Sign on Options
Theme:
To Dark

Konami's Fallujah pullout 'caught us by surprise' - Atomic Games

Developer's president, Peter Tamte, says Japanese publisher's decision came without warning; studio hoping to complete the project.

Yesterday, the Asahi Shimbun newspaper quoted a Japanese rep for Konami as saying that the Metal Gear Solid 4 maker was no longer publishing Six Days in Fallujah. The company announced a distribution deal for the "ultrarealistic" Iraq War shooter earlier this month and touted it as a major 2009 release at its gamers' day event just two weeks ago.

Atomic will soon be knocking on other publishers' doors.

Atomic will soon be knocking on other publishers' doors.

"After seeing the reaction to the video game in the United States and hearing opinions sent through phone calls and e-mail, we decided several days ago not to sell it," a Konami rep said. Though no protests were mentioned specifically, there had been loud complaints by several Iraq War casualties' families and a British antiwar group.

While aware of the problem, developer Atomic Games was shocked by Konami's decision to drop the game, which is being made with the assistance of veterans of the titular battle.

"We were informed on Thursday night that Konami had decided to pull out of Six Days in Fallujah," studio president Peter Tamte told GameSpot. "This caught us by surprise. Development of the game had been progressing very well and on schedule."

So what's next for the Xbox 360, PlayStation 3, and PC title? Atomic reps declined to talk about potential publishing partners or whether or not the company would self-publish. "We would very much like the opportunity to complete the game," was all Tamte would say.

As of press time, US Konami reps still had not responded to requests for comment about Six Days in Fallujah's status or the reasoning behind the company's decision.

148 Comments

  • CoD_dude133

    Posted Jun 23, 2009 3:47 am GMT

    you know elvis4567 what you said is a lot like that futurama episode: a taste of freedom
    in a good way

  • CoD_dude133

    Posted Jun 23, 2009 3:46 am GMT

    @benbenben93 dude when some japanese fanatic comes at you with a bayonet and branches on his back screaming: BANZAI!!!!!!!!!!!! i think he wants to fight you...

  • belwasp

    Posted May 9, 2009 12:10 pm GMT

    @ scarred_fox

    Problem with this game is it claims to be "educational" yet you can't play as the insurgents and the game fails to explain the events leading up to the battle and the claims of innocent civilains being killed or the rape and theft by mercenary Blackwater soldiers that caused the civilian backlash.

    If the game wants to drop the bullcrap and say that it really just wants to make money off a highly controversial issue through an unbalanced Western perspective of the war, I'd at least support them for being honest.

    But to claim that anyone will "learn" from this video game about the dangers of war is just outright ridiculous. And that's why it shouldn't be made. They need their priorities straight...

  • p4kman88

    Posted May 4, 2009 11:38 am GMT

    its not canceled they just need to find a new publisher! it maybe a little late but slowly but surely it will be here

  • Lord_Jala

    Posted May 2, 2009 11:21 am GMT

    thats lame, i was super pumped for this game.

  • scarred_fox

    Posted Apr 30, 2009 2:52 am GMT

    i'm active duty, i did my time in the desert &i'm interested in seeing the game made. loads of WWII games have been made, no one complained. Vietnam games have been made, no ne complains. but a game about the most recent war & everybody protests?

  • akiwak

    Posted Apr 29, 2009 9:29 pm GMT

    Maybe a splash of reality might be too much for Mature gamers??? War in reality is no fun and games like all games tend to make it is. With technology allowing for more realistic look and feel, why not actually deliver a more realistic experience? Again as a Mature gamer and former active duty Marine, I'd like to see this.
    Movies have been delivering the anti-war message, why not allow for games to do the same?

  • nappan

    Posted Apr 29, 2009 3:23 pm GMT

    @Kavadias1981: I agree 100%.

  • Elvis4576

    Posted Apr 29, 2009 2:26 pm GMT

    some marines dont agree with getting the game made but theyll fight and die for your right to make it no matter how much they disagree

  • kavadias1981

    Posted Apr 29, 2009 2:15 pm GMT

    You know it is a shame that we are all stuck behind the barrier that is the internet. We all have such a wide range of opinions regarding this report that it would have been far more exciting to be debating this in person. Despite that setback it is good to read some intelligent comments from other users instead of the usual fanboy garbage. Kudos to you all.

