Konami nixes Six Days in Fallujah
Iraq War 'game-amentary' dishonorably discharged
Konami is backing away from its plans to release a video game that was to authentically depict the Second Battle of Fallujah after receiving numerous protests from retired US troops, their families and citizens' groups.
The game publisher told the Asahi Shimbun today it's canceling plans to publish Six Days in Fallujah, a "documentary-style" game announced earlier this month and made by Atomic games.
"After seeing the reaction to the videogame in the United States and hearing opinions sent through phone calls and e-mail, we decided several days ago not to sell it," Konami reportedly said. "We had intended to convey the reality of the battles to players so that they could feel what it was like to be there."
Six Days was supposedly being developed as a "game-amentary" that accurately depicts complex issues of war as seen through the eyes of ground troops in the bloody November 2004 street battle between joint US and Iraqi soldiers and insurgents that left more than 2,000 people, including civilians, dead. According to the Wall Street Journal's earlier coverage of the game, Atomic's team had tapped more than three dozen soldiers who were in Fallujah to lend details and their personal stories to the game.
The controversy was given an extra stir when it was revealed that insurgents that fought troops during the battle were consulted was well.
Atomic Games specializes in war-related video games, and is best known as the creator of the Close Combat series. Six Days was planned to be released in 2010. The game maker hasn't announced if it plans on finding another publisher. ®
Is it possible to have it more backwards? I tend to doubt it. The US tends to win set-piece battles, by traditional measures (achievement of assigned objectives, casualty ratio, and the like) even when the war itself is a lost cause, from at least the end of the Korean war. The only "exceptions" that come readily to mind are the Desert 1 fiasco (where the mission was aborted before contact with the enemy) and Lebanon (where a suicide bomber, at the time a novel tactic, blew up a Marine barracks).
In Vietnam, the US Army never had an equivalent of Dien Bien Phu. From Ia Drang, to Tet and Khe Sanh and beyond, the army would always win "victories" but the overall effect was a Pyrrhic one in that support for the war ebbed to the extent it was a lost cause. Grenada and Panama were victories but could hardly have been expected to be otherwise, given the asymmetries.
In the first Gulf War, it is hard to imagine how an army could win a more lopsided victory than the one that the US and its coalition partners (UK included) collectively won. In Mogadishu (Black Hawk Down) the Pyrrhic victory pattern returned and Army forces were badly bloodied, but gave worse than they got, and accomplished their mission, but again at a cost which convinced the political authorities to pull out of Somalia. In Afghanistan, the Taliban were easily chased from the country (perhaps deceptively easily) by the Northern Alliance and their US special forces allies.
This brings us to the subject of the story, the battle of Fallujah, where the US were able to clear the insurgent forces from the town. In this case the victory was a costly one (http://www.secinfreg.org/news/fallujah.htm) but this time does not appear to warrant quotation marks since it does not appear (for the moment) to have been in vain.
So, of the past half century (which is only about as long as the US has had a big standing Army) the US Army has won some Pyrrhic "victories", some victories where they took heavy casualties, and some walk-over victories. What's missing from this picture is any hint of them "losing all the battles", whether winning the War or losing it.
@The exceedingly informed AC
In general, I'm suggesting that when there are obvious gaps in a story, one 'fill in the blanks' before going off on a rant. Course, if you're just going to add meaning/intent where none exist then I'll concur - why bother? Put another way: where tf in my post did I complain about USA bashing?? My response was to the responses to Matt. Methinks I'm not the oversensitive one in this case.
So - no vietnam games came out until 2008 eh?
I think you better google that again - there was a spectrum rambo game set in vietnam from 1985 a Konami arcade shooter not long after and one every few years since.
Want to guess why no vietnam video games were available for a whole decade after the end of the war?
Is it irony that america bashers are using a device that was almost unique to americans prior to the WWW to bash them on the WWW - i.e. piss-poor conspiracy theories - thus showing a) their own complete lack of intellectual capacity and b) the supremacy of the american hegemony even in the field of moronic drivel