One thing that really bothers me

[st!gar 3]

That war wasn't something we wanted, we went there for the right reason.

...Yeah. Heard that one before. If you ask any soldier on any side in any war, that's pretty much what you'll hear.

Edited June 2, 2009 by St!gar

[=Spetsnaz= 0]

Because Americans won't touch any game if their flag isnt waving proudly in some stupid cutscene

That is very true.. as long as they are in the game and are potrayed postively they don't complain.. personally alot of games include US everywhere. The market is all US dominated and idea based. Hopefully when ArmA 2 comes out, i wanna see how the editor works out and maybe create some missions where Russia and US cooperate.

[householddog 10]

...Yeah. Heard that one before. If you ask any soldier on any side in any war, that's pretty much what you'll hear.

Then why ask the question. :P

Just kidding! :)

[st!gar 3]

Then why ask the question. :P

True.

Because Americans won't touch any game if their flag isnt waving proudly in some stupid cutscene

God, I remember playing the "Road to Independence" -campaign in Empire Total War. Not a single cutscene without tear-dripping music with a slowly waving American flag in the background. :j:

Edited June 2, 2009 by St!gar

[=Spetsnaz= 0]

...Yeah. Heard that one before. If you ask any soldier on any side in any war, that's pretty much what you'll hear.

maybe true in the soldiers eyes, but if you read about the conclusion, and strong evidence against Georgia you would see...

[Hell_Toupee 0]

game would not be so fun if it was one side with tanks,planes and helicopters vs guys with aks and pipe bombs.

[celery 8]

Because Americans won't touch any game if their flag isnt waving proudly in some stupid cutscene

That sounds like something a eurotrash USA-hating teenager would say. Didn't that train leave the station a long time ago?

[householddog 10]

Seriously though. I really think it comes down to the hardware both sides have.

If you want to have tanks, aircraft, regular soldiers, AA, bases etc etc, there aren't that many combatants to choose from.

True, you are always going to have the US in any game, you have to sell it there, after all.

They aren't realistically going to be fighting the EU in the near future.

China is possibly a little to close to the bone.

It leaves you with Russia. Which is relative unlikely, these days. But not totally implausible.

Also gamers are familiar with Russian hardware. So generally know what to expect.

[st!gar 3]

Quote:Originally Posted by Creation

Because Americans won't touch any game if their flag isnt waving proudly in some stupid cutscene

That sounds like something a eurotrash USA-hating teenager would say. Didn't that train leave the station a long time ago?

Hell, no. Because it's proven very true in way too many situations. it's not just immaure USA -haters who get annoyed and borderline offended over bullshit like that.

I, for example, am not annoyed because I'm a "eurotrash USA-hating teenager", as you so elegantly put it, but because I'm a staunch opponent of heavy-handed nationalism in general. I'm from Norway, and believe me, there are more than enough nationalist, overly patriotic pricks over here as well. I have no more respect for them.

Seriously though. I really think it comes down to the hardware both sides have.

If you want to have tanks, aircraft, regular soldiers, AA, bases etc etc, there aren't that many combatants to choose from.

True, you are always going to have the US in any game, you have to sell it there, after all.

They aren't realistically going to be fighting the EU in the near future.

China is possibly a little to close to the bone.

It leaves you with Russia. Which is relative unlikely, these days. But not totally implausible.

Also gamers are familiar with Russian hardware. So generally know what to expect.

I quite like the idea from OFP: DR about a war against China. A welcome change from the usual Russians, sure. I think the main reason why people like the idea of a conflict between the US and Russia is, like people said, because we have two pretty much equally technlogcally andvanced superpowers that has had a history of conflict in the past.

Edited June 2, 2009 by St!gar

[myshaak 0]

In my opinion the conflict is far more realistic than crazy generals trying to conquer the world, mad russian scientists engineering super weapons of mass destruction or "they believe in different god than we do" wars.. I am tired of these "commie scum" and "godless terrorist" killing games, those were "in" years ago.

When small factions fight each other, the world superpowers usually don't join and start a full-scale war, they publicly keep their hands of the conflict but secretly influence it in their advantage (by supplying cheap weapons etc) so the result would be benefiting to them. We saw it happen in world's history, we can see it now and I believe this is exactly what is happening in Chernarus (I haven't played the campaign yet, so I am just guessing waiting to be corrected)

[householddog 10]

Hell, no. Because it's proven very true in way too many situations. it's nt just immaure USA -haters who get annoyed and borderline offended over shit like this.

I think he means that its hard to sell a game to a US market without having US troops in it. Could have been put a little bit more subtly though. :)

The OP is making the same point. He is tired of his country being portrayed as the "evil empire".

This is just as valid, as someone objecting to the way, the US is portrayed. Which is your point.

[sic-disaster 311]

It shouldnt be that hard to make a Chechnya war mod now, since the terrain is already there.

There are good insurgent-models available already too which remind me of old footage from Bosnia.

Only thing really needed still are older-styled uniforms for the Russians etc.

But anyways, it is not at all surprising that it's US vs Russia again.

After all, this is the unofficial follow-up to Operation Flashpoint which featured the same thing.

Something new after this would be appreciated by me as well, but now you have to consider the other countries available to play as.

There arent all that many superpowers you could have an 'equal' war against.

I for one would love a campaign focussing on the Dutch, but our country is so small that no matter how good our army is, we'd probably be steamrolled in a short time.

