How to freshen up Call of Duty: Stop using Americans

[MiracleOfSound]

You can't play moral relativism with the Nazis.

Many would say the same about the British Empire.

Uuuuh, you know what Nazi Germany thought about the Catholics? What it did to them? Not as badly as they treated the Jews but they REALLY hated them, so many Catholics were sent to the gas chamber just for being Catholic. It's the most insane allegiance in history. And again, the allegiance with Libya, surely they could find a better ally that Gadaffi!

That's a fine looking strawman you've got there. I'm wondering how exactly he relates to the War Of Independence though.

The north wants to stay part of UK, that's why it never joined the RoI in the first place!

That is a pretty ignorant comment. Clearly not everyone in the north wanted to stay in the UK or they wouldn't had had so much ongoing conflict over it. Nowadays? Yeah, most people. But back then some wanted to stay (mainly Protestants) and some didn't (mainly Catholics) - hence the years of fighting over it.

And yeah, there are rules of war even in a civil war.

They got broken.

And it's not fashion sense, it is out of respect for the peaceful civilian population. IF you dress like a civilian and fight, then you are drawing fire onto civilians. Just as if a civilian stupidly runs around in a war zone wearing camouflage clothing they are liable to be shot.

I don't think you understand how deep the hatred of the British ran in this country. Civilians used to willfully aid the freedom fighters at any given opportunity. This wasn't a soldier on soldier kind of war. it was an entire nation against a giant oppressor.

And they were already a target anyway...

Also, killing the leadership is a foolish decision

It worked though, didn't it?

And then of course, Irish Republicanism was militant and violent in a time when all around was the evidence of progress through non-violence. All the republicans had to do was win the public argument that they'd be better with RoI and UK. Surely that would have been easier, cheaper, more reliable and with less bloodshed, pain and distrust?

Lol... using peaceful methods against the British Empire in the early 1900s. Thanks for the laugh.

 

[Treblaine]

You can't play moral relativism with the Nazis.

Many would say the same about the British Empire.

Uuuuh, you know what Nazi Germany thought about the Catholics? What it did to them? Not as badly as they treated the Jews but they REALLY hated them, so many Catholics were sent to the gas chamber just for being Catholic. It's the most insane allegiance in history. And again, the allegiance with Libya, surely they could find a better ally that Gadaffi!

That's a fine looking strawman you've got there. I'm wondering how exactly he relates to the War Of Independence though.

The north wants to stay part of UK, that's why it never joined the RoI in the first place!

That is a pretty ignorant comment. Clearly not everyone in the north wanted to stay in the UK or they wouldn't had had so much ongoing conflict over it. Nowadays? Yeah, most people. But back then some wanted to stay (mainly Protestants) and some didn't (mainly Catholics) - hence the years of fighting over it.

And yeah, there are rules of war even in a civil war.

They got broken.

And it's not fashion sense, it is out of respect for the peaceful civilian population. IF you dress like a civilian and fight, then you are drawing fire onto civilians. Just as if a civilian stupidly runs around in a war zone wearing camouflage clothing they are liable to be shot.

I don't think you understand how deep the hatred of the British ran in this country. Civilians used to willfully aid the freedom fighters at any given opportunity. This wasn't a soldier on soldier kind of war. it was an entire nation against a giant oppressor.

And they were already a target anyway...

Also, killing the leadership is a foolish decision

It worked though, didn't it?

And then of course, Irish Republicanism was militant and violent in a time when all around was the evidence of progress through non-violence. All the republicans had to do was win the public argument that they'd be better with RoI and UK. Surely that would have been easier, cheaper, more reliable and with less bloodshed, pain and distrust?

Lol... using peaceful methods against the British Empire in the early 1900s. Thanks for the laugh.

So it's a double-no on that moral relativism.

Equally you could say not everyone in the Republic of Ireland wanted to leave the UK, but that's democracy for you. The North mostly wanted to stay in the UK. Democracy ain't perfect but it's the best system we've got. Popular self-determination. That's fair isn't it?

Well if a movement don't care about rules that protect civilians, what does that say about their consideration for civilians who they expect to vote for their cause in the pole? Though I supposed loyalists did this as well. Helping civilians like harbouring soldiers isn't a reason to aim guns at them as that kind of assistance is never an immediate threat. Tossing bombs and suddenly pulling guns is!

"This wasn't a soldier on soldier kind of war."

That's an Oxymoron. War is supposed to be soldiers fighting soldiers. People who take up arms cannot have it both ways, soldier when it suits them then suddenly a civilian again when it suits them.

And killing the leadership only escalated and inflamed the problem. It led to the internment that was the very thing that they hoped to avoid by assassinating those who suggested it. And Northern Ireland remains part of the UK and not integrated with Republic of Ireland. All that happened was when a completely new government came in (with none of their members assassinated or threatened) to encourage/allow what was supposed to have happened 80 years ago, Northern Irish Republicans agreed to end the violence (and the British too) and fight purely on political terms. And they have made just about as much progress as they could hope for.

