Poll: How about a ''Vs. America' shooter?
- Thread starter Danistuta
- Start date
Recommended Videos
This should be developed by a non-american studio, most likely an eastern-europena one. Then backed by an equally non-american publisher. I mean, they don't care if fox rips em a new one, since they aren't a major publisher/developer with a reputation to loose. They'd rather ride on the controversy for advertising, and have the game sell by anyone who's curious enough to get the game.
Even if it gets banned in the US, it wouldn't really hamper their success. It won't be a AAA game, sure. Tt'll have a small budget, and not as good graphics and such, but then again, it's target market won't be the 12-yo graphics whore, as that one is already taken in by COD. Their target market would be satisfied with lower-end graphics, and a not as much polished game, as long as the story and the gameplay are solid. And incidentally this target market would not care about the american propaganda and controvercy, but be more inclined to buy the game in protest, if anything.
Now it's up for one of these smaller developers to make it, and hopefully score a moderate success, that way some major developers may get the balls to do something similar.
Even if it gets banned in the US, it wouldn't really hamper their success. It won't be a AAA game, sure. Tt'll have a small budget, and not as good graphics and such, but then again, it's target market won't be the 12-yo graphics whore, as that one is already taken in by COD. Their target market would be satisfied with lower-end graphics, and a not as much polished game, as long as the story and the gameplay are solid. And incidentally this target market would not care about the american propaganda and controvercy, but be more inclined to buy the game in protest, if anything.
Now it's up for one of these smaller developers to make it, and hopefully score a moderate success, that way some major developers may get the balls to do something similar.
I know that there are samples of other nationalities getting the starring role in games (Soap in CoD4, the guys in Resistance, stuff like that), but a lot of the time, it's Americans and American conflicts with a few other people thrown in for the fun of it. There are definitely some solid examples out there (now that I think about it, the Call of Duty franchise used to be pretty good at that... I think that the franchise has included British, Russian, and Polish soldiers), but I want to see more. Maybe it's just because I'm American, but I'm kind of getting sick of the same old conflicts (namely World War II and semi-fictional post-Cold War nonsense), and I want to see what the rest of the world's been up to.Nocturnal Gentleman said:
This is a huge tangent here, but I actually see games as having a huge capacity for subtle education. I mean, how many gamers do you think actually had a solid grasp of the Pazzi Conspiracy before playing Assassin's Creed 2? How many gamers got a basic grasp of objectivism and all of its problems through BioShock? There's a huge amount of stuff out there that gamers can be exposed to simply be playing games and absorbing the settings and stories. That's part of why I'm so fed up with the same tired war stories about the same American heroism. There are so many other cultures, political situations, conflicts, and eras which games could teach us about, but we seem content to relive the same 10 minutes of the Normandy landing over and over.
Id like to see a scenario where you play as a Taliban armed with a Pistol with one full mag, a rock and a rusty knife and you are against this:
Now that would sell!
Now that would sell!
Yeah, we'd totally win that.Lord Kloo said:
*insert all /facepalm related comments here*
OT: I doubt it'd sell in America, although I'd play it. I'd play it if the Brits were treated as the bad guys too, although that's not exactly an uncommon occurrence in Hollywood.
This thread reminds me of this Palestinian video game called Under Siege where you played a Palestinian youth trying to save his family from the Israelis. It was profiled in PC Gamer a while ago. If I remember correctly , the first level starts you throwing stones at IDF troops, and there is another level where you defend a mosque from US-made, Israeli-piloted helicopters with RPGs.
Obviously this game never saw release outside of Arab countries, because it was too controversial. But PC Gamer ran an article asking, if countless games show Arab terrorists as the bad guys, why can't you make a game from the opposing point of view?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Under_Siege_%28video_game%29
Obviously this game never saw release outside of Arab countries, because it was too controversial. But PC Gamer ran an article asking, if countless games show Arab terrorists as the bad guys, why can't you make a game from the opposing point of view?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Under_Siege_%28video_game%29
Playing as the Germans in WW2 would be an excellent break from tradition. Black ops nearly hit it when you fight against the British as a russian.Bloodstain said:
The next band of brothers/pacific series should also show the german side
Because this country is so insecure that if somebody made a war game against them (ie: Vietnam, which we lost) we would probably declare actual war on them. Not kidding, that's how shit works over here. it's stupidDanistuta said:
No, it's not just you. Probably most gamers American and otherwise feel the way you do. I'd like to play as other cultures too as long as they give fair depth to both opposing sides. That's the only thing that bothers me most. War games rarely feel balanced.bassdrum said:
As for the education from games part I kind of agree. For some it really does open their eyes to things they never bothered to look into. There's still too many folks that rarely pay attention to ideas and information a game is trying to share though. They just want to kill things, ignore the story, and then go online and kill more things. I've talked to people who play games like bioshock and barely remember the story at all. They just remember killing splicers and various big daddies or the powers they gained. Personally I don't know how you could play a game like Assassin's Creed or Bioshock and ignore the story.
