Konami drops controversial Iraq game News

Aw, come on. Don't buckle under pressure from the US equivalent of Daily Mail readers. Put the game out there, sod the naysayers.



And if you're not, then at least leak it :)

what a win for the whining pussies out there.

Yeah, don't be pussies, lets kills some civilians! Bonus points for women and babies!

Yes because that's what the game is about.

And we all know that iraqi's didn't suicide bomb and kill their own people due to stupid religious differences, it was all the evil us marines.

Fucking retard. Funny it's ok for iraqi nutters to blow up their own women and kids, and for saddam to ethnically clense kurds, but the us are still the evil ones. Some of you fucking should have been aborted as soon as your parents were able.

It will probably be repackaged and sold at a later date.

I bet it was shit anyway, Konami are hardly shooter specialists. I bet they rebuild it as a Metal Gear spin-off. If it happens, I called it.

It’s funny.. because our own Army's recruitment plan seems to revolved around making war feel like a game... Maybe they could just change the Stars and Stripes textures on the soldiers uniforms to Union Jacks and just release it over here as British Army indorsed...

@CountFapula

1200 iraqi civilians died during the battle of fallujah. and they weren't killed by iraqui suicide bombers.

i'm certainly not jumping on the "the US is teh evil" bandwagon, but i don't think what went down there qualifies as "entertainment material".

Makes a lot of sense to me to be honest. The world could do without one more stupid war game that only glorifies violence and does absolutely nothing to make people understand that going to war is the last resort and one that should be actively avoided at all costs. I am tired of these awfully immature games being released for the general public to consume.

I think this line somes up just what is so wrong with these gamesL:
"We had intended to convey the reality of the battles to players so that they could feel what it was like to be there."

Oh really?

How do you intend conveying the loss of hearing due to a mortar fire going off next to you? Or the loss of a limb due to your vehicle driving over a mine and being upended? Or the isolation felt by soldiers when they miss their friends and family?

To me, when I first heard about it, it sounded like another retard cash in on the conflict in Iraq. Konami are doing themselves a favour by ditching it.

If only it was a movie, then it would be really deep and stuff

Yes because that's what the game is about.

And we all know that iraqi's didn't suicide bomb and kill their own people due to stupid religious differences, it was all the evil us marines.

Fucking retard. Funny it's ok for iraqi nutters to blow up their own women and kids, and for saddam to ethnically clense kurds, but the us are still the evil ones. Some of you fucking should have been aborted as soon as your parents were able.

At what point did criticism of the US become support for suicide bombers, or for Saddams policies, or indeed anything beyond not bombing the shit out of civillians in half-cocked 'pacification' excercises?

Fuck me, aside from the whole tarring all Iraqis (including civillians in Fallujah it seems) with 'terrorist' brush phrasing, that sort of attitude is exactly the sort of thing Saddam, China, etc love. I presume criticising the My Lai massacre would make me an evil communist Viet-Cong hippy or something, then?

Given what this could have been if done right, and I'm not saying it would have been, this is only a shame.

I don't find it the least surprising. Which is why we would all be better of dumping the name "game" from our hobby and just call them interactive products (I'm not a marketing genius, make up something better if you like). Game has too many associations to do serious stuff with.

"i'm certainly not jumping on the "the US is teh evil" bandwagon, but i don't think what went down there qualifies as "entertainment material". "

Neither would making a game about WW2 just afterwards be considered entertainment material, but look how many games we have based on it now. Anyway, CoD4 in parts is as close a recreation to fighting in a stereotypical Iraqi city, in all but name.

Neither would making a game about WW2 just afterwards be considered entertainment material, but look how many games we have based on it now. Anyway, CoD4 in parts is as close a recreation to fighting in a stereotypical Iraqi city, in all but name.

Thats the first thing I thought of when reading this. There is pretty much no difference between WW2 games/COD 4 and this...

"If only it was a movie, then it would be really deep and stuff"

If it was a movie made for entertainment then no...no it wouldnt. The only film genre that can give you any idea of what its like to actually be in a situation like that, is the documentary...whether that be an in-situ or post-situ piece.

