Homefront Powers Past One Million Sales

[Hybridwolf]

Better spend that money on getting a decent writer, THQ, or maybe buying some european servers for mutiplayer. I have not encountered a game where I or my friends have had a green bar connection. Even Blops had better connection then your "dedicated servers". And the story was so pro America, it made me cringe. I espically like how long it took for the EU to get involved, considering the majority of fucking NATO and the UN comes from there. But that wouldn't allow you to show the Commi- I mean Koreans as souless murdering monsters. But still, the mutiplayer is good and the single player in places is reasonable. I guess I'll just have to wait...

 

[godofallu]

The industry is at it's lowest. Quality games are a low priority since they tend to not make a profit whilst mediocre games break the million mark. Oversaturation can lead to another crash you know.

We get that you don't like multiplayer FPS games, but do you have to be such a prick to the people that do? It is literally the most popular genre in gaming at the moment, so you just effectively bashed the majority of the people here.

Plus sales, and hence cash, is how EVERY item is judged in the entire world. It works fine with games. If Homefront didn't have such decent multiplayer it would have flopped. But it actually managed to bring some value to the table and hence it was a modest success. There is a ton of room for improvements and personally I can't wait to see if they get a greenlight for some DLC, Updates, or even a AAA sequel.

Multiplayer is all fine and well as long as it brings something new to the table. Technically, Homefront didn't innovate at all. It had a 5 hour campaign and a multiplayer mode that took more than enough cues from Bad Company and Modern Warfare 2. I'd have nothing with games focused on the multiplayer aspect as long as they'd at least bring something new to the table instead of the same old rehashed shit over and over again.

Battlefield has a lot of flaws that Homefront really did fix. For example if a tank comes in battlefield and your an assault you better go hide since you can't fight back. In homefront you just buy a rpg at anytime and there you go. It's way less Rock-Paper-Sissors

In Battlefield you spawn in and everybody runs for the helicopter and they take it before you can. In homefront you simply buy a helicopter.

The point i'm trying to make is that while you may write-off a game and bash its success, that doesn't mean a million other people didn't enjoy it.

 

[RA92]

This is why we can't win on AAA.

Homefront flops? All the money gone. Transfer to console.
Homefront succeeds? Let's make more Homefront.
Homefront succeeds despite poor reviews? Reviews mean nothing. More Homefront.
Homefront flops with poor reviews? Studio terminated.

Despite the ludicrous story, over-used genre it makes its money because it pitches to the twitchers. People willing to spend until 2 in the morning staring down a gun scope to shoot you as you step from camp. Rest of us? Well, I hear there's Minecraft.

Not just the entertainment industry either, but it's a very destructive business model.

What pisses me off is how they spent all that money on an FPS in a market over-saturated with FPS titles.

I don't think I'm the only one who thinks a sequel to this is well fuckin' overdue...

<youtube=W4w50Gs5jZ0>

 

[Baresark]

It isn't a bad game, but I feel outright ripped off by the length. I could give a shit about the multiplayer. I'm mad it was so short, and they didn't finish the game. They could have made another 5 hours just in the city of San Francisco, but no. They take the bridge... then it's over? Is there not a whole city over that bridge? Something that will pass as a springboard for their invasion? How dumb and short sighted. And I was waiting for this game for a while. Well, no matter how successful it is, they won't get anymore of my money. I work too hard to let it go so frivolously.

 

[AndyFromMonday]

The industry is at it's lowest. Quality games are a low priority since they tend to not make a profit whilst mediocre games break the million mark. Oversaturation can lead to another crash you know.

We get that you don't like multiplayer FPS games, but do you have to be such a prick to the people that do? It is literally the most popular genre in gaming at the moment, so you just effectively bashed the majority of the people here.

Plus sales, and hence cash, is how EVERY item is judged in the entire world. It works fine with games. If Homefront didn't have such decent multiplayer it would have flopped. But it actually managed to bring some value to the table and hence it was a modest success. There is a ton of room for improvements and personally I can't wait to see if they get a greenlight for some DLC, Updates, or even a AAA sequel.

Multiplayer is all fine and well as long as it brings something new to the table. Technically, Homefront didn't innovate at all. It had a 5 hour campaign and a multiplayer mode that took more than enough cues from Bad Company and Modern Warfare 2. I'd have nothing with games focused on the multiplayer aspect as long as they'd at least bring something new to the table instead of the same old rehashed shit over and over again.

Battlefield has a lot of flaws that Homefront really did fix. For example if a tank comes in battlefield and your an assault you better go hide since you can't fight back. In homefront you just buy a rpg at anytime and there you go. It's way less Rock-Paper-Sissors

In Battlefield you spawn in and everybody runs for the helicopter and they take it before you can. In homefront you simply buy a helicopter.

The point i'm trying to make is that while you may write-off game and bash its success, that doesn't mean a million other people didn't enjoy it.

I wouldn't call that a fix. Battlefield was a game that based its gameplay on teamwork. On the other hand, Homefront isn't exactly all about teamwork. From what I've read and seen, the multiplayer is more akin to Black Ops with vehicles.

