Could we please add "Monarchy is the only true form of goverment" for Fantasy-Games (or better: the whole effin' Genre).
Quit It, Gaming Edition
- Thread starter MovieBob
- Start date
Recommended Videos
You have a good point. I was forgetting about them. For some reason though, the stuff he talks about as the GameOverThinker is ALWAYS better than the gaming stuff he does here.PhunkyPhazon said:
Some of this was good, some of it was stupid as all hell. I shall focus upon the latter category:
What is the alternative to the Russians? The North Koreans in Homefront? No. How would that be any better? It's still cold war era stuff. I guess you can have the Taliban, but like Bob said, in that scenario YOU'RE the overdog and THEY'RE the scrappy underdog. It just doesn't work. Would you prefer we go back to making games about WWII (all CoD and Metal of Honor games before a few years back)? Or how about Space Nazis (Killzone)?
Or how about some fight that doesn't resemble past history and the enemies are colorful and different? Oh... No... Wait... I forgot that Bob hates Halo.
Why? The Halo franchise is actually pretty unique, and it puts a lot of effort into story (outside of the games of course in the various novels). So why does Bob hate it? I hate to say this because it's so cliche, but it really is because he's an elitist. He hates it because it's popular. It was revolutionary in its day, and that's what made it popular.
And about Master Chief... He's SUPPOSED to be a blank slate. Not just so the player can project on him, but also because he was raised for war, and he never really had a childhood or friends. His entire life is self-sacrificing. And no Bob, the Halo universe DOESN'T glorify the Spartan program; it views it as a tragic, but necessary evil to insure the survival of humanity. The Spartans are people who have sacrificed their individuality to serve the greater good, they aren't really the Ubermensch. The books reflect the ethical issues, even if the games do not.
About angry young men... if the protagonist was passive and just accepted defeat then the games wouldn't be very long now would they? Granted, some act a little over the top (see 'The Force Unleashed'), but in general, I would expect people to be angry when they're in the position most protagonists are in. If they weren't, then that means that either they enjoy it, which either means they're sadists (which I somehow think Bob would disapprove of), or they're just emotionless lumps.
What is the alternative to the Russians? The North Koreans in Homefront? No. How would that be any better? It's still cold war era stuff. I guess you can have the Taliban, but like Bob said, in that scenario YOU'RE the overdog and THEY'RE the scrappy underdog. It just doesn't work. Would you prefer we go back to making games about WWII (all CoD and Metal of Honor games before a few years back)? Or how about Space Nazis (Killzone)?
Or how about some fight that doesn't resemble past history and the enemies are colorful and different? Oh... No... Wait... I forgot that Bob hates Halo.
Why? The Halo franchise is actually pretty unique, and it puts a lot of effort into story (outside of the games of course in the various novels). So why does Bob hate it? I hate to say this because it's so cliche, but it really is because he's an elitist. He hates it because it's popular. It was revolutionary in its day, and that's what made it popular.
And about Master Chief... He's SUPPOSED to be a blank slate. Not just so the player can project on him, but also because he was raised for war, and he never really had a childhood or friends. His entire life is self-sacrificing. And no Bob, the Halo universe DOESN'T glorify the Spartan program; it views it as a tragic, but necessary evil to insure the survival of humanity. The Spartans are people who have sacrificed their individuality to serve the greater good, they aren't really the Ubermensch. The books reflect the ethical issues, even if the games do not.
About angry young men... if the protagonist was passive and just accepted defeat then the games wouldn't be very long now would they? Granted, some act a little over the top (see 'The Force Unleashed'), but in general, I would expect people to be angry when they're in the position most protagonists are in. If they weren't, then that means that either they enjoy it, which either means they're sadists (which I somehow think Bob would disapprove of), or they're just emotionless lumps.
