Would you play CoD if the roles were reversed?

[Korten12]

I recall in Call of Duty 1 & 2 the playbale character switched to a British and Russian perspective as well as an American one.


Also in Modern Warfare aren't the main characters British SAS? I mean you play as American Soldiers as well but they're never really the focus of the story and I think they're the characters that always end up dying...

...plus wasn't the main antagonist in Modern Warfare 2 an American General?


The point being are you sure this so called "America **** Yeah" attitude is really as prevalent as you say it is?

Yeah, and in MW3, you mainly control a Russian named Yuri.

Hell in Blops 2 you fight alongside the Chinese at various points in the SP and in general with Blops 2 it's less about the countries and more about the characters.

 

[golfbraniac]

I wouldn't even play it anyhow.

No reason for it though,im sure it's good for the fans.

 

[Beautiful End]

Well, as it has already being pointed out several times, the problem is the "'Merica, fuck yeah" attitude. You know, where the US is the hero and goes off to save the world because everyone who's against the US is, by default, a bad guy.

But for the sake of the argument, let's ignore that. A game where you could play as Russians or Koreans AND kill evil Americans would be cool, if only because its different. But I can see people getting offended by it and going back to CoD because 'Merica, fuck yeah.

The other problem CoD has is that there's either really good guys or incredibly bad guys. There's no in-between. If they toned that down or created neutral characters, it would be more enjoyable. But they probably wouldn't.

The third problem is that CoD is so popular right now that most FPS follow that exact same route, with games like MoH and maybe even BF going further. The few games that dare take a step in a different direction are either overlooked or completely ignored (See: Spec Ops, Operation Rainfall, etc.)

So yeah, personally, i would. But I can see a lot of people complaining about the lack of the 'Merica attitude. Also, CoD isn't as ballsy as to try something radical.
So we're stuck with endless MW and Blops sequels.

 

[krazykidd]

And where the fuck is Canada in all this?

Don't know , really care , but whatever you do, do not create a thread about it ಠ_ಠ . It never ends well X_X .

Really? Why doesn't it end well? Seems to be a valid question to me .

 

[Trippy Turtle]

I would buy it if the gameplay was good. Same reason I buy it now. I plan on getting BO2 once the price drops a bit and I get bored of Halo 4.

 

[Baron_Rouge]

Hell yes. I like CoD a lot anyway, but I think it'd be better if you got to experience it from someone else's perspective as well. Modern conflicts are very ambiguous anyway, there hasn't been a real clear-cut big conflict since WWII. I'd love it if you got to play as a Nicaraguan who saw his home decimated by U.S sanctioned civilian attacks, or a person in Eastern Europe whose family were the victims of an ethnic cleansing precipitated by NATO attacks. Let us see it from the perspectives of someone else for once in a while. It's not like the modern world really has too many good guys anyway, and I certainly don't think the U.S army qualifies (no disrespect to soldiers, I just don't agree with the orders they have to carry out).

 

[mad825]

Mixed feelings really, Command and Conquer 3 did something like this when you played the terrorists. In a call of duty setting, I could never be a Chinese or a Arab/Persian but I could probably be a Nazi SS deathhead or a russian spetznas and keep a clear mind.

C&C: Generals? GLA? The NOD are not too dissimilar.

For COD, it wouldn't go well simple because the single player campaign is so dried cut to be very mediocre there simply isn't any room. Usually it requires an structured gameplay or story for this type of game which COD delivers neither and which might end up being a battlefeild clone.

 

[CounterReproductive]

How bout we drop america all together . How about a fictional war between australia and Great britain ? We could have naval battles , air battles , and kangeroo boxing . I'm tired of the U.S periode . And where the fuck is Canada in all this?

Canada was invaded by North korea last year, the place is big and remote, nobody has noticed yet eh :d

 

[Riddle78]

No. Because it's still,at it's core,an entry in a stagnant genre that by definition cannot change due to it being the MODERN military shooter. I gave up on modern military shooters after Modern Warfare 2. I'll wait patiently for the genre to die,and something new,or maybe old,to take it's place. And then I will hope that it's better than the modern military shooter,and pray that it'll be able to evolve to meet new demographics and the demands of the ever-fickle audience.

Because,seriously. I am SICK AND TIRED of seeing the M-16/C6. Show me something that flies on the wings of fancy. Something to tickle my imagination,and makes me say "Sweet jesus,that's a fun gun!" Something like the Skaarj RazorJack from Unreal.

 

[TAdamson]

I don't think COD campaigns would be made any more interesting by going down the "Russia, fuck yeah" route, or the "China, fuck yeah" one.

