A first-person shooter that sacrifices story for game mechanics and multiplayer (y'know, at least games like Halo and CoD4 justify their mechanics in a meaningful narrative context which is at least functional if not exactly deep and involving) - is there really an audience for more of these? Because the genre might soon run into the same problem as MMOs with WoW - since multiplayer has no set duration, everyone who wants to play is probably already devoted to another game.
Are there really people that can say: "Oh boy! I really can't stand the Halo/MW1/MW2/Bad Company/Killzone/Team Fortress/ARMA/Borderlands/Gears of War/Crysis/MAG multiplayer, so I guess I'll like this one!"
At least they could try to mix things up. For example, that Brink game that's coming in spring includes Mirror's-Edge-style acrobatics and a garishly colorful art style. So you get to shoot people while vaulting over rooftops. I mean, it's still a multiplayer shooter so I probably won't get it, but at least it tries to cater to people that like a different sort of shooter gameplay.
I find it kind of silly that we're all discussing the plausibility of the game rather than the game itself.
I know it might bother some people who are more knowledgeable on these kinds of things, but if the game is designed well does it really matter?
The concept of the game itself sounds great to me, having thoroughly enjoyed Freedom Fighters.
I hope that it starts with small time skirmishes that gradually become epic in scope. Starting the conflict in Everytown Colorado and eventually leading a charge on New York City would be just fantastic.
Perhaps creating a sort of infamy for the player character would be great as well.
Not that good/evil moral bullshit. More along the lines of Freedom Fighters in dialogue references and gradual respect from fellow fighters.
It would be nice to have your PC show the grit of conflict through a steadily bearded face and accumulating grime.
If they ground the game too much in reality, I'll be extremely disappointed.
Having your squad capture a Korean fighter jet in order to assault the Empire State Building may not sound feasible, but is certainly the sort of scene I'd want in my fight against oppression!
Steve Butts: THQ's upcoming shooter puts players in the boots of an American guerilla, fighting in the resistance movement against a successful North Korean invasion of the United States.
Aaaahahahahahahaahahahahahahahhahahaha
*gasp*
Aaahahahahahaah
Seriously. I just read this out to my family in the living room. Everyone burst out laughing, even the dog. Just this ridiculous premise on its own has put me off. I know it's just a game, but come on.
Should've made it a Canadian Mountie Invasion of the USA. At least that's a bit more plausible. =P
You know from this post I assumed you were another American thinking your military is invincible...then I check and find out you're a fellow Brit. Fair play.
It is a little bit ridiculous I guess but, not entirely impossible. Interesting story in any case.
hmmmm...NK got hella pissed by 'a faction breaking from the gov. and then attacking its neighboring countries' in Ghost Recon 2... how will they react to this premise? I wonder :P
Placing the player/protagonist in a position of insurmountable power is not conducive to a dramatic scenario or an enjoyable story.
The makers of this game are clearly aware of this.
However, they are so attached to the idea of an American hero that they have to cook up a ridiculous scenario in order to have a America in the position of underdog.
Hence the scorn.
Actually, I can agree to that. However, they may just be basing it on the notion that some people might not want to play as an american asian, or african american. Scraping the bottom of the barrel here though.
Because some of us are tired of playing games where the main point is that USA is awesome and other countries suck and are just there to either invade or laugh at...
America was successfully invaded. I'm pretty sure that country doesn't suck if its managed to beat your air force and navy.
Edit: I realise that country sucks in real life. However, its a game.
Woopty-fucking-doo, do you want me to tell you how the game is going to end? Hmm... i guess... that... America wins a glorius victory and the world is then a happier place...
And yes, its a game... A game with almost the same plot as every other game nowa days... i would play a game where you invade the shit out of america. thats actually one of my biggest dreams when it comes to games...
