Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Well I was watching some playthroughs of Sniper Elite and by the mission where you (a WW2 western sniper) had to slow down the russians in order to get to a recently discovered german double agent, a huge flame war was raging through the comment section (I hate that section btw) because at one point the guy playing had to kill several russians. One of the comments was about how these days almost every modernish shooter (though Sniper Elite was set back in WW2) has russians as bad guys or at least have them as some enemies even if at some points they are allies. Now unlike say latin american drug dealers or middle eastern militias, there is no current conflict with russia (unless you're georgian or the like) thus there is a bit of a "less acceptable target" mentality I have going around my heads (no offense intended to the former though! ). So is it "fair"? Would there be an outcry if some other 1st (ish) world nation was branded as an enemy in a game(Though I suppose China is a runner up as an enemy)? Are there any russians that are a bit miffed that western powers (mainly america) have some fear over the great bear?

What are your thoughts?

Now yes I know many games these days are fictional. In fact quite a few seem to make out russia not as the russian federation, but more of the soviet union 2.0. Still it is inescapable that russia is one of the easiest choices a game company can do for mooks to shoot.

I do not think that two nations with nuclear capabilities will ever engage in a full scale war with each other anytime within the next 50 years.

You're not forced to kill any cyber people. If you have a problem with it don't play the game

I think it's more of an "let's pick someone we were fighting for years. So much that any High School Student would know who the bad guy is right off the bat, but let's not use Middle Eastern Terrorists since that A) may hit too close to home, having a game simulate an attack on the US by Middle Eastern Terrorists, B) everyone will use the Middle east Terrorists, so the 'smart' thing to do is go to the previous big bad, or C) all of the above.

Is it fair that many games have a turd attached to them in the form of GFWL? Not really. But it's how the industry works sadly.

I think it's a pretty interesting issue. After all, I think a game where you go around shooting Chinese soldiers would in fact be more controversial than one that involved shooting Russians. Wasn't there a game (Red Dawn? Resistance?) released where the original Chinese enemy was changed to North Korean?

Well, they lost the cold war, so.... yeah it's okay. I mean, gonna get mad cause Nazis get their faces melted off by Arks of the Covenant?

Hazardous Harry wrote:I think it's a pretty interesting issue. After all, I think a game where you go around shooting Chinese soldiers would in fact be more controversial than one that involved shooting Russians. Wasn't there a game (Red Dawn? Resistance?) released where the original Chinese enemy was changed to North Korean?

Homefront.

I find it awfully gimmicky.

"GODDAMN REDS! Y U SO EVIL?!"

Replace Reds with any race that the US has fought or disagree with.

Including aliens and daemons, because everyone remembers the war on Phobos and the invasion of Mars.

Melissia wrote:Including aliens and daemons, because everyone remembers the war on Phobos and the invasion of Mars.

Sure... Keep thinking that...

Melissia wrote:

Hazardous Harry wrote:I think it's a pretty interesting issue. After all, I think a game where you go around shooting Chinese soldiers would in fact be more controversial than one that involved shooting Russians. Wasn't there a game (Red Dawn? Resistance?) released where the original Chinese enemy was changed to North Korean?

Homefront.

Oh yeah, that's the one!

BlapBlapBlap wrote:I find it awfully gimmicky.

"GODDAMN REDS! Y U SO EVIL?!"

Replace Reds with any race that the US has fought or disagree with.

Well in the new Assassin's Creed you're fighting against the redcoats.

Is there an inbuilt national hatred against particular colours or somesuch?

I've yet to find a game that forces you to do anything...

Heck, if they can threaten an attack on NATO missile defense sites, we can slaughter Russian soldiers by truckloads in a frickin video game and not feel bad.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/may/3/russia-threatens-strike-nato-missile-defense-sites/

CptJake wrote:Heck, if they can threaten an attack on NATO missile defense sites, we can slaughter Russian soldiers by truckloads in a frickin video game and not feel bad.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/may/3/russia-threatens-strike-nato-missile-defense-sites/

...A decision to use destructive force pre-emptively will be taken if the situation worsens,” Russian Chief of General Staff Nikolai Makarov said at an international missile-defense conference in Moscow attended by senior U.S. and NATO officials...

