From the day that it was formally announced at a Konami event, Atomic Games' upcoming Six Days In Fallujah has been controversial. Planned as an effort to put the player in the roles of various combatants in arguably the most important battle of the war in Iraq, the game has been dropped by Konami Digital Entertainment Co.
Aashi.com broke the news and journalists including Jeff Keighley picked up the story to publish it on Twitter. The move comes after Konami received criticism from members of the games press as well as families of soldiers and marines, retired troops and citizens' groups.
Frankly, this move stands as a failure on the part of Konami in regard to the standing of the games industry as a whole.
Obviously, the critiques levied at the game were varied, and in some cases, justified. Most of the criticism seemed to focus on the timing of the release, and whether it is tasteful to release a game based around an on-going conflict, especially one as divisive as the War in Iraq. Other critics, however, postulated that the Second Battle of Fallujah qualifies as a war crime, due to accusations of mass murder and use of chemical weapons. The concept of playing through a massacre has proven repugnant to some, including U.K anti-war group
Stop The War Coalition.
In what is quickly becoming the norm in the games industry, Konami buckled under the pressure and gave into demands to drop the game. No other industry dealing with any artistic medium has to deal with this kind of disrespect for their efforts. Dozens of documentaries, plays, novels, paintings and full length motion pictures have dealt with the War in Iraq or the Battle of Fallujah specifically. Yet none have drawn the kind of vitriol and general level of outrage that
Six Days in Fallujah has had to endure. All of this with nothing of the game besides a few screen shots having been seen by the public. To be frank, no one really has any idea of what the game would have entailed, exactly what it would portray and what point, if any, it had to make regarding the conflict.
The easiest critique to level at the game seems to be that it would trivialize the experiences of those who fought there for entertainment. Many feel that the goal of a game should be "fun," "entertaining" and nothing else. Yet films which portray combat scenes from the same conflict do not suffer this judgment. The general assumption is that games cannot inform, enlighten or teach about the conflict, those involved and the mindset of these people who fought and died. The assumption is that the game cannot and will not rise to this challenge. The assumption is that games as a whole have nothing to teach us, or no way to broaden our perspective. Konami has allowed this assumption to survive, to thrive, when they could have released the game, which had a chance of bucking this misconception. They may have let massive numbers of people experience the conflict in a way that may have challenged their assumptions about the conflict.
This, however, will not happen. Konami has given in and subjugated their view of games to the ghetto of meaningless entertainment, when they had a chance to publish informative art regarding an issue that is presently affecting lives. Games have once again been defined as medium which apparently can't engage the participant on an emotionally and intellectually challenging level. It's apparently fine for games to deal with easy issues; killing Nazis, saving the Earth and rocking out are all innocuous, agreeable subjects. When it comes to potentially controversial or offensive topics, however, games cannot or should not, attempt to make a valid point. Ironically, this is coming from the company which published
Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots, which dealt quite a bit with the subject of proxy wars and Privatized Military Corporations extensively.
Konami has done gamers a disservice by denying them the chance or even the choice to experience
Six Days in Fallujah. It could have been great, terrible, offensive, overly politically correct, or even a masterpiece. We will never know now, however, because games have been denied the basic respect and defense by their financiers that films and other forms of media have been afforded. Konami has failed gamers and is holding back their own medium.
Totally agree. The sad thing is that this will be one of those "maybe" games; it may have been a war game that treated war from a mature and ethical viewpoint that we've not seen in games before. But we'll never know.
The thing that annoys me about supposed pressure from various publications, is that it's there one day and gone the next. Newspapers will print anything that's guarenteed to get their readers up in arms. Fast forward 18 or so months 'til the game is released and that ire has been passed to something else.
I think Jim raised this point on the last Podtoid, but I'll repeat it again. We have to let videogames at least try and tackle this subject matter. As you pointed out, it's ok to kill Nazi's and save the world from Aliens and shit. But to try and build a game about a emotionally and politically charged issue should be allowed to. The longer that we sit back and let videogames not tackle such and issue holds gaming back.
Also, why is Hollywood allowed to make a number of films based on the Iraq war but gaming can't. Surely one can perceive a movie as merely entertainment, no matter what it's content or it's approach to it's subject matter.
What?
Yeah, no. Fuck that.
Well they are looking for a new publisher, maybe Take 2 could publish it. They have some experience with controversial games.
100% correct you are sir (or madam - I don't know your gender)
I'm disappointed that this game was dropped - this game could have tried to push some boundaries. Of course, we'll never know what this game was going to be. It could have been artistic, but let's be honest, there was just as good a chance it would have turned into "Rainbow Six: Iraq version" or a Call-of-Duty 4 Clone. It might not have become those things, but we'll never know now.
I'm not necessarily angry at the public for not liking this game - to be honest, 97% of video games are not "deep" or "moving". But again, the public allows WW2 games, so why not this one? Some people who fought in WW2 are still alive, but no one seems to think COD2 was "offensive" to them.
Konami should have taken a stand. We can't really blame the public - most of them don't know anything about videogames, and weren't willing to give this game the chance it deserved. You can't really blame them for their ignorance, they grew up without video-games. Konami are to blame, for not taking a stand against this.
Unfortunately, games as a medium are unlikely to attract people who want to showcase the suffering of war - why try to make a game that showcases the horrors of warfare, when it's sooooo much easier to make a film that does the same thing? Making an artistic game that explores the issues of warfare is VERY hard (somesay impossible given the technology we have), because you have to make the game playable and you can only fit so much on a disc and you have to take into account player actions. Making a moving, emotional war film, while also hard, is much easier than making an interactive experience that delivers the same punch. In fact, it might be downright impossible without an "holodeck" equivalent.