I had a hard enough time getting through MW2 and it's Campaign's rendition of "Red Dawn Eat Your Heart Out" with all the scenery of gentrified, suburban strip mall landscape in ruins that practically had a bald eagle crying superimposed on it. Another game with a neocon, impossible storyline, though? I think I'm gonna pass. Russia invading the US was ridiculous enough, but North Korea?? I really cannot find myself seeing that joke of a country do anything besides starve their own people and whine for attention.
Placing the player/protagonist in a position of insurmountable power is not conducive to a dramatic scenario or an enjoyable story.
The makers of this game are clearly aware of this.
However, they are so attached to the idea of an American hero that they have to cook up a ridiculous scenario in order to have a America in the position of underdog.
Hence the scorn.
Actually, I can agree to that. However, they may just be basing it on the notion that some people might not want to play as an american asian, or african american. Scraping the bottom of the barrel here though.
Because some of us are tired of playing games where the main point is that USA is awesome and other countries suck and are just there to either invade or laugh at...
America was successfully invaded. I'm pretty sure that country doesn't suck if its managed to beat your air force and navy.
Edit: I realise that country sucks in real life. However, its a game.
Woopty-fucking-doo, do you want me to tell you how the game is going to end? Hmm... i guess... that... America wins a glorius victory and the world is then a happier place...
And yes, its a game... A game with almost the same plot as every other game nowa days... i would play a game where you invade the shit out of america. thats actually one of my biggest dreams when it comes to games...
Well damn, you seem mature. Of course America ends. What game wants to leave its main audience feeling horrible after completion? And same plot eh? Do you even play other games or just shooters?
The problem I always have with these games is that I have almost no attachment to America and even if I did, patriotism is somewhat of an American concept, even on forums I've found American people are always more likely to justify something on the basis of it's relation to America whereas the Brits tend to be a little more cynical and the Canadians always make "do you know we exist?" jokes
Actually, I can agree to that. However, they may just be basing it on the notion that some people might not want to play as an american asian, or african american. Scraping the bottom of the barrel here though.
America was successfully invaded. I'm pretty sure that country doesn't suck if its managed to beat your air force and navy.
Edit: I realise that country sucks in real life. However, its a game.
Woopty-fucking-doo, do you want me to tell you how the game is going to end? Hmm... i guess... that... America wins a glorius victory and the world is then a happier place...
And yes, its a game... A game with almost the same plot as every other game nowa days... i would play a game where you invade the shit out of america. thats actually one of my biggest dreams when it comes to games...
Well damn, you seem mature. Of course America ends. What game wants to leave its main audience feeling horrible after completion? And same plot eh? Do you even play other games or just shooters?
Well thank you, i do feel quite mature... And yes i do play other games, but thats not really the case here... All im saying is that it would be nice with a little change in these often political games, and not all this yankee loving stuff...
Nolanp01: This storyline is hilarious at best, what about the US Navy? There's no way Korea could invade the US, I mean seriously, are they completely out of ideas?
Now a Russian-Sino coalition, in which Korea is part of, could invade the US. That is likely. But not Korea, by gods no.
this is what i was saying, if sumone was to attack america they WOULD NOT be alone, and we as a country dont have the cold that saved russia, the small island coastline that has more or less saved britain, or the sheer numbers that makes no one want to attack china... chinas numbers, russian technology, korean craziness and we'd be royally boned
All moot, because you have nukes, and can always use them to get out of a situation.
Right: Cold wasn't the only thing that saved Russia, see food shortages; The coastline wasn't the only thing to save Britain, see the battle of Britain; No-one wants to attack China because they have nukes, not because they have numbers- see Korean War; Russians have inferior technology; Numbers are useful, but not so much when you transport them halfway across the world- imagine the logistics; No you wouldn't. If we're pulling allies into this, then you'd have much of Europe on your side, too.