I'm pretty sure MovieBob has never played Infamous, because I don't remember him being angry at all. I guess it's just his face and voice that makes him sound angry. A lot like Nico Belic, now if MovieBob was to call Nico an angry fuck, and not very well developed, I'd know he has no clue what he's talking about.OtherSideofSky said:
>=/
Well, it is Valve, they did a good job of making Gordon a non-vital part of any interaction so the others could have some exceptional exchanges, even if I would have rathered participating.Taynas said:
Also I've listened to that commentary, but all the same I think they fully intend to leave it ambiguous - Alyx hugs you in ep1 because she's relieved you're alive, she's as concerned about Gordon dying as any good friend would be, and though she jokingly asks if there's any room in his suit, maybe it's just me refusing to admit it, but it still sounds plausibly "trying to be funny" rather than flirting. Of course I'll admit all of these things really skirt the platonic line.
Again this could just be because being forced into a romance would irritate me no matter how much I like the character in question. And I think Valve knows this, so they're just doing the thing where they throw something out there and let you interpret Gordon's responses to his situation, without really elaborating on it fully.
I always thought Arcanum did a good job with the prophecy thing. You start the game and are confronted by a man who is utterly convinced you're the reincarnation of his religion's saviour, destined to rid the world of a great evil. Then later on it turns out that...
I must say I've never really had an issue with the "swoosh effects" with swords and the like, I always thought that was kind of par for the course in an RPG and made the battle look more interesting. But maybe a more subtle effect like the "distortion wake" you get when using melee weapons in Star Trek Online might be a good middle ground there.
...the guy you're supposed to be a reincarnation of is actually still alive, and you're just some bloke who managed to survive a blimp crash and stumbled over one of the requirements of the prophecy. But it still seems to give you the option of assuming whether you're the object of it anyway and it's all an allegorical thing, or if it's just plain wrong.
I must say I've never really had an issue with the "swoosh effects" with swords and the like, I always thought that was kind of par for the course in an RPG and made the battle look more interesting. But maybe a more subtle effect like the "distortion wake" you get when using melee weapons in Star Trek Online might be a good middle ground there.
Buddy, when you think about some 20% of the games out there, you're probably talking about a chunk....slightly larger than the games we talk about mostly in general, whether on the escapist, or whats considered 'popular/good' (which I would say gives reason to discuss cliches). I could be wrong in that, but I have to say, it comes across as silly when you chop a +30 year entertainment medium into percents for your case.Warachia said:
There were a couple of good points in this article. And by that, I mean two. The rest is just Bob promoting his opinion.
I have to agree with this, there are some excellent opinions but it's slightly marred by Bob's own brand love. I mean seriously the entire article and Nintendo is completely innocent of all these crimes? I'm sorry but while there are some good observations in this it's only fair to point the finger at the entire game industry without exception. But that's my opinion.internetzealot1 said:
I definitely agree on all points, although my biggest annoyance with current gaming is the "blank" characters. They can be angry young men, but they need to have their characters defined: what made them angry; why are they on this adventure; did something happen in their past; etc. Producers get bonus points for not putting this all in as exposition.
If the 20% of the games are the good ones, and they have these cliches, did anyone think there might be a pattern?Ipsen said:
Aside from that, yeah, it's a rediculous point, still not as rediculous as this column though, as he never thinks for a second about cliches handled well, which also led to some of my favourites, and he never realizes that what games follow is not nearely as important as how they differ.
Nice one bob.
I don't know if anyone else will agree with me, as there is always a mixed receiving when you mention Harry potter, but I'd like to put HP forward as another snub your nose at profecy in a way.
Two kids match the discription, which ones the prescrived hero.... whichever one he tries to kill... suck that... if you don't try and kill one you get off scot free. Moron.
I certainly agree that the angry young man sterotype is over worked, and Hurray for that song, adding it to my collection as we speak. or should I say as I type an inane message
.
