"Heartland should do for the PSP what Halo did for the Xbox"
by Andrew Yoon 
{ Apr 20th 2007 at 9:50PM }
"The game was very much a liberal person's response to the Bush administration and the war in Iraq ... [have players] feel what it must be like to have their own homeland occupied by another country. SCEA and I went back and forth over if we would ever say it was CHINA vs. AMERICA as they were a bit worried about being so literal ... As for Phil, his biggest issue was thinking a game so epic should be on PS3. But I was always pushing for PSP, saying that Heartland should do for the PSP what Halo did for the Xbox."
Ultimately, Sony didn't provide the support that Jaffe needed to complete the game. Instead, Sony pulled resources from the title to place into the PS3 title, WarHawk: "If the team would have been the right size, we would still be in production with Heartland today. That was the main reason we killed it, not enough folks to make the game ... the main issue that made it clear that we could not continue was that WarHawk kept taking our team members as they were further along in production and were the top priority."
Sony's admitted to focusing too much on PS3 at the cost of PSP development, and they've promised to change. With WarHawk nearing completion, could Heartland make a comeback?
[Via 1UP]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
zmcnulty @ Apr 20th 2007 10:12PM
He obviously knows more about making video games than I do, but why would he even bother with such a statement?
"It would have been AWESOME guys!!! Trust me!"
Sounds like a 14 year old "l33t" homebrew developer who gives up on some project as soon as he realizes he's in over his head.
txa1265 @ Apr 20th 2007 10:38PM
What a mess ... good thing it was cancelled.
sasd1sadfs1 @ Apr 20th 2007 10:43PM
the reason the ds is winning and nintendo dominated the handhelds for so long is because they treat their handhelds as a completly different market, with different needs and audience. They dont just use their portbale as a sidekick of their console (actually their handhelds are their money making bread and butter unlike sony), or a ps2 portbox.
Ben @ Apr 20th 2007 10:58PM
Yeah, who wants entertainment and fun when you can have a political statement?
Why would anyone fund this in the first place? I don't care if he is David Jaffe. Making games is a business.
kokoro @ Apr 20th 2007 10:56PM
>because they treat their handhelds as a completly different market,
so what? You think it'd be wise for Sony to try to squeeze itself into that market and try to compete with Nintendo?
NO way, Sony knows its place, it's with the hardcore (well, harder-core) gamers. there is a reason that only 11% of PSP owners own a DS, frankly, most DS games are just a joke to me. it might be good enough for DS's main audiences of 14 and under, but to me, 2-D TV/Movie turned-games are a joke to me
Here's to Sony, do NOT try to 'copy' others, do what you do best, bring the gamers more cutting edge content and you will get more PSP out of the door
frankly, 22 million sold, It's not bad at all for a first stab at a market that was monopolized by Nintendo for decades.
Saigon @ Apr 20th 2007 11:07PM
"As for Phil, his biggest issue was thinking a game so epic should be on PS3"
Phill, what the hell? Idiot...
navsimpson @ Apr 20th 2007 11:13PM
@Ben: I get ya', but do the two things - politics and fun - necessarily have to be opposed? You can have a political thriller film that's still very entertaining to watch right? Maybe it would have been/will be interesting to play a game with a different set of values/ideas, particularly since we know that Jaffe has a decent record of making games both fun and smart.
Also, I think it's important to note that many games are already quite political - GRAW for example has a particular concept of the US's place in geopolitics. Even your straight 'Serious Sam' type game has a particular ideal of individualism at its core too, though I might be stretching a bit there.
Definitely understand where you're coming from though - all entertainment and art becomes boring when it gets preachy.