foreign enemy crosses our border we'd retreat IMMEDIATLEY i meen we called for an end to the iraq war after a few thousand deaths.. imagine if a war with a few hundred thousand deaths on the first day crossed our borders, we'd be in a panic with no moral,
Retreat? What! It's different fighting a war on your own soil than it is fighting it somewhere else. Retreating in Iraq is no indicator, especially given the ridiculous patriotism in the USA. God. Think about things for a moment. You might consolidate, but you can't retreat if there's no-where to go. That'd be a surrender, which would never happen.
we're not even that good of soldiers compared to evenvietnam, andeven iraq dida goodjob beating us down... if they found a way around our navy we'd be in a serious war
Ugh. If the other major powers tried to invade it would likely become a pitched, old-style battle rather than the guerilla style wars you're citing. They would want to use their tanks and aircraft and would be thoroughly pwned by yours. As much as I might dislike the USA, the claims you are making as to your vulnerability are ridiculous.
You don't even consider the economic barriers to a war like this.
And then there's the fact that the last few wars America has lost weren't lost by soldiers on the battlefield, they were lost by protesters at home and bureaucrats in Washington. I mean, US troops won basically every firefight in 'nam and they've won basically every firefight in the middle east (most casualties are from IEDs because that's the only way insurgents can make the body count rise). The US won every battle in vietnam, for example, so I don't think the Army itself is the problem. An army is meant to win battles, and those battles are meant to equal a victorious war. I guess the states has found a way for that not to work.
As for how they could have won. Well, the VC recruitment methods were basically press gang operations, so, knowing that undefended peasant villages made fertile ground for roving conscription officers, the Marine Corps tried a little tactic called "helping them help themselves" and equipped and taught those villages to protect themselves. Press ganging became a tad more difficult if trying to do so would get you gunned down by the villagers you're trying to conscript. Some asshole general (and aren't they all) said it wasn't taking the fight to the enemy, when it was! It really was, and on a vital level. They were attacking their ability to rebuild!
Having braved so many firefights and fought your way towards a community of fellow resistors, you're criticized for bringing unwanted attention on the civilians caught in the middle. It's a great moment that turns your expectations on their head. Here you've been trying to link up with the resistance and, by the mere fact of success, have screwed up the lives of several innocent people.
Oh, joy. One of my pet peeves: games that scold you for doing things you have to do in order to advance the plot.
I realize that our medium doesn't always succeed in drawing upon the kind of intellectual and emotional resonance that media such as movies, television, and books seem to almost take for granted, but frankly this enterprise sounds like a rather shallow exercise in emotional manipulation.
In the trailer, the backdrop of it is the combined force of both North Korea and South Korea, as well as financial and military backing of China and Russia, coupled with the complete economic destabilisation of the USA, leading to millions becoming destitute and unemployed.
Under those circumstances, 300m people are easily walked over, especially since they are all civilians. Starving civilians.
So, before people trumpet the might of the ICBMs, the F-16 and NUKES!, just remember, they probably had to sell those.
Sorry Homefront but as I mentioned in other threads, the story is just too unrealistic to have any kind of immersion. I would just be facepalming the whole way through the game.
I actually look forward to Homefront, I want to see how things get to where they are in the game. 16-17 years is a lot of time for stuff to happen, so, not completely unbelievable, I hope the single player isn't neglected in place of the multi-player or vice versa.
blue_guy: The plot for this game is so silly, how do these guys
the socially crippled, dirt-poor bunch of loons armed with guns that were outdated decades ago, manage to invade the USA?
China could probably pull it off a few years into the future (assuming they somehow disarm americas nukes), maybe Russia could to. But North BLOODY Korea?!?!?
Actually, never mind. Just checked on wikipedia, North Korea has an army of about 9.5 million (mostly reserves) while America has about 2.5 million (mostly active).
No, your initial reactions were correct. Raw number are relatively meaningless in warfare, especially so in modern warfare. North Korea invading the States is just a laughably stupid premise on its face.
Having the members of the Shanghai Cooperative Organization do it would be the only way to formulate a latter-day Red Dawn scenario, if one insists on doing so. That's still in alien space bat territory, though. What would show a bit more courage on the developers' part would be to use the far more common and more likely scenario of America invading somebody else as the backstory, too bad that's not likely to happen.
