Are less powerful opponents always sympathetic?

[Mike Fang]

If there's one thing I've noticed when Yahtzee reviews modern-day military shooters (or as he calls them these days, spunkgargleweewee games), it's that he always touches on how unsympathetic the protagonists are. This is usually based solely on the fact that the protagonists are usually with the American military and the antagonists are usually from another, less powerful country. Frankly I find this tends to make him sound anti-American, ironic considering its the country that provides a large (if not the biggest) portion of his fan base. But there's no denying he has a point; the only countries that could threaten America with open war are generally its allies, and fighting an open war against other countries is going to be a very one-sided fight. But does that mean a less-powerful country can't be a legitimate enemy?

Personally I think less powerful antagonists could still be legitimate threats in these games. Consider North Korea, a country that certainly wouldn't be able to take on America in an all-out war, but still scares people because of its capacity to develop WMDs and its tendency to be run by megalomaniacs with god complexes who enjoy making people nervous with their weapons-grade uranium cocks. Also, consider terrorist groups like Al Queda, a bunch of hateful religious fanatics and racists living in caves that still managed to land a serious blow to the U.S. with three hijacked air planes.

I think the problem with the majority of spunkgargleweewee games is they keep having the U.S. fighting other countries in open warfare. This comes across as fantasy fulfillment because no country's leaders in their right minds are going to declare open war on America. If the developers of these games want these types of antagonists to still seem legitimate, they need to do one of two things: a) have the U.S. providing military aid to a less-advanced ally being threatened (like when Iraq attacked Kuwait) or b) make the antagonists trying to launch covert attacks on the U.S.

The first option is best if you insist on keeping up the 'open warfare' aspect of the game. Since the idea of somebody attacking the U.S. openly is out, the next best option to get America involved in an all-out war (outside of making it the antagonist) is to have an ally attacked and the U.S. come to its aid. That is at least plausible (all you foreign policy critics lay off; this's a game we're talking about). The second option would probably require some gameplay tweaking, but its still doable. The skirmishes the players get into may be smaller, and you'd likely need advanced AI that can use guerrilla tactics against players, but that could be appealing to players, making the enemies fewer in number but more of a challenge individually, rather than having them wade through waves of enemies that have all the survival instincts of suicide bombers that left their C4 vests behind.

To me motivation is a big determining factor in how sympathetic one side or another is in a conflict. Granted you don't tend to feel sorry for a side that isn't struggling, but neither is it possible to feel sorry for an underdog if they're resorting to things like mass murder of civilians. So I think a less equipped enemy can still be a legit villain if handled correctly. It takes the right combination of motivation and tactics, but I think it can be done. But modern day military shooters aren't going to achieve it if they insist on keeping up with the open warfare trend, because there's no denying the U.S. would have to get betrayed by just about all its allies to be genuinely on the ropes in a pitched military conflict.

 

[Vegosiux]

I don't think these protagonists are unsympathetic because they're "too powerful", but because they are stereotypically "American" tot he point that the only constant in the series remains "American" = "good". As in, "American" traits are presented as good, and the rest of the world is just a bunch of terrorists trying to take OUR FREEHDUMMMZ!

I mean, I wouldn't be surprised if in the next CoD, USA gets invaded by Canada. Likely an elite squad wielding hockey sticks and bogging the soldiers of freedom down with maple syrup will be involved.

 

[skywolfblue]

Most Modern Military shooters are a giant parade of "look how powerful we are" as you mow down wave after wave of enemies who never even stood a chance.

It's hard to feel sympathetic for a side that can't possibly lose, there's no challenge, there's no suspense. The winner doesn't have to risk or sacrifice anything. Instead of characters with flaws, moments of doubt, and an enemy that haunts them every turn, it's "Ho-rah Marine Corps, we're ridiculously overpowered" every step of the way.

Note: Not feeling sympathetic towards the protagonist does not necessarily mean you must feel sympathetic towards the villain.

To me motivation is a big determining factor in how sympathetic one side or another is in a conflict. Granted you don't tend to feel sorry for a side that isn't struggling, but neither is it possible to feel sorry for an underdog if they're resorting to things like mass murder of civilians. So I think a less equipped enemy can still be a legit villain if handled correctly. It takes the right combination of motivation and tactics, but I think it can be done. But modern day military shooters aren't going to achieve it if they insist on keeping up with the open warfare trend, because there's no denying the U.S. would have to get betrayed by just about all its allies to be genuinely on the ropes in a pitched military conflict.

True, villains can be immoral even when they're underpowered.

But I think having a protagonist that you can cheer for is extremely important.

