Right, becuase them bombing your country and plundering resources wouldnt be evil, totalitarian isnt needed to be vil.


And thats the problem, exactly what I mean about ffeeeding Americas ego, your country can be just as [censored] up as the others, but no America is a paragon in every game.
It pisses Americans off so waht I am sure Russians would be pissd that most popular "modern" shooters have them as the bad guy.

Russia banned it becuase of the Airport game, but hey its ok to make other countries look like terrorists aslong as the US isnt evil.

I ahte the games industry at times.

In a war, that's to be expected on both sides. Another problem is that in order to portray a certain nation as an antagonist, you must portray its enemy as the protagonist. Ultimately the story would either be even more unrealistic than the other "realistic" shooters or it'd be up to its neck in controversy regarding the portrayal of the antagonist nation and the protagonist nation, especially if a great deal of the gamers are from the antagonist nation.


People from any nation would be offended if their nation was portrayed as the antagonist, in particular if it's the current incarnation of their nation (I wish there was a better way to say that last part).

Bold.

What country are you from @Ratslayer?

UK.
If there isnt a game with us as the bad guys, they should make one.

Call of Duty: American Revolution

Dammit this forum is too intellectual for me. :tongue:


I'd buy it.

It would have to be an RTS.

No it could be a good FPS as long as people were patient enough to stand in straight lines and take pot shots at each other.

It's one thing to portray a nation as an antagonist. It's another thing to portray the nation it's invading as the protagonist. Regardless of whether or not the invasion is warranted or not, the choice of the protagonist in a game where the US is the antagonist may be more controversial than the part about the Americans being the bad guys. Either that or sacrifice realism to make a sympathetic protagonist nation. The latter is probably a better choice, as the former would probably hurt sales of the game.

Honestly, one of my favorite games portrays the US as the antagonist; Strike Commander. In it, the US economy collapsed, many of the states seceded, and the IRS somehow took control of the nation and became a paramilitary organization that rules by terror. Africa and South America are even worse off. And it takes place in 2011.

And to top it all off, you're the second-in-command of a mercenary group based in Turkey, frequently taking you to former US territories, and over time angering the IRS more and more. Not to mention that over the course of the game and its expansion, you're hired by Russia, now called New Siberia, to attack the now-independent Alaska not once but twice, as well as two rival oil companies for the purposes of striking at the other. Oh, and one of the contracts is to fight the British.

The story is far from realistic and that's probably its strength. It's also probably how the game avoided controversy.

It sounds original, probably a good story. If i bought fps i would defiantly buy it.

to the other part of this thread, the reason the us isn't an antagonist is because no one wants to think of themselves as the bad guy, with that logic i can see why game companies wouldn't like to make a product that puts your demographic in the shoes of the "evil" bad guy. It wouldn't sell very good.

didn't they make a civil war game? i wonder how fun that was

With extra defiance!

Homefront looks awesome. I badly want a game that feels like Megadeth's United Abominations, and this may be close.

It would be interesting, to be sure.

Vietnam anyone?

@ Ratslayer. I don't see why your so up set about American developers making America based games, it only seems logical.


Why does every game have to have a realistic plot, it devs kept to realistic games we would be pretty damn bored.

Think about it this way. In Asia right now, North Korea has probably the most brutal army there. Now that China is slowly becoming an economic super power, if North Korea has China's backup, their regular soldiers could have the strength of Navy SEALS. The only reason why North Korea hasn't invaded America now is because of money.

They're practically bankrupt and if they have the weapons that match the U.S, each of their soldiers would be spec ops level strength. And their spec ops...no comment.

America may seem powerful, which they kind of are, but think about it like this. During the Vietnam War, the U.S lost many many MANY troops to the Vietcong forces. Why? Because they were using guerrilla tactics, hiring prosttutes to kill U.S marines when they're in villages(and since they can't fire unless attacked, well...shoot), and using foxholes to spray and pray. Not to mention Ho Chih Min(spelling?), was a very good military commander and leader. But when South Korea entered the fray,they burnt entire villages to the ground, butchered even Vietnamese children. The Vietcong were scared [censored].

Again, North Korea is pretty much bankrupt. They have just enough food to feed the troops about once a day and the high ranking officials and people associated with the nuclear bomb(scientists and engineers)about 3 times a day. But in 20 years, when China has lots of money, on par with America and they give enough of that money to North Korea to feed everybody three meals a day...

North Korea would completely decimate the U.S. After all, if it's 20 years in the future, they've been keeping in all that America hatred for 20 years and they finally have the chance to. So yup!

Agreed. Why are all Russians potrayed as "evil"? Is that being oblivious or discriminating?

When China becomes free enough for video games to be made there, the U.S will be portrayed as the bad guys since as of right now...everybody hates America(except the U.K and Israel. Canada is just using America for protection and trade between the two nations).

Agreed, Mikhail Gorbachev really tuned Russia around, it's sad to see game makes still think we live in the 50's

@ above post *cough* political *cough*, I think people hate the American mentality of "We have Nukes, that makes us the world police" not the Americans themselves

@DarkZerker I doubt North Korea could ever defeat us nor come even close.

Being better equipped and better trained didn't save the Nazis on the Eastern Front from the numerically superior Red Army. True the Soviet winters contributed, but the Red Army was able to push them not only out of the USSR but all the way back to Berlin. The Germans' 70 ton tanks, rocket planes, jet planes, ballistic missiles, and cruise missiles didn't save them either.

As for Vietnam, the NVA and the Viet Cong lost a lot more men than the US did. The decisive edge they had was morale. And the home field advantage.

And because we waged a limited war.

On the Red Army, Add to that the fact that Stalin had executed, exiled or imprisoned huge amounts of officers and soldiers in the great purge!, The Red Army was by far the most powerful ground force army in numbers and training (imo) in WW2, they could've easily won Europe for either side.

The Viet Cong had so much more to fight for than the US, in their minds they were heros, fighting for their countries freedom, wheras the US marines were conscripted and in their minds they were in hell, no amount of training can win a war when you troopers despise you as miu8ch as they despise the enemy, the US in Vietnam weren't fighting for their country (well, most of them anyway) They were fighting for their lives.

Double Post

Yeah but think of it this way. The Germans made many errors in the battle, not to mention General Rommel's defeat(which was more of a surrender if anything. Out of rations isn't very fun). If North Korea executed the mission with very little flaws, and since the soldiers are scared that they'll be killed if they don't follow the orders to the letter, North Korea would win if given the manpower and economic power of China.

Remember that missiles don't win wars, people do.

And remember that for the U.S, for many marines and soldiers, the military is a JOB. For North Korea, it's either take the enemy city or destroy the fortification or die by execution or die by enemy fire. True, many soldiers will fight for their life but that whole "Take the fortification or be killed" mentality doesn't exist. So long as the soldiers don't desert the unit, they won't be hanged for failure.

"As for Vietnam, the NVA and the Viet Cong lost a lot more men than the US did. The decisive edge they had was morale. And the home field advantage."

And fear of what the General would do to them if they fail...But then again, they don't care. The individual doesn't matter so long as the collective wins. That's why many of these brutal militaristic countries send in suicide bombers. Heck in the Korean War, even the South Koreans planted explosive charges in the spec op teams backpacks just in case they're captured. Kill yourself and kill the enemy since you're already going to die.