Yeah the premise of World War 2 never happening and everyone fighting aliens is a more believable premise than this. Also I could not buy this game since my fiancee is Chinese and the premise of killing innocent Chinese-Americans offends me.DjangoReinhardt said:China invading the U.S.? Really, David?
I take it the crying in this game was to be from laughter directed at the ridiculous premise.
Well uh, you had the choice of ignoring those orders completely and going AWOL. I'm pretty certain of you had taken that route it would have you join some sort of rebel group out to protect Chinese-Americans...rage1973 said:Yeah the premise of World War 2 never happening and everyone fighting aliens is a more believable premise than this. Also I could not buy this game since my fiancee is Chinese and the premise of killing innocent Chinese-Americans offends me.
Ninja Scooter said:i don't know, i doubt i could feel 'bad' playing a videogame, and the whole point would be lost. What would be sad about your CO telling you to kill innocent families when i've been killing thousands of innocent pedestrians in GTA games for years without thinking twice?
Precisely. Do people not see the difference in emotional impact between action films with faceless villains incurring a body count in the hundreds, compared to more dramatic works? It's just that we've got too much of one and barely any of the other in our medium.Kiriku said:It obviously depends a lot on how you present it. If you set up the game in a certain way, make reactions from other characters a lot more realistic and human, add suitable music, sound effects, convincing voices, terrified faces of the people you are about to kill etc etc it changes the perception of the act of killing a lot. Just like how movies work with camera angles, lighting, dialogues, sound and so on to convey different emotions.
AltogetherAndrews said:No disrespect towards Insomniac, Bungie and just about every other FPS developer, and there is most certainly a place for purely entertaining dumbshooters, but the industry really needs to start exploring genuinely mature and thought provoking concepts in addition to the ones fueling these blunt and shallow action shooters.
What literary giant of a game are you dancing around so much?AltogetherAndrews said:Yeah, the China invading US bit is a good deal too far-fetched. But whatever, I could live with that; at least it's something other than the Clancy micro-warfare crap that we're fed. Hopefully the genre as a whole gets a good kick in the rear end by that other game, because it's damned well overdue. No disrespect towards Insomniac, Bungie and just about every other FPS developer, and there is most certainly a place for purely entertaining dumbshooters, but the industry really needs to start exploring genuinely mature and thought provoking concepts in addition to the ones fueling these blunt and shallow action shooters.
Draft said:What literary giant of a game are you dancing around so much?
I agree. He should do China/Indonesia invading Australia, he can even base it off the novel "Tomorrow When the War Began"AltogetherAndrews said:Yeah, the China invading US bit is a good deal too far-fetched. But whatever, I could live with that; at least it's something other than the Clancy micro-warfare crap that we're fed. Hopefully the genre as a whole gets a good kick in the rear end by that other game, because it's damned well overdue. No disrespect towards Insomniac, Bungie and just about every other FPS developer, and there is most certainly a place for purely entertaining dumbshooters, but the industry really needs to start exploring genuinely mature and thought provoking concepts in addition to the ones fueling these blunt and shallow action shooters.
theBishop said:I'm thinking Bioshock.
I'm surprised that out of the thousands of WW2 shooters that have cropped up in recent years, none of them have really tackled the Holocaust. Liberating a concentration camp could be really emotionally powerful.AltogetherAndrews said:Yeah, the China invading US bit is a good deal too far-fetched. But whatever, I could live with that; at least it's something other than the Clancy micro-warfare crap that we're fed. Hopefully the genre as a whole gets a good kick in the rear end by that other game, because it's damned well overdue. No disrespect towards Insomniac, Bungie and just about every other FPS developer, and there is most certainly a place for purely entertaining dumbshooters, but the industry really needs to start exploring genuinely mature and thought provoking concepts in addition to the ones fueling these blunt and shallow action shooters.
Up until now we haven't exactly had the technology to drive that IMO. If they do it now, and do it right that could be really powerful. But on PS2 for instance, they just couldn't have visually represented characters who've been through such hardshipDr-L337 said:I'm surprised that out of the thousands of WW2 shooters that have cropped up in recent years, none of them have really tackled the Holocaust. Liberating a concentration camp could be really emotionally powerful.