America isn't the problem, it's the fuck yeah attitude that's keeping the genre down.

I dunno, the change of perspective during Call of Duty 2 Soviet Campaign was pretty good.

And I thought that the first Modern Warfare campaign was interesting. First time getting away from fight NAZIs and The Empire of Japan was great.

I've always thought that someone should have the guts to make a COD style campaign from the perspective of a German Heer Soldier. A Waffen-SS soldier might be pushing it but it'd be interesting to fight with Rommel against Patton and the Rats of Tobruk. Or be one of the MG42 gunners on Omaha beach (Maybe to much for some but no worse than gunning down civilians in an airport.).

Verity. It's great. The first Medal of Honor was great because I'd never heard the report of an M1 Garand before.

The first Modern Warfare was great because it felt like I was playing a bad Tom Clancy thriller.

So why not play Modern China, or Modern Russia, or the Taliban.

Or how about a fucking Australian or two? Or a Canadian? Or even a Kiwi? We've got hard as fuck SAS operatives too y'know.

 

[Darren716]

I probably wouldn't since I won't buy a COD game based on single player I play it based on the multiplayer. And besides the COD games aren't as 'Merica loving as everyone thinks since the main heroes ar British, the Americans Are portrayed as a group of dumb asses when they declare war on a middle eastern nation in the first game, and the main antagonist of the second game was the leader of the entire US military.

 

[Headdrivehardscrew]

We've already been handed shy little glimpses of the Russian 'perspective', be it first-person in World At War or a little more twisted in Black Ops.

People seem to stop short of bringing us the full glory of Stalin's misanthropic carousel of suffering and death and plain insanity. After all, it would be quite a horror show.

I've played the fistful of Iranian/Hezbollah/crap perspective 'games' or 'interactive experiences' that saw the light of, well, day. Didn't exactly help me see their point of view better, all it did was turn me into a fervent opponent of the Iranian beardymen regime and the current Hamas-run hellhole that is the stump of Palestine. Anyone that paints the Israelis the bad guys seems to have selected easy mode for history 101.

When I was younger, I opposed ye evil jews occupying Palestinian land... because, after all, that was what we were taught at school. Eventually, I figured out that if you go back in time just a wee bit more than the selective looking glass of textbooks allowed, it was Muslims that conquered, maimed, murdered, raped and occupied. It's an old and rather stupid game, and I've come to the conclusion that most propaganda on the Palestinian side is slanted, skewed, distorted and oftentimes rather unsavoury, well before and after Farfour the Mickey Mouse clone from hell that taught kids to hate jews and blow themselves up in the name of honour and he-who-shalt-not-be-named.

If we get a free refresher on current issues or history, I prefer it to be as crude and ugly and direct as humanly possible, as reality itself is well beyond anything any game intended to go to market could recreate. If you take into account that there's still someone writing an actual, fictional story, I think the COD series really doesn't deserve half the hatred it gets. I never felt much like "'Murica, f**k yeah!" and more like "Oh my God does this ever stop getting shittier and shittier and more depressing?". While the competitive online game component is oftentimes questioned and ridiculed, it's still pretty much one of the best team shooters since, what, Counterstrike? The same pretty much goes for all those short story mode single player experiences - over the top? Maybe, but there was hardly anything that hasn't happened already, could have happened during the Cold War or could happen in the current volatile times we live in. War sucks, but while you can fight to recall troops from war zones, you just cannot remove war from certain cultures, regions or mindsets. War, to some, is a way of life. Giving up on each of the conflicts currently going on means to condemn the less radical folks, and/or women, and/or Christians to certain doom and gloom and death. And that's a pretty shitty outlook, no matter how one would like to spin it.

I have little sympathy for the Talib way of seeing and understanding things, as it basically ditches the last, say, 1200 years of human development and intellectual evolution, including pretty much everything we've achieved in science or what is commonly referred to as 'enlightenment'. Hardcore or 'proper' Islam is a huge sip of the Dark Ages, and methinks we just can't have that, now, can we. So, why promote it? If defies the fistful of logic I am allowed to carry around.

So, would I play it? Maybe. Would I like it? Probably not. See, I am quite offended by the Assassin's Creed series painting the Templars the bad ones. That's plain not fair, it's wrong and it falsifies history significantly. So, the Assassin's Creed series ended for me somewhere late during the first title. I checked the other ones out, but I would never waste money on something that is guaranteed to piss me off big time.