"using peaceful methods against the British Empire in the early 1900s. Thanks for the laugh."

It worked for India. And all British Empire's African colonies. And pretty much the ENTIRE British Empire after World War 2, anywhere that really wanted independence (as in by actual popular vote) got it, even if everyone thought it was a hasty move.

Did India try to cut a deal with the Japanese or the Nazis? I think not.

 

[MiracleOfSound]

"This wasn't a soldier on soldier kind of war."

That's an Oxymoron. War is supposed to be soldiers fighting soldiers.

It's supposed to be... but it wasn't.

Are you starting to get this yet?

People who take up arms cannot have it both ways, soldier when it suits them then suddenly a civilian again when it suits them.

They can't? But they did.

See, this is why our argument is going nowhere - I'm talking about what happened while you're putting across ethical opinions. We're discussing different things.

To answer your ethical musings, no - I certainly don't think all the stuff the IRA did was morally/ethically/even politically sound... but that's how it happened. And whether it was right or not - it sure got results.

Did India try to cut a deal with the Japanese or the Nazis? I think not.

Aaand he's back....

 

[BrotherSurplice]

I'd personally think a game set in the First World War would be rather unique and refreshing.

Yeah, sitting in a trench for 6 months would be riveting

Heh, I appreciate that's the common perception, which may make it tricky to market. But cleverly done, it could be very good. You have a massive shift in tactics and technology, the introduction of weapon systems and all arms combat - by following it chronologically you already have a pretty decent difficulty curve. Naturally, you focus on the exciting parts and ignore the boring bits - like any other war game. Start as training with a Service (wartime Volunteer) battalion in 1915, a couple of minor 1915 style trench raids, the Somme, Messines, Third Ypres, Cambrai (as a tank crewman, perhaps), retreat in the face of operation michael, before finishing with the gruelling open warfare of the last 100 days.


Okay, I'm a WWI buff. I admit it.

There are SO many parts of WW1 that would make for an exciting game. As some have mentioned, the mesopotamian and palestinian theatres of war were very mobile. Can you imagine how awesome it would be to fight alongside Lawrence of Arabia?

 

[Volstag9]

I believe it was... Call of Duty 3, Treyarchs second game in the franchise that at least tried to expand on the amount of Nationalities used. You had the usual Russians, British, and Americans. Along with the Canadians, French Resistance, and the Polish at one point.

Still i think that it would be nice to see some new nationalities. I think IW has sort of backed itself into a corner with this because of they're story. I haven't played the latest game, but they seem to have basically made the story "The USA and UK against the world." Not much room for anything new. Unless they do something with the Chinese. That would be cool.

 

[Zen Toombs]

-snip-

Your idea might work, if I hadn't stopped playing the Modern Warfare games after Modern Warfare 2.

Just my .002 dollars.

 

[Treblaine]

"This wasn't a soldier on soldier kind of war."

That's an Oxymoron. War is supposed to be soldiers fighting soldiers.

It's supposed to be... but it wasn't.

Are you starting to get this yet?

People who take up arms cannot have it both ways, soldier when it suits them then suddenly a civilian again when it suits them.

They can't? But they did.

See, this is why our argument is going nowhere - I'm talking about what happened while you're putting across ethical opinions. We're discussing different things.

To answer your ethical musings, no - I certainly don't think all the stuff the IRA did was morally/ethically/even politically sound... but that's how it happened. And whether it was right or not - it sure got results.

There hasn't been the significant apology nor reconciliation from the orchestrator of these campaigns. Many of whom are now in elected office. How about some acknowledgement that tactics used were irresponsible and should not be repeated by other nations who may be seeking similar aims?

You can't just say "it happened". You also have to recognise the consequences of what happened, how it happened, and you can't just look at the ethics of this as an after thought.

And the intended result of the republican movement was Northern Ireland leaving UK and joining Republic of Ireland. That has not happened, that's not a result nor was there even a step in that direction. The only major results came from ending the violence and being purely a force of reason and politics.

Did India try to cut a deal with the Japanese or the Nazis? I think not.

Aaand he's back....

Ah, "Strawman" again:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

"A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To ... create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position"

You argument is to excuse the allying with Nazis as "enemy of my enemy" and different principals back then and even though unethical got "results".

I contrast with India and almost every other country in the British Empire who chose commitment, restraint, proportionality and non-violence to then swiftly get the independence their people wanted. Now that's results.

One thing that I find most tragic about the Civil-War/Troubles in Northern Ireland was how little it was actually fighting the British, and how much it was Irish people killing Irish people. Literally neighbour killing neighbour. The 29 people killed in Omagh. And no one even took responsibility for that. The futile waste of it all. And it's all because they can't accept the self-determination of their own community.

 

[MiracleOfSound]

"A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To ... create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position"

You argument is to excuse the allying with Nazis as "enemy of my enemy" and different principals back then and even though unethical got "results".

I said a game playing as the flying columns in the War Of Independence would be fun.

You said that the IRA, two decades after the war they were in, supported the Nazis.

I understand what a strawman means.