Good if you enjoyed it. However, you didn't address any of my points. Innovation is what drives the industry forward. As it stands, publishers are ruining the industry by focusing on profits rather than innovation. It does not push the industry forward and it oversaturates it with mediocre titles. This is one of the reasons why we've yet to see another game on par with Half Life or Stalker. The only quality first person shooters that have come out in the past few years are the Stalker games, Metro 2033 and Bulletstorm. They innovate, add new gameplay mechanics and all in all are fun but due to the mass of Call of Duty clones most studios choose to spend more and more money on advertising rather than on the game itself which is why games tend to be shorter and shorter nowadays.

The point I'm trying to make is this. Innovation drives the industry forward and in the past few years we've seen developers trying to copy rather than innovate which does not in any way push the industry forward.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

The success of this game was critical for the studio for a couple of reasons:

The success of the game was critical because the people putting money into it made it critical. Other considerations are devolved from that.
We can all pull stories on why "this project" has to be a success in our workplace, but if every project has to be a success then your friend is being put on a never-ending treadmill.

I understand you're trying to make a point here, but it's kind of uncalled for with the slap-dash approach of saying "we have MineCraft" at the end of your statement, it almost feels as if you're saying that THQ and Kaos aren't worth two grams of salt unless they made a artsy-fartsy game which went to basics, instead of any other game that is a FPS.

Now that's your interpretation, and your insult. I've enjoyed some of THQ's games, and disliked others; but if the money is being pumped purely into FPSs, then it's bad for me, your friend and you. Equally.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

But it's selling well as of now, which is why they're going to continue doing it until they see a significant lack of interest in either their products or the products of other developers.

Let's wait until we see the whites of their eyes!
They're using spears, sir...

They're going to die out soon for sure, but as long as they're still selling and people are still jumping 4 feet in the air and scoring headshots without using their rifle's scope, or as long as we still have CoD kill videos with "Let the bodies hit the floor" screaming in the background, the genre is still very much alive and very profitable.

Trends die out, this one is lasting a bit longer than others.

Problem being that this trend is killing others. This and the MMO-Craftalike. But as Raiyan/Yahtzee said, "Where's the spaceflight sims?"

Can Starbucks make a decent cup of tea? Cafe Nero? Costa? What happens when we turn against coffee?

What happens when we turn against FPSs? It's only Notch, Toady, Molyneux and Schafer who'll remember how to do anything different.

Do you remember when Microsoft said that the Kinect had to be a success because of all the money they sank into it? Same thing. Unless we want a slew of progressively worse motion controlled MMOFPS then we really need to do something about it.

 

[Saucycarpdog]

The industry is at it's lowest. Quality games are a low priority since they tend to not make a profit whilst mediocre games break the million mark. Oversaturation can lead to another crash you know.

We get that you don't like multiplayer FPS games, but do you have to be such a prick to the people that do? It is literally the most popular genre in gaming at the moment, so you just effectively bashed the majority of the people here.

Plus sales, and hence cash, is how EVERY item is judged in the entire world. It works fine with games. If Homefront didn't have such decent multiplayer it would have flopped. But it actually managed to bring some value to the table and hence it was a modest success. There is a ton of room for improvements and personally I can't wait to see if they get a greenlight for some DLC, Updates, or even a AAA sequel.

Multiplayer is all fine and well as long as it brings something new to the table. Technically, Homefront didn't innovate at all. It had a 5 hour campaign and a multiplayer mode that took more than enough cues from Bad Company and Modern Warfare 2. I'd have nothing with games focused on the multiplayer aspect as long as they'd at least bring something new to the table instead of the same old rehashed shit over and over again.

I would love for you to elaborate on that last part.

A BP system and battle commander? That's not innovation?

 

[AndyFromMonday]

I would love for you to elaborate on that last part.

A BP system and battle commander? That's not innovation?

Battlefield had a "battle commander" if by "battle commander" you're referring to the dude who can use air strikes and other shit.

As for the BP system it's a way to introduce vehicle combat without also introducing team based combat. I guess it's a step in the right direction but in the end I'd still recommend Battlefield over any other mulitplayer based shooter.

 

[Olofelefant]

I might be completely wrong here, but didn't something similar happen to "Medal of Hono(u)r", with the single player campaign being mediocre, with multiplayer being the key attraction?

 

[ischmalud]

cant believe that fashist piece of shits sells that well FUCK ME

 

[The Apothecarry]

So, when's the sequel due? Bet that won't break one million.

 

[The Random One]

You monsters! Now the devs will never go to Canada! That's the worst fate imaginable!

I said a lot of shit about this game but I'm actually considering buying it (I usually don't buy games before they're a few years old but I want to get this one before the MP cools off) and THQ is one of my favourite publishers. Kudos to them.

Captcha: µg/g atasen. I don't know what atasen is, but apparently is a homeopatic dose. And yes I'm being asked to type a greek character for the captcha.

