Rumor: Six Days In Fallujah Developer To Close Doors

Rumor: Six Days In Fallujah Developer To Close Doors

image

Sources are claiming that Atomic Games is not long for this world.

News reached us on Thursday that developer Atomic Games had let go an unspecified number of staff members. Now, an anonymous source is claiming that this number may be higher than Atomic has implied. If these rumors are correct, then previous reports that they would continue with funding from their sister company Destineer may turn out to have been overstated.

Speaking to IndustryGamers, the anonymous source claimed that of the company's 75 employees, only a dozen or so remained: "The remaining team is basically a skeleton cleanup crew that will be gone soon too. They are trying to downplay the extent of these layoffs, but the reality is that Atomic is pretty much dead."

Atomic's misfortunes all center around their controversial shooter Six Days In Fallujah, billed as a realistic look at the Iraq war, that was dropped by publisher Konami only weeks after it was announced following the negative reactions it garnered from the USA.

We've contacted Atomic Games about the rumors and will keep you updated on the developer's fate.

Source: Shacknews

Permalink

No! No! They never had a chance to make Close Combat VI! I refuse to believe. Now that crappy Matrix games will keep reboxing the old games and charging an arm and leg for them. This is the worse news I've had all week.

I know that information on this game is limited. We are aware of controversial material in the game, yet without the game seeing the light of day, we'll all remain ignorant of how well Atomic has managed to craft this experience. Personally I consider that a shame; while I would have waited for a review before making a purchase decision, I'm more than aware that many gamers as well as developers would love to create more adult themes within our hobby.

No publisher, no funds. No funds, no staff.

Certain publishers, need to find some balls.

The last time I can remember an honest to god, adult oriented, holy shit moment, was being nuked in Modern Warfare.

HobbesMkii:
No! No! They never had a chance to make Close Combat VI! I refuse to believe. Now that crappy Matrix games will keep reboxing the old games and charging an arm and leg for them. This is the worse news I've had all week.

I think that's important to point out, Atomic Games does more than just Six Days.

ouch, one single game can really hurt a company big time... first Free Radical with Haze, now this :S

We can make films about the Holocaust and child abuse, yet as soon as a video game tries to tackle a sensitive subject...damn shame...

It's not fair is it? It looked like a good, realistic, down-to-earth military sim. Yet people are treating it like its hell alive.

Generic_Dave:
We can make films about the Holocaust and child abuse, yet as soon as a video game tries to tackle a sensitive subject...damn shame...

Sevre90210:
It's not fair is it? It looked like a good, realistic, down-to-earth military sim. Yet people are treating it like its hell alive.

This was pretty much exactly what I wanted to say. The fact that I'm still posting is just to express my disappointment if this rumor turns out to be true.

Fucking fundamentalists.

Sorry Atomic Games, the worl... America isn't ready for your brand of being a grown up yet. :(

Chipperz:
Fucking fundamentalists.

Sorry Atomic Games, the worl... America isn't ready for your brand of being a grown up yet. :(

Sure it is, just not from a video game. Video games are immature, that's why people took offense to one being about such a touchy subject.

Great artist are rarely ever appreciated in there lifetime so I guess the same holds true for game companies.

nilcypher:
Atomic's misfortunes all center around their controversial shooter Six Days In Fallujah, billed as a realistic look at the Iraq war, that was dropped by publisher Konami only weeks after it was announced following the negative reactions it garnered from the USA.

I wonder what reason that was for... hmmm...

I sense an overeacton.

Armitage Shanks:

Generic_Dave:
We can make films about the Holocaust and child abuse, yet as soon as a video game tries to tackle a sensitive subject...damn shame...

Sevre90210:
It's not fair is it? It looked like a good, realistic, down-to-earth military sim. Yet people are treating it like its hell alive.

This was pretty much exactly what I wanted to say. The fact that I'm still posting is just to express my disappointment if this rumor turns out to be true.

Like I said in my other post, where was the outrage that stopped the 9/11 film?

John Wayne made a Vietnam movie that was pro-American and shot in a pine forest. DURING the Vietnam war. This is okay. But a video game touching on something and trying (even if the game is terrible) to at least bring the subject into the gaming world is outright offensive to people it seems. Until a company encounters something like this and says "To hell with you, we're releasing this and it'll sit on the shelf next to books and movies and music about the war." games will never break that boundary between entertainment and art. When the results of something like this are so devastating to a company, why would anyone take the risk.

"Wait so let me get this straight. It's o.k. to shoot up nazi's 12 times a year and portray them as zombies, but when Iraq gets involved everybody's spine seems to check out for the day...thats why we can't have nice things."
-The Dead Pixel.

