Kicking off Kotaku's review of 2009 are the headlines that generated the most heat, if not light, from the preceding year. The conflicts fracture along familiar faultlines - legal claims; violence and in-game content; marketing and etc. And by no means is this an exhaustive list. There were plenty of other decisions, indecisions, gaffes, gambits and shrewd calls made by the games industry - a dynamic capitalist enterprise, of course - and we invite you to continue the discussion of them in our comments.

Knuckleheaded
EA's press promo for Godfather II backfires when the brass knuckles it sends (including a pair to Crecente) turn out to be illegal in many of the states to which they are shipped (including Colorado). It's also illegal to ship them in California, where EA is based. EA asks for all of the knuckles back. Godfather II then backfires when the game sucks.

One Fallujah the Cuckoo's Nest
Konami tiptoed up to the "too soon?" line by announcing "Six Days in Fallujah," a combat FPS based on the deadly 2006 American operation to pacify the region in Iraq. Then developer Atomic Games took a flying leap over the line by mentioning it had consulted with insurgents on the game's initial design. By the end of the month, Konami dropped the project like it was a hot, nuclear-waste infused pop-tart. Atomic continued to insist the project was alive, while shopping it to other publishers. But by the end of the year, Atomic president Peter Tamte seemed to have gotten further with his idea for a "family-friendly" game about Marines pacifying Beirut, instead. That one is scheduled for a January 2010 release. Apparently, in video games, it's all about location, location, location. [Thanks to commenter ashleyillman001 for reminding us of this one.]

Our Legal Team Goes to 11
Activision's lawyers file a face-melting suit against studio Double Fine over Brütal Legend, whose publishing shifted over from Activision to Electronic Arts earlier in the year. Activision seeks to halt the game's release on grounds that Double Fine missed a key deadline when it was accountable to Activision. EA, not sued, still tells Activision STFU, and that they're just jealous in the manner of "a husband abandoning his family and then suing after his wife meets a better looking guy." Double Fine countersues, alleging Activision was trying to kill off Brütal Legend, seeing it as a threat to Guitar Hero. Ultimately, the two sides settle out of court, and Brütal Legend makes its declared release day.

Turn Out the Lights, the LAN Party's Over
StarCraft is a longtime staple of LAN parties, but that tradition will end with StarCraft II. In late June, Blizzard tells Kotaku that the title will not support local area network gaming, and will instead steer players over to "our upgraded Battle.net service." One of the reasons given is that it cuts down on piracy. Predictably, Starcraft enthusiasts head to the Batpoles to draft a petition. Instead of making fist-shaking demands and threatening boycotts, what comes out is more of a polite "please?" The effort has gathered 244,510 signatures to date. But at Blizzcon, executive v.p. of game design Rob Pardo tells Fahey that "Only from the press," is Blizzard still taking flak for the decision. "Everyone else has accepted it."

Edgy Edged Edginess over Edge
Tim Langdell had a terrible reputation within the games industry prior to this year, but his pissing contest with Mobigame over the word "Edge" represents a coming out party. Langdell, excoriated for his aggressive defense of the trademark "Edge," which he registered years ago, has Mobigame's acclaimed title for the iPhone removed from the iTunes App Store in May. The controversy and terrible publicity result in Langdell's resignation from the board of the International Game Developers Association, and ultimately Electronic Arts suing to cancel Langdell's trademarks, over a dispute regarding 2008's Mirror's Edge. Mobigame's game resurfaces as "Mobigame by Edge" later in the year.

Who Sold Out Whom?
At E3 2009, Valve's announcement of Left 4 Dead 2 ignites feelings of betrayal and marginalization in some who bought the original Left 4 Dead barely seven months before. Immediately a boycott group forms on the Steam forums, vowing not to buy or play the new game. Some 10,000 people join it in the first few days. Stern criticisms include: "The fiddle-based horde music is extremely disliked, though the differently orchestrated music is otherwise welcome." In September, Valve shrewdly co-opts the boycott's leadership, flying two of its organizers to Valve HQ to get some hands-on time with Left 4 Dead 2. Both immediately sing its praises. On launch day in November, most in the boycott stick to their guns, but many cave in and play anyway.

Dante's Fiasco(es)
The Dante's Inferno marketing team was apparently on a rampage to execute the most boneheaded campaign of any title in 2009. After sending a bunch of fake religious zealots to E3 to protest the game there, pissing off real religious zealots with the stereotype, they cook up the "Sin to Win" whopper of Comic-Con. Basically, Comic-Con goers were encouraged to "commit acts of lust" by having their photos taken with booth babes, then submit the photos for judgment and a chance to win a "sinful night with two hot girls," plus other amenities. Outrage catches on, and the Dante's Inferno team apologizes. A real booth babe rips them a new one, and a gay man wins a runner-up prize for submitting his picture with a "booth bear."

Made from Scratch
It's a story that combines 2009's trendiest douche moves - lawsuits, and layoffs. In April, Activision is sued by publisher Genius Products and peripheral maker Numark Industries over its acquisition of 7 Studios, conveniently and coincidentally developing a rival game to Activision's own DJ Hero. A court in L.A. orders Activision to give over all the code from the competing title - Scratch: The Ultimate DJ. The two sides settle on a cash-for-code prisoner exchange, and Scratch is rebooked for an early 2010 release. DJ Hero, despite reasonably good reviews and a full-bore marketing campaign, disappoints in sales, which doesn't look good for Scratch next year. Finally, once 7 Studios is no longer useful to this corporate psychodrama, Activision lays off half of its workforce.

