fuNGoo: It's no different. What's your point?

drmlessgames: Point is, it's fair game. American audiences are fine with No Russian, they would be fine with this game.

Gundato: Going to try to ignore the nationalistic pissant attempting to troll.
Actually, you are kind of wrong there. From what I have gathered, most of us (myself included) just think it was pointless.
There was no real context, so there was no chance for emotional impact. Hell, I found seeing the ruins of DC to be much more emotional. So that goes out the window. Maybe if we had gotten to know the character beyond one training level or had any influence whatsoever on the level it would have, but we didn't, and we didn't.
Nothing similar happened recently, so it is still fantasy, for all intents and purposes. People don't freak out about Michael Bay dropping bombs on Alcatraz. So that goes out the window.
The level felt completely pointless, and was called out for that by pretty much every major commentator.
So yeah, it got them a lot of publicity from the gaming community (didn't actually see much mention outside of that), but they already HAD that publicity (since it was Modern Warfare 2...). But whatever. It was basically an example of why controversy for controversy's sake doesn't really accomplish anything, and just annoys people.

drmlessgames: First you are assuming this 911 game would be controversial for controversy's sake. Whats to say there wont be any more emotional DC like moments in there? Or that it has to take a somber serious tone at all? My point was mostly that apparently there's a double standard. It's ok to be tasteless about something that is not close to american audiences, like dropping a bomb on alcatraz, or some middle eastern town getting attacked, or watching soldiers trying to rescue some soldier dude. But 911? Back off, buddy. It's like the american audiences are a big baby that has to be pandered.

drmlessgames: Again, not rising to your baiting (because I for one like having a relatively nice forum).
Honestly, most tasteless war movies get called out for it. And I honestly can't think of a single good one that didn't take a very somber look at it, regardless of what war.
If you would actually look at the action genre, you will see that the tasteless action movies (Commando comes to mind :p) involve very clear cut "Good guys versus bad guys", right down to giving the bad guys mustaches. That is entertainment.
Stuff like A Bridge Too Far, The Dirty Dozen, Saving Private Ryan, and Blackhawk Down (and, to a much lesser extent, Hurt Locker) all take a much more somber look. Yeah, there is humor. Yeah, there is action. But they are still very aware of the serious nature of the subject matter. Hell, most of them ask the question of "Why were we there?" and attempt to paint "the bad guys" in a different light. Hence, they are not tasteless. But they are still entertainment.
Some video games have been getting a bit close to that line. CoD5 comes to mind, what with the jarring and somewhat pointless scenes of brutality. But it had Kiefer Sutherland, so I can give it a pass :p
A 9-11 game just would be highly unlikely to have that. Because here are the options:
Good Guys Vs Bad Guys: Okay, you can storm the cockpit. Can we honestly see why this would be a VERY bad game and would be VERY tasteless? And honestly, there is no way to paint that day's "bad guys" in a different light, regardless of your politics.
First Responders: You can be firemen and police officers rescuing people from The Towers. While there is lost of room for avoiding bad taste, it probably wouldn't be too fun (unless we start double-jumping, at which point taste goes out the window).
Escaping the Towers: Yeah, no. They either go realistic, and have you file down the stairs as you hope and pray that you don't die (sounds fun AND tasteful...), or we start sliding down rails and it becomes insanely tasteless.
So that is why this just wouldn't work. There is no real way to be tasteful and entertaining. And even if they did attempt to not offend people, it would just be cashing in on the event, which is still tasteless.
And honestly, it all boils down to "is it still fantasy?". We play games to experience fantasy. WWII is not something most people who are still alive experienced. And that is why it is one of the most heavily mined settings ever. Easy emotional impact, but you don't have to tread anywhere near as carefully. As you get closer to the present day, you need to be a lot more careful as to how you paint people. That is why Modern Warfare 1 (and 2) were both set in "non-descript Middle Eastern city".
Because most people don't want to offend others. It is just not very nice, and it can make a lot of people feel uncomfortable when events are not given proper respect.

drmlessgames: Didnt you see none of those M*A*S*H reruns?? That movie/comedy was anything but somber, and it wasnt at all tasteless. And it dared to be funny, even when taking place in such a questionable period of time for the usa like vietnam. It actually made fun of the whole crap the usa created in Vietnam. And it's a classic. Hmm, those are the only 3 scenarios you can think of, great. But maybe the game developers of this would-be game could come up with something else you havent thought of. Dont be so quick to dismiss something.
Hmm, if what youre saying is that it's just too soon, then maybe this game will be ok 60 years from now, when it's as far as ww2 is from today. I myself would be very P.O.ed if i knew of was involved somehow with the pearl harbor bombing by such movies as, hmm, pearl harbor? : D COD5 was overblown, over the top, exaggerated, and funny in a negative way. The mere fact that they brought in jack bauer made it worse. :P Completely agree with you on comando, although it wasnt a war movie at all. MAybe a 1 man army war movie maybe. :D You forgot another crappy tasteless and downright stupid recent war movie, Rules of Engagement. That movie looked like it was made by the journalists of fox.]

Gundato: And honestly, it all boils down to "is it still fantasy?". We play games to experience fantasy. WWII is not something most people who are still alive experienced. And that is why it is one of the most heavily mined settings ever. Easy emotional impact, but you don't have to tread anywhere near as carefully. As you get closer to the present day, you need to be a lot more careful as to how you paint people. That is why Modern Warfare 1 (and 2) were both set in "non-descript Middle Eastern city".
Because most people don't want to offend others. It is just not very nice, and it can make a lot of people feel uncomfortable when events are not given proper respect.

Shure: I believe there is more to it than that, if that were just the case then why not base more games on the first World War, Korea or even Vietnam?
The percieved enemy, the Nazis were and are, rightly, regarded as being completely evil from the way they went about persecuting those they ruled and the way they aggressively waged war, the conflict seems far more 'black and white' in the sense that Nazi Germany was an obvious 'bad guy' and the fight against them was a just and righteous cause.

drmlessgames: Point is, it's fair game. American audiences are fine with No Russian, they would be fine with this game.