Homefront Review

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

God this game looks BORING!

set a game somewhere else will ya

From seeing & reading the review, plus watching some live-gaming on jtv I`m not too pessimistic about the game. Sure, it could be called "just another shooter" or a (insert favorite fps-here)-clone, but at least it adds some new elements to the mix. The BP-system doesn`t seem that bad, the stages look good enough, and from what I heard from the player on the live stream the controls are pretty good as well. Will I buy it however? Probably not, and simply put - because I`m sick of the genre after MW1 + 2 and BfBC2. The latter game is the one I played the most, and had a kick ass time doing so, but in the end it just felt like just another grindfest. I doubt Homefront will feel any different to me after a while. Then again, I could be wrong - but I sincerely doubt I`ll lose any sleep over it.

I said it before and I'll say it again: Seriously? North Korea invades the United States? Seriously?


Look guys, if you aren't just trolling then read the bloody plot before commenting on it, geeze. If you'd paid more than a passing interest in it you'd know all the relevant details that create the fictional future where a united Asia, the economic powerhouse of the world, is capable of waltzing into the States to casually molest everyone.

It's fiction, deal with it. Or do you complain that one guy single-handedly takes on a Covenant armada? That a middle-eastern warlord blows up a nuke and kills a bunch of yanks? That a Marshall can lead a rebellion and fly a seriously kick-ass battleship whilst consuming that much whiskey? At least these guys bothered putting together a timeline for you :/

I don't mind silly stories. Bad writing is common in most games (except Bioware). My original post was about the reviewer mentioning the narrative as some presumed strong point in the game.
I was merely pointing out the obvious:

(Silly narrative in the style of Man from U.N.C.L.E) < (Call of Duty clone)
Guess which aspect makes this a seller? CoD Clone :)

I was going to get it by trading in MW1 and MW2, but I'd rather save trading those in for when something worth while rolls up.

Can noone understand that this is a WORST CASE SCENARIO? The North Koreans dont invade South Korea they pretty much do what happened with East/West Germany.

Why noone was stopping the expansion, Economic Downturn (Read: German Expansion before invasion of Poland)

ahhh fuck it I can't be bothered explaining it anymore...So here's a link for you all explaining it rather well

John Horn:
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.


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.

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.

It's true, if they wanted to be somewhat "semi-realistic" it would have been the People's Republic of China. It has the economic standing, manpower and potential. Canada seems awfully quiet though... I wonder O_O. Heh.

But seriously, it's not that invasion by a foreign power is implausible, it's just that the circumstances and "baddies" list we have on likely candidates hasn't changed since the cold war. If they really wanted to be edgy, they could have made a game about civil/sectarian warfare within the US as a result of all the stuff this game's intro showed and it would have been compelling if they did it right. But of course we can't have that... too politically charged for us lowly, ignorant Americans to handle, and the media would probably put the entire gaming industry on the rack for such a plot concept.

Eh, my two cents.

Well, I wasn't disapointed, low expectations will never let you down.




Key word? Fiction. Disbelief? You must suspend it, just as you must with any other piece of fiction. It's tiresome to hear people chundering on about 'hurr, third world country could NEVER invade the US!' when that's completely irrelevant. Anyway, whether you can groove with the plot or not doesn't really matter - the backstory interested me more than the actual game plot and the game play was done and perfected easily by MW1, so not a lot left for this game to sell on in my opinion.

Normally that wouldn't be a problem for me, but read my earlier post.

I'm pretty sure the intro says N Korea annexed S Korea - more conquering than merging. That seemed to be the first hurdle in your protest, the rest fall like dominoes if you just go with the flow. Seriously, there's bigger thing to complain about in that game than a quite interesting back story.

That doesn't change anything though, there is no way DPRK would be able to take over RK. The South Korean military is WAY stronger than the North Korean one. I made the false assumption that they merged because it was the one that seemed most plausible.

Hmm, I saw this coming but is length so much of a problem in a single player experience? Clearly the developers didn't think so but they were comparing themselves to Cod in that sense which I see as the issue. I wonder if it was just the expectation of a longer more epic narrative that I originally had but nonetheless I feel let down by the length and I don't know why. I'll redbox it and see what's what regardless.