  • bigmikeOK

    Posted Apr 29, 2009 1:31 pm GMT

    Lets try to keep in mind that it was not only anti war groups but also the parents as well as dependents of those who have lost their loved ones in the Fallujah battle as well. I'm an Iraq veteran myself, and I repeat comments I've already posted in neither saying anything for or against this game.

  • Taxonomy

    Posted Apr 29, 2009 12:34 pm GMT

    This makes me sad.....

  • nappan

    Posted Apr 29, 2009 12:12 pm GMT

    @Intrakitt: I don't pretend to be know what absolute truth is, and this is a VERY sticky and grey issue. I have no problem disagreeing respectfully with you. At least you spelled out why you thought I was a complete nut

  • Intrakitt

    Posted Apr 29, 2009 12:10 pm GMT

    nappan: Perhaps I was exaggerating a bit. We do that sometimes on the internet to get people to hear us By and large you're one of the more intelligible people I've talked to on these boards. It's reassuring to see there are gamers out there who can argue without lashing out and resorting to name calling and bigotry.

  • nappan

    Posted Apr 29, 2009 12:06 pm GMT

    @Intrakitt: You misunderstand me completely. I wasn't saying that everyone doesn't deserve the right to free expression, I was talking about the LEGAL concept of free speech. Some of us (americans) forget that isn't a right guaranteed by even the British Magna Carta, never mind the Japanese Contitution.


    A Japanese publisher, pressured by a British anti-war group, and the families of some of the marines who DIDN'T go with the project (some dead)... The 1st ammendment doesn't apply. As you said, the internet isn't a place for anything weighty, so I'm trying to keep this simple. Your post is proof that such is a necessity. That said, don't kid yourself... this isn't about 1st ammendment rights.. this is a company marketing their usual fare with a new twist. It failed. That's part of freedom too. The freedom to try, and have other free people tell you where to stick it.

  • Intrakitt

    Posted Apr 29, 2009 11:56 am GMT

    nappan: You're getting nowhere replying to each and every persons comments. Don't you know by now that no matter what you say on the internet it carries no weight. Sad as it is, no one is going to listen to you unless your name is FOX or CNN or CNBC or the BBC or whatever.

    With that being said, you're wrong...You're so wrong and I hate your mind. I hate the way you think that "Free Speech" isn't a universal right because you're ignorant of the truth that it is. We are all born with the RIGHT to say whatever the hell we want. Everyone, all of us in the world. Just because governments and little websites want to dictate and censor does not mean we don't still have that right. We are technically born with the rights to do ANYTHING within our human capacity. More or less it is our morality that dictates the actions of our hands and the lash of our tongues. Not some self-righteous omnipotent world power.

    The constitution is still a powerful document to me and I love it though I hate how it is often interpretted. Just because there is a Bill of Rights, does that mean that you need it to know what you can and can't do? Give me a friggin break...

  • nappan

    Posted Apr 29, 2009 11:44 am GMT

    @Intrakitt: Then it isn't as realistic as it would like to pretend, and this is just a marketing gimmick. And that... is sick.

  • BigDaveyDogz

    Posted Apr 29, 2009 11:44 am GMT

    if this game was being made with the help of people who were directly involved in this specific battle. I don't understand where the complaints are coming from.

  • junglist101

    Posted Apr 29, 2009 11:43 am GMT

    Another victory for political correctness...that's to bad, I was looking forward to this game.

  • Intrakitt

    Posted Apr 29, 2009 11:41 am GMT

    I don't think this is/was a game about killing civis nappan.

  • nappan

    Posted Apr 29, 2009 11:36 am GMT

    BenBenBen93: ... and the people caught in the middle of a whole city, who wanted nothing to do with either side?

