Homefront: Not so original?

[p3t3r]

you know what would make this game more original if your character could shoot lighting bolts out of ass. think about it i mean your character can never look over his shoulder in these games so you would have to face the other direction and fire blind to use it. unique different.

also to all those bullet sponge people i don't get it. your character has to be able to take alot of bullets or else it is just frustrating. i found a solution either way though every time you get hit even just once relode the mission, there your guy can take one bullet.

 

[archvile93]

I can't find anything remarkable about the game.

They keep throwing about Half-Life 2 in interviews as a point of influence, but all I've seen so far makes that seem a bit of an insult to Valve.

How so is it an insult to Valve?

Because one's HL2 and the other is a rather unremarkable looking shooter. I could be wrong and it could be the second coming, but right now? Nada.

Half Life 2 is a rather unremarkable shooter in it's own right, it just gets unduly hyped up because people love praising Valve. Good studio, yes, but a fan of HL2, I am not.

Kind of odd, because that was one of the games that made their reputation. Only their second single player release. And they took a pretty decent chance with it. Unlike Doom 2, Call Of Duty 2 or Halo 2, it was a pretty big departure from the original, something which is really odd for a sequel to the best selling PC FPS of all time.

HL2 is a very large part of the reason why Valve fanboys exist today. It's the game that proved they were more than a one-trick pony.

Excuse me, maybe I'm just not very smart, but what significant gameplay differences were there between HL1 and 2? I can think of some technical leaps, but it seemed very samey to me. I always thought of HL2 as being quite generic, but got much praise for its well presented story and atmosphere. The only difference I can think of was the gravity gun, and I didn't find that very interesting or useful (until the end of course), oh and a sprint button.

 

[agentironman]

I bought/reserved the game but mainly because I am in South Korea and I am curious to see how the whole Nork story line unfolds.

 

[inFAMOUSCowZ]

Original or not, I like the concept enough to pick it up close to launch.

 

[cjbos81]

OT: I think we need a game where you play as a resistance fighter who is in a country invaded by the US. THAT would be an interesting story if done right.

THAT would be banned in a second.

Banned by who? Germany?

America. Remember how big of a spazz Fox had when the word Taliban was to be used in MoH? Remember how they got 6 Days In Fallujah banned because it had American soldiers in it that got killed?
A USA = bad guys game will NEVER make it to shelves in the current status quo.

I don't think you understand the meaning of "banned".

 

[Vykrel]

(Author's note: Again, Minor grammar-fixes)
That implies that I believe there's a "Right" and a "wrong" way to enjoy games. Which is simply untrue. As a member of the "Games are art" camp, I believe that anyone can enjoy any game they damn' well please for any reason, even if it's only "It goes with my couch, man"-itis.
Hell, I liked Alpha Protocol and honestly cannot understand why Starcraft II is a thing when there's Dawn of War and Dawn of War II on the market. I'm the last person to run around and calling other people "wrong" for their taste in games.

ya i understand all that. im just saying you should avoid using terms like "over-hyped" or saying that you cant understand why a certain game exists if you really believe others are entitled to their own opinions about games. the way you word it makes it sound like you think theyre all a little bonkers

 

[Thanatos5150]

For Half Life 2: you required brain-power for the puzzles? Stacking cinder blocks on the other end of a teeter totter for a incredible physics puzzle is not brain-power inducing. For "excellent humor" I find myself unable to recall any humorous situation from it or any of the episodes, it obviously wasn't that memorable. And did HL2 actually have any bosses? All I remember is that the ultimate climax of the game involved giving you an instant kill weapon to run around with. The only thing Half Life 2 did remotely well was its story, which consisted of using fake science while throwing real sounding words at you to make you think, "Wow that's cool".

And anybody who thinks "Generic Dystopia, grab a gun and kill dey asses" is an engaging and TOTALLY ORIGINAL GUISE! story might want to read some amateur fiction some time. It's not, guys, it's really not.

(Author's note: Again, Minor grammar-fixes)
That implies that I believe there's a "Right" and a "wrong" way to enjoy games. Which is simply untrue. As a member of the "Games are art" camp, I believe that anyone can enjoy any game they damn' well please for any reason, even if it's only "It goes with my couch, man"-itis.
Hell, I liked Alpha Protocol and honestly cannot understand why Starcraft II is a thing when there's Dawn of War and Dawn of War II on the market. I'm the last person to run around and calling other people "wrong" for their taste in games.

Yeah, I understand all that. I'm just saying you should avoid using terms like "over-hyped" or saying that you can't understand why a certain game exists if you really believe others are entitled to their own opinions about games. The way you word it makes it sound like you think they're all a little bonkers

(Yes, more grammar. Woo.)

That's because I believe everybody is "a little bonkers" and maybe a wee bit too sensitive and defensive to people not praising whatever the mainstream praises and damning whatever the mainstream damns. Worlds get rocked a bit too much.
(For the record, I understand that Starcraft II exists because Blizzard wants to be even richer. I just don't understand why it's a thing and people actually bought it. In my opinion, DoW and DoWII are much worthier things to throw my money at.)