Personally, I would love to play against America, on the grounds that, as someone of Russian descent, I often get stereotyped into a Vodka loving communist insurgent because of games like Call of Duty. And I do often wonder if shooting my fellow countrymen during every Call Of Duty (except WaW, which was slightly refreshing) is begginning to get a little insensitive...
?Would anyone else really like to play an FPS/3rd person shooter AGAINST America?
Don't get me wrong, this is not a hate post against the Yank nation, more a fun idea that's been done in plenty of games previously (ie. allowing you to play as the 'enemy').?
Silly question: almost all shooter games that have the U.S. involved in the gameplay have an option on multiplayer to play on the opposing team. I.E. the baddies - against America.
?My point is, it would kick ass to play as the Viet Cong, Iraquis or Talban scum.?
However, making a game based wholly on opfor's perspective would be nice, though bear something in mind: if you want a realistic shooter involving the U.S. Military in some shape or form then there really is only on perspective to play it from, and that is the American perspective. This is because the U.S. military is simply more potent than any currently existing plausible enemy. Example: The Taliban don?t fight the U.S. military, they take pot shots and run away or leave explosives on roads, the only other thing they do is get ?raped? by aircraft and better equipped & supported infantry. The war in Afghanistan isn?t a war, it?s an insurgency. A war is a battle between two opposing forces. There are no battles in Afghanistan. There are skirmishes and IED?s, and that?s about it ? if the Taliban don?t actually stick around to fight their enemy long enough for their enemy to fight them then there wasn?t ever a ?battle? in the conventional understanding of the term. Now if you want to play as a ?more powerful? country, like Russia, and stick it to the Americans? your SOL. Russia has a comparably pathetic military. They produce some good high-tech weaponry, but this is mostly for the purpose of selling said tech to other countries. it?s a major income industry for Russia. Russia?s military is barely even recognizable as a modern, effective fighting force. While it has improved in leaps and bounds since its low point during and after the fall of the Soviet Union, it is still a mess and would be bowled over in days by an effective fighting force like the U.S. military. But China has a big super-tech military! No. it doesn?t. it has a BIG military, and it has some significant weapons tech. But the size and quality of tech don?t intersect. They have limited technologically advanced forces and a lot of ill-equipped conscript like troops. The only things Russia and China have going for them against the country that outspends the entire rest of the world in terms of their military budget is the nuclear deterrent.
?Id prefer if you didnt played as the enemy, it should be potraid as a diferent side and not the evil one. War has two sides, they have their ideals and none of them is the good one or the evil one.?
This is very unclear; bad syntax and grammar? etc? and on the subject of neither side being good or evil you?re a bit wrong there. All wars have a ?good? guy. It is sometimes difficult to identify which side this is, but it is usually the defender in the case of moral ambiguity and if it is easy to determine the moral ?good? side then your problem is solved for you.
?If David Cameron (British PM (2010-15) came on telly and announced war on the USA then I would defiantly vote for his party (Conservative) in 2015.. Well I have to vote Tory anyway, my avatar dictates that I do....?
So you would vote for a man who suggests pissing off Britain?s closest ally? Why not declare war on the sun? Britain?s military is already heavily integrated with NATO?s and the U.S. and plans indicate that it will only become more so now that it is downsizing its military.
?First off its Iraqis and Taliban and secondly, YES I WOULD LOVE TO FIGHT AMERICA! Or at least not to keep playing as Americans, it's just old and repetitive.?
It?s not Iraqis; its ?various insurgent forces?? the Iraq war was over a few weeks after it began. After that the war degenerated into multiple intersecting conflicts with insurgents and various sectarian factions. The Iraq war is strictly the war between the Iraqi established conventional military and the Coalition. No one can claim that went on until 2005+ that?s just stupid.
?Eh it will be an interesting concept and i would like to see the Spetznaz and the IRA in Ireland have a team-up against US.?