 

[WhiteFangofWhoa]

Precisely. The scant advantages possessed by the enemies you speak of (North Korea's unstable leaders and brainwashed populace, Al Queda's support among Muslim populations in many countries) aren't really carried off that well in an FPS environment where most of the time you will be on the open battlefield instead of dealing with lone spies/sympathizers at home.

Suitably evil motivations still results in a villain, but the resulting conflict may lack a certain drama when you're armed with top of the line military hardware and your enemies have rocks and harsh language (hence why many of them involve the theft of American hardware). Also, said motivation strains credibility when it is shared by all the hundreds of soldiers you will murder in the course of the typical FPS- more often they're simply following orders out of fear or loyalty.

An FPS that demonstrated an AQ-style terrorist group's main advantage would have you searching a decrepit desert city full of thousands of people all garbed in robes, a handful of whom will try to kill you you when your back in turned and there's no possible way for you to tell which ones until the first shots are fired. Frustration abounds.

 

[Fox12]

In a narrative sense it hurts the tension of the story to have the villain weaker than the hero, because of course the hero will win. You never feel worried for the hero when he's guaranteed to win. That's not why Yahtzee is angry though.

Yahtzee is against American imperialism. The newest COD game as America invaded by South America. They are portrayed as evil villains, despite the fact that they pose no threat to us, and most countries have no real desire to go to war with us. It also glosses over the fact that America overthrew South American democracies and set up dictators. For America to do that to them, then claim to be the protector of Democracy, and then have the nerve to call THEM the villains is pretty arrogant. The Middle East is more complicated, since the terrorists are legitimately horrible, and there are bad groups over there who actually do want to hurt America. However, America has also done terrible things to them. Iran wasn't really our enemy until we overthrew their democratic government and set up a dictator who abused his people. How can we accuse Assad of war crimes in Syria when we've set up dictators that were worse? If we had stayed out of the Middle East in the first place we wouldn't have to worry about the admittedly evil terrorists.

Incidentally, I love America. I just don't like out foreign policy, and neither does Yahtzee. The fact is that COD tries to depict America as perfect and pure all the time, and everyone else is evil. In reality that's not true. In fact it's hypocritical. We do immoral things, then we pat ourselves on the back.

 

[Worgen]

I don't think these protagonists are unsympathetic because they're "too powerful", but because they are stereotypically "American" tot he point that the only constant in the series remains "American" = "good". As in, "American" traits are presented as good, and the rest of the world is just a bunch of terrorists trying to take OUR FREEHDUMMMZ!

I mean, I wouldn't be surprised if in the next CoD, USA gets invaded by Canada. Likely an elite squad wielding hockey sticks and bogging the soldiers of freedom down with maple syrup will be involved.

Nah, in the next game America will be invaded by Cuba, using 5 guys in a raft.

 

[senordesol]

One of Yahtzee's (and many reviewers') favorite parts about CoD4 was the Nuke scene. Activision misinterpreted its appeal in thinking that just because your character died; it was compelling -but that wasn't it. It was the fact that in a flash - in an instant- all the bravado and confidence of the far-superior US military (which, up until this point was beating ass like a drum) was evaporated in a heartbeat. Everything you worked for; everything you thought you accomplished was gone in a moment and reduced to a mangy pile of heap. Defeat was quite soundly snatched from the jaws of victory and as you crawl on the dusty, blasted ground about to die alone, unmourned, and thousands of miles from home you are forced to ask 'what was this all for?'

Other CoD games seem to have missed the simple, stark brilliance of this moment. Instead of dealing with ambiguous asymmetrical warfare that explores what it truly means to be a soldier in the modern 'N.B.C.' era; they kept it essentially in WWII just with a modern coat of paint. It's war according to John Wayne movies (seriously, watch a couple of John Wayne war flicks and tell me they don't do the same damn thing as spunkgargleweewee games), and it's tired and lame. It's jingoistic; hearkening to a romanticized version of the 'American spirit' that probably never really existed.

The 'Grand American Invasion' is not going to happen (at least not anytime soon). There's no point; it'd just be too expensive in terms of lives and resources. You want to do a Modern War game? That's fine. You want the protagonists to be American? That's fine too. Talk to some actual soldiers and Marines about their experiences in the Afg/Irq theaters and you'll have plenty -PLENTY- to go on. And trust me, the enemies will be plenty despicable, there's more than mere adequate satisfaction to be had in victory. Just don't treat us like idiots. Don't tell us that America is just the best because it can do no wrong. You don't need to portray us as Imperial Stormtroopers; but there have been more than a few times where we've screwed the pooch policy-wise and it's okay to call us on it.

 

[beastro]

It was the fact that in a flash - in an instant- all the bravado and confidence of the far-superior US military (which, up until this point was beating ass like a drum) was evaporated in a heartbeat.

