What Ethnic Group Will Replace Nazis?

[Frission]

/snip

Truman supported France true. I'm not saying France's colonial attitude was justified either. It was repugnant. France was a former colonial power trying to keep it's territories.

Truman did provide assistance. When things escalated, however and France pulled out, the U.S stayed in because they feared that Vietnam would turn Communist and join the Chinese. Afterwards, however came Eisenhower, Kennedy, Lyndon and Nixon. Five presidents in total. So don't spin it as the U.S being completely blameless. The U.S fought an imperialists war. That was what was outrageous for a supposedly democratic country.

Like many events in the Cold War, America intervened in a proxy war.

I think you lost the point on torture. France used it during the Algerian War too. There's however a reason it's called "La guerre sans nom", the war without a name. It destroyed any credibility in France, and is still a taboo subject up to date. Torture destroys any amount of moral fiber you have. It's a crime against humanity and I'm surprised those responsible for the Torture weren't prosecuted for breaking the Geneva Convention. It doesn't matter if it was "new" or "innovative" torture. The fact that it happened is despicable. It also happened Abu Ghraib as well.

The U.S isn't explicitly evil,in fact it's one of the nicer countries. It has done some nasty things however. I'm guessing that if it had continued under leadership like Bushe's, it would have certainly become an "evil empire". So, in intent for a game, a future where the U.S has turned twisted is possible.

 

[BrionJames]

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.

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.

I think you could do it, take an average American, Hell lets say he's a retired veteran of a past war and put the player in his shoes. Then we conjure up a story around Big Government(?) and Corporations distracting the populus with meaningless entertainment, poverty, etc. and slowly leaching away their freedoms supposedly in their interest. Then somehow the conspiracy is blown, riots blow up in every major city. Our protaganist works with a group of American freedom fighters to overthrow the US government and military. Please don't tell me the logistics of this being impossible for a video game. It's a fucking video game. That aside I think it's something that in the right hands could be a very compelling game.

 

[SimpleReally]

Nice article this week.

I don't think mongols are completely ignored like what you seem to be implying, just check any fantasy game with centaur in it. they almost always have mongol features and are presented as a ruthless faction with no redeeming qualities.

 

[Sean951]

/snip

Truman supported France true. I'm not saying France's colonial attitude was justified either. It was repugnant. France was a former colonial power trying to keep it's territories.

Truman did provide assistance. When things escalated, however and France pulled out, the U.S stayed in because they feared that Vietnam would turn Communist and join the Chinese. Afterwards, however came Eisenhower, Kennedy, Lyndon and Nixon. Five presidents in total. So don't spin it as the U.S being completely blameless. The U.S fought an imperialists war. That was what was outrageous for a supposedly democratic country.

Like many events in the Cold War, America intervened in a proxy war.

I think you lost the point on torture. France used it during the Algerian War too. There's however a reason it's called "La guerre sans nom", the war without a name. It destroyed any credibility in France, and is still a taboo subject up to date. Torture destroys any amount of moral fiber you have. It's a crime against humanity and I'm surprised those responsible for the Torture weren't prosecuted for breaking the Geneva Convention. It doesn't matter if it was "new" or "innovative" torture. The fact that it happened is despicable. It also happened Abu Ghraib as well.

The U.S isn't explicitly evil,in fact it's one of the nicer countries. It has done some nasty things however. I'm guessing that if it had continued under leadership like Bushe's, it would have certainly become an "evil empire". So, in intent for a game, a future where the U.S has turned twisted is possible.

The US didn't go into Vietnam full force until Johnson and Nixon in the mid to late 60s. Up until then, it was just military advisers and money/equipment. Hell, Kennedy had a very celar time table set up well before his assassination. All because we wouldn't let that guy Ho Chi Minh into the talks after WWI. Silly President Wilson, you were so inclusive but still a racist.

Abu Ghraib had some terrible abuse, but it wasn't torture to gain information. At least that isn't what I have heard, though I was still pretty young when that scandal hit. I won't deny that the US tortured under Bush, but they kept it almost exclusively to water boarding and sleep deprivation. The US isn't exactly in favor of physical torture, and even within the interrogators, a fair few hated the torture because they knew it gave them less than traditional methods. If we wanted someone really tortured, we gave them to Egypt or some other 3rd party to keep our metaphorical hands "clean."

 

[Frission]

The US didn't go into Vietnam full force until Johnson and Nixon in the mid to late 60s. Up until then, it was just military advisers and money/equipment. Hell, Kennedy had a very celar time table set up well before his assassination. All because we wouldn't let that guy Ho Chi Minh into the talks after WWI. Silly President Wilson, you were so inclusive but still a racist.

