Why are there no war games that let you play the bad guys?

I've spent the past few days playing Call of Duty 2 and 4 and it occured to me that you always play the so-called "good guys". You'll always play the Allies against the Nazis, or the Americans against the Russians and Arabs, the GIs against the Vietcong. I mean, seriously, is there no market at all for a 'simulation' that let's you fight on both sides of the frontline? Not that I'm dying to be a terrorist in a game (you can do it in Modern Warfare 2 at least, I think), but especially in WW2 combat it just seems so boring. Of course it's more controversial to control the very unpopular Japanese and Germans in a game that mostly patriotic 'muricans enjoy, but wouldn't it also be of interest to them, making it worthwhile to produce?

There have been many interesting events in war history outside the Allies' victories and frankly, I am fucking bored of the damn Normandy and every other fucking victory. Why not play a Vietnamese guerilla for once? Or Germany attacking Russia? Koei never had a problem with equal distribution. And don't tell me it's about ethics - they let you play the Sowjets in Call of Duty 1-3 and the USA in all Vietnam games. Only God knows how many war crimes were committed by them.

I'm also bored of being victorious most of the times. Wooo, I won again, woowoowoo. How about a war game that shows what war really can be like? A crushing defeat?

Not saying the COD games aren't great (I love COD 1-4), but I would like to play the opposite side for once, like Japan, Italy or even Germany.

 

Well, didn't COD 5 campaign play as the Russians and the Americans? Or maybe as the germans? Why do I recall some sort of game like that...
EDIT-Yeah, you only play as the Russians and the USA.

I can't think of any game that you play as the losing side for the whole game, unless you consider any Vietnam war game when you play as the Americans. But that doesn't consider it a defeat.


It would be nice for a change. A fresh, new game possibly. Either that or an easy way for companies to make new FPSes out of the same wars.

 

Red Orchestra 2: Heroes of Stalingrad lets you play as the Germans first if I'm not mistaken.

 

i don't think most people want to root for and play as the side that put millions of innocent people into death camps. any victory you have playing as a German or Japanese will feel empty because you know your going to lose in the end. America may not be so innocent but you get to kick the ass of the greater evil and people seem to like reliving it.

 

But that's just the point- it's getting old.

I'd love to see a game where I play at the Japanese. Germans too, but certainly not the concentration camp people. The Vietnamese, it would all be interesting. You could just modify the way the game works and not make it seem so "uphill battle" but more like a sad story.

The history books are written by the victors. So wouldn't you be interested by what the other have to say?

 

Yeah, I feel that this is true. But what about a game that involves some strategy so you can alter history? It could be a hybrid of strategy and FPS game - you choose a side, you choose the strategy, it's up to you who wins. In Japane there used to be strategy games like this, i.e. Barbarossa for the Super Famicom or several war games for PC/PS/Saturn like Teitoku no Ketsudan (oceanic war simulation) and yes, they would be very controversial.

And as for 'people don't want to control the nazis' - I think that's very true. But it doesn't have to be a glorification because if it's realistic, then there's nothing glorious about it. For example, a campaign could begin at the peak of power and then show the first defeats and how it all breaks apart until 1945. This way a game could illustrate the 'other side of the war' a bit better than Call of Duty or Medal of Honor already do. They only show the Allies and the battles with the allies, but what about playing Germans in Stalingrad, French resistance, Japanese soldiers in Oceania, Italians conquering Greece? You know, something else but the fucking Normandy. -_- There was so much to WW2 but with all the dozens of stupid war games, it's still been the same events all over again.

 

I feel like a big piece of the picture is that many people, game developers, and organizations are simply uncomfortable with having players take control of the "bad guys." Let's take a moment and think about Modern Warfare 2. Remember when the game was initially released and there was a ton of controversy over the "No Russian" mission?

Things like that are, I'm sure, a publicist's worst nightmare... granted, I'm sure that a game as large as any in the CoD franchise is destined to make great sums of money and, ultimately, these "blunders" like "No Russian" will eventually be forgotten. But still, it's negative attention from ignorant media giants that portrays developers and even video games in general in a bad light. I think that's something that is typically avoided, you know? Other developers see instances like the "No Russian" incident and are scared to push the boundaries. Not everyone responds to things the way developers intend, and often times, the people who know the least harbor the loudest voices in challenging whether or not something is right, wrong, acceptable, etc. For example, media and news conglomerates (go figure, right?) were legitimately outraged that such "garbage" was in the game -- and, sensationalizing said news, placed a lot of pressure on the industry. This happens whenever anything controversial happens, actually (GTA:SA and "hot coffee," the ultraviolence depicted in "Manhunt", etc.).

