Homefront Review

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

John Horn:
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.

Did you even see the time line?
2027
That is 16 years later from now.
You are america doesn't mean that you will never be invaded or become a lesser power.
Ever heard of alternate reality?
You sound like the guy that would call back to the future a poor movie with shitty plot because the time travel does not exist or would dislike a rpg merely because it was "too fantasy".

I detest movies in which the bad guy is this comical ass who's most vulgar words is "Twinkle toes" So Gritty realism is wonderful for me. I'll have to play the game to see, but f you're going to rule the world, you're going to me a bad ass, an asshole, and an over all sicko. Realistic "Evil", TRUE evil sucks and sometimes FEELS unnecessary in games, but I always get interested and wanna see where it goes

I was sorely disappointed with it. Gladi did not pre-order.

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).

The one thing about this game that stops it from being a Modern Warfare clone is the storyline; that's its sole gimmick. Where is this gimmick not used? The multi-player - so why exactly is the games focus on its most generic aspect?

ryai458:

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.

Agreed 100% on this.

I seem to remember from the one trailer I saw that North takes over South Korea and from that point on starts taking over other countries for their resources. Really? And nobody would feel the need to stop them while they are expanding? Especially with the lessons learned from WWII I would think this would be a given.

And to top it off we go with the EMP option that knocks eeeeeverything out. Really? And the military didn't see this coming and haven't EMP hardened their hardware yet??

I don't mind stretching what is plausible, but when you market something like it is supposed to be realistic I think at the very least you should make sure that your story has at least some relevance to reality.

Waitwaitwaitwaitwait wait wait. Wait. The NORTH KOREANS are the enemy? No. The North Koreans do not have the means to invade the entirety of the United States. No. That is stupid.

Well I'm severely disappointed.

I was actually excited about this game, but it sounds like crap.

D_987:

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).

The one thing about this game that stops it from being a Modern Warfare clone is the storyline; that's its sole gimmick. Where is this gimmick not used? The multi-player - so why exactly is the games focus on its most generic aspect?

Not entirely true. It's multiplayer looks to be doing a few things differently from CoD, too. In fact, I'm pretty sure it's safe to say the MP IS this game's primary focus.

http://www.destructoid.com/preview-homefront-multiplayer--192224.phtml

EDIT- Oh, and I honestly am not surprised the campaign is disappointing. I'm more interested in it's multiplayer, anyway.

Meh, all the previews gave me a mediocre vibe. This review doesn't surprise me. :/

Vibhor:

John Horn:
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.

Did you even see the time line?
2027
That is 16 years later from now.
You are america doesn't mean that you will never be invaded or become a lesser power.
Ever heard of alternate reality?
You sound like the guy that would call back to the future a poor movie with shitty plot because the time travel does not exist or would dislike a rpg merely because it was "too fantasy".

Actually, the fall of the US Empire has been predicted by economists and scholars to be around 2020 (Professor Johan Galtung), to 2050 (Professor Niall Ferguson). My money is on Galtung being right, since he along with many others predicted the collapse of the Soviet Union to be in 10 years, back in 1980.

"empires - such as the former Soviet Union and the Roman empire - can collapse quite quickly and the tipping point is often when the cost of servicing an empire's debt is larger than the cost of its defense budget. That has not been the case I think at any point in U.S. history, It will be the case in the next five years."
-Niall Ferguson 2010 july Aspen Colorado

So, after 2027, there may not be a United States of America to attack! It could be reborn into various confederations of States (sectors of Economic Influence), West Coast, East Coast, "Zealot Heartland", The Gulf of Mexico etc.

Much less likely is DPRK (Demoractic People's Republic of Korea) ever developing out of its totalitarian, stagnant and impoverished embryo. There is just no way for DPRK out of their problems without an internal revolution. They will rot from the inside and be reborn before they will ever be able to handle the US on an equal footing. Even after the US experiment draws to a close, there will still be a lot of US military equipment and vehicles that can be used for defense. And remember, the DPRK is still in the early 1980s in terms of technology, so the US has a head start despite their imminent collapse.