Abu Ghraib had some terrible abuse, but it wasn't torture to gain information. At least that isn't what I have heard, though I was still pretty young when that scandal hit. I won't deny that the US tortured under Bush, but they kept it almost exclusively to water boarding and sleep deprivation. The US isn't exactly in favor of physical torture, and even within the interrogators, a fair few hated the torture because they knew it gave them less than traditional methods. If we wanted someone really tortured, we gave them to Egypt or some other 3rd party to keep our metaphorical hands "clean."

The part about Kennedy is true. If Kennedy had stayed alive, things might not have escalated so much. He certainly dealt with the Cuban Missile Crisis in a manner which didn't get everyone killed. Not contesting the point about Wilson. He had good intentions with his 14 points and the League of Nations, but he treated those of other "races" horribly. He had a bad role on Segregation.

The thing with Ho Chi Minh was that he was pretty nice. Vietnam was the one who invaded Cambodia and stopped the Khmer Rouge, no? Unless I made a mistake. They were the ones who stopped a real threat towards humanity.

The Vietnam War is a example of a completely useless war. It's infuriating that Bush did the same thing with Iraq. He even had the same lack of empathy and comprehension on the country down correctly.

The thing with torture was that I wonder who could possibly think it's a good idea. Did they watch too much 24? Abu Ghraib was just some monsters. Some really "bad apples" as the expression goes. There was after all someone who blew the whistle on that. I wish the perpetrators had stayed longer in jail, but oh well. There's no excuse for Guantanamo.

As I said, before the thread drifts so off topic it becomes a program on the History Channel, The U.S as a villain is more credible than Russia suddenly taking over the World. Not very much, but if there has to be an enemy that's "realistic" that would be it. You can't have the underdog feeling otherwise.

Either that or the Swiss suddenly unveil their evil plan for World Domination.It would be better if Publishers gave up on realistic shooters entirely though.

 

[bandman232]

Simple, the French.

Honestly I've gotten tired of killing Nazis because in the end I like the Germans, well the generations since then at least. But as for the French, I don't think there's been a time in the world anyone has ever liked them. They can be more smug than the English, more harsh than the Germans, and bigger assholes than the Americans. I really think they can be the perfect villains, and a delight to murder in the masses. But then again there's that whole surrendering thing they're known for, with that I say have it take place in Napoleonic Era when they supposedly had a lot more balls and it'll be perfect...^^

World War 1 wasn't the Germans fault, but they get blamed for it. That's pretty much what started the snowball effect that would lead to WWII.

 

[shengzingping]

Asian people.
The yellow skinned Chinese.
How about Filipinos?
We're a bunch of FLIP (F***ing Little Island People)
=3

it is scary that you always smile! you smile all the time!

Well, we Filipinos are very hospitable and friendly.
We always carry a smile even in the face of adversary.
Come to the Philippines and see for yourself.
To top that off you may get lucky and be very VERY happy tourist here!
*wink wink*
=3

 

[Evil Alpaca]

-snip

Sorry. I should have been more clear in my post. I meant that Mongols, vikings, and the lot did not progress technologically or even culturally very much. For every myth and story we get from Norse mythology, which actually isn't that much; they burned an destroyed hundreds of monasteries filled with records. I completely agree with your take on the European perception of these raiders as the apocalypse on earth.

Hence why I don't see them replacing Nazis as the current evil nation trope. Nazis were seen more than just a destructive force, but as attempting to build an evil empire. Orcs don't need motivation - their just made evil. Evil men on the other hand need some driving force and that particular niche seems to be filled by Nazis, and lately the Russians Soviets.

 

[TheLizardKing]

Fuck that shit it want to play AS Nazis.

 

[Nomanslander]

Simple, the French.

Honestly I've gotten tired of killing Nazis because in the end I like the Germans, well the generations since then at least. But as for the French, I don't think there's been a time in the world anyone has ever liked them. They can be more smug than the English, more harsh than the Germans, and bigger assholes than the Americans. I really think they can be the perfect villains, and a delight to murder in the masses. But then again there's that whole surrendering thing they're known for, with that I say have it take place in Napoleonic Era when they supposedly had a lot more balls and it'll be perfect...^^

World War 1 wasn't the Germans fault, but they get blamed for it. That's pretty much what started the snowball effect that would lead to WWII.

Yeah, I agree. But French people would still be fun to murder in the masses. I'd like to hear one in shooter say "sacrebleu" just before I fill his ass up with hot steaming lead. ^^

 

[Dogstile]

TL;DR Mongols hardly that bad, certainly not on par with the Nazis.

Life was also pretty sweet for Germans in Nazi Germany, that's just how it is when you're at the correct end of the unstoppable war machine.

