Homefront Review

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

Homefront Review

Boys! Avenge me! Avenge me!

Read Full Article

Did they actually put the wilhelm scream in their video game?
I know a lot of things were covered in the article and video, but that's what stuck with me most.

that's too bad hearing that the single player mode is very short and not in a good way either.

But Johnfunk's preview of the Homefront's multi-player sounds a lot of fun.

LOL @ the Wolverines bit at the end.

SomebodyNowhere:
Did they actually put the wilhelm scream in their video game?
I know a lot of things were covered in the article and video, but that's what stuck with me most.

Yes, they actually did. We counted two of them in just the 30 minutes or so we were capturing video.

The story is ridiculous modern military hardware is hardened against EMPs so as soon as they wipe out our electrical grid the military would start launching nukes, then everyone loses.

Too bad, the game seemed promising. Another CoD clone. It's been kinda fun Kaos. Good luck in Canada.

I'm not really sure what you were getting at when you were talking about "who are the bad guys again?" I mean, if a country invades us, I'm pretty sure killing them in all sorts of creative ways is probably the right thing to do. After all, they invaded us. But fine review otherwise.

ryai458:
The story is ridiculous modern military hardware is hardened against EMPs so as soon as they wipe out our electrical grid the military would start launching nukes, then everyone loses.

Stop complaining about the story, we get it, it's unrealistic. It's a game, it doesn't need to be plausible.

OT: Shame to hear the singleplayer is a bit of a let down... however it still looks intriguing and the multiplayer looks fun! So I'll be picking this up anyway :3

After watching this I now have a sudden urge to play that EMPd DC level in MW2.

Easily my favorite part of that game.

it still looks fun enough and an interesting enough story to keep me interested. i'll pick it up when the price drops and im looking for an FPS fix.

im interested though, is this a stand alone game, or are they planning more installments? if the game ends with you retaking the golden gate bridge, that doesn't exactly sound like a "yay you did the most important thing evar now the war is over" it just sounds like a "oh good job you took the fancy bridge but theres still a lot of work to be done"

Also, I said the word interested or interesting a lot. saying that previous sentence didn't help. oh well...

Actually playing through the game right now, I'll agree with the single player campaign being a little bit on the short side but for it's worth it's still pretty fun. The online and MP sections of the game is where it shines though. It's fu*king fantastic. As a matter of fact, I was just able to hunt down a player who was marked by our Battle Commander and killed him as a sniper. Netted myself a good amount of BP for it. Awesome game, if you're looking for a good Mp experience I'd recommend getting the game.

Sounds shit to me all right. Wasn't expecting anything good though, so it's not like I'm disappointed.

Were you being serious about the complacency/survivalist business?

...

Mr Pitts, are you in the NRA or something similar?

WOLVERI-AGH! I'm dead... XD

Seriously. Why does it seem like no one can properly translate the "America gets invaded by -INSERT FOREIGN COUNTRY HERE- " story into a good video game? I mean, IO Interactive did pretty decent with Freedom Fighters, but everyone else...

image Sweet honking shit...

Might get this when it goes on sale on Steam, or if gamestop has it cheap for PS3.

Sounds like poo to me and I am glad my assumptions were correct, at least on the Escapist.

GamesB2:

ryai458:
The story is ridiculous modern military hardware is hardened against EMPs so as soon as they wipe out our electrical grid the military would start launching nukes, then everyone loses.

Stop complaining about the story, we get it, it's unrealistic. It's a game, it doesn't need to be plausible.

OT: Shame to hear the singleplayer is a bit of a let down... however it still looks intriguing and the multiplayer looks fun! So I'll be picking this up anyway :3

But realistic is what they are going for, they are trying to say this COULD happen get emotionally involved in this game, but its ridiculous.

Essentially a Modern Warfare clone eh? Think I'll pass. If I wanted to play Call of Duty, I'd play Call of Duty.

The Real Sandman:
WOLVERI-AGH! I'm dead... XD

Seriously. Why does it seem like no one can properly translate the "America gets invaded by -INSERT FOREIGN COUNTRY HERE- " story into a good video game? I mean, IO Interactive did pretty decent with Freedom Fighters, but everyone else...

image Sweet honking shit...

AH! KILL IT! KILL IT WITH FIRE!

But yeah, Freedom Fighters kicks all sorts of ass.

ryai458:
But realistic is what they are going for, they are trying to say this COULD happen get emotionally involved in this game, but its ridiculous.

So assume everything that could've possibly went wrong, did.

For example: The US sold most of their warheads, then through good fortune or spies they instantly attacked the remaining warheads or the remaining warheads happened to be too dusty to work correctly.

GamesB2:

ryai458:
The story is ridiculous modern military hardware is hardened against EMPs so as soon as they wipe out our electrical grid the military would start launching nukes, then everyone loses.

Stop complaining about the story, we get it, it's unrealistic. It's a game, it doesn't need to be plausible.

Except that one of the MAIN selling points of the game was that it's story was supposedly "Unsettlingly plausible". While the "It's not realistic" complaint wouldn't hold much water for an RPG, I think we can hold a game accountable for its bullshit when it claims to NOT have any bullshit.

As for the actual game, I called it. Basically CoD but with Koreans and a less terrible story.

I was actually a bit disappointed about the review (especially the video supplement). While funny it seems to me strange to put up a review when you have not even spent enough time on an important part of the game (in this case multiplayer). Why not wait with the review to give a good overall impression, rather than this sole focus on the single-player. Now I don't care whether it is a good game or not, but a review like this feels incomplete. It does not adequately tell me whether I should consider it or not.