  • BenBenBen93

    Posted Apr 29, 2009 11:34 am GMT

    hey but it alright to make games like COD5 killing nazi's a Japanese who didn't necessarily want to fight.unlike this game where you opposition on the 'bad side' who wanted to kill you without doubt

  • nappan

    Posted Apr 29, 2009 11:33 am GMT

    @Keitha313: Believe it or not, complete apathy is not the hight of maturity. Thanks for the advice however... I think I'll just stick with taking umbrage with some little skinhead trolling gamespot.

  • Keitha313

    Posted Apr 29, 2009 11:27 am GMT

    @nappan Its called ignoring your just showing how immature you are by reacting to someone whos named themself after the Waffen SS

  • EmperorPalpa

    Posted Apr 29, 2009 11:26 am GMT

    I'm really pissed of. I really hope someone will publish this awesome-sounding game. Actually, there's Confict Desert Storm 2, which is about invadnig Iraq. I don't remember anyone criticizing it's "whereabouts"

  • nappan

    Posted Apr 29, 2009 11:23 am GMT

    @Salticid: I wouldn't call them resitence fighter or terrorists. However you don't even need to get into that level of controversy to make your point. How many civilians, uninvolved with ANY side of the conflict were burned or shot or blown to bits in Fallujah? We need another squad FPS so much that it's worth sinking to this level? How about a sequel to some of the great IPs that are languishing out there, isntead of this crass marketing ploy.

  • nappan

    Posted Apr 29, 2009 10:29 am GMT

    @Waffen_SS84: Wow. Yeah, I'm one of those people who "got a problem" with the NAZI specops. The Waffen SS existed under hitler and it no longer does. The Bundeswehr replaced the Wermacht, and with Hitler dead, however large the SS became, disolved as it was his elite guard after all. You, are a pig, trying to justify a truly bigoted name. It's a shame to gamespot and Cnet.com that they allow this.


    Btw.. which DIVISION of the SS do you think justifies your nickname? SS Nordland? A grenedier division that you somehow justify as acceptable because they were more mainstream? Any SS member had to be a PARTY member you racist ***, and one in good standing. It may have been a hard choice some germans or conquered nations made, but it was the wrong choice, and it was nothing to be proud of and make a nickname out of.

  • Baritu

    Posted Apr 29, 2009 10:16 am GMT

    never thought i'd say this... konami = little girls afraid of the dark.

    shame on them!

  • Mr_Manikin52

    Posted Apr 29, 2009 9:26 am GMT

    Dude Konami, just remake it as a Vietnam shooter! Fifty-Six Days in Dien Bien Phu.

  • faceman420

    Posted Apr 29, 2009 9:24 am GMT

    *looks at atari*

  • kavadias1981

    Posted Apr 29, 2009 9:15 am GMT

    @Waldkrieger

    If you say so. Under no circumstances am I going to agree with you though, if that was your aim.

  • kavadias1981

    Posted Apr 29, 2009 9:15 am GMT

    @afrosud12

    I'm entitled to my opinion. Just because you disagree with it it doesn't make it wrong. If you really find my comment that annoying though, feel free to meet me in person and insult me then. Christ, it annoys me when people insult eachother behind the safety of the internet but haven't the stones to do it to people's faces.

  • nappan

    Posted Apr 29, 2009 9:08 am GMT

    Ugh... to everyone who think that Free Speech is a universal right, and that corporations can't dictate policies... start swearing and such on this thread. Then, take the time you spend being moderated to contemplate the legal and social nature of the 1st ammendment of the USA (not others necessarily) constitution.

  • nappan

    Posted Apr 29, 2009 9:00 am GMT

    @rht1992: An argument for a play that may or may not have been good (winning awards means buptkis), really doesn't relate to a game. There's an inherent cruelty in recreating a battle in a game, that was part of war that is still going on; especially a war as stupid and tragic as this one. This game shouldn't be banned or censored, but it IS alright to use our free speech to say "no thanks".

    This isn't about a social slippery slope... I'm not going to suddenly go mad like Ashcroft and start covering statues. In life, given the relative nature of morality, you have to use your own judgement as to where the line is drawn. As for Konami, no one MADE them stop... they made a financial and PR decision based on the organized use of the FREE SPEECH enjoyed by people with an opinion other than yours.