 

[Netrigan]

I can't find anything remarkable about the game.

They keep throwing about Half-Life 2 in interviews as a point of influence, but all I've seen so far makes that seem a bit of an insult to Valve.

How so is it an insult to Valve?

Because one's HL2 and the other is a rather unremarkable looking shooter. I could be wrong and it could be the second coming, but right now? Nada.

Half Life 2 is a rather unremarkable shooter in it's own right, it just gets unduly hyped up because people love praising Valve. Good studio, yes, but a fan of HL2, I am not.

Kind of odd, because that was one of the games that made their reputation. Only their second single player release. And they took a pretty decent chance with it. Unlike Doom 2, Call Of Duty 2 or Halo 2, it was a pretty big departure from the original, something which is really odd for a sequel to the best selling PC FPS of all time.

HL2 is a very large part of the reason why Valve fanboys exist today. It's the game that proved they were more than a one-trick pony.

Excuse me, maybe I'm just not very smart, but what significant gameplay differences were there between HL1 and 2? I can think of some technical leaps, but it seemed very samey to me. I always thought of HL2 as being quite generic, but got much praise for its well presented story and atmosphere. The only difference I can think of was the gravity gun, and I didn't find that very interesting or useful (until the end of course), oh and a sprint button.

HL1 was largely a corridor crawl. A very large part of the game taking place in exactly one location.

The sequel moved the game from the narrow corridors to much larger outdoor areas, included vehicle sections, had you using turrets as traps, gravity gun was a pretty big game changer, and the most common enemy of first was now your ally. The dystopian setting was also quite a departure from the Black Mesa of the first. Still lots of familiar elements to make it feel like Half-Life.

As for Doom to Doom 2. A half dozen new enemies and a couple of new weapons, levels looked much the same as they did in the first. Call Of Duty, same English/American/Russian campaigns with much the same weapons and gameplay. Halo a few new weapons and enemies but levels that looked much the same as they did in the first game.

I can't think of a major hit that changed that much from the first to second game.

 

[SteewpidZombie]

Lets cut to the chase and just start being honest with ourselves...EVERY FPS THAT HAS OR EVER WILL EXIST, WILL BE PRETTY MUCH THE SAME POLISHED TURD, BUT IN FANCIER WRAPPING EACH TIME!

 

[Dethpixie]

A non-spec-ops civilian guy who will still absorb more ammo than the broad side of most barns.

I wish someone would make a game that actually made you feel like you were fighting against overwhelming odds, forcing you to use guerrilla tactics and scrounge for ammo. Also, I'd like it to feature anyone but an American in the leading role, preferably I'd like it to feature no Americans at all.

Homefront just sounds boring to me.

Two question:

One: Do you know for a fact that he will "absorb more ammo than the broad side of most barns?" And two: Do you game on a console or a PC?

Cuz if you're a PC gamer, then you NEED to check out the STALKER games. They feature Ukrainian player characters who die after 3 or 4 bullets, assuming they have decent armor. They also tend to bleed out and die of radiation poisoning if not properly treated and ammo is never around when you need it. In other words, STALKER meets your requirements.

I do not know that for fact, it's just a trend in modern games that I didn't necessarily expect Homefront to break from. I'm open to being pleasantly surprised if it does I just don't expect much in the way of innovation.

I actually recently picked up Shadow of Chernobyl and I absolutely love it despite how thoroughly it kicks my ass. I guess what I'm saying is I'd like more games to take a hint from STALKER's design choices.

 

[TheRobotandtheBeast]

I personally would like to see an fps where Venezuela defends it self from an american invasion.
That would be cool

 

[Vault101]

Hey if its good its good

most bioware games arnt original but they are done so well that it dosnt matter, if this is done well It should be good I am very interested in it

 

[Vault101]

Hey if its good its good

most bioware games arnt original but they are done so well that it dosnt matter, if this is done well It should be good I am very interested in it

When a game from Bioware isn't original it's generally because they're copying something that they themselves did in the past. When you've been around for 20+ years that's kinda how it works. But when a game like Homefront isn't original, it's just because they're trying to jump on the simplistic FPS gravy train.

well to be fair it isnt out yet, so we dont know how good/bad it is though I do find it refreshing to see a FPS thats more or less story focused (you know, for a FPS) and the trailer did definetly spark my interest

also mabye thats also because I dont play COD or any shooter thats remotley "realistic" (you know army stuff) only one Ive played is far cry 2

 

[jovack22]

I'm not pumped for it in any way, for the reasons you mentioned, but I'm sure all the people still obsessing over FPS games (for some reason) will pick it up.

Then again, even superior games to CoD (like BF: BC2) don't sell as well, so I have a feeling this one won't take much of the market's pie in comparison to CoD. Seriously, I don't understand CoD players... they reskin the game, add something new (something minor and relatively insignificant), change a perk perhaps, and sell the game. They've been putting out the same deal since CoD4, but if it's still selling like it has been, they'll just keep doing that.

