Ummmmmm what exactly was the meaning of this comment by one of the developers?

[Rogue_Leader]

I just heard about this game in the recent preview posted on Gamespot. Bad ass looking game BTW. However, there was one part of the article I DEFINITELY DID NOT like.

I caught this bit in the recent Gamespot article:


Producer John Johnson explains that Relic believes the war actually still has a lot to offer in terms of telling a compelling story. "World War II is modern mythology," explains Johnson. "Unlike something like Star Wars, the war doesn't have clear-cut good and evil sides. This is what makes the war interesting." And in keeping with Relic's goal of creating action-oriented gameplay, Johnson suggests that Company of Heroes may very well come to resemble recent shooters, like Medal of Honor and Call of Duty, for being just as fast-paced and exciting.

The war doesn't have clear cut good and evil sides? Is this guy friggin kidding me? Look maybe he didn't mean it that way or it just came out sounding the wrong way, but that just infuriated me. Look I am not someone who is easily offended. However, I think most people can agree that comment is controversial and inciteful to say the least. I mean how anyone can possibly even think to say the Axis were not evil in their goal to conquer the planet and the horrible attrocities they commited in trying to achieve that goal is just beyond me. I have two grandfathers who served in this war. One who was in the Pacific against the Japanese and another who fought in the European Theatre against the Nazis. Look I am hoping that this was just a mistake and Mr. Johnson meant to mean something else. However, I would appreciate it if someone from Relic could please clarify that statement and better explain what he meant.

To say that there was no good or evil side in WW2 is just flat out ridiculous. Yes the Allied side may not have been a saintly one (especially the Russians) but considering the alternative they were CERTAINLY the good side.

If anyone can please better explain what was meant there I would appreciate it. Thank you.

I dont mean to call Mr. Johnson a Nazi or anything but I feel a statement like that does warrant some concern.

[ceejayoz]

In the front lines, it didn't have good and evil. It was a bunch of conscripted, poorly trained, scared kids fighting each other.

Note the comparison to Star Wars, where all the bad guy troops are evil or faceless, and all the good guys have hearts of gold. Wasn't like that in WWII, and that seems to be John Johnson's point.

[Soulblighter]

There is quite a bit of difference between the average german soldier and the nazi ss guarding the concentration camps. Also take into consideration the fact that the game starts off in normandy, the allied forces were fighting ost battalions. As for the allied forces being the 'good' side, i suggest you look up the Bombing of Dresden.

[JMA]

Can't speak directly for John, but I was there for the interview and I think Gamespot is misquoting John.

I think John's intent was that WWII is part of modern mythology precisely because of the reasons that war was fought for.

Josh

[Rogue_Leader]

There is quite a bit of difference between the average german soldier and the nazi ss guarding the concentration camps. Also take into consideration the fact that the game starts off in normandy, the allied forces were fighting ost battalions. As for the allied forces being the 'good' side, i suggest you look up the Bombing of Dresden.

Sorry but that just doesn't cut it for me. Look I fully understand that not all Germans were evil and that many of them were just good and decent guys trying to defend their country. However, that is NOT what was being said here. He is aying there was no good or evil side. Now look even though not every German who fought for the Nazis was evil that still doesn't mean they were not fighting for a side that was evil Which the German Nazi machine was. OH and as for the Allies bombing of Dresden yes that was clearly a morally wrong act. However, the Nazis largely brought this stuff on themselves. Plus lets not forget it was the Nazis who relentlessly bombed civilians in Britain, Russia and other countries long before the allies ever did. Obviously that action was wrong but the wrongs committed by the allies pale in the face of Hitler's.


I think John's intent was that WWII is part of modern mythology precisely because of the reasons that war was fought for.


Well I agree with that point and I understood that but that still doesn't explain what he meant by there being no good or evil side. I wish Mr. Johnson would please either clarify or correct that statement. I mean I dont think there is a historian out there (at least any sane one) who wouldn't admit that there CLEARLY were boundaries of good and evil in WW2 between the allies and the axis.

I am gonna give John the benefit of the doubt and believe for the time being he was just misquoted of made an error when speaking. At least I hope.

[TheLoneKnight]

The Nazi side didn't seem evil to the Nazis. :D'

Both sides initially viewed their side as the good and righteous one. Perhaps that's what he meant? You can play either side and feel like you're doing something good? (Despite, of course, the massive "human rights" violations, and similar occurrences).

