User blog comment:Riceygringo/Self-Censorship Decision by EA/@comment-2005959-20110901190753

just ask roger ebert what he thinks about games. check that. nobody cares what roger ebert thinks about games, but by simply _having_ an opinion he has lent credibility to the game industry, previously regarded as a "kiddie games." but having won the war for credibility means that the industry now has to start taking responsibility for their actions. it's one thing to enjoy a violent game, compartmentalizing the "cartoon violence" as "all in good fun." but some game developers choose to walk the razor-thin line of "tasteful violence." take CoD:Black Ops' torture sequence for example. some players may find it hard to enjoy torturing a restrained prisoner. activision's "no russians" level stands as another example of crossing the lines of good taste. realistic gore is distasteful in the absence of a discussion of what should be a careful decision to employ lethal force. all moral issues aside, game companies are just that, companies. many are publicly traded corporations that have, as they say, bills to pay. negative publicity like what Activision was subject to does not make shareholders happy. Bach stated that he's trying to "do something more mature with" Battlefield 3. what he cannot do is make sure that the players of his game will follow suit in being more mature, like not shooting innocent civilians and children when given the choice.