Homefront

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!!!!

Kiith

Sisko wrote: »

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

Helix wrote: »

the idea is excellent, and its very well realised

its just so bloody short

As Helix said, it's actually described very well, and in a believable manner. It's not North Korea (as we know it now) invading Amererica. It's a unified Korea (including Japan) invading a financially bankrupt United States. I was really interested in this from a single player point of view, but i refuse to pay €40 for a 4 hour game (unless it was an amazing 4 hours).

Sisko

The more tuned in you are to the military capacity of NK and the actual means necessary to successfully invade a land mass like the US from such a position in the world the more nuts it is.

Its just lazy 'NK' are the bad guys story telling. What about china, or something more original. Theres a billion more realistic and interesting storylines they could do but of course they have to have the player play as America.

ShadowHearth

Kiith wrote: »

As Helix said, it's actually described very well, and in a believable manner. It's not North Korea (as we know it now) invading Amererica. It's a unified Korea (including Japan) invading a financially bankrupt United States. I was really interested in this from a single player point of view, but i refuse to pay €40 for a 4 hour game (unless it was an amazing 4 hours).

have to agree.

i love alternative reality games. wheres history could make a turn and be different. this game is sort of like this.

i was looking forwardto single player, as it sounds interesting. moust of developers videos were to hype up story, so it means single player.

Admit it lads, moust of you dont give a fusge who is killing wh in multiplayer shooters. all you think of is: d/k.

4hours of bad movie for 50 quid.... meh...

Grumpypants

Finished it this morning took me a good 6+ hours but i'm fairly average at shooters so i did die a bit , and i stopped to read the majority of the papers which sets out the story and how NK rose to be a super power really well, fairly believable scenario.

I have to say i really enjoyed it, some really brilliant parts but also plenty of sections that could have been improved on, i thought there was too much running around fighting in an occupied city, i would have preferred more sneaking around in the neighbourhoods. Game really picked up once you leave the city and that last mission was brilliant.

I would still welcome a sequel as long as they take on board the criticism they'll have a good franchise on their hands.

Sephiroth_dude

Worth buying then?

Helix

worth renting

Grumpypants

Sephiroth_dude wrote: »

Worth buying then?

Defo rent it, to test it out, i enjoyed it but its the kind of game that will divide people, some will enjoy it other will hate it.

Spear

I've played a bit so here are my ramblings.

The SP really is just 3 hours. It's atmospheric and fairly fun, albeit simple and unadventurous.

I'm liking the MP so far. The maps are a good bit bigger than CoD:BOps, and more cluttered and complex. There's lots of cover and things to hide behind. Weapons do decent damage so it's two or three hits to drop someone, making it fairly fast and merciless. The presence of drones and personal UAV's helps to keep it varied and unpredictable.

dunworth1

Spear wrote: »

I've played a bit so here are my ramblings.

The SP really is just 3 hours. It's atmospheric and fairly fun, albeit simple and unadventurous.

I'm liking the MP so far. The maps are a good bit bigger than CoD:BOps, and more cluttered and complex. There's lots of cover and things to hide behind. Weapons do decent damage so it's two or three hits to drop someone, making it fairly fast and merciless. The presence of drones and personal UAV's helps to keep it varied and unpredictable.

they admitted that they focused on the mp.

that sounds good

Helix

yeah but if they were so focussed on multiplayer why did they bother getting one of the writers from apocalypse now in to write the campaign? why bother with it at all? surely the development time and resources wouldve allowed them to include more maps, weapons and classes in a multiplayer only game