Kiriku said:It obviously depends a lot on how you present it. If you set up the game in a certain way, make reactions from other characters a lot more realistic and human, add suitable music, sound effects, convincing voices, terrified faces of the people you are about to kill etc etc it changes the perception of the act of killing a lot. Just like how movies work with camera angles, lighting, dialogues, sound and so on to convey different emotions.
Dachande said:It's written by Susan "Gears of War" O'Connor. I do not hold much hope for Bioshock's script.
Ninja Scooter said:then it could come across as too scripted, in which case why not just make a movie?
I'm pretty sure we just hit triple digits on the unintentional comedy scale. Just to be sure, let's play some Mad Libs!Dr-L337 said:I'm surprised that out of the thousands of WW2 shooters that have cropped up in recent years, none of them have really tackled the Holocaust.
I'm surprised that out of the dozens of Full House episodes that have cropped up in recent years, none of them have really tackled pedophilia.
I'm surprised that out of the dozens of Grand Theft Auto games that have cropped up in recent years, none of them have really tackled the outsourcing of American labor.
I'm surprised that out of the dozens of Elvis movies that have cropped up in recent years, none of them have really tackled leprosy.
Draft said:What literary giant of a game are you dancing around so much?
? Plenty of games have the US being attacked. By aliens, monsters, demons, communists, hippies, you name it, it's probably destroyed America at one point in a video game.seattle6418 said:why are people even thinking that the idea is outrageous?
why can´t one country invade another in a videogame?
right, that alone is one of the reasons why the game got canned. sony won´t publish this because of the fan reaction. politicaly speaking, we can have venezuela being a vilain in mercenaries, mexican cities treated like crap just like GRAW2, but god forbid, don´t touch america!
maybe that´s how david tought. doing something different for a change. what if america had their problems? he wanted to deal with emotions, maybe be a michael moore of videogames. it still doesn´t work in this industry.
there´s a lot of people into those farfetched fiction stories, like a halo, star wars or gears of war. you can create some absurd worlds in those cases, but with jaffe´s game he was dealing with patriotism.
i really doubt sony would publish something like that. not because you kill innocent people, but because of the plot, having USA being attacked and all that.
just like rumble, they can´t really tell the truth, but this game was canned, not just discontinued. it´s a shame tough, sounded different, original for a change. we are still a long way from having indepent companies with balls and bucks to release a game like this one...
I thought Sony would make the game but Jaffe wasn't seeing enough compensation at the end of the cycle to go through with it.seattle6418 said:why are people even thinking that the idea is outrageous?
why can´t one country invade another in a videogame?
right, that alone is one of the reasons why the game got canned. sony won´t publish this because of the fan reaction. politicaly speaking, we can have venezuela being a vilain in mercenaries, mexican cities treated like crap just like GRAW2, but god forbid, don´t touch america!
maybe that´s how david tought. doing something different for a change. what if america had their problems? he wanted to deal with emotions, maybe be a michael moore of videogames. it still doesn´t work in this industry.
there´s a lot of people into those farfetched fiction stories, like a halo, star wars or gears of war. you can create some absurd worlds in those cases, but with jaffe´s game he was dealing with patriotism.
i really doubt sony would publish something like that. not because you kill innocent people, but because of the plot, having USA being attacked and all that.
just like rumble, they can´t really tell the truth, but this game was canned, not just discontinued. it´s a shame tough, sounded different, original for a change. we are still a long way from having indepent companies with balls and bucks to release a game like this one...
But when tackling such a difficult issue why even constrain yourself even more by making it a psp game?davidjaffe said:FYI- Sony didn't can the game. Scott and I did as we felt we could not do it justice with the oh so tiny team we had (as so many of them were getting put onto WarHawk in order to get that game done). The people we worked with were/are amazing talents, but there we just no enough of them As Warhawk was/is top priority as it ships first, it made sense to put Heartland on the shelf till we had the resources to do it right.