Joe @ Apr 21st 2007 1:06AM
Well Jaffe has said in the past He would like to make his own game company but work for Sony. So may be then Heartland will make a come back. It sounds like to me He really liked the game seeing as He keeps bringing it up.
sasd1sadfs1 @ Apr 20th 2007 11:54PM
thatpspkid, unlike sony when nintendo released the ds they essentially killed both the gamecube and gba, sony is just trying to do too many things at once and most rhird parties like sega wont even make psp games anymore, and retailers even threatened to not sell it. Fact is, the market was way too oversaturated for the psp to even exist.
kingofwale @ Apr 21st 2007 1:37AM
@9
GC was dead WHY befored DS came out, I would say the funeral came when RE 4 came on PS2 and was way better than GC version.
why did GC die? Game costs too much, the game disc too small, and frankly, nobody makes games for GC.
it has NOTHING to do with a portable console
PSP_#1 @ Apr 21st 2007 4:46AM
PSP has a market, and the DS market is bigger plain and simple. I look at it like this.
There are also more Ford Escorts (DS) on the road than there are say Lamborghini's (PSP) and they don't compare those cars do they?
I do give Nintendo the nod in 2 areas in all of this.
1: Advertising, I see a good amount for Wii and for the DS
2: Built in Screen protector for the DS
PSP is at least 25 Million Strong and growing.
Extinction @ Apr 21st 2007 5:16AM
" frankly, most DS games are just a joke to me"
Agreed
txa1265 @ Apr 21st 2007 5:38AM
@ navsimpson "Definitely understand where you're coming from though - all entertainment and art becomes boring when it gets preachy."
That was my point - just from the snippet my take was that he wanted to become the Michael Moore of video games, and very likely the gameplay would have suffered to 'get the message out'. Gimme a break ... and just give me a good game.
But I agree - it is possible to have solid political undertones that get a message across. But these messages are best delivered subtly, not like a baseball bat to the forehead.
For the DS-v-PSP argument, puh-lease, can you just cut the crap?!?!
darkvegeta @ Apr 21st 2007 8:07AM
"most rhird parties like sega wont even make psp games anymore, and retailers even threatened to not sell it."
That's bullshit and already denied. Please gtfo of this site.
Kade Storm @ Apr 21st 2007 10:42AM
...meh, I wouldn't have minded this game. Hell, next to certain crap--both in games and in politics--this would've been a breath of fresh air. Although I do agree with the sentiment; the message should be subtle.
Off Topic:
Oh, and how did this one turn into another DS vs. PSP bash-fest? Man! This is actually funny.
I bet if Andrew were to put up a completely non-videogame related topic about American Idol, it would spawn a few posts that'll eventually culminate in yet another PSP vs. DS debacle.
Alien @ Apr 21st 2007 12:02PM
Wow , awesome , I would check this game out :D
James @ Apr 21st 2007 2:58PM
Soooo.... do I mistake myself, or is this guy trying to draw an analog between a democracy toppling a dictator, then occupying the country during rebuilding, and having a command-economy nation undertake a war of expansion against a free democracy?
Kade Storm @ Apr 21st 2007 3:37PM
James, you call a theocracy a democracy? Please, go read the Iraqi constitution, and then picture being an apostate in Iraq, now; or being a woman.
Theocracy =/= democracy, and that's exactly what Iraq is right now - theocracy. It -was- an autocratic secular state before, which, despite being bad, is still constitutionally better than its current state.
I'd address more of your political ignorance, but I assume that since you post such views on gaming blogs, I really shouldn't even bother with you.
PSP_#1 @ Apr 21st 2007 7:54PM
I geez now we are on politics???
Referring to your statement
"It -was- an autocratic secular state before, which, despite being bad, is still constitutionally better than its current state. "
It may be constitutionally better but the USA is not commiting Genocide as with the former now hang dictator.
Kade Storm @ Apr 21st 2007 8:23PM
US isn't committing genocide, but that's irrelevant; people are dying regardless. A region has been destabilised, and then 'democratised' the wrong way, too early. It's been delivered into the hands of shiite theocrats; these are the kind of moves that fuel terrorism and fanaticism. 20,000+ people have already died; but it's okay, so long as Saddam isn't killing them, eh? [endsarcasm] It's like an eco system; a power vaccum was created, and regardless of Saddam doing the killings or someone else doing the killings, the death toll as risen.
And mind you, if one rambles on about bringing freedom, then constituion comes into heavy question, because that's what'll determine the rights and legalities of the people in the country.
