Preview: Homefront

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

8-Bit Grin:

Namewithheld:
[quote="BrotherRool" post="6.244327.8904889"]

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?

This needs to become a book. Right freaking now.

I'd read the shit out of it.

Thine wish is granted

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Turtledove#The_Southern_Victory_or_Timeline-191_Series

Here, you have 12 books to read, each about 400-500 pages long.

LordOfInsanity:
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 think it's safe to say that you just won this arguement..

Personally, this game sounds awesome, only I really wanted a game where the whole world finally gangs up on America for being such a twat in global/foreign policy, this is a game I would buy.. down with the capitalist pigs..

LordOfInsanity:
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.

What you mean is "Suspension of Disbelief," actually. And for suspension of disbelief to work, a premise has to be plausible on its own terms. A premise that draws on real-life countries therefore has to deliver some amount of real-life plausibility. A premise that takes a country as fucked up as North Korea and turns it into an overnight superpower had better have a damned good explanation for this; "the US went through another Depression" obviously doesn't cut it for most of us. I don't care how many depressions the US goes through, North Korea conquering most of Asia and then attacking the US in the space of fifteen years isn't plausible, at least not for me.

hitheremynameisbob:

Aphroditty:
...

Yeah, I was just about to reply to that post. Basically, North Korea gets that "nine million" figure because it has mandatory conscription at the age of seventeen. That nine million strong army includes about 40% of their total population. They're poorly trained, if they've received any formal instruction at all, and dismally equipped. North Korea's actual standing army is about one million troops. Even if you assume that NK could get them all rallied up to fight, there's still the matter of GETTING them to the US without the American Navy playing target practice with 'em all the way across the Pacific. It just ain't happening.

Um, has anyone actually taken the time to hop over to their website and actually SEE their the back story to this game?

1)Its not really just North Korea, but a United Korea that's taken over Japan and most of South East Asia. Figure they get enough of a tech upgrade from South Korea and Japan to pull at least close to US on the hardware front considering the amount of stuff we've shared with them.

2) America seems to have gone to hell in a hand basket, having to withdraw military forces from our allies, hence Japan surrendering to Korea (anyone who knows WWII history must know how much a kick in the balls THAT must be). A lengthy financial collapse would certainly weaken US military readiness. Just look at how much the Russian army fell apart after the Soviet Union fell, eventually soldiers would like to get paid.

3) Mr. Nation Wide EMP makes another appearance in a near future war story, and while the feasibility of it is still up in the air, you know its something that's been considered by nations the world over.

Is this scenario all likely? Odds are low, but who knows how the world might end up in the year 2027 where this takes place. At one time some of the strongest navies in the world were owned by the Dutch and Spain, and we can talk at length of the fall of the British Empire. Could the US be weakened by its own hubris to become vulnerable to invasion? It's certainly something to write about.

Jaegerwolf:
Um, has anyone actually taken the time to hop over to their website and actually SEE their the back story to this game?

Notice how I said "North Korea conquering most of Asia and then attacking the US in the space of fifteen years isn't plausible"? How would I have known any of those details if I hadn't read the backstory? For God's sake use your noggin, man.

North Korea (the origin of their United Korea) "taking over Japan and most of Southeast Asia" is not plausible in the next fifteen years. I'm sorry, it just isn't. South Korea has a highly-advanced and self-sufficient military complex and the sixth-largest military in the world. Japan's SDF has one of the region's most advanced naval forces. Positing that these will just fold in the face of North Korea's rickety military without American backing is straight-up silly.

As for America "going to hell in a handbasket," we've seen major powers undergo total economic and political collapses in our lifetime. Specifically: Russia. And yet, collapse or not, Russia is still a major power twenty years later and no sane person thinks North Korea can conquer it. Same thing with the US, to several orders of magnitude.

"'There's no room for average games in the world,' the developers told us,"
I like these guys.

Will be interested to see more on this game as it comes out

BobDobolina:

Jaegerwolf:
Um, has anyone actually taken the time to hop over to their website and actually SEE their the back story to this game?

