Share this article:
 Digg.com Facebook Google Bookmarks N4G Gamerblips del.icio.us Reddit Slashdot.org StumbleUpon It would be a shame if this is true. I don't even see how it was offensive if actual veterans of the campaign approved. I mean, who was it offensive to? Just think, if they had had made this game about some fictional battle they would have easily found a publisher and they could have been about to release a pretty big hit. I'm astounded that they based it on such a recent and controversial conflict, how could they not see this coming?. it wasnt supposed to be just another FPS though. it was half documentary.
being non-fictional was what it was all about.
what, there are no film pieces or documentaries on iraq??
yay for the p.c. mob - they got a game they werent going to play anyway canned, and made some people unemployed.
****ing busy-body losers. They should just call it 6 days in "Insert Generic Sounding Name". Yes war is bad, alot of people dont agree with the current wars in here there and everywhere. Thing is, will thsi game be ok to release in another 10-20 years, when (if) it all calms down and is in history??
It looked like it could be a solid shooter, and had a good story to tell from the perspective of those involved.
I hope they manage to save this. A game setting of questionable taste given the continued violence in Iraq. I wasn't surprised to read Konami pull away from this one, and I can't say it comes as entirely shocking news that the game is all but dead now. It does surprise, and sadden, me a bit that Atomic Games is going with it yet then again this possible outcome should have been visible to management a mile away. Just change the name, and then just sneak it out under it's new name lol When you get reactions from people like in the link below, I am not surprised.
http://www.strategyinformer.com/news/3919/angry-backlash-for-konami-and-atomic-games-six-days-in-fallujah Not true. DOOM was very controversial upon it's release and look how popular that was. More recently, the GTA series, which gets a lot of negative press, is a massive seller. Less obvious games also see controversy. Resistance: Fall of Man actually saw an increase in sales when the Church of England tried to sue Sony and Insomniac for the inclusion of Manchester Cathedral. Then, of course there was Resi 5, which was said to be racist for being set in Africa with a white protagonist. No matter your take on it, it still sold exceptionally well.
Although, in fairness, none of these actually deal with an issue as sensitive as this game. This game was a risk that could have either gone really well or really badly, and obviously it went the latter. Jingoistic shit.
Trying to portray the massacre of Fullujah as some heoric venture. I wonder if the game included the use of white phosphorous - the chemical weapon used in this battle as well as the shoot anything policy they killed thousands of civilians. DOOM was set in a fictional sci-fi/horror future. That is a whole world away (pun intended,) from a combat game set to emulate the events of one of the fiercest battles in a hugely controversial, and unpopular, present day war. Comparing the two is meaningless; indeed it borders on the offensive. The same applies to the other games you mentioned - none of them were directly tied to events in contemporary times. Furthermore, the type of controversy involved with Resistance 2 had more to do with copyright infringement and royalties, etc. than anything else. Resi 5 certainly had controversy over a present day issue. Racism is a big issue and the game was regarded as racist. Also, I was referring to Resistance 1. For further reading on that, try this link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversy_over_the_usage_of_Manchester_Cathedral_in_Resistance:_Fall_of_Man
While some is to do with copyright infringement, it was more to do with the use of a Cathedral as a battleground in a city which, in the words of the spokesman, had a problem with gun crime.
Fallujah, though, is, as you say, far more controversial. But when does it actually become acceptable for a war to be portrayed in a game? Could not CoD5 be said to glorify WW2 in a similar way? Could the same not have been said for CoD4 and it's Middle East segments (although they did not name places in it)? The Iraq war is, indeed, very unpopular, and many atrocities have been committed by both sides. But it would be a shame if a development studio went out of business for the mistakes of those who took part in the war. If they did make it realistic, it might go some way to preventing wars in the future, however little. I will reiterate my previous point, which is to say that none of the games you mentioned, including Resi 5, actually bear witness to a real event in our world. It's a significant difference. If you care to discuss other potentially controversial issues with those games then be my guest, but it is not the same issue at play as the one at stake with "Six Days In Fallujah". That first post is very funny lordirongut, I mean, assuming that you're joking.
The Dev's assurances to those that informed the project - ie marines, says it all. Where's the voice of the poor b*stards that actually lived in Falujah at the time US troops decided to fight a war in it? The key issue that I haven't seen the dev deal with anywhere, or lordirongut and others either, is that if this is a 'documentary' as it claims to be, then it has to show the deaths of thousands of civilians, at the hands of the side you're fighting on, and quiet possibly at the hands of the character you're playing. IF it did that - if it actually made an attempt to portray a brutal war fought in a city full of civilians, then I'd have no problem with it. Its the difference between Generation Kill and Commando. Everything I've heard from Atomic however sounds like this would be yet more semper fi flag-waving propaganda. The reason I hasten to guess why WW2 shooters are acceptable and indeed popular is that whatever the intracte and political controversies that are no doubt present in this conflict - it is still the only war pretty much in history that can still maintain a strong moral justification (in terms of mainstream oppinions). Therefore the violence involved can be seen as relatively justified. Nazi are after all very bad!
Most other wars are a mess in terms of that justification, and game publishers have not yet a found a way of producing a game that questions the morality of the violence in war in the same way many film makers were able to portray the Vietnam war. That is why there has never been a very good game about the Vietnam war - it just doesn't work morally. Battlefield games work Ok in that there is no narrative and you can choose either side.
If I was going to make a war game in a different setting - I would proabably do it as a member of one of the international brigades fighting the Spanish Civil War - either along the lines of a typical working class leaving his home in Britian (or France, US etc) to go and fight (as portrayed in Land and Freedom) or as the heroic literary figure in the guise of a Hemmingway, Orwell or Laurie Lee type character. Bingo and well written. | 
