Why Russia?

[JourneyThroughHell]

Потому что Россия является удивительным

Google translate, huh?

I would try to fix that, but I'm sort of lazy. But, really, that last word is incorrect.

It says because Russia is Awesome, and it is, so stop with your constant intolerance towards the Russian culture and we'll stop making fun of your stupid accents and disgusting food

Sorry, but what is this about?

First of all, it doesn't say "because Russia is awesome". It says "because Russia is unique". And the tense is incorrect.

And what intolerance are you talking about? It's fairly hard for me to be intolerant of Russian culture, being Russian and living in Russia myself.

 

[thirion1850]

Because fighting anyone other than us would somehow be racist, and we don't give as much shit about the subject. Usually, anyways.

 

[Rouse]

because if you cast Ruskies as the baddies you dont get death threats.

exactly. russians are just too drunk to care.
if the baddies were Africa or be in China, they would've sued them, or, in the second case, just Nuked them.


and in the mood of the thread I'll add, потому что Россия рулит.

 

[Flying Pilgrim]

Потому что Россия является удивительным

"Because Russia is awesome".

 

[zestamaster]

my guess is that the next one is north korea

 

[Rouse]

Потому что Россия является удивительным

"Because Russia is awesome".

Because google translate sucks pretty bad.

 

[warprincenataku]

Why not?

 

[Anomynous 167]

I honestly have no problem with the Russians being antagonists, but only if they're done right. The problem with most of these games is a lot of the time the Russians are just bastards for no real reason. Case in point: In Modern Warfare, at least we got a little bit of the Communists' ideology: they think that their leaders whored their country out to the United States, and want both to pay as a result. Decent enough logic. Now look at Modern Warfare 2: Somehow, magically, a terrorist leader has become a national hero, and the entire country is now willing to commit a horrible, expensive and possibly suicidal war with the United States. The question is why. Sure, apparently a CIA agent was caught in a terrorist act, but you're seriously telling me that the airport cameras didn't pick up Makarov's face or anything? That's never really explained, and that's the problem. They ignore all the reasons why the Russians WOULDN'T go to war over something this stupid. I don't care who the antagonist is, I just want decent reasons behind why they're villains.

To be fair: The Americans rarely go to war for good reasons. They go to war for power and to screw up smaller/expanding countries... well those might be good reasons but they always misjustifie them.
So I don't see why the Russians can't simply do it unprovoked.

 

[Rouse]

I honestly have no problem with the Russians being antagonists, but only if they're done right. The problem with most of these games is a lot of the time the Russians are just bastards for no real reason. Case in point: In Modern Warfare, at least we got a little bit of the Communists' ideology: they think that their leaders whored their country out to the United States, and want both to pay as a result. Decent enough logic. Now look at Modern Warfare 2: Somehow, magically, a terrorist leader has become a national hero, and the entire country is now willing to commit a horrible, expensive and possibly suicidal war with the United States. The question is why. Sure, apparently a CIA agent was caught in a terrorist act, but you're seriously telling me that the airport cameras didn't pick up Makarov's face or anything? That's never really explained, and that's the problem. They ignore all the reasons why the Russians WOULDN'T go to war over something this stupid. I don't care who the antagonist is, I just want decent reasons behind why they're villains.

To be fair: The Americans rarely go to war for good reasons. They go to war for power and to screw up smaller/expanding countries... well those might be good reasons but they always misjustifie them.
So I don't see why the Russians can't simply do it unprovoked.

touché.
Very good, Mr. Anom. You are officially my hero. I can't agree more.

 

[Siberian Relic]

Whats the deal with games like MW2,BFBC2, and Black ops having Russians as the antagonists? Have game writers really run out of ideas?

The World Wars, Korea, and Vietnam each defined a generation, but the Cold War actually encompassed all those conflicts (excluding WWI), and much of it was in dealing with the Soviet Union, predominantly Russian (just look at a USSR map).

Not saying it's right, and that "certain parties" should move past that codex of identification, but that sort of long-lived reputation is going to be very hard to shake.




....and I'm sure I just came off sounding like an idiot.

