Share this article:
 Digg.com Facebook Google Bookmarks N4G Gamerblips del.icio.us Reddit Slashdot.org StumbleUpon Understandable seeing as it's still an ongoing conflict over there opposed to WW2 and Vietnam games.
Shame for the developers though. They should have dropped Fallujah from the title and just given the countries / towns made up names like other games have done.
*I've not read anything about the game itself, so sorry if I've missed out a main controversial part of the game like.....actually, just gonna leave it. Scaredy cats. Although I couldn't care less for the idea for the game, It's a huge step backwards for gaming as a whole. It's "proof" if you like that gaming is still not accepted as mature media by the masses as comics, tv shows and films depict this sort of thing all the time and no one bats an eyelid.
So I guess it's back to chainsawing aliens in half or running over faceless civilians for us. It's all about context I suppose. Usually I'd agree with the view that no game should be pulled. But in this case I don't. The Iraq war is just the latest in a long list of capitalism fuelled wars, led by America. History will judge it as genocide. If you don't agree, or are ignorant of the facts, read the Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein. Not entirely true. There are movies that have to walk a fine line not to be slapped with all sorts of censorship or outright bans (and this happens frequently around the globe). While the film industry may be more recognised in the mainstream it doesn't have a carte blanche when it comes to being accepted no matter what the theme/topic and how it's depicted.
I'm not surprised by Konami's decision at all. Frankly I considered it an ill-thought out notion to base the name of the game on the Battle of Fallujah given the controversy surrounding the Iraq War (which is still not relegated to the annals of history). As another poster said, had they used fictitious names it probably would have made it under the radar. Someone in charge at either the publisher or the developer should have seen this coming from a mile away. Agree with KFD - its one thing to depict recent controversial events in film as Battle for Haditha and Generation Kill did, but if Hollywood did a dumb Nicholas Cage blockbuster set around Fallujah, there would be a backlash.
Konami didn't say anything to suggest that the game would be more akin to the former rather than the latter. Gaming does get a lot of unfair stick, but if it wants to be treated like a grown up medium, it has to act like it. why is this any different from The mark of Cain,Ross Kemp in Afghanistan and also Home of the brave , Fall of the Warrior King, wich are both coming soon. This is just proof that gaming is still stuck in rut I just wish that publishers weren't so scared of a bit of controversy after all it has never done Rockstar any harm pussys.
like they never seen an outcry. waste of all of our times.
dont agree any amount of time has to pass before "depicting" it in a movie/game.
what changes in all the years after that makes it acceptable?!
nothing. its do-gooders, nosey *****, and general british moaning toss pots that like to make a fuss over something which has **** all to do with them.
give it a good few decades and they forget all about it. it suddenly (or gradually!) becomes a tribute. I'm not being rude or confrontational but how would you suggest it does that other that what it is already doing? Or is that just a pithy throw away statement? good news, don't want this kind of shit around anyway. It's even more laughable when you consider games like Arma on the PC have Iraq mods. If Konami had called it something like 'Line of Duty' it wouldn't have been a problem. Maybe the game was just not cutting the mustard as there have been plenty of games released that have caused upset/outcries etc. Ah well maybe they will try and release it from another angle in the future. :cry: You can`t honestly be thinking Konami have binned a game that was about to be released,its a ADVERTISMENT ploy this game will be released under a different name,they then release it start some rumours spread on the web that its the banned or deleted game and everyone wants it because they think its edgy and cool. For one thing, presumably neither you nor I (nor anyone on this forum), stormed the beaches of Normandy and thus we can not fully relate to the horrors of WWII no matter how many documentaries we watch. While we may be able to grasp part of it, it will not be as "real" to us as it was, and is, to those who actually lived it. The same principle applies here. Now, you may not think it's in poor taste and perhaps even some of the soldiers who took part in the Battle of Fallujah might not, yet it will trigger strong feelings in many people apparently.
Try to compare it to a recent experience that made you feel sad, mad, unhappy, etc. In time those feelings fade a bit and the memory of the event that inspired those feelings becomes easier to revisit and bear. The same concept applies to this scenario. christ................... That's my thinking as well, with the amount of money that they have probably put into the game already I doubt they will just bin it altogether, its like someone said earlier, they could make it about some fictional war and it would put an end to most of the controversy.
I'm still shocked that they even considered releasing a game like this though, the article said that they pulled it because of negative feedback, what exactly did they think was going to happen.
And @ grasshopper, would you be so keen to see the game released if you had lost a family member in this battle or at any stage during the iraq war?, its easy to be selfish and demand that they release the game but it would be upsetting a lot of people if they did. Exactly they have invested time and money in this game so it may get released under another guise (hopefully I'm very wrong about the build quality of the game).