The only other possibility for that would be to simulate a third world war where multiple countries join an alliance against a superpower.

[st!gar 3]

This is just as valid, as someone objecting to the way, the US is portrayed. Which is your point.

Sure, I can agree with that.

[horror1 10]

im really glad to not have to see arma 2 turning to a propaganda game for the fake war of terror.:)

however since it uses real armies and it dont play in political correct times and armies like ww2, it will always be seen as pro us biased.:)

russia and usa are 2 equal military powers, thats the way i want to play a war sim.

to be fair on bi side u should add a campain where americans invade a fictious middleeast country to control oil fields and russians try to help the occupied country to get rid from the invaders.

hmm this could be too close to reality though :)

[householddog 10]

Honestly I really don't think much about the affiliation of my opponent in a video game. For me its all about game play.

I am quite happy to play either Russian, US or Dutch, either way.

[Sargoth 0]

Hell, no. Because it's proven very true in way too many situations. it's not just immature USA -haters who get annoyed and borderline offended over bullshit like that.

I, for example, am not annoyed because I'm a "eurotrash USA-hating teenager", as you so elegantly put it, but because I'm a staunch opponent of heavy-handed nationalism in general. I'm from Norway, and believe me, there are more than enough nationalist, overly patriotic pricks over here as well. I have no more respect for them.

heck, we sell our oil cheap to the US, and fund their military hardware and yet they call us eurotrash usa-hating teenagers!

[NoQuarter 0]

Because Americans won't touch any game if their flag isnt waving proudly in some stupid cutscene

Who knew.;)

Replying to: One thing that really bothers me

Generalizations and xenophobia in a games forum.

____

EDIT: And history lessons.

[thefoolio888 10]

That sounds like something a eurotrash USA-hating teenager would say. Didn't that train leave the station a long time ago?

Well if it isn't true, then someone needs to tell developers and software houses, but as far as I can see they still think it.

How about having British/Commonwealth forces? Or maybe Chinese?

[celery 8]

Well if it isn't true, then someone needs to tell developers and software houses, but as far as I can see they still think it.

How about having British/Commonwealth forces? Or maybe Chinese?

UK and PRC aren't known for extending aggressive foreign politics outside their own borders. USA and Russia are the only powers that are doing it outside common NATO and UN operations.

[Baff1 0]

The UK isn't known for extending aggressive foreign politics outside their borders?

Hmm, 5 expeditionary wars in the last 20 years.

That's not counting the proxy wars and special forces deployments. Nor the peacekeeping in Cyprus, nor anti-piracy, anti-drug and anti-slavery operations...

Sierra Leone was outside U.N. and NATO. So was Kuwait. So was Iraq. The only 2 recent ones to be under U.N. or NATO mandate were Afghanistan and Kosovo.

China isn't known for expeditionary warfare, although it is building an expeditionary force now, but the U.K.? Could there be a nation more famous for aggressive foreign politics outside their borders in the history of mankind?

I think not.

2/3 of the globe conquered. We have the number one slot in human history. No one else has even come close.

That is very true.. as long as they are in the game and are potrayed postively they don't complain.. personally alot of games include US everywhere. The market is all US dominated and idea based. Hopefully when ArmA 2 comes out, i wanna see how the editor works out and maybe create some missions where Russia and US cooperate.

I expect the U.S. to be strangely absent from any of mine.

I think the scenario is deep enough to tell all sorts of stories with.

I'd like to see a Russian led campaign too. That would make a great expansion. Certainly I expect all my missions to be so.

Edited June 2, 2009 by Baff1

[thefoolio888 10]

UK and PRC aren't known for extending aggressive foreign politics outside their own borders. USA and Russia are the only powers that are doing it outside common NATO and UN operations.

I can see your point, but (for me) it's meant to be a simulation of military tactics and weapons, not of world politics. I would have been more than happy seeing NATO v China, Russia v China, NATO v Middle East etc

I'm just a little tired of always playing the Americans. Having said that some realism is welcome. US v Europe would just feel wrong

[4 IN 1 0]

It wouldnt be that bad if OFP:DR is just NATO vs China, but having NATO+Russia vs China on an island island belongs to Russia is just too off for me

[Baff1 0]

NATO is a North Atlantic alliance.

China is in the Pacific. Not much NATO action going to be taking place there.

(Hence no NATO in the Korean or Vietnam wars).

But I agree, the whole plot for OpF2 is dreadful. Just an excuse to put 2 well equiped armies up against each other.

Edited June 2, 2009 by Baff1

[ThePainkiller 10]

I don't really like the idea of being against Russians, i know the conflict is made up but still seems kind of silly. And no i am not Russian i am from US.

Also i think only reason Russia is on opposite spectrum of the US in the game is because that they are the country that manage to compete with us in the arms race and they have a counterpart for every weapon/vehicle.

I would rather see something where superpowers become allies and fight terrorism that fits modern day setting much more.

6 factions is pretty cool idea i like that!

If you take an example from real life, the story is quite realistic, check what they do in Georgian Republic.

[dmarkwick 261]

Quite frankly, if I see another middle east centric scenario I think I''d simply pass it by. I'm fed up of that scenario, I much prefer the European woodland scenario. If that means we make up some unlikely west vs east conflict, than that's OK.

In the end, apart from the SP aspects of the game (which I never touch in any case), the "good guys" are the guys on whatever side you're on right?