Homefront, implosibility in games.

[Midnight Crossroads]

The story is extremely implausible. Any story involving an invasion of the US is pretty much stretching it. Strategically, the idea of successfully invading the US is laughable. It's not even the military an invader should worry about. It's the 7 and a half million square kilometers which require crossing an ocean just to get to that makes any occupation impossible.

Marching through Canada just makes thing worse. The Bering Strait is a nightmare. Alaska has very little infrastructure, and the Kamchatka Peninsula has none. The closet railroad is hundreds of kilometers away. Literally nothing. Then when you make it to Canada it's miles and miles and miles of nothing but frozen mountains and swamp until you reach Vancouver. You go through Mexico and you get mountains and deserts. Not much of an improvement, really.

Taking the logistics into account, any country invading the US had better have a very good reason to do so. The only people to ever do it were the British, and that was to keep their hands on their stuff.

So, yeah, completely implausible. This is bad for a game which takes itself so seriously. Now, if you want to make a tongue-in-cheek game where the commies invade the US, then the above doesn't really matter. Homefront would probably have made a better game if they tried to go for satire or parody rather than playing it straight. It would have been a breath of fresh air for lots of gamers tired of America gets invaded again stories.

 

[SilentCom]

I've played Homefront's singleplayer but not the multiplayer. The singleplayer kind of sucked and it's selling point was essentially "America gets invaded" and it felt sort of drawn out and redundant despite it also feeling very short at the same time... Just look at the game as another failed CoD clone trying to cash in on the America gets invaded premise.

 

[SilentCom]

it's story was written by the same guy who penned Red Dawn, so, right wing fanwank from a man who is remembered for creating the biggest cold war fanwank movie in history, you know just as a reminder to those who stopped caring about the cold war twenty years ago that the commies are still out there man.

so yeah, that's why i don't like homefront's story

Yep. This guy beat me to it.

Just for people who don't know what Red Dawn is, it's about attractive young American teenagers killing Spetsnaz after the USSR invades America.

Yeah, y'know.
'cause Special Forces < Schoolkids.

Ironically, as I type this, I have just discovered they're making a remake of Red Dawn.
With Koreans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Dawn_(2011_film)

Oh god no, kill it with fire. The last thing we need is another horrible movie that people will watch because of the "America gets invaded" concept. Xenophobia FTL.

 

[David Hebda]

Thoughts? Comments? Random flames of hate?

Just because some civilians own guns doesn't mean they're going to be particularly effective with them, if I'm quite frank and this idea that America being invaded makes the game unrealistic is quite annoying, as America was orginally invaded as its primary form of settlement. That's kind of how it started, I would be completly unsurprised to see it happen again.

You sir are either a non-gun owner or a foreigner. More than 50% of Americans own firearms, and Most of them are good shots. America's primary defensive doctrine is based on these two simple truths. 1) Most Americans own gun 2) Veterans are everywhere. In the event of a invasion of the contiguous 48 the citizenry would respond en-force and would have local veterans to lead them

I didnt read this because you spelled implausibility wrong...

I'm sorry.

You are correct, I apologize.

Yeah, the back-story was pretty much the most interesting bit about the game. You could pretty much watch the opening cutscene on youtube (it it's there) and that would account for %99 of the artistic or narrative value of the game. It did strike me as being a somewhat plausible premise, though mainly just the bits about Afghan/Iraq wars escalating, skyrocketing gas prices and causing national chaos. I think a game about a new American civil war based on that situation alone would be more interesting and realistic, but I live in Australia so maybe I'm not qualified to be talking about that sort of thing.

A new American Civil war would be an interesting story, and several have been written as novels, the problem is getting one oked by a publisher.

 

[Double A]

Thoughts? Comments? Random flames of hate?

Just because some civilians own guns doesn't mean they're going to be particularly effective with them, if I'm quite frank and this idea that America being invaded makes the game unrealistic is quite annoying, as America was orginally invaded as its primary form of settlement. That's kind of how it started, I would be completly unsurprised to see it happen again.

It also doesn't mean they will suck with them. Most US citizens who own guns are actually pretty damn good shots. Also, the way guns work, you don't need to be an excellent shot to kill someone with one (the same can be said of most weapons, really, especially when in an army-type-thing).

Also... uh... yeah, about Europeans killing Indians. You do realize the Europeans were much more technologically advanced than the Indians, right? And that diseases killed roughly half of the natives? And that they were almost entirely divided? And that in later years they were highly outnumbered? Yeah, I can see NK having the same tech and maybe the same size army in the HF universe, due to controlling more of SE Asia, but not the disease or any of the other major factors.

