Holy Science! This was unexpected!

kind of crappy, but i said in another post. Hopefully they can make something else with the engine.

I wasn't expecting this, but at the same time it makes sense for konami not wanting to be associated with a game that has had so much negative press.

The difference is that in World war 2 games you do not play as the bloody nazis and I refuse to play Vietnam war shooters based on the same rule.

lotta typos. also, good job Konami. tastelessness is so last year.

PUSSIES!

I guess it was just too controversial for some people. 

Please enjoy this World War II shooter for compensation. (Because you know, its that different)

so just because its based on somthing in more recent years than WWII its un-tasteful to make, i dont see any difference between this and any other real life war based shooter.

They probably bailed for quality reasons, and are pleasing the sensitive groups by saying they bail for their sake. Atomic Games may still continue development, and some "heroic" publisher will save this "bold" move, attracting all the "hardcore gamers" then ripping them off by not delivering on any of the initial promises. The game sounded intriguing in the very beginning, but just as I thought, as soon as the first previews hit, there was no talk of any of the interesting, bold aspects as they simply focused on features you may see in any shooter. How cover works, how destructible environments are, how realistic the action is, and whatever else. The survival horror buzzword wasn't even used in them, so the only mention we saw of it was in the initial announcements. I'm no fan of censorship, and I do think it's ridiculous for people to be fine with the likes of COD4 which conceal their obvious theme with fictional names, and then be upset with those who call it as it is, but this game is probably no big loss and my expectations for it were low to say the least. All their hype to me translated with a simple "you played the imitations (COD4), now play the real deal" as that's the only way you have to sell yet another war game, especially with Modern Warfare 2 on the horizon.

Smart Move

BOOM HEADSHOT...?

Well, its sad, because they are canceling a game because of complaints from people I bet haven't even looked at one single screen shot. But its not like I was hyped for this game anyway...

what a cop out. IF anything i think this would show people what the soldiers had to go thru and make more people respect them even more for their sacrifice.

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.

As much as understand the PR reasons for a major publisher like Konami dropping this, I feel that this is giving in to people like Bill O'Reilly and newspapers like the Daily Mail (which has actually campaigned against this game). I am saddened because the game could have been used to highlight the moral problems suffered on both sides of the Iraq War, rather than being a Killzone 2/Gears of War meathead gruntfest with non-stop 'headshotting', whilst showing the emotional issues raised by the war with the NATO forces as well as ordinary Iraqis.

This obviously was for any reasons based on morality or taste, Konami just didn't want the bad press, which kinda suggests they thought it was tasteless in the 1st place and just didn't credit the consumer with the same intelligence or integrity. Close Combat games were fantastic though

I am reminded of a quote here: "War. War never changes."

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.

Anybody else notice how there was only non-military people (including you guys at Giant Bomb) bitching about how it was inappropriate?
I haven't heard of any actual American soldiers complaining about how it is supposedly wrong. (If you have, please link)
I can imagine that 99% of the people calling in and complaining about the Game were people who have no direct connection to the military whatsoever and/or don't have a clue that videogames have the potential to handle serious matters as well.

It also shows of a certain breeze of Arrogance that you people would be complaining that the people who do most of the killing (that would be you, Americans) are portrayed 'correctly', and not about the fact that the people who sustain most of the casualties are specified, too. But this obviously has quite the history, as I've never heard anybody complain about the American supermen so typical for videogames killing specifically Russians, Vietnamese or Germans.

Sorry, but I felt like that Rant was long overdue.

It's the motives that really frustrate me here.  If they dropped the game and made the judgment call that the game was just a mess that wasn't what it said it was going to be, I'd be fine.  But the motives from what I've read is that Konami caved to the controversy.  That is a spineless move with no merit.  Financially the first motive is still a great way to drop the game and save the potentially lost money but this is pathetic.  The only thing we can do as people is criticize it accordingly when the game is released and as consumers make the decision to purchase the game or not.  THAT'S IT! 

The efforts to make this a moral campaign or jump on the feeling offended bandwagon is really making me angry.  Every controversy where a game had the potential to be offensive got flak.  There's nothing wrong with being legitimately offended at something that is truly offensive, but people often get offended by things that are merely potentially offensive and are not thanks to context, intent, or some goddamn intelligence.

So it's not that they care, they just don't want the bad press.  Weak.

The really bizarre thing for me is, why deliberately go for a 'controversial' name if you're going to cave as soon as there's controversy?  Wasn't the free press the whole point?

They could have made the exact same game but set in MadeUpNameTown and nobody would have thought twice about it. It's like Bully having to have a different name in the UK just to appease the phony morals brigade.

If any gaming site feels that strongly about it, they should stick to their convictions and stop covering it.

It’s a smart move by Konami and I’m not sure why they stepped into that minefield to begin with.  It is just too soon and too specific.

" It also shows of a certain breeze of Arrogance that you people would be complaining that the people who do most of the killing (that would be you, Americans) are portrayed 'correctly', and not about the fact that the people who sustain most of the casualties are specified, too."

I think the entire concept of this game is in bad taste and can't really fault Konami for dropping it even though its clear they are only doing it because of the money and not any ethical concern. Still I can't get too angry, except for 3D Castlevania games Konami can do no wrong by me.

If I'm a business and it looks like I'm not going to make much money on a project because the controversy will outweigh any publicity, I'd probably cut the thing unless the pressure was from groups I either felt were not representative of the buyer base, or that the people protesting weren't coming up with anything substantive (but again their connection to the consumer base, or their influence over the consumer base, would have to be established for me to take it seriously).

