Preview: Homefront

[RobCoxxy]

WOLVERINES!!!
It figures that bastard Kim Jong Il would stall the invasion until after Swayze died of cancer.

Beautiful.

Also, I like the idea behind the game, although I still think World in Conflict has it slightly more believeable. Alternative Cold War, Russia invades, I understand, but Norht Korea? I mean north Korea, really?

Plus, it's going to be hard for British/European/Russian/North Korean players to care as much about the protagonist, or their own success, as it is for the American players. Ha.

Logic.

Verbal, historically accurate internet-thrashing, complete.

 

[AngryFrenchCanadian]

I'm actually more interested in the multiplayer, because it's mechanics look very promising (gain point for completing objectives or killing, can spend these points on equipment, vehicles etc. You can even buy a tank or helicopter!)

If I end up buying the game, I'll probably only play the singleplayer for the trophies, as the story is completely unbelievable.

 

[Aphroditty]

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.

 

[hitheremynameisbob]

...

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.

 

[templargunman]

People really think that our only missile defense is nuclear power... Our country has thousands of intercontinental ballistic missiles. If North Korea ever attempted to send their navy across the sea (somehow assuming our navy doesn't work for whatever reason, because we really only have to fear the Chinese when it comes to naval power, and only as being able to seriously damage our navy, not defeat it) we would easily be able to sink each of their ships without ever seeing them. Missile guidance systems are amazingly accurate, and if we want to, we could strategically fire missiles to sink each ship they send over. Someone said that there are 9.5 million troops in Korea? Wrong, 1.21 million. Not to mention the US has the ability to start a draft, our country is made up of 300 million people, of which at least 50 million would be able bodied, and if our country was under risk of attack on our shores, a draft would start immediately. The US in 2008 was responsible for 41% of global military spending. We are completely safe from any non-superpower. Oh also, the Koreans still have an artillery guidance bureau and use WWII weaponry. Video games make people think that there's serious threat from these weak powers like Korea because games like call of duty puts our balanced weapons and vehicles in the game. Korean tanks still have that poor guy up on a .40 machine gun waiting to be shot. Our hummers don't even require that anymore. Even if there was a fight on our soil with no air support, or naval support, or missiles, or tactics, we'd still be able to destroy most of their WWII and cold war weapons without a second thought. Also, if North Korea is going to invade anyone, it's south Korea, and then we'd probably fire a few non-nuclear missiles to make them stop.

 

[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.

 

[GWarface]

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

May I ask why?

I'll answer this one...

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...

 

[starrman]

"The team members hope to focus on the memorable moments that define certain games, but were quick to remind us that "games aren't driven by story first." Mechanics must come first, according to the creators in Montreal, and the fiction is just there to "make the mechanics sticky." More than once, we were told that Half-Life 2 was a particular inspiration in this regard, primarily for the way it allows story and gameplay to occupy the same moment."

I can't explain enough how much I find this passage distasteful. A game wherein gameplay mechanics and the plot simply coexist by "occupy[ing] the same moment" is not a game worth playing. If Half-Life 2 was such an inspiration, why wouldn't they do justice to the source and allow for a marriage of gameplay and plot? I'll walk you through it. Using the source engine you immediately absorb the information that you, the protagonist, are in a downtrodden city in the grip of a dictator. This huge idea in the plot is made possible from the use of gameplay mechanics. They exist in a union. Opinions from game developers like this make me not want to spend money on their works.

You beat me to it. The notion that game mechanic is more important than story and that if they are both good it is mere happenstance, is appalling. Why make a video game if this is what you believe? They should just make bloody algorithm software for supercomputers or something if that's how they think. A game mechanic is a way of explicating the story, of ensuring that the world in which the game is set becomes tangible, of moving the story along, of creating balance and flow. But it's rendered null and void by a crap story. I loathe the trend in games making nowadays that puts 'look what our new engine can do' or 'the new combat system will allow...' ahead of the story. Wrong, wrong, wrong. Story first, game mechanic 2nd and in support.

 

[Irony's Acolyte]

Well I really like the idea of playing as a guerrilla fighter against an occupying force and it seems like they are trying to get that feel for this game. Its a bit early to tell if it'll end up good or not, but I'm hoping that it'll deliver. Plus having the guy who very influential on Red Dawn (WOLVERINES!) is a good sign that the story will be good.

And as for those laughing at the fiction behind the story, it doesn't seem so silly to me. Yeah at first it doesn't seem realistic that a small, posturing nation that is heavily into poverty could take on one of the world's superpowers, but the game doesn't take place in the present. If I remember correctly its about 10 or so years into the future. And in that future Korea has been united as one country and "allied" with (read: scared into subjugation) several other Asian nations such as Japan and most of Southeast Asia. The US on the other hand is kinda falling apart due to economic problems (I noticed that high oil prices were one of them) and civil unrest due to a sharp increase in authoritarian policies adopted by the federal government. So rather than the scenario I mentioned above, instead its a newly rising superpower taking on a vestigial empire that's falling apart. Plus something about an EMP attack on the US which would wreck havoc with the infastructure. Its a stretch, but it makes it more believable.

 

[Chrinik]

I find it laughable that everyone here is discussing the complete impossibility of North Korea attacking and successfully invading the US.
What I find more important to find out is, brace yourselfs:

How is playing as an arab insurgent and their methods somehow distasteful, but playing as an american insurgent, practically doing the same, is A-OK with anybody...
I noticed this since Freedom Fighters (absolutely loved it), where you blow up soviet stuff, kill thousands of men, most of them would have family at home, and generally only want to drive them out of your homeland, so that anything can turn back to how it was before.
HOW IS THAT OKAY, when practically anything the insurgents do in Afghanirak is entirely the same?

If I hate one thing, then it is double standarts (when you do it, it is evil, when I do it, it´s OK), and this is one that I carry around and noone was able to answer.
I don´t ask for personal preferance, because I would be fine with playing as anything if it would show a REALISTIC perspective, and not glorify it to heaven and back, I ask because of the usual media outcry that follows such things, and how the general audience for such games thinks about this.
So my questions stands...but I should probably make it´s own topic for it. However, everyone who thinks he has a satisfying answer (or even his opinion), can PM me at will.

 

[Dogstile]

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

May I ask why?

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.

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

May I ask why?

I'll answer this one...

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.

 

[imnot]

Im intrested in this game although that baby wont get any emotion from me.

 

[Cousin_IT]

Was hoping it would be more Freedom Fighters & less Turning Point. It sounds like I will be disappointed.

 

[Seneschal]

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.

 

[8-Bit Grin]

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!

 

[starhaven]

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

 

[Vanguard_Ex]

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.

 

[Aptspire]

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

 

[GWarface]

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

May I ask why?

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.

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

May I ask why?

I'll answer this one...

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...

 

[Caligulove]

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.