i dont think gamers are the problem. its all of the people who dont understand the art that is videogames who would jump on it and ban it and sue the developer and other nonsense.Aylaine said:
Poll: How about a ''Vs. America' shooter?
- Thread starter Danistuta
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Unfortunately, a huge population listens and agrees to what ever Fox news says. Remember the Taliban issue in MoH?sanguinator said:
good pointbahumat42 said:
however not all native americans used bows and arrows which was why they were so difficult to defeat wen compared to the natives of south america.
i suppose it would just offer a different cultural viewpoint. not to mention plenty of varied gameplay.
Oh great another thread inspired by Zero Punctuation. Yes of course playing as "Americans are the good guys" is overdone, but saying playing as the "viet cong, iraquis, or taliban scum" would kick ass doesn't really make any sense to me. Yes it would be an interesting dynamic, yes it would be a change, and yes it may end up being a better game, but "kick ass" no. I don't really get that rock and roll feeling from playing as terrorists.Danistuta said:
Off-topic: "Star whores"? Are you trolling?
Twould be cool if you could pick a side, or at least had some 1-off missions you could play.
Everyone got so pissy about the Taliban in Medal of Honor, but in Brothers in Arms: Earned in Blood, you could play as the Nazi's killing Americans in special missions and no one complained.
Everyone got so pissy about the Taliban in Medal of Honor, but in Brothers in Arms: Earned in Blood, you could play as the Nazi's killing Americans in special missions and no one complained.
Correction. That's what the common stereotypical American thinks. You know, the ones that barely exist but people from the outside assume make up the majority.misterprickly said:
But how about Russia, Norway, Gret Britian, I even think Israeli spec ops is better trained. And Taliban would be wierd to play as, how could you make a player care if you wrote it as we see them. You would have to get insiders and such and that would not sit right wit most people as try to paint TALIBAN (gasp) as people and not the monsters most of the world see them as.370999 said:
It's a perfectly reasonable thing for a game to do, but it wouldn't sell. The main market for these games is America, so playing as a character that the audience can't identify with, fighting an emeny that they do identify with, is detrimental to sales. Besides, fox would go nuts. I would recommend being able to play from multiple perspectives, playing half the time as an American soldier, and half as an enemy fighter.
While we should be living in a time where we could use freedom of speech to do that, that'll never be made due to the political problems of it. Videogames get a bad enough rap as it is. If a games is released that includes attacks on America, controlled by the player, the industry would not be able to survive. All of the media, not just Fox news, would come down with such fury that games would be relegated to nothing more than children's toys.
I want to play an FPS where you're part of the Swiss army.
You spend the whole time eating cheese and trying not to annoy people.
You spend the whole time eating cheese and trying not to annoy people.
Not true, it said that Russia would have destroyed America, their technological advancement was un-matched. However, Capital Price did a wide-spread EMP blast, regardless how technically strong you are, EMP is deadly. For the nuke idea, most countries with nukes don't want to use them, because it causes EVERY OTHER COUNTRY WITH NUKES to fire back at you in self defense, regardless where they're heading. It's mutual annihilation. Only an idiot would do that, so they stick with any choice they get other than nukes.Eclectic Dreck said:
No. No it is true.Diamondback One said:
It isn't a matter of technological advancement. It is a matter of logistics and a matter of the relative combat power of light infantry with respect to mechanized infantry and armor. The Russian troops that were inserted into the US arrived by aircraft, which by default ensures they are predominately light infantry. This is simply the natural result of the following fact: the largest cargo planes in existence can only carry a single modern Main Battle Tank and only a handful can carry more than a single Infantry Fighting Vehicle or Armored Personnel Carrier (and even then this is based largely on what IFV or APC we're talking about). This, incidentally, is why the US developed the Stryker in the first place - to allow a rapidly deployable force better access to transportation and reasonable levels of firepower. But, I would point out that such things very generally require the aircraft doing the delivery to land in order to offload equipment safely. This means that, in order for Russia to deliver significant quantities of heavy vehicles and weapons, they would have to secure a rather large air field and then defend that strategic point and keep the runway in suitable repair and even then you're limited by the 12+ hour flight (one way) and the total number of transports you have at your disposal. All of this conspires to ensure this invasion force was almost entirely comprised of light infantry and their supporting equipment. Indeed, the heaviest vehicle you encounter in the game is a BMP if memory serves, which is simply an IFV and a poor match for a modern MBT in open battle. The purpose of the IFV is to transport troops rapidly allowing them to exploit breaches in the enemies lines all while providing supporting fires from (relatively) heavy weaponry.