A Curious Fellow:
Waitwaitwaitwaitwait wait wait. Wait. The NORTH KOREANS are the enemy? No. The North Koreans do not have the means to invade the entirety of the United States. No. That is stupid.

BINGO!

It's too bad there wasn't a bigger focus on the multiplayer aspects of the game but, I don't play multiplayer for a majority of the games I pick up anyway. Based on what I did see, it's good to know that yes: I can pass this game up. It seems I was mistaken though, when I said in another thread that this will be a massive failure. I've seen the opening cinematic and the first part of the first level as well and have not been enticed by the extreme level of controversial, military brutality committed against civilians.

You should go out of your way to review more games that piss you off. I could feel the raw emotion that went in to this review. This is the first Escapist review that I can remember that didn't feel like hearing a vice synthesizer reading a Microsoft Word document. I give this review of Homefront a 10 out of 10

well, ignoring the derp of the people who love to attempt to point out NK can't do anything .. I guess they are the same people who got an F in history, especially when it came to WWI to WWII Germany because they were too busy drawing swastikas and giggling each time the heard the words Nazi & Gestapo...

Anyways - I dropped this game from a 'pre-order' to a 'meh - if I ever have $10 bucks for a used copy' solely due to the single player game being in the 5-8 hour mark. I mean, seriously Kaos - you drum up an internet firestorm regarding the plot, the "fame" of your writer, but then decide to barely poop out a long enough single player game and decide the game should rater be another COD online clone??

I mean hell, the COD's are nothing but online games and they barely even mention the "awesomeness" of their single player game.

I have no sympathy if the game bombs and it fails to prevent the closing of your studio...

It seems like a passable game, but I feel like I would have trouble taking its message seriously if the bad guys were Korean. Even if North and South Korea combined there is NO WAY they would ever have the facilities to invade the U.S. China would make a more believable enemy, but even they would be a stretch (because we rely on each other for economic reasons).

I still remember how almost a year back or somesuch (can't remember exactly when - I think last year's May or June or such), the writer on this who came here from movies raised a big ball of controvesy over how "most games suck at story" and how this game was gonna be totally rad and awesome in it.

And my takeaway from this? The premise is interesting (though not original by any measure of standard if I remember games like Freedom Fighters or Red Alert 2 and frankly quite silly if I consider the finer points of global events, but hey - it doesn't have to be, it's a game!) But the details and execution however fall to the designers to implement moreso than the writers and this...is where it is like every other game really.

Now I'm sure the writer is gonna probably not going to admit to not forseeing this and perhaps spin it into yet another diatribe of (it's not me, it's videogames that suck for stories!) but honestly...I can't help but come away from this with a feeling similar to Yahtzee's comment on Epic Mickey: "Kingdom Hearts was edgier than this." with 'edgier' here replaced by 'well written'.

I was really hoping that this would be good. I liked the premise and hoped that it would be a bit like another game I played. I guess it wasn't.

I'm guessing for folk who want to play Red Dawn: The Game, track down a used copy of Freedom Fighters or get some MS points for Toy Soldiers: Cold War.

John Horn:
-snip-

Yet again, you are still being too real.
This is a game, a game where you do not die when a bullet hits you and recover damage in merely seconds as opposed to days, years even!
And in a game implausible situations are possible if they are given a correct description which in this case is that Korea conquered Asia before attacking the U.S. and even that after disabling all technology which means US had no nukes, no computer and no electricity.
Does the scenario seems more plausible to you now?

Chunko:
It seems like a passable game, but I feel like I would have trouble taking its message seriously if the bad guys were Korean. Even if North and South Korea combined there is NO WAY they would ever have the facilities to invade the U.S. China would make a more believable enemy, but even they would be a stretch (because we rely on each other for economic reasons).