What's weird is there are two diametrically opposed ways of looking at it.  One is that people won't like it because it will trivialize what real people are going through right now, make something that currently is going on look somehow less real.  The other is that people won't like it because it will glorify what is an inherently dirty business.  One says that the trivialization is on the act itself, the other is on the consequences of that act.  Both have merits, both are in opposition, and the people who hold those opinions would likely not see eye to eye on the issues the war has brought up.

This is an old question in video game years; how close do you get to real life, right now?  How much are games an escape, and how much are they a reflection of us as we are now?  Even GTA, with its grit, tends to take a level of abstraction to the issues they bring up.  War games tend to be abstract, or if they're on the ground, they tend to be fictional wars or wars that have concluded. 

As far as it being a good GAME, though, I wonder: couldn't they have just changed the location or the time period, and kept the game itself?  Was the engine any good, or was it not far enough along to make that judgement?  Would it have wound up being a mediocre game that slid in on its controversial topic, or would it have had an excellent engine, with the environment it was played in superficial?  I guess there's a third possibility, that it could have combined the topic and the engine and made something very real.  But how real would it have to be for people to consider it satisfactory?  How unreal?

I figure trying for topicality in games shouldn't be shunned just because it's controversial, though.  I hope this doesn't set any kind of precendent, since I'm one of those freaks that think games can still say pertinent stuff about society and still be games.  As to this specific game, I'd say we really have no idea what kind of game this ultimately would have been.  I'm not really keen on glorifying or demonizing something that doesn't exist yet, and may never exist.

I think they should have approached this a bit differently.  While I don't like some of the ideas behind this game, the concept I do like.  The video game community is always crying out to be taken more seriously by the naysayers, but as soon as an opportunity arrives for us to do something with what little voice we have, we shoot it down and back out.  I think this game would've been fine, as a means to tell a story.  Books do it, movies do it and just about every other form of media you can name does it.  I know it's a little difficult for us, because it IS a GAME after all, but I really do believe there is a way we can approach something like this, and make it meaningful. 

While I understand, I'm a little disappointed in Konami, and the gaming community, in general.

>>What do you mean, "You people"...<<

What do YOU mean, "You people"...

Such a good movie...

After all the bad press the game got I can understand why Konami didn't want to be associated with the game. I'm still undecided about the game itself because if it was truly realistic and accurate towards the events it wouldn't be a very fun game to play, as the actual events that occurred were depressing and saddening to say the least and I'm not sure I want to play them out in a game.

For all you people saying Konami are chickening out, they're a company and like I said when the game was first touted it's all about the money. They probably sat down and calculated the revenues that would come from the game against the bad press, PR and corporate image and decided against it.

Nothing to do with pussies or freedom of speech, the whole world revolved around money always has.

Game was sounding bad anyways from quality persepctive. Not to mention the idea once you go into well lets get the side of the story from terrorists as well. Really Konami? You going to have players strap on bombs and kill civillians on purpose or worse? Cut off kidnapped prisoners heads? Not likely.

I only care if its good or not

"Game was sounding bad anyways from quality persepctive. Not to mention the idea once you go into well lets get the side of the story from terrorists as well. Really Konami? You going to have players strap on bombs and kill civillians on purpose or worse? Cut off kidnapped prisoners heads? Not likely. "

Where this game really loses credibility is in the concessions it makes 'because it still has to be fun'. 

Do you think we'll ever move past games needing to be fun?  I mean, nobody considers Schindler's List to be a 'fun' movie, but that didn't prevent it being a commercial and critical success.  Evidently gaming isn't there yet, but will it ever be?

well, fuck the American audiences and sell this games to Europeans and Asia instead. Don't back out just becuase some fuckin dumbass Americans are bitchin about it.

ohh right, Americans loves to sue, i guess thats the main reason why Konami backed out i guess.

Though it is a touchy subject for some, I think its unfortunate Konami is dropping it. There have been numerous terrible movies in the past few years with Iraq as a setting, why are video-games excluded from the subject matter simply because they are video-games? And stuff like COD 4 was basically set in Iraq anyway, they just didn't have the guts to say it straight out.

Wow...all you people bitched and complained about the game, and now you are turning around and saying "whoa, way to be pussies"?  MAKE UP YOUR MINDS!!!

Personally, I was excited to check the game out.  I'm a fan of Full Spectrum Warrior, and that's based on military training software.

Oh well.  Hopefully someone picks this up and it comes out.  My buddy Dustin Losak was in Fallujah, and he was excited to see the game being released.  If a soldier that was in the thick of it for 2 tours was excited, then I'm more than pumped!

Dave Snider said,
 "Do you think Konami would have even been in this mess if the game had a less in your face name?"

NO! I honestly think a big part of the mess is in the name. If they had named it - "Counter-insurgency", or something more bland and generic, I think they might have caught a lot less negative PR.

people need to stop being so damn sensitive. I don't understand these emotions people have, why the outrage.  If they were making fun of it maybe i could understand, but as far as I've heard, they are trying to make an accurate representation.

You know, I had to give this game something at least for being honest.  Instead of doing what everything from COD4 to the TV show 24 does now and make up a country to avoid politics, this game said exactly what it was doing.  I love me my 24 and COD4, but every time they either find a way to not say where you are or make up a country, I just roll my eyes.

This games going to sell well just because of the controversy.

Any chance the game might still be published by another company?  I thought it was a great idea.

"PUSSIES!"

Someone is going to pick this up. I am actually getting intrigued about this idea, but the game may end up being sucky anyway, so its going to get even worse due to the source material.

Midway, now's your chance!