Notice how I said "North Korea conquering most of Asia and then attacking the US in the space of fifteen years isn't plausible"? How would I have known any of those details if I hadn't read the backstory? For God's sake use your noggin, man.

Sorry, you must have posted while I was typing that first post, never saw yours.

Re South Korea and Japan: There's been a movement in South Korea for unification with the North for some time now, just lacked a leader on either side capable of getting it done. If Kimmy's son was able to pull this off so he still maintains control then that large, well equipped force goes from a problem to an asset. As for Japan, you've now got a large, well armed army with nuclear weapons pointed at your very crowded population centers and apparently no outside aid close by to do any good. No matter how good their navy is, they just might not have much of a choice in the matter. Considering they're economy has slowly been circling the drain for decades in real life already with no sign its going to recover anytime soon, they might not be in a position to fight anyway.

As for the Russian comparison, there wasn't any real need or desire by any nation to invade. Anything worth taking from them by force could much more easily be purchased from Russia at fire sale prices. Also you need to take into account that Russia remained relevant on the world stage because of its vast fossil fuel reserves and whatever heavy industry left over from the old Soviet days. These brought in whole heaps of cash that propped up the country until they could get their act together (at least somewhat). Considering we're talking about $20/gal gas and the manufacturing exodus that's already been happening in this country, I think the situation in the Homefront scenario is a bit different.

I'm not saying the story here isn't pretty low on the plausability scale, but hell if you told someone in 1995 that in 15 years the US would be going into year 9 of a war in Afghanistan that didn't involve Russia or Iran (officially) and victory was still not assured, they'd probably think you were nuts too...

You know, this story work really well as a parody of all these modern, "realistic" shooters (looking at you, MW2), but they seem to be serious about it. I mean, North Korea invading the US? And if the trailers are anything to go by a large chunk of Asia first? How? China, Russia and Japan are in the neighbours of North Korea and each one of them would stop them with ease if they did something like that.
How did they come up with this crap?

In fact, here's a story for their next game: You're an ordinary Swiss citizen who has to fight the cruel occupying forces of Liechtenstein! Or better yet, Liechtenstein conquered Germany!

Or maybe you're a Russian guerilla fighting the invasion forces of Usbekistan, which has conquered most of Russia.

Or maybe you're Chinese and have to fend off the Taiwanese.

Jaegerwolf:
Sorry, you must have posted while I was typing that first post, never saw yours.

Oops. Sorry.

Re South Korea and Japan: There's been a movement in South Korea for unification with the North for some time now, just lacked a leader on either side capable of getting it done.

The "unification" they mean is clearly North Korea conquering South Korea, though, which is a whole different ball of wax.

As for Japan, you've now got a large, well armed army with nuclear weapons pointed at your very crowded population centers and apparently no outside aid close by to do any good. No matter how good their navy is, they just might not have much of a choice in the matter.

Economic stagnation is a powerful motivator for militarism, which has already been resurging in Japan for the past six years (the fiction of the SDF being a purely nominal and civilian force has already been officially dispensed with). There is simply zero chance of Japan's deciding not to fight, and certainly zero chance that NK could compel them not to fight (far as conquest goes, you simply can't roll over more advanced militaries with sheer force of numbers).

As for the Russian comparison, there wasn't any real need or desire by any nation to invade.

But basically anything that goes for Russia goes a thousand times over for America, right? Territorial remoteness is a far worse problem for any invader. The option of just buying up American stuff cheap would be a thousand times more attractive. The American military at even a hundredth of its peak capacity is still a match for the next most powerful army in the world. Even diminished, American manufacturing's decline in the world is only relative to the other top manufacturing economies; even a shadow of it would still be formidable. America basically commands North America's oil reserves, which are still considerable (especially in Western Canada and the Gulf). And so on, and so on, and so on.

It's like HK_01 says. This is like trying to make it plausible for Lichtenstein to conquer Germany.

From the looks of a lot of the comments so far it would seem that not very many people know the actual back story to this game, because everyone keeps going on about how implausible it is for this to happen.