    Disagree? Do more than post, organize, raise funds, and pressure in the other direction... that's how the world works right now. Now, if this game were to be BANNED... I would disagree with that on 1st ammendment concepts (although it doesn't apply to the British group, or the Japanese publisher of course).

  • Jinroh_basic

    Posted Apr 29, 2009 8:57 am GMT

    i'm with Konami on this. get serious and read up on the topic ( Dexter Filkins' Forever War is a great start ) .... you're not helping by playing a game.

  • Drower

    Posted Apr 29, 2009 8:57 am GMT

    It actually seems like an interesting game. I hope they can find a publisher that is positive to free speech.

  • Biocide69

    Posted Apr 29, 2009 8:53 am GMT

    Oh well, not like there isn't enough shooters out there. Interesting arguments on here though.

  • konradak

    Posted Apr 29, 2009 8:17 am GMT

    This is pathetic. I can't understand how people can justify stopping a publisher from producing this game. I understand people lost their loved ones to the war, but those same people have no problem talking about Vietnam or making WWII jokes.

  • rht1992

    Posted Apr 29, 2009 7:53 am GMT

    So people don't like computer games being controversial but its fine with films and books? A play called the black watch was about a squad in the black watch and how they survived and remembered iraq. That play won multiply awards and was considered one of the best plays for years. How's it different from a game based on the same event's?

  • M-Chief

    Posted Apr 29, 2009 7:50 am GMT

    afrosud12, you clearly do not understand what legal measures the US government must take to wage war. The President has the authority to engage in military action only in response to an attack for a limited period of time (3 months but not sure). For united states to go to a legitimate war, the congress must pass a declaration of war. Any military action persisting beyond the allowable time period is considered illegal. Ergo, technically, the iraq war is illegal. In your defense however afrosud, several wars have been waged with congresses permission, e.g. Korea and Vietnam, through resolutions (Gulf of Tonkin Resolution). The affirmation of the military operation in Iraq have been viewed by the executive branch as permission to remain in Iraq. Truth is, this country does not pass declarations of war anymore because its simply easier to wage war without officially declaring it.

  • Lance_Kalzas

    Posted Apr 29, 2009 7:42 am GMT

    I don't see what the big deal is. This game should be made. If it's quality, I'll buy it. If it's not, then I won't. I can't stand how politically correct everyone has to be in today's world for fear of offending someone. It's even worse than it should be since people actually LOOK for an excuse to be offended. It's sickening how low humanity has sunk and it's all for money on top of it.

  • Finy

    Posted Apr 29, 2009 7:15 am GMT

    Easy... change the game title, look for a war related publisher.

  • Waldkrieger

    Posted Apr 29, 2009 6:37 am GMT

    @kavadias1981...you obviously dont realise a president is just a puppet with strings being pulled by people with agends that go back hundreds of years. this war was wanted and planned long before Bush was in office. thats very true. a video game is art, and art can go anywhere it wants to. anything else is censorship, and we have enough of that. I hope someone else picks this up, its very weak and pathetic of Konami to pull out like little scared politically correct babies.

  • GenericUser12

    Posted Apr 29, 2009 6:26 am GMT

    I still don't understand why this game got so much heat. There are plenty of games out there based on much much deadlier battles. People react strangely to video games. If someone were to draw a painting, or write a book about Fallujah nobody would be complaining.

Subscribe to GameSpot's YouTube Channel

Hot Stories

Newsmakers

Featured Stories

Submit News

Got tips? Send them in!

Related Game

Six Days in Fallujah

Six Days in Fallujah Boxshot
Follow:
  1. Not Following
    Xbox 360: Follow
  2. Not Following
    PC: Follow
  3. Not Following
    PlayStation 3: Follow
Add to List
  1. Xbox 360
  2. PC
  3. PlayStation 3

Follow for the latest news, videos, & tips from experts & insiders

GameSpot Fuse
    Platforms:

    Site Blogs