I would on the other hand argue for the well implemented minigame... Fallout 3s lock picking... and the System shocks hacking minigames are both in my opinion a way of adding something to an enviroment. There is also another lock picking minigame that comes to mind but I can't remember the game, rather than turning a pickers pin and trying to rotate a lock you have to line up a series of lock pins... I believe it may have been Elder Scrolls: Oblivion.
I don't know if anyone else will agree with me, as there is always a mixed receiving when you mention Harry potter, but I'd like to put HP forward as another snub your nose at profecy in a way.
Two kids match the discription, which ones the prescrived hero.... whichever one he tries to kill... suck that... if you don't try and kill one you get off scot free. Moron.
I certainly agree that the angry young man sterotype is over worked, and Hurray for that song, adding it to my collection as we speak. or should I say as I type an inane message
.I would on the other hand argue for the well implemented minigame... Fallout 3s lock picking... and the System shocks hacking minigames are both in my opinion a way of adding something to an enviroment. There is also another lock picking minigame that comes to mind but I can't remember the game, rather than turning a pickers pin and trying to rotate a lock you have to line up a series of lock pins... I believe it may have been Elder Scrolls: Oblivion.
I think your right about a lot of things, except perhaps your very first point. Truth be told, the situation with Russia was simply on hold for a while, it actually resumed again quite a while ago. While it's mentioned in the mainstream media, it rarely gets the kind of focus that other issues do. People tend to have to be reminded that the Russians have been caught doing things like trying to assasinate world leaders to install ones friendly to them. There was a big deal about that years ago in Ukraine, and it was very much an East Vs. West conflict because they wanted their guy with pro-eastern sentiments, and we were in with the more popular (at the time) cantidate who had strong pro-western sentiments. They decided to poison the guy (slowly) and were caught, but only after most of the damage was done. It was "cold war" type manuvering at it's finest, execept for the media finding out about it (which was arguably a strategic move from our perspective). Since then Russia has been back in the form of their old USSR days, we had the invasion of Georgia, threats made against Poland for hosting a US missle interception base, and of course they decided to play "kick the can" with the EU for a while by cutting off their gas to make it clear to the EU that it was more or less under Russia's thumb.
I suppose to a peacenik left winger who was convinced that the USSR collapsed and the society actually begame progressive and stayed that way, it seems kind of "nutty" that things like this could be going on, after all the media isn't paying more attention to them (and it couldn't possibly have a political stake in deciding on what to focus on). In fact as "nutty" as the idea of Russia being ready to revert to it's old ways at "the touch of a button" goes, you might notice a lot of people predicted that, and that we shouldn't have been so lax when they collapsed, and instead stepped in to administer some "Hell's Angels First Aid". Russia maintained a huge mass of military hardware, including crazy numbers of tanks and submarines, not to mention a pretty massive nuclear arsenal. One of the things is that where Russia might not have more advanced technology, some of the things they did like virtually break their country by building so much stuff out of Titanium means that they can't be easily ignored. Russia's Subs still apparently have a depth tolerance greater than those of the US and most allied nations, and while not as stealthy that can represent a huge advantage in certain kinds of engagements.
The point is that when you look at things like "Modern Warfare", it's really not all that far off kilter. Russia went through a brief period where it looked like it might reform, and we gave them that chance, but there was always cause for concern. Since then they have been up to their old tricks, and while not as powerful overall as they were before (for a lot of reasons) they still represent a substantial military power. While Russia at this moment (though it could change) would be no match for the USA in a direct all or nothing throw down, it's still stronger than most world powers in a strict military sense. If the US wasn't behind the EU, Russia could literally overrun the place if it chose to. Not only is the EU dependant on it for fuel, but the EU has such a limited stockpile of WMD (something it acts proud of) that it's unlikely to be able to stop Russia with them due to it's sheer size if nothing else. If Russia decided to start lobbing ordinance into Europe and then rush their tanks in, it would be over if they were alone. Of course this COULD change if the EU puts more effort into military matters. Also the US is on their side, and that's why things like the missle base in Poland was such a big deal, it keeps them penned in because bases like that greatly limit the abillity of Russia to fire into, over over the EU with missles and such.
