Homefront

oneoff

Edge mag gave the game 5/10. Would be disappointed if I paid full price for what is at best 6 hour single player campaign. Nothing original about the game. Suppose all our hopes are with crysis 2 now.

DarkJager

oneoff wrote: »

Edge mag gave the game 5/10. Would be disappointed if I paid full price for what is at best 6 hour single player campaign. Nothing original about the game. Suppose all our hopes are with crysis 2 now.

It was bound to happen. Every FPS multiplayer is basically the same thing, just with a few added features here and there. Tack on to that a crap excuse for making the single player purchase your game (€50 for less than 4 hours of play) and it was never going to work. I'd be hard pressed to even rent this to be honest, that still costs too much for what it gives .

Sephiroth_dude

Thats disapointing,I wasn't gonna get it anyway for a few months anyway.

Redlion

oneoff wrote: »

Edge mag gave the game 5/10. Would be disappointed if I paid full price for what is at best 6 hour single player campaign. Nothing original about the game. Suppose all our hopes are with crysis 2 now.

We've also got Battlefield 3 incoming, so there's quite a bit of hope yet!

NunianVonFuch

oneoff wrote: »

Edge mag gave the game 5/10. Would be disappointed if I paid full price for what is at best 6 hour single player campaign. Nothing original about the game. Suppose all our hopes are with crysis 2 now.

The Call of Duty series, the Battlefield: Bad Company series and Medal of Honor all say: "Hello!"

Also: multiplayer.

DarkJager

NunianVonFuch wrote: »

The Call of Duty series, the Battlefield: Bad Company series and Medal of Honor all say: "Hello!"

Also: multiplayer.

Multiplayer doesn't excuse a poor half hearted single player mode. COD and Bad Company at least made a decent attempt at a story with some reasonable length to it (for example the Black Ops campaign lasted me about 8 hours and was worth every cent).

Magill

I thought this was being advertised as a single player game 6 hours is pathetic unless its an insanely good 6 hours.

DarkJager

Magill wrote: »

I thought this was being advertised as a single player game 6 hours is pathetic unless its an insanely good 6 hours.

Not even 6 hours - another poster on a different Homefront thread here has already cleared it in less than 3. And general feedback about the SP is that its a piss poor generic shooter with a half decent last level.

DARK-KNIGHT

Have this preordered and payed for in full and reading this I think I might pass tbh!!

Isn't this meant to be a sequel to frontlines fuel of war? I ****ing hated that game

iMuse

DARK-KNIGHT wrote: »

Have this preordered and payed for in full and reading this I think I might pass tbh!!

Isn't this meant to be a sequel to frontlines fuel of war? I ****ing hated that game

Yep made by the same people so i reckon it will have a similar feel. Think ill pass on this game, Doesn't look all that great from the videos I've seen

DARK-KNIGHT

iMuse wrote: »

Yep made by the same people so i reckon it will have a similar feel. Think ill pass on this game, Doesn't look all that great from the videos I've seen

Really disappointed hearing this is terrible tbh I was looking forward to it

pixelburp

Was anyone seriously expecting this not to be a mediocre COD knock-off? The whole thing seemed to be a pretty silly attempt to cash in on the franchise, while bolting on some John Milius plot lip-service.

The Freeman

This is a shame, was really hoping that this could be an alternative to BC2 and in a similar pace also. its doing mid eighties on metacritic currently from the press, but people that are actually playing it say its shockingly bad/ordinary in most aspects.

fingers crossed for Crysis 2 multiplayer and singleplayer but that looks like Black ops with a invisibility suit:(

mise

I'm still considering picking this up. Have been reading about the multiplayer, and it seems like they bring some new ideas to the table. The battle commander especially sounds really interesting, so hopefully it works well ingame.

Unless the campaign is amazing in an FPS, I won't bother with it. If I do pick it up, it will be for the multiplayer aspect only.

pablomakaveli

I'd planned on getting this on friday but i probably won't bother now. I kind of had a gut feeling it would get a bad reviews but had hoped i was wrong.

If i hear good things about the multiplayer i might pick it up cheaper in a month or two.

ShaneU

It has an 87 on metacritic right now. I'd never judge a game solely on one review, let alone an edge review

oneoff wrote: »

Edge mag gave the game 5/10. Would be disappointed if I paid full price for what is at best 6 hour single player campaign. Nothing original about the game. Suppose all our hopes are with crysis 2 now.

Black ops was less than 6 hours and this has more originality than that.

ShadowHearth

ShaneU wrote: »

It has an 87 on metacritic right now. I'd never judge a game solely on one review, let alone an edge review


Black ops was less than 6 hours and this has more originality than that.

I found black ops sp horrible so far! It's such a boring experience! I can't even imagine how badly this is then!