Djehuty:
"Wait so let me get this straight. It's o.k. to shoot up nazi's 12 times a year and portray them as zombies, but when Iraq gets involved everybody's spine seems to check out for the day...thats why we can't have nice things."
-The Dead Pixel.

Don't compare Iraqis to Nazis. They didn't provoke the US to attack them, and the first fallujah skirmish which was started by the 'accidental' killing of two civvies by US snipers during a protest is not "entertainment factor" for a bunch of kiddies who could care less about the war and more about blowing shit up. Shacknews report on the game seems to put itin the "Gears of War" category more than Operation Flashpoint. Explosion, blood, gore, you know, the kind of stuff kids like so much these days.

How the fuck does one equate the Iraqi War with 'nice things'?

Should have done a game about Afghanistan instead.

Sevre90210:
It's not fair is it? It looked like a good, realistic, down-to-earth military sim. Yet people are treating it like its hell alive.

It had a reganertive health system, down to earth my ass

nilcypher:

Sources are claiming that Atomic Games is not long for this world.

Atomic Games will never get out of this world alive.
But, oh well.

Shouldn't they have had close talks with their publisher BEFORE they went ahead and dumped time and money into something they were never going to sell?

I mean, I'm the first guy to come out on the art side of the "art vs. money" debate. But at the same time, the modern gaming industry is not the 3 Guys, 4 Months industry it was 20 years ago. If making games is going to be your business, then you have to have some business savvy when you make your creative decisions.

Personally, I question how "real" war shooters really have to be. My brother-in-law and cousin are both Iraq War veterans. Listening to their stories, I see few "real" aspects of real war that would be all that fun to play.

TheBluesader:
Shouldn't they have had close talks with their publisher BEFORE they went ahead and dumped time and money into something they were never going to sell?

I mean, I'm the first guy to come out on the art side of the "art vs. money" debate. But at the same time, the modern gaming industry is not the 3 Guys, 4 Months industry it was 20 years ago. If making games is going to be your business, then you have to have some business savvy when you make your creative decisions.

Personally, I question how "real" war shooters really have to be. My brother-in-law and cousin are both Iraq War veterans. Listening to their stories, I see few "real" aspects of real war that would be all that fun to play.

The belief that it must be "fun" to be a good experience is one of the things holding back video games in general. I mean, would you call Schindler's List fun to watch?

orannis62:

TheBluesader:
Shouldn't they have had close talks with their publisher BEFORE they went ahead and dumped time and money into something they were never going to sell?

I mean, I'm the first guy to come out on the art side of the "art vs. money" debate. But at the same time, the modern gaming industry is not the 3 Guys, 4 Months industry it was 20 years ago. If making games is going to be your business, then you have to have some business savvy when you make your creative decisions.

Personally, I question how "real" war shooters really have to be. My brother-in-law and cousin are both Iraq War veterans. Listening to their stories, I see few "real" aspects of real war that would be all that fun to play.

The belief that it must be "fun" to be a good experience is one of the things holding back video games in general. I mean, would you call Schindler's List fun to watch?

Even though I've never seen it, films similar to it don't have to be fun, they just need to be great.

But games are made for the purpose of fun. If this game was created I would like it to have some deep combat with a compelling storyline with great characters, but that won't happen because people are crying pansies.

orannis62:
The belief that it must be "fun" to be a good experience is one of the things holding back video games in general. I mean, would you call Schindler's List fun to watch?

I'm actually playing through Silent Hill 2 on PC as we speak, and you've given me just cause for reflection. Silent Hill 2 is not "fun" in any traditional sense, yet I find myself impelled to keep going back to it. I suppose I could say I just find it fun to be scared, but Silent Hill 2 isn't so much scary, as it is overwhelmingly depressing, jarring and unsettling.

A really realistic war game that tries to accurately capture history as well as Schindler's List would be a very valuable thing. Even as a gamer, I sometimes forget how powerful games could be if given the chance.

I still stand by the core of my post, though. Business is business. But...yeah.

Well that sucks. I guess I'll have to keep playing ArmA 2 for an awesome realistic modern shooter. Ah, ArmA. I love you.

NoMoreSanity:

orannis62:

TheBluesader:
Shouldn't they have had close talks with their publisher BEFORE they went ahead and dumped time and money into something they were never going to sell?

I mean, I'm the first guy to come out on the art side of the "art vs. money" debate. But at the same time, the modern gaming industry is not the 3 Guys, 4 Months industry it was 20 years ago. If making games is going to be your business, then you have to have some business savvy when you make your creative decisions.

Personally, I question how "real" war shooters really have to be. My brother-in-law and cousin are both Iraq War veterans. Listening to their stories, I see few "real" aspects of real war that would be all that fun to play.

