Yeah. Conquest is done with armies, weapons, killing people etc. etc.Deviluk said:There is a difference between colonisation and conquest.Zulnam said:British Empire when they colonized Africa and Asia (what? It's ok to take other people's lands as long as History doesn't talk smack about you?)
I love this idea. As does most of the world.M0rp43vs said:America. I'm not saying this out of some blind America bashing, but with the military power that it has, any person opposing it would be an underdog and everyone loves the underdog. Seriously, last I heard they had bullets that superheat a room it's fired in and bomb that can hit a building and not damage neighbouring buildings.
And for added irony, have the main character be a Russian soldier after Russia joined up with the Ex-Axis and China to stop America's attempt to take over the world "to make it safer for everyone".
Obviously, someone else could word the premise better than I can but I still think it could be a good idea. Paraphrasing Yahtzee, I much prefered where the unstoppable advance warmachine were the people we are fighting against.
I do agree. Give Americans some credit, I doubt a piece of media would fail that horrendously if there isn't an American flag in every scene or an ending where the hero saves the day with a bald eagle on his shoulder while "America, Fuck yea" plays in the background.Li Mu said:I love this idea. As does most of the world.
But the core demographic for games and films are Americans (even if the game sells more outside of America, the target audience are always Americans).
Honestly, I think most Americans are smart enough to enjoy it, but publishers are terrified of taking a chance, so you'll never see it happen.
It would be an absolute, mini van sized, shitstorm. Can you imagine what even the 'balanced' news groups would have to say about it? Also how would you be able to make a situation wherein killing american troops would make you the moral superior? Whilst you could play as a bad guy it would be difficult to explain exactly why you should care about your scumbag. \it would make for an interesting premise but right now, in america at least, it is totally unthinkable.BrionJames said:you know what would probably sell a lot of games here in the ol' US of A? A game where you fight American forces. Not as a Nazi, or a Russian, or a Muslim extremist, because going that far and/or revisiting those old tropes would be a waste of time. I'm kind of tired of this neutral violence (PMC's, South American and African Warlord Militas and so on). I know publishers don't have the balls anymore to take a risk, but why can't games be about anything. An intriguing storyline, good mechanics, and a semi-lengthy campaing and NO QUESTIONS ASKED.
Not to mention that it's already been done, the whole "Opposing Force" contreversy not to mention a lot of games with conspiricy themes where you wind up fighting the US military. Heck in Prototype the US military is one of the primary enemies. If this guy just means fighting the military, and doesn't intend it to be based around any other nationality, we've already been there both in the fairly serious (Prototype) and the ridiculous (Destroy All Humans) and lots of things in between.Stripes said:It would be an absolute, mini van sized, shitstorm. Can you imagine what even the 'balanced' news groups would have to say about it? Also how would you be able to make a situation wherein killing american troops would make you the moral superior? Whilst you could play as a bad guy it would be difficult to explain exactly why you should care about your scumbag. \it would make for an interesting premise but right now, in america at least, it is totally unthinkable.BrionJames said:you know what would probably sell a lot of games here in the ol' US of A? A game where you fight American forces. Not as a Nazi, or a Russian, or a Muslim extremist, because going that far and/or revisiting those old tropes would be a waste of time. I'm kind of tired of this neutral violence (PMC's, South American and African Warlord Militas and so on). I know publishers don't have the balls anymore to take a risk, but why can't games be about anything. An intriguing storyline, good mechanics, and a semi-lengthy campaing and NO QUESTIONS ASKED.
Shut up. Please shut up. Or go torture someone and go to prison like you deserve. Because you are that guy, and you are still terrible.Rogue 09 said:I don't want to be "that guy" who people think is just trolling for arguments... but I'm sick and tired of torture getting a bad name. Guess what? You get a bunch of great information from it and anyone who doesn't think so has never gone through it. This isn't your brother asking you if you borrowed his car so he pushed you under the faucet. This is all encompassing pain and misery from people professionally trained to make you talk. Moreover, I'm sure it matters to the zealots whether the torture is made up or not. To them, we're the bad guy no matter what we do. The only way to win any war is to make a people suffer so greatly that they give up. We're not going to be able to offer them half a yogurt and we're going to be school yard chums.
You say that torture is a way to get back at people who we believe wronged us, and you couldn't be more completely wrong. Torture is a tool, a tool used by people long ago who built the ancient libraries of old you're moaning about. And does anyone really have a problem with vengeance? You can make grand old speeches whenever you want, and you can make it sound really pretty good, but the only difference between vengeance and justice is that laws are written by those to which no major crime has ever occurred. Anyone... ANYONE... who is placed into a situation where a family member is greatly hurt or killed (from malice) is going to try to exact vengeance. It's not just human nature, it's RIGHT. Justice is a word for what can be pushed through a vote by a bunch of snobby, self-righteous theorists like Yahtzee. Love the reviews, but... well, he's an Aussie. What can you expect?
This is also a good idea. Make the "enemy" a class of people that most people hate. It's a bit cliche, but I think I prefer the classics over more games on killing people that are not American.Iori Branford said:Not a race, and not a party. Racial and political divides come and go, arising over usually trivial disagreements and hopefully burning out after their time. It's socioeconomic lines, as old as life itself, that have cut the really deep wounds in humanity.