All of this has been analyzed in various places for years, while it's fantasy, Russia is one of those bad guys you can use in a "ripped from the headlines" fashion. Given that they have been invading countries like Georgia, and American intervention was discussed, it's not that far out there for this kind of game to envision a situation where Russia invades, and the US intervenes. What's more it's very true that we DO have better tech than them right now, which is easy to exagerrate for video game purposes into the whole quality vs. quantity dynamic for that lone wolf hero, or small "super elite force" perspective used for video games.
Incidently, there are other nations as well, like China that can be used much the same way. While a lot of people tend to take a "they are just rattling their sabers" attitude, China has been internally talking about invasions for a while, and building up a disturbing level of military force, while everyone ignores them. They are pretty much a super power, or pretty close to it right now. A lot of people might not LIKE to hear that, but again it's one of those situations that can be used for video game fodder, especially for Americans, because while the balance of power can change, right this minute if China decided to go a-conquering and demonstrated powerful enough anti-stallite technology (do a search for China, Lasers, Sattellies) to render the threat of long range WMD deliver/MAD irrevelent... well the only other super power out there that could oppose them would be the USA. Both the US and China doubtlessly bringing a lot of allies to the table as well (ie it's the "East Vs. West" World War III many people think is inevitable).
Now of course a lot of people think that using real countries and current politics as the inspiration for video games is a bad idea. Despite everything I said above, I have mixed opinions about it myself (which I won't get into sine this is long enough as it is). Irregardless of the touchy question of whether someone should be making games based around current conflicts and politics, as opposed to things that happened decades in the past and are verifiable history, the point is that if your going to be doing modern warfare games based around the USA going to war... then yeah, The Russians are still a pretty credible bad guy for us and have been for quite a while now.
Truthfully, with the polish game developers out there I have kind of been wondering when someone will finally get around to making a game like this from a European perspective. Their version of Homefront. EU politics and economic rivalry get to the point where they slot off the US who takes their toys and goes home to become isolationist again like sullen children. Russia curls it's snively whiplash mustache and without the US bases that were present decides to cut off the fuel, and starts a tag team alliance with China. China blinds european satellites so even it's relatively limited WMD stockpile is ineffective, and then we see a massive conserted zerg-rush through Eastern Europe as the powers that actually have military strength (Spain, France, The UK) throw their forces into the line there to hold them back, while in the meantime the US (since this isn't our game) continues to sit back and make popcorn while we watch, and laugh (in this scenario being too stupid to realize that once the EU is gone they are going to entrench there and then springboard to come after us eventually).
Sure, sure, there are some problems with it, but the point is a video game justification for setting "Red Dawn" in Poland with various European military units fighting overwhelming odds. Assuming people could get around the flashbacks to the similarity to things that have actually happened (Poland being made the battlefield "of choice" for other wars in the past) it could conceivably work. Then maybe people can stop complaining about how the US is the focus of every shooter out there, and who we may or may not be picking on by making them the bad guys. Truthfully I kind of wonder if people would complain as much if it was Europeans fighting Russians...
I suppose to a peacenik left winger who was convinced that the USSR collapsed and the society actually begame progressive and stayed that way, it seems kind of "nutty" that things like this could be going on, after all the media isn't paying more attention to them (and it couldn't possibly have a political stake in deciding on what to focus on). In fact as "nutty" as the idea of Russia being ready to revert to it's old ways at "the touch of a button" goes, you might notice a lot of people predicted that, and that we shouldn't have been so lax when they collapsed, and instead stepped in to administer some "Hell's Angels First Aid". Russia maintained a huge mass of military hardware, including crazy numbers of tanks and submarines, not to mention a pretty massive nuclear arsenal. One of the things is that where Russia might not have more advanced technology, some of the things they did like virtually break their country by building so much stuff out of Titanium means that they can't be easily ignored. Russia's Subs still apparently have a depth tolerance greater than those of the US and most allied nations, and while not as stealthy that can represent a huge advantage in certain kinds of engagements.