But if you have a force of Light Infantry in place, the question becomes, quite naturally, what next? Light Infantry (in the form of Airborne units in this case) have the advantage of being able to be inserted virtually anywhere on the battlefield. Unfortunately, the nature of their insertion ensures that they are somewhat limited in the sort of supplies they bring to the field. Namely, whatever can survive being hurled out of an aircraft in flight. This is what gives Light Infantry their name: units thus designated to not often come equipped with heavy armor or ordinance. Historically, Airborne units have been used to seize key terrain that they seek to hold in order to deny it's use to the enemy. Notably, in the current Iraq war, airborne elements seized Baghdad International Airport, in the Second World War they secured several of the primary approaches to the Normandy Beaches and later in Operation Market Garden they tried the same thing.
It is that last example that demonstrates a compelling truth. The allies delivered around 34,000 airborne troops who sought to secure a number of locations while the main allied effort fought through what was presumed to be light German resistance to link up with them. Unfortunately for the plan, it turns out that that the defenses were heavier than anticipated and included several notable German armor units. The advance of the main effort was thus stalled but the Airborne units held regardless for a time but inevitably they were forced into retreat after having sustained staggering casualties. The lesson is simple enough: even with superior numbers light infantry cannot contend indefinitely with heavy armor. This lesson has not changed considerably in the decades since.
But, were that not enough, consider for a moment that after the initial deployment, the element of strategic surprise is lost. Future supply operations would also need to be conducted by air as a sea effort would arrive far too late to be of use, but these efforts would easily be contested and losses would inevitably be staggering. What's more, Russian Air Support operations would be forced to spend far longer in transit than loitering over the target area when compared to equivalent US assets. What this means is, in short, the Russians would have trouble getting additional supplies necessary to exploit the early gains achieved with strategic surprise and resulting destruction in depth of their effort was all but assured.
They were outnumbered in hostile complex terrain that favors the defender. Their options for maneuver were limited by the basic lack of heavy equipment. Their supply lines were thousands of miles longer than those in use by the US. The only thing that invasion could have achieved was utterly destroying Washington even had the EMP not gone off. If the objective was to invade and defeat the US in pitched battle, the plan would have failed in the opening weeks at best. If the plan was simply a punitive measure for the perceived airport atrocity, they would have better luck with sanctions at this would not cost tens of thousands of Russian soldiers their lives at a cost of untold billions of dollars.
If you somehow think it easy to transport an enormous army to fight a war across an ocean, perhaps you need to look at how long a buildup period there was for Desert Storm and the current war in Iraq. I'll give you a hint - we spent months building forces before we invaded precisely so we wouldn't have the outnumbered, outgunned and supply lines 8,000 miles long problem the Russians would have inevitably faced.
And, all of this simply overlooks the fact that the Russians achieved complete strategic surprise by carefully jamming US C&C elements moments before an attack began. Because a massive airborne invasion has no other indicators to watch for before people start jumping out of planes in the Modern Warfare universe.
how about we stop making games based in reality altogether?
Fuck you planet earth! mushroom kingdom awaaaaaaaaaaaay!
Fuck you planet earth! mushroom kingdom awaaaaaaaaaaaay!
Yeah.RatRace123 said:
The badshit crazy and evil Japanese scientists which I probably shouldnt even skim over on this forum.
Aside from that and the actual hardcore Deathcamp Nazis and not the regular mislead German people I believe to some extent the 'bad guys' cause is not justified, but is just as valid as the 'good guys'.
Dude, you need to quit playing games and write a book on this stuff.Eclectic Dreck said:
Not many others who have an at least decent idea of the whole Modern Warfare 2 story would examine it that well and in that detail.
I just think it's interesting how many games you play as an american killing people from Germany, or Russia, or Vietnam, or Korea, or Iraq, or Afghanistan and no one says anything. The moment someone mentions killing Americans, it's all a big fuss. I realize that the North American game market is one of the largest but I think the American Media needs to chill the fuck out about this stuff. I don't see why it's such a big deal if the pixelated character has an american flag on his arm or a Russian one. If someone made a game where you walked around the streets of Oslo killing Norwegians I wouldn't give two shits. It's just a game after all.
OT: Obviously yes, I'd like to see that, but only if it's done well. Like showing the other side's ideology in the conflict.
OT: Obviously yes, I'd like to see that, but only if it's done well. Like showing the other side's ideology in the conflict.