How far into the future is this? A couple decades right? North Korea (in the game) takes over a great deal of Asia (whether that includes China I am unsure of but I think so) and then takes on an economically-broken U.S. If the game's North Korea can take over that much of Asia by themselves there is no reason they couldn't take on a United States that's really hurting economically. Think of all the soldiers the U.S. would lose because they couldn't pay them.

BrunDeign:
From the looks of a lot of the comments so far it would seem that not very many people know the actual back story to this game, because everyone keeps going on about how implausible it is for this to happen.

Face, meet palm.

BobDobolina:

BrunDeign:
From the looks of a lot of the comments so far it would seem that not very many people know the actual back story to this game, because everyone keeps going on about how implausible it is for this to happen.

Face, meet palm.

Yeah I know right? What a dumbass.

I only bothered to read the first page and saw mostly just people talking about how the premise was implausible. That's what I get for not reading further on.

However I do still think it's possible, if highly unlikely. The stars would have to be aligned, etc.

If the U.S. experienced something on the level of "Great Depression" economic failure we would be really vulnerable. The only hurdle of believability I see is the whole "North Korea makes nice with South Korea and they become on united Korea." If that were to happen the rest would be entirely plausible.

I don't like that the preview criticised the game for "button-pushing" with regards to "war clichés" that make the bad guys "look bad"

Those were quote-marks, btw, not sarcastic airquotes. Just in case anyone gets angry.

My response would be that these guys ARE meant to be really bad guys. Proper oppression-state and all that. These "clichés" are clichéd because they, tragically, do happen in agressive occupations. I would welcome something more emotional, gripping and visually interesting than a map that slowly zooms in whilst the loading bar fills up and a gruff Scotsman tells you why Arab #143 (insert nasty-looking mugshot) should be killed through the use of 3D blueprints of warships and the occasional A.C.R.O.N.Y.M.

Yes, MW2, I'm looking at you

Danny Ocean:

pumuckl:

with chinese and russian backing that is incredibly possible actualy...

OT: i think the premise of the game is awesome, america is not unconquerable, in fact we'd be rather squishy if sumone gets on our soil

Justify that first claim. With Chinese and Russian backing I think it's still incredibly unlikely that a nation of only 27m malnourished, cloistered people could ever possible take on a nation of 300m well-fed, well-supplied, gun-toting civilians, let alone the national guard and army proper.

You'd be substantially less squishy than many other countries if an enemy gets onto your soil.

What you're not getting is that if they were backed by other countries they'd definitely stand a chance if they got on US soil. Most of our reserves and even a bunch of the national guard are overseas right now, still fighting a worthless war with no one important enough to wage war on.

Plus yeah, sure, lots of Americans do own guns, hell me and my friends go to the range all the time and own at least 3 guns apiece. BUT, think of all of the rich pricks and soccer-mom style families. Those families, of which there are many, have pretty much 'gone soft' and truly believe that owning a gun would make them bad people, or they simply 'don't believe in guns' As an American it pisses me off, but it gives this game at least a little credibility. I mean sure, people like me and my buddies would probably try and fight them off, but we'd be pretty alone unless we find a red-neck dominated suburb or something.

I'm not saying this possible really, because we still have tons of air-force bases and a full fleet that would give them hell if they tried. I'm just saying, for a game it's at least plausible.

What is it that people expect when they turn americans into afghan insurgents? To me it is glaringly obvious. Sadly, I believe this game plays out to the exceptionalism present in a large part of the developed world's youth, and most people wonn't even bother to make the connection.

From within the context, this game is trying to appeal to the whole "Oh, shit! They're in my backyard, gotta fight them off!" mentality. Of course, most people won't even bother to make the connection (hey, the game's called HOMEFRONT) but it's there.

You know, I really wouldn't care all that much about the ridiculous premise if it wasn't precedented by that idiotic American idea that North Korea actually wants to fight them.
Now, don't get me wrong here, NK clearly isn't too fond of America, but the grand North Korean plan doesn't go much further than "Retake South Korea, fend off NATO till they get bored". There is no place for actually fighting global superpowers or even invading them.

