Would you play CoD if the roles were reversed?

[darron13]

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.

This more or less, it's the reason why Spec Ops: The Line was so amazing, it was an inversion of said 'fuck yeah' attitude.

 

[hooblabla6262]

I can't say anything about your first point. If you don't like linear games, that's on you.

There are "linear games" and then there is CoD which is far, FAR worse than just linear... It is just terrible Mapdesign, there is no excuse for that. They could actually remove the movement keys, because they don't really add anything to the gameplay... As I said, CoD is just a shooting gallery with some eyecandy to satisfy those who can be blinded by flashing colourful thingys...

As for your second point. I never played the earlier COD games, but the more recent ones do a good job at showing the horrors of war. I'll admit that some players are in it to win it, but the developers seem to have a far more meaningful message than "war is awesome".

Well, sorry to disappoint you, but what you call a "meaningful message" is again just flashy design. There is nothing even remotely related to something close to a true depth in these games. This is what I like to refer to as "Hollywood warfare". It acts like it has depth, but it is all cheesy drama once you take a closer look. In reality CoD does not show "the horrors of war" it displays them, it uses them as a selling point, to "shock" the audience into buying the game. Remember how "no Russians" was used to push the game into the media? Remember how they went on to build the next "shock effect" to sell the next game? People buy the games for that experience and not to learn about how war feels. using war as a basis for a game is in itself kind of strange but that is a different story.
Saying that CoD showed the horrors of war is like stating that Saw is showing how torture works. Saw was not made to make you see the terror it was made to let you enjoy terror.

And your third point kind of makes it seem like your only experience with modern shooters is the video you posted (and not a video I would call "well done").
That's like watching Scary Movie, and telling me it's the same thing as Scream.

Well, first of all the video is very well done and displays exactly what is wrong with shooters today.
And no, I have played a lot of shooters and enjoyed quite a few of them, I have even played almost every CoD game just to find out why people like it... I never found out why and I had a hard time to finish each of the games in SP. MP was even more boring, but that is not part of the question here. It is a game for newbies, for people how don't like to play games, but rather to what games. It is for people who like James Bond with some US-Marine-"UUHAA"-flavor, thus it is not for me and I am honestly scared of the people who dig such games, especially when I thing about all those US-Soldiers who have been pulled from the streets, but in some high-tech war-machine and placed on the battlefield. I still remember an interview after the first attacks on Afghanistan back then, where a pilot was asked how he felt about it. his answer was "it was like a football game"... Excuse me, but kind of strange association is that? and Now the most popular game on the market is telling everybody that war is exactly that: like a football game.

I knew it was silly for me to even quote you, yet here I am again. (I'm going to regret this)
You strike me as someone who can't be swayed from their opinion on a video game, so I won't bother doing that.

What I will say is that I have been playing video games for almost 20 years, and I've never played a game I couldn't 100%(completionists for the win). I also enjoy CoD for both the SP & the MP (keeping in mind I only started the series at CoD:WaW).
There goes your argument that CoD is for Newbs. NEXT POINT!

You remember playing that scene after the nuke went off and you had to crawl around in the midst of your demise? How about the one where the kid gets killed?
i wuz al loike, thatz aezume! Oh wait, I'm not an idiot or a raging psychopath. I'm just a long-haired hippie pacifist who can appreciate a well made game, and who can appreciate these scenes for their heavy content.

Anyways, I enjoy COD. You don't. So please, stick to prejudging games and not the people who play them.

<3 Peace

 

[tsb247]

Operation Flashpoint: Red Hammer already did this sort of thing.

edit: of course the old Bohemia Interactive Operation Flashpoint games were military sims not military shooters.

red hammer was a great expansion.. taking on those evil capitalists ! although the main character you played was permamently angry and hated everyone.

id definitely play a game from the otherside.

actually there was a game released not long ago where you play from the vietnamese perspective taking on the french and americans

So Red Hammer is worth playing then? I got through the first few missions and it didn't stand out as particularly entertaining. I completed the NATO campaign and Resistance, but never managed to get through Red Hammer. Does it get more interesting as it progresses?

