Would Americans play a game in which the United States is the bad guy?

[Strazdas]

I would go with no because when i saw games like these being made they often ended in contraversy and going as far as the backlash bullying publishers out of releasing the game.

As far as portrayal, I live in territory that was part of the Soviet Union and currently borders Russia. No, i dont get tired of showing them as bad guys, they are bad guys and should be shown as such. That being said i would like to see a game that portrays US as bad guys as well.

I so wish that East vs West would have been completed. Just look at the trailer, I want it. It was supposed to be a strategy game were you could play any nation during the cold war, and you would've even been able to unleash nuclear armageddon.

If thats your horse you should look into Darkest Hour, a stand-alone released mod for Hearts of Iron 2 that spans thtough WW2 into a cold war or you can just pick a cold war start scenario and actually play with any country. They tried to stay as historic as they could.

I'm sure Spec Ops the line has been mentioned before but if you are looking for a shooter where Americans are the bad guys then Spec Ops is the game for you! Basically you spend most of the time fighting rouge US military forces led by an annoying radio guy who plays rockin' jams while wondering if you might be a secret bad guy.

Spoiler: This is Spoilers about Spec-Ops: The Line

Quote the contrary, YOU are a rogue American agent and YOU are the bad guy killing actual peacekeeper troops and locals alike.

 

[Smygskytt]

If thats your horse you should look into Darkest Hour, a stand-alone released mod for Hearts of Iron 2 that spans thtough WW2 into a cold war or you can just pick a cold war start scenario and actually play with any country. They tried to stay as historic as they could.

How intuitive are the older Hearts of Iron games? I have to admit that I have only really played CK2 past the 200h tutorial phase. I've not touched another Paradox game besides EU4; and that was less fun and a very diferent beast than CK2 though. I have high hopes for Hoi 4 and that is what I am waiting for at the moment.

 

[Strazdas]

How intuitive are the older Hearts of Iron games? I have to admit that I have only really played CK2 past the 200h tutorial phase. I've not touched another Paradox game besides EU4; and that was less fun and a very diferent beast than CK2 though. I have high hopes for Hoi 4 and that is what I am waiting for at the moment.

Not intuitive. Even after you learn how its played. Though you played CK2 so you are familiar with the layout Paradox uses so thats a start. There is a Lets play where Developers play the game [https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL672001FC77FF4D9B]. Theres also the brilliant AAR made as a tutorial [https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/how-the-heck-do-you-play-this-game-a-simple-tutorial-aar.378841/] in their forums which is how i personally learned the game.

Also dont even bother with in-game tutorial, it is flat out broken by a balancing patch and impossible to complete in some cases. they never bothered to fix the tutorial. I learned this the hard way

 

[Smygskytt]

Not intuitive. Even after you learn how its played. Though you played CK2 so you are familiar with the layout Paradox uses so thats a start. There is a Lets play where Developers play the game [https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL672001FC77FF4D9B]. Theres also the brilliant AAR made as a tutorial [https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/how-the-heck-do-you-play-this-game-a-simple-tutorial-aar.378841/] in their forums which is how i personally learned the game.

Also dont even bother with in-game tutorial, it is flat out broken by a balancing patch and impossible to complete in some cases. they never bothered to fix the tutorial. I learned this the hard way

Oh, thanks for the heads up then. I guess the game is at the same level as Dwarf Fortress then, but I won't be checking it out at this time yet. I'll probably take a close look at it after I'm familiar with Hearts of Iron 4. That'd also mean that I'd know the basics of the series and it'd thus make it a lot less dense.

 

[Tilly]

All the Imperial officers in Star Wars?

There was always that massive continuity error where they never explained why exactly the empire hired loads of British people between episodes 3 and 4. And how they all managed to work their way up to high management positions.

 

[The Enquirer]

All the Imperial officers in Star Wars?

There was always that massive continuity error where they never explained why exactly the empire hired loads of British people between episodes 3 and 4. And how they all managed to work their way up to high management positions.

Maybe all the low level guys are Scottish and Irish but you can't tell because of the helmets.

 

[Link55]

I live in America and i can say that our culturedoes eemphasize that we are the best and nothing can stop us which i don't believe and find it bullshit, but personally i would lay that game cause after all it's just a game fiction just a story it's not like treason.