Anyway, about the game:
Looking at the actual situation, it only feels like the culmination of an exaggerated enemy image, misinformation and propaganda.
In a certain way this game only affirmates negative stereotypes and while I obviously wouldn't call the gaming medium unbiased, I still like to see as little as possible of that.

There's fiction and there's just using international dilemma as a jumpig point for your game. The latter should be avoided if all you can do is turn a complex international crisis into a "They are 100% evil, now kill them all"-scenario.

Unlike some posts I saw as I scanned this thread, I mean no disrespect to anyone here when I say that a successful invasion of the United States by anyone, especially North Korea, is damn near impossible. Now, I'm not just an over-patriotic fool. Being into military science and military history, though still not (yet) a professional, I have been able to look around and understand how such an invasion would work. I can honestly say that I don't see a successful invasion of the US being possible by any nation for the next 50 years, and at the least, if we are generous and give the enemies of the US the benefit of the doubt to say they get very powerful very quickly, 20 years.

Take China for example, being currently the nation most likely to get in a fight with the US. China's total military size, including reserves, active personnel, and paramilitaries, is about 3.45 million personnel. The US has a total of about 2.45 million. So, yes, they outnumber us by damn near 1 million exactly. That's about 1.4 Chinese soldiers per American. Then, take into account the total populations of each country. The US has near 310 million people to China's 1.3 billion. So, China certainly has the numerical advantage, since they could quickly build their numbers and industry with untrained manpower (training takes time, of course, so if they need to really sap their numbers to use human-wave, that is not ideal for time's sake).

The United States would, initially, have a vastly superior conventional force against the Chinese with better trained soldiers and higher quality equipment. In the ideal, rapidly moving modern war that is very likely in this day and age, the real thing to consider is the order of battle of a nation to start. Only in a total war scenario in which populations and industries are mobilized does one really consider the rate at which material and personnel strength is replenished. In addition, China's troops are not fully mechanized or equipped for proper transportation. US troops are, of course, very well equipped and mechanized.

The real issue is the fact that the US and Chinese are separated by 5,000mi of Pacific Ocean. Currently, the United States Navy currently has a total of 11 aircraft carriers, ten Nimitz Class and one Enterprise Class. Now, not all carriers would be in the Pacific Theater to fight at first, but the Navy has fleets in the Pacific Ocean, South China Sea, and Indian Ocean/Persian Gulf, or rather those regions in general. All such fleets would be able to challenge Chinese naval power. Additionally, American air forces would likely have access to bases, as it already does, in Japan, which would also be able to contribute the JASDF (Japanese Air Self-Defense Force) to the fight. The US also has footholds in South Korea, which is also a US ally and would be able to put its forces (however inferior to China's) into action.

North Korea would likely support China, but its forces would be negligible compared to either superpower. Now, given the US presence nearby, the Chinese would surely have something to offer. Unfortunately, the Chinese Navy is as yet insufficient to fight ours (I have heard that they are just now building their first carrier. I'm not sure how true this is and frankly it is surprising, so I don't yet believe it), though I don't have the specifics on the Chinese Navy quite yet. In any case, the addition to American carriers would come in the form of the second naval vessel which still serves a large purpose in modern strategy: submarines. US nuclear submarines have only gotten stealthier, and as a result, deadlier since the Cold War. Aircraft carriers are used to project firepower over long distances, and submarines are used to deny an enemy access to a region. Submarines are to naval warfare what parrying is to fencing. They prevent the enemy from using his projection of power.

This isn't even taking into account NATO. China, for purposes of remaining unrestrained by permanent alliances, is in none that I am aware of. However, America has NATO, and Britain, the nation ranked second in the world for power projection, would likely come to the aide of its ally.

So, without control of the Pacific, China would be unable to transport troops overseas, thereby stopping the invasion before it even begins.