Most shooters seem to suggest that the shooting justifies itself, but Homefront tries to place it in a context that provides a persistent motivation that touches the player's natural patriotism.
It might be patriotic for YOU, my Yankee friend, but believe it or not, the whole world does not actually live in America. Though I do live in North America (Canada if you're so curious), so I suppose the environs will certainly make me feel familiar, if not patriotic.
Also, as a few have said, the game's story talks about a post-peak oil America heavily weakened by a tattered economy and everything else Republicans ever did ever (if I can trust Jon Stewart), and North and South Korea have been unified into a single Korean Republic, which comes over and kicks America in the proverbial dick. And so I imagine China, still being relatively powerful, must have some ingenious way of remaining powerful even when the US has been crippled.
I'm fairly conflicted about this game; the premise is blatant jingoistic hokum, and John Milius' writing is like minus ten zillion points. But if the mooks are kept more or less faceless and don't talk too much, this may be the closest thing to an "It Can't Happen Here", or "Year Zero" game we can hope for.
Please, north Korea can barely feed its own people. How the hell are they going to keep troops supplied in a hostile territory? What happened to that shitload of military hardware we keep in Japan? What's stopping China from curb-stomping their asses with their military overseas interfering with China's primary trade partner? What happened to our mind-bogglingly massive stockpiles of WMD? I could believe China might pull something like this off, but North Korea? That's just insulting. It's like they're not even trying anymore!
I was laughing at the "successful invasion by North Korea" part, but I looked up the backstory for it, and to their credit, they give it a semi-plausible buildup to the conflict. From the Wikipedia article:
2011: North Korea's weapons program grows significantly, leading to sanctions by the UN 2012: Kim Jong-il dies. He is succeeded by his son Kim Jong-un 2013: Kim Jong-un reunites North Korea and South Korea 2015: Gas prices rise to $20 a gallon in the United States, destabilizing the country 2017: The US Dollar collapses and the US Military begins to downgrade its foreign presence 2018: Japan surrenders to the Greater Korean Republic, forming an 'alliance' 2022: The United States's economic system collapses totally 2024: Koreans annex many nations in East Asia 2025: GKR attacks the US An EMP hidden in a communications satellite is used to completely disable US infrastructure GKR forces seize Hawaii Cyber attack takes down hardened sites Korean troops control San Francisco US military is scattered
So it's an America that's been wrecked by financial disaster being invaded by a united army of North and South Korea and Japan. And I suppose in that scenario, China is just looking out for themselves and not getting involved either way.
Earthmonger: Also, is there a reason to protect the mother and child in that house? Without a family connection I doubt I'd feel anything for them. Hope the game doesn't force you to save them.
I'm making the assumption that most players are decent enough to save babies who don't happen to be related to them. I realizethat may not be the case.
It's not a scripted objective necessarily. If the Koreans get close enough to kill the baby, it's a sure bet you've already been killed anyway.
That isn't a bet I would take. Reality may be different, but in a game; nah. Wanna test the morality of the player? Place a bomb in a house. Set a timer for 30 seconds. In one room, you've got a mother and child. In another, you've got a shiny new sniper rifle. 30 seconds. Send the player in and see what they choose; the burden of two defenseless followers; or a tool that enhances their own survivability.
Unless they meant something to me, I know what I'd choose. Except in the event that the developers installed some cheesy Achievement for shackling that extra meat to my back.
Actually, never mind. Just checked on wikipedia, North Korea has an army of about 9.5 million (mostly reserves) while America has about 2.5 million (mostly active). Assuming nukes are somehow out of the picture, and that China and/or Russia are funding or arming the North Koreans they'd probably be an even match. The NK would need support from other nations though, otherwise the American air superiority would just end it all in a few weeks.
