I find it rather disturbing that this is considered too controversial to make it into the final product when just last year we were all loading up Call of Duty MW2 and gunning down an airport full of defenseless civillains which was acceptable enough to make it into the final product.
So what they are telling us is that it is OK to murder crowds of innocent people in cold blood, but killing very very very well armed opponents that are, arguably, an agressive invasion force causing destruction just like the Taliban in some respects (please don't talk about war ect. I don't want to open that can of worms) is totally off limits.
In the end, I don't think we should make too much of all this since it is so obviously a transparent marketing ploy that was put into the game just to win some free press (just like COD successfully did last year). I guess EA just didn't expect such a great patriotic backlash even though we are 9 years out from 9/11.
The moral of the story is: use controversial subjects and actions to promote your video game, but, for the love of God, don't insult the U.S. military.
P.S. I guess in some ways I can understand the need to tone down the Taliban a bit. Afterall, in most WWII games you can play as the Nazi's in multiplayer games, but they never refer to you as a "Nazi" (at least not in most games) as they always prefer the much more tame "Axis" lable.













Leatherhat on July 6th, 2012 3pm. Vita sales:"3 mil for COD 2 mil for AC. Maybe more. " thehusbo on July 6th, 2012 5pm. Vita sales:"5 mil for COD 2.2 mil for AC."