 

[Booze Zombie]

It also doesn't mean they will suck with them. Most US citizens who own guns are actually pretty damn good shots. Also, the way guns work, you don't need to be an excellent shot to kill someone with one (the same can be said of most weapons, really, especially when in an army-type-thing).

Also... uh... yeah, about Europeans killing Indians. You do realize the Europeans were much more technologically advanced than the Indians, right? And that diseases killed roughly half of the natives? And that they were almost entirely divided? And that in later years they were highly outnumbered? Yeah, I can see NK having the same tech and maybe the same size army in the HF universe, due to controlling more of SE Asia, but not the disease or any of the other major factors.

Biological warfare wouldn't exactly be unheard of in a modern millitary campaigns (well, it's covered up but you know what I mean), so it is quite possible that they might use the disease angle. In terms of tech its self, the Koreans were meant to sucker-punch America with an EMP satelite in Homefront, effectivly the enemy wasn't the Koreans in HF, it was an over-reliance on technology, or at least that was meant to be the tone from what I recall.

My overall point was, though, that America is far from invulnerable... but for the most part, I think most countries would rather leave Americans to the mess that is managing 51 different states and deal with their own problems, rather than trying to take on yet more land and trying to manage all of the people in said land.

You sir are either a non-gun owner or a foreigner. More than 50% of Americans own firearms, and Most of them are good shots. America's primary defensive doctrine is based on these two simple truths. 1) Most Americans own gun 2) Veterans are everywhere. In the event of a invasion of the contiguous 48 the citizenry would respond en-force and would have local veterans to lead them.

I'm both, but that's besides the point.

That doesn't sound so safe to me, to be honest. I'd imagine with the veterans going around, they'll just barely stop the jumpy civies from firing their hunting rifles/shotguns/pistols at everything that vaguely looks like it's wearing body armour and carrying an assault rifle, which would probably mean more than a few "friendy fire" incidents.

The effectiveness of a people with guns spread out all over the place, disorganised and probably more focused with keeping their family alive than going for millitary objectives, also depends on if the enemy is using psychological warfare, tanks, aircraft, chemical warfare and blitzkrieg tactics on important targets, assuming they're not doing all of that at once.

 

[ChupathingyX]

Play Mercenaries: Playground of Destruction, it's story is similar to Homefront's except more realistic in every single way.

The new NK president wants to unify with SK but his son wants to take over Sk so he launches a coup againts his father and declares war on Sk while also building a large nuclear stockpile. However, Ameri...err, the United Nat...err, the Allied Nations invade SK and help defend against NK and succeed. However, they never find the nukes and so the AN stays in NK to look for the nukes, while the CIA backed SK try to defeat the NK military and intelligence, the Chinese take advantage of NK's weakness and invade NK in hopes of taking over the Korean peninsula and then the Russian mafia realise this will be a good time to make some money and they get involved.

But in the end Homefront was just "omg America has been invaded now lets go kill some commies!".

 

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

You sir are either a non-gun owner or a foreigner. More than 50% of Americans own firearms, and Most of them are good shots. America's primary defensive doctrine is based on these two simple truths. 1) Most Americans own gun 2) Veterans are everywhere. In the event of a invasion of the contiguous 48 the citizenry would respond en-force and would have local veterans to lead them

I've said it before and I've said it again: Small arms will not save you when a determined military force decides to curb stomp you into oblivion. Giving everyone a firearm might have been a decent way to get lots of guys for the militia in 1776, but modern warfare is much more specialized and much more advanced. Your semi-automatic "hunting rifle" won't stand a chance against an enemy that employs air support, armored vehicles, UAVs and potentially WMDs. For examples on how it goes down, just look at Iraq and Afghanistan. Even the best organized and trained insurgents can't do much against Coalition/ISAF forces directly, but resorts to targeting civilians and the police. That's exactly what would happen if the USA was invaded (who would do it, however?), no matter how much gung ho you put in the idea that hundreds of thousands of civilians might make a difference. It hasn't in Iraq.

 

[Double A]

It also doesn't mean they will suck with them. Most US citizens who own guns are actually pretty damn good shots. Also, the way guns work, you don't need to be an excellent shot to kill someone with one (the same can be said of most weapons, really, especially when in an army-type-thing).