In all seriousness CountFapula, you need to leave this argument well alone. It might be possible for a very skilled and literate scholar of the war to put forward a case that the massacre in Fallujah was justified. I fear you may not be such an individual.

War games based on WW2 have the Nazis as the "bad guys", think about it

Thats the first thing I thought of when reading this. There is pretty much no difference between WW2 games/COD 4 and this...

About 2 generations and 60 years difference, at least - plus a pretty strong consensus on that there was even a justification for the war, and an idea who the actual enemies are. And even then, how many WW2 games show civillian casualties?

Neither would making a game about WW2 just afterwards be considered entertainment material, but look how many games we have based on it now. Anyway, CoD4 in parts is as close a recreation to fighting in a stereotypical Iraqi city, in all but name

there's a world of difference here - WW2 was an absolutely justified war in which the enemy was a genocidal army led by a fucking madman that planned to eradicate entire peoples. in other words - invading germany and shooting nazis is entertainment material, because it has the good vs evil mechanic that entertainment usually provides.

iraq on the other hand - a relatively stable country (a long shot from perfect, but still) invaded and plundered by the world's most powerful army. there's no good vs bad here. only bad vs bad and lots of civilians caught in the crossfire.

I'm glad they decided to drop it. Politicians in the US would have gotten a pretty good argument against videogames (which is obviously the fact that videogames are in fact the cause of all evil + the reason for the economy crisis).

I hate when things like this happen.
people are too much sensitiv---- WHINY and get offended to easilly. especially those who have no buisness whatsoever.

now, if they made a movie outta it, it wouldn't be in poor taste, no, it would be a brilliant look at the human aspect of a crude conflict.

seriously, people, grow up.

The crying cunts wins again.

POPCORN POPCORN

Get your popcorn here!

This 'game' has nothing but propaganda all over it.

Regardless, nice thread to decide who to ignore.

Feel free to ignore me as well. If it helps, I am a liberal lefty pinko scum socialist commie bastard who thought that the invasion was illegal.

now, if they made a movie outta it, it wouldn't be in poor taste, no, it would be a brilliant look at the human aspect of a crude conflict.

seriously, people, grow up.

seriously, you grow up. a movie is not the same as a game. you can't equate watching people getting killed to actually doing the (virtual) deed yourself, because the player wont' care half as much about the underlying conflict as he will about winning the game/clearing the level.

All they need to do is change Fallujah to some invented place and they could sell it again without half the trouble.

All they need to do is change Fallujah to some invented place and they could sell it again without half the trouble.

But then it wouldn't sell. Seemed to me they were using the Fallujah name like it was a Transformers licence.

Glad it's gone - it was horrible idea - and some of the comments here from those in favour of the game just affirm my thoughts about the whole thing.

unbelievable.. This was a chance to move gaming forward.

They don't have any balls, like Rockstar. Damn those US-uits in US-istan.

And NonniR, how could it have become an ammo for politicians who are against computer games? Seriously, there's already a war out there, it's still going no matter what the media says. Would these politicians point to the game and say "LOOK! This game caused the wars in the Middle-East!" - seriously?

I would repackage it as the first iraq war or something.... that would be easier. Sometimes its just easier than getting in to one long argument about it. They would have also been better concentrating on the whole event, and having this one place as a mission, again they would have got less flak (pardon the pun).

pussies..

It seems weird to me that there are gamers (I am assuming they are gamers, as this is a gaming site) doing the job of politicians and right-wing, knee-jerk reactionists for them by implying that games are incapable of conveying meaningful, deep and important messages and stories that are emotionally and socially involving.

I was in favour of it simply from the fact it's one of the first 'big publisher' games to actually engage in social commentary, rather than just react to it 60 years after the fact.

Plus, from what Jeff Gerstmann said on the Bonus Round aired yesterday, the people behind the game (in particular, the marine advisors that seem very keen to see the game made) actually want to make something important. To have that message denied a voice simply because people don't understand the medium or what it's capable of is really disappointing.