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 is exactly what I was thinking :D

The Real Sandman:
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...

You haven't played Red Alert 2.


Soviet Russians invade America in an alternate version of 2001. Damn good RTS with a massive fanbase, myself included. This may be nostalgia talking but it's easily the best game about the invasion of America that I have ever played.


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

Stop using the "it's just a game" excuse. Also, a game that markets itself heavily on plausibility kinda needs to actually be plausible.

OT: Yeah, kinda saw this coming from the moment I saw the first trailer, I never saw a lot of promise in it tbh.



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.

Um dude they don't do reviews of single player and multiplayer games together. multiplayer gets it's own review if it's worth someones time to even review it(milage really varies cause really just how many dynamically different multiplayer experiences are there?) Also I almost never play multiplayer games even when I like them because I don't have the spare change to get an xbox live gold membership so singleplayer is really all I have.

Diamondback One:

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

We never expected that.

The most "rediculous" part of this post here is calling Homefront a MW clone, when it actually has vehicles, a decent story for once, and doesn't kill of a character pretty much every chapter to make you go "OHH NOOO!"

Homefront isn't amazing, and the campaign is lacking, but it's still better than Modern Warfer 2's. And the multiplayer blows MW's out of the water from all the different games I've played. Why? Because it's actually fun, not "camping simulator 2000."

Decent? Having a poor taste in stories is understandable, making a big deal out of the gameplay not being 100% identical, isn't.

I've just realized how sheepish people can be. Just because one reviewer or in this case, a website, says a game is bad, doesn't mean it's bad. Look at Yahtzee, he's one reviewer and he says almost every game sucks yet alot of people like the games he reviews. Homefront is a pretty good game, I would recommend it but hey, I'm just one person.

EDIT: Also, we're not the bad guys because we're killing them in big number, if you invade a country JUST to wipe out the country, you're the bad guy, we're just fighting back because we're defending ourselves. People can be so stupid at times.

I just played it about twenty minutes ago, and I have to say I would give it no more than a 5/10. There's not a single bit of immersion, all the emotional scenes come off as forced and gimmicky, there's no connection with any of the completely cliched characters, the entire story is predictable from before you even start the game, every texture is all dirty and gritty and the graphics (while I don't care that much about them) feel like they're from '06, the guns feel like heavy plastic and have no recoil, the music is completely uninspired and forgettable, all my deaths were either because I was standing in the wrong place during a scripted event or something randomly exploded beside me, and there was even one time where I climbed into a truck where you can't move and have to wait for a scripted chase scene, and I got insta-killed by a rocket.

I could go on for hours, but basically, there is not a single reason to get this while Black Ops and BFBC2 are still available.

I said it before and I'll say it again: Seriously? North Korea invades the United States? Seriously?

Hey it's a videogame, anything can happen.

As someone who isn't a CoD player I enjoyed Homefront. The review constantly mentions how 'this or that' aspect of the game was already done in CoD. Well for those of us that haven't been through all 5(i think) CoD games those interesting moments were simply interesting and fun.

I'm getting tired of reviews taking short cuts by simply labeling a games as 'just like "insert game"'. It usually doesn't really help describe the game and people who haven't played the referenced game are left with still knowing absolutely nothing. I'd have preferred a more descriptive review and less of a comparison to CoD type video.

This was great. Hilarious but still informative, in a way that only a review about a bad game can be.

Even after this review and some other reviews that I have read I still want this game. I don't know why but it just looks like something that I would enjoy but maybe thats just me.


I said it before and I'll say it again: Seriously? North Korea invades the United States? Seriously?

Hey it's a videogame, anything can happen.

True. And now that I think about it, the game may have been a bit better if it had a gun that shot shurikens and lightning.

I kid.

Moral of the story: If it ain't CoD, it's probably crap, right?

Sure, if this had CoD on it? Definitely would have gotten better reviews. CoD has a worse storyline idea, less plot twists (at least in the last level of Homefront it wasn't some pathetic general whining about war itself) and overall just seems like the pathetically generic "bad guy, go shoot them" that we've all become used to. Yes, Homefront didn't quite make it, but only because it was an FPS that wasn't Call of Duty. It tried something new, but nobody WANTS something new unless it's labeled "CoD: MW3."

i get a very big sense of "MEH" after reading and hearing about this game XD

guess the score is a big MEH

Well i wish someone would be bold enough to make a game where the USA invades another country and is considered the big bad meanie. You know something closer to reality.