For the most part it seemed to me that the initial conquests of WW2 were Germans taking back the land that they had taken (or had previously owned) before and during WW1. I imagine that they would have been pretty P.O.ed at the French, British, and other factions for taking so much away from them.

'course, they started it.. ^^;

[Moe]

OH and as for the Allies bombing of Dresden yes that was clearly a morally wrong act. However, the Nazis largely brought this stuff on themselves

You just showed yourself that it wasn't all good vs evil. Both sides did some pretty nasty stuff - I'm not talking about whether it was necessary from a strategic point of view or not, I'm talking about the civilians killed in the firestorms of Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

[Starfisher]

Yeah. The rebels in star wars never melted civilians.

Plus, they probably took him out of context and you are reading his quote too literally in order to remain angry. On the front lines, where the game takes places, both sides were simply killing each other. Prisoners got shot, stuff got looted, morals were loose, etc. On the grand scale, yeah, Hitler was bad so anyone opposing him would be good by comparison, but who is the evil party when two soldiers try to kill each other in order to survive?

[TheDeadlyShoe]

lez not get in another Dresden debate.

[dmille]

but that's what we do here!

we'll be doing it even more with an influx of WWII buffs.

[IcecreamLtDan]

Don't forget that some of us already are! :hi:

[Mr.Popo]

The majority of regular German soldiers didn't sign up, they were conscripted (just like many of the American soldiers were drafted, only the alternative for a German that refused to go most likely would have been a concentration camp, as opposed to jail) In a reunion of both German and American soldiers that fought during the Battle of the Bulge, one of the Germans broke down and cried, saying that he couldn't believe that they were trying to kill each other "just 60 years before." The SS = bad. The regular soldiers = no different than the Allied soldiers. It was a different story with the Japanese soldiers, but this game isn't about the Pacific campaign, is it?

I suggest you watch the final episode of Band of Brothers, "Points," to get what I'm saying here.

[ceejayoz]

Don't forget that some of us already are! :hi: :D

I'm big on the naval side of things. Doesn't look like CoH will have much of that, though. :(

[Moe]

CJ, having played NavyFields does not count as being big on the naval side of things... :p

[ÜberJumper]

Remember, the victor writes the history books.

[Mr Tyranny]

Actually the entire city bombing plan was started by Churchill after a lost german bomber dropped its load on a civilian section of London instead of its military target.. He used that as an excuse to go after german cities.. It's funny little bits of info like that that they don't teach you in school.. :mag:

[ionfish]

Tyranny: not to mention that, in 1941, it was a good strategy, since it got the Luftwaffe to stop bombing our airfields; at that point, they were mere weeks away from destroying the RAF's ability to protect Britain. As a side note, I did learn that at school, but we had a superior History department.

[No Surrender]

Not all Nazis were evil at that. Sure there were those who wanted to gas the Jews and take over the world but many self proclaimed (at the time) Nazis were simply patriotic Germans who wanted what was "rightfully" their's.

[Noir]

CJ, having played NavyFields does not count as being big on the naval side of things...

Actually...believe it not,it helps :D

[ceejayoz]

Actually...believe it not,it helps :D Heh, no it doesn't. I'd get frustrated at all the kiddos on their forums claiming that, say, the Bismarck had 18" guns.

[Noir]

I was thinking more in terms of inclining you to actually become knowledgable on the subject :)

[JJ]

Hi all,

This was actually a mis-quote as Josh mentioned earlier.

Actually the quote was suppose to read "World War II is viewed as modern day mythology, people look back at this war, and it view it in simpler good vs evil terms. Similar to stories such as Starwars where good vs evils is pretty clearly laid out and understandable.”

Hope that clears things up a bit :)
JJ

[Soulblighter]

Thanks for the heads up John. Go back to filming the THQ booth babes.. err i mean 'displaying CoH' for the media.

[Aces_High]

Even so, it is still valid to say that the line between right and wrong during the war was not as clear cut and simple as people view it today. I submit that, of the 5 major players of the war, no-one walked away with clean hands. Be it, Nanking, Auschwitz, Dredsen, Hiroshima, internment camps, death camps, gulags, carpet bombing, genocide, tyranny, or prejudice all nations were guilty.

To say that one side's crimes are okay because they pale in comparison to another's is not a valid excuse.