Don't like politics, then don't bring it up.
asada123 @ Apr 22nd 2007 3:00AM
they should port europa universails 1 an 2 on oine umd package for the psp, that would rock.
sgu @ Apr 23rd 2007 9:09PM
@Kade Storm
"US isn't committing genocide, but that's irrelevant; people are dying regardless."
Of COURSE it matters. Why would you think it doesn't? Do you think genocide is irrelevant? I have no doubt you're able do differentiate between the motives of a soldier (attempting to protect) and a murder (attempting to kill), or between police killing a murder and the murder killing a victim. If the US committed genocide in Iraq, the whole world would be up-in-arms (literally), and it most certainly WOULDN'T be irrelevant. Perhaps you mean that a lack of US genocide isn't the main point, to which I would agree. But please don't say it's irrelevant.
And in terms of the Shiite's having power: I'm not sure that there's another alternative for government in Iraq. You can't work with something you don't have, and in the Middle East you have a culture of religion, period. Sectarian viewpoints go back a LONG ways, and unless we send in non-religious non-Iraqi's to govern Iraq (which would most certainly constitute a real occupation) then the only viable option for a stable, Iraqi-based government is a Theocracy. (...sorry if that was awkwardly worded, but you get the point)
But we would probably agree on this: that it's time to (slowly) leave Iraq. If the people of Iraq won't change & choose peace, no amount of military force will bring peace; not lasting peace, anyways.
Kade Storm @ Apr 24th 2007 11:32AM
You clearly don't read my posts.
I maintain that it doesn't matter: Because when no one's accusing the troops of such a thing, then why get defensive about it?! For fuck's sake! READ!
And no, you do have alternative options. Otherwise, you don't democratise the region period. You've turned a secular state into a theocracy - YOU HAVE NOT SPREAD DEMOCRACY OR FREEDOM! You've delivered the country from one mess of a dictator, that YOUR prior governments put up there, into the hands of theocrats and wanton terrorists. - FAIL!
Clearly you must know the meaning of the word 'consequence', yes? Look that one up before lecturing me on what matters and what doesn't. No one's bashing motives of the troops, or stating that Saddam's genocide is the same. The topic started on one ill-informed member talking about spreading freedom--wrong--and another apologist resorting to the atleast excuse of there being no more genocide. So what? Of course there isn't genocide, but there's still equal death - civil conflict - more chaos - rape - murder - and a country that's gone back to the dark ages vis-a-vis democracy.
I love apologists for proving just how well they can distract and obfuscate arguments! Insideous, AND mendacious.
Oh, and FYI: Iraq is IRAQ! They had one of the largest secularist followings. Even a moderately aware twat living int he middle east would know that answer full well. Let's sum up here - Shia theocrats don't like you guys much. Sunnis are actually secularists, and then you have the secularists themselves. Guess which party is happy, and which isn't?! None. Even those in support of this war fully agree that if you wanted to 'free' the region, and reduce fanaticism, then democratising this early wasn't the smart choice - the secularists certainly existed in that region, and knew how to appeal to the culture of the locals. "There is nothing else to install." GO look at Turkey - look at Iraq BEFORE this mess. Look at Iran, BEFORE 1979. Fuck. Such blinding ignorance. Oh, bloody, hell!
You have not freed the people - that's the contention.
Kade Storm @ Apr 24th 2007 11:49AM
Expanding on prior post:
"I'm not sure that there's another alternative for government in Iraq." - SGU.
Utterly, prodoundly, purely false! If it existed there before, it certainly exists there now, and carries strong support. This is a bad justification for strategic laziness! The options were there; the old system could very well have been restablished with newer figureheads who were still--despite the bad constitutional direction--trying to help with the process of getting Iraq back up after the 2003 raid/invasion/whatever. You don't just make a friggin' massive blunder, and then look for the first, laziest, cheapest alternative, call it freedom, and thwart the nation into civil disarray. The options were there, they were just never explored or implemented with proper thought: Because the political state was nothing more than a superficial obligation that required nothing more than a cheap loose end for public consumption in America. And oh, did it work: People are actually calling it freedom, and the slightly smarter apologists are declaring that "there were no other options". Sorry, but fallacies should have their limits. This level of self-delusion is borderline evil!