That may be your take, but it isn't the typical response. What that did was turn a silly game where you don't really even have to kill many people and just run by them with a thin cover of militaristic flare over it into a real war game where you got to witness the horror of war and not it be whitewashed.

Instead of being fun, or fun gore, it was something uncomfortable and not something you'd want to see all the time in a war game. The problem was it was taken as gorn (gore/porn) and since then more and more scenes like it have been added only without the heavy morality that should surround such circumstances. Yes, the people behind CoD try to keep up appearances but they treat the moral choices as seriously as they do with their fig leaf of anti-war quotes.

It's war according to John Wayne movies (seriously, watch a couple of John Wayne war flicks and tell me they don't do the same damn thing as spunkgargleweewee games),

John Wayne films are broken into two categories.

1: Their wartime films made for a worried, but also curious public wanting to know what kind of things their men are doing overseas because they don't know and it also helps them stop worrying over what they're required to do.

2: They're nuts and bolts films where he and the rest of the cast are typical grunts and they're too busy doing their job to mull over weighty issues. Many Westerns he was in, mostly the Cavalry ones were of this mold as well - It wasn't his part to brood over the conflict between whites and Indians, just that one was attacking those that were his duty to protect and he led his men to help them. Even when he does step in to stop the fighting, it is to prevent a bad situation from getting worse, not to idealistically end the great struggle between two cultures.

His movies like The Green Berets only stand out because people's taste in war movies were changing at the time and people wanted the brooding, bleak films that were inspired by the Vietnam War that voiced their feelings over that war, and we're thankfully working them out of our system as we've transitioned back to wanting the nuts and bolts films but still want to keep the grittiness of the 'nam films ala Saving Private Ryan, Black Hawk Down and even movies on the periphery of war films like Sci-Fi films like Battle Los Angeles.

The problem with CoD is that the series used to be that way with it's WWII editions, but since the change to contemporary warfare it's sacrificed that more and more to try and be brooding while focusing more and violence for violence sake.

It would be nice if the games just had naked jingoism, or naked brooding, or dealt with moral choices in a way The Walking Dead games dealt with such choices, but they're just mindless running and gunning that is completely divorced from war and reality (not to mention satisfying gameplay).

I've heard them called the game version of fast food, but at least fast food has some nutrition, they're more the equivalent of pixie sticks and other candy that is nothing but pure, almost flavourless sugar.

 

[Smooth Operator]

Exactly it really isn't about the power of the opponent it's all about the reason for doing the things you do.
What modern military shooters are doing right now is looking for nations to hate, just anyone to pick a fight with, I'm not sure why this is such a prevalent designers fantasy but in what fucked up universe does anyone imagine the hate mongers will look heroic in the end...

I don't even want to go into the fact these games are primarily played by teens and pre-teens and these games are telling them bigotry and jingoism are the heroes way of thinking.

 

[Yopaz]

Of course they aren't. Less powerful opponents can do terrible things, but in the Call of Duty games there's always a battle of who is the most unsympathetic. It's a fictional story and they can't even make the threat seem threatening or unjustified. America was committing war crime with building a space laser to make sure they would pretty much have world dominance. You don't get more unsympathetic than that.

 

[EternallyBored]

Of course they aren't. Less powerful opponents can do terrible things, but in the Call of Duty games there's always a battle of who is the most unsympathetic. It's a fictional story and they can't even make the threat seem threatening or unjustified. America was committing war crime with building a space laser to make sure they would pretty much have world dominance. You don't get more unsympathetic than that.

To be fair, the alternate history Earth that Ghosts takes place in makes it a little more justifiable than current world politics. If I remember right, the future in Ghosts is one where oil is running out and the Middle East basically collapsed. Huge oil deposits were discovered in South America that caused the entire continent to collapse and reorganize into an extremist state selling oil to fund it's expansionist military ambitions. With the U.S.A.'s extremely weakened economy in this scenario (imagine the Great Depression 2.0), they basically lost a lot of their ability to project their military power abroad. The satellite was a MAD style defense to try and ward the South American coalition away from invading the U.S., which they had apparently been making threats of doing it even before the satellite got built.

Imagine if the Cold War took place, except the Soviet Union was right next door to the U.S., rather than on the other side of the planet, and both sides had working missile shields that made nukes not a viable option. Yeah, it's a contrived excuse to get the U.S. to fight a fake South American empire, but they at least attempt to justify it.

Of course, that justification and backstory kind of falls apart when the South American invaders basically get their shit kicked in even before the satellite gets stolen back, the game tries to justify it's premise, but the actual gameplay and levels sort of contradict the whole, weakened U.S. versus rising new Superpower. It's not quite as silly as Modern Warfare somehow making the Russians invade the U.S., get beat back, and then invaded all of Europe pretty much right after that, but it comes close. South America didn't actually seem to have a coherent invasion plan after the whole satellite hijacking thing, and even with the stolen superweapon, basically fail to actually conquer the U.S. in any meaningful way, then just get annihilated once the U.S. gets their space railgun back.