Also... uh... yeah, about Europeans killing Indians. You do realize the Europeans were much more technologically advanced than the Indians, right? And that diseases killed roughly half of the natives? And that they were almost entirely divided? And that in later years they were highly outnumbered? Yeah, I can see NK having the same tech and maybe the same size army in the HF universe, due to controlling more of SE Asia, but not the disease or any of the other major factors.

Biological warfare wouldn't exactly be unheard of in a modern millitary campaigns (well, it's covered up but you know what I mean), so it is quite possible that they might use the disease angle. In terms of tech its self, the Koreans were meant to sucker-punch America with an EMP satelite in Homefront, effectivly the enemy wasn't the Koreans in HF, it was an over-reliance on technology, or at least that was meant to be the tone from what I recall.

My overall point was, though, that America is far from invulnerable... but for the most part, I think most countries would rather leave Americans to the mess that is managing 51 different states and deal with their own problems, rather than trying to take on yet more land and trying to manage all of the people in said land.

Of course America isn't invulnerable, but that doesn't mean we're a giant fucking pushover like you make us out to be. And biological weapons? Really? So... you're saying that we just won't nuke North Korea in the first place? We have nuclear submarines all over the globe. Their missiles might reach Hawaii by the time Korea looked like Hiroshima, and that's taking into account the EMP satellite (wouldn't that crash after the first use? Not really relevant to the argument at hand, but just something to think about I guess).

You sir are either a non-gun owner or a foreigner. More than 50% of Americans own firearms, and Most of them are good shots. America's primary defensive doctrine is based on these two simple truths. 1) Most Americans own gun 2) Veterans are everywhere. In the event of a invasion of the contiguous 48 the citizenry would respond en-force and would have local veterans to lead them.

I'm both, but that's besides the point.

That doesn't sound so safe to me, to be honest. I'd imagine with the veterans going around, they'll just barely stop the jumpy civies from firing their hunting rifles/shotguns/pistols at everything that vaguely looks like it's wearing body armour and carrying an assault rifle, which would probably mean more than a few "friendy fire" incidents.

The effectiveness of a people with guns spread out all over the place, disorganised and probably more focused with keeping their family alive than going for millitary objectives, also depends on if the enemy is using psychological warfare, tanks, aircraft, chemical warfare and blitzkrieg tactics on important targets, assuming they're not doing all of that at once.

We DO have a military, y'know.

You're making out citizens to be a disorganized rabble. We most certainly are not. Gun clubs and police departments could easily wage guerrilla campaigns on any invaders, and that's just the already organized groups. Just because you have tanks and planes doesn't mean the war is automatically won. Just ask the Viet Cong how well that mentality worked out against them. Also, people waging guerrilla wars would probably take their family with them. I know women who are excellent shots, so wives probably would fight too, as well as kids over a certain age.

 

[erbkaiser]

Realize that Korea here is a Captain Ersatz for Red China, probably changed because of fear of the backlash if they went with actual China, and the plot becomes a bit more plausible.

Still quite improbable that it would ever go as far as depicted in the game of course, but that's why it's (interactive) fiction.

 

[Booze Zombie]

We DO have a military, y'know./quote]

And they will do a much better job than a millita any day, which was my intended point.

 

[Snowy Rainbow]

I mean, in the time I'm hiding behind cover and waiting for my health to regen, with the enemies spewing infinite bullets in my general direction with the aim of a blind man, I wanna feel like I'm in a real world, damn it!

Spoiler: Also: the U.S. isn't invunerable. As shattering as that is to some egos, it's all too true. You know why there are no major wars between some of the Eastern lands and America? Hmm? Because why would you! It's called trade. Money = peace.

 

[Still Life]

I didnt read this because you spelled implausibility wrong...

I'm sorry.

What?

I thought it was an intentional misspelling.

OT:

Wasn't the story drawn from CIA threat projections?

 

[Grouchy Imp_v1legacy]

I believe <a href=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/comics/critical-miss/8741-Critical-Miss-Norks-in-the-Hooters>this is appropriate...

The problem comes not from implausible games but from implausible games that try to present themselves as realistic. Homefront would have gotten a hell of a lot less stick if it had just had some tongue-in-cheek humour about it. Same with MW2. I found the plot ridiculous until I started playing it like a Steven Seagal Hollywood action flick, at which point it played fine.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Of course America isn't invulnerable, but that doesn't mean we're a giant fucking pushover like you make us out to be. And biological weapons? Really? So... you're saying that we just won't nuke North Korea in the first place? We have nuclear submarines all over the globe. Their missiles might reach Hawaii by the time Korea looked like Hiroshima,

Exactly. You just do not invade a nation that has nuclear devices, and you don't attack one that has SSBNs [footnote]Ok, yes, "SSBN" refers to submarines that are nuclear powered and armed with IBCMs, and you could use submarines that are diesel powered and have cruise missiles (armed with nuclear warheads) instead, but the US uses nuclear powered subs (although 4 of the Ohio class have been refitted to use cruise missiles, which could be used to carry nuclear devices)[/footnote].

