Political neutrality

[Raw 0]

Please try to depict the conflicts in a neutral way. War at the level OFP depicts it is not a matter of right or wrong, it is a matter of acheiving objectives.

I'm so tired of games where we have US heroes and VC villains, or US heroes and Afghani villians, or allied heroes and axis villains and so on. Depict the war from the viewpoint of the player. No crap like Red Hammer where you turn traitor just to become part of the great american way. No great Rambos gunning down hordes of evil vietcongs. No one is considering themselves badguys, they fight for their beliefs, whatever side they are on. Just depict the war as it happens.

Dare to tell the real story.

[ozanzac 0]

I patially agree. If you remove cinflict by making the parties involved neutral, there would be no reason for conflict in the first place, thus there would be no bias. Whick during war just doesn't happen anyway. Soldiers are conditioned to conform to a particualar method of warfare, it just so happens that there would be rambo's out there, waiting for the oppurtunity to be a one-man-army. (wouldn't it be a great cutscene to see such rambos to be simply blown away the second they pick up an RPG, Machine Gun and a fallen comrade)

Flashpoint, I beleive, does a really good job at depicting what the soldiers are thinking/beleiving anyway. It highlights the fundamental differences between communism and capitalism. Freedom and Occupation. It's all there. It could be better, but because the campaigns are pre-made/determined, to make a particular soldier to be a hero, then thats the way it is.

To depict a conflict in a neutral stance, you'd have to simultaneously play both sides..... Or be a news journalist with the BBC.

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

Good idea. I too am tired of always seeing one side as good and the other as bad; both sides thought they were in the right and the only reason we see either way today is because of who won (WWII) or where we grew up.

[bn880 5]

That sounds good to me, but... you wanna bet it will be biased?

[Raw 0]

Quote[/b] ]If you remove cinflict by making the parties involved neutral, there would be no reason for conflict in the first place, thus there would be no bias.

I'm not saying that the sides should be neutral, I'm saying that the way they are depicted should be neutral. I don't want one good guy side and one bad guy side.

[deathguy 0]

for that to be accomplish we would need to play on both side, like a caimpaign for one and another one for the other..... otherwise well always be stuck with the same storyline of the US hero that is either a one man army or command is squad to victory all alone

well, the only thing I hope in OFP 2 on the storyline side is that we don't get to see the US that much victorous and try not to have too much one man army type, it would augment the value of the other squad/platoon soldiers

[Drill Sergeant 0]

Actualy in if they are doing Vietnam it will be impossible to do that. Because on the tet offensive we woped all the way. In LZ X ray we had a 20 to 1 In our favor kill rate. But we dare I say this lost becuase we played paty cake with comunisum and tried to "Cointain it" instead of pushing it away. In Vietnam after the first six months after our arival most bush them died they just don't say that. Also phase two weapons that after being crawled around in the sand and mud with units were roges thier were rambos galore. Though most of should be made so they jam. In Vietnam thier were reports that were, of course, denied that whole squads were found dead with thier cleaning rods ither in their hands or down the barrels.   But yes thier shouldn't be one set hero. YOu are Blank and if blank dies well than sorry if blank gets high and goes a wall tomany times he gets demoted mabe the end should just be left to us. So If you finish a a rambo or a team leader than that just shows who you are really. Any thing else is just scripted. (That's just my two cents.)

[ozanzac 0]

If OFP2 is/has elements of it's campaign based around Vietnam, then I beleive it is more likely that we see less 'lone man conquers entire army', seeing as the method of war implemented was way different to conventional war, as we've seen in the original campaigns.

For this reason alone, I predict a much better campaign, as we, the player, no matter what team we are, will have to continually fight for the land that is won by the Americans during the day and then returned to the VC who prowl during the night.

Imagine if a system of caves was implemented into the map. How awesome would that be to the dynamics of the campaign. Suprise guerilla attacks slowly chipping away the supply lines whilist american air patrols monitor the Ho Chi Minh trail.

Mind you, we, and I mean BIS, would be walking on thin ice if they too acurately portreyed the war, assuming it's based during the 60's.

The attrocities, though fairly well documented, haven't really matured enough for such graphical representation to be widely accepted. It's a balance of modern history and politics. I for one would enjoy seeing a historically correct campaign played out. For a mod team to develop such a historically correct campaign may be OK, But that thin line between truth and offensive content is one that few game makers are willing to cross. Their funding and markets could be at stake.

[korzon 0]

I agree then showing both sides as equally strong is realistic and good for playability - If we call it "neutrality" I agree.