That lead to us doing a small game (Calling All Cars!) which then led to me realizing that small stuff is what I want to do for now.
Hope that helps
As for China invading, it's not THAT far fetched because:
a- it was set sometime in the future...not sci fi at all and things LOOKED just like 2007. But the date itself is never revealed so it could be 10 years down the road.
b- 10 years down the road makes some sense if China becomes the next superpower (which it kind of already is and many predict it will even surpass America in many areas...which it kind of already is).
c- If American keeps sending out troops all over the world in an effort to expand our empire/get more resources, who is left protecting us at home? This was just one of the many pointers to the Iraq war we were hoping to deal with: the fact that Bush and his boyz seem to be more interested in Iraq than really protecting us. It's a liberal view to be sure and I'm not here to start a debate. Just explaining the logic for chosing the China invades America scenario.
David
davidjaffe said:stuff
It sounds pretty great and I hope that the game gets made "someday" hopefully as a console game not handheld.davidjaffe said:FYI- Sony didn't can the game. Scott and I did as we felt we could not do it justice with the oh so tiny team we had (as so many of them were getting put onto WarHawk in order to get that game done). The people we worked with were/are amazing talents, but there we just no enough of them As Warhawk was/is top priority as it ships first, it made sense to put Heartland on the shelf till we had the resources to do it right.
That lead to us doing a small game (Calling All Cars!) which then led to me realizing that small stuff is what I want to do for now.
Hope that helps
As for China invading, it's not THAT far fetched because:
a- it was set sometime in the future...not sci fi at all and things LOOKED just like 2007. But the date itself is never revealed so it could be 10 years down the road.
b- 10 years down the road makes some sense if China becomes the next superpower (which it kind of already is and many predict it will even surpass America in many areas...which it kind of already is).
c- If American keeps sending out troops all over the world in an effort to expand our empire/get more resources, who is left protecting us at home? This was just one of the many pointers to the Iraq war we were hoping to deal with: the fact that Bush and his boyz seem to be more interested in Iraq than really protecting us. It's a liberal view to be sure and I'm not here to start a debate. Just explaining the logic for chosing the China invades America scenario.
David
Although I agree wih you on the PSP not being the platfrom to do something like with, you are completely off base with your last statement.eXistor said:Glad it got cancelled. Jaffe seemed to miss the point on that game. It's a good enough concept, but on PSP it doesn't stand a chance. Also I think he's in over his head with the concept anyway. Videogames shouldn't be made with for an emotional reason anyway. It had disaster written all over it.
The reason i'm against it is because something like this is very high concept and in order to hit the right emotional buttons all the characters should be very detailed and be able to deliver a wide range of facial expressions.GitarooMan said:I don't know why everyone is so conviced the game couldn't have been done well on PSP with the right team, no reason a story-driven FPS couldn't be great on the system. Whether you'd want to invest that kind of money in a PSP game is another story, but you can definitely have a story-driven immersive experience on PSP.
davidjaffe said:As for China invading, it's not THAT far fetched because:
a- it was set sometime in the future...not sci fi at all and things LOOKED just like 2007. But the date itself is never revealed so it could be 10 years down the road.
b- 10 years down the road makes some sense if China becomes the next superpower (which it kind of already is and many predict it will even surpass America in many areas...which it kind of already is).
c- If American keeps sending out troops all over the world in an effort to expand our empire/get more resources, who is left protecting us at home? This was just one of the many pointers to the Iraq war we were hoping to deal with: the fact that Bush and his boyz seem to be more interested in Iraq than really protecting us. It's a liberal view to be sure and I'm not here to start a debate. Just explaining the logic for chosing the China invades America scenario.
David
PleoMax said:Haze...lol i know.
lol
Yes i'm serious thats what he is talking about, no i'm not shitting you.
yah lol
xaosslug said:*tear drops*
Hopefully you can return to the project one day on the PS3. We need more games that really push the envelope, whether it's simply "what's a game" or more seriously "how real/emotional should/can a 'game' get?".davidjaffe said:FYI- Sony didn't can the game. Scott and I did as we felt we could not do it justice with the oh so tiny team we had (as so many of them were getting put onto WarHawk in order to get that game done). The people we worked with were/are amazing talents, but there we just no enough of them As Warhawk was/is top priority as it ships first, it made sense to put Heartland on the shelf till we had the resources to do it right.
