I think there is a subtle difference between playing as a nation's standing army regardless of that nation's political ideology and a terrorist organisation.
In the former, the individual soldier is often ambivalent to such ideology were an individual terrorist is a slave to theirs.
It also doesn't help.that David Haines was a colleague of mine.
If you don’t like it don’t play it
Not a problem as it doesn't exist and probably never will.
You never know...
BFV is full of stuff I thought I wouldn’t see in a Battlefield game. Same with Hardline.
Folks I would ask us to be mindful of where this discussion heads in regards talk of ideologies and all that here - these kinds of conversations can get very political very quickly. These forums aren't the place for these conversations and while we're doing an okay job staying in-line with the conversation at the moment I did just want to pop in and remind us of this.
command and conquer red alert which feature suicide bombers and of course the legendary counterstrike. my idea. I think given that a battlefield: war on terrorism game could be more plausible.
Comments
You never know...
BFV is full of stuff I thought I wouldn’t see in a Battlefield game. Same with Hardline.
Yeah it was... there was the whole controversy of a named terrorist organization being in multiplayer...
I dont see a problem where you have a Battlefield game where you play either as or against the Islamic state or the Aghanistan millitas.
Honestly I realy hate all this stupid political correctnes, they take all the fun away.