Sambo No Amigo
Scribblenauts, the wildly creative DS hit developed by 5th Cell, encounters an unintentional problem with racial sensitivity when writing the word "sambo" creates a watermelon on the screen. In the minor video games market known as the United States, both are overtly racist images with a history going back decades. 5th Cell points out the game is developed for multiple countries and languages, and that the watermelon summoned is in fact a "fig-leafed gourd," by which it is apparently known as "sambo" in Spanish. The game's publisher, Warner Bros. Interactive issues a more comprehensive apology, expressing deep regret for the word's inclusion. Internet tough-guy commenters who don't see what the trouble is with the word "sambo" are invited to say it around their black friends. None has any.

Shut Your Hole
Courtney Love, wife of self-martyred pop star Kurt Cobain, announces via Twitter she's gonna "sue the shit out of Activision," over its insensitive use of her hubby's likeness in Guitar Hero 5 - which includes his avatar singing songs not performed by Nirvana, which means in someone else's voice. Activision's response is all, "Um, RTFA," and points to the contract she in fact signed granting the use of Cobain's likeness as a "fully playable character." Jon Bon Jovi backs Love, saying he nothankyou.jpg'd Activision's offer of an appearance in the same game. Then Gwen Stefani, not one to be out-dramaqueened, and her band No Doubt file a lawsuit similar to Love's. Activision returns fire, suing No Doubt for failure to perform due diligence and breach of contract. Congratulations, everyone now looks bad.

A Lack of Dedication
In October, Infinity Ward community manager Robert Bowling goes on a podcast with hardcore Modern Warfare fans and announces the creation of the matchmaking service IWNet. You then hear the gears turning in the podcast hosts' heads: But ... that ... means the end of ... dedicated servers ... right? Right. Immediately, petitions and boycotts are announced, gathering some 20,000 signatures in the first day. Infinity Ward sticks to its claim that IWNet will be an improvement. By launch day, the boycott is effectively over.

Video About Gamers' Insensitivity Not Acceptable
Philadelphia Phillies pitcher - and noted Modern Warfare enthusiast - Cole Hamels (pictured) reminds us that "grenades are for pussies," in a faux-public service announcement brought to you by "Fight Against Grenade Spam." That, of course, makes the acronym FAGS and all, or at least partial, hell breaks loose. Infinity Ward, the producer of the video, is upbraided not so much for a veiled homophobic slur, but for a clip that portrays the game's community as dominated by uber-macho, insult-spewing assclowns. Infinity Ward removes the video the next day.

No Russian Was Harmed in the Making
Leaked gameplay footage of Modern Warfare 2 shows that players will - in the guise of an undercover mission - join terrorists as they invade an airport, kill and commit atrocities against civilians. Activision immediately points out the mission is skippable, both before it begins and at any point during it, and is "designed to evoke the atrocities of terrorism." The game, already classified for sale in Australia, is the subject of brief demands to have it reclassified and effectively banned, but they go nowhere. The sequence is removed from versions sold in Russia, and modified in the Japanese and German versions so that players shooting any civilians are given a "game over" screen. The Japanese version courts additional controversy when the mistranslation of "Remember, no Russian," - instructions to the terrorists not to speak in that language - comes out as "Kill ‘em, the Russians." In the United States, Totilo goes on MSNBC to plead for national calm and mainstream outrage fails to materialize.Modern Warfare 2 goes on to sell more than 4.7 million copies in the North America and the U.K. - on the day of its release.

Frumps on the Barbie
Australia's lack of an R18+ classification for video games comes back to the fore when Left 4 Dead 2 is refused classification by the nation's Review Board. Valve's reaction is, in order, to be "pretty bummed," then to appeal the refused classification and then finally publish a spitefully power-sanitized version just for Australia, which might as well have been titled Imagine: Zombiez.

Frumps on the Barbie II or: Australians vs. Predator
Luke attempts to set us all straight on what is and what ain't banning in Australia. But the country's image, that it's a nation of pantywaists tenderly sensitive to depictions of certain manly acts - such as decapitations - persists. And it seems to be having a cumulative effect. Aliens vs. Predator, at first banned - oops, I mean, refused classification - is reconsidered and then, amazingly, classified MA15+ making it good for sale. Then the government asks for public input on changes to the country's game ratings system. Finally Luke, waking up today and reading this last paragraph, bludgeons me to death with a didgeridoo, over the Internet, the end.

The comments, by the Rt. Revs Mark Bryant, Brian Smith and John Goddard, apparently first appeared in a news release sent out in the past week, written and reported by a freelance journalist. I couldn't find a copy of this release. MCVUK, whom we cited yesterday, only reported Capcom's reaction to the comments; MCVUK did not originally report the clergy's remarks.

Anyway, the Rt. Rev. Smith said his remarks were taken out of context and made out to be more authoritative than they were. "I made it clear that I was not qualified to make a comment," Smith told TVG. "I suggested that the researcher should contact someone in one of the dioceses in London where I understood she was working."

