296: On the Front Lines

[Sebenko]

I'm just amazed at how many experts we have here on North Korean capabilities. To say they can't launch an attack is stupid. al-Qaida launched an attack on the United States.

I could launch an attack on the US if I really wanted, but I couldn't take over most of south east asia and occupy America.

 

[mechanixis]

Because. it's. FICTION.

Really, it's that simple.

FICTION. Make believe. Fake. Not true. What if. A look at realistic human emotion through the means of unreal scenarios - like sci-fi.

"Because it's fiction" is another excuse. Anyone who wants to make a game about sexually molesting children could say, "Because it's fiction." No, it would be lousy, stupid, oblivious fiction. There are no absolutes. "It's just a game" or "Because it's fiction" does not justify everything. A book critic does not refrain from pointing out the flaws of a novel just because it happens to be fiction. If "Because it's fiction" or "It's just a game" are absolutely correct, then there's no need for game reviews. Game critics might as well do something else, since they failed in their responsibility to ask critical questions about Homefront. Restricting critical comments to gameplay mechanics undermines the popular idea that games have become art. If reviewers can be critical of art, which includes fiction, then they should question the insulting fiction of Homefront.

Isn't the game set some 20-30 years in the future, after decades of North Korean imperialism? While "because it's fiction" is definitely an insufficient handwave, "because the times have changed" seems a bit stronger.

 

[KO4U]

An incredible career. I agree, I'd like to see more credibility to storytelling in games.

 

[Soviet Steve]

Because. it's. FICTION.

Really, it's that simple.

FICTION. Make believe. Fake. Not true. What if. A look at realistic human emotion through the means of unreal scenarios - like sci-fi.

Yes, when you drum up your story as a plausible near future scenario you are completely unbound by the constraints of reality. Homefront 2 is going to feature a global takeover of Molossia by means of gigantic battlemechs and a clone army. It's a gritty realistic shooter which is completely plausible, and no arguments can be made against that.

No sir. Additionally the utter rediculousness of the whole thing will also not serve to critically undermine the weight of the story.

I'm just amazed at how many experts we have here on North Korean capabilities. To say they can't launch an attack is stupid. al-Qaida launched an attack on the United States.

Yeah, remember the Al Qaida invading with a conventional army from Afghanistan via pegasus pony airlift and defeating the American armed forces, then occupying? Man those years sucked.

 

[Soviet Steve]

Is this still going on? Jeez, you think naysayers would have actually become more well-informed, considering that there are many, many people in this thread already pointing out that the game not only happens some 20-30 years into the future, but also features a long LONG build up in the opening credits to the rise of power, which, while unlikely, is not anymore far fetched than the dystopian future of Starship Troopers or any other military yarn of the 80's.

But then again, if you people are STILL griping over this, I'm not exactly surprised that misinformation is still the issue.

Actually I watched a let's play. EvilTim did one that managed to make it entertaining, four hour campaign with cardboard cutout characters and a terrible story even if you ignore the rediculous nature of it.

How is the entire North Korean invasion halted? They destroy 2 AA-turrets on a bridge

Yeah 20 years from now this will be plausible.

 

[Soviet Steve]

Now see, here's one thing from argumentation 101. When arguing about something, stick to one point that you're trying to make.

Yeah the distracted nature of the post is the result of me pulling an all-nighter, sorry about that.

As for the plot being no sillier than 80s action flicks I'll quote directly from the game's steam page:

* ´Discover a terrifyingly plausible near-future world ? the familiar has become alien in this nightmare vision of Occupied USA

Starship troopers as you mentioned was the filmatization of a book whoose primary task was to push the political views of the author.

Also, the war doesn't end, it's merely the turning point because the creators decided to go with the viewpoint of a normal footsoldier who only hears that "things are turning around", nothing more or less. It is a poorly directed ending, because it is abrupt and inconclusive with no resolution.

I thought he was a pilot? - Though to be fair the guy who is completely critical to the entire plan does get used as a meat-shield by the other grunts so I can see where the confusion might come from.

But then again, all this has zero bearing to your original statement, which you apparently even can't stand behind.

If you like I can give a detailed overview of the many, many plot-holes that not even thirty years can cover. Will take a little bit to write but but then again I could use the practice for my upcoming SRP project.

Although, that's what happens when all knowledge of your argument comes from a Let's Play video.

This seems like an unnecessary drop in tone. Suggesting that the entirety of my knowledge on the subject matter is made up of a let's play could be interpreted as you going for a personal attack. If you want me to cite more sources I can but for the game play all I have is the let's play.

I assume that the let's play is fair enough source material to be utilized as a source for the game's plot?