Would you play CoD if the roles were reversed?

[StormShaun]

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?

That man...NPC is a bloody hero. HE saved all our asses...he deserves his own game!

Also yeah the new Medal of Honor does have different spec ops teams in multiplayer but I wish there was an aussie FPS based around Australia.

 

[Rastien]

I believe the majority of people play COD for the multilayer so i don't think weather you're guy sounds Russian or English makes a little difference

 

[MetalMagpie]

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 .

That's an awesome idea. And there'd be a legitimate excuse to have battles all over the world as we're so frickin' far apart!

 

[daniel the immortal]

unless they break away from the boring gameplay and the predicable story line, no.

 

[TAdamson]

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...?

I dunno. Halo Reach did this pretty well.

And you die rather pointlessly (Or even just for plot progression) at the end of Modern Warfare missions.

And the Pole you describe probably don't regard WW2 as a "win" as much as you might think.

CoD really isn't about winning. It's about the ridiculous set pieces. And you can have some interesting set piece where you lose. You could bookend it with "Good Guy" missions if you like but different scenery during a story is nice

 

[hooblabla6262]

No, CoD has far too many other problems then racism.
First of all the games level design is awful. you walk a corridor that could not be any straighter only to be tunneled to the next fighting-stop, where you sit in cover and shoot at scripted targets like in a shooting gallery, with the exception that you reward is just another tunnel and another shooting-gallery. People who like the campaign are possibly distracted by some eyecandy-setpieces, but I don't care for that... at all.
Second, it is the way war is portrayed in these games and that won't change no matter what kind of soldier you play as, because it has got nothing to do with the nationality. this is something that must have broken a long time ago in the brains of the developers. Some cell up in there that usually tells people "hey, war is not fun and games, it is where people die or worse..." must be removed or damaged in order for anyone to be able to think of so much terrible stuff and make a game of it. There is no other explanation... even though I am scared of all those people loving those games to death :/.
Third it is the gameplay. Aside from the theme this game could be made for small children. Crosshairs fill the complete screen making is near impossible not to it anything, there is hand-holding right through the game till the last level, enemies never truly become a threat... and so on... There is this well done video showing what is wrong with CoD aside from the whole "war is great"-thing they have going on due to their braindamage: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1ZtBCpo0eU

So would I?
No, because the complete concept of the game is downright terrible in a horrible way. So terrible in fact, that I can't even wrap my head around the game far enough to reach the racism.

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

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".

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.

 

[Okulossos]

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.

 

[barbzilla]

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?

Very good question, but the answer for me is a resounding YES. Provided they gave us fair context and a decent story line (lets face it CoD isn't so much of a shooter as it is a story with a game attached). I would actually enjoy the break from the normal format. Given the nature of the games, it really doesn't matter who you play as. I think this genre is geared more towards the type of person who fantasizes about being a soldier, or perhaps someone who likes war movies. Either way, the important thing is to feel like you are making a difference as some nameless grunt who finds himself in an unlikely situation.

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

Personally, I think the popularity of the genre (which I suspect is on the wane now) is due mostly to the very American cultural aspect which sees the nation's troops always hailed as heroes. All the pledging alleigance, "support our troops", etc. Interestingly, on a sidenote, and I'd be glad to be corrected here, weren't the soldiers after Vietnam quite despised?

This thread has been very interesting. I think there's some amusing irony in it too. Considering how controversial the airport-massacre scene was in whatever generic, bland, military clone it was in, the media, particularly the American media would go ape if there was a game which allowed killing American or "allied" troops. It would be in all the news, be cast as the work of the devil...and the ironic part is that it's gamers, as demonstrated by most responses so far, that have the least trouble separating reality from a video game and playing something for the sake of entertainment, interactive story-telling or, dare I say it, escapism.

One step further then, where is the line which you won't cross, that would make you think that's a bit too far? For my part, I personally think Manhunt and its ilk represent mine. I have shelves and a hard drive choc-ful of games. I've explored galaxies, slain uncountable dragons, sailed the Carribean, explored the Underdark, raced at Suzuka, locked swords with demons and men, but the idea of being a murderer seems pretty deplorable to me.

 

[hermes]

I would. I have nothing against USA, but having a game based on the opposite perspective would make for some fresh take on the jingoism of the genre.

 

[Swyftstar]

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?

This is what I was going to say exactly. I always wonder why people think CoD is Americans killing brown people. First, as you said Price and his group were basically the main characters in the MW games. Second, while there certainly were excursions to brown countries (Christ, I think I helped Price killed everybody in Africa in the last one) the main villians in the three MW games were Russian Nationalists and an American General and the previous three were WWII games.

 

[Dragonbeard]

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?

Yes I'd still play it. Are there such people who play COD for the patriotism?

 

[thereverend7]

As long as the game is fun, I literally could not possibly care less. It's a video game, after all. None of it is real. Feeling a connection with an american set of polygons and denouncing a Russian looking one is pretty silly. All that matters to me is the fun factor, or the well built factor.

 

[PoweD]

Am i the only one who "barely" sees the "X country, Fuck yea" attitude?

I am going to go over the 3 Modern Warfare games story below so. SPOILERS

America got 30k troops killed because of their own stupidity and SAS didn't do a damn thing to help the civil war.

in MW2, Russia invades and starts kicking American ass, which is barely repelled by Rangers with a help from a EMP.TF141 does basically nothing valuable and ends up being destroyed fairly easy.

MW3, TF141 does nothing valuable again except kill Makarov, give intel and help save the Russian president.American forces fight back the Russians from Europe but it is ultimately useless with all the toxic gas.

END OF SPOILERS

Seems more like "Russia, Fuck yea" than "America, Fuck yea"

 

[aegix drakan_v1legacy]

You want a military shooter that messes with the whole player dynamic and has dark grey morality as far as the eye can see?

Someone CLEARLY hasn't played Spec ops the line.

GO DO THAT RIGHT NOW.

 

[Rariow]

I might buy ONE CoD that goes "Russia fuck yeah" (simply for reasons of being sick of slaughtering my Russian kindred in various FPS games), but I imagine I wouldn't enjoy it. It's not as much the crazy MERICA nism that the CoD games have that makes me dislike them (Though that certainly doesn't make me like them more) as much as the mechanics which I don't enjoy, the complete and utter linearity in the campaign with no chance whatsoever for exploration which I deplore, and quite possibly the worst online community I've ever seen.

That said, I do buy a CoD every three years or so. They are a bit of fun sometimes, and this theoretical Russian CoD which would probably be called something like "Red Comrades" would be the one that would be the most likely to catch my eye.

 

[Saulkar]

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 .

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.

 

[MeChaNiZ3D]

Honestly, I don't think it would change anything. For some games, maybe that would be novel, but CoD is so linear and so shallow and so devoid of substance I highly doubt exchanging Americans for Russians would help. To say nothing of the language barrier.