 

[irish286]

You do.
Well not you specifically, but America as a culture is pretty much built on celebrating war and soldiers.

"Starship Troopers" is a movie that satirizes that side of American culture.

America regularly worships their soldiers as heroes sacrificing to defend their country. In Italy, we mock and berate soldiers because they kill other people.

As I mentioned, if you grew up in American culture you can't understand how it's like.

Us Europeans have seen and done wars for long, LONG time. We're tired of it. Americans are still new to this whole war thing, plus they won in their first attempts, so it's reasonable that their culture celebrates it.

No, we don't celebrate war. We recognize it as an inevitable evil. That is why we prepare for it. That is why we celebrate our soldiers. Those willing to get their hands dirty defending us from those that want to do us harm.
Also, I find the fact that you mock and berate those that defend you disgusting. Anyone who would mock those that dedicate their lives to the defense of their nation don't deserve the protections that nation offers.

Your reply is the perfect essence of American mindset.

Here's the European mindset: we do NOT think war is inevitable. We do NOT celebrate soldiers, we pity them and their deaths. We do NOT believe the lie that war is about defending from those who want to do us harm because we know that by the final stadium of a war there no longer is a good guy and a bad guy.

One day, America will become old and will have seen as many wars as Europe did, and then maybe you'll understand why war is NOT necessary and why we should NOT celebrate those who go to war (pushing people to become soldiers).

That is a very ignorant view of the world. War is inevitable. You may not like that fact but that is the fact. Instead of believing in the truth you believe in the lie that your words protect you instead of the soldiers you insult. If that was true the Chinese wouldn't have needed that wall to keep out the mongols. Also, Mocking and berating soldiers as you claim you do, is not pitying them. It's denigrating them. And what I said before still stands on that subject. It's not that you got wiser. It's that you now have the US to defend you. So your soldiers aren't as important as they once were.

 

[CannibalCorpses]

I'm up for some more realism in games and Britain and America are the fucking worst scum of the earth when it comes to starting wars and murdering people and causing governments to fall etc. I'm English for the record

 

[irish286]

Except I'm not wrong and history has proven me right. It's not that war must exist, but that is DOES exist. Denying this fact is a rejection of reality and something no one should do. I don't really care who you make heroes of but making villains out of the people who defend you is wrong and you know it.
Also, my definition of fascist must be different than yours because to us you've been electing them for years.

 

[Mcgeezaks]

Sure why not. I'd love to play a game where my country (Sweden) are the bad guys, even if it's not possible lol.

 

[irish286]

Except I'm not wrong and history has proven me right. It's not that war must exist, but that is DOES exist. Denying this fact is a rejection of reality and something no one should do. I don't really care who you make heroes of but making villains out of the people who defend you is wrong and you know it.
Also, my definition of fascist must be different than yours because to us you've been electing them for years.

First off, I am obviously not denying that war exists. I never claimed war doesn't exist, so how did you make that assumption?
I said that we must not accept war as something that should keep existing only because it existed.
Guess what? In the past, slavery and legalized racism existed. Imagine if people thought the way you do and assumed those things should keep existing because they have existed in the first place.

Second thing, yes, there's no doubt your definition of fascist is VERY different than mine since you actually believe we've been electing them.
A fascist is a person who thinks only their country matters and who thinks violence is a good way punish anyone who isn't part of their elite group. A fascist is a person who, for example, might want to build a huge wall to keep people who aren't from their country away.

What we have in Europe is what in Italy we call the "right side politicians". They are not the same as fascists, even if on the surface you might think they show some similar ideas.
Trump is, instead, 200% fascist and a very extreme one at it too. I just hope he doesn't really believe half of the things he says, and he says all that stuff only to get reaction votes from certain types of people.

In fact, I will end this reply by saying that this discussion is entirely pointless and we might as well end it here. Keep believing that war is necessary, that a war has good guys and bad guys, and that soldiers are the type of people we should praise as heroes.
Sadly, there's nothing I can do to change the view of someone who doesn't want to change their view. And the same goes for me: I surely don't want to believe war is necessary and there's good guys and bad guys in it, and I certainly don't want to believe we should praise soldiers (instead of scientists and all the people who try to make the world better).

So, feel free to believe what you want.