I was hoping to grab it aswell, but deep inside I knew it will be generic fps. As I can honestly say not a single viideo I watched hyped me up...

DarC_Kn1ght

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2THG9uZkWA

DarkJager

ShaneU wrote: »

It has an 87 on metacritic right now. I'd never judge a game solely on one review, let alone an edge review


Black ops was less than 6 hours and this has more originality than that.

This isn't fit to polish Black Ops shoes. At least the COD series knows that its SP is a core element of it and never fails to deliver an action packed 7 or 8 hours of pure enjoyment, on top of its multiplayer. The fact this can't even manage half that length says all you need to know about comparing this crap to COD.

ShaneU

DarkJager wrote: »

This isn't fit to polish Black Ops shoes. At least the COD series knows that its SP is a core element of it and never fails to deliver an action packed 7 or 8 hours of pure enjoyment, on top of its multiplayer. The fact this can't even manage half that length says all you need to know about comparing this crap to COD.

You haven't even played it :rolleyes:

DarkJager

ShaneU wrote: »

You haven't even played it :rolleyes:

And I won't be either, not even renting it. This game had no intention of being a single player as they are obviously far too concerned with their multiplayer audience. As least with Black Ops, I paid my €50 and got around 8 hours of pure enjoyment out of it. Paying the same amount for a game that struggles to last 4 and will not be able to compete in anyway with Black Ops SP seems a bit of a waste to me.

Trevor451

Black ops like ALL call of duty games had a mediocre campaign :rolleyes:

pixelburp

Well I thought the Black Ops campaign was a load of noisy, incoherent nonsense, so I guess horses for courses n' all that

DarkJager

Trevor451 wrote: »

Black ops like ALL call of duty games had a mediocre campaign :rolleyes:

Depends what you class as mediocre. Personally, it was like playing through a good action movie with just the right pace and set pieces thrown in to keep it fresh. I enjoyed MW & MW2 as well, although some people just like to bash COD now for the sake of it. The difference with COD - at least they made the effort to give the single player what they paid for. When something like Homefront comes along and says "heres 4 hours of a story, but we've got mulitplayer as well" its very clear where their heart was in making this game.

I really wish they'd just split these 2 modes apart. If you're going to make a multiplayer, leave the SP out of it because its only going to be half arsed. If its Single Player only, don't shoe in some MP mode for the sake of it - give us a solid SP title that we will want to come back to. Going half and half is clearly not working.

pablomakaveli

I wouldn't hold Black Ops up as an example of a good SP campaign.

Grumpypants

How to read Edge review scores

Xbox exclusive subtract 3 marks
PS3 Exclusive add 2 marks
Multiplatform add 1-2 marks.

Example Edge scores
Halo 3 10/10
Killzone 3 7/10
Homefront 5/10

When deciphered
Halo 3 7/10
Killzone 3 9/10
Homefront 7/10

Looks much better.


On Homefront if played on normal and rushed through its around 4-5 hours long if played on a higher difficulty level and you talk to everyone and read all the papers 7-8 hours.

Simple fact is COD cost around 55million to develop and small studios cant spend that kind of money so the games wont be as long, but what they did was put a good interesting story and tried something a bit different. Hopefully the game sells well and they get backed to build further in the series and have the cash to increase the SP campaign.


Also no one should hold up COD as an example of a good SP campaign its garbage, its so cheesy and ill thought out the writers of James Bond would blush.

wandatowell

I happen to enjoy the MP aspect of FPS's more than the SP mode.

For example I put in maybe 10+ plus hours into playing the SP mode with Black Ops while I put in nearly 80+ when playing MP.


MP is alot more important to me that SP.

For this reason alone I will be getting Home Front I think.

Helix

Grumpypants wrote: »

On Homefront if played on normal and rushed through its around 4-5 hours long

its almost exactly 3 hours long

DarkJager

Eurogamer - 6/10

Not that sub-par characterisation will be at the front of your mind as you follow these cardboard cut-outs through a single-player campaign that is slim even by current first-person shooter standards. Most of the time you'll be wondering why these characters are even here, since you're always either being shoved aside while they move the plot forwards, or left to fend for yourself while they hide behind scenery. There's no middle ground.

So when the game tells you which button to press to jump into a mass grave and hide from a Korean patrol, it's especially pointless. You already know that's what you've got to do because the game has manoeuvred you into a place where it's the only logical response, while your NPC companions have voiced the thought for you and jumped in to illustrate the point – but you can't actually do anything until that prompt appears and gives you permission 10 seconds later.

That's how scripted this game is. Every ladder, every door, every obstacle forces you to step aside and wait while AI drones take the lead. Then you follow in their wake, always heading for the little white blob that says "follow", in case you were in any doubt

It sounds utterly boring beyond belief. And Black Ops single player is being compared to this? That's laughable.