Yes, but after getting slaughtered and conquered you would be at the correct end. Not the case with the Nazis. I know the slaughtering and conquering isn't exactly a cool thing, but still. They brought lots of great things, but they brought it with fire and sword.

I'm not saying they were awesome, I'm saying they weren't Nazis. For one thing, they didn't try to exterminate anyone.

Wasn't the main technique in fighting later on making conquered tribes be the first to rush the enemy so they soaked up the fire? I'd say that pretty much is exterminating, they probably didn't survive.

"Kharash
A commonly used tactic was the use of what was called the "kharash". During a siege the Mongols would gather a crowd of local residents or soldiers surrendered from previous battles, and would drive them forward in sieges and battles. These "alive boards" or "human shields" would often take the brunt of enemy arrows and crossbow bolts, thus leaving the Mongol warriors safer. The kharash were also often forced ahead to breach walls."

 

[TheVioletBandit]

I'm going to go ahead and nominate the English.

 

[Ekonk]

TL;DR Mongols hardly that bad, certainly not on par with the Nazis.

Life was also pretty sweet for Germans in Nazi Germany, that's just how it is when you're at the correct end of the unstoppable war machine.

Yes, but after getting slaughtered and conquered you would be at the correct end. Not the case with the Nazis. I know the slaughtering and conquering isn't exactly a cool thing, but still. They brought lots of great things, but they brought it with fire and sword.

I'm not saying they were awesome, I'm saying they weren't Nazis. For one thing, they didn't try to exterminate anyone.

Wasn't the main technique in fighting later on making conquered tribes be the first to rush the enemy so they soaked up the fire? I'd say that pretty much is exterminating, they probably didn't survive.

"Kharash
A commonly used tactic was the use of what was called the "kharash". During a siege the Mongols would gather a crowd of local residents or soldiers surrendered from previous battles, and would drive them forward in sieges and battles. These "alive boards" or "human shields" would often take the brunt of enemy arrows and crossbow bolts, thus leaving the Mongol warriors safer. The kharash were also often forced ahead to breach walls."

Still not as bad as systematic death camps for untermenschen. The kharash is insanely cruel but it serves a tactical purpose. The death camps were ethnic cleansing.

 

[timewornheart]

sorry about the earlier post didnt read the ruls until after

 

[timewornheart]

hmm...

 

[Frankster]

+1 to USA vote if its done in modern times, who else could it be really? They got a military budget that is equivalent to the GDP of entire countries put together.

Furthermore it would rather easy to make the GIs a hateful enemy if you make them really xenophobic and nationalist to the point that they constantly insult and taunt the player with national stereotypes such as:

Simple, the French.

Honestly I've gotten tired of killing Nazis because in the end I like the Germans, well the generations since then at least. But as for the French, I don't think there's been a time in the world anyone has ever liked them. They can be more smug than the English, more harsh than the Germans, and bigger assholes than the Americans. I really think they can be the perfect villains, and a delight to murder in the masses. But then again there's that whole surrendering thing they're known for, with that I say have it take place in Napoleonic Era when they supposedly had a lot more balls and it'll be perfect...^^

World War 1 wasn't the Germans fault, but they get blamed for it. That's pretty much what started the snowball effect that would lead to WWII.

Yeah, I agree. But French people would still be fun to murder in the masses. I'd like to hear one in shooter say "sacrebleu" just before I fill his ass up with hot steaming lead. ^^

So yeh make a gi say stuff like above and he will certainly look like a bad guy fast
Coupled with a protagonist thats european (french in this case so to make the above work?) or from any country that tends to get ripped on a lot, and you have both a good underdog and enemies that spout crap so it would be a pleasure to take down

This way rather then aiming for a race of people based on your own stereotypes and biases, you are reacting strongly to the enemy because they are actively taunting and dehumanizing you

 

[Grahav]

Just put a mod where you can customize the enemies nationality, skin color, gender and age and let people kill whoever they hate.

 

[ManupBatman]

To any Americans reading: Would you be put of if the main enemy of a game was your own nation gone evil?

Fox news would have a fit and it would become something for old nationalist to rally behind, but I'd be down. I'm have not a doubt in my mind that the arguments against would go as such.

A. NOT RESPECTING OUR TROOPS (at first I typed in "soldiers" but that word not really in our vocabulary any more is it?) !
B. LEFT-WING PROPAGANDA!
C. SOCIALISM!
D. BIG GOVERNMENT!
E. OBAMA!

Edit: Though if someone did do it, and more importantly if the team was American, I think history would look back at it as one of the first definitive video game art pieces.

 

[karcentric]

Would it offend anyone if I said Americans?

If so... fuck you.

A game I saw a while ago that kinda intrigued me was Reich, but it was cancelled.

 

[phantom495]

I vote the CHINESE............the communist chinese of course.