Oh for the...All of this complaining about how the plot 'isn't plausible' is just getting silly now. Who honestly cares if it's realistic or not honestly? They have actually explained how this scenario which the game takes place in...and seems alot better than alot of other shooters. The games out, and the reviews are saying the game is meh so just get off the soap box of this game's plot being unrealistic.

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.

Well if there is no single-player at all, then that is an exception to the rule. Because chances are that if the developer felt the multiplayer was good and deep enough to not need a campaign, then it's worth reviewing on the merits of its single-player experience. But if a full-price game has a substantial single-player option, then that is where the focus should be in a review. If the single-player is considered good enough to warrant the purchase of the game, then the multiplayer can be put on the review table as a major part.

Because that's really all multiplayer can amount to. You playing a game with other guys or gals. There's little story, no proper set-up, and no reason for doing it aside from just to play it. Also, I myself wouldn't call Modern Warfare's multiplayer "Fantastic". Rather, I would call it "Broken, boring, frustrating, and overall shit". But hey, opinions. What can yah do?

And now I have my answer. An EMP bomb. Now I can suspend my disbelief regarding this story. I couldn't wrap my mind around how Korea could get such a strong foothold, but if they wipe out all the U.S. tech, then it wouldn't be too hard. Nicely done.

VitusPrime:

Chunko:
It seems like a passable game, but I feel like I would have trouble taking its message seriously if the bad guys were Korean. Even if North and South Korea combined there is NO WAY they would ever have the facilities to invade the U.S. China would make a more believable enemy, but even they would be a stretch (because we rely on each other for economic reasons).

Oh for the...All of this complaining about how the plot 'isn't plausible' is just getting silly now. Who honestly cares if it's realistic or not honestly? They have actually explained how this scenario which the game takes place in...and seems alot better than alot of other shooters. The games out, and the reviews are saying the game is meh so just get off the soap box of this game's plot being unrealistic.

I'm alright with silly plots, deadrising is one of my favorite games. It's just that the reviewer said that the plot was trying to be serious and send a message. If it's trying to do that get a more plausible enemy than DPRK. Do they seriously expect that North Korea and South Korea would ever merge?

I've played the first three levels and so far it is pretty fun. Again, about the plot, Koreans invading is much more plausible than an alien force of midgets with pink and purple guns...

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

I beg to differ, Metro 2033 had good gameplay

Wow this game really reminds me of a dozen others, I just can't quite put my finger on which ones...

I guess I'll be picking this up when it's $5 and I'm really bored.

Russ, you should have used an airhorn during the puns in the conclusion. Calling out lame puns requires you to go all the way. HONK

It's pretty much what I expected it to be. Personally, I think the beginning sequence wouldn't make me think 'those Koreans are so evil, they make me sick to my stomach!' but rather 'those game devs are trying so hard to make the Koreans look like the new Nazis, it makes me sick to my stomach!'

Also... has anyone played the Freeway Warrior books by the same guy who wrote the (in)famous Lone Wolf books? They're about a teenager, in destroyed America, about twenty years in the future[1] in which you have to ferry fuel from the Midwestern US to the West Coast; you fight through a sports stadium, steal supplies from survivalists and end up in a big fight near San Francisco. Hmmm.

I'll prolly get it for the MP alone. Also I'll make a Let's Play pretending I'm being besieged by a certain country to the North, i.e. Canada.

[1] Which actually sets the book... last year.

Murmillos:
well, ignoring the derp of the people who love to attempt to point out NK can't do anything .. I guess they are the same people who got an F in history, especially when it came to WWI to WWII Germany because they were too busy drawing swastikas and giggling each time the heard the words Nazi & Gestapo...

You are applying Godwin's Law here - using a comparison of Nazi Germany to whatever it is you are arguing about. Godwin's Law: mention Hitler or the Nazis to bolster the argument.