As for CoD... I don't play it much anyway, but a different perspective would definately freshen up the genre. It couldn't hurt.

 

[Okulossos]

What I will say is that I have been playing video games for almost 20 years, and I've never played a game I couldn't 100%(completionists for the win). I also enjoy CoD for both the SP & the MP (keeping in mind I only started the series at CoD:WaW).
There goes your argument that CoD is for Newbs. NEXT POINT!

Just because you play games for 20 years does not mean that you are a pro at any of them, now does it?
Play a good shooter like, uh I don't know, Quake 1, learn it for a bit and then go back to CoD... you will be bored out of your mind .

You remember playing that scene after the nuke went off and you had to crawl around in the midst of your demise? How about the one where the kid gets killed?

Remember when we where in front of the Statue of Liberty and you took those cool photos?
That is tourism and not depth.

i wuz al loike, thatz aezume! Oh wait, I'm not an idiot or a raging psychopath. I'm just a long-haired hippie pacifist who can appreciate a well made game, and who can appreciate these scenes for their heavy content.

Soo, if i don't like to enjoy myself at war i am a long-haired hippie? interesting...

Anyways, I enjoy COD. You don't. So please, stick to prejudging games and not the people who play them.

<3 Peace

I am not saying that everybody who plays CoD is like that, I played them myself, but what I am saying is that games which propagate heroic warfare and brave soldiers and all that nonsense appeal to a certain demographic and will attract that audience. Ans Since the games are made to be playable by a dead monkey, they will love what they see. The games do a great job at making you feel as if you accomplish something, even if you don't. Of Cause this is attractive. It is like getting a hamburger for free: You feel as if you get something great, it tastes great but in the end its all just greasy, fat empty calories that will not make you feel better for very long. the only difference is that a hamburger does not give you a naive look at a scenario where people die, suffer or live lives in terror and fear.

 

[hooblabla6262]

What I will say is that I have been playing video games for almost 20 years, and I've never played a game I couldn't 100%(completionists for the win). I also enjoy CoD for both the SP & the MP (keeping in mind I only started the series at CoD:WaW).
There goes your argument that CoD is for Newbs. NEXT POINT!

Just because you play games for 20 years does not mean that you are a pro at any of them, now does it?
Play a good shooter like, uh I don't know, Quake 1, learn it for a bit and then go back to CoD... you will be bored out of your mind .

You remember playing that scene after the nuke went off and you had to crawl around in the midst of your demise? How about the one where the kid gets killed?

Remember when we where in front of the Statue of Liberty and you took those cool photos?
That is tourism and not depth.

i wuz al loike, thatz aezume! Oh wait, I'm not an idiot or a raging psychopath. I'm just a long-haired hippie pacifist who can appreciate a well made game, and who can appreciate these scenes for their heavy content.

Soo, if i don't like to enjoy myself at war i am a long-haired hippie? interesting...

Anyways, I enjoy COD. You don't. So please, stick to prejudging games and not the people who play them.

<3 Peace

I am not saying that everybody who plays CoD is like that, I played them myself, but what I am saying is that games which propagate heroic warfare and brave soldiers and all that nonsense appeal to a certain demographic and will attract that audience. Ans Since the games are made to be playable by a dead monkey, they will love what they see. The games do a great job at making you feel as if you accomplish something, even if you don't. Of Cause this is attractive. It is like getting a hamburger for free: You feel as if you get something great, it tastes great but in the end its all just greasy, fat empty calories that will not make you feel better for very long. the only difference is that a hamburger does not give you a naive look at a scenario where people die, suffer or live lives in terror and fear.

hahaha no, I was saying I was a long haired hippie who enjoys these games. Like, in a literal sense. Cause that's what I am. I'm also anti-war.

