StarDestroyer.Net BBS

"Ich, für Ein, Willkommen heißen unseren neuen Nazi Meister. Für einen neuen Reich! Für ein neues Vaterland! Amerika über alles! SIEG HEIL!"

"I, for one, welcome our new Nazi masters. For a new Reich! For a new Fatherland! America over all! HAIL VICTORY!"

There's new screenshots for a game called "Fall of Liberty," an FPS being developed fpr the X-Box 360, PS3 and PC. The release date is the fourth quarter (Q4) 2007 for the US and 30 December 2007 for Europe. Click the image for new screenshots, new info, and the source site.

If anyone slightly remembers my past posts, you know I'm definitely going to buy this game just for the idea. I don't care if it's just another mediocre or even crappy FPS like Wolfenstein (never played it but thought and heard it was cheesy after it was released). I'm buying it just to see someone's conception of a Nazi invasion of America, like I would immediately watch any movie with the same idea, no matter how unrealistic an invasion of America would have been. Like that really weird time traveling F-117 to Nazi Germany altering history and allowing the Nazis to bomb America with nukes or whatnot.

...

Or should we call it...Amerika?



Can't wait.

Looks very cool. Glad to see its coming out for the PC.

Oh, and anyone who has played Hearts of Iron knows how to invade the USA in 1944/45, nuclear powered battleships and atomic bombs, plus several hundred divsions

Coolsauce. I've despised the recent trend following in the wake of 9/11 making it so un-PC to depict conflict on American soil (gasp, shock, horror, how dare they depict a fictional event!!!). I've been dying to duke it out in the streets of LA and New York and through the snow-covered forests of the Rocky Mountains... if it's WWII-themed Nazi-bashing, so much the better.

Here's hoping to some realism. I loved Return to Castle Wolfenstein, but I'd prefer something of at least Call of Duty's level in terms of technical (if not historical, obviously) realism.

Sounds like it has a great potential to be Fucking Awesome, but I honestly prefer the Nazis be replaced with modern PNAC/neocon fascists. Change the names and faces, of course, but keep the basic agenda exactly the same

Nazi invasion of America? The sheer idiocy of it makes me want to buy this game immediately.

Einhander Sn0m4n wrote:Sounds like it has a great potential to be Fucking Awesome, but I honestly prefer the Nazis be replaced with modern PNAC/neocon fascists. Change the names and faces, of course, but keep the basic agenda exactly the same

Unless neo-fascists wear cool uniforms, I'd like to keep the originals.

The screen shots give look very similar to the opening to Command and Conquer Red Alert 2 with all the zeppelins and paratroopers. Needless to say a must buy.

It was done before, but with commies. Freedom Fighters did the idea and it was completely idiotic and poorly executed to boot, so I'll reserve my judgement about this untill it is released.

Oh, and I always liked this quotation, which is attributed to Zhukov:
"America is impossible to conquer. There are too many gas stations and too many coca-cola bottles there."

Bounty wrote:

Freedom Fighters did the idea and it was completely idiotic and poorly executed to boot

It may have been idiotic, but the game itself was awesome and the overall mood and attention to detail - in a campy, Invasion USA way - was great.

Oh, come on!
It didn't deliver half of the promised features, the AI was dumb as a brick, mission objectives were completely idiotic (Of the "Raise four flags over the fort and we win!" variety), game mechanics weren't even slightly innovative and the "Big Betrayal" plot execution was the stupidest one I ever saw outside of Star Trek or penny-novels.

What attention to detail? One Russian rifle, one heavy machinegun, one tank, Russians just springing up in New York out of nowhere, pow-pow laser ballistics, complete lack of any sort of supply or recruit management outside of very basic "Come with me!" option during a mission and a campaign constructed around taking "key buildings" from the Soviets?

It was a dumb console port third-person shooter. Though I may be biased because I never liked "Invasion USA".

It didn't deliver half of the promised features

I dug my copy out of a bargain bin for $5. I don't care about promised features, or historical accuracy, or brilliant AI. I just wanted a campy, fun shooter and dagnabbit, I got it

What attention to detail?

The news broadcasts, the crumbling city, the patched-up uniforms, the scenery, the music. Little things that gave the game character.

Bounty wrote:

It didn't deliver half of the promised features

I dug my copy out of a bargain bin for $5. I don't care about promised features, or historical accuracy, or brilliant AI. I just wanted a campy, fun shooter and dagnabbit, I got it

Yeah, well, perhaps our standards of "awesome" are a little bit different

Bounty wrote:

What attention to detail?