 

[spartandude]

If you played as the bad guys, what would the missions be like? Go murder and burn the Jew children for the Nazis? Blow yourself up in the name of Allah? The mainstream media masturbates to the idea that a game like this would pop up.

or how about do it from the side of the Axis or the talliban but show what it was really like.

With the Axis (im likely gonna get flamed for this) the vast vasr majority of their soldiers were no different from those of the allies. they were just as horroric, blood thirsty and what not of that of any other army, i doubt most agreed with the anti jewish shit or even knew about the final solution so it would be interesting to see what it would be like from their perspective

and interms of the talliban (probs gonna get even more flamed) alot of people view them as freedom fighters or people trying advance their groups interests just like how the west do for themselves (not saying i agree just that thats how some people view them) to alot of people these are people willing to die for their cause just like how we view our soldiers

would be interesting to see from thse perspectives

how about we have a game set in the not so distant future (maybe 50 years or so at most) where France has a Napoleonic style govt. the french are taking over everything in europe and its up to a united force of Russia, Austria, Germany and Britain to stop them.
Or how about in the north of europs Sweden has risen to power and rules with an iron fist! and in Southern Europe Turkey has remade the Ottoman Empire and tensions are brewing between the 2 super powers

 

[MiracleOfSound]

You argument is to excuse the allying with Nazis as "enemy of my enemy" and different principals back then and even though unethical got "results".

Excusing? No. Not at all. Suggesting a possible reason and, in their eyes (not mine), a justification? Yes.

Why are we even arguing over this? it's completely retarded. Good day.

 

[Shagdawg]

'Admittedly they are doing what is safe, because the last thing an American male teenager wants to do is pretend to be a French or German person (because they are selfish twats that only care about themselves and jerking off).'


Ignorant post. American teenagers are much like teenagers anywhere else, a mixed bag of decent people and jerks. The anti-American sentiment from some of you people is ridiculous.

OT: A Western FPS game from a Native American's POV would be interesting.

 

[NotSoLoneWanderer]

Try expanding the game to vehicle combat like battlefield. I recently played a few matches of MW3 and all I did was run around spraying with a silenced p-90 rapid fire and won every match at the top on a friends console. The entire experience just feels shallow.

 

[JoesshittyOs]

Once again, I simply do not see the

stop wanking over the stars and stripes.

thing.

Say what you will about Call of Duty, but (discounting the end of Black Ops)it never once over used American soldiers or American themes. Like I said in the other thread which was similar to this, it's simply a case of "European Paranoia". Due to the recent state of the United States, and it's less than fabulous reputation, people are assuming that wherever an American Soldier is, it somehow immediately overflows into some sort of American Patriotic propaganda.

The Americans had just about as big a part as the Task Force characters did.

Overusing Americans and Europe? (which would be NATO), Absolutely.

 

[JoesshittyOs]

Admittedly they are doing what is safe, because the last thing an American male teenager wants to do is pretend to be a French or German person (because they are selfish twats that only care about themselves and jerking off).

Excuse me? Where did you get this logic?

 

[ReinWeisserRitter]

I'd personally love to see a game from the point of view of the nazis, or perhaps just the Axis.

Hear me out, here. Not all nazis were baby punching, book burning assholes. Some of them were just average people trying to make ends meet. Some thought they were doing the right thing, but lacked information. Some had the option of "follow the madman" or "get killed by the madman's legion of followers" and took the one that didn't involve getting shot. It wasn't a black and white issue.

A sympathetic view wouldn't be easy to do if we took the typical shooter approach of "FUCK YEAH, KILLING PEOPLE IS PATRIOTIC!", of course; acting like a sociopath may be fun, but that's not the angle we'd be going for here. But I would like to see a game made by people who don't act like Germany was a legion of evil that existed just to show that freedom and justice will always prevail; a lot of good people lost their lives on their side, too, and some did it with a gun to their backs.

Might have to actually work to make that one compelling, though; scary new territory for most modern developers to tackle. But hell, I'd buy it; that's more than I can say for any of the other realistic shooters of... well, ever.

 

[Lord Penney]

Haven't played through all of MW3, but so far the main, recurring Special Forces badasses have all been British. Not American.


If anything, it would be 'wanking over the Union Jack'.

[Withdraw Comment] Sorry mate, replied to wrong person. I need sleep!

 

[Elementary - Dear Watson]

SNIP...

I agree with you there! The polish tank crew levels from CoD3 were by far my favourite!! IT was awesome having so many teams to play as! But the Polish were damn hilarious! All the bickering in the tank... awesome!

 

[Coldster]

Hey, you could always play from the prospective of a Canadia- I'm sorry, I couldn't say it with a straight face. It is never happening.

Suddenly, Call of Duty 3:

http://www.xbox360achievements.org/game/call-of-duty-3/achievement/3468-Canadian-Highlander.html

There are two missions as the Canadians! Sure they might be French-Canadians but they kick as much ass as all the other allies! Man I wish all CoD games were like CoD3...

 

[Snotnarok]

In World at War you played as the Russians, in CoD4 you played as the brits, so you do play as other countries.