The belief that it must be "fun" to be a good experience is one of the things holding back video games in general. I mean, would you call Schindler's List fun to watch?

Even though I've never seen it, films similar to it don't have to be fun, they just need to be great.

But games are made for the purpose of fun. If this game was created I would like it to have some deep combat with a compelling storyline with great characters, but that won't happen because people are crying pansies.

Again, this attitude is holding out medium back. Just because the public's preconceived notion is that games are little more than high-tech toys, that means they can never be more? Games are a (comparatively)young medium at the moment, and for it to be taken seriously enough to fulfill films' niche and more (in the same sense that films did for books; the older medium is still there and in some ways preferable to the newer one, but the new one can still tell the same story in a manner easier to comprehend), we must accept the possibility of a game that can be enjoyable and enriching without being "fun".

orannis62:

NoMoreSanity:

orannis62:

TheBluesader:
Shouldn't they have had close talks with their publisher BEFORE they went ahead and dumped time and money into something they were never going to sell?

I mean, I'm the first guy to come out on the art side of the "art vs. money" debate. But at the same time, the modern gaming industry is not the 3 Guys, 4 Months industry it was 20 years ago. If making games is going to be your business, then you have to have some business savvy when you make your creative decisions.

Personally, I question how "real" war shooters really have to be. My brother-in-law and cousin are both Iraq War veterans. Listening to their stories, I see few "real" aspects of real war that would be all that fun to play.

The belief that it must be "fun" to be a good experience is one of the things holding back video games in general. I mean, would you call Schindler's List fun to watch?

Even though I've never seen it, films similar to it don't have to be fun, they just need to be great.

But games are made for the purpose of fun. If this game was created I would like it to have some deep combat with a compelling storyline with great characters, but that won't happen because people are crying pansies.

Again, this attitude is holding out medium back. Just because the public's preconceived notion is that games are little more than high-tech toys, that means they can never be more? Games are a (comparatively)young medium at the moment, and for it to be taken seriously enough to fulfill films' niche and more (in the same sense that films did for books; the older medium is still there and in some ways preferable to the newer one, but the new one can still tell the same story in a manner easier to comprehend), we must accept the possibility of a game that can be enjoyable and enriching without being "fun".

Tell me, have you ever enjoyed a game that wasn't fun? Because even the most compelling and thought-provoking games were fun. And that doesn't mean games can't be more than what they are.

NoMoreSanity:

orannis62:

NoMoreSanity:

orannis62:

TheBluesader:
Shouldn't they have had close talks with their publisher BEFORE they went ahead and dumped time and money into something they were never going to sell?

I mean, I'm the first guy to come out on the art side of the "art vs. money" debate. But at the same time, the modern gaming industry is not the 3 Guys, 4 Months industry it was 20 years ago. If making games is going to be your business, then you have to have some business savvy when you make your creative decisions.

Personally, I question how "real" war shooters really have to be. My brother-in-law and cousin are both Iraq War veterans. Listening to their stories, I see few "real" aspects of real war that would be all that fun to play.

The belief that it must be "fun" to be a good experience is one of the things holding back video games in general. I mean, would you call Schindler's List fun to watch?

Even though I've never seen it, films similar to it don't have to be fun, they just need to be great.

But games are made for the purpose of fun. If this game was created I would like it to have some deep combat with a compelling storyline with great characters, but that won't happen because people are crying pansies.

Again, this attitude is holding out medium back. Just because the public's preconceived notion is that games are little more than high-tech toys, that means they can never be more? Games are a (comparatively)young medium at the moment, and for it to be taken seriously enough to fulfill films' niche and more (in the same sense that films did for books; the older medium is still there and in some ways preferable to the newer one, but the new one can still tell the same story in a manner easier to comprehend), we must accept the possibility of a game that can be enjoyable and enriching without being "fun".

Tell me, have you ever enjoyed a game that wasn't fun? Because even the most compelling and thought-provoking games were fun. And that doesn't mean games can't be more than what they are.

"Fun" can mean many different things, which is why I was putting it in quotes. It seems to me that you're using it to mean simply an enjoyable experience, whereas I mean the sort of thing that makes a popcorn flick enjoyable compared to a more thought provoking one. Possibly a poor choice of words on my part, and I'm still finding it hard to word properly. Perhaps an example is in order.

Have you heard of The Path? It's a sort of reimagining of Little Red Riding Hood, although much deeper than that makes it sound. In it, there are 6 "Reds", each a girl at a different age, with different responsibilities and personalities. They go through a metaphorical version of the classic story, each with their own personal "Wolf", a person or experience which robs them of their innocence (and, despite how it is presented at first glance, they are not raped). It could simply be the jaded, misanthropic emo having a relationship and realizing she is not as prepared for the world as she thought, or the little 8 year old having a run-in with nature (the only literal wolf in the game) and realizing that maybe not everything in the world is safe and fun, you get the idea. I would not call this game fun. I'm certainly glad I played it, I've literally spent hours pondering it and it has to be the subtlest horror game I've ever played, but it is not fun. I really have no idea how else I can word it.