I must say I'm on the fence about releaseing a game like this with it's subject matter as yes I can see where people would get upset offended by the game obviously, but also knowing what the game is and it's subject matter would hopefuly mean that if you had suffered personally from the War that you wouldn't buy it.
Either way Konami have made their choice on what is happening in the short term regarding this game. 8) they could call it 2187 days in baghdad instead.
and if i lost a relative in the war, i wouldnt be any more opposed to a iraq game.
its more selfish to can it then to release it i believe.
1000s died, loads of limbs blown off, people made handicapped for the rest of their days. and what, should we brush it under the carpet?!
pretend it never happened because of the PC idiots?!
the media make a living whoring the coverage of the war. why cant someone make a factual game?! I never said that we should brush it under the carpet but, surely they shouldn't glorify it by releasing a game about it either. If I took part in the battle I would hate to think that some suits from konami were making mountains of money by releasing a game based on something I suffered greatly for.
And you say it would be a factual account of what happened, just how factual do you think it would be?, It would conveniently leave out any parts that would make the US forces look like anything but heroes While I most certainly don't agree with grasshoppers rather abusive tone I can't agree with your own logic here either.
Games featuring a wide range of conflicts have been made when people who fought in those conflicts have still been alive and in some cases have acted as consultants on games.
Take Dale Dye (retired Marine Captain)...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dale_Dye
...as an example. A Vietnam veteran he has worked on numerous films and games over the years.
Games do not have to be different films or TV series in this regard at all, its not a matter of content or subject matter but a case of how it is handled.
Many people on here are automatically condemning it as being an insult or upsetting to the families of those involved.
Well in my opinion a few things need to be kept in mind here.
First family of marines have both objected and supported the game (and the idea for the game came from serving Marines in the first place).
Secondly the context the game puts the battle in has not been shown in full, and as none of us has actually played it, that's a rather presumptuous thing to do. The likes of 'Over There' and 'Generation Kill' are not considered offensive because of the way they treat the subject matter (I would however say they are still considered upsetting to some).
Finally I would ask, how long is OK then? I ask because it does seem to have been forgotten that both Conflict Desert Storm and Black Hawk Down games came out well within living memory of both conflicts.
Censorship by the mass media without intelligent discussion and debate is one of the most dangerous routes a society can take. Someone will always be upset and/or offended by films/games/TV; that doesn't mean it should automatically be banned.
Always keep in mind with any form of media you have the ultimate control, you can chose not to watch/play/buy that which offends you. However as long as that material was made within the letter of the law, I do not believe that anyone has the right to ban it.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
- Evelyn Beatrice Hall (not Voltaire as many believe). I never said that we should brush it under the carpet but, surely they shouldn't glorify it by releasing a game about it either. If I took part in the battle I would hate to think that some suits from konami were making mountains of money by releasing a game based on something I suffered greatly for.
And you say it would be a factual account of what happened, just how factual do you think it would be?, It would conveniently leave out any parts that would make the US forces look like anything but heroes Pretty sure that the Marines from this conflict were the ones who went to the Devs with the idea for the Game and they have been consultants on the project since day 1.
It might not be everyones cup of tea and some people may find it to be in poor taste but no way and I mean absolutley no way should they can a Game because of its content.
Are we all Daily Mail readers here or something? doesnt have to be glorifying it.
why does having control in a game make it worse than a box office film which probably make a lot more?!
its all in the mind.
and they should have kept abuses in. and have a yang to that ying. which all good stories need.
also wouldve liked to have seen an achievement; "sweaty sandal dodged - bronze trophy" not suprised considering the controversy around the issue
Personally I'm not bothered either way as it didn't look all that good as a game, and the setting for it doesn't really bother me either. War has become everyday news, it's bull. It's not even a proper war anymore, just remnant militant forces trying to drive friendly forces out.
Flash501, you have a pretty strange way of looking at it. I sincerely hope you have never played on a WWII game, because otherwise you're being a massive hypocrite. Aside from the fact that media moguls are making 'massive amounts of cash' from the war already.
GAMES ARE NOT THE STIGMA OF OUR SOCIETY. PEOPLE ARE. Are those that see this as no big problem even aware of what happened in the 'Battle for Fallujah'? It must be the single most controversial engagement of the entire 'war on terror' deathfest to date.
If you truely believe that literally anything goes - that you should be able to make any real horror into dumb entertainment - then fair enough. Suspect many are just being hypocrites though, and wouldn't be so keen on a lot of other controversial topics.