The impoverishment and humiliation of germany after the Versailles Treaty, as well as the hyperinflation caused by the stock market crash of 1920s, had occured in an already strong nation. The hiatus between WW1 and WW2 was a couple decades. DPRK was never this strong in 1954, and it has now been kept sealed for 57 years, and getting weaker still.

Germany became an industrial powerhouse due to a geographically and geologically varied and versatile land. The German Reich took shape prior to Bismarck, but it was Bismarck who refined Germany into a proper republic. Hitler merely usurped it and put the reich on steroids.
To compare DPRK with Germany in terms of potential industrial base or R&D levels is worthy an F in my class.

Hmmm... Looks like someone nicked half of Modern Warfare 2 here. Whilst I actually quite liked MW2 (you read that right), I already own it, and it has more stuff in it, and don't really feel like buying half of it again.

From what I've seen in youtube playthroughs, the game plays perfectly just like every other modern AAA FPS, etc. I guess Mr. Pitts has reached a point of perfection-fatigue and just being adequately gratifying isn't enough to carry a game anymore. I hope more people are feeling like this.

EDIT: Also, his video reviews are always funny. :D Yes, the entire thing looks like the Burger Town/Arcadia/DC portion of MW2.

who actually cares about the singleplayer?

FPS are all about the multiplayer, not the single player. the multiplayer/singleplayer weighting should be 10/1 not 1/1.

i spent 5-10 hours on the singleplayer in every cod game ive ever played. ive spent huundreds on hours on the multiplayer. i really couldnt care less about how short the singleplayer is.

Ill wait for Crysis 2

Good review Russ. Covered all the important bases. I got the same feelings watching my friend play this last night.

A reveiw that was funny AND a reference to Randy from Southpark, Mr.Pitts just went up'a'notch in my book. Hes on notch 6.

You can debate whether the events Kaos outlined leading up to 2027 are sound from a foreign policy standpoint (though I really haven't seen anyone give a well written, logically grounded blow-by-blow about why each individual milestone is impossibly far fetched), but you have to give them credit for trying something new. I don't think it's significant in the way they do - I think it's rather sensationalist, to tell the truth - but they had an idea.

A good idea.

An idea that they thought had the potential for an engaging narrative and atmosphere. An idea that they pursued with a very risky amount of resources for a studio so little established and recognized. They did what they could to make this idea fly (and of course make money), and the industry and community asked the hard questions that their idea raised.

But then, not only did almost everybody (rightly for the most part) call bull, it became almost in vogue to hate Homefront before it even got released. The former was inevitable, the latter is just silly and kind of sad. It's a bad habit to criticize games you haven't actually played, especially since that's more or less the argument many of the same gamers used to counter Roger Ebert's denunciation of videogames as art.

As the reviews come in, it seems Homefront did fail, that the gulf between concept and gameplay remains very wide, and the narrative, while the context was very effectively established, failed to move the game along. I can't help but feel disappointed, I was hoping for a success as a step away from the CoD formula (even though I quite enjoyed Black Ops), but also so I could see the people who hated on Homefront as a sport eat their own words.

But oh well. Anyway, solid review, if maybe a bit rushed. Good work Escapist.

Anyway, back on the topic of zomgnorthkoreafailsunrealisticdurr, I'd really like to see a major columnist from FP magazine write their opinions on the matter. That'd be kind of cool. Maybe by Tom Rick or David Rothkopf.

The most rediculous premise ever cannot save a very generic MW clone.

We never expected that.

SenorNemo:
You can debate whether the events Kaos outlined leading up to 2027 are sound from a foreign policy standpoint (though I really haven't seen anyone give a well written, logically grounded blow-by-blow about why each individual milestone is impossibly far fetched)

Milestone 1: North Korea merges with South Korea. No, just no.
Milestone 2: Korea assimilates Japan. What?
Milestone 3: Korea invades the US. And they have an EMP. And no other countries intervene. And they have the manpower to do this. And the firepower. Ok. This is not far fetched.

 Pages PREV 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