That lead to us doing a small game (Calling All Cars!) which then led to me realizing that small stuff is what I want to do for now.
Hope that helps David
The China idea is as far fetched as the idea of any individual nation invading the US. The landmass is simply too great, and there's far too much coastland. I understand the reasoning of the US defense being thinned out due to military export (not to mention the aspect of more and more typically military tasks being outsourced to commercial entities, which that other game deals with), but I do not think an invasion of the US is physically plausible.
Tieno said:But when tackling such a difficult issue why even constrain yourself even more by making it a psp game?
i disagree....i would hope for devs to push more fps that examine cultural/political differences and why so-called "enemies" that we shoot in every WW2 (i.e. Germans/Japanese) became the way they were......can you imagine a WW2 FPS from the Japanese/German point of view? it would explain why they joined the war, what pushed them to do what they did, etc...would make for an awesome narrative (like Letters of Iwo Jima movie) and would be different from all the cookie-cutter WW2 shooters we have todayJax said:When I heard this on the one up show:
I thought, the plot was pretty racist because if its a FPS, like any vietcong type FPS, the enemies are immediately demonised. Plus expecting the FPS crowd to empathise with the killing chinese americans on a PSP of all things = laughable. I don't know, glad this didn't get made.
When it vs aliens or something historical, it at least makes sense - ala COD/Resistance. To make a fantasy type game and demonise a culture, I don't agree with
eXistor said:Also I think he's in over his head with the concept anyway. Videogames shouldn't be made with for an emotional reason anyway.
davidjaffe said:FYI- Sony didn't can the game. Scott and I did as we felt we could not do it justice with the oh so tiny team we had (as so many of them were getting put onto WarHawk in order to get that game done). The people we worked with were/are amazing talents, but there we just no enough of them As Warhawk was/is top priority as it ships first, it made sense to put Heartland on the shelf till we had the resources to do it right.
That lead to us doing a small game (Calling All Cars!) which then led to me realizing that small stuff is what I want to do for now.
Hope that helps
As for China invading, it's not THAT far fetched because:
a- it was set sometime in the future...not sci fi at all and things LOOKED just like 2007. But the date itself is never revealed so it could be 10 years down the road.
b- 10 years down the road makes some sense if China becomes the next superpower (which it kind of already is and many predict it will even surpass America in many areas...which it kind of already is).
c- If American keeps sending out troops all over the world in an effort to expand our empire/get more resources, who is left protecting us at home? This was just one of the many pointers to the Iraq war we were hoping to deal with: the fact that Bush and his boyz seem to be more interested in Iraq than really protecting us. It's a liberal view to be sure and I'm not here to start a debate. Just explaining the logic for chosing the China invades America scenario.
David
The reason it's difficult is because it's not possible.Zenith said:the landmass problem works both ways. Katrina exposed the fallability of US military infrastructure. it would take days for a large enough force to regroup in order to launch any kind of effective counterattack. and if the Chinese dug in in population centres there would be an initial hesitation of using heavy artillery+air support. the most difficult aspect to explain would be how China loaded a large enough army onto a fleet and got it to the US without being noticed. plus what's to stop the US from eliminating logistics support from China by dropping a few nukes on it. at the very least they'd use tactical nukes in long-range airstrikes.
Zenith said:the landmass problem works both ways. Katrina exposed the fallability of US military infrastructure. it would take days for a large enough force to regroup in order to launch any kind of effective counterattack. and if the Chinese dug in in population centres there would be an initial hesitation of using heavy artillery+air support. the most difficult aspect to explain would be how China loaded a large enough army onto a fleet and got it to the US without being noticed. plus what's to stop the US from eliminating logistics support from China by dropping a few nukes on it. at the very least they'd use tactical nukes in long-range airstrikes.