Those numbers mean about spit. The USA has 300 million people living within its border--NK a tenth of that, at most. If it ever came down to war, two million highly-trained (compared to the Koreans), extremely technologically advanced (compared to Chinese and Russian military equipment) American soldiers could hold off one million Korean regulars and eight million reservists doing the human wave until enough reinforcements could be trained to stomp North Korea into the dirt five times and still have leftovers. This is also true for China, Russia, and India. Unless America somehow lost its entire air force and NK still had its air force, in which case the Koreans would really need to learn how to fly their planes so they could win.
Anyway, yes the premise is silly. It's honestly about as silly as the premise for Red Dawn. Two huge, heavily-populated, nuclear-armed nations aren't going to go fisticuffs, that's amazingly stupid. Russia could never have beaten the USA conventionally, just like United States tanks could have never rolled into Moscow--they couldn't have even gained much strategically from fighting, because at the end of the day the other side would still have nukes, and that's all that was needed for negotiation. NK's got nothing to break that stalemate, certainly, but neither did the two superpowers, so I say: let it play out. Freedom Fighters was fun enough, hopefully this will be two.
America has 200.000 Up to date and highly trained troops.. The rest has pretty much just gotten through bootcamp and earned a little clap on the behind. I know that might be undercutting it a bit but with the way that SOME private companies earn a lot on weapons and therefor ínvest a lot of money in private research probably results in more effective weapons pretty fast. Keeping millions of soldiers equiped with that is pretty expensive. Also when you take into consideration that the US is in a /pretty big/ debt to China and probably also owes a bit to others. They just cant afford the advanced equipment you speak. Which is why they limitt the troops with that kind og gear to a couple of hundred thousand while giving the rest your standard weaponry that other country's even the quite poor ones could easily attain. I mean in Iraq you have heard of US Soldiers dropping their own gun for the Insurgent weapons (And thats ment as, theirs are sometimes even better) Which means that Standard Issue equipment in US is pretty much the standard issue equipment of everyone else. And the training of standard US troops, while high. Does still not make them into supersoldeiers.
Then again. Why even argue this kind of thing? THQ looks like they themself think the game as a bit of a joke so why dont we laugh with them instead of debate at them.
BrotherRool: The problem I always have with these games is that I have almost no attachment to America and even if I did, patriotism is somewhat of an American concept, even on forums I've found American people are always more likely to justify something on the basis of it's relation to America whereas the Brits tend to be a little more cynical and the Canadians always make "do you know we exist?" jokes
...huh?
Patriotism is not an American concept. Rather, it is a concept inextricably tied to the concept of nationalism itself, which arose in the 19th and 20th centuries, with some prime examples being the build up of national pride that preceded WWI in French, British, and German countries.
America has a few fairly strong patriotism memes going through it - ranging from the "fighting for freedom" thing that neocons toss around to the "real patriotism is critique and social change" that liberals toss around - but to call it a purely American concept is...kinda silly.
Specially when we're talking about a video game that includes North Korea: The only country in the world that is a necrotocracy, where the living are ruled by the dead.
If North Korea could export patriotism and nationalism, they'd be an economic superpower to rival China and America and Russia...and most of Europe...COMBINED.
As for Homefront...eh.
I still want my alternate history where the Confederacy won the Civil War, and for the next century, the USA and CSA bashed into one another, resulting in an alternate WWII that has Utah being a police state with Mormon suicide bombers, Canada is occupied by the USA (and Quebec is its own nation), France and Britain are fascist dictatorships fighting the Germans (who are still controlled by the Kaiser) and the USA has been socialist since the 1920s.
Pittsburgh is the stand in for Stalingrad! There are concentration camps for black people in Texas! Confederate tanks roll up the great plains! Bombs fall! People die! Stuff explodes!
Come on people, it's WWII, but it all takes place on America! The bad guys are Americans, the good guys are Americans, and so on.
blue_guy: The plot for this game is so silly, how do these guys
the socially crippled, dirt-poor bunch of loons armed with guns that were outdated decades ago, manage to invade the USA?
