When it comes to videogames, I've always preferred 'crazy' over 'realistic'. I'm not bothered at all, for example, by the premise of Homefront where North Korea has basically turned into the Superman of Asia, beating the shit out of everyone to the point that it has enough power to invade and occupy the United States. It's incredible how Homefront's started this bizarre debate about how powerful/competent North Korea can be in 13 years, between people who think that North Korea's crazy enough to pull it off (or hiding a lot more assets than we thought) and the people who find the concept so absurd that they can't see themselves enjoying the game no matter what. Then there are the people who think it's ripping off 'Red Dawn', despite the fact it's written by the very same author, because the basic premise sounds less plausible than Russia doing the occupying.
 
I don't care about how 'realistic' a story in a game is; as long as the madness stays consistent and has its own special brand of logic, I'll be fine with whatever crazy situation you throw me into. Zombies are invading my lawn and my only weapons are plants? Sounds awesome! I get to go to a camp full of psychic kids and jump into people's minds to cure their psychoses? Sign me up!  Russia falls under the control of Ultranationalists and invades the USA without using a single nuke? Sounds interesting to me.
 
Let's say there's a game where every time you put one egg and one slice of cheese into a basket they both combine to create a salmon.Does that make any sense? Of course not, but if it becomes crucial to the plot or somehow becomes an important part of the game mechanics, it's a sign of 'good crazy'. If every time you do it you always get salmon, that's good and consistent crazy. It would only be ruined for me if, say, the recipe changes for no reason whatsoever, like if cheese + egg suddenly means 'lawyer'.
 
Of course, this doesn't mean I hate stories written with the intention of staying 100% plausible. Splinter Cell, for example, tried its hardest to convince you that one very well-trained secret agent can sabotage a well-defended base, by making the player character very fragile to gunfire and being given gadgets that could believably work in real life. I like Splinter Cell games, for all the interesting mostly-plausible scenarios.

I know a lot of folks really don't like these ridiculous circumstances/settings some games have, since my suspension of disbelief can take a lot of lunacy without ruining my enjoyment of the game, but I'd also like to know if any of you guys have a preference for the crazy as well. What sort of games would you put up as a good example of crazy awesome plotlines/premises?

There are two ways to handle hypothetical modern settings.  One is the Freedom Fighters way - the past didn't happen like it did in our world, so anything's possible.  That's cool by me.  The other way is saying "Things in the world are and have been exactly the way you remember them, but it could lead to this outlandish result."  And in the case of Homefront, it's just wrong.  It's all about internal logic - you can set a game inside a planet shaped like a cucumber and its internal logic can still be consistent, even if you know it isn't really possible.  And when you change history, that can be used to keep an outlandish modern setting internally logical.  But when you don't change history, then you have to maintain internal logic with real history.  It's harder, definitely, but there's no good reason to try and do it except for hubris.

Crazy is always better. ALWAYS. 

I'm going to disagree. 
 
What forms a cohesive story is a line of logic that makes sense. If that line of logic does not make sense, the story does not make sense. If the story does not make sense, I am not entertained by it. 
 
This applies mainly to movies, too. It's a fucking relief every time I watch a movie that has a well designed story simply because it's logical and makes sense - in effect, even a simple story that's well constructed becomes more entertaining than a 3 hour epic where logic is thrown out the window and as such I can't get into it. 
 
I'm okay with stories going crazy places, so much as it's logical. 
 
I've not looked into Homefront much so I can't speak on that case in particular.

" I like crazy.  Yeah that's kind of it, really. I'm willing to go along with pretty much anything a game or piece of narrative throws at me. I'm not sure if it's a high tolerance for bullshit or an appreciative eye for insane (and often hilarious) scenarios, but I guess I'm pretty lucky that I can enjoy pretty much anything. "

I like that it's sparked some conversation about the reality of Korea. They may have a brainwashed populace that seems scary enough, but they can't even feed their own soldiers well.  I think it's so easy to work Americans into a frenzy over this stuff that it's healthy to make people aware of the facts when something like this comes out to make sure they understand how over the top and unreal it really is.

