Has Russia become the new Nazi Germany of video games?

[Kastrenzo Benelli]

Is it just me, or are a lot of Shooter and War games hating on Russia these days, While some games have singleplayer campaigns for both sides, there seem to be a lot of games out now that depict a war between Russia and The west, most often just Russia and America. Most of which putting you in the shoes of some invincible US ranger or British SAS Trying to be cool *No Pun intended*

Sure it's a cool idea.. granted if it happened In real life it wouldn't be so awesome.. But It feels like Russia has become the new Germany in video games, 6 or 7 years ago a vast majority of war games, you were Fighting the German army in WWII. Then after a while, games like World in Conflict, BF:Bad Company, COD4, MW2, Blackops, the list goes on.

The fact that I have some Eastern European ancestry, this whole thing of killing hundreds of Russians doesnt bother me, but I am beginning to find it a little bit dry and boring. It just seems game developers are unwilling to try other options for depicting their "World War III" Conflicts. since that seems to be the "Fad" with a lot of war games today.

Granted there have been some notable exceptions, The Fallout series, while being an RPG, It depicted China as "the bad guys"

Medal of Honor was based on a current conflict, the logic of Fat American mothers amazes me. The American public complained of a game that depicts an ongoing conflict. Yet they have nothing to say about video games that could "Theoretically" Piss off a Military Superpower like China or Russia. I understand that much of the controversy was because of respect for those killed in action in Afghanistan, that's not my point at all. I just find it extremley hypocritical that people complained of the games. It's perfectley OK to play as a Nazi soldier and slaughter British soldiers, or as a Russian Terrorist and shoot up an airport, but it's not Okay to play as Taliban on an online game where most of the players are Western European, American, Canadian, etc.

I just think it's about time developers move on from Russia as an Antagonist in video gaming, or if they're going to keep hating on Russia.. why not make an alternate storyline in their singleplayer campaigns. World in Conflict was one of the best examples of this, While selling an expansion pack that only contained a few online maps *that were free for everyone to DL anyway* and six singleplayer levels for $20 might seem like a rip. They added a lot of backstory to the game. Showed things from the perspective of the other side, and not just NATO/USA.

Looking back, Call of Duty: Black ops was to my knowledge, the first game I've ever played that had a WWII Level which had you fighting the British as an enemy, or any Allies for that matter. I had made a promise to myself that I'd never buy another World War II game again unless it had a storyline for "the other side". Because frankly, a lot of people who play these games have probably killed more NPCs than were even in the Werhmact in the real war.

[Lanny Ansar]

As i recall, there was a game title Frontlines: Fuel of War, that directly hit the current crisis on the US involvement in the Middle-East, and had escalated it to the point where the future of the war led entirely to Profit from Oil. The two sides of the game were the US and its certain countries that have some say in the Oil industry, and then the rest of Europe. (Russia, Middle-Eastern countries, China, Korea, etc.) And to be honest, it actually made the US seem like the assholes throughout the entire campaign.

[Ron Bleac]

I would love to fight the US, or other coalition countries. Likewise, I'd also like to face Finland as an opponent in a WWII RTS/FPS set in the Winter War, or face Soviet Russia in a similar setting. Similarly, I'd like to experience WWII from the angle of a German soldier, which I hear will be possible in the future Red Orchestra game.

[Kellervo]

I think Russia has the 'status' it has today because it was the ominous evil empire when many video game developers of today were young and easily influenced. Even though most mature adults nowadays are aware Russia isn't that bad and that global tensions have eased markedly, they still have some fundamental appeal because of the fact our countries were essentially at war for almost 50 years.

I bet in a few years people won't know where to draw on conflicts from for real world situations - unless they want to do a bunch of peacekeeping simulators - and a few years after that, perhaps China or the Middle-East will be the new 'evil empire' in vidya games.

[Kastrenzo Benelli]

As i recall, there was a game title Frontlines: Fuel of War, that directly hit the current crisis on the US involvement in the Middle-East, and had escalated it to the point where the future of the war led entirely to Profit from Oil. The two sides of the game were the US and its certain countries that have some say in the Oil industry, and then the rest of Europe. (Russia, Middle-Eastern countries, China, Korea, etc.) And to be honest, it actually made the US seem like the assholes throughout the entire campaign.

Frontlines was just a fail propaganda game, Americans and British unrealistically slaughtering Russians and Chinese.

The same company is making a game called Homefront which depicts North Korea taking over South Korea and Japan, then Occupies America. I was excited to hear about it until I realized it was the same developers as FFOW, Which had terrible gameplay mechanics.

Tom Clancy's Endwar had a great storyline, as who you played as was entirley up to you.

Iran and Saudi Arabia Nuked each other, Russia becomes the world leader in supplying Oil and Natural gas, the EU becomes a federation. US and European relations break down. And then Russia instigates a 3-way world war 3 by framing the Europeans. And World War III starts in 2020, lasting only a few weeks.