Rt. Rev. Bryant added that his comments had been misrepresented. "I know enough not to go offering outright condemnation of things about which I know comparatively little," he said.

So, OK, sounds like these guys were played to type for purposes of someone's attention-grabbing news release. Sounds plausible. My original point still stands: Why did Capcom even bother to respond? Either these guys, or the people using them, are pikers looking to stir up a fight. Best to just let that dog lie.

Priests Misrepresented In Resident Evil PR Stunt News [Total Video Games]

Speaking to GamesIndustry.biz, Jason Kingsley, the CEO, said:

Despite rumours, Rebellion has always been planning to support dedicated servers for Aliens vs Predator PC and we can now officially confirm that this is the case. Rebellion has always appreciated fan support. We're really looking forward to the release of Aliens vs Predator as much as you guys are!

I'm not sure the earlier report was "rumour" as much as it just left a question unanswered. Regardless, you can expect dedicated servers in this game if that's how you roll in multiplayer.

I am wondering, a little, if Rebellion waiting to see how much hell Infinity Ward would catch for its decision to drop dedicated servers in Modern Warfare 2, then DICE cashing in on the controversy by vowing dedicated server support, and decided the latter was their better marketing option.

Dedicated Servers for Aliens vs. Predator [GamesIndustry.biz, thanks Warboy]

Speaking at the Montreal International Game Summit, Rémi Racine of A2M said:

As a developer who has worked with a lot of different publishers, we're aware of many that have tried to cheat the rating. They say to the ERSB that it's a Teen rating [13+] rather than an Mature [17+] to try and sell more; you can do this just by sending them a video that doesn't show the most violent stuff and then you'll get the rating that you want rather than the rating you should get.

Edge Online, which quoted Racine at the Summit, then published this reply from the ESRB's Eliot Mizrachi:

ESRB takes full disclosure of content during the rating process extremely seriously, and companies that submit their games to ESRB know this very well. We regularly check games post-release to verify that submissions were complete, and it's very likely that if a game contains undisclosed content that would have affected the rating assigned, we'll find out about it. In such cases ESRB can actually impose fines up to $1 million as well as require corrective actions like re-labeling or even recalling product, both of which can obviously be very costly. There's no incentive whatsoever for publishers to withhold content from ESRB in an effort to receive a lower rating, and those that would do so risk significant penalties.

I can't think of any titles which exemplify Racine's accusation; of course, my radar is largely fixated on upcoming AAA releases, and games of such a high profile are almost definitely M-rated or not, in the public's mind, before the ESRB gets hold of them. When was the last M-versus-T controversy anyway? Does it even matter? That said, there might be a few marginal titles out there. But which ones?

MIGS: Publishers "Cheat" Age Ratings [Edge Online]

BASHandSlash user PST*Joker has claimed that Modern Warfare 2's AC-130 reward (achieved for a killstreak of 11) was influenced by mods he and other PC gamers made to the original Modern Warfare. Infinity Ward posted a video (above, currently hosted on a non-Infinity Ward account) highlighting the AC-130 bonus in Modern Warfare 2.

So one of the site's community members sent a tweet out to PST*Joker recommending he, as the owner of the content, send a DMCA takedown to YouTube. "See how youtube responds," he said.

Shortly thereafter, the video was pulled, right off of Infinity Ward's official channel.

BASHandSlash says that after the takedown, Infinity Ward community manager Robert Bowling direct messaged PST*Joker about the removal: " "Really? Copyright infringment claim? :sigh:" read the message, according to BASHandSlash.

MW2: IW Gets AC130 Takedown Notice [BASHandSlash.com, thanks Sean H.]

Says the publication:

Our reviews are tough, but fair. We will not give up our independent scores for the sake of a timely review. This holds true for "Assassin's Creed 2″. The publisher asked us to guarantee the score 'sehr gut' [very good], otherwise we would not receive a review copy, thus we will publish our review in next month's issue. We'd be more than glad to give the game a 'sehr gut', but only if it deserves it.

I've sent an email over to Ubisoft's PR to give them the courtesy of a response. Any that comes will be printed here.

But despite the fact this behavior has strong precedent, keep in mind this boils down to he-said Ubi-said. And it boggles the mind, from what we've all seen so far, that Assassin's Creed II would need such strong-arming to get a good score. But who knows. There is a ton of money riding on a game's Metascore, providing motive enough.

Ed's note: Kotaku received an early retail copy of the game and the note it came with only mentioned a feature of the game and the embargo date. No mention of review score at all.

Ubisoft Demanding High Scores for Early Assassins Creed 2 Reviews? [wearetheinternetz, thanks Lorand K.]

Destructoid's Samit Sarkar, following the event unfold over Twitter, reports that Infinity Ward took fire publicly from Philip Kollar of Game Informer and freelancer Mitchell Dyer over the video's language, tone and especially, the way the fake interest group's name formed the acronym "F.A.G.S." In the video, Philadelphia Phillies pitcher - and Modern Warfare fan - Cole Hamels (pictured, at right), pretends to deliver the public interest message that randomly throwing grenades around in multiplayer is "for pussies," and throws in an "oh f—k," at the end when he himself is blown up. "Fight Against Grenade Spam" appeared as a title card introducing Hamels.