The point is that when you look at things like "Modern Warfare", it's really not all that far off kilter. Russia went through a brief period where it looked like it might reform, and we gave them that chance, but there was always cause for concern. Since then they have been up to their old tricks, and while not as powerful overall as they were before (for a lot of reasons) they still represent a substantial military power. While Russia at this moment (though it could change) would be no match for the USA in a direct all or nothing throw down, it's still stronger than most world powers in a strict military sense. If the US wasn't behind the EU, Russia could literally overrun the place if it chose to. Not only is the EU dependant on it for fuel, but the EU has such a limited stockpile of WMD (something it acts proud of) that it's unlikely to be able to stop Russia with them due to it's sheer size if nothing else. If Russia decided to start lobbing ordinance into Europe and then rush their tanks in, it would be over if they were alone. Of course this COULD change if the EU puts more effort into military matters. Also the US is on their side, and that's why things like the missle base in Poland was such a big deal, it keeps them penned in because bases like that greatly limit the abillity of Russia to fire into, over over the EU with missles and such.
All of this has been analyzed in various places for years, while it's fantasy, Russia is one of those bad guys you can use in a "ripped from the headlines" fashion. Given that they have been invading countries like Georgia, and American intervention was discussed, it's not that far out there for this kind of game to envision a situation where Russia invades, and the US intervenes. What's more it's very true that we DO have better tech than them right now, which is easy to exagerrate for video game purposes into the whole quality vs. quantity dynamic for that lone wolf hero, or small "super elite force" perspective used for video games.
Incidently, there are other nations as well, like China that can be used much the same way. While a lot of people tend to take a "they are just rattling their sabers" attitude, China has been internally talking about invasions for a while, and building up a disturbing level of military force, while everyone ignores them. They are pretty much a super power, or pretty close to it right now. A lot of people might not LIKE to hear that, but again it's one of those situations that can be used for video game fodder, especially for Americans, because while the balance of power can change, right this minute if China decided to go a-conquering and demonstrated powerful enough anti-stallite technology (do a search for China, Lasers, Sattellies) to render the threat of long range WMD deliver/MAD irrevelent... well the only other super power out there that could oppose them would be the USA. Both the US and China doubtlessly bringing a lot of allies to the table as well (ie it's the "East Vs. West" World War III many people think is inevitable).
Now of course a lot of people think that using real countries and current politics as the inspiration for video games is a bad idea. Despite everything I said above, I have mixed opinions about it myself (which I won't get into sine this is long enough as it is). Irregardless of the touchy question of whether someone should be making games based around current conflicts and politics, as opposed to things that happened decades in the past and are verifiable history, the point is that if your going to be doing modern warfare games based around the USA going to war... then yeah, The Russians are still a pretty credible bad guy for us and have been for quite a while now.
Truthfully, with the polish game developers out there I have kind of been wondering when someone will finally get around to making a game like this from a European perspective. Their version of Homefront. EU politics and economic rivalry get to the point where they slot off the US who takes their toys and goes home to become isolationist again like sullen children. Russia curls it's snively whiplash mustache and without the US bases that were present decides to cut off the fuel, and starts a tag team alliance with China. China blinds european satellites so even it's relatively limited WMD stockpile is ineffective, and then we see a massive conserted zerg-rush through Eastern Europe as the powers that actually have military strength (Spain, France, The UK) throw their forces into the line there to hold them back, while in the meantime the US (since this isn't our game) continues to sit back and make popcorn while we watch, and laugh (in this scenario being too stupid to realize that once the EU is gone they are going to entrench there and then springboard to come after us eventually).
