I agree with him despite being from the US.
I do not think creating a game where you can play as the enemy in a current ongoing war is a good idea, especially if the portrayal is remotely sympathetic. Right or wrong, war is a time when you demonize the enemy to make him easier to fight.
I see it as being differant from playing as a Nazi in various "World War II" games since the conflict is over, the Nazis are more or less non-existant in their previous form, and it's been decades. That's historical recreationism, the conflict in "The Middle East" is not historical, it's current and happening right now.
I think the entire thing is tasteless, just as I felt that the first "Assasin's Creed" and the version of history it presented was tasteless in light of the current conflict. Rather than being an accurate recreation, it was on a lot of levels a "message game" or so it seemed to be, and trying to engage in reinventionism through a work of fantasy. I am disturbed by having met people who think that the game was a fairly authentic and accurate portrayal of european involvement in the region and The Crusades outside of the plotline.
This is something where I admit due to the war, I think being truely objective is impossible.
What's more, I can't help but wonder why we aren't seeing more backlash than we are given the hype over "Seven Days in Fallujah". It's okay now that EA is setting a game there? What's more, few people have an issue with Muslims killing UK/US troops, where they had an issue about war games where the situation was reversed not too long ago?
I doubt it will happen, but yeah... I think consumers should put their foot down on this one. I would hope that even a lot of left wingers and ultra-liberals would acknowlege that while the game shouldn't be censored or banned by the goverment(s) in question, there is such a thing as bad taste and not support the product.