In the end, Bowling said he could "appreciate the concerns" although he felt "the core gag is great," and ultimately, the video was taken down.

Kollar made his feelings known in a long message, broken up into five tweets, to a reader who said he was "overreacting" to the video:

Overreacting how? I'm not organizing a mass boycott or even saying I won't buy the game. I'm just pointing out that their decision to become complicit in one of their communities most oppressive slurs in a not-terribly-fun ad campaign is stupid and makes me reconsider my purchase more than any other controversy surrounding the game thus far. But it's an official video released by them that for all intents and purposes says, "Yeah, we think it's hillarious to use the word FAGS as well! LOLOLOLOL!" Just look at all the YouTube comments saying how totally awesome IW is for that bit. Whether it was their intent or not, that stupid joke condones a part of their community they should be shunning.

Bowling noticed the exchange and replied:

I think it was more of a social commentary joke of that stereotype than it was a fist-bump of acceptance to it.

Dyer replied to that, copying the message to Kollar, with:

The problem is that it was so poorly handled/executed that it looks derogatory. It seems to enforce the asshole-ry.

Finally, Bowling relented in the following tweet:

I agree. I think the core gag is great, the end is a bit too far from the intent of the joke & can appreciate the concerns. Pulled.

And now the withering, scorching comments about political correctness and who has the right to take offense and to what shall begin again, thanks to a video that needlessly took one step over the line. Just a slight tweaking of the PSA group's title, as one Kotaku reader pointed out, to "Fight Relentlessly Against Grenade Spam," would have preserved the spirit of this piece and skirted all the outrage, even with the "for pussies" line.

Many gamers, judged largely on what I've seen in commenting threads and in behavior online, haven't expressed a lot of sophistication on this subject or a great willingness to have a mature discussion about it. It tends to break down to "I'm not offended so, no one else can be either," and accuse anyone who is of politically motivated dishonesty. By no means do I accuse Infinity Ward or Bowling of homophobia or having that same small-minded attitude. But the video was pointlessly provocative, and made not only the studio, but also some of their biggest fans, by their reactions to it, look foolish and reprehensible to the general public. Bowling made the right call in removing it.

Infinity Ward Pulls MW2 Hamels Video After Internet Furor [Destructoid]

Mobigame rebranded the game in the United States and United Kingdom markets specifically to neutralize any claim Tim Langdell's Edge Games - notorious for challenging any use of the word "Edge" by video game developers - might make against the game. A news release from Mobigame stressed that no agreement or settlement had been reached with Langdell.

The game was originally available as EDGE on the App Store in the U.S. and U.K. from March to about May. Its takedown was largely attributed to Langdell, although he says Mobigame itself asked Apple to remove the application in light of the legal dispute.

"We renamed to 'Edge by Mobigame' for the U.S and the U.K market only to have the approval from Apple (and we have it now)," Mobigame's David Papazian told Kotaku. "On the legal side, he cannot claim anything against "Edge by Mobigame" and Apple knows that, so we hope everything will be alright now."

Papazian expressed confidence that Electronic Arts will prevail in its recent appeal for the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to cancel five Edge-related trademarks held by Langdell, on grounds they both have been abandoned and were fraudulently obtained. EA's suit arises from a dispute over its 2008 title "Mirror's Edge." Langdell vehemently disputes EA's claims.

Langdell, at the center of many controversies over the years regarding trademark rights to the word "Edge", has been involved in a similar dispute with Electronic Arts since 2007 concerning its title "Mirror's Edge." On Sept. 11, EA filed a petition with the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to wipe out five trademarks involved in the case, saying they have been threatened by Langdell for a year over the distribution of Mirror's Edge.

"EA has filed a complaint to put an end to legal threats over a trademark issue related to our game, Mirror's Edge," company spokesman Jeff Brown said Tuesday. "While this seems like a small issue for EA, we think that filing the complaint is the right thing to do for the developer community."

Langdell, in a statement to Kotaku, called Electronic Arts' petition "a desperate attempt by EA to see if they can win the right to use Mirror's Edge by forcibly removing Edge's legitimate rights to Edge." Langdell pointed to a USPTO ruling in his favor, from August 2008, which found EA's registration of the trademark "Mirror's Edge" had been granted in error, and the company's subsequent abandonment of the mark - made official Sept. 8 - "stands as an acceptance of Edge's rights."

The USPTO database does list the trademark "Mirror's Edge" as "abandoned" as of Sept. 8, 2009. When asked about the timing of EA's filing, Brown, the spokesman, said only that the company had been unsuccessful in its yearlong attempt to resolve the dispute, and "we feel it is important to establish the rights of developers in this situation. So we filed the petition to cancel those marks."

Brown also declined to comment when asked if the petition was at all related to any upcoming product announcements using the word "Edge." Nor would he specify how negotiations with Langdell broke down.

Over the years, Langdell has been accused of heavy-handed behavior against developers who wittingly or unwittingly use the word "Edge", which he trademarked years ago for use in video games, and a slew of other associated products since then. In addition to the disagreement with EA, Langdell has been involved in a bitter dispute with Mobigame, whose iPhone game EDGE has appeared on the iTunes App Store and was later removed when he challenged Mobigame's usage of the title.