Well, consider that there are a few "Booyah go America" types like me who would love a game like the one they were developing, especially if it was everything the critics feared. Unless they were going for somekind of blockbuster mainstream success I don't see the problem.

I think it's a sign that the gaming industry really needs to grow a pair when you get down to it. Firing 75 people because of a protest is kind of silly in this case. If anything they should have used the publicity to help get information about their game out. I'm pretty sure that if they stuck to their guns they would have found another publisher.

I understand if people who actually know enlisted soldiers feel that seeing all the ways their friends and family could be dying isn't all that appealing, but I think this would be a nice look at a real life issue. Besides, if I recall, it was brainstormed by a guy who was actually there.

Deleric:
I understand if people who actually know enlisted soldiers feel that seeing all the ways their friends and family could be dying isn't all that appealing, but I think this would be a nice look at a real life issue. Besides, if I recall, it was brainstormed by a guy who was actually there.

True. Apparently, some soldiers came back and wanted to tell their story, but they wanted it to be in the medium they actually felt was relevant to them. The kicker is, if they chose to make it a movie, it would have been a box office smash, I guarantee.

Wow, but I'm bitter tonight.

Generic_Dave:
We can make films about the Holocaust and child abuse, yet as soon as a video game tries to tackle a sensitive subject...damn shame...

now try to make a game about the Holocaust while having child abuse sub-plots and people would praise it as a historical game.

On another note, if this is controversial then why wasnt the Black Hawk Down game controversial? i mean it was based off of real events, it told the story of a few of the people that were involved [one was later arrested after he was discharged from the military for child abuse, and I think even his name appeared a few times in the game], but the reason it wasnt? every game sold had its profits shared with a fund to help families of wounded or dead soldiers, now if Atomic had done something like that, which would of made me buy 4 by the way [just so I could kick my friends asses], Im sure people would be clamoring for a release date right now.

My first thought when I heard about game that (supposedly) protrays the war in Iraq in a realistic way and convey a message was that it would be insanely preachy.

I don't think there's anything wrong, per se, about wanting to get a message out, but a game is a very difficult media for that. Sending a message is a very one-sided experience, whereas games are interactive. Edutainment tries to bridge the gap, but rarely succeeds.

I feel that this (an possibly other games like it) are being pushed by the Artsy wing, people who want games to Be Art and Have a Message, without caring whether the game is good as a game, which should (in my opinion) by paramount.

There are ways a game about Iraq could be educational without being dull. You could have a strategy game playable from both sides, where they both try to gain local support through various aggressive and friendly acts. It would show the strengths, weaknesses, and limits of both the US and Al Qaeda. Shooters are nice, but they don't really illustrate what anything's about, it's just one fellow in the wrong uniform after another. With neat weapons. And vehicles.

NoMoreSanity:

orannis62:

TheBluesader:
Shouldn't they have had close talks with their publisher BEFORE they went ahead and dumped time and money into something they were never going to sell?

I mean, I'm the first guy to come out on the art side of the "art vs. money" debate. But at the same time, the modern gaming industry is not the 3 Guys, 4 Months industry it was 20 years ago. If making games is going to be your business, then you have to have some business savvy when you make your creative decisions.

Personally, I question how "real" war shooters really have to be. My brother-in-law and cousin are both Iraq War veterans. Listening to their stories, I see few "real" aspects of real war that would be all that fun to play.

The belief that it must be "fun" to be a good experience is one of the things holding back video games in general. I mean, would you call Schindler's List fun to watch?

Even though I've never seen it, films similar to it don't have to be fun, they just need to be great.

But games are made for the purpose of fun. If this game was created I would like it to have some deep combat with a compelling storyline with great characters, but that won't happen because people are crying pansies.

I did find it funny how people went on about the girl being the only one in colour and me being colourblind didn't notice during the entire film

HobbesMkii:
No! No! They never had a chance to make Close Combat VI! I refuse to believe. Now that crappy Matrix games will keep reboxing the old games and charging an arm and leg for them. This is the worse news I've had all week.

I will slaughter a small village if I never get my CCVI. I swear it.

Maybe they can have an extra section where US gunner mistakes cameramen and journoes as enemy militia holding rifles? :|

If you're going to make a 'realistic' war game you should tell the story from BOTH angles otherwise you're not only just ruffling feathers, but being damn nationalistic about it.

 

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here