Furthermore, I just feel like producing a counter-narrative to things is often times looked down upon. It's convenient for us to stick with what we know and keep ourselves and others in familiar contexts, surroundings, and so forth. And sometimes, presenting the other side of things can be dangerous! Outside the realm of video games, think historically about progressive journalists (ie, "muckrakers"), journalism (for those of you interested in Japan [I know there are many on this board, haha], think about W. Eugene Smith's coverage of the Minamata poisoning and how he was "dealt with"), and even movies. Hell, I'd even say that when most people think of a "Vietnam movie," most people would say Forrest Gump... but for a counter-narrative, consider Born on the Fourth of July. The counter-narrative is simply never popular, and makes believers in the master-narrative become much more aggressive and hostile in preserving what has been traditionally been acceptable and adequate; along the way, they will often times do anything they can do make counter-narrative supporters look ignorant and stupid of the matter.

War, especially, is a touchy subject because it virtualizes events that actually affected the lives of millions of people. Let's consider WWII. Years after the war's end, historians and journalists started writing and publishing material that challenged the popular images and stories that dominated the press and media... yet, these counter-narratives were met with extreme hostility and outrage. For instance, when John W. Dower wrote War Without Mercy and depicted war crimes and atrocities committed by BOTH the Japanese AND Americans, many people in the US (especially veterans) were pissed off beyond belief and Dower was flooded with hate mail and death threats. In the case of Japan, when Ienaga Saburo published a book on the euphemistic nature of Japan's "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere," he received the same backlash as Dower did years later.

Uhm... I got a bit off topic, but you can see the general ideas I've presented! The counter-narrative is GOOD. It keeps us thinking about and challenging norms that we take for granted every day. But, some people would rather stick with what they know, and creators of content (ie, game developers) are reluctant to offer an unpopular, less-established narrative that could generate controversy and cost them not only respect and future opportunities, but also profit.

Just my 2 cents. :very_drunk:

 

Play Spec Ops: The Line. That's probably the only military-related video game ever that's anti-war, which is one of the biggest reasons why I dislike "realistic" military shooters.

 

No one seems to mention sega's popular ww2 strategy game that let you play as the Germans durring ww2, with its errie intro with hitler giving his speech.

 

http://togeproductions.com/games/1086/relic-of-war/

probably not what you mean but you can play nazis and is funnier

 

Install Command & Conquer, choose NOD over GDI. Done.

One of the problems, I guess, is that you need to write (and implement) a second storyline, increasing the costs of development - or end up with an unsatisfying ending. Imagine playing through a game's "evil" campaign, only to be crushed by the good guys - not because you suck, but because the game is made that way (due to not having an "evil wins" ending cutscene)...

 

Install Battlefield 1942 choose Axis over Alies, job done.

The thing is which faction is evil? Both sides believe they are just, it is all a matter of perspective, so for all intents and purposes for what differenc eit makes, if any, you are simultaneously the hero and the villain.

 

I was going to go with the same thing but Desert Combat but then I realized DC is a mod for BF1942.

I agree with the above in that if you were to make a WWII game where you play as the Axis powers you know you're going to lose but if you play a WWII game as an Yank/Brit/Rooskie you know you're going to win. What I'd like to see is an alternative history.

Get this, near the end of WWII Germany tried to ship Uranium on U-Boat U-234 but it was captured and the Japanese scientists on board committed suicide. Could start the game right as the radio signals get to U-234 saying that Hitler was dead and had been replaced. You assassinate your captain and you commandeer the boat in the name of the Third Reich. Somehow you get the U-Boat to Japan where nuclear weapons are successfully developed halting the Soviet Union's progression through China lest the Japanese set off the bomb in Manchuria.

Given Japan doesn't have the natural resources to mine Uranium, but China and Korea do, Japan will continue to mine in the area after taking back the land through ground forces. Ultimately the allies have to decide if bombing the ever living crap out of Japan is worth them setting off a few nukes or if nuking Japan is a good idea. Granted at this point in history we had no way to deliver such weapons short of dropping it from a plane so Japan striking anywhere beyond a ~3k mile radius is out of the question. Very likely to end the game with Japan having been defeated but that is under my assumptions of how the story would go in my head. Japan could end up like an advanced North Korea in this alternative history.

Alternatively you could back the story up considerably and start with Germany NOT breaking their treaty with the Soviet Union and in fact strengthening their "friendship" to the point where the Soviets decide to be neutral. The war would take a lot longer to fight with Germany having one less front to defend and you could end up with something like Germany occupying the whole of Europe. Ultimately I don't see how Germany would be able to maintain their power over Europe for any real length of time doing the crap they did

 

On NES: in "1942" you play the Americans bombing the Japanese fleet, even though the game was made by the Japanese. And "Commando" was called "Guevara" in Japan, and you played as Che Guevara and Fidel Castro.

 

That was actually SNK's Guerrilla War.

 

There's numerous flightsims that let you do this, at least when I played them in the 90s... Secret Weapons of the Luftwaffe comes to mind, as does 1942. And there's always Hearts of Iron! No FPS with a proper storyline though I guess.

 

Holly shit, where did you spring from?

 

I'll say, guess old members are slowly returning.

 

Thanks for the catch, I must have been asleep at the switch there.
Another one on NES: "North & South", where you can play either side of the American Civil War.