 

[Yopaz]

Of course, that justification and backstory kind of falls apart when the South American invaders basically get their shit kicked in even before the satellite gets stolen back, the game tries to justify it's premise, but the actual gameplay and levels sort of contradict the whole, weakened U.S. versus rising new Superpower. It's not quite as silly as Modern Warfare somehow making the Russians invade the U.S., get beat back, and then invaded all of Europe pretty much right after that, but it comes close. South America didn't actually seem to have a coherent invasion plan after the whole satellite hijacking thing, and even with the stolen superweapon, basically fail to actually conquer the U.S. in any meaningful way, then just get annihilated once the U.S. gets their space railgun back.

It was more this part I was referring to when I was complaining, I guess I should have made that point more clear. I don't consider South America sympathetic in any way in this mess of a story, I just find it hard to root for anyone since both sides are trying to gain power by using a weapon of mass destruction that is impossible to defend against.

That said, I don't expect Call of Duty's story to be plausible or appealing anyway so they have lived up to my expectations.

 

[McFazzer]

I would love to see America, even just a Freemason-esque parody faction of the military, be portrayed as a Bond Villain light. I would love even more to have the "Big" nations (America, Britain and I dunno... the Vatican? They can have knights and gun-swords because it's a video game) be the bad guys and a Coalition of smaller nations (Canada, Sweden, Spain, Jamaica, Australia, France, New Zealand etc. you get the idea) band together to create a globe trotting task force with a plane like the one from Agents of SHIELD to gather up Indiana Jones type artifacts that, if gathered, become a the key pieces that map out locations and blueprints for ancient Weapons of Mass Destruction.

I have invented the best game ever that will never exist :'(

 

[Muspelheim]

I'd love a game with the rolls reversed. The pretense of being the underdog would suddenly make sense. The player is some lone rebel in a third world nation striving for better conditions being hunted by a far superior enemy. Imagine the obligatory Armageddon Armchair segment, where you blow up little white specks on the screen from above, but reversed and with you in the thick of it. Dashing from sewer pipes and burning buildings to get out alive.

As a hunted rebel, you will also do some pretty unpleasant things and stand before some terrible choices. Like planting explosives, hiding from the killer robots amongst civilians and putting them at risk and other actions that would make you wonder whether the end goal truly did justify the means.

Of course, that would be utterly impossible in an AAA enviroment, you'd likely get flogged in the boiler room if you suggested it. But the AA and the indie arena might very well provide that, sooner or later. And probably already have.

 

[Soviet Heavy]

Not always. The Helghast are genocidal maniacs with a huge army that easily outclasses the ISA forces, but they are hugely sympathetic after the games show that the ISA is just as bad as they are. When you invade their home planet, they rightfully kick the crap out of the ISA invasion force, and yet I still empathize with them.

 

[Vivi22]

Frankly I find this tends to make him sound anti-American

Being against the American militaries habit of ***** slapping lesser developed countries and a tendency to use that as the basis for a game with characters you're supposed to care about isn't anti-American.

the only countries that could threaten America with open war are generally its allies

Actually, they really can't. There is presently no nation on Earth that could realistically project power into the US and be an actual military threat. None.

Personally I think less powerful antagonists could still be legitimate threats in these games. Consider North Korea, a country that certainly wouldn't be able to take on America in an all-out war, but still scares people because of its capacity to develop WMDs and its tendency to be run by megalomaniacs with god complexes who enjoy making people nervous with their weapons-grade uranium cocks.

North Korea isn't capable of launching an attack on the US with WMD's. They don't have the numbers required or the capability of getting them there. And even if they did, there's no game to base on it because if WMD's are the only threat a country can pose, it's a game about pressing a button and both sides instantly lose.

Also, consider terrorist groups like Al Queda, a bunch of hateful religious fanatics and racists living in caves that still managed to land a serious blow to the U.S. with three hijacked air planes.

If I'm not mistaken, p/11 was actually planned in Germany. Not by people living in caves. And games about using military force to fight terrorism send the wrong message. The same message that you'd think the US would have learned already in the real world: you can't beat terrorism through military force, invasion, or drone strikes. In fact, those things usually just strengthens and spreads the hatred for the west which already exists in those parts of the world.

Now if someone wanted to make a game that actually tackled issues like terrorism realistically, that'd be pretty cool. But there'd be no protagonists or antagonists to speak of. There'd just be the terrorists in the middle east and the terrorists who invaded their countries and bombed their people right back (America and it's allies).