The gameplay was absolute shit, since it was just a giant rock paper scissors game, but the background to it is great. It was a shame that it was such shitty gameplay. The scale of the war was pretty epic, while it only took place in Western Russia, Europe and the Eastern US, The battles they tried to depict were on the scale of Warhammer 40K engagements.

And what Ron said about Red Orchestra, that's a multiplayer game, While I know most people arent that into singleplayer games anymore, my point was about "storylines" in singleplayer games. Most multiplayer games let you play as the "bad guys". lol

[Cyphre Iredell]

WWII games are about the efforts of the allies versus the axis because games about valiant heroism against an 'evil' foe are what people look for in a game. Why are there no WWII games with the perspective of the Nazis? Why would anyone play a game about valiantly failing against the rest of the world after having attempting to take over it? Lets not dwell too much on semantics there, I'm sure battles are battles one way or another and I truely don't care if there are redeeming qualities contained therein.

Why is Russia the new lightning rod? Like others have pointed out, they remain an ominous source of things that could or couldn't exist. Its easy to supplant them into a game as the antagonist because there is so little to actually know, and the possibilities that things are taking place across their gigantic country that directly conflict with the ideals of America or the rest of the world. It isn't really something you can do with any other country, especially ones that are notable allies to this day, lacking any sordid history of malcontent. Who else could you possible use that anyone actually cares about, or believes could do anything of the sort?

Me, I'm a proponent of more Planetside type of games. There are more than just two sides, and everyone is against one another. Various levels of technological advancement lead to variances in standard issue and heavy armaments. It doesn't need to be a game about some specific country versus another in the first place. Also, single-player varieties are fairly pointless and less fiscally productive. People don't continually play any Call of Duty single player campaigns, which have gotten increasingly shorter, yet equally expensive. WWII was at least feasible since it actually happened, as opposed to the Modern Warfare games that followed, and that is why that historical period prevailed above all else for years upon years. All of it is quite frankly a tired experience of 'interactive movies' that could very well just be a very involved rail-shooter, and far more interesting if there was a lightgun peripheral by which to play.

[Kastrenzo Benelli]

Going on about the part that no one plays games for their ever so shrinking singleplayer campaigns is obvious, but most games have some kind of story or theme to them. There have been some exceptions, some instances of "Two factions just shooting each other for no apparent reason". Such as Battlefield 2, with America for some reason is fighting a war with China and a fictional Arabic Federation.

Nevertheless, the point was, even if 97% of the people who play MW2 for example are playing MP only, and in those Online games it depicts some firefight between A and B, in that case, America and Russia

In most cases, with exceptions like said BF2. Developers usually try to write an explanation as to why A and B are fighting in the first place.

[Desereck Creeggan]

Things are making their progression along the history tree. First it was WWI, then WWII, the Cold War. Vietnam and Korea are up next even though Blackops covered both of them if I remember right. Maybe just Korea.

Soon enough there will be the current Middle-East/Afghanistan war once it's not such a recent thing to touch upon. Going back and re-living the Holocaust... 70 years later when most the people who were actually there aren't alive as opposed to the World Trade Center where people are still suffering from it isn't as sensitive of a subject.

I honestly would love to see more Soviet gameplay. Breaking out of the prison in Blackops was one of the funnest experiences in the game, regardless of how indestructible you were.

[Ron Bleac]

WWII games are about the efforts of the allies versus the axis because games about valiant heroism against an 'evil' foe are what people look for in a game. Why are there no WWII games with the perspective of the Nazis? Why would anyone play a game about valiantly failing against the rest of the world after having attempting to take over it? Lets not dwell too much on semantics there, I'm sure battles are battles one way or another and I truely don't care if there are redeeming qualities contained therein.

I would play a game like that because I would consider it interesting to see from the point of view of an Axis soldier, Nazi or not. A storyline on the Eastern Front would make everything so much more interesting than your average Normandy bush shooter. A game feauturing the SS or the Wehrmacht, or even the Luftwaffe would be like a single golden brick amongst a dozen stone ones. Hell, not just Germany, why not Hungary, Romania, Finland, the Netherlands or even *Norway.* The American paratrooper/stormtrooper or Soviet supersoldier thing have been played on enough, so something from 'the other side' of the river would imho, be worthwhile. Not all videogames are about winning, and an ending featuring a defeat would be quite interesting. A story not about winning, but doing a duty and losing regardless. But the player would win his own personal battle.

P.S: Red Orchestra: Heroes of Stalingrad is going to include a single player campaign that allows you to play as an Axis or Soviet soldier, from different sides of the conflict, Kastrenzo. If I understood what they're saying correctly.

In regards to the entire Russia thing, yeah, what Cyphre said. Russia is the new ominous villain of the videogame industry.

[Lanny Ansar]

I will agree on SP stories being progressively shorter, and Russia being the stereotypical bad guy of most games. But as i recall, the MW2 storyline actually did branch a bit further than "US vs. Russia lololol". That Russian Revolutionary, "Makarov", actually made a third branch in the story, since nobody ever really figured out where he went, and he was the entire reason Russia invaded the US. (That controversial Airport scene, where your character was undercover and working for the CIA, then killed by makarov and used as a Scapegoat.) And then the tossed-under-the-table feeling when the story shifts down to just Soap and Captain Price, and their now global burn notice.