As for the argument that studios should be able to handle difficult topics - of course they should, but only if they do it in an intelligent, meaningful manner. From what I'd read of this game, plus Konami's track record, Fallujah was nothing more than some branding to stick on a generic war FPS. If it was more than that, they should have had the smarts to make that clear from the start. Yes, my son? and?!
they made a movie about schindlers list or the nazi camps.
surely thats a worse event. »
A good question and one that is likely to have a subjective answer depending on whom you ask. I am quite aware that games and movies have been made about wars while participants were (and in some cases, still are,) alive. WWII was vastly different in that it is widely viewed as one of the last wars in more modern times where there was a clear "bad guy" thus making the returning soldiers heroes. That bad things were done by some Allied forces too (ex. the dubious strategic value of bombing Dresden near the end of the war, the mass rapings and pillaging of the advancing Red Army, etc.) still haven't tarnished that overall perception. Vietnam was different and the same goes for the Iraq War. The Gulf War was seen as justified by many and was hailed as a return to American military merit and honour after the perceived loss of it at the end of the Vietnam War.
It's not so much about a war being covered by a game while participants are still alive, as it is about how soon after the conflict and in what manner it is presented in, in relation to people - military & civilian - involved with it directly and even indirectly thanks in part to the global spanning media and communications capabilities we have available today. Given that the Iraq War is arguably not over yet and as of yet uncertain knowledge of how Konami would portray the setting I consider it a better decision to can it or re-name it than proceed under the current moniker.
P.S. As for Voltaire, here are two of my favourite quotes from that witty Frenchman:
"Common sense is not so common."
&
"I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: "O Lord make my enemies ridiculous." And God granted it." »
Nope, no daily Mail here, however I disagree that no form of censorship should ever exist. That said, I do think it is a slippery slope and great care must be exercised when engagin in censorship. Without censorship 5 year olds would have access to XXX pornography and 18+ games legally. I like to think most of us don't generally think that's the optimal way to foster and nurture the future minds and personalities of society at large. Conversely having "Big Brother" monitoring everything is not particularly appealing either, in my opinion. Yet the way in which "Schindler's List" was presented engaged the audience and encouraged reflection and food for thought on the terrible hubris that was committed in the Nazi concentration camps. Thus, while a heavy and dark subject, it provided something other than just mindless, "shoot anything that moves" entertainment. *That's* the difference. If you can't, or won't, comprehend that then it may be a distinction lost on you. Funny thing about it, if you go to the British Army's web site they have video games that allow you experience what it's like to be a soldier. Including a training mission in Basra. I'm more than aware of what happened during the Battle for Fallujah, and that claim and counter claim has been made about it by many different parties. I'm also aware that both sides could be accused of being miss-leading in regard to it. The American DoD have been less than forthcoming about many details of the battle, and equally the press who have been critical of the US have been guilty of miss-reporting (including the use of eyewitness' who were never actually present).
I would also argue that you have not read up a great deal about this title if you believe its simply branding stuck on a generic FPS.
I would also ask if you have ever seen film Black Hawk Down or played the game of the same name. If so you (and if you know anything about the actually events that took place) you would know that both these titles took similar 'liberties' with the actual events. The game admittedly more than the film.
This was a battle in which 19 US soldiers died and the Somali lost between 500 and a thousand (many of whom were women and children).
I certainly hope that you extend the same critic to it.
I don't however as I take them for what they are, the film most certainly doesn't glorify the US actions in Somalia, and while it does focus on the US side of the battle it does a fine job of showing just how horrific modern warfare is.
One could argue here that 'history is written by the victors' could apply here to a degree.
The many. many war films made during and after the end of the second world war were propaganda pure and simple, and to such a degree that many would generate the same outcry today as this game is.
You see for me that would be the even bigger hypocrisy, a simple rename.
Why is a game set in a fictional country any more or less disturbing than one set in a real country? I would argue that the location is not the question, rather the treatment of the subject and location is.
Its for that exact reason why 'Over There' and 'Generation Kill' are acceptable, and yet many people condemned both of these programmes in advance of them being shown for the exact same reason why people are condemning this game. They object to the idea of them regardless of the context or exact content, often doing so on behalf of other people.
Nice What do you want to bet that is for recruitment purposes and not just "idle entertainment"? That's a fair point to make as I have played WW2 games before, the main problem I have with this game however is that it's not from a war as "black and white" as WW2, in WW2 games you play as the allies as you try to defeat the nazi's, it can't be misinterpreted, however you don't need me to tell you that there are several questions marks over the US troops occupation of Iraq. If this game came out it would surely make the US troops out to be the squeaky clean heroes and ALL the Iraqis to be terrorists.
