The WSJ reported that the game had over 40 veterans contribute to the project.
"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," a public relations official of Konami 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."As a sensitive subject, there's not a whole lot for me to add to this one other then ask what you guys think. Is Konami chickening out? Is there anything different about playing a game set in Iraq based on real events then one based on Vietnam or World War II? Do you think Konami would have even been in this mess if the game had a less in your face name? Would a publisher based in the United States run into the same problem?
I'm curious to know who will jump in to pick this one up, given all the hoopla. My guess is the guys at Atomic, who acording to their site make training sims for the world's leading military and intelligence organizations, won't have any trouble finding a new backer. If not, here's hoping they decide to make another Close Combat game instead. The early strategy titles for the PC were some of my favorites in the genre.
This is no more "tasteless" than any other shooter based on real life events. a time difference of 20-50 years should not be needed to make something like this. IF this is tasteless then so is every movie based on recent conflicts. I say get over it and stop looking for reasons to bitch about stuff, there is already too much of that in this world. America has went from hard as nails to soft as a plush teddy bear.
It doesnt matter if it was 5 years or 50 years or 500 years ago, making a game based on actual events is all the same in terms of "taste." I think konami pussed out big time.