And I've played Quake and countless other shooters. I even went to school specifically to study video games for the last two years of my life. I'm not saying CoD is the greatest shooter ever, but it is a good game by game standards.
In fact, most of the issues you seem to have with CoD can be found in countless games that are considred great.
Beautiful scenic shots? Yeah, most games got em'.
And in NO VIDEO GAME do you actually accomplish anything. They are games.
They are for fun.

And there you again, being a jerk with the dead monkey comment. Have you ever seen a dead monkey play a video game? No! Cause they're dead. They lack motor function, and are probably suffering from rigor. I'm willing to bet a whole snickerdoodle that I play better than a dead monkey.

Anyways. I'm not saying that CoD depicts war in a realistic fashion but it does a decent job. I'm pretty sure if they tried to do a "real war" game, it would stir up some crazy shit.

Edit: They should make that game. It would be intense.

 

[sketch_zeppelin]

I think that could work so long as the game is more about trying to stay alive against the american onslaught. like in Modern Warfare 1, you spend the first half of the game getting pushed back by the US and the nuke is an act of desperation. could have for some intresting emotional drama.

i don't think playing as the enemy just wipping out US soldiers like they suddenly became the worlds best military would really be that appealing. It would basically be the exact same game as the ones we have now with a change of flag.

 

[JohnnyDelRay]

I'll rephrase part of that for you, and say I would play it if it was a good game, period. It was good when CoD 4 came out, but it hasn't really gone anywhere sense and the whole America patriotism thing is getting a bit boring.

To stay on topic though, it would definitely grab my interest if the narrative was taking a different stance for once, and not portraying anyone as particularly evil, I mean all sides have their motives however you look at it, and you can't really identify with either unless you were born into it. I have no problem with the story following real life events either, like the last Medal of Honor (not Warfighter, I haven't even looked at that). But casting the Chinese/Korean/Arabs/Africans and of course the Russians as the bad guys gets a bit old. The whole World War angle with Axis and Allies is ok because that follows history of course.

 

[WanderingFool]

The only real "'Merica, fuck yea!" of the 7th gen CoD games has been Black Ops (and maybe black op 2; I haven't played it), but Black Ops was so ridiculous all round that its political statement matters no more than that of a Transformers movie. I would actually argue that Medal of Honor and the (*gasp!*) beloved Battlefield (the main series at least)are both more guilty of this kind of attitude, as a whole.

You gonna have to explain that to me...

OT: I wouldnt really care.

But im curious, a game where America is the enemy and you are the Russians, Chinese, and Taliban, who exactly are you trying to market those towards? Do the Russians and Chinese really give a fuck about how they are presented in a COD game? Do they care enough to actually want a game from such a persepctive? And what about the Taliban one, who would that get marketed to?

 

[The White Hunter]

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.

Ninja'd. YOu sir win the thread, you may have 4 internets for this amazing feat.

OT: Yeah I guess so, I enjoy the gameplay so it's fine, the multiplayer pisses me off though with it's poor connections and morons spouting shit like, and I quote, "you all better be fucking good or i'm gonna kill your families". First time I've experienced that on any online game btw I was surprised by it. I also used the report button and moved on.

Off-topic: Know what needs that treatment? Killzone. The ISA are shit and are just dull space marines (Earth, fuck yeah!!), whereas the Helghast seem to have some actual depth to them and some history worth exploring. They also have cooler guns and ground to air LIGHTNING CANNONS.

Case rested.

 

[KiloFox]

There have been a few games which try to break the mold by reversing the traditional role of the player, casting us instead as the villain. "Overlord" has the player controlling an evil army to enslave or put the torch to humanity. "Dungeons" similarly has you creating deadly traps to bring on the demise of dungeon-crawling, loot-seeking heroes. Destroy All Humans put us in the shoes of the harbinger of an alien invasion.

