Does anyone remember the “Domino Effect” theory? It was a popular theory in the
Historians will know where this theory led – directly to a very couple of very stupid wars that unnecessarily cost a lot of lives on both sides (yes, Vietnam Korea
How does this all fit in with Homefront? Well, Homefront plays on those same fears, both in terms of marketing and the story’s driving force. The unified new Korea
 |
| The marketing of this game has been pretty heavy on the Freedoms |
And it’s a Socialist Korea that is as evil as the worst fantasy literature would have you believe. It’s spread across the world like a disease. It’s become a world super power on the back of the same kind of cold cruelty that made Soviet Russia so feared (and birthed the Domino Effect Theory in itself). These Korean soldiers are shown to have no qualms about shooting parents in front of children, building open air mass graves and turning America into a ruined shell – all this imagery of Soviet savagery is present and accounted for, and all crucial elements of the game’s marketing.
That the game’s script was written by John Milius surprises me. This is the same man that penned Apocalypse Now – considered a broad criticism of the Vietnam War. For him to be glorifying the fight against “un-American” values is somewhat against type (at least, the type I had him pinned for). Here, he’s written a plot that aims solely at machismo, gun-toting ultraviolent freedom fighters.
In Homefront, the story isn’t about a real war, nor is it a story that focuses on the humanity and horror of war, and nor does it focus on a completely improbable science fiction scenario. In that regard, it effectively separates itself from the likes of Call of Duty, Medal of Honor and Killzone. With Homefront, it’s a very real (but in perception only) threat to the American Way
But I’m not sure that was a responsible direction to take the game by THQ. Consider this – Japan Japan America Pearl Harbour
Games like Homefront just reinforce that kind of “fear of Asian invasion” (whether cultural or physical) that is so prevalent in the American underbelly. It turns the negative connotations of “Freedom Fighting” into a glorious pursuit – not just condoning it, but putting it on a pedestal.
Am I saying Homefront shouldn’t exist? No. This is a free market, and if THQ wishes to release distasteful material to pander to people’s unjustified fears, then that’s its prerogative. However, throughout the entire development and hype cycle of Homefront, something about the game made me feel a level of discomfort that Call of Duty or Killzone never managed – despite the level of violence being roughly equivalent.
Then I saw the cut scene with the child’s parents being shot by “evil” Koreans and realised what it was. Moreso than Activision or EA who produce games about wars, THQ has published a game that encourages a misogynistic fear about something that people don’t need to be worried about, stroking unnecessary flames to make an extra few sales.
Not sure about where you learned your history, but China's communist party was primarily an internal movement, and was most definitely not part of the 'domino effect' – yes, they got some mild support from the USSR, but the by large the reason behind their success (not unlike the reason behind the success of the VC in South Vietnam) was popular support in the face of a corrupt non-Communist Government.
As for your main topic, I'm not in the US, so I'm not sure how seriously it's taken there – over here (Australia) it's clearly an imaginary world shooter that covers some serious themes (and makes folk from the US look as bad as the Koreans at times as well) – but the scenario presented in Homefront (a united Korea with the resources to effectively dominate the Pacific within the next 15 years) is laughably implausible, on so many levels, and so it was a bit hard to take the game as saying something serious about potential threats to the US.
However, it did (through presenting a range of views in the local populace, from going a bit crazy to keeping out of trouble to fighting back) provide a balanced and intelligent approach (as far as a game can) to the range of responses of a native population under occupation. And by casting a Korean as one of the four in the resistance squad, and noting the xenophobic response to Asians in the US and the trouble this had caused one of the 'good guys', was clearly not a black-and-white shooter, and was most definitely not all pro-US.
Not sure about where you learned your history, but China's communist party was primarily an internal movement, and was most definitely not part of the 'domino effect' – yes, they got some mild support from the USSR, but the by large the reason behind their success (not unlike the reason behind the success of the VC in South Vietnam) was popular support in the face of a corrupt non-Communist Government.
As for your main topic, I'm not in the US, so I'm not sure how seriously it's taken there – over here (Australia) it's clearly an imaginary world shooter that covers some serious themes (and makes folk from the US look as bad as the Koreans at times as well) – but the scenario presented in Homefront (a united Korea with the resources to effectively dominate the Pacific within the next 15 years) is laughably implausible, on so many levels, and so it was a bit hard to take the game as saying something serious about potential threats to the US.
However, it did (through presenting a range of views in the local populace, from going a bit crazy to keeping out of trouble to fighting back) provide a balanced and intelligent approach (as far as a game can) to the range of responses of a native population under occupation. And by casting a Korean as one of the four in the resistance squad, and noting the xenophobic response to Asians in the US and the trouble this had caused one of the 'good guys', was clearly not a black-and-white shooter, and was most definitely not all pro-US.
Hi Anonymous,
Thanks for your insights. I am aware of my histroy – I must not have made it clear in the piece, but I have never believed the domino effect had any grounding in reality – I believe it was fear mongering to direct a population towards a political ends.
As for the game itself – I found it far, far too simple in execution to give justice to the very real and very significant discussion this topic deserves. Perhaps this was not John Milius' fault, perhaps it was a story that was simply too short to properly execute on a rounded story.
But, given how tense racial relations are in the modern day (and as an Australian, I know you know this theme all too well), I think "generic FPSer 101" was a very poor choice exploring a hypothetical where socialist Korea takes over the world.
But thank you for your input! It's always good to get different perspectives 🙂
Hi Anonymous,
Thanks for your insights. I am aware of my histroy – I must not have made it clear in the piece, but I have never believed the domino effect had any grounding in reality – I believe it was fear mongering to direct a population towards a political ends.