Sure, sure, there are some problems with it, but the point is a video game justification for setting "Red Dawn" in Poland with various European military units fighting overwhelming odds. Assuming people could get around the flashbacks to the similarity to things that have actually happened (Poland being made the battlefield "of choice" for other wars in the past) it could conceivably work. Then maybe people can stop complaining about how the US is the focus of every shooter out there, and who we may or may not be picking on by making them the bad guys. Truthfully I kind of wonder if people would complain as much if it was Europeans fighting Russians...
Well, yes and no. Your right about the stockpiles of military hardware, but all nations do that to the best of their abillity. As far as the rest goes, your wrong to be honest, to be honest morality has been one of our big weaknesses globally since we're generally unwilling to take a militant stance to enforce our own interests. Right now were in The Middle East fighting a war, but we're using kid gloves compared to what our military is actually capable of. A lot of people don't like that point, but it's very true that we have the abillity to literally wipe out entire towns with a single non-WMD bomb, yet we go out there and deal with the problems man to man and gun to gun for moral reasons having to do with collateral damage.j-e-f-f-e-r-s said:
While we HAVE installed goverments friendly to The United States, and honored treaties to back some rather unpleasant allies, the same can be said of most nations. The differance between the US and Russia is that Russia does that kind of thing automatically, while the US either doesn't do it, or when we do it's after we've exhausted other possibilities.
A lot of people don't like the point about nations like Russia and China being "evil empires" for a lot of reasons. One is simply that people don't like wars, especially LONG wars where a lot of civilian deaths are not only inevitable, but going to be the determining factor to overall victory. Not to mention the simple fact that in a short term sense a lot of people are benefitting from trade with China, and their exercise of soft power while building up the military. Russia is terrifying to a lot of nations like those in Europe BECAUSE they realize what a massive threat it represents even just in terms of being able to control fuel. A war with Russia is liable to amount to a lot of the fighting happening in other people's countries. One of the big criticisms of US policy is that in general when it comes to wars or potential wars our location means that we're very unlikely to actually see fighting on American soil and then deal with problems like unexploded munitions all over the place for the next thirty years.
The US is by no means perfect despite how some people might present it, but in the end we can be reasoned with, and whether people want to accept it or not morality is a concern with us, if anything it's more of a concern than it should be. In comparison China and Russia generally can't be reasoned with in the final equasion. For example with the recent invasion of Georgia and the cutting off of the fuel going into Europe it wasn't so much EU diplomacy that resolved it as much as the attitudes of the US. The reason why the conflict went from the Georgia invasion, to discussions about Polish missle bases, to the fuel being cut off is that Russia was basically interested in placing missle bases in Georgia which is on the border of the EU to threaten it sort of like what happened with the Cuban Missle Crisis, and thus have direct military leverage on the EU. The response more or or less "it doesn't matter because the US saw this possibility, and we have bases in poland already... and oh yeah, all that missle interception technology that upsets you due to the old USSR treaties, guess what it's using" not to mention the simple fact that we probably had offensive missle sites there as well (even if nobody said that, you can read between the lines). As a result Russia threatened poland including potential nuclear force, but it didn't much matter in the end. The fuel cut off was largely a leveraging technique. It didn't work because it was pretty obvious that their only solution was going to be an invasion of Poland if they wanted that kind of pressure, and the US made it clear it would probably pull out of the Middle East and intervene if it came to that. The bottom line is that Georgia wasn't going to be the big strategic asset that Russia hoped it would be, somewhat accepted that they were penned in for the moment, and more or less pulled out of Georgia.
It's not covered that way, but that's a basic summary of events. In comparison the US has only engaged in anything close to offensive warfare in recent history after massive antagonism and even so it's been more of a police action than a real war. In general most criticisms of "The War On Terror" have to do with it's legality, and are made because those arguements matter to the US, and do bug us. In comparison Russia really doesn't care, which is why their own illegal invasions don't get the same amount of traffic.