Seeing my country, most powerful nation on the planet atm, portrayed as the underdog no long jive well with my constitution. I really don't mind being the villain for once.

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.

Except this game was marketed for it's single player.

Red Dawn.

So full of win, even with a pre-F18 in it.

Damnit! I can't find the youtube videos that the uploader changed the subs to make the film hilarious.

Comparing this game to modern Warfare i think was wrong
This is a war game where CoD is Shooter
Maybe u should have compared battlefield with it

I will agree with mot of the review. I did actually enjoy the story, though it was very short in my opinion. Not just short in the feels short way, but the fact that it literally took me 4 hours and 30 minutes to complete. The multiplayer is quite fun, but somehow I feel like it would be better to wait to buy this game when the price goes down. (I would say used, but the game decided to add in a code to all new copies that allows you to go past level 5 in multiplayer... yeah that means without it you can't really get much in multiplayer customization)

Comparing this game to modern Warfare i think was wrong
This is a war game where CoD is Shooter
Maybe u should have compared battlefield with it

Just as comparing Homefront to CoD is an insult to Homefront, comparing Battlefield to Homefront is an insult to Battlefield.

Don't get me wrong, Homefront is fun. I played it until 4 AM this morning. I have school today. But it isn't on the same level as any Battlefield game I've played (and I've played a lot of them). In BF, you actually care who your teammates are. It's important to talk to them, work together, stick together, etc. In Homefront, you can do well with your team, yes. Hell, if you're running a vehicle operation, they're essential, because every vehicle can have a teammate in it, and there's no downside to it. But you can also do very well solo. I got the achievement for getting a 3-star wanted level just by running around the map in a circle with an SMG. If you tried running around alone in a BF game, you would get your shit wrecked quickly, frequently, and thoroughly.

Homefront is in its own category. It shouldn't be compared to anything. Hell, no game should be compared to another game, because that detracts from the merits of the game itself.

Except for COD. COD doesn't have any merits, so compare it to whatever you want. HEY-OH![1]

[1] Seriously though, COD's only redeeming feature is that the people who plug in their mics online take the game seriously, so you can have a LOT of fun trapping them in corners, shooting while following them, and generally acting like a complete n00b.

[quote="John Horn" post="6.270777.10411392"]NEWSFLASH:

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.

not trying to sound twaty but it took germany 10 years from forming the nazi party to them owning most of europe so well its not that crazy. america isnt god.

also if you follow the story its not that crazy

as for the game well i like it but then i like mw so um?

No kidding. I can't tell if whoever wrote this was trying to make fun of the paranoid streak in American politics, or just doesn't realize how fantastically stupid the idea of North Korea invading the US is.

Excluding the fact that they would have to defeat our navy and airforce just to land, how exactly are they going to get here? Their navy has nothing but coastal boats for crying out loud! Their Air Force STILL USES ANTONOV AN-2s!

North Korea invading the US is about as likely as Chad invading the US, and would be about as successful if attempted.

This game sucked pretty bad. Regrettable purchase.

Basically, they use the outlandish story of Koreans invading the US, which we've all talked about. So, going-in while knowing this, I figured.. what the hell, we'll suspend belief for a bit and I'll just pretend to be a guerrilla in Colorado suburbs.

Well, at no point is there anything remotely interesting in regards to "guerrilla warfare" or playing the part of a rebel in an oppressed war-zone. No, you just run around like you do in Call of Duty, absorbing bullet after bullet and mowing down waves of enemies. Uninspired, creative-defunct shooter. The story would have served better in a shooter-hybrid RPG or 'stealth-action' game. Even though the story is mostly crap. The characters, who are undeveloped, are just jumbles of cliches. Connor, the rage-rambo, a tech-nerd, some empathetic feminine presence and the others I can't even remember. The only interesting character in the entire game is in for about 1-2 chapters, used to "tie levels together", then dies.

Everything about the game is forgettable. The only elements that tie everything together are the shock-elements that are all but meaningless due to the hokey plot and lack of pacing.