The notoriety surrounding this action in large part led to a campaign to have Langdell removed from the board of directors of the International Game Developers Association. Langdell voluntarily quit the board last month rather than face a removal vote.

"A lot of small developers who are faced with this situation settle claims because they don't know how, or can't afford to fight for their rights," said Brown, the EA spokesman. "We hope that as a result of this action, other developers will be less intimidated by unwarranted legal threats."

But Langdell counters that EA is trying to poison sentiment against his company, and that its accusations "sound like comments intended to sway indie game news reporters' opinion and deflect you away from the obvious fact that it is EA [that] indie developers need to be protected from."

In the filing, Electronic Arts alleges that Langdell has effectively abandoned these trademarks through disuse. While Langdell vigorously states his company is actively involved in the development of games, both Mobygames and this analysis say the last game published by Edge Games was in 1990.

Edge Games' Web site says it is developing four multiplatform titles, one of which "Racers," was released on Sept. 9. "Clearly, Edge has not abandoned its trademark and that allegation is obviously destined to fail," Langdell told Kotaku. Langdell's statement says Edge's games "are on general sale at this time as they have been at all times over the past many years."

Significantly, EA also alleges that Langdell fraudulently obtained the trademark registrations, filing out-of-date and even falsified specimens to obtain them. EA alleges two registrations, dated 1996 and 2006, used box covers from games published in 1989 and 1990 and were not examples of a mark used in commerce, especially as the 1990 game was developed for the since-discontinued Commodore Amiga. Another 2009 registration submitted an Edge mark used on the 1986 game Bobby Bearing, saying that game had been in use "continuously over the past five years," on mobile phones. EA claims that is false.

EA says two other registrations, in 2004 and 2005, were obtained by submitting a nonexistent magazine cover in one case, and a Hulk comic book published in the 1990s in another. (Langdell claims to have licensed trademarks to the two publications.)

Langdell flatly denied that Edge ever committed fraud in applying for its U.S. trademarks.

Langdell has also said that Mobigame told him, in an email published here, that it and Electronic Arts had formed some sort of partnership, to what end he did not say. In a lengthy public statement published last August, Langdeel seems to imply that EA and Mobigame might be working together "to seek to undermine our rights in EDGE," to get out of an agreement Langdell says Edge and EA had reached earlier.

Brown, the EA spokesman, said that to his knowledge EA has no formal relationship with Mobigame. A request for comment left with Mobigame was not answered as of publication time. Mobigame replied to Kotaku that, in May, it had been working on a video game project unrelated to EDGE, or any game involved in this dispute, licensed by a British company that was in negotiations with Electronic Arts to publish it. Those negotiations have since ended, Mobigame's David Papazian said.

According to a notice sent by the USPTO, Langdell has until Oct. 27 to respond to EA's petition. Should the matter proceed to trial, that will begin in the summer of 2010.

Electronic Arts' filing may be downloaded here, in .pdf form.

Langdell, for his part, accuses EA of playing the bully in this matter.

"The key dispute for the past two to three years ... has always been between the multinational conglomerate EA and Edge fighting for its rights as a relatively small indie developer up against the giant corporate bully, EA," Langdell wrote. "It is a great pity that another fellow indie developer, Mobigame, got caught in the crossfire, but at least EA are now out in the open with their fight, now openly trying to stifle the legitimate rights of indie developers."

The IGDA announced Langdell's resignation in a brief statement this morning. In an email to Kotaku, IGDA Executive Director Joshua Caulfield said Langdell resigned voluntarily and was not asked to. Langdell provided a lengthy statement explaining his decision, the entirety of which is at the end of this story.

In his statement, Langdell says he left the board because opposition to his board membership comes from "a contingent ... who in their fanaticism will cause substantial negative press for the IGDA over the next month and place intolerable demands on the board and IGDA staff."

Late last week, the IGDA announced that a special meeting of the membership - essentially an online vote - would be held Oct. 3, the sole purpose of which was to vote on whether Langdell should be removed. Langdell had served on the board since March 1.

In his statement Langdell expressed confidence that he would survive such a vote but "my fear is that a quorum will not be attained and that consequently this vocal minority will not accept the outcome of the October 3rd meeting as bringing closure to this issue."

Langdell, who founded EDGE Games in 1979, is widely known for the aggressive defense of his long held trademark to the word "Edge" in video gaming. His latest dispute is with Mobigame, which released the iPhone/iPod Touch game EDGE in April. Their public fight has provoked heated commentary and accusations of bad faith dealings on both sides. Langdell himself has become more vocal of late, publishing a lengthy defense of his company and engaging in debates with members on the IGDA forums. The effort to remove him from the IGDA's board was begun back in July.

At the heart of Langdell's controversial public persona is the perception that his and EDGE's primary activity is litigation rather than actual development. Langdell claims EDGE has published more than 700 games, but an analysis, quoted by Eurogamer pegged the figure at 70, the most recent in 1990. EDGE's site does say it is working on four multiplatform titles at the moment.