 

[Blind Sight]

I honestly have no problem with the Russians being antagonists, but only if they're done right. The problem with most of these games is a lot of the time the Russians are just bastards for no real reason. Case in point: In Modern Warfare, at least we got a little bit of the Communists' ideology: they think that their leaders whored their country out to the United States, and want both to pay as a result. Decent enough logic. Now look at Modern Warfare 2: Somehow, magically, a terrorist leader has become a national hero, and the entire country is now willing to commit a horrible, expensive and possibly suicidal war with the United States. The question is why. Sure, apparently a CIA agent was caught in a terrorist act, but you're seriously telling me that the airport cameras didn't pick up Makarov's face or anything? That's never really explained, and that's the problem. They ignore all the reasons why the Russians WOULDN'T go to war over something this stupid. I don't care who the antagonist is, I just want decent reasons behind why they're villains.

To be fair: The Americans rarely go to war for good reasons. They go to war for power and to screw up smaller/expanding countries... well those might be good reasons but they always misjustifie them.
So I don't see why the Russians can't simply do it unprovoked.

Well in the case of Modern Warfare 2, they go into a full, intercontinental war over a false pretense. I don't care if you're American, Russian, or bloody Samoan, no one just decides to randomly go into a massive world war that can easily turn thermonuclear without getting their facts straight (case in point: events like the Cuban Missile Crisis and the NATO Operation Able Archer, both cases where both sides got very nervous but ANALYZED the problem rather then just going to war over it). The fact is that when you're in a game you need a decent story reason as to why something happens. The excuse most games with the Russians as antagonists go with is basically 'they're just evil, ok?' Regardless of whether in reality wars can occur unprovoked, in your game you have to tell a decent reason why or else your entire concept is just a massive plot hole.

 

[MrJKapowey]

edit: point of note: in CoD 1&2: Russians were protagonists.

And in CoD UO and in CoD 5. Thats because they were set in WWII.

 

[Anomynous 167]

touché.
Very good, Mr. Anom. You are officially my hero. I can't agree more.

For me to elaborate, I could say "that in their independant war with France was a powergrab and they were building up most of their heavy-arms (gundom refference not intended) prior the war breaking out and terrorized Boston.
Wiping out the Cherokee nation inspite of the Treaty of Holston. (Fun fact: A majority of North American Hindi tribes fought on the side of the British during the war mentioned in Paragraph one, because they thought that they had a better chance to stay indipendant with the British in power over the colonies. What good hind sight they had)
Excessive goading/taunting/other provocative actions to draw United Mexican States (Yeah I use the official name), at the time an exhausted and weakened nation from the Mexican war of indipendance against Spain. The UMS were also 30 years behind in technology. Prior, during, and following that Mexican/American war the USA continued to make enourmous demands as a piece agreement to a war they started (Calafornia any one?) that would be insane for any country to accept. (This war is a prime example of USA's policy of going into a poor country and shooting everyone)

(Skipping a few years now), Similar to UMS, Japan was roughed with excessive provoking including a cancalation of trade. Japan's "Crowning Moments" against the US was merely blowing up scrap metal and the admiral that was against going to war against Japan. The other moment was the Battle of Kiska (Ok, I admit: it wasn't a battle. The Japs ran away, and then two weeks later the Americans came in and shot themselves)The US suffered hundreads of (Friendly fire)casualties in contrast to the Japs suffering the loss of a few containers of coffee and their dogs.(I am sorry, I just love detailing that little known Alaskan conflict)
The Americans then nuke Japan because they wouldn't surrender in a campaign that old Sam started.
(I know nothing of the Korean War, so I'll skip that.)

Following the French acting all French and being beaten out of Viet Nam, old Sammy decides that they don't want another nation to compete with, and he (Sammy) divides up the place into two: with the nationalist (You know, those with the one nation idea?) in the north, and an unpopular Muppet government in the south. The US then goes to war against the North after one of Sammy's ships fires randomly and spooks another one of Sammy's ships (Don't worry, no one was harmed in the making of Viet Nam's war of unity. But I can't say the same about during it). The Americans end up loosing the war after The People (South Viet Namese or the Viet Cong, in this case) rise up and democratically overthrow the Muppet State's government which was keeping the south and north apart, using guerilla warfare, popular support, and armaments. Showing the US that has no right to control governments an ocean away, and that the cliche's they spout will always prevail!"

I could say all that. But then again, I just did.

 

[Anomynous 167]

Well in the case of Modern Warfare 2, they go into a full, intercontinental war over a false pretense. I don't care if you're American, Russian, or bloody Samoan, no one just decides to randomly go into a massive world war that can easily turn thermonuclear without getting their facts straight (case in point: events like the Cuban Missile Crisis and the NATO Operation Able Archer, both cases where both sides got very nervous but ANALYZED the problem rather then just going to war over it). The fact is that when you're in a game you need a decent story reason as to why something happens. The excuse most games with the Russians as antagonists go with is basically 'they're just evil, ok?' Regardless of whether in reality wars can occur unprovoked, in your game you have to tell a decent reason why or else your entire concept is just a massive plot hole.