But. If you're into the bullet-sponge, waves of enemies, float-y gameplay akin to CoD, then this is right up your alley. I'm sure those folks will claim this is "realistic".

All of this just makes me yearn for a real open-world Saboteur style game. One that is less shooty-shooty, and more saboteury.

I actually found the story to be excellent. There was a sense of decay and hopelessness as well as savagery that hasn't been this well translated since Freedom Fighters in 2003. Being forced to hide in a pile of corpses as well as fighting off "Norks" while a woman cowers with her baby behind cover next to me will always stick with me. The characters were actually quite relateable and I especailly love the goat farmer who got suspicious of my intentions around his goats. They also acted realistically, such as when Connor's anger gradually rose until it burst into a fit or rage after seeing corpses of American detainees being dumped into a mass grave like garbadge. Yes, the game is short, but it made me want to see more of this bleak world rather than just forget about it after it was over. I genuinly hope Kaos makes a sequel to this game so I can see more of this universe.

I actually like this game, more so then Black Ops or Modern Warfare 2. (Go flame shield go!)

The story, while some might say is unrealistic (and it kinda is, but since when has the gaming industry being known for being realistic? I could nit-pick at a any games story until kingdom come), is actually different then its so called "CoD counter-parts". I know that some of the things I did in there sit with me more longer then MW2s mowing down an airport terminal. And I realize this story is set in America, but boo fucking hoo, doesn't change the quality of it. At least I am not invading Normandy/Germany/Desert looking country, for the millionth time. (Although I will say this, Conner looks very similar to the main character on Black Ops. At least, I think it is the main character. I didn't get two hours into that campaign.) And while the whole objective of a the single player game is to deliver fuel is kinda lame, what else can a single resistance cell do in an occupied country? Bring world peace and rainbows to everyone? NO! Cause that would be unrealistic.

That being said, the game has some glitches and rendering problems which make it hard to be fully immersed in the game. Some of the voice acting is...good...and some...well...it isn't. I was saddened by the lack of character depth (particularly in Hopper) and the shortness of the campaign, but whatever. Also, it would be nice to be a little less of a bad ass who can take a million bullets to the face. However, I have grown to accept the badass part as being as a part of every modern FPS these days.

The multiplayer part of the game however, is stellar. It looks like Black Ops, plays a little like Unreal 2's massive (forget what they are called) modes were you have objective markers, and the whole BP system is quite nice.

All in all, I think the reason this game is getting such poor reviews is because people were expecting a wedding cake and instead got a pie. A tasty pie, but a pie nonetheless.

EDIT: I would also like to point out that this game is a total what if scenario that takes place many many years down the future. The newspaper articles you find in the game, coupled with the introduction actually make it seem a little bit more plausible.

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.

Just because something is "hardened" does not make it "impervious" in much the same way that slapping armor onto something does not make it invulnerable to bombs and projectiles. To your larger point of a nuclear response, keep in mind that the story is predicated on the assumption that North Korea has a sizable nuclear stockpile at it's disposal (the intro movie stops counting at around 1000 and that was years before the start of the game) meaning that a nuclear response would, almost certainly, result in the annihilation of both the US and Korea. In general, the basic plot an premise of the game is far more reasonable than the scenario presented in Modern Warfare for a variety of reasons not worth getting into here.

That said, I am increasingly annoyed that the EMP concept is used as a magic wand that allows us to utterly ignore any of a dozen reasonable problems with a video game plot. The one presented in Homefront, which we see is capable of shutting down the entire US grid, presents all sorts of interesting questions that are at least as difficult to resolve as any narrative problem it seeks to resolve. For example, how precisely did one generate an EMP with sufficient yield to cause electrical shorts in critical components across trillions of miles of conductive material? How did this event, sufficient to affect any device withing 1500 miles, suddenly stop at the Mexican and Canadian border? Even if we assume that this device "worked by magic" and achieved this effect, that still leaves a number of problems related to the invasion itself. It isn't as though intelligence agencies around the world wouldn't be watching every move of an expansionist nuclear armed nation and to think that they somehow prepared an invasion force sufficient to conquer most of the US (which would require substantial military power thanks to the size of the affected area alone) without anyone noticing is easily one of the great narrative missteps of the game.

 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
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
Register for a free account here