If you call for showing conflict between two dictators from neutral point of view this is also OK,

If someone call for "neutrality" in showing conflict between democratic world and regime something was missed by the way.

In this case there is no neutrality. Bad guys are fighting with good guys and maybe this is like cartoon scenario but this is historical true.

If someone think then reason for war from vietnamise side was the same ethical value as from american side - please go try live in system of socialist hapiness - like in North Korea.

I survived half of my life in communist country - I dont wish the same to nobody.

Of course - simple soldier - non regarding, american, german,russian or vietnamese in 70% is fighting not because of any political reasons - this is his duty as soldier, he affraid etc. Part of soldiers is brainwashed by media manipulation.

But if we will start showing war as "neutral" - from soldier position loosing the difference in ethics. It will be not realistic.

War is not a game and neutrality is not realistic.

I think then showing both sides of conflict equal for many players may means then they are moraly equal. They are not.

Soviet, Vietnamese, German soldiers, even if they fighted "for the country" they fighted on wrong side suporting regime who killed, emprisoned and persecuted millions of people.

This is my opinion and this is the reason why I support not neutral traitor from Red Hammer campaign. I hope then I will never see "realistic" game about 2nd World War brave SS soldiers burning villages with theirs habitants.

[Raw 0]

Quote[/b] ]If someone think then reason for war from vietnamise side was the same ethical value as from american side - please go try live in system of socialist hapiness - like in North Korea.

I live in a land with a system of socialist happiness: Sweden. Face it, between 1/3 and 1/2 of the world population are socialists or communists. It is their right to choose their system. I'm sorry it did not work out for you, but no system is perfect.

The fact that you write vietnamese side and american side makes me suspect you are not very familiar with the conflict. There was a north vietnamese side and as south vietnamese side (supported by the US).

This is however all besides the point. The north vietnamese fought hard, they fought with great courage and they fought for something they believed in. Why not give an accurate description of this idealism? They earned it, whether you agree with their political views or not.

Quote[/b] ]Of course - simple soldier - non regarding, american, german,russian or vietnamese in 70% is fighting not because of any political reasons - this is his duty as soldier, he affraid etc. Part of soldiers is brainwashed by media manipulation.

This is true in some cases, but there are many examples of idealistic reasons motiviating soldiers. Among the most famous: the Alamo, the Spanish civil war, the Swedish volonteers in Finland during WW2, North vietnam, even the Al Qaida fights for idealistic reasons.

Quote[/b] ]But if we will start showing war as "neutral" - from soldier position loosing the difference in ethics. It will be not realistic.

War is not a game and neutrality is not realistic.

I mean we show it from the individual soldiers viewpoint. When I play an american, I want it with all the "God, guns and guts", "Born in the USA", "God Bless Americe" stuff. When I play a Vietnamese, I want it with red flags, Ho Chi Minh and socialist viewpoints. I do not want the backstabbing character I played in Red Hammer, who did not fight for or belive in his own side.

I also mean that we show both sides.

Quote[/b] ]I think then showing both sides of conflict equal for many players may means then they are moraly equal. They are not.

Soviet, Vietnamese, German soldiers, even if they fighted "for the country" they fighted on wrong side suporting regime who killed, emprisoned and persecuted millions of people.

Check your history books and add up the numbers. US has killed far more people in other countries than USSR or Vietnam (a quick estimate places this number at roughly 10-15 millions, with at least another 100 millions if you include economic warfare), and has supported far more extremist dictators than USSR ever did. USA is the only nation that has used nuclear weapons in war, and has used both chemical and biological weapons, as well as other weapons outlawed in international treaties (incendaries, shotguns, high caliber ammunition against personel targets and so on). The US is more or less continually involved in military actions against other nations.

Is it so difficult to understand that some people prefer an alternative?

Do not assume you moral codes are universal.

Quote[/b] ] I hope then I will never see "realistic" game about 2nd World War brave SS soldiers burning villages with theirs habitants.

So do I, and I hope I'll never see a game where I napalm Vietnamese villages, or mow down civilians on the Philippines as an american in the 1890's, or shoot fleeing Afghanis in the back (wait, Delta Force: Task Force Dagger did that...), or bomb 60 miles of congested highway full of Iraqi civilians for hours with incendaries and cluster bombs killing 30 000-60 000 civilians.

As long as it is a game, let's fokus on "civilized" warfare. I do not think anybody (sane) would like to play computerized war crimes. Make missions to do war by the book, and this will not be a problem.

[suma 8]

We will do it ... as we will do it. If you want to do it your way, do your own game.

If you wish to discuss politics, there if Offtopic forum at your service.