I only played CoD (4 multiplied by 2) once. And I never got passed the airport bit because I was playing at an internet cafe' and then my timelimit there ended.

How was I supposed to know that it turned into an excuse (False pretence or not) for the Russians to launch a full blown war?

 

[Anarchy In Detroit]

Why does war always have to be the future?

Tell me none of you would go nuts to be a knight smashing skulls with a mace, or a viking raiding a village, or a horse archer picking off random idiots. Throw in some shield walls, crossbows, and cavalry charges and BOOM done. Capturing the impact of melee fighting is never done though. It typically is just lame slashing.

build a fort, run a campaign, lead a battle, kill zombies with assorted medieval weaponry, you could have any number of bad guys since in medieval times everyone killed everyone else at one point or another. Warpaint? We got it. Armor? A plethora. Weapons? Hundreds.

Come on game developers you bore me. Communism and terrorists?

Or if you're not convinced, where's a freaking Korea game already? Christ you know none of these stupid kids even remember that war. That is the only other modern war we have left (not that Vietnam has ever been done well).

 

[Jekken6]

Here's a really "edgy" opponent for you: Israel.

-American-made weapons
-Significant nuclear arsenal
-Really aggressive foreign policy.
-Regularly shoot foreign nationals for fun.

Just to point out, Israel makes it's own weapons, and they're AWESOME.

Israel makes most of their own small-arms and yeah, they do quite a good job of it (Galil, Uzi, Desert Eagle) but supplement these with a lot of weapons made in the US and other countries.

A lot of their planes, artillery and armour are also US-made.

You want to know why Russia is the antagonists in a lot of games. Because Russians are biggest assholes the world will ever have.

I dunno man, have you ever met a South African?

I'm a [white] South African and i'm not an asshole.

 

[Blind Sight]

Well in the case of Modern Warfare 2, they go into a full, intercontinental war over a false pretense. I don't care if you're American, Russian, or bloody Samoan, no one just decides to randomly go into a massive world war that can easily turn thermonuclear without getting their facts straight (case in point: events like the Cuban Missile Crisis and the NATO Operation Able Archer, both cases where both sides got very nervous but ANALYZED the problem rather then just going to war over it). The fact is that when you're in a game you need a decent story reason as to why something happens. The excuse most games with the Russians as antagonists go with is basically 'they're just evil, ok?' Regardless of whether in reality wars can occur unprovoked, in your game you have to tell a decent reason why or else your entire concept is just a massive plot hole.

I only played CoD (4 multiplied by 2) once. And I never got passed the airport bit because I was playing at an internet cafe' and then my timelimit there ended.

How was I supposed to know that it turned into an excuse (False pretence or not) for the Russians to launch a full blown war?

I assumed you were informed on the subject when you responded to my post. To be clear, this wasn't an attack on you, this was a rebuttal to your argument that wars in reality can be unprovoked. I was pointing out how, as a storytelling device, this technique is very lazy and often creates far too many unanswered questions for the anatagonists to be considered legitimate, deep threats. Instead, they're simply cardboard cutouts of foreigners for people to shoot at. All I'm asking for is decent reasoning behind villains' actions, rather then attempting to just force the point and make them evil for no decent reason whatsoever. It helps to erode the immersion of the game and makes you realize how shallow it really is.

 

[Lord_Gremlin]

Making Russia the bad guy sidesteps any accusation of racism (they're white) or religious intolerance.

Also they have the second best villain accents, after Germany.

This. Except Russian accepts are way cooler then German.

Interestingly I've never seen a real Russian speaking with accent western people consider "russian".

 

[Baradiel]

Theyre the only country (except China) that has the technology, soldiers or stupidity to possibly WANT to invade America.

Iran? Not enough soldiers.

N Korea? Same.

Britain? Struggled to get rid of America in the first place, we definitely dont want it again!

I wouldn't say that it would be a stupid move for Russia to oppose America. After all, between them and the Middle East they could cripple American industry by cutting off important oil supplies and Russia is just as technologically advanced as America, if not a tad behind.

It was more a dig against America, as in "Who would be stupid enough to WANT America" although I could see how it could be misread.

I'm sure alot of countries would like to ATTACK America, but occupation? Too much hassle.