of what it was like.

     

    Or they just ran out of Wars to play out so they had to use an ongoing one… we keep saying we’re tired of WWII games…

  82. JC says:

    There is no information about the game apart from name. Konami never claimed they were glamorizing it. No one truly knows what happened out there unless they experienced it in their eyes. Perhaps this game may be used to help shed some light on that (but I doubt it).

    What I’m expecting (since this war isn’t over yet), they’ll have the premise of the war and then just have it finish at some random moment w/o closure and then they’ll want to introduce DLC for the true outcome.

Comments are closed.