China could probably pull it off a few years into the future (assuming they somehow disarm americas nukes), maybe Russia could to. But North BLOODY Korea?!?!?
Actually, never mind. Just checked on wikipedia, North Korea has an army of about 9.5 million (mostly reserves) while America has about 2.5 million (mostly active). Assuming nukes are somehow out of the picture, and that China and/or Russia are funding or arming the North Koreans they'd probably be an even match. The NK would need support from other nations though, otherwise the American air superiority would just end it all in a few weeks.
Of course, the amount of guns per person in america would mix things up, but thats what the game is about.
you forget how ADVANCED US soldiers are.
Just a few of America's "toys": EMP nuke: can wipe out a whole country's electronics.
Power armor: A soldier that can throw a car? having super human strength? nuff said.
Stealth armor: This can make you invisible and can change camo on the fly.
God knows what else America has up its sleeve. Quality/quantity wins wars. Just because they have higher numbers doesn't mean shit. America has the clear tech advantage and that is how wars are won. These are the kind of toys that you can afford to have when 40% of your income from taxes goes to the military.
For the lots that says this premise sucks? First off, why are you playing video games at all then. Every video game has premises that, in the world of today, wouldn't happen at all. It's something called the Suspension of Belief, people. Second, read the information on this game!
A) It's not North Korea. It's North Korea, South Korea, Japan, and many former asian countries. Which is most likely Vietnam, Indonesia, and many of the island nations and other asian countries around China.
B) The US is doing horrible. It's fractured and on collapse because of the economy going worse than The Great Depression. What other country experienced that? The USSR. What happened to their military supplies? The former USSR has (*Supposedly*) been selling off their military hardware. Which would also include this Greater Republic of Korea having bought most of that military hardware the US has been selling.
C) In the guise of peace, Korea sent a communication satellite into space. But non-surprisingly for me, but would most likely shock the average joe/jane, that satellite was a hidden weapon. Which EMP'd the destabilizing US, causing more damage.
D) This isn't even IN our timeline. This is 25 years in the future, which can be a plausible situation with how current events are happening.
Those reasons themselves ARE WHY I'm playing the game. Because it's an interesting ALTERNATIVE REALITY version of current events.
I still want my alternate history where the Confederacy won the Civil War, and for the next century, the USA and CSA bashed into one another, resulting in an alternate WWII that has Utah being a police state with Mormon suicide bombers, Canada is occupied by the USA (and Quebec is its own nation), France and Britain are fascist dictatorships fighting the Germans (who are still controlled by the Kaiser) and the USA has been socialist since the 1920s.
Pittsburgh is the stand in for Stalingrad! There are concentration camps for black people in Texas! Confederate tanks roll up the great plains! Bombs fall! People die! Stuff explodes!
Come on people, it's WWII, but it all takes place on America! The bad guys are Americans, the good guys are Americans, and so on.
It sounds rather abysmal.
A first-person shooter that sacrifices story for game mechanics and multiplayer (y'know, at least games like Halo and CoD4 justify their mechanics in a meaningful narrative context which is at least functional if not exactly deep and involving) - is there really an audience for more of these? Because the genre might soon run into the same problem as MMOs with WoW - since multiplayer has no set duration, everyone who wants to play is probably already devoted to another game.
Are there really people that can say: "Oh boy! I really can't stand the Halo/MW1/MW2/Bad Company/Killzone/Team Fortress/ARMA/Borderlands/Gears of War/Crysis/MAG multiplayer, so I guess I'll like this one!"
At least they could try to mix things up. For example, that Brink game that's coming in spring includes Mirror's-Edge-style acrobatics and a garishly colorful art style. So you get to shoot people while vaulting over rooftops. I mean, it's still a multiplayer shooter so I probably won't get it, but at least it tries to cater to people that like a different sort of shooter gameplay.