First off, War will exist whether you or I think it should or not. Just as slavery and racism still exist. Unlike slavery or racism, the only way to defend yourself from war is to take part in war.
Second, "Fascism: a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition"
By the official definition, Europe has been electing fascists for years.
I may not support the guy(I was a Rubio supporter), but Trump meets none of those criteria. If anything he's a Nationalist.

 

[irish286]

Explain how he is going to be fascist. Because I still think you don't know what it is.
Also, that is completely misrepresenting what I said. If you can't be intellectually honest you shouldn't be debating. What I said was "the only way to defend yourself from war is to take part in war." How do you stop a nation that wants to kill you when they won't negotiate or want something so ridiculous that you can't possibly give in? Defending yourself in war isn't evil if you didn't start the fight. You're living the results of refusing to defend yourselves from the refugee thugs you let in. Maybe when they start trying to overthrow governments you'll learn war isn't something you can choose to participate in.

 

[Keagan Neal]

<<Trump is going to be fascist by virtue of putting America's interests above, and likely at the expense of, other nations, and being willing to use force to get his way. Because THAT'S WHAT FASCISM IS.
Example being: He's insisting building a wall between Mexico and America, all for the sake of keeping illegal immigrants out, without regard for Mexican relations, at Mexican cost. Regardless of Mexico's thoughts on it.>>

...Admittedly, I don't think Trump is Fascist, per se, but his angle does seem pointed towards being a bully towards other nations.
It's kind of splitting hairs.

What I said was "the only way to defend yourself from war is to take part in war." How do you stop a nation that wants to kill you when they won't negotiate or want something so ridiculous that you can't possibly give in?

{{Simple. Negotiate. No one is so unreasonable that they won't negotiate at all. Only simple, fictional characters are like that.
While, true, sometimes words alone might not be able stop violence, resorting to violence to stop violence is a tragic choice. Violence is an unacceptable part of our world, and should be avoided at all costs.

By thinking of violence as inevitable, you accept that violence is acceptable, and it's removal; impossible
(IE: A human being consuming the entire sun), as opposed to very, very difficult (wherein winning a Nobel Prize would just be really hard).

Violence should never be acceptable. Ending violence in our lifetime is hellishly improbable, but we can work towards a future where no one will ever consider use of force to get what they want.}}


EDIT: On topic: I'd fine playing a game where America is the bad guy, but then again, I'm generally cool with a lot of things.

 

[irish286]

<<Trump is going to be fascist by virtue of putting America's interests above, and likely at the expense of, other nations, and being willing to use force to get his way. Because THAT'S WHAT FASCISM IS.
Example being: He's insisting building a wall between Mexico and America, all for the sake of keeping illegal immigrants out, without regard for Mexican relations, at Mexican cost. Regardless of Mexico's thoughts on it.>>

...Admittedly, I don't think Trump is Fascist, per se, but his angle does seem pointed towards being a bully towards other nations.
It's kind of splitting hairs.

What I said was "the only way to defend yourself from war is to take part in war." How do you stop a nation that wants to kill you when they won't negotiate or want something so ridiculous that you can't possibly give in?

{{Simple. Negotiate. No one is so unreasonable that they won't negotiate at all. Only simple, fictional characters are like that.
While, true, sometimes words alone might not be able stop violence, resorting to violence to stop violence is a tragic choice. Violence is an unacceptable part of our world, and should be avoided at all costs.

By thinking of violence as inevitable, you accept that violence is acceptable, and it's removal; impossible
(IE: A human being consuming the entire sun), as opposed to very, very difficult (wherein winning a Nobel Prize would just be really hard).


Violence should never be acceptable. Ending violence in our lifetime is hellishly improbable, but we can work towards a future where no one will ever consider use of force to get what they want.}}


EDIT: On topic: I'd fine playing a game where America is the bad guy, but then again, I'm generally cool with a lot of things.

First off what you're describing is nationalism not fascism. Second, Mexico has done nothing to stop the tide of people flooding our border. They lost the right to complain when they started ferrying people from their southern border to ours. Third, just because you negotiate doesn't mean you give them what they want. You're right violence should be avoided but you can't just give people what ever they want if they start threatening you. All that will do is open the door to extortion. By accepting violence as an inevitability you're accepting reality and can then prepare for it. As long as there are different opinions there will always be a potential for violence. Violence should be avoided as much as possible but rejecting it's existence does nothing but make you vulnerable. The world you want to work for is fundamentally impossible.