 

[Elementary - Dear Watson]

The ironic thing with these modern shooters, is that for the most part (bar a few levels and set pieces) you play as a small squad, or on your own, sneaking around trying to kill the enemy without any rules of engagement and before they realise you are there... (i'm talking across the board here, not necessarily just CoD and BF, however they have an element of this too!)

You also are against an enemy which is at least a battalion or corps size... even if they are meant to be an insurgency or terrorist group...

You also fight the most well, and inexplicably equipped insurgents there are around...

When you look at it, you are the one using guerilla tactics against those who are using possible doctrinal army tactics back at you... Isn't that role reversal enough?

I'll never forget playing the first modern Medal of Honour game, set in 'Afghanistan' and getting to the bit where you have to defend yourself in some ruined shed whilst waiting for extraction. There are seemingly endless amounts of enemies piling down the hill at you, and after you kill about 50 or so, you get to extract... although there are still more and more coming... You pretty much see half of the Taliban forces in Helmand[footnote]Exageration...[/footnote] in that short set-piece, who for some reason have nothing better to do than travel to a remote mountain and give a full on attack against 4 Americans... who they don't actually know who they are, and have realised are extremely dangerous... and at no time do they stop to think why those tactics should work! :S

 

[-Samurai-]

The fact that you don't play as an American the entire time(or even most of the time) in the majority of the games kinda makes this thread pointless.

 

[StormShaun]

I would like to play a shooter which stars the Australians...I mean Australians are nowhere to be seen in any FPSs.

I would like to see a game where Australia has to do some generic/unique FPS plot line but in the end they have to choose their ally/s and go against the other countries in the sequel.

I feel that there are no video games with Australia in it. D:

EDIT: Unless I didn't look hard enough and I am wrong. >.<

 

[Elementary - Dear Watson]

SNIP...

I think the idea of the thread is playing as the traditional 'enemies' in games... I liked the change of pace playing as soviets in CoD2 and the hilarious carefree attitude of the Polish tank guys in CoD3 too, but they were still the 'good' guys...

I think the problem with playing as traditional 'bad guys' is that they are, or are meant to be, the losing team... and who would want to play a game based on a historical war knowing that all their efforts are futile as you are going to lose anyway...?

 

[Elementary - Dear Watson]

I would like to play a shooter which stars the Australians...I mean Australians are nowhere to be seen in any FPSs.

I would like to see a game where Australia has to do some generic/unique FPS plot line but in the end they have to choose their ally/s and go against the other countries in the sequel.

I feel that there are no video games with Australia in it. D:

EDIT: Unless I didn't look hard enough and I am wrong. >.<

You don't play as him, but his badass driving skills in CoD:MW2 save your arse!

Also, isn't the TF in the new Medal of Honour completely multinational too?

 

[wings012]

The Modern Warfare series ultimately had Brit heroes, as much as people like to call CoD out on fuck yeah America. Being from Malaysia, I really couldn't care much of who's perspective I am playing from as long as its fun and done well.

Though I actually like playing as Russians. There's something about them. Their charming accents, or their sense of camaraderie. The Russian segments in CoD2 were some of the best moments ever. The escape from Vorkuta in Black Ops was also pretty magnificent. I also quite liked the Russian parts of World at War.

 

[Techno Squidgy]

snip

Yes, oh god yes, would I.
As an Englishman, I am sick and tired of having to play as an American. A game focused solely on the British forces would be good, but at the same time it'd be great to play as the other end.
The Spetsnaz are a truly terrifying force so it'd be great to play them, and playing as a guerilla fighter would be extremely interesting, constantly being on the backfoot in terms of equipment would make for some great opportunities for tactical choices.
Hell I'd play games were you had to fight the British, in fact you know what would suit me just fine right now? A game with NO Americans. Yeah, that'd be sweet. You'd get to use different equipment instead of the same old mash-up of U.S. gear and prototypes, wouldn't have to hear any American accents...

but most of the big game companies are based in the U.S. and the whole "FUCK YEAH, 'MURRICA" thing sells really well.

SNIP...

I think the idea of the thread is playing as the traditional 'enemies' in games... I liked the change of pace playing as soviets in CoD2 and the hilarious carefree attitude of the Polish tank guys in CoD3 too, but they were still the 'good' guys...

I think the problem with playing as traditional 'bad guys' is that they are, or are meant to be, the losing team... and who would want to play a game based on a historical war knowing that all their efforts are futile as you are going to lose anyway...?

There's real potential for a great story there. Picture it, young German lad, joined the military to avoid being sent to a labour camp or whatever, forced to do horrific things, having to watch his homeland turn into a battleground as his comrades are massacred and his cities are levelled. It'd be amazing. If a good writer got hold of that... let me go clean myself up.