It's also noteworthy that for the most part the US hasn't been engaging in assasination of world leaders, even if we could save ourselves some major headaches that way. Guys like Chavez are paranoid about it, and have freaked out over games like "Mercenaries 2" because of it, but in general we haven't been involved in anything similar to what you've seen in Ukraine, and if we were we'd be concerned about it if things played out the same way. In comparison Russia doesn't much care which is why nobody bothers to whine to them about it and prefer to try and pretend they didn't do it because it's easier than acknoledging a threat that more or less can't be reasoned with and is going to do whatever it decides it wants to do at any given time and most countries can't stop without help from nations like the USA (which of course leads to a lot of the resentment, nobody likes to think they aren't in control of their own destiny and their fate is dependant on being able to sway someone else who technically doesn't have to listen to them if it doesn't want to).
Really the last attempt to whack a world leader the US is known to be involved in (anything like the Ukraine) was Cuba. The results to that were mixed. Publically it was a failure. However there is a bit of supporting evidence that we actually killed Castro pretty early on, and sort of killed him several times. Castro being one of those world leaders that was famous for using a lot of body doubles and impersonators. Where the real Castro died, various stand ins took over, and the guy that we see now as Castro isn't the real Castro. It's conspiricy fodder, and nobody is ever likely to know the truth for sure (at leas publically), but if you've looked into it you'd find things like people using photo recognition technology to point out subtle differances in bone structure, body language, and other things over a period of time that generally can't be accounted for. Not to mention signifigant differances in his signature apparently, and the point that where Castro originally loved baseball and signed baseballs for visitors, he got tired of this and took a differant attitude. The reason being concerns that people would start checking the signatures on them more closely (and apparently some people have). Back during Desert Storm and the beginnings of the Iraq invasion you saw some rumbling about this because of Saddam's usage of body doubles, and point pointing out that even if we got him, it might not matter since confirming the kill would be difficult especially if he set it up so his decoys would fill in. A lot was said here and there about Castro and those theories, and the point that there was no real way to tell and be 100% positive especially when your only going to see the leader in question in the media or under very controlled circumstances. The camera lens no longer being the "window to truth" that it once was as well, with such deceptions actually being easier than they were during the time Castro was in his heyday. It's also theorized by some that the changes in policy involving Cuba have to do with the current "Castro" as much as anything. Differant guys doing slightly differant things in the role. At any rate, this kind of situation is exactly the reason why various dictators use body doubles, it can be a deterrant against assasination since you never know for sure, and even if you do, it's a matter of getting the public to accept that the guy they are dealing with is the dupe as opposed to the original (which is hard if they did it right).
Some major digressions from the point, but some stuff to think about even if we wind up having to agree to disagree.
Seeing as the games industry is predominantly sold to American markets, or markets which would view America as more of an ally then Russia, it is not that suprising that they reflect American viewpoints. I imagine that if games were designed for the Chinese we would see much more unflattering portrayls of the West and whitewashing of chinese history.j-e-f-f-e-r-s said:
While I can see how maybe some people just aren't letting the cold war go yet, there's also some amount of concern among some people that there's a small but worrying movement in Russia of people who want things to go back to communist, authoritarian rule.
We've also recently seen the russian state entertaining easily abused powers which previously were hallmarks of state repression of dissidents, such as the punitive psychotherapy and other aggressive measures mentioned in this incident:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-12645902
tl;dr - the cold war may be dead but the lingering cultural ailments that it caused in Russia are not, and it's understandable (if paranoid) to be a little afraid of them being a menace on the world stage once again.
We've also recently seen the russian state entertaining easily abused powers which previously were hallmarks of state repression of dissidents, such as the punitive psychotherapy and other aggressive measures mentioned in this incident:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-12645902
tl;dr - the cold war may be dead but the lingering cultural ailments that it caused in Russia are not, and it's understandable (if paranoid) to be a little afraid of them being a menace on the world stage once again.