Russian Chief of General Staff Nikolai Makarov

Nikolai Makarov

Makarov

Holllleeeee sheeeeeeeeeet!

Hazardous Harry wrote:

BlapBlapBlap wrote:I find it awfully gimmicky.

"GODDAMN REDS! Y U SO EVIL?!"

Replace Reds with any race that the US has fought or disagree with.

Well in the new Assassin's Creed you're fighting against the redcoats.

Is there an inbuilt national hatred against particular colours or somesuch?

Minor point:
In the new Assassin's Creed you're fighting against both the British and Revolutionary armies. They purposely decided upon a tribesman as the protagonist so that it's not just "America, feth yeah!".

Kanluwen wrote:
Minor point:
In the new Assassin's Creed you're fighting against both the British and Revolutionary armies. They purposely decided upon a tribesman as the protagonist so that it's not just "America, feth yeah!".

I was sure that Gameinformer mentioned that George Washington was going to be a major 'Good' plot character. That would at least imply support for the revolutionary forces. After all, the trailers show the assassin taking down redcoats.

Hazardous Harry wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:
Minor point:
In the new Assassin's Creed you're fighting against both the British and Revolutionary armies. They purposely decided upon a tribesman as the protagonist so that it's not just "America, feth yeah!".

I was sure that Gameinformer mentioned that George Washington was going to be a major 'Good' plot character. That would at least imply support for the revolutionary forces. After all, the trailers show the assassin taking down redcoats.

Ubisoft released that there will be assassins and templars on both sides of the conflict.

In other news, water is wet.

BlapBlapBlap wrote:I find it awfully gimmicky.

"GODDAMN REDS! Y U SO EVIL?!"

Replace Reds with any race that the US has fought or disagree with.

Jesus I really hate it when people complain about this.

Well lets put it this way. Come up with a FPS in a major and important war and tell me who the enemy is.

Lets see, first we need to find an enemy that is actually a threat to America. If the enemy is not a threat then how can the player enjoy fighting them. You wont feel important because you know the war could be won without you because the enemy isnt a challenge. This is why no games have the entire combined might of NATO vs fething Luxemburg or the Nigeria. Luxemburg is too small to pose a threat and Nigeria... its hard to take an enemy seriously when you are demolishing them with A-10 Warthogs and all they have are cammels. This is why any game in the Mid East involves the combined might of ALL THE fething MID EAST because THAT is actually a challenge (Mid Eastern Coaltion in BF2, unnamed but similar style group in CoD 4 MW) Same with Terrorist groups (GLA is united across the nation of all terrorist groups, same with ILA)
Notice one of the biggest complaints about the Red Dawn remake and Homefront is "North Koreans? Ha, like they could ever do that"

So lets look at nations that posed a threat to our military and would make a war against them actually interesting. Russia, anyone in NATO, China. Okay so NATO doesnt make any sense leaving China and Russia or a nation that doesnt exist. Now we have to completely rewrite the world if we want a nation that isnt Russia or China.... have fun coming up with that. (They did that with EndWar and Shattered Union and that leaves a strange taste in the mouths of most people I know. EndWar less so because they did a decent job playing the USA vs EF angle)



So you came up with a list of people who could fight. (Russia, China, NATO, united Mid East) now lets come up with a good reason for them to fight. Ya good luck with trying to figure out a NATO vs USA angle.



Im going to cut in short here but you get it. The most important thing in a game villian is an enemy that actually feels like a major threat. When dealing with past history or modern politics are only have so many options. Now if you went into the future you could do whatever you want but not everyone wants to play future games plus it takes a lot more work to create the backstory and explain things and figure proper technology. Many really enjoy a modern era game every now and then. This is why Russia or the Soviet Union (and Nazi Germany) is so often used (good or bad) because they were major and legit threats to the United States.

Galdos nailed it very well. Which is why we need more scifi shooters set 50-100 years in the future, of course that would take much more imagination than slapping together a run of the mill modern shooter.

