Would anyone have said anything if the second version had been the only version posted?
Maybe a comment or two about a bland back story, but mostly apathetic emptiness would have been the norm.
This really a whole lot of ado about nothing.
Probobly true, generally back story's in games like this aren't really all that important in terms of gameplay. It could be my little pony vs. the carebears, if its a good game I'm all for it. But when you have a great back story a good game is better and more importantly a franchise license is stronger. The first back story was dark with an ominous tone and contraversial idea, it was in every respect better, which given the content made it far more interesting and intriguing I think as a board game. The new one is passable, but not nearly as interesting. I hope whoever this employee who wrote it gets a pat for a job well done, because the writing was great, even if it was not approved for release.
I do like contraversial discussions though I think its fun to ask a question like why not make a game where Americans are villans? Are Americans really so sensitive that they can't percieve a fictional future in a board game where god forbid America is the bad guy without getting their pannies in a bunch? I mean given the political atmosphere in the world (Americans randomly accusing everyone of being terrorist (including kids downloading music from the internet) why not use board gaming as a medium to spark discussion? I think Christian should have taken more time in deciding how to handle the situation, mistake or not, I think when you are in position to spark conversation and use your medium to create discussion its good for your image. Contraversy sells and I think this game would have been stronger with the original, contraversial text.
Does it really matter that they changed? Not at all, at least not for me. I loved the original and as far as I'm concerned Christian T. Peterson has a blank check from me for any game with his name on it.