 

[Ghored]

When I heard of this "Homefront", I wasn't particularly excited.
Then I hear this talk of "originality", which, personally, I think is up to other people to decide, not the ones making the game itself.

I think sometimes originality is just taking the standard formula for any kind of game and just shaping it into something different (A plane crashing or resistance story would not be really something different, really spectacular). Like a gritty, realistic FPS with wolves that fly by firing a laser through their bum. Maybe they should have added that to Homefront.

 

[Ironman126]

I do not know that for fact, it's just a trend in modern games that I didn't necessarily expect Homefront to break from. I'm open to being pleasantly surprised if it does I just don't expect much in the way of innovation.

I actually recently picked up Shadow of Chernobyl and I absolutely love it despite how thoroughly it kicks my ass. I guess what I'm saying is I'd like more games to take a hint from STALKER's design choices.

That's true. Even Bad Company 2 didn't deviate too far from the CoD path, tho it is a much better game than MW2 or Blops. Actually, it's a bit like STALKER in that you can only survive a few bullets and you have to tape a med kit to your face to not die, at least in multiplayer. But it still feels like just another samey shooter during the single player. At least it has some more colors besides brown, grey-brown, and slightly greenish-brown. I imagine that Homefront will feature a lot of brown, grey, and red (blood).

If you liked STALKER SoC, you'd really like Call of Pripyat. It takes what SoC did and improves on it vastly. It's a more balanced, more terrifying, more atmospheric game. The biggest improvement is the Heads Up Display, the armor and weapon systems, and the medical system. Best realistic shooter i have ever played.

Dunno if you played it, but you might also like Metro 2033. It's a lot like STALKER, but i hope you don't rely on stealth too much cuz Metro's stealth system is shot to hell and back.

 

[Netrigan]

Lets cut to the chase and just start being honest with ourselves...EVERY FPS THAT HAS OR EVER WILL EXIST, WILL BE PRETTY MUCH THE SAME POLISHED TURD, BUT IN FANCIER WRAPPING EACH TIME!

Out of curiosity, how is this different from every other game genre.

Last year I got into sandbox games. They're amazing fun, but...

I doubt I saw anything new after about the third one. Most of them use a water-downed FPS run-and-gun mechanic. Side missions include all sorts of challenges, like water-downed racing games or watered-downed bowling games and the like. Main missions are just go from Point A to Point B and kill everything in your way or maybe Defend Point C or an escort mission. You know, nothing I haven't seen a million times in first person shooters over the last 20 years. There's not much variation in the type of city you're in. Assassin's Creed was probably the most original take on the sandbox game since GTA III and by the second game, they had pretty much exhausted that vein of originality. New cities, but traveling across them are exactly the same as traveling across the ones in the first game.

Platform games... whether 2D or 3D, new ideas are few and far between. I remember hanging out in arcades in the late 80s and seeing the same platform shooter over and over... or the same hack-n-slash platformer over and over. LittleBigPlanet 2 pretty much contains every idea the jumping platformer ever came up with. Bit more visual flair since they're drawing on a cartoon aesthetic, but a lot of samey gameplay. Quick, tell me the name of that game that had that sewer level... or that one that had you getting knocked off of ledges by bats.

Fighting games... has there been game play innovations since someone gave everyone signature moves? I've played random ones over the years and it is probably the most samey game genre I've ever encountered.

RPGs... three words: standard fantasy setting. I recently started getting into them and burned through the current generation non-fantasy major releases in a couple of months... and that's counting Alpha Protocol as a major release.

Yeah, first person shooters can be really samey, which isn't a surprise considering that it's been a AAA genre for nearly 20 years. And shooters have never been exactly known for their innovative game play. Berserk, shoot everything that moves. Defender, shoot almost everything that moves but escort the humans back to the ground. Robotron, save the humans by shooting stuff as quickly as you can. Seems like half the games are military shooters, while the other half are sci-fi military shooters... and every so often someone tosses in Western. I'm not as smitten with the genre as I used to be back when the genre was still adding gameplay elements; but I'm always on the look-out for a good one.

 

[Enigma6667]

I've been trying to wonder what the big deal with this game was too. Apparently the big deal seems to be...nothing. I was right all along. My powers of clairvoyance continue to amaze me.

 

[GreyKnight3445]

Tired of seeing threads about this all over the internet.

Its not original, please just get over it. I'm buying it simply to spite you guys.

and it`ll be an epic win for us because you spent 60 bucks on a game we all knew was crap to begin with :d

Right, because you've played the game.

But even if you haven't, if a game isn't original it automatically sucks, right? Like Uncharted, that was a terrible game because it didn't try anything incredibly risky or unique! It doesn't matter how good the gameplay is, or how great the story is, or how good the characters are, it sucks because IT'S NOT ORIGINAL.

No, I know it sucks because they`re offering another, better game if you prepurchase for no extra cost.
THAT is how I know it sucks.

 

[GreyKnight3445]

OT: I think we need a game where you play as a resistance fighter who is in a country invaded by the US. THAT would be an interesting story if done right.

THAT would be banned in a second.

unfortunatly T.T
thats why we need a non american company to make it