But there's no personality and there are no moments: none of those perfect collisions between concept and execution which give you that fist-pump rush that a good shooter needs. You're always aware that this is a pale echo of a more successful formula.

Homefront floats in the limbo between "not bad" and "pretty good", and is hamstrung by a single-player element that feels like a half-hearted obligation. What's most disappointing is that Homefront wanted so much to join COD and Battlefield at the top of the genre, but has ended up as merely a weekend timewaster for players waiting for the next shooter fix

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2011-03-15-homefront-review?page=1


That last point validates what I've been saying. If you make a half hearted attempt at a single player, it will be noticed regardless of what your multiplayer mode does.

Sephiroth_dude

DarC_Kn1ght wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2THG9uZkWA

Based on those reviews I think I'll wait till its very cheap.

pixelburp

I watched the first 15 minutes of the game via Eurogamer & tbh, the "Cod knock-off" comment holds true. Massively scripted, lots of "interactive" cut scenes, they even have the melodramatic loading videos.

We already had the "Omg American's invaded, watch as you fight in a burger bar" in MW2, I'm not sure why we're meant to feel shock at Homefront's jingoistic schtick.

ShadowHearth

Holy crap, when did black ops sp was a good sp experience?! Atleast in mw1 amd mw2 they were fun.... Sniper bit in Chernobyl. Airport butchering. Ghost death. American soldier nuke. Invasion of us...

It's was good crack like a summer action movie. Seem it once amd after that - meh.

Black ops did not even managed to do that, I Cant even force myself to get back and finish it... It's just soooooooo generic now. Shoot go shoot go. Damm I am playing k&l 2 now and I love story and characters way more then black daisy pushers...


I like the mag did for ps3. Pure multiplayer, no half arsed sp. Bioshock 1 - amazing sp game, no multiplayer. Bioshock 2 - goes tits up. As tries to do bouth...


As for this one... I looked forward to fuel of war, or how was it called. It's was good crack for 30 mins then meh... This can have same fate.


Now don't understand me wrong. It will sell better then sex and drugs in Amsterdam, coders need a fix fast as they get a bit bored shooting each ather in to back. This will do them untill new cod bananza.

Only reason I play cod now and then becouse lads from work and friends play it... You wount see me masturbating with it alone.

The Freeman

WOW

its at 72% on metacritic after 28 reviews

http://www.metacritic.com/game/xbox-360/homefront

not good at all, think i'll have to wait for Battlefield 3 for a multiplayer not like COD

Grumpypants

Its weird, the developers said they wanted to do something different to COD, many of the reviewers comment on this then go and compare it to COD

And since when did COD become to marker for shooters.

Its not like COD, its more like the latest MOH in solo campaign anyway, from my point of view. Few great bits, few bad points.

Its a good game, its not a great game.

flyingsnail

DARK-KNIGHT wrote: »

Have this preordered and payed for in full and reading this I think I might pass tbh!!

Isn't this meant to be a sequel to frontlines fuel of war? I ****ing hated that game

did anybody like that game? I sure didnt:mad:

Healium

Apparently THQ shares dropped 20% after the average reviews

Helix

Grumpypants wrote: »

Its a good game, its not a great game.

spot on, and the scores of the 70% range show this

unfortunately, for some reason people see 70-80% as a really crappy game. i wish i got those kinda really crappy scores all the time when i was in school

Kiith

I was going to pick this up, as the single player sounded interesting...but 3 hours? Good luck with that.

ShadowHearth

In all fairness I don't think I would enjoy multiplayer... Ability to pull out a tank out of your hole any time given just kills any realism... Which these shooters are popular for...

Interesting fact:

lads that are on xbox and play cod 95% of theyr online time are soooooo hyped about this game, I told a few f them as
It's not that great, it has avarage reviews... They looked at me as I was a Nazi.
All my pc friends: meh...

Now I am not bashing one communty, as I am really spending alot more time on consoles then pc lately, but it just shows how short sighted sime console gamers can be. Alot of my xbox game friends don't know how pc even works...

I will just let this game slide. Then take it for a fiver in bargain bin in a
2 months. Same as fuel of war...

MiCr0

any idea on where's the cheapest to pick this up in-store?

dunworth1

Grumpypants wrote: »

Its weird, the developers said they wanted to do something different to COD, many of the reviewers comment on this then go and compare it to COD

And since when did COD become to marker for shooters.

Its not like COD, its more like the latest MOH in solo campaign anyway, from my point of view. Few great bits, few bad points.