But then, maybe people don't want to see video gaming mature.

unbelievable.. This was a chance to move gaming forward.

Exactly. If this were a book, a film, a TV show or an epic poem there would be no problem whatsoever.

The problem is that games are either considered by many to be an inherently flippant medium, bereft of any cultural or educational value - or a powerful tool to influence children to commiting nefarious deeds.

I lost all interest anyway when I heard about "recharging health". If they were going to try and make a serious war game then treat it seriously.

But Konami themselves didn't seem to think it was important social commentary. Their VP of marketing said as much:

“We’re not trying to make social commentary. We’re not pro-war. We’re not trying to make people feel uncomfortable. We just want to bring a compelling entertainment experience. At the end of the day, it’s just a game.”

Thanks Fodder, perfect response and the quote I was looking for.

"Feel free to ignore me as well. If it helps, I am a liberal lefty pinko scum socialist commie bastard who thought that the invasion was illegal."

/adds to friends list


;)

It's true. Konami did say that. I thought it was a really stupid thing to say at the time, and it still is a stupid thing to say. However, I would point out that Konami aren't developing the title. Atomic Games are:

"... Atomic Games—responsible for titles like the Close Combat series—say "for us, games are not just toys."" (taken from Kotaku).

I'd sooner take their opinion on the title as the 'correct' one, rather than Konami's marketing team (who presumably were trying to calm the fires of disapproval by playing the 'it's a game, it doesn't matter' card. Which, as I said, is stupid.).

@CountFapula

Jesus, trust an idiot to try and bring the entire complex discussion to simply deciding which side were the big bunch of murdering losers and which side were the valiant heroes.

Do you find it makes life easier when you remove all the complexity from it?



The apparent pitch of this game seemed pretty conflicted to me.

On the one hand...
""We had intended to convey the reality of the battles to players so that they could feel what it was like to be there.""

And then on the other hand (as supplied by Fodder)...
"We just want to bring a compelling entertainment experience. At the end of the day, it’s just a game."


It is a real shame to see most of the posts in here being so blinkered, and trying to distill the whole complex subject down to either "its perfectly fine" or "its wholly abhorrent". You bloody complain about the "pussies" distorting the picture and the Daily Mail readership going off on one again... but you are all doing EXACTLY the same thing, except you have the sopposing point of view.

As I said in a different thread, a balanced debate is not just two equally uninformed and extreme views battling it out. That is simply twice as many idiots in the same room. And what we have learned today is that idiots struggle with irony and contradiction.


"This was a chance to move gaming forward."

This thread, like so many others, proves that we don't deserve to move gaming forward. When we can conduct ourselves like adults, maybe we will be allowed to play with adult toys.

The president of the game developers, Peter Tempte, had a quote at the beginning of this 'media circus':

“Our goal is to give people that insight, of what it's like to be a Marine during that event, what it's like to be a civilian in the city, and what it's like to be an insurgent.”

I'm sorry, but games can't give you that...not at the moment. They can give you the details, sure. However, they can't give you that 'bottom of the gut' feeling that can only be had whenever your life is in danger. They cant even give you a realistic idea of what its like to fire an M4, ffs, how could they ever hope to give an insight to emotional responses experienced by real people?

When I play a FPS video game, I don't go "Fuck! That was close!" if I nearly die. I don't have to calm a racing heart. I certainly dont have to try and stem the flow of blood and guts of an injured comrade, and all the smells that comes with it.

Its not even possible, imho, to achieve this in an entertainment film. I've seen plenty of car bombs in movies and they look excellent...and you think you have an idea of what its like...to be that close to a bomb and get blown off your feet. Its great when the hero lays motionless for a few seconds, then slowly dusts himself off and looks around at the burning debris. In reality he's probably incapable of moving due to a percussion shockwave. That's what happened to me in that situation, and I wasnt even 'Hollywood close' to the bomb.

I didnt have a problem with the game or the setting. I had a problem with the way it was marketed...it was named to create a 'media storm' and then they tried to justify it.