Amaya wrote:Galdos nailed it very well. Which is why we need more scifi shooters set 50-100 years in the future, of course that would take much more imagination than slapping together a run of the mill modern shooter.

Well, for that matter--it would still require an element of "realism" as otherwise people will just lambast it...

For example:
"Homefront" gets lambasted for the North Koreans invading the United States. Never mind the fact that it is actually a divergent timeline, starting around 1980ish when the North annexes the South and then launches a war against Japan and annexes it. Then launches a war into China and takes over a large portion, before it finally falls.

In the context of how it was framed, North Korea is a powerhouse on par with the Soviet Bloc. In real life, we know this is not the truth--but hey, it's an alternate reality. So what?

For me the fact that it's supposed to occur in 2022 is beyond laughable. Set 60-70 years down the road it might be somewhat believable or at least tolerable, but in ten years? There's not a chance in hell of North Korea becoming a global power in less than 25 years.

@ OP No enemies left for the USA to fight?

Galdos was close but is still so USA-centric.

Barring a few minor despots and crazy"ies" the USA has no one left to fight, except that which FOX news will tell you to (CHINA!).

Its just that we over here in the big bad old nasty EU/European Union dont give a t*ss about Chinese military prowess or colonialism because....we've been there VS each other!

Oh poor old Reds*n will have his work cut out tonight.

NN Red

Amaya wrote:For me the fact that it's supposed to occur in 2022 is beyond laughable. Set 60-70 years down the road it might be somewhat believable or at least tolerable, but in ten years? There's not a chance in hell of North Korea becoming a global power in less than 25 years.

That was kind of the point of Homefront...

Nobody took them seriously. There was a lot more going on in the world stage that North Korea's rise to prominence in the East was pretty solidly ignored, and the "big thing" of it was that the major first strike took place in 2022 when a massive EMP discharge was used as the kickoff for the North Korean invasion. The big edge that US forces had, the technological superiority, was effectively nullified long enough for a beachhead to be established.

It's not a good plot by any manner, certainly--but it's not as silly as people make it out to be.

You can not defend the plot by any means or claim that it is remotely believable with North Koreans as the antagonists. It was intended to be a Chinese invasion and as such would be somewhat believable.

North Korea is barely surviving and functioning. They are not a serious threat to anyone and if they were ever foolish enough to assault South Korea they would be repelled and decimated in a matter of weeks.

Again:

I'm aware of the circumstances surrounding the game. I'm also aware, having played through it and picked up the in-game lore tidbits, that there was a lot of the discrepancies which had originally had me thinking "Cripes, what a dumb idea" explained within the game.

North Korea is barely surviving and functioning. They are not a serious threat to anyone and if they were ever foolish enough to assault South Korea they would be repelled and decimated in a matter of weeks.

Uhhhm, for the first time ever me and Ama agree.

C'mon Kan, you cant be watching that much Fox news? (joking) Jesus Norway could wipe NK out. Its pure political GUSTO.

Lets not argue the NK question here. This thread is about essentially the antagonists in most modern games. I would say that most games need a clearly defined enemy force with clearly definable equipment. As the majority of people have seen the may day parades in the red square etc and generally know of the military of the USSR/NKs I'd actually say its more of a visual thing rather than a racial spruiking.

Ratius wrote:

North Korea is barely surviving and functioning. They are not a serious threat to anyone and if they were ever foolish enough to assault South Korea they would be repelled and decimated in a matter of weeks.

Uhhhm, for the first time ever me and Ama agree.

C'mon Kan, you cant be watching that much Fox news? (joking) Jesus Norway could wipe NK out. Its pure political GUSTO.

I know that NK is about as much of a threat as Somali pirates.

That's kind of the "big issue" for Homefront. It was unbelievable, and they tried to explain it from levels of "Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat" to "Hrmh. Okay, it's still silly--but at least it's not mindnumbingly dumb".


Doctadeth--
It's more of a holdover from the Cold War. While Russia and the West are on speaking terms now, they aren't on friendly terms by any real stretch of the imagination. The saber rattling on both sides is still there, and there is a very real perception within the West that Russia is not in control of its own government.