Also, when I made the point that I would be unhappy about konami making money from the war if I had been a part of it I was just trying to prove a point to grasshopper that these are some of the things that konami would have to take into account before deciding to release a game about a war such as this, or indeed WW2 or any war for that matter. Yeah that's right, as it's for recruitment it wouldn't be entertaining.
It's very entertaining and very funny in parts as well with a touch of black humour. I particularly liked the blow out a wall rather than open a door rule. Hopefully COD 6 or what ever it's called will use that. Maybe you should try it before passing comment. »
So in other words you have to engage in the usual tap dancing antics and yet you still end up agreeing with me. Thanks for that. »»
If the game is good enough for the British Army it's good enough for me. Bring it on Konami. Once again we see presumptions about how the game will be and how it will portray the various parties involved. I particularly like the bit about all Iraqis as terrorists, kind of doubt that one as a number of Iraqi army brigades fought alongside the US forces (as did members of the British army the Black Watch and SBS).
While the aim of WWII (the overthrow of Hitler, etc) was arguably a Good vs Evil exercise if you think its as simple as that they quite frankly I worry about peoples understanding of the events that took place.
Go read up about Stalin (who was on our side) and you will find a man who was on par with Hitler in many, many ways. The fire-bombings (and worse) of Dresden have already been mentioned here, if you want I can list incidents of kindness and brutality from both sides of the second World war.
Once you get part the headline details it was a far from black and white conflict, with both sides committing acts that make this one look tame.
I hope you extend similar judgement to other companies that have made money off of conflicts around the globe. From General Motor's involvement with the Nazi's (hope no one in your family drives a Vauxhall) to MS getting good marketing cover from proving 360s to troops in Iraq to just about any petrol company.
The funny thing about war is that it is unfortunately very good for business, and by that I mean almost any and all business. The problem here is that using the name 'faluja' is akin to using the name 'gaza-strip'. Imagine a game called '6 days in the Gaza-Strip' and you begin to see the prblem. You can't turn anything realistic that could be seen as humiliating or oppresive into a game, it's as simple as that.
Black Hawk down was a game about rescueing soldiers in effectively a criminal ghetto not an invasion of nation that didn't actually do anything wrong etc. etc. »»»
Sheesh. Are you really that clueless? Sure, the public gets the bonus of playing a game but the likely main objectives from the military's perspective would be to: 1) Create a game that can help simulate live combat and thus contribute to troop training, and 2) serve as a "cool factor" recruitment tool by generating interest amongst game playing youth. Oh, and in case you didn't read this article Konami announced they are dropping the game at present time.
Now, feel free to come with some tedious, trite and altogether uninspiring "come back" that completely fails to address the heart of the matter as per usual. Wanker »»»»
For a guy that started crying the other week when he was called a few names you're very quick at dishing it out aren't you. I'll continue to give my opinion on articles regardless of your view. I have just as much of a clue as yourself. Very, very rich of you to call anyones comments tedious, tride and uninspiring when you are in fact as guilty of that yourself. \
:lol: »»»»»
Aww! Is someone upset that their fraudulent account got banned? :wink: oh my what a witty, intelligent reply! I'm so impressed Of course you are. Sadly, being able to answer questions or directly address a specific topic (such as the previous comments about the military using a game as a training and recruitment tool,) appears to come with less ease. »
WOW what a witty, intelligent reply. You don't come across as a pompous moron at all! If you take the time to read my post again you would see that nowhere did I say that the things you mentioned didn't happen. All I did was voice MY OPINION that had konami released this game this is the direction they would've taken it in.
We're still allowed to have an opinion, right? »»
Not to be confused with your singularly unimpressive attempts at side-stepping each and every issue thrown your way along with more than the lion's share of bitterness and a curmudgeon disposition. All of which may well be caused by a massive inferiority complex. Back to you... »»»
WOW you're still not coming across as a pompous idiot in the slightest... Just how do you do it?
OH GOD YOU'RE SO RIGHT :cry: I've a massive inferiority complex!!! You're just so clever and no one thinks you're a joke. You're taken so seriously, I REALLY want to be like you! :cry: »»»»
Think of all the positive things you like and admire and there you have the answer.
Btw, you've still not addressed the recruitment angle, so I surmise that your silence is acknowledgment that you realise your previous position didn't have a leg to stand on. 8)
Now, do you think you could make one last desparate push and at least pretend to come up with something approximating a half-decent response with something more serious than "idiot" in it? :lol: Sorry I can't! :cry: I'm soooo inferior to your obviously massive intelligence. Everyone holds you in such respect! How do you do it? What's your secret? »»»»»
Sounds about right and then cough splutter splutter mystery cough cough poster guttershark turns up to abuse whom ever Voodoo disagrees with. Quite amusing in the great scheme of things really.
Voodoo and his own guardian troll. | 