So, the military shooter then? America, f**k yeah. Every game is the same. The player is an American soldier/marine/SEAL and you have to kill lots of Russians/Chinese/N. Koreans/Arabs. Would you play it if the roles were reversed? Would you buy CoD if, instead of being an American shooting Russians, you were a Russian Spetznaz or Chinese Special Forces, shooting and "interrogating [http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=y3dsly7Aqes#t=12s]" American soldiers? Would you buy CoD if you were a soldier of the Taliban, tasked with wiping out a US Army base? Or if instead of defending the US as in Crysis 2, you were tasked with destroying it?

Would you be upset if a major developer developed such a game? Is the very idea offensive? Does it make no difference to you whatsoever (freedom of the arts for example)? Well?

i would prolly be as psyched about it as i am for normal CoD games... I.E. not very.

now lemme make myself clear here, i DO think almost ALL games could benefit from an "Evil Mode" (as LoTR The Third Age called it) where you play as the antagonists rather than the protagonists. now sure that'd be difficult in some games to figure out EXACTLY how to do, but you COULD, and it'd add a lot more depth of gameplay into your game. like in Assassin's Creed you could have a few missions you can select where you play as a Templar tasked with *preventing* the assassination of some poor sap. or playing from the Russians side in some CoD game...
gameplay aside it also lends the opportunity to provide different viewpoints. the US soldier blazing his path through a city with machinegun fire mowing down baddies by the dozen sounds heroic, but what viewpoint do the "baddies" have of it? do they honestly see him as the hero they're tasked to stop at all costs? likely not. they're a bunch of people trying to protect THEIR homeland against this hostile foreign invader. "Good" and "Evil" are all relative. and i think many games could benefit their STORY by adding a viewpoint from the "opposing side" (ESPECIALLY CoD. but knowing them, they'd prolly pull a MASSIVE "Did not do the research" and cast them as completely evil no matter how you look at it.) i'm a writer myself and i LOVE swapping my viewpoint to tell the SAME EXACT SCENE from a different viewpoint. now i don't do it every scene of course, that'd be blatant padding, but done right it can add a lot of depth in both the experience, and the story

that being said, i DO enjoy me a game where you flat-out get to play the villian/anti-hero. i guess that's one reason i like Disgaea so damn much

 

[runic knight]

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 &#3232;_&#3232; . It never ends well X_X .

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

The arguments go like this: (mind you these were all real arguments I had in the past on the Escapist)

If a Canadian was the main character why not every other country in A game. - If a Canadian company is making the game then why can they not make the main character Canadian? Ditto for any other country.

The Canadian military is not powerful enough to warrant being shown. - Many assume I am strictly talking about military shooters or that Canada would not face off against a nation of similar military strength if it was indeed a shooter.

The fuck you talking about?! You have actors like Michael Ironside who are Canadian! - Painfully obvious the person read neither the title nor the OP. 0_0 Still my favourite counter argument

I do not care what country I play as. - Harmless enough however there is usually a significant amount of supporting text betraying that the person is passively biased towards not caring who they play as, as long as it is a frequently featured nation like the States, Britain, Russia, etc.

I do not care what country I play as. - Some thankfully will just say that.

It would hurt sales because Americans do not want to play any other nation - Disproven by the above statement

Doesn't matter to me, shouldn't matter to you. - I do not even know how to respond to that.

It would rightfully hurt sales. - WUT?

I do not play games with real nations/any nations. - Fair enough.

Pride in any nation is bad, indisputable. - Completely disagree. -_-

Get out of here with your jingoistic bullshit. - Still no idea how to respond.

Why? Canada is indistinguishable from the States. -_-

Canada does not have a unique culture -_-

Pride in any culture is bad, indisputable. - Oh you again, fuck off!

This is bullshit, what country the main character is from does not matter, at all. - Then... it would not matter nor hurt anything if the main character was Canadian?

You have too much investment in this thus I side against you/disagree - ...HUH?!