From a purely freedom of expression point of view (quality of/intentions of the game aside) I think this is disastrous.

Pressure groups shouldn't be able to exert so much influence, essentially censoring material, for the majority. There are lots of things in life I find distasteful, but it's my right not to go and buy them.

For publishers to cave in like this sets a dangerous precedence.

@Fab4

Very well put.

@teabagger

A couple of thoughts.

1. This is hardly a precedent. Cancelling games due to public outcry is a reasonably regular occurrrence.

2. There is a difference between artistic representation and misrepresentation. As Fab4 described so well, setting out to provide a realistic depiction of "what it was like to be there" is a deeply flawed approach. Now I'm not saying that is reason enough to stop publishing the thing (and I'm not saying that should have been the result in this case), but I think its important to recognise the difference.

What angers me so much in all of this is the mass inability to see beyond the very surface veneer of what is a complex and multifaceted issue. It appears to most outsiders that we gamers don't give one fig about anything in the real world (or even understanding what goes on in the real world) above getting our shooting fix. Like I said, the majority of us here don't deserve (and can't comprehend) gaming moving forward as an artform.

@aldo_14
At what point did criticism of the US become support for suicide bombers, or for Saddams policies, or indeed anything beyond not bombing the shit out of civillians in half-cocked 'pacification' excercises?

This is a basic propaganda technique, anyone who dissents is, obviously and automatically, unpatriotic and must sympathise with the enemy. Apparently CountFapula's conditioning is so complete that he's joined in. He's even apparently forgotten that it's possible for both sides to be wrong - there is no universal law which states that one side must be right, so therefore the other(s) must be wrong - and for innocents to be caught up in the whole thing.

Fuck me, aside from the whole tarring all Iraqis (including civillians in Fallujah it seems) with 'terrorist' brush phrasing, that sort of attitude is exactly the sort of thing Saddam, China, etc love. I presume criticising the My Lai massacre would make me an evil communist Viet-Cong hippy or something, then?

What are you? Some kind of communist Viet-Cong hippy or something? You must be, that's what they implied on the news last night. Damned long-hair pinkos! (See how it works? Join in, it's fun when you completely surrender free-thought and stop questioning!)

So to sum up, for those having a difficult time: I think most of us are of the opinion that no killing at all is the ideal situation, in absence of that, anyone killing civilians is universally bad. They started it or they kill more are not valid excuses.

So nobody is thinking that this game would have trivialised the act of war, glorified the killing of human beings and turned the misery and suffering of a whole group of people into just another form of entertainment?

which faggots complained about this u dont like it dont fuckin play it.

Seems gamers are too immature to handle anything nearing realism. Nudity and sex are practically absent from mainstream games. The cancellation of this game is just another example of why games will always be inferior to books and movies and gaming perceived as the pasttime of manchildren.

"We had intended to convey the reality of the battles to players so that they could feel what it was like to be there."

How? By making my console blow up in my face and taking my head off? No thank you.

@Fab4

Correct me if I'm misinterpreting your response, but you're basically saying no game can recreate actual experiences and the only way to truely understand what happened in Fallujah was to actually be in Fallujah at the time? If that's the case, then you're absolutely right.

Personally, however, I feel there's room in the middle ground for 'partial understanding/appreciation' of a subject. Yes, it'll never get even close to the real thing, but it's got to be better than having no understanding at all. As an example are the likes of Call of Duty, which, at the time, were praised for their depictions of World War II, and how they allowed a generation a world apart from the one which actually fought in '45 to garner some kind of appreciation for what happened and the sacrifices that were made. In a similar manner to Saving Private Ryan and the Band of Brothers series.

Perhaps it's just me, but I got a greater sense of what went on in WWII from CoD than any number of field trips to War Museums and battlefields in France and years of history taught in school. I think games have real scope for the kind of incidental, interactive learning that no other medium can achieve.

Like I said, though, I agree that "games can't give you that...not at the moment". I'm not convinced that's reason enough not to try, however. How else will we know when games are able to give you that sense of understanding? I think it's going to take many small steps to get to that point, and someone's going to have to be first.