But, Homefront has North Korea, not China. I think you see my point, though. North Korea is much, much weaker than China, and the if the US is not likely to be beaten by China, then North Korea will need to do a lot of improving, and the US a lot of falling into the crapper, before something like this is even remotely plausible.

unabomberman:
What is it that people expect when they turn americans into afghan insurgents? To me it is glaringly obvious. Sadly, I believe this game plays out to the exceptionalism present in a large part of the developed world's youth, and most people wonn't even bother to make the connection.

From within the context, this game is trying to appeal to the whole "Oh, shit! They're in my backyard, gotta fight them off!" mentality. Of course, most people won't even bother to make the connection (hey, the game's called HOMEFRONT) but it's there.

But for that to work you would need to portray the "bad guys" as sympathetic, acting out of actually good ideals, portraying their rule as not being all that bad and so on.
After all, not even America attacks countries just for the fun of it, there is an underlying factor of ideals, various intentions (even goodwill), morals and whatnot.
Then you get to questions like if resistance really is always justifed or if it's just action out of principle (especially if the resistance is just a small minority with most people being happy with the new regime) and so on.
Yes, that's very interesting stuff, but if your enemies are 100% evil, then I'm sorry, but there's nothing of that here.

Of course the game could be interesting; if it actually started with America invading North Korea and then losing and getting occupied all the while portraying North Korea as being on the same moral ground (or even above), I'd consider this a must-buy for me.
Not that it would make any more sense, but it would be far more interesting than the generic premise it seems to have.

You guys know that odds are we, SHOCK, don't win this, right?

You've heard them talk about doing a Homefront: London after this, right?

You've looked in to the timeline and everything therein about the unification of the Koreas under Kimmy boy's son (peacefully, apparently), and then the absorption of most of SE Asia, right? And that the US is falling apart at the seams? And that, if the US collapses, there goes most of China's economy? That doesn't really leave them in a position to do jack and or shit, does it?

I'd buy this storyline, yeah. I'd like to play this game.

Oh, and, to everyone comparing these US Guerillas to, say, the Taliban or Insurgents in Iraq. Know what the difference is? These guerillas are trying to keep civilian casualties down. You get your ass chewed out, apparently, for drawing attention to a civilian neighborhood. Not gonna see many car bombs in crowded markets, I wager.

Staskala:

unabomberman:
What is it that people expect when they turn americans into afghan insurgents? To me it is glaringly obvious. Sadly, I believe this game plays out to the exceptionalism present in a large part of the developed world's youth, and most people wonn't even bother to make the connection.

From within the context, this game is trying to appeal to the whole "Oh, shit! They're in my backyard, gotta fight them off!" mentality. Of course, most people won't even bother to make the connection (hey, the game's called HOMEFRONT) but it's there.

But for that to work you would need to portray the "bad guys" as sympathetic, acting out of actually good ideals, portraying their rule as not being all that bad and so on.
After all, not even America attacks countries just for the fun of it, there is an underlying factor of ideals, various intentions (even goodwill), morals and whatnot.
Then you get to questions like if resistance really is always justifed or if it's just action out of principle (especially if the resistance is just a small minority with most people being happy with the new regime) and so on.
Yes, that's very interesting stuff, but if your enemies are 100% evil, then I'm sorry, but there's nothing of that here.

Of course the game could be interesting; if it actually started with America invading North Korea and then losing and getting occupied all the while portraying North Korea as being on the same moral ground (or even above), I'd consider this a must-buy for me.
Not that it would make any more sense, but it would be far more interesting than the generic premise it seems to have.

Uh, what?

But, yes. Putting North Korea and the U.S at exactly the same moral ground is what I'm doing. To the layman there would be no difference: Zilch. No country wants to get invaded, no matter the set of ideals the invading force happens to be waving, just ask the Iraqis--the U.S kicks Saddam's butt, and what happens? Yes, the question was rethorical.

I doubt any Afghan insurgent sees the U.S troops as anything other than "100% evil." That's what I mean.

Got to see this game at a conference I attended and.. well .. in short it looked very very outdated. Hope the unfinished product gets a graphic overhaul.

Why would you invade the US? You're talking about a future defaulting nation, with little social services to contain it's growing homelessness, despite land prices being at a historic low.