Gaming is still in its infancy. I have NEVER come across a game (and I've played many) that has had the same impact as "Grave of the Fireflies" or "Letters from Iwo Jima". If you've seen those two films, you'd know that no game has ever come CLOSE to matching the emotion portrayed in those films, and no game will be able to for at least 30 years.
Very sorry to see Konami buckle under the pressure of this. I was too looking forward to this game really showing what games are capable of. Hopefully, I hope Atomic Games are able to continue on Six Day elsewhere, and yeah, Take 2 would be a good place to start.
The public perception of video games is the real problem here, as while many have objected, even before any videos of gameplay have been release. For this reason, I think Konami should have at least held their ground, until E3 or PAX, where they'd have been able to show off the game and change minds. Unfortunately, it proves that Konami are too soft.
Perhaps, Jim, you should look at getting an interview with Atomic Games and what they plan to do next with Six Days, and beyond that. I'd love to hear their side.
Gaming isn't in its infancy at all, as its based in technology and over twenty years old, but compared to other media I guess so. I still think Six Days is an important game and needs to be made, otherwise those preconceptions of games will never be broken down.
Shame on you, Konami. This game could have changed you, and the industry for the better. Let someone braver, pick up the gaunlet.
Those poor developers. No sarcasm. Hopefully they can apply the assets to something else and people can still get paid.
@Korolev--you mention Grave of the Fireflies and while it's one of the most moving and beautiful animes I've ever seen, I wouldn't watch it for fun. It's not entertainment--it's art and history and pathos.
Gaming that makes you think is good. But who is going to pay good money for a game that makes you feel like crap?
I've had gaming experiences tantamount to what you've mentioned--but more in the realm of shock and surprise. If I walked away from a game feeling like I did when I finished watching Grave of the Fireflies, I would not want to keep playing it.
Also, where do we draw the line? Is a game chronicling escaping from the Twin Towers on 9/11 in bad taste? I would say so. Why is a war that is currently ongoing fair game for a game? Doesn't it trivialize it somehow?
WWII is over 60 years in our collective past. This war is still going on. I think there has to be some semblance of courtesy when you are making entertainment out of the subject.
Well, I guess I need to update that piece I am working on. Again.
[url=http://www.kumawar.com] A link to Kuma War {/url] and its half a dozen or so Fallujah levels is all I have to add to this topic.
@ the phantom gamer
"But who is going to pay good money for a game that makes you feel like crap?
I've had gaming experiences tantamount to what you've mentioned--but more in the realm of shock and surprise. If I walked away from a game feeling like I did when I finished watching Grave of the Fireflies, I would not want to keep playing it."
What you said there are the reasons a game like this needs to be made. There are movies like you listed that left a lasting impression on you. Yea you probably don't want to watch them again, but why can't a game leave you with that same feeling? Yes I know we like to play our favorite games over and over again. But I think this game could have flipped that on its end, if done right, and its exactly what the videogames industry would have needed. What is that? A game that is so powerful you don't want to play it again.
burn
A link to Kuma War
@Corak--I understand where you're coming from and in the debate of games as art, I'm fully vested in having games get the credit they deserve. But there is a very major difference between viewing a movie and playing a game.
Movie watching is passive. Gaming is active. And it's one thing to watch the killing of a Iraqi soldier in film. It's quite another to be doing the shooting.
Speaking to soldiers recently back from the war, (and yes, I know this is anecdotal argument at best, but bear with me) the last thing they want to do is set down and play a game that reminds them of what they recently suffered through. The fact that someone would package their nightmares and sell it as entertainment is stomach churning at best.
While I think there is room in the gaming community for a powerful experience like GotF, I don't think the current war in Iraq is the right material to make a game out of at this time. The wounds are still being made--let alone had a chance to heal.
If it wont find a publisher now, it will later.
Agree with the author, while we can't know for certain one way or the other, this game had the potential to make an impact on the way games are perceived as story telling mediums and now we'll have to sit back and wait for another publisher who is willing to deal with the backlash and actually make a game that matters.
Although I am disappointed that the game was canceled, I would like to commend Konami on showing some respect to the families of those who died in Fallujah. Them doing this leads me to believe that the game would actually take a morally correct approach in representing the war in the video game medium. If they were just in it to turn a dollar, then they would not have given the families of the dead what they wanted.
I'm not saying that it is correct for the families to come down so hard on a game that they know almost nothing about, but I do not believe it is incorrect either. Nobody knows the pain these families are in except for the families themselves. I think that if the idea of this game did not actually offend or cause pain to them, they would not have said something in the first place.
So again Konami, thank you for having the maturity to go in the right direction with this game (Which I know you would have done), even if it means canceling it due to the requests of the dead's kin. Thank you for having the courage to honor the dead and not only think about your pockets. This game had enough coverage and controversy surrounding it that it was almost guaranteed to make a sizable profit.
I am disheartened that I will not be able to experience this game, but I am also cheered by the fact that not all game developers think only about the next dollar. I believe this is a good turning point for games to be seen as more than just kill simulators. Maybe one day games will be the go-to medium for realistically showing us just what it means to have your brother die in war.
Caffeine Knight is right, all publisher should be like Konami and let people that know nothing about games choose what kind of games should be published and what not.
Konami, i salute you for your courage.