Langdell said he would remain a full regular member of the IGDA. Caulfield, the executive director, told Kotaku that "it is my sincere hope that this issue is resolved. There are a lot of great people in the IGDA, and I hope we can get on with providing them with value for their membership."

Statement of Tim Langdell, CEO of EDGE Games, Aug. 31 2009

With the process barely started leading up to the Special Meeting announced last Friday and set to take place on October 3, it is already clear to me that despite my being confident that thinking members of the IGDA will vote for me to remain on the board for the balance of my term, there is a contingent who were involved in sending the defamatory email to all members by exploiting the IGDA email system a few weeks ago who in their fanaticism will cause substantial negative press for the IGDA over the next month and place intolerable demands on the board and IGDA staff. And while I am confident that were the needed quorum of at least 50% of the voting membership to be achieved at the Special Meeting that the vote would go in favor of my remaining on the board, my fear is that a quorum will not be attained and that consequently this vocal minority will not accept the outcome of the October 3rd meeting as bringing closure to this issue.

My great fear, then, is that this vocal minority — most of whom are not IGDA members — will continue their negative attacks on the IGDA beyond October 3, refusing to accept the outcome of my remaining on the board. It seems nearly certain they will continue to generate even more negative press for the IGDA for weeks or even months to come and persist in causing substantial drain on IGDA board volunteer and staff resources and time, which is not in the interests of either the IGDA or its membership. Especially not at this time when all key IGDA resources should be focused on the Leadership Forum, not on dealing with this issue.

Thus with the best interests of the IGDA at heart, and mindful of the unfair demand on the time of my fellow board members and our truly excellent IGDA staff, including the remarkable Joda Sapp and our incomparable new ED Joshua Caulfield, I therefore announce my decision to resign as a member of the board of the IGDA, effective immediately. I make this decision not because I have done anything wrong — on the contrary I am confident that all accusations against me were unfounded and purely intended to defame, and am confident that I have at all times acted in the best interest of the IGDA and its membership — but because I must make this decision between concluding a process that will show I did no wrong, and having that process irreparably damage the IGDA. I cannot permit the latter to happen, and this has to drive my decision today, taking priority over defending myself against these accusations to a conclusion. There are some who will take my stepping down as an admission of wrongdoing, but they are the same people who if the October 3 Special Meeting had gone ahead resulting in my remaining on the board would have refused to accept that outcome.

Last, I wish to say that the board is full of some incredible people, and you, the membership of the IGDA, are in excellent hands. For my part, I believe I made a solid contribution to the Association in my time on the board, taking on a somewhat disastrous web project which, as head of web tech these past months, I was able to bring round so that the new website should now be able to go live very shortly. I am sorry that I will not personally be overseeing the launch of the new website, but I know that this process is in the excellent hands of a colleague on the board.

I will remain an active member of the IGDA, still supporting it in any way I can as a regular member, and still serving on some fifteen SIGs; indeed my departure from the board will give me more time to devote to supporting the SIGs.

Dr. Tim Langdell, Pasadena, CA.

We've written four stories on Langdell, and sought comment without luck multiple times. The man is entitled to his say, and here it is. It's a 13-point document, making the following assertions:

• Edge never demanded money from Mobigame
• Mobigame proposed Edge give it money to use the mark "Edge"
• Edge has never acted as "trademark trolls"
• Edge acted well in the "EDGY" matter [this was the proposal to rename EDGE as EDGY]
• Mobigame has only pretended to want to change the name of its game
• Mobigame has persistently demanded Edge give up its rights to the mark "Edge"
• Mobigame has lied so as to defame Edge and its CEO Tim Langdell
• Mobigame deliberately selected EDGE as the name of its game in 2008
• How many games we have produced in the past 5 years
• Insight into the "Mirrors (by) Edge" matter
• Details of our game credits system
• "Edge of Twilight" [the matter concerning Langdell's filing of that mark this year, the name of a game under development by Fuzzyeyes since 2007].
• False accusations against Edge

One thing, as Kotaku is mentioned in the "Edge of Twilight" portion of this statement. Fuzzyeyes' CEO did in fact release a statement on July 23 (nearly two weeks after the story ran) saying any potential disputes between them had been amicably resolved. I have updated the July 11 story to reflect the statement of Fuzzyeyes' CEO.

Public Statement Regarding Mobigame [The EDGE Studios]

It's been a bumpy ride for Atomic. In May they had a high-profile title in development and a publishing agreement with Konami. Unfortunately the backlash caused by the sensitive subject matter of Six Days in Fallujah, a title that would replicate a real-world battle only a few years in the past, caused Konami to pull its support. Development on the project continues, but without major funding, cuts had to be made.

Due to a mixture of fears about the edgy subject matter of Six Days in Fallujah, as well as low videogame sales this summer, we have been unable to secure full-scale funding from a major publisher for Six Days in Fallujah. This has caused us to reduce the size of our studio today.

In the words of Marine officer Chesty Puller, "We're surrounded. That simplifies the problem." Development at Atomic will continue with a smaller team that will be funded by our sister company, Destineer.

Atomic Games employed 75 people up until this week. Their official announcement does not mention specifically how many were let go, but we suspect the number to be rather substantial.

We're contacting the company to see if any further information is available.

