Preview: Homefront
- Thread starter Steve Butts
- Start date
Recommended Videos
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.
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.)
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.)
I think it's safe to say that you just won this arguement..LordOfInsanity said:
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..
Um, has anyone actually taken the time to hop over to their website and actually SEE their the back story to this game?hitheremynameisbob said:
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.
Sorry, you must have posted while I was typing that first post, never saw yours.BobDobolina said:
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.
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.
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.
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.
Yeah I know right? What a dumbass.BobDobolina said:
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
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
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.Danny Ocean said:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.unabomberman said:
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.
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.