I'll take on rapacious robber barons, money-mad mafia, crooked corps, and evil empires quite literally any day
OK, Vietnam was Frances mess. Don't blame America for trying to fix what France shattered. The US hasn't killed hostages, and while there was limited torture in the form of water boarding and sleep deprivation, it was never the norm, nor were they invented by the US. I won't deny the coups, but the US hasn't assassinated anyone in 40 or so years. At least not officially. Well, I guess you could claim the drone strikes/Osama, but I dunno.rapidoud said:No one said the Americans...
Then again everyone is an 18-24 Caucasian in America so we can't have them harming our own audience can we!
Just like the Americans that complain about a gay superhero *facepalm*.
(I am Australian)
Not to forget all the crap the USA has pulled in the past 60 years; assasinations, coups to overthrow governments, the vietnam war, killing and torturing hostages, the invention of some truly terrifying torture techniques and perfecting them etc.
...What. You can't be serious. The mongols were obviously pretty nasty, but they progressed a *LOT*.Evil Alpaca said:Mongols, and such didn't actually progress while they were conquering and raiding.
Actually, studies have shown over and over again that you do get pretty bad information from it, because the prisoner answers what he believes the torturer wants to hear, not what the facts are. It's why systems that try to find out truth based on torture never worked in human history.You get a bunch of great information from it and anyone who doesn't think so has never gone through it.
Base it on any of the coups where Americans destabilized a democratic country and installed a brutal dictatorship. There's several possible examples for this.how would you be able to make a situation wherein killing american troops would make you the moral superior?
France started the mess, but the US made it far worse. Check out how the US handled it, particularly how they pushed a completely insane dictator. This supported the north vietnamese a *LOT*, especially after the suicide of the monk and the way the american-aligned government reacted to it. "BBQ". Need I say more?OK, Vietnam was Frances mess
Oh, America definitely made it worse, but the US wouldn't have gone in there if France hadn't come begging for help. Why would we? A foreign colony was revolting/being invaded, who cares? But our good friend France wants our help, so we send in some advisers and the like (Green Berets, covert ops) and help out. Then France leaves and we are stuck in a proxy war against Russia/VC/NVA much like Korea, minus the UN.zefiris said:...What. You can't be serious. The mongols were obviously pretty nasty, but they progressed a *LOT*.Evil Alpaca said:Mongols, and such didn't actually progress while they were conquering and raiding.
@Topic:
The vikings...people, you do realize that technically, both vikings and mongols are villains in a ton of fantasy games already? You just don't realize it.
Orks/Darkspawn/the Horde.
That's a combination of vikings and mongols, but mostly vikings.
Most people these days think vikings mostly raided. This is true - thats what vikings did early on. They raided monastories, villages, the like. But eventually, they formed armies.
It was the apocalypse - in the eyes of the mainland europeans. Cities burned, people were slaughtered in scores, or dragged away, never to be seen again. Entire areas were depopulated, and people fled. Eventually, they marched on the cities too - Paris, for example, survived against them quite a while, valiantly defended by a few scattered defenders under bishop Joscelin (yes, a bishop that fought) and Count Odo (think Aragorn). All the while, Karl the fat (yes, really), then king, tried to bribe the invaders - showering them with gold, only for them to take the gold and keep on plundering a few months later.
Sounds familiar? Quite a generic fantasy plot, isn't it, if you replace vikings with orcs.
The entire "evil army" thing is based on stories that in turn are based on tales from the viking invasions. The europeans then really considered them to be the biblical apocalypse, both due to the brutality the vikings attacked with, the language barrier, and because the early viking raids focused on raiding churches and monastories (easy prey, lots of treasure).
So yeah. We already have vikings as the generic fantasy villains. And I'm 100% serious here. Check out some old contemporary reports on viking attacks and how they described vikings and their methods. These stories are practically blueprints for how fantasy stories usually go, complete with the inept king, bad advisors, and a few valiant defenders holding out against the odds.
(If you wonder, Paris actually held out, mostly because the people of Paris were so extremely angry about the vikings that they refused to budge an inch, and kept blocking the vikings (who couldn't pass the town easily, because it controlled the river). So much for french people surrendering!)
Actually, studies have shown over and over again that you do get pretty bad information from it, because the prisoner answers what he believes the torturer wants to hear, not what the facts are. It's why systems that try to find out truth based on torture never worked in human history.You get a bunch of great information from it and anyone who doesn't think so has never gone through it.
Not once. There are individual situations where torture may have worked, but these are all of the same type: The tortured person is directly involved, and what they are doing is imminent.
Torture fails for everything else. Torture fails even harder because if you are unlucky and get a innocent person (usually, about 3 of 4 tortured people are entirely innocent, including victims of american torture in torture camps - rofl if you still think Americans "only" used waterboarding or think waterboarding is "harmless), your results are now complete garbage because you forced an innocent person to tell you things that aren't true so the torture stops.
Base it on any of the coups where Americans destabilized a democratic country and installed a brutal dictatorship. There's several possible examples for this.how would you be able to make a situation wherein killing american troops would make you the moral superior?
Fighting americans and their goons would indeed be morally superior there.
France started the mess, but the US made it far worse. Check out how the US handled it, particularly how they pushed a completely insane dictator. This supported the north vietnamese a *LOT*, especially after the suicide of the monk and the way the american-aligned government reacted to it. "BBQ". Need I say more?OK, Vietnam was Frances mess