As for the game itself – I found it far, far too simple in execution to give justice to the very real and very significant discussion this topic deserves. Perhaps this was not John Milius' fault, perhaps it was a story that was simply too short to properly execute on a rounded story.
But, given how tense racial relations are in the modern day (and as an Australian, I know you know this theme all too well), I think "generic FPSer 101" was a very poor choice exploring a hypothetical where socialist Korea takes over the world.
But thank you for your input! It's always good to get different perspectives 🙂
I think the last part of the first comment puts things into a bit of perspective. Some points that you curiously decided to leave out :/
Either way, freedom fighers have ALWAYS been portrayed as the "good guys" (arguable rightly so…"freedom" after all…) And I don't understand why picking the Koreans as bad guys upsets you as oppose to shooting rag-heads in all the other military FPSs currently on market. Unless it's because it's told in a more hard hitting way (the soldier shooting the parents, mass graves e.t.c.) which I believe is what the developers wanted to achieve. Either way, it certainly isn't the first time you've fought he Koreans, you enemies in Cyrsis are Korean as well.
I think these days it's hard to pick an enemy capable of invading the US because, well, let's face it, it's the US invading other countries at the moment. It's very believable to fight in Afghanistan in Modern Warfare 2, but the moment they start droppping bombs on the white house, all suspended disbeliedf is thrown out the window and you're back in a video game.
Realistically, I think in 15 years time the western world would most likely be fighting our own dyspotic government at the current rate things are going, so I think that's the most plausible political route to take a story. It would be nice to see someone do that in a plausible way without Gun-kata, running up walls, or cyborgs.
Sorry for any spelling errors.
I think the last part of the first comment puts things into a bit of perspective. Some points that you curiously decided to leave out :/
Either way, freedom fighers have ALWAYS been portrayed as the "good guys" (arguable rightly so…"freedom" after all…) And I don't understand why picking the Koreans as bad guys upsets you as oppose to shooting rag-heads in all the other military FPSs currently on market. Unless it's because it's told in a more hard hitting way (the soldier shooting the parents, mass graves e.t.c.) which I believe is what the developers wanted to achieve. Either way, it certainly isn't the first time you've fought he Koreans, you enemies in Cyrsis are Korean as well.
I think these days it's hard to pick an enemy capable of invading the US because, well, let's face it, it's the US invading other countries at the moment. It's very believable to fight in Afghanistan in Modern Warfare 2, but the moment they start droppping bombs on the white house, all suspended disbeliedf is thrown out the window and you're back in a video game.
Realistically, I think in 15 years time the western world would most likely be fighting our own dyspotic government at the current rate things are going, so I think that's the most plausible political route to take a story. It would be nice to see someone do that in a plausible way without Gun-kata, running up walls, or cyborgs.
Sorry for any spelling errors.
@GamesandBiz
The first poster back again here – totally agree that it was overly simplified, but I'm not sure it'd be possible to be commercially successful (at least with a big-budget game) with anything too thoughtful (although I'd personally love to try and make low-budget, thoughtful action games m'self, think it'd be great).
Picking Korea, to me, seemed like a safe out for them – if they'd have gone with China (where, if things aren't managed well, there is a very real threat of at least limited, cold-war style conflict, as there always is when there's a significant shift in the balance of power internationally), I think it could have been much more detrimental to inter-racial tensions.
That said, I agree there were things it could have done better when it comes to that side of things. Keep on thinking, few enough people do ;).
@GamesandBiz
The first poster back again here – totally agree that it was overly simplified, but I'm not sure it'd be possible to be commercially successful (at least with a big-budget game) with anything too thoughtful (although I'd personally love to try and make low-budget, thoughtful action games m'self, think it'd be great).
Picking Korea, to me, seemed like a safe out for them – if they'd have gone with China (where, if things aren't managed well, there is a very real threat of at least limited, cold-war style conflict, as there always is when there's a significant shift in the balance of power internationally), I think it could have been much more detrimental to inter-racial tensions.
That said, I agree there were things it could have done better when it comes to that side of things. Keep on thinking, few enough people do ;).
To… both annonymouses (:-P)
I do understand your arguments, and a lot of it I do agree with – once you get into Homefront, these themes are greatly diluted.
I guess my concern with Homefront is more with the marketing, which really does focus on the brutality of the "Koreans," and how you're an awesome elite "Freedom Figher." As I said in my piece, that marketing just leaves me a bit cold because, for complete lack of a better term, it promotes redneck-ism.
And perhaps it just came at a bad time. That vocal minority that celebrated the troubles that Japan has been through reinfoced for me that perhaps society is not quite at the point where hypotheticals involving 'asian invasions' will be accepted by everyone on face value.
It would be less of a problem if the game itself provided a more balanced story, but as we've already discussed, it doesn't really do that.
Thanks for the debate, though! It'll be an agree to disagree deal here, but I am glad that you both balanced out my opinion piece.
To… both annonymouses (:-P)
I do understand your arguments, and a lot of it I do agree with – once you get into Homefront, these themes are greatly diluted.
I guess my concern with Homefront is more with the marketing, which really does focus on the brutality of the "Koreans," and how you're an awesome elite "Freedom Figher." As I said in my piece, that marketing just leaves me a bit cold because, for complete lack of a better term, it promotes redneck-ism.
And perhaps it just came at a bad time. That vocal minority that celebrated the troubles that Japan has been through reinfoced for me that perhaps society is not quite at the point where hypotheticals involving 'asian invasions' will be accepted by everyone on face value.
It would be less of a problem if the game itself provided a more balanced story, but as we've already discussed, it doesn't really do that.
Thanks for the debate, though! It'll be an agree to disagree deal here, but I am glad that you both balanced out my opinion piece.