I haven't said that for a while now.

and that's taking into account the EMP satellite (wouldn't that crash after the first use? Not really relevant to the argument at hand, but just something to think about I guess).

Well, not crash as such, but the weapon works by initiating a nuclear device in orbit over the target. There'd be little left.

Incidently, that wouldn't actually work that well anyway, for various reasons. The effects of EMP have been exagerated, for one, and it's not difficult to defend against it. You can either stick the thing in a Faraday cage, or have the thing turned off at the time. Military gear has been built to be EMP hardened for decades, in case it takes a near hit [footnote]You also see radiation shielding and air filtration for the same reason, but you don't need it for this[/footnote].

Civilian stuff...now sure how much that would be affected. But if the infrastructure was destroyed, the country wouldn't be much good to you once you owned it anyway.

You're making out citizens to be a disorganized rabble. We most certainly are not. Gun clubs and police departments could easily wage guerrilla campaigns on any invaders, and that's just the already organized groups. Just because you have tanks and planes doesn't mean the war is automatically won. Just ask the Viet Cong how well that mentality worked out against them. Also, people waging guerrilla wars would probably take their family with them. I know women who are excellent shots, so wives probably would fight too, as well as kids over a certain age.

I'm not sure I agree with that. Forming an effective resistance movement is no small thing. The NLF in Vietnam had alot of practice and outside support, and still weren't able to achieve anything in the way of military success.

AFAIK, the US hasn't gone to much length to establish what they need for an effective guerilla war fought on their own soil. This might possibly have something to do with them having the world's most powerful standing army, but that's jsut a guess.

 

[BoogieManFL]

I've never played it but when I heard what it was about it seemed pretty implausible. I didn't know about the timeline of events for the game though. Overall I just heard the game was short and was overall a little disappointing. Very implausible situations in games can sometimes make it less enjoyable for me, especially if it's based more upon reality. But overall I can deal with it just fine if the game is good.

But back back to where the thread has steered - Even if you ignore the military which has the highest technological and training advantage, massive budget, real experience, the most projection strength, has a headcount reserve as large as the active headcount - and like 4 million citizens reaching a service age annually, 120 million citizens fit for service, over 300 million citizens - many of which armed. And many people who own guns train/certify for them. And last but not least, the other top military and economic powers in the world are allies or on good terms.

Even disregarding a lot of that - invading the US would be a logistical nightmare. There is SO much land to cover and natural barriers to impede movement and a vast ocean to cross to simply get there. The cost in both resources, lives, manpower, fuel, and money would be astronomical and for what gain? Overall I'd say it's implausible simply because it'd be so costly.

The world is so interconnected and with the warfare technology of today, the large scale wars of the past seem unlikely to reoccur. It'd be an unsustainable economic nightmare for anyone who would attempt such a thing, the US included. Even the "small" wars going on today are extremely expensive.

 

[Saippua]

Homefront is not that improbable if you read all the background fluff. You just have to buy the idea of S and N korea uniting peacefully under N korean rule. Rest follow almost logically.

 

[XMark]

I'd give Homefront and Modern Warfare and other modern military games a pass on their implausible storylines. Even though a full-scare World War 3 or an occupation of the United States is incredibly unlikely, you don't have a game without it. So just suspend disbelief and have fun blasting whoever the writers have decided are the enemy.

I'd personally like to see a game where dwindling world oil supplies leave Canada as the world's top exporter of oil, and our newfound status as a world superpower gives us the confidence and firepower to take over the US. And you play as the Canadians. Hell yeah!

 

[SimpleJack]

I didnt read this because you spelled implausibility wrong...

I'm sorry.

What?

I thought it was an intentional misspelling.

OT:

Wasn't the story drawn from CIA threat projections?

Huh?

Oh... I see. Forget what I said then...

 

[snowpuppy]

But the U.S. isn't as stupid as the game portrays us. Isn't the main character a civilian? Don't the Koreans cross the ocean? Why do the marines fail to kill six Koreans where the main character is out there killing hundreds? They make an interesting game that is why

He was a pilot actually, but I agree.