There were accusations that the U.S. was supporting the IRA; perhaps not the government but private American entities. If anything the IRA wouldn?t be inclined to making an enemy of the U.S.A. in which exists a large pool of sympathizers.
?By playing as America you are playing as the bad guys. Although they try to do the right thing, it's usually the wrong way and for the wrong reasons.?
Right. Whereas playing as everybody else is just like the same thing except their know they are doing the wrong thing. That is a very simplistic and silly understanding of American policy regarding warfare and such things.
"AMERICA ARE NOT THE GOOD GUYS! They are simply the side with the biggest propaganda machine.?
No. America IS the good guy, it is also not a propaganda machine; that?s just cultural globalization and influence speaking. As somebody who has seen the inner workings of the true foreign policy arm of the U.S.A. (i.e. the embassies) I can assure you that the U.S. is too spastic and incompetent in most cases to generate propaganda.
An anti-American game would sell like crack cocaine in the U.S.A. trust me; there would be loads of wailing and shrieking on the part of FOX news and pretty much everybody else but in the end the largest market for the game would still be the U.S.A. because the children of those bums on FOX would be asking for said evil game for Xmas and would thus likely get it.
I WANT a game which would allow me to play as an opposing force team against the U.S. and allies? etc? but I cant swallow crap like the Russian invasion in MW2 (don?t get me started, yes, I?m one of those people who expect realism in a ?realistic? shooter). I would love to play as the Russkies in the 60/70/80/90?s as part of a cold war scenario (but hey, that?s what WiC is for) I would also love to play as the Taliban? realistically? But if your lusting for a game that pits t-90?s against abrams tanks and the great AK family of weapons against the M16 and derivatives? and it?s not a cold war scenario? well? im sorry? SOL.
Don't get me wrong, this is not a hate post against the Yank nation, more a fun idea that's been done in plenty of games previously (ie. allowing you to play as the 'enemy').?
Silly question: almost all shooter games that have the U.S. involved in the gameplay have an option on multiplayer to play on the opposing team. I.E. the baddies - against America.
?My point is, it would kick ass to play as the Viet Cong, Iraquis or Talban scum.?
However, making a game based wholly on opfor's perspective would be nice, though bear something in mind: if you want a realistic shooter involving the U.S. Military in some shape or form then there really is only on perspective to play it from, and that is the American perspective. This is because the U.S. military is simply more potent than any currently existing plausible enemy. Example: The Taliban don?t fight the U.S. military, they take pot shots and run away or leave explosives on roads, the only other thing they do is get ?raped? by aircraft and better equipped & supported infantry. The war in Afghanistan isn?t a war, it?s an insurgency. A war is a battle between two opposing forces. There are no battles in Afghanistan. There are skirmishes and IED?s, and that?s about it ? if the Taliban don?t actually stick around to fight their enemy long enough for their enemy to fight them then there wasn?t ever a ?battle? in the conventional understanding of the term. Now if you want to play as a ?more powerful? country, like Russia, and stick it to the Americans? your SOL. Russia has a comparably pathetic military. They produce some good high-tech weaponry, but this is mostly for the purpose of selling said tech to other countries. it?s a major income industry for Russia. Russia?s military is barely even recognizable as a modern, effective fighting force. While it has improved in leaps and bounds since its low point during and after the fall of the Soviet Union, it is still a mess and would be bowled over in days by an effective fighting force like the U.S. military. But China has a big super-tech military! No. it doesn?t. it has a BIG military, and it has some significant weapons tech. But the size and quality of tech don?t intersect. They have limited technologically advanced forces and a lot of ill-equipped conscript like troops. The only things Russia and China have going for them against the country that outspends the entire rest of the world in terms of their military budget is the nuclear deterrent.
?Id prefer if you didnt played as the enemy, it should be potraid as a diferent side and not the evil one. War has two sides, they have their ideals and none of them is the good one or the evil one.?
This is very unclear; bad syntax and grammar? etc? and on the subject of neither side being good or evil you?re a bit wrong there. All wars have a ?good? guy. It is sometimes difficult to identify which side this is, but it is usually the defender in the case of moral ambiguity and if it is easy to determine the moral ?good? side then your problem is solved for you.
?If David Cameron (British PM (2010-15) came on telly and announced war on the USA then I would defiantly vote for his party (Conservative) in 2015.. Well I have to vote Tory anyway, my avatar dictates that I do....?
So you would vote for a man who suggests pissing off Britain?s closest ally? Why not declare war on the sun? Britain?s military is already heavily integrated with NATO?s and the U.S. and plans indicate that it will only become more so now that it is downsizing its military.