Update: We contacted Atomic Games directly, but the company was not prepared to share details on the extent of the layoffs, the number of employees affected, or how the layoffs will factor in to the ultimate fate of Six Days in Fallujah. We were told that more information will be released at a later date.

The usual suspects line up in favor of the game, with Atomic Games' boss Peter Tamte and retired Marine Captain Read Omohundro explaining that the game is meant to inform in an interactive format, presenting a unique view on war in such a way that will help communicate that war is not a game.

Karen Meredith is a member of Gold Star Families Speak Out, a group made up of families of soldiers who died in Iraq. According to the NPR report, this group "succeeded in getting the Japanese game publisher Konami to pull its support from the game." Meredith appears to be the sole speaker against the game in the NPR report.

Meredith's son Lieutenant Ken Ballard was killed in Iraq, and her argument is that a game is no way to take on such a serious subject.

"Because it's a game; because there can be different enemies; because Ken did not get that opportunity to reset and start over in the battle where he was killed..."

Meredith finds herself more comfortable with movies and books based on the war, as opposed to video games, especially one that Konami initially marketed as an entertaining look at the horrors of war.

Developer Susana Ruiz, creator of the browser-based Darfur is Dying, touches on one of the key reasons why those outside of the game industry view a title like Six Days in Fallujah with such disdain.

"Game makers haven't quite demonstrated this willingness and accountability to serve as sort of arbitrators or commentators or interpreters of the human condition or of the cultural psyche around these very important moments in history"

It's something I touched on in my feature on the subject, earlier this year, and it's an issue that won't be overcome until the game industry actually produces a game that does just that.

Gamers Can Experience Battle Of Fallujah [NPR - Thanks Zonrith]

Ex-Newsweek reporter Croal wrote about his meeting with RE5 producer Jun Takeuchi in the June 2009 issue of Edge. The column is not available online yet (though a related preceding one is).

For background, Croal had given an interview to my former site MTV Multiplayer, in April of last year, in which he talked about how the first trailer for the Africa-set Resident Evil 5 had struck him differently than anything he'd experienced in the Spain-based Resident Evil 4.

Croal won fans, enemies, friends and critics for his discussion of the trailer. So what happened when he finally sat down with Takeuchi in February at the DICE show?

As he relates in his Edge column, the two men talked about the game's controls, Dead Space, Left 4 Dead and then addressed some of the racial imagery stuff.

Takeuchi talked to Croal about his designers' and artists' research trip to Africa, though the producer couldn't remember which country the members of his team visited. They talked about addressing the complexion of the zombies and the feedback the developers received about these issues as they were making the game. It reads as if no voices were raised, no objects thrown.

In conclusion, Croal wrote:

"And as Takeuchi went on to explain that the enemies with the grass skirts and spears were seeking to defend the ruins from intruders and that he'd been inspired by Indiana Jones movies, I felt like I once again understood where he'd been coming from. That a two-to-three-week trip to unspecified African countries and looking at a number of movies set in Africa alongside pop-cultural inspirations like the Indiana Jones series simply hadn't been enough to sufficiently educate him or the team about he legacy of the imagery that they were tapping in to and, as a result, they'd lost control of their message. That's my take on it, of course; I doubt that the man who sat across from me and thoughtfully answered all of my questions would agree."

There's more in the column, which is on sale on newsstands now and will be at Edge-Online.com in the next month.

And with that, this chapter's closed?

(Full disclosure: I consider Croal a good friend. Furthermore, I played through the first half of RE5 with him on split-screen co-op this past March.)

In their official statement, Atomic Games expresses surprise over the cancellation, driving home just how abrupt a decision this was on the part of publisher Konami.

We were informed on Thursday night that Konami had decided to pull out of Six Days in Fallujah. This caught us by surprise. Development of the game had been progressing very well and on schedule. We would very much like the opportunity to complete the game.

I pressed Atomic further, asking if other publishers were sniffing about and what their plans for the title were, only to be told that no further information was available at this time. They did offer a hopeful "stay tuned" to the end of their communication, so perhaps there is still hope that the game will come to fruition.

Be sure to check out yesterday's story on the cancellation for more information.

But not right away, as the Metro UK reveals that religious types of all faiths (or at least three people) are fuming over the web game. While Molleindustria says on its web site that Faith Fighter is "not intended to be offensive to any religion in particular," but instead to "push gamers to reflect on how the religions and sacred representations are often instrumentally used to fuel or justify conflicts between nations and people" others strong disagree.

"This game is going out of its way to upset people and I think it should be taken off the internet," said Douglas Miller, pastor of the Link Church in Birmingham, according to Metro's report.

On other fronts, spokespeople for Federation of Muslim Organizations say that "Having images depicting Muhammad in this way is also very offensive to our faith." This is well-known to the folks at Molleindustria, who offer a censored version of the game that obscures Muhammed's face.

Molleindustria may have gone to some lengths to prevent the riling up of certain religious groups, but the tagline "Religious hate has never been so much fun" might just undermine that.

I'd suggest that if you're offended by the content of Faith Fighter, some of Molleindustria's other games may be worth your time, including Operation: Pedopriest, Orgasm Simulator and Queerland. That's the kind of fun everyone can agree on.