Wolverines part was funny though.

wasn't really expecting much of it, i've gotten tired of Mordern warfare games. i've been playing Halo: Reach since launch while black ops i stopped after two weeks, i've got Duke Nukem pre-ordered and waiting for some more fun shooters.

GamesB2:

ryai458:
But realistic is what they are going for, they are trying to say this COULD happen get emotionally involved in this game, but its ridiculous.

So assume everything that could've possibly went wrong, did.

For example: The US sold most of their warheads, then through good fortune or spies they instantly attacked the remaining warheads or the remaining warheads happened to be too dusty to work correctly.

Yes, but does the game ever imply that any of that ever happened? No, the game just says "This happens to America" while kindly sweeping any form of realistic retaliation under the rug. Also "Too dusty"? Fucking really?

sibrenfetter:
I was actually a bit disappointed about the review (especially the video supplement). While funny it seems to me strange to put up a review when you have not even spent enough time on an important part of the game (in this case multiplayer). Why not wait with the review to give a good overall impression, rather than this sole focus on the single-player. Now I don't care whether it is a good game or not, but a review like this feels incomplete. It does not adequately tell me whether I should consider it or not.

Wolverines part was funny though.

Well, TBH, multiplayer shouldn't be an important part of the review. It's like Yahtzee put it, a full price game should be able to stand up on single-player alone because there are inherent flaws with multiplayer the game can't help. Like the multiplayer being deserted within a few months or the playerbase being incessant bellends.

Meh. I don't care as much about the single player, but from what I understand the multiplayer in this game might be a lot better than the random spawn fest that the CoD franchise has seemed to turn into. Seriously, how hard is it to implement an option where I can spawn next to a teammate so we can coordinate our moves across the map? Reach did it.

That's saddening to me. I'll probably still give it a whirl though and sell it back though.

Probably should stop buying first person shooters now. (Except For Bad Company.)

Triforceformer:
Yes, but does the game ever imply that any of that ever happened? No, the game just says "This happens to America" while kindly sweeping any form of realistic retaliation under the rug. Also "Too dusty"? Fucking really?

Maybe I should shell out for that SarcMarc...

Let me rephrase my original sentence: ...too dusty. /Satire.

Yes it should imply, however arguing about the plausibility of the backstory is a bit of a wasted point that doesn't get anywhere until there is developer clarification. Let it be.

Triforceformer:

Well, TBH, multiplayer shouldn't be an important part of the review. It's like Yahtzee put it, a full price game should be able to stand up on single-player alone because there are inherent flaws with multiplayer the game can't help. Like the multiplayer being deserted within a few months or the playerbase being incessant bellends.

See this does not make any sense to me. This would mean you would have rated a classic like Battlefield 2 with a 0 because it did not have any singleplayer. Why should multiplayer not be an important part? Me and many others play Modern Warfare games not for the single player (which are awefull), but for the fantastic multiplayer. In these games the core is the multiplayer and not the singleplayer experience. Therefore focusing only on the singleplayer would actually give a wrong view of the game. Whether or not it is for you depends on your interest in multiplayer, but that is not up to the review to decide.

Red Dawn? More like Far Gone.

sibrenfetter:

Triforceformer:

Well, TBH, multiplayer shouldn't be an important part of the review. It's like Yahtzee put it, a full price game should be able to stand up on single-player alone because there are inherent flaws with multiplayer the game can't help. Like the multiplayer being deserted within a few months or the playerbase being incessant bellends.

See this does not make any sense to me. This would mean you would have rated a classic like Battlefield 2 with a 0 because it did not have any singleplayer. Why should multiplayer not be an important part? Me and many others play Modern Warfare games not for the single player (which are awefull), but for the fantastic multiplayer. In these games the core is the multiplayer and not the singleplayer experience. Therefore focusing only on the singleplayer would actually give a wrong view of the game. Whether or not it is for you depends on your interest in multiplayer, but that is not up to the review to decide.

Agreed, is Multiplayer is part of the product, it should be included in the review.

I don't understand why the reviewer thought that the NARRATIVE was this game's strong suit.
It's the kind of narrative that is so ridiculous, it would only ever be taken seriously on Fox News.

NEWSFLASH:
NORTH KOREA ATTACKS THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Yeah... that's very likely to happen from a hermetically sealed impoverished country, just approaching 1980s technology. The whole of North Korea possesses 6 to 8 nuclear weapons.
Woopdeedoo.

The ridiculousness of the narrative was in my opinion the litmus test of the designers' mental faculties and lack of creativity. If the designers were able to introduce such a silly narrative, I have always ASSUMED the gameplay would be equally atrocious.

HankMan:
Red Dawn? More like Far Gone.

oh, my sides are splitting :P

I just hope the MP is good, it cant be any worse than COD's...

It's sounds a bit like Metro 2033 (Good setting, shitty gameplay)

More focus on being innovative and fresh in the narrative than actually creating a plausible story with fresh gameplay design to match it. Happens all the time really, for example, every COD game after MW1. Bring on LA Noire, then when i'm done with the supposedly intelligient gaming for the year i can revert back to comic book action in Arkham City, crazy sci-fi in ME3 and get some fantasy dragon ass kickery done in Skyrim. No room for boring FPS's on my schedule thank you very much.

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here