?First off its Iraqis and Taliban and secondly, YES I WOULD LOVE TO FIGHT AMERICA! Or at least not to keep playing as Americans, it's just old and repetitive.?
It?s not Iraqis; its ?various insurgent forces?? the Iraq war was over a few weeks after it began. After that the war degenerated into multiple intersecting conflicts with insurgents and various sectarian factions. The Iraq war is strictly the war between the Iraqi established conventional military and the Coalition. No one can claim that went on until 2005+ that?s just stupid.
?Eh it will be an interesting concept and i would like to see the Spetznaz and the IRA in Ireland have a team-up against US.?
There were accusations that the U.S. was supporting the IRA; perhaps not the government but private American entities. If anything the IRA wouldn?t be inclined to making an enemy of the U.S.A. in which exists a large pool of sympathizers.
?By playing as America you are playing as the bad guys. Although they try to do the right thing, it's usually the wrong way and for the wrong reasons.?
Right. Whereas playing as everybody else is just like the same thing except their know they are doing the wrong thing. That is a very simplistic and silly understanding of American policy regarding warfare and such things.
"AMERICA ARE NOT THE GOOD GUYS! They are simply the side with the biggest propaganda machine.?
No. America IS the good guy, it is also not a propaganda machine; that?s just cultural globalization and influence speaking. As somebody who has seen the inner workings of the true foreign policy arm of the U.S.A. (i.e. the embassies) I can assure you that the U.S. is too spastic and incompetent in most cases to generate propaganda.
An anti-American game would sell like crack cocaine in the U.S.A. trust me; there would be loads of wailing and shrieking on the part of FOX news and pretty much everybody else but in the end the largest market for the game would still be the U.S.A. because the children of those bums on FOX would be asking for said evil game for Xmas and would thus likely get it.
I WANT a game which would allow me to play as an opposing force team against the U.S. and allies? etc? but I cant swallow crap like the Russian invasion in MW2 (don?t get me started, yes, I?m one of those people who expect realism in a ?realistic? shooter). I would love to play as the Russkies in the 60/70/80/90?s as part of a cold war scenario (but hey, that?s what WiC is for) I would also love to play as the Taliban? realistically? But if your lusting for a game that pits t-90?s against abrams tanks and the great AK family of weapons against the M16 and derivatives? and it?s not a cold war scenario? well? im sorry? SOL.
I can't stand the way that the US is always portrayed as the 'good guy' in shooters, and that developers respond to their hissy fits for complaining in a way that they wouldn't listen to, say, North Korea. For many many many people in the world, the US is a rogue state. That is, they are anything BUT the good guys. I'd love to see a game when you had to sneak around and take out all of the US's nuclear capabilities.
I, for one, am for the idea . . . hell, let's just make it a little goofy, too, and go all Canadian Bacon - let the player be part of some Canadian special ops team that's mixing things up with the US.
. . . But I highly doubt it would go over all that well, no matter what the scenario - even more-so considering how the gaming market has come under fire by the government over the last year. A title portraying the US as an enemy would run into some major headaches, and could quite possibly derail a lot of advancement the gaming market has worked hard for.
Perhaps a year or two from now, when the media and government have cooled down towards the gaming market, such an idea would be better.
. . . But I highly doubt it would go over all that well, no matter what the scenario - even more-so considering how the gaming market has come under fire by the government over the last year. A title portraying the US as an enemy would run into some major headaches, and could quite possibly derail a lot of advancement the gaming market has worked hard for.
Perhaps a year or two from now, when the media and government have cooled down towards the gaming market, such an idea would be better.
It sounds like a nice idea but for it to be anywhere near original,it would have to take place somewhere in the future.America as it is (me being an American)could use some work yet the common idealism is to not attack unless attacked (at least for people with a mental capacity worth two cents unlike those who think KFC should be shut down and have its money leeched to profit the gov.Disney kicked Imbeciles.)so unless you have a media run America then it really wouldn't make much sense.I do like the concept but again,it would definitely take some thought and twists not like how the modern call of duty games say "LETS DO THIS NOW SO WE CAN MAKE PEOPLE PLAY MULTIPLAYER!!" where the story is boiled down to this guy is bad and you are good.Honestly,Crackdown executes a better "THIS IS GOOD!" then most shooters.No,there are too many pansy-minded,tear-driven,money-leeching,half-whit,no personality,media following slave like fools for a modern America to attack someone without it being a "HEY LOOK RUSSIA!" scenario.