" @KingWilly said:

" I like crazy.  Yeah that's kind of it, really. I'm willing to go along with pretty much anything a game or piece of narrative throws at me. I'm not sure if it's a high tolerance for bullshit or an appreciative eye for insane (and often hilarious) scenarios, but I guess I'm pretty lucky that I can enjoy pretty much anything. "

Don't get me wrong, crazy can be great, I just prefer my stories logic to make sense. For example, people can be in a ridiculous scenario but as long as their actions are believable and make logical sense, I can buy it. A narrative going to crazy places is fine as long as the reason for that crazy place and the people going there makes sense (exceptions of course to scenarios when it's a mystery on purpose, although that's a cliche that annoys me)  For example, let's use the two movies Being John Malkovich and Adaptation. I don't know if you've seem them (you should watch them if you have not and like crazy, because they are crazy. Start with the first one).   Both, particularly the first, are movies that are crazy and weird as hell. However, despite the weirdness, the story and characters actions flow in a very believable and logical manner, despite the fact that the basical premise isn't logical (A closet goes into a dudes brain). As such, since the characters actions and events are logical, and the story is so well crafted, I don't find myself thinking "this is stupid. It's not even possible" or something along those lines. "

" There are two ways to handle hypothetical modern settings.  One is the Freedom Fighters way - the past didn't happen like it did in our world, so anything's possible.  That's cool by me.  The other way is saying "Things in the world are and have been exactly the way you remember them, but it could lead to this outlandish result."  And in the case of Homefront, it's just wrong.  It's all about internal logic - you can set a game inside a planet shaped like a cucumber and its internal logic can still be consistent, even if you know it isn't really possible.  And when you change history, that can be used to keep an outlandish modern setting internally logical.  But when you don't change history, then you have to maintain internal logic with real history.  It's harder, definitely, but there's no good reason to try and do it except for hubris. "

My suspension of disbelief is through the roof, as long as the story doesn't fall back on ludicrous clichés. So while I don't think North Korea could invade the U.S. any time in the next century (probably), I still will play Homefront, provided the game is good and well-written.
 
I like your way of thinking, OP.

" @Pinworm45:  That's ridiculous - logic in the human mind is a relatively new concept; that is to say, pure causality. Fiction does not have to adhere to causality to create emotional resonance (why art exists btw), it can employ an endless array of tools such as archetypes and synchronicity. Now I'm not saying all art should be completely symbolic avant-garde weirdness, it's just that they are two sides of a duality and work best in tandem. And in the end even causal reactions and relations in fiction are still fiction and thus subject to suspension of disbelief. "

" @BBQBram: But as a slight counter, a work of fiction is still required to adhere to its own internal logic (unless its internal logic dictates that it doesn't need to), or suspension of disbelief is broken, because not even the logic established by which one can recognize and adhere to the rules of the fictional world is followed, and thus the story lacks any credibility, even in and of itself. So while Real-world logic doesn't apply, a created logic does, or the story doesn't work. Well, most of the time, that is. "

Hey guys sorry if I came on a little snobby there - good to see some intelligent discussion going on here! You are of course all entitled to your opinions. I still feel though that art can resonate emotionally, spiritually, without adhering to any kind of logic, be it external or internal. All modern art is twists on archetypes anyway, and those leave an imprint even without context. Think about Jodorowsky's Holy Mountain, or any movie by Tarkovsky. Think about the ending of Magnolia. If those movies do nothing for you that's okay, but you are then denying myth a chance to show you the other, the synchronicity side of 'reality'. 

It'd be fine if they weren't also trying so hard to ground it in reality by using current IRL news footage (at least in the marketing).  By doing that they are inviting you to draw a line of logic from current events to the scenario in their game, and that's where it totally falls apart for me because it's ridiculous.  The game could end up having a totally different tone, but the marketing is borderline scaremongering.