Why would you want to be burdened by caretaking after 300 million angry poor people with guns?

Although the premise of the game is that the North Koreans aren't doing so much 'caretaking' as just being the definition of 'Stupid Evil' ( http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/StupidEvil ).

If that's the case why wouldn't they just use germ warfare and watch people die en masse in pain and suffering? Somewhat less 'Stupid Evil' than what the game seems to be making them.

The only message I'm getting from this game is "Patriotism makes people accept shitty standards in gaming and that gamers are ultimately childish morons". Atleast Red Dawn made damn certain that the Wolverines weren't nice people, and that war and politics is a genuine disgrace to the Human condition...

...this game just seems to be an excuse to shoot people with guns whilst waving a flag. Lovely.

blue_guy:
The plot for this game is so silly, how do these guys

image

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.

If you looked into the game more, you'd see that the story begins with North and South Korea merging, and from there its influence quickly spreads across Southern Asia.

PaulH:
Why would you invade the US? You're talking about a future defaulting nation, with little social services to contain it's growing homelessness, despite land prices being at a historic low.

Why would you want to be burdened by caretaking after 300 million angry poor people with guns?

Although the premise of the game is that the North Koreans aren't doing so much 'caretaking' as just being the definition of 'Stupid Evil' ( http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/StupidEvil ).

If that's the case why wouldn't they just use germ warfare and watch people die en masse in pain and suffering? Somewhat less 'Stupid Evil' than what the game seems to be making them.

The only message I'm getting from this game is "Patriotism makes people accept shitty standards in gaming and that gamers are ultimately childish morons". Atleast Red Dawn made damn certain that the Wolverines weren't nice people, and that war and politics is a genuine disgrace to the Human condition...

...this game just seems to be an excuse to shoot people with guns whilst waving a flag. Lovely.

The U.S. has a shitload of resources and farmland.

ultrachicken:
The U.S. has a shitload of resources and farmland.

Such as? China buys it's iron ore from Australia and Brazil, Russia has more off shore and land based oil reserves, The Canadians and Russians also have access to huge amounts of natural gas (of which will be the next 'Big Thing' in updating current automotives and conserving diminishing future fuel assets).

The Russian agricultural initiatives will eventuially succeed the US in terms of food production by multiple factors and will become the principle supplier of grain to Asia and Europe.

Devalued US currency means the US no longer even has the capacity to frighten the Lat. Am nations, of which the US turned into luxury sweatshops for decades through the IMF. A greater distrust and resistance towards economic neo-liberalism that pervaded such iconic reigns as Pinochet during the 80's across South America has risen. The South American Union will see to a reversal of this practice as Lat. Ams will start collectively bargaining for greater dispensation on goods produced in the region.

There is little that the US could ever possibly offer above what another nation could provide in greater abundance and with greater reliability.... apart from a cheap labour force.

PaulH:

ultrachicken:
The U.S. has a shitload of resources and farmland.

Such as? China buys it's iron ore from Australia and Brazil, Russia has more off shore and land based oil reserves, The Canadians and Russians also have access to huge amounts of natural gas (of which will be the next 'Big Thing' in updating current automotives and conserving diminishing future fuel assets).

The Russian agricultural initiatives will eventuially succeed the US in terms of food production by multiple factors and will become the principle supplier of grain to Asia and Europe.

Devalued US currency means the US no longer even has the capacity to frighten the Lat. Am nations, of which the US turned into luxury sweatshops for decades through the IMF. A greater distrust and resistance towards economic neo-liberalism that pervaded such iconic reigns as Pinochet during the 80's across South America has risen. The South American Union will see to a reversal of this practice as Lat. Ams will start collectively bargaining for greater dispensation on goods produced in the region.

There is little that the US could ever possibly offer above what another nation could provide in greater abundance and with greater reliability.... apart from a cheap labour force.

Have you seen all the farmland we have? I'd consider that useful.