But i can understand how it feels entirely two-sided with the US / Russia. But from what i saw, nobody was really the bad guy in that story. It was just a crapton of poor decisions, followed by a cheesy war criminal / vigilante storyline. It was more a 2.5 sided thing, with two explosives on each side, and then the guy in the middle (Makarov) lighting the fuses.

[Kastrenzo Benelli]

P.S: Red Orchestra: Heroes of Stalingrad is going to include a single player campaign that allows you to play as an Axis or Soviet soldier, from different sides of the conflict, Kastrenzo. If I understood what they're saying correctly.

In regards to the entire Russia thing, yeah, what Cyphre said. Russia is the new ominous villain of the videogame industry.

I know very little about RO:HOS, I dont even know if it's a standalone game, free expansion, retail expansion, etc etc.

Sounds interesting though. Hopefully the SP NPCs/ Bots arent always so trigger happy though, Nothing more annoying in Red Orchestra than having 2 or 3 bots armed with PPDs or PPSH's rock and rolling on full auto.. because they're F-ing loud and obnoxious

[Agares Tretiak]

I'd like to see a game where the United States has become a territorially expansive, aggressive power with other nations standing in opposition to it, in a similar sort of situation as countries opposing Rome in antiquity. Of course, I'd like that there'd be at least a semi-plausible explanation for such an occurrence, but there's something very alluring about the entire concept and the interplay of human and character conflicts that could arise from something of that nature.

I'd also point out, I don't think there's such a thing as an overplayed antagonist. I'm happy to shoot just about anything. :D

[or10nsharkfin]

I really enjoyed playing Homefront, even though it was the typical "Enemy Occupation; bad-ass resistance fighters take back their homes" story that I saw previously in Freedom Fighters on the PS2. Not only was it a fresh break from Russia and the Middle East, but it was against an unlikely enemy - Koreans. (I could only ever recall fighting Koreans in Crysis, and that was against a technologically-advanced North Korea) The backstory leading up to the events of the game was well-put together and could very well have been real. (Even though there were a lot of issues, mainly glitches and bugs, it was still fairly enjoyable.)

I would like more games that could focus on Korea. People have seem to have forgotten that we're still, technically, "at war" with a numerically-superior army that could snap at any moment because of some trivial thing.

[Altus Nirvana]

I think the major reason russia gets all the enemy roles is because the developers grew up with russia being the "other big kid on the block" and are still considered to be on level with the U.S. in military size and technology.

Personally, id like to see a WW1 game, but it wouldnt last. Only time did I see a good WW1 anything was the 1918 mod for BF1942. No unlocks, no retarded perks, just alot of sharp shooting and occasional armored car rushes across the field.

[Eriksson Foxtrot]

A GAME WITH MUSKETS AND LINE INFANTRY WOULD BE COOL. BRITISH EMPIRE(Canada) VS AMERICA (War of 1812) or BRITISH EMPIRE VS. THE FRENCH~

First person, act the role of a starting infantryman while being able to pick which faction you'd like to fight for. Earn your way up the ranks to a regiment sergeant, field commander, general, etc. Would be a million times better than these new games that are all filled with a unhealthy dose of heretic and fail. >:[

[Ron Bleac]

A GAME WITH MUSKETS AND LINE INFANTRY WOULD BE COOL. BRITISH EMPIRE(Canada) VS AMERICA (War of 1812) or BRITISH EMPIRE VS. THE FRENCH~

First person, act the role of a starting infantryman. Earn your way up the ranks to a regiment sergeant, field commander, general, etc. Would be a million times better than these new games that are all fail. >:[

This already exists. It's called Battlegrounds.

[media

]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vge-nweS32o

[Aryte]

AMAZING. LOL

[fatalitywolf firehawk]

i used to be in a clan on bg2 lol line battles are fun even more so when your in charge or 2nd of command so you can shoot people who dont listern to you

[Altus Nirvana]

I usually get kicked from bg servers because see, as an american, I dont believe in standing in lines. So I usually come around and start getting stab happy with a sword, especially when the other team is taking forever to get everyone lined up according to size, weight, last name, date of birth and how often they watch the history channel.

Though that game dose have an uncanny ability to turn into a severely downgraded version of counter strike with numbnuts who just shoot a round off and go apeshit with a bayonet and try to shaft someone who was staying back from afar. I still have fun with it from time to time, play some old iron maiden soundtracks and im there.

[Vesper Akiri]

I would love to fight the US, or other coalition countries. Likewise, I'd also like to face Finland as an opponent in a WWII RTS/FPS set in the Winter War, or face Soviet Russia in a similar setting. Similarly, I'd like to experience WWII from the angle of a German soldier, which I hear will be possible in the future Red Orchestra game.

I can happily say, yes, yes it is.

The single player campaign allows you to play as either a Russian soldier or German soldier, the entire game is a free roam sortof map where there's no true linear path.

/>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkk3SiywLHI