The news broadcasts, the crumbling city, the patched-up uniforms, the scenery, the music. Little things that gave the game character.

The cutscenes were great, I'll give you that - especially the one that came after taking of the TV station.

Unfortunately, the game lacked enough real depth for me - graphical details are very nice if they come on top a solid and engrossing game mechanic. If the gameplay's boring, no amount of mood will set things straight. For me at least, the experience was very bland.

Oh, and the ending sucked, which is enough to ruin even the best games.

Oh, and the ending sucked, which is enough to ruin even the best games.

Yeah, it was a setup for a sequel...except there'll never be a sequel. That's some very, very poor planning.

Unfortunately, the game lacked enough real depth for me - graphical details are very nice if they come on top a solid and engrossing game mechanic. If the gameplay's boring, no amount of mood will set things straight. For me at least, the experience was very bland.

I came in expecting nothing and got a fun, engrossing shooter. I can see how you can come in with higher expectations and were disappointed, but I still wouldn't call FF a bad game.

What were the axed features, anyway? More interaction between the levels than the token "blow up helipad" objectives? Because that just screamed ambitious-design-gone-limp.

Bounty wrote:I came in expecting nothing and got a fun, engrossing shooter. I can see how you can come in with higher expectations and were disappointed, but I still wouldn't call FF a bad game.

What were the axed features, anyway? More interaction between the levels than the token "blow up helipad" objectives? Because that just screamed ambitious-design-gone-limp.

Well, for one, the developers promised advanced RPG elements, managing your own band of freedom fighters throughout the game and an experience "simulating" urban guerilla warfare against a vastly superior opponent, with choice of objectives. There were a lot of words like "dynamic", "engrossing", "ultimate" et al thrown into the hype.

Seeing as the setting was really fucking cool, I couldn't wait for the game. I guess I should've known the hype for what it was

PeZook wrote:
Well, for one, the developers promised advanced RPG elements, managing your own band of freedom fighters throughout the game and an experience "simulating" urban guerilla warfare against a vastly superior opponent, with choice of objectives. There were a lot of words like "dynamic", "engrossing", "ultimate" et al thrown into the hype.

Seeing as the setting was really fucking cool, I couldn't wait for the game. I guess I should've known the hype for what it was

I can agree with some of your complaints about this game, but frankly, I jsut find the concept of an American mainland invasion that damn awesome. The main thing that kept me coming back to Freedom Fighters was the idea of waging war in New York city. I loved Red Dawn for using the concept too (even though Red Dawn had a tendancy to do the annoying "America Wank".), not to mention a fairly well done portrayal of guerilla tactics.

I mean hell, one of the things that annoyed me about Battlefield 2 were no American maps.

All in all, the general concept of this game is what excites me the most. Sure it's going to be another FPS, but what can I say? I love atmospheric games.

CaptHawkeye wrote:

PeZook wrote:
Well, for one, the developers promised advanced RPG elements, managing your own band of freedom fighters throughout the game and an experience "simulating" urban guerilla warfare against a vastly superior opponent, with choice of objectives. There were a lot of words like "dynamic", "engrossing", "ultimate" et al thrown into the hype.

Seeing as the setting was really fucking cool, I couldn't wait for the game. I guess I should've known the hype for what it was

I can agree with some of your complaints about this game, but frankly, I jsut find the concept of an American mainland invasion that damn awesome. The main thing that kept me coming back to Freedom Fighters was the idea of waging war in New York city. I loved Red Dawn for using the concept too (even though Red Dawn had a tendancy to do the annoying "America Wank".), not to mention a fairly well done portrayal of guerilla tactics.

I mean hell, one of the things that annoyed me about Battlefield 2 were no American maps.

All in all, the general concept of this game is what excites me the most. Sure it's going to be another FPS, but what can I say? I love atmospheric games.

There is an expansion for BF2 that has pretty much all American maps. I can't remember the name...Armored Fury or something like that.

TheMuffinKing wrote:There is an expansion for BF2 that has pretty much all American maps. I can't remember the name...Armored Fury or something like that.

Exactly. One is set around Valdez in Alaska against the Chinese, and the other two are against the MEC in the eastern US.

If you want a US invasion game and don't mind playing a boardgame, try and get hold of this.

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/game/99

Sounds cool, but the problem with boardgames is that I never find the time or the right people to play with. For example, my best friend bought the latest edition of Axis and Allies and we were going to play a game. This was months ago, and it took like 20 minutes to just set the damn game up and the turns last really long.