Also, if NK were to take over the US, then its reputation as a global superpower would be sealed. No-one would want to fuck with the country that took over the US

Also, I'm not sure why you spent so much time talking about other countries, seeing as we're talking specifically about NK's fictional desire to take over the US. Stay on topic.

ultrachicken:

Have you seen all the farmland we have? I'd consider that useful.

You do understand that grain is a fungible asset? The principal concerns with fungibility are supply. Given that the US cannot produce as much grain, nor are located anywhere near Russia (Using Russia as the new terminal distributor of grain that it will become), and that Latin America produces so much already (and given the fact that Agriculture still only accounts for 4.8% of global gross domestic market) your point is moot.

Also, if NK were to take over the US, then its reputation as a global superpower would be sealed. No-one would want to fuck with the country that took over the US

Irrelevant, subjective, and foolish.

A: NK isn't a superpower.

B: The US soon won't beable to afford to be a superpower, so conquering it would be a moot exercise in moronic use of military funds, personnel and equipment. The only real reason one may invade the US is possibly revenge ... but given that in 30 years time this won't be necessary makes it ridiculously preposterous.

C: NK attacking the US would spur a reprisal against North Korea ... Why would the Chinese want the US to disappeare when they can rape it economically?

Also, I'm not sure why you spent so much time talking about other countries, seeing as we're talking specifically about NK's fictional desire to take over the US. Stay on topic.

Because it was your argument that the US has resources that are exploitable despite closer countries to Asia and Europe (in truth all high consumption nations) producing resources in greater supply and quicker delivery.

It would cost more to placate a US population in an armed conflict then it would actually be worthwhile.

You'd be better off spending that money on public services and government funded corporate interests to continue to take advantage of America's complete inability to stop it's own consumption whilst pricing it's own local economies out of the market.

Hopefully in a thousand years time we will look at situations like these and realize countries are utterly pointless and moronic constructs and that Humanity is better off without such corrupt, wasteful and monolithic pseudo-organizations.

Whats funny is it seemed really creative but when I looked at it, it somehow looks like a mix between MW2 and Resistance 2. MW2 for the guns Resistance 2 for the fact you basically are doing the same thing which is fighting off the overwhelming enemy threat in American. Hell they both start in the same city WITH THE SAME BRIDGE.

I may be able to stomach the idea of NK catching the states off guard and invade. However I find it extremely implausible that they could maintain an occupation for any period of time. Occupations are extremely hard to carry out. Especially considering the size of USA.

joes:
i think the game presurposes that america has been crippled by rampant un-regulated capitalism...which seems to be happening right now.

i hope the game stresses parallels to the iraqi insurgency, as we are currently in the north korean role in that present day occupation.

Ding! This. You guys saying "it'd never happen" are right in as much as it wouldn't if they tried tomorrow. Give it 30 years, and if the US slumps into serious decline, how would they pay for a navy? etc. etc. Things will not stay the same, powers rise and fall, and the US appears to have crested its wave and started to curl. Just my opinion.

Well, it does sound good. It's trying to reach a commitment between 'let's just make another shooter' and 'let's try to do something weird that a few critics will love and no one will play'. It's all in the making though.

THQ is puzzlingly one of my favourite publishers so I'll be on the lookout for this one.

Zhukov:
Any game that tries that hard to put Americans in the position of underdogs will get nothing but scorn from me.

Well me too but it's a hilarious kind of scorn. Like, 'oh wow really?' Then I play anyway.

I find the way most Americans think their country is the hottest thing in the world to be very amusing.

Danny Ocean:

Should've made it a Canadian Mountie Invasion of the USA. At least that's a bit more plausible. =P

Hey, don't diss the Mounties. They're the FBI and the Marines rolled into one. In Canada. You tried being the Marines in a country that's mostly frozen wasteland? Didn't think so.

Nikolaz72:

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.

America's weaponry (missiles, aircraft, vehicles, etc.) is currently, overall, the most technologically advanced in the world, so I don't know what you were going on about the States not being able to afford to make technologically advanced equipment--the US already has, even if there's been no persuasive reason for it to issue it to every GI. The F-22, for example, is a crazy-advanced (though fragile) fighter jet, but production on it was ceased because it was too advanced--there was no threat sufficient for it, so spending that money was pointless. Moving from there, the US debt to China would not affect its ability to defend itself for a few reasons, most noticeably the fact that if it came down to it the US could cancel its debt to China, or stop funding Social Security, welfare, and education, and start making weapons (all of which can be produced within US borders).