Calls to ban online game of Holy hatred [Metro UK via GamePolitics]
Faith Fighter Will Test Your Skills, Religious Tolerance [Kotaku]

While Konami may have dropped its plans to publish the "game-amentary" in the face of public backlash, it's quite unlikely that developer Atomic Games and its sister company Destineer will do the same. Despite the emails, phone calls, and bad press generated by the video game adaptation of the Second Battle of Fallujah, Destineer has been behind the title since 2005, and that's not the sort of time investment you throw away lightly.

According to a timeline published over at One Last Continue, Destineer originally filed for the word mark "Six Days in Fallujah" on February 4th, 2005 - less than two months after the actual battle ended. Later that year the company purchased Atomic Games, who were then working on Close Combat: Red Phoenix, and would eventually be revealed as the developer behind Six Days.

In November of 2005 the trademark for Six Days in Fallujah was published for opposition, a step in the trade marking process which allows other entities to contend the application in case it conflicts with another product. Then in January of this year Destineer filed for the trademark again, as their original filing expired this February and they wouldn't have anything to show for it until April.

Then came April, when Konami proudly announced Six Days in Fallujah, sparking controversy among the general public and military veterans as well. The uproar grew even louder when it was revealed that insurgents that fought against U.S. Marines during the battle were consulted and likely compensated for their work on the game. Konami declined to comment on the nature of their business arrangement with said insurgents, but the fact that the term "business arrangements" was used in their response tends to indicate that compensation was provided for the insurgents work.

UPDATE: After posting this story, Atomic Games contacted us with a message from president Peter Tamte, informing us that the insurgents were in no way compensated for their contributions to the development of Six Days in Fallujah.

Amidst a storm of angry emails and phone calls, Konami finally decided to pull the plug on Six Days in Fallujah today, a day before the second trademark filing is published for opposition. We contacted Konami for comment, but as of this writing have yet to receive a response.

Does this mark the end of the Six Days saga? Not quite. Calls from Kotaku to Atomic Games were fielded by public relations officials from sister company Destineer, informing us that an official statement regarding the fate of the game would be issued within the next day or so. Destineer's handling of calls about the game had us thinking that perhaps the company plans on publishing the title themselves, though we've just received word from Destineer that no plans of that nature have been discussed.

We'll know for sure shortly, but we're relatively certain this isn't the last we've heard on Atomic Games' Six Days in Fallujah.

I am not a Hindu scholar by any stretch. But a quick check reveals that Hanuman is one of the more important figures in Hinduism and the Ramayana, an Indian epic poem. So, putting him into a video game - worse yet, a video game in which he can be manipulated - was bound to rankle someone as trivializing sacred figures and concepts.

It turns out that someone happens to be the U.S. based leader of the U.S.-based Universal Society of Hinduism. He wants Sony, the game's publisher (it's for the PS2) to pull the title. So, take it away, Rajan Zed:

[Zed argued that] controlling and manipulating Lord Hanuman with a joystick/ button/keyboard/mouse was denigration. Lord Hanuman was not meant to be reduced to just a "character" in a video game to solidify company/products base in the growing economy of India.

Rajan Zed further said that as a PlayStation2 video game, Lord Hanuman would be in the company of America's 10 Most Wanted, Bad Boys, Barbie, Britney's Dance Beat, First Kiss Stories, Guitar Freaks, Jackass, Killer7, Looney Tunes, Mafia, Mercenaries, Midnight Club, Mister Mosquito, Nicktoons, Psychonauts, Scooby Doo, Truckers, etc.

Oh no, not - gasp - NICKTOONS!!!!

A better response may have been to just kill this thing with silence. GamePolitics points out that the Indian gaming site Tech2 gave Hanuman (the game, not the deity) a terrible review. Similarly, Gaming Indians is circumspect about the controversy.

Yes, Hanuman: Boy Warrior should be withdrawn by Sony. Not for religious reasons however, but simply because the game is just so bad. Ever since this game came out, I'm sure we've all been waiting for some Hindu fundamentalist to show up and make video games the enemy. But it's quite funny that no one in India has really cared... while someone in America has taken up the charge...

Hindus Protest PS2 Game Released in India [GamePolitics]

While GameStop (the main player in the used game market) management declined to comment, but several industry types (like David Braben of Frontier) put in their two cents. On how the used game market is bad!!!!!! for the industry at large, Braben had this to say:

"... [We] don't see anything from the used-game sales, which is one reason why the price of new games throughout the industry remains artificially high," he says. "I mean, the industry has to make all its money from the first sale since we don't get a penny from the subsequent dozen or so sales of that same game."

The used-game market may also be negatively affecting the quality of games, he notes. "Five years ago, a great game would have sold for a longer period of time than for a bad game — which was essentially our incentive to make great games."

"But no longer. Now publishers and developers just see revenue the initial few weeks regardless of the game's quality and then gamers start buying used copies which generates money that goes into GameStop's pocket, nobody else's."

It does sound pretty whiny (as one analyst notes, "... publishers want their cake and eat it too. They want the used games business."), and as many people note, the used car that gets trotted out isn't particularly apt. Being a fan of good used bookstores, I wonder what book publishers think about that particular resale market (since this is hardly exclusive to the game industry).

As Recession Deepens, Used Games Get More Painful [Gamasutra]