Yesterday, we talked about Kaos Studios' Homefront and the potential controversy that its "occupied America" narrative could cause. With that in mind, we asked general manager Dave Votypka if controversy is always good for a game, and if Kaos is counting on it for some free Homefront advertising.
"I think it depends on the tone and depth of the controversy," he explains. "When you’re dealing with portraying real events, with real people that the public currently has a personal and emotional attachment to, there are sensitivities there that need to be respected and avoided. But when creating speculative fiction, that is based decades in the future, it’s just that, it’s fiction.
"Obviously, getting talked about in mainstream media is good for product awareness, but you don’t want it to be critical or inaccurate. If the result is a discussion of the fictional ideas and intellectual debate, that’s fine and healthy. Frontlines was also built from a ‘what-if’ scenario centered around peak oil, and the energy wars that could result when our finite supply of oil is no longer able to sustain our oil dependent existence. In that game, America and its Allies were fighting to control oil reserves in the Caspian Sea, which one could argue -- and some have -- that it puts America in a negative light; but it’s a story!
"The game and its premise was featured on FOX News, in the New York Times, USA Today, and numerous other mainstream media channels. At most, it was presented as a thought provoking discussion, and we don’t believe the view of Homefront’s fictional premise deserves to be taken any further."
A very intelligent and interesting answer from Votypka. I can't wait for The Daily Mail to get hold of this game though, as I'm sure their typically even-handed and open-minded view of the world will lead to an equally robust riposte.
Contest:
11:40 AM on 12.09.2010 | 
Can I guess which one didn't have a thought-provoking discussion?
At the very least, I would hope they could recognize that getting both Koreas to agree on something like invading the US puts this game well into the realm of fiction.
Don't tell me. You're thinking 'Fox News.' Yeah. The internet never changes. Lest anyone should forget that Fox News didn't think that MoH should remove the Taliban, in name, from the game despite the ignorant pleas of a dead US vet's mother.
I wish the internet at large would stop being such moronic tools. Yep. Only Fox News EVER shows any bias.
Fox News being biased isn't a problem. Most people know that it's going to happen. It's the blatant misrepresentation of the truth and even intentional altering of facts that make people hate them.
Maybe the whole "let's invade another country and kill everything that moves cause they are like terrorists and have blueprints on how to make a WWII howitzer 'n stuff" game scenario is getting stale so you come up with this highly implausible invasion on US soil storyline. This you think will sell because Americans will feel even MORE justified and MORE heroic in racking 100+ kills over the course of the video game.
Homefront is no more controversial than the heap of shooter video games churned out every year like clockwork. It's simply whatever video game will generate the most profit based upon sales figures and demographic analysis.
Actually, I was going to say the New York Times. Those biased sons of bitches never pick my entries for their caption contests!
Seriously, though, I am inclined to believe that the channel would lean towards the anti-video game side of the argument because I still remember the "sex box" debacle. Which one of their staff came out in favor of keeping "Taliban" in the MoH game?