Secondly, I would seriously dispute your unsourced claim that America's military forces have only 200,000 troops who would be able to participate in combat. Consider the fact that ~200,000 American forces have been in Iraq since 2003, ~30,000 in Afghanistan in 2001, both of which are combat zones. This completely discounts combat-ready troops in South Korea and on the high seas. Certainly, American does not have 2 million soldiers ready and armed to fight right now--that's a logistical impossibility for any country. NK doesn't have 9 million troops ready to go to combat, for instance. There are significant reserves of materiel, however, and it has the potential to mobilize that number since, as I mentioned, in a time of national emergency the USA's ability to equip its soldiers would meet that minimum level.

And, as a matter of fact, I haven't heard of American troops in Iraq dropping their weapons for insurgent weaponry. Presumably there are many reasons for that, and I certainly wouldn't deny that, in terms of firearms, the US is more advanced; a gun is a gun is a gun, at some point. In most other ways, however, such as battlefield intelligence, personal body armor, camouflage, gun sights, the US combat trooper's equipment is far beyond a North Korean's, much less an insurgent's. Facing an aggressor (contemporary NK troops) from a strong defensive position (which the US would have if NK invaded) then it would be somewhat pathetic for NK to have a go.

Now, give it a half a century, we can talk then, but it's really difficult, if not impossible, to imagine things changing so fast that NK becomes a credible threat within twenty years.

Ok, I know this is apparently in a not so distant future where America is well... in a horrible state... and apparently North Korea... (or would it be the whole of Korea?) but one thing I wanna know is, America's allies where are they and what are they doing? Are they in a bad state they can't help... or have the just gone screw it... we can't be bothered helping... anyways... stuff...

North Korea invades the U.S... well... they're gonna have a lot of explaining to do about what the hell happened between the present day and the year this takes place in. From the idea of "massive economic collapse" for the U.S. and thereby ignoring NK to take care of itself as it conquers or makes friends with the countries of Asia... Implausible... but I wouldn't call impossible yet...

If the future scenario were Palin gets elected in 2012 then I could probably believe how the U.S. would go all to shit.

I mean if a unified Korea could possibly convince China that the U.S. was no longer a paying back investment... China could totally screw over the U.S. economy if it collapsed by refusing the kinds of loans we're getting now.

Basically, implausible... but so is the plot to Halo and I love that one.

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.

In this game, it looks like Korea has China.

Sheer numbers dude. :P

pumuckl:

Danny Ocean:

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

with chinese and russian backing that is incredibly possible actualy...

OT: i think the premise of the game is awesome, america is not unconquerable, in fact we'd be rather squishy if sumone gets on our soil

Not really.. You seen the weaponry their cooking up? They ditched a heap of it, "too expensive" even though it was mostly complete. -.- But the grenade system. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XM25
That would give their soldier such a big advantage that numbers would count for a lot less. Especially in an urban warfare setting. Plus if you count every citizen who has a gun, they have the largest standing militia in the world. And I don't mean, "Oh look, I have a pistol made 50 years ago :D", they have some decent munitions available to the average home owner.

Brains splattering on the window from an execution and a crying baby who watches his parents gunned down on the street corner are just two of the purely visceral, button-pushing moments that game presents. While it may be accurate, there's no real story context for it, and it seems designed just to make the bad guys so bad that the good guys seem like angels by comparison.

There is a point to that. You could say "Hey look, you're a super soldier and parachuted in from Eu. Now go kick butt". Or you can make them an average citizen, show their home under attack, then throw them in the fight. The first way, which it seems you would prefer? Is.. Well boring really. The second way is designed to have an emotion impact on the player and story wise, it sounds like it suits it perfectly. Bearing in mind I haven't played the game so only going on what you said.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here