Its a good game, its not a great game.

what is your view on the multiplayer?

i enjoyed the MOH campaign.

i dont really listen to reviews most of the time as the review is on how the person reviewing it thought of it and there not me

ShadowHearth

dunworth1 wrote: »

what is your view on the multiplayer?

i enjoyed the MOH campaign.

i dont really listen to reviews most of the time as the review is on how the person reviewing it thought of it and there not me

i ussully check reviews, as they are out before games out these days.


i check it to see the gameplay and decide if i will enjoy it, but i would not trust a review at all...

Grumpypants

dunworth1 wrote: »

what is your view on the multiplayer?

i enjoyed the MOH campaign.

i dont really listen to reviews most of the time as the review is on how the person reviewing it thought of it and there not me

Except Bone-idle reviews of course lol

Have not had a chance to get any where near it, ive been snowed under recently. But its meant to be quite good.

I think my biggest problem with Homefront is that it isn't the game i had in my head, which is a weird thing to say but after a year and a bit of listening to the promotional material i had this epic built up in my imagination.

I think they missed a lot of easy opportunities to bulk it out and make it more interesting, as the start does set up a really good concept and atmosphere, they could have included some RPG elements some side missions to help citizens and the subsequent talking would have been interesting for the story.

I guess it is a large problem with Hyping a game you under Hype it it doesn't sell, you over hype it its very hard to live up to those expectations.

DarkJager

Grumpypants wrote: »

Except Bone-idle reviews of course lol

Have not had a chance to get any where near it, ive been snowed under recently. But its meant to be quite good.

I think my biggest problem with Homefront is that it isn't the game i had in my head, which is a weird thing to say but after a year and a bit of listening to the promotional material i had this epic built up in my imagination.

I think they missed a lot of easy opportunities to bulk it out and make it more interesting, as the start does set up a really good concept and atmosphere, they could have included some RPG elements some side missions to help citizens and the subsequent talking would have been interesting for the story.

I guess it is a large problem with Hyping a game you under Hype it it doesn't sell, you over hype it its very hard to live up to those expectations.

That's confused me about it as well. I've read that they even have a book or 2 detailing what happens in the lead up to the game - pretty pointless considering its only 4 hours long and seems to be more MP focused. Whatever chance they had to build a series out of it is dead in the water due to them overlooking the SP. I don't think many people would even take much notice of a sequel after it.

Spear

For those who have it pre-loaded, you can just go to the folder it's in under the Steam folder and start it from the homefront.exe without waiting for the official release.

jill_valentine

Sat down to give this a go before I went to bed. Have just finished it. Took me a shade over four hours, and I was only half paying attention.

Not impressed. The controls are unremarkable, the characters are thinly sketched, the environments are - oddly, considering the muscle of the premise - completely devoid of any emotional resonance, and the tone is horribly misjudged. Connor is one of the most totally unlikeable videogame characters in recent memory and he made one throwaway joke that made me want to actually throw the Xbox away on top of it just to make a point.

There was one really arresting set piece in it that made me sit up,

the white phosphorous attack

, but it came and went and that was that. I was left thinking, despite myself that man, if Call of Duty had that scene in it, I would have been properly horrified by the implications of it, as opposed to just quite impressed by the visuals. I felt like such a dramatic idea was wasted in this game; as out of place as a Korean soldier marshalling POWs into a schoolbus in Colorado.

Indeed, loathe though I am to extend such a lazy comparison, Call of Duty's suburban war stages were far better realised and far more fun to play. Not only does Homefront fail to expand on the concept presented there, it fails even to equal it.

I don't play online, so this will be going back where I got it shortly. A real shame - a very interesting idea, realised very poorly.

Sisko

Completely not surprised at all when I saw the trailer for it. I remember debating with a mate of mine at the time who thought it was gonna be deadly.

Pssh even the idea is just retarded, NK invading the US...lol.


Thing is though I'm still disappointed that its a fail as kaos studios were the lads that made my fav MP game of all time Desert Combat, which was a bf1942 mod.

Hoped to see great things from those guys

Helix

Sisko wrote: »

Pssh even the idea is just retarded, NK invading the US...lol.

Hoped to see great things from those guys

the idea is excellent, and its very well realised

its just so bloody short

dunworth1

Helix wrote: »

the idea is excellent, and its very well realised

its just so bloody short

see this is why i dont take much notice of reviews

because of the three here

one said i was great but short

another said it was really crap.

and another said it was all around good.

each person has a different feel for the game

the multiplayer must be good be as they needed to more then double the deciated servers for it.

FooFighters

Is Homefront worth getting if so why?

ShadowHearth

FooFighters wrote: »

Is Homefront worth getting if so why?

It's worth it! Becouse it prints money, makes woman pregnant 1km around!!!

Nah seriuosly, check this thread and look in to opinions. It is mentioned above as everyone get theyr own idea of good and bad.

I personally think it's a **** wrapped in nice paper with good idea, but very poorly executed.

My xbox cod friends say: it's the best game in the world!!!!