It's impossible for us to finish the game in a single sitting and we can't just leave the game board alone without recording shit, so that also takes up even more time to write everything down and store the pieces away, so we really get little gaming done. So we've done 4 or 5 turns or something and that's it. Haven't played in at least 2 months.

So for a really complicated board game like that, I can't really play it. I'm sure I'm not alone with these problems.

If it's semi-realistic, there must be a plausible explanation for the Third Reich to launch a large military taskforce across the Atlantic and into continental North America - you could have a pseudo historical tone, with all armed branches of the Wehrmacht, Nazi Party and SS represented in the game (ie the most common grunt would be Heer infantryman, followed by Waffen-SS troopers or Luftwaffe guards). And add a bit creepy realism, not all of the Nazi bad guys would always be German - you could have British, French, Italian and Dutch soldiers included in the armed ranks of the Third Reich and later on in the game you could even have American quislings or informers as baddies.

EDIT: I liked Freedom Fighters as well - shame a sequel seems unlikely..

Apparantly the explanation is that Churchill dies randomly in a car accident and Britain surrenders to Hitler. I guess Britain totally surrenders, because Hitler would need their complete submission to cross the Atlantic with no navy of his own.

In reality, Hitler was deluded enough to plan the transport of Europe's Jews to Madagascar by using the Royal Navy after Britain surrendered to him. So I guess the game just realizes his crazy fantasies, meaning it really has no basis in reality.

The whole premise is unrealistic, so the most I'm hoping for is realistic use of weapons and vehicles.

The Third Reich taking over the Royal Navy after a somewhat implausible event of Britain surrendering is not as harebrained as it first seems - the Axis powers essentially did that with France's own fleets (which the RN ruthlessly sank).

EDIT: We could add a realistic representation in the Third Reich's military with some German Heer units still using horses (although by then the Nazi Germans with continental Europe secured would be much mechanized after absorbing Britain's motor industries and they would be in the process of absorbing America's motor industries as well).

The Star-Trek reference has been split off. To here

Thank you, Mr. Bean.

Big Orange wrote:The Third Reich taking over the Royal Navy after a somewhat implausible event of Britain surrendering is not as harebrained as it first seems - the Axis powers essentially did that with France's own fleets (which the RN ruthlessly sank).

The problem with that is that even if Britain "surrendered", it wouldn't really be a surrender. I don't think even the British politicians wanting peace were going to cave in that easily to Hitler. The British knew damn well that they had naval supremacy and still had the RAF to at least be on equal terms with the Luftwafffe, so they knew it would be really difficult for Hitler to invade Britain. If the British were knocked out of the war, it would have only been on the terms of a cease fire.

Of course, I'm just speculating, but I (along with many others, I would hope) have a really difficult time believing the British would submit that readily to Hitler's demands. The French were actually occupied and could not dictate terms of peace as easily as the British could. That is the only reason why they just forked over their navy to Hitler.

IRG CommandoJoe wrote:The problem with that is that even if Britain "surrendered", it wouldn't really be a surrender. I don't think even the British politicians wanting peace were going to cave in that easily to Hitler. The British knew damn well that they had naval supremacy and still had the RAF to at least be on equal terms with the Luftwafffe, so they knew it would be really difficult for Hitler to invade Britain. If the British were knocked out of the war, it would have only been on the terms of a cease fire.

Of course, I'm just speculating, but I (along with many others, I would hope) have a really difficult time believing the British would submit that readily to Hitler's demands. The French were actually occupied and could not dictate terms of peace as easily as the British could. That is the only reason why they just forked over their navy to Hitler.

You are pretty much correct. The best thing Hitler could hope for would be a cease-fire and maybe an alliance against Russia. There were a few prominent pro-nazi figures in British politics who would have loved to use Nazi Germany against the USSR, but I don't think this was a real option, what with the occupation of France and all.

Even with Britain out of the war, Germany would still need to defeat the USSR in order to have any hope of even starting to plan for an invasion of the US. This is doable, but again - on cease-fire terms rather than outright conquest, and whatever Hitler does the USSR continues to be a thorn in his side. Then there is the little problem of mounting an invasion of a continent across the Atlantic without a convenient island base off-shore.

The problem with taking America by force is obvious to anybody who has ever looked at a map. In order to occupy a country of that size, with that much partisan-friendly terrain and guns, Hitler would need several million soldiers at the very least. Just protecting east-west railway tracks to keep open supply lines to California would be an impossible task, logistically. Hunting partisans is a real problem when the occupied country has more young men alone than you can possible have soldiers.

No, don't try to attempt to make this game historically realistic. Please.

So I see the dick cheney presidency has started....