I am rather intrigued by the fact I remember most of these. There are a couple more but I cannot quite remember how they go. Most of these happened when I expressed strong disappointment at Bioware for Canada getting shafted in Mass Effect and the following conversations I had in various threads with people questioning me further. Most of these people were pretty respectful but there would also be a couple who to my complete bafflement went out of their way to deconstruct my explanations to cherry pick perceived hypocrisy or an incomplete list of examples and then use that solely to invalidate anything I said.

I wonder if that will happen again with this comment.

Well that is why it never ends well... at least for me.

hmmm... well, you saved me a lot of reading of an upcoming thread right there. kudos for that.

 

[RobDaBank]

Alot of people on CoD stick to multiplayer anyway so it wouldn't make much difference. If anything you're more likely to be a spetsnaz fighting a seal online than in a campaign, the main difference being there's no story and therefore no context to challenge the players morality.

I for one wouldn't mind, as long as the story wasn't too silly, otherwise I'd either stick to multiplayer or turn it off

 

[Gone Rampant]

A little thing called "The Media," would like to stomp that idea to the ground.

Any game that promoted killing US soldiers would be banned faster than Manhunt 2. In short, while I'd LIKE to play it, I really doubt any company wants this kind of black mark.

 

[YazBar]

Hmm... speaking as an Arab with quite a few Russian friends, I tend to avoid such games out of principle (especially those where you hop in with cutting edge weaponry to fight against guys armed only with AKs and a strong belief); but if the roles were reversed in a game like CoD then I might play it. Personally I think that rather than reverse the roles, it's more important to show both sides to be equally bad (or equally sympathetic), because you could just make a game where you play as Russians/Chinese/Arabs/*insert country here that isn't USA* and still make them look like the villains/terrorists/league of evil, which is just as bad as making you fight them. In war there are no goodies and baddies, I'm sure both sides of any conflict would perceive themselves as good and their opponent as bad (unless they're cartoon characters).

 

[goose4291]

(i) Go download World War II online

(ii) Play as the Axis.

(iii) Marvel at the fact your team mates aren't all mongs, unlike the 12 year olds trying to run across a bridge at your fixed position.

 

[Sir Shockwave]

No, and its not the 'Fuck Yeah' attitude, as Smash pointed out, that's keeping me from caring about the games.

its a first person shooter, that's my problem with it. So in order to get me to play CoD, you have to do more then just change the nationality of the PC

yes i'm aware of the Irony seeing as my Avatar is a pony dressed like a Spartan from Halo

Pfft, Halo's a Shooter. COD's a Spunkgargleweewee. There is no hypocrisy here.

OT: Possibly, though as someone above me said,

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

This is pretty much why I haven't purchased a COD game with my own money, though I may be tempted to scrape the cash together for Black Ops II.

CAPATCHA: Which does a vegetarian eat? Clearly it's not Kittens or Puppies, Capatcha.

 

[00slash00]

sure...if the single player campaign was much longer. id play cod now if the single player wasnt so short

 

[Smeggs]

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.

Considering that the Russian missions in WaW were probably the most enjoyable, I'm not so sure about that. My county's history has been driven into my skull since elementary school, and there is almost nothing more boring than my own country's history now. I always find I have more fun in other locale.

 

[Platypus540]

While there definitely is an attitude of "America... Fuck yeah" in shooters, it's not as prevalent as people say it is. Take CoD, for example, one of the series people complain about the most for doing this. In the older, WW2 CoDs as well as WaW, you constantly switch around between different countries,and the tone (at least in in WaW, I don't really remember for the others)was pretty cynical about war. In CoD 4, MW2, and MW3 the main characters are all British (there are American player characters, but they drop like flies), and the main bad guy in MW2 is American. In fact, there are levels in MW2 where you're fighting the American troops that he's commanding.

Blops is the only one that was really FUCK YEAH about everything, but that campaign was so much of a badly-paced, Michael Bay clusterfuck that it doesn't really matter.