Preview: Homefront Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT | |
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. | |
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. Perhaps creating a sort of infamy for the player character would be great as well. Not that good/evil moral bullshit. 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! | |
can i shot the baby to shut its dam mouth i bet i will mute the game at that point if i even play it and at the moment that dont seem likely | |
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... | |
Woopty-fucking-doo, do you want me to tell you how the game is going to end? And yes, its a game... A game with almost the same plot as every other game nowa days... | |
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. | |
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 | |
I forgot that this game was even coming out. | |
Well thank you, i do feel quite mature... And yes i do play other games, but thats not really the case here... | |
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! | |
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. Pass, thanks. | |
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. | |
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. | |
Someone clearly has no understanding of what averages are. And that's really the extent of what I got. Somehow, this game sounds worse every time I hear about it, and it actually sounded interesting the first time around. | |
I wonder whether this game will be as good for non-American citizens. | |
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. | |
"successful North Korean invasion of the United Stated" I stopped reading there. Complete fucking impossibility... unless china does all the real work, which they would. | |
I actually think that an invasion by space-aliens would be more plausible. | |
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 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:
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. | |
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. | |
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. | |
Patriotic Americans defending their homeland from an evil communist/socialist nation. Why does this sound familiar, and I'm not talking about a game. | |
...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. I'm not the only Harry Turtledove fan am I? | |
you forget how ADVANCED US soldiers are. Just a few of America's "toys": 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. | |
Fixed. :) | |
awww... i wanna play as the Koreans, seriously i wanna see the USA as bad guys for once! | |
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. | |
why are people arguing over the veracity of the videogame?? its kind of a moot point, i mean, whatever the story is, if its backed up by and interesting game mechanic and an amazing missions i would play it who cares if they can or can not invade the US?? i mean, we Méxicans are already invading and you haven´t done anything to prevent it (hurr durr. J.K.) | |
This needs to become a book. Right freaking now. I'd read the shit out of it. | |
| Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT | |
Reply to Thread
With Facebook:
or
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here