 

[HappyDD]

Problem being that this trend is killing others. This and the MMO-Craftalike. But as Raiyan/Yahtzee said, "Where's the spaceflight sims?"

Can Starbucks make a decent cup of tea? Cafe Nero? Costa? What happens when we turn against coffee?

What happens when we turn against FPSs? It's only Notch, Toady, Molyneux and Schafer who'll remember how to do anything different.

Root, you're making some great points, but can you explain the Starbucks comment? Are you saying that, similar to FPS shooters, Starbucks is so ubiquitous we don't have other forms of hot beverages able to develop since they are squashed by Starbucks upon start-up? If Starbucks turns bad we won't have anything to fill the void?

I think you are right. If someone steps outside the comfort zone and produces, say, a really rough space sim with tons of problems that is critically panned and doesn't sell well it will be a rare publisher that says "Give it another go, we believe you when you say you will do better next time, here's the bigger budget you need to make it better." In some environments creativity is crushed, but there are huge rewards to doing something different and getting a new trend started, so it isn't hopeless yet!

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Root, you're making some great points, but can you explain the Starbucks comment?

Yeah, that was a little tortured.

Before Starbucks you could get a coffee or tea anywhere. It was hot water on top of grounds/bags.

When the Italian trend, pioneered by the Americans, hit; all normal coffee places were pushed to one side in a stream of Lattes, Skinnies, Mochafrochacappaslappachinos and Baristas.

Coffee was the IN thing. No-one would think of making tea.

Until people started moving away, and then in came the sweets, and the beans, and the instants and....

If I want a cup of coffee now, I have to state "I'd like a black coffee...Venti Americano to takeaway without any milk or syrup or biscittois. No, nothing extra. Without milk.
All the italics are wasted words because both of us already know this.

And to get a cup of tea? Here's a bag and some hot water.

FPS's are going the same way. With every FPS you have to learn a new set of commands, a new pecking order, a new counter strategy - but you're still left with the basic gameplay that was in Doom.

And if you want a funny FPS? Sorry sir, we stopped serving No One Lives Forever in 2003.

I don't mind Starbucks. But I can't go in there and ask for a Dark Cherry Cappuchino anymore because it wasn't popular enough. Like I can't ask not to have Killstreaks in my game anymore.

 

[klasbo]

I would love for you to elaborate on that last part.

A BP system and battle commander? That's not innovation?

Battle points system was first done in C&C Renegade (2002)
Commander system is way old, the most notable appearance is probably Battlefield 2 (2005)

Battlefield has a lot of flaws that Homefront really did fix. For example if a tank comes in battlefield and your an assault you better go hide since you can't fight back. In homefront you just buy a rpg at anytime and there you go. It's way less Rock-Paper-Sissors

In Battlefield you spawn in and everybody runs for the helicopter and they take it before you can. In homefront you simply buy a helicopter.

Homefront has a lot of flaws that Battlefield did right.
To call a tank in Homefromt you already have to be doing well. A tank only gives you a bigger advantage. This is an unstable balance system that simply doesn't work.

The battle points system doesn't work, because it promotes selfish and campish gameplay so you can get things that enhance your killing spree even more. If the battle points abilities were along the lines of "Ability to revive teammates" or "3x flag capture rate", then your ability to do well for yourself would benefit the team, not only yourself.

Battlefield was a game that based its gameplay on teamwork. On the other hand, Homefront isn't exactly all about teamwork. From what I've read and seen, the multiplayer is more akin to Black Ops with vehicles.

This.
Homefront multiplayer just hasn't made its mind up if it wants to be teamwork oriented or fragfest/"twitch" oriented. It's a mix of both and doesn't play well because of it.

Also, I just want to pop in a shameless plug for the Rush-Zone Homefront Launch Event, the first ever broadcast esports match in Europe (possibly the world?). There's an on-demand stream with interviews and gameplay and the like.

 

[Saucycarpdog]

I would love for you to elaborate on that last part.

A BP system and battle commander? That's not innovation?

Battle points system was first done in C&C Renegade (2002)
Commander system is way old, the most notable appearance is probably Battlefield 2 (2005)

....you didn't do your homework, did you?

Battle commander in homefront is totally different than what your thinking of. In Homefront, Battle commander is a system that assigns you a number of stars based on how your doing. The more stars you have, the larger the bounty you have on your head.

 

[klasbo]

I would love for you to elaborate on that last part.

A BP system and battle commander? That's not innovation?

Battle points system was first done in C&C Renegade (2002)
Commander system is way old, the most notable appearance is probably Battlefield 2 (2005)

....you didn't do your homework, did you?

Battle commander in homefront is totally different than what your thinking of. In Homefront, Battle commander is a system that assigns you a number of stars based on how your doing. The more stars you have, the larger the bounty you have on your head.

I thought that system was part of the battle points system. I actually thought they had a proper commander system as well, but apparently not. Yay.
Anyway, the so-called "battle commander" was done in C&C Renegade too... And any oldskool FPS had a "Player X has taken the lead!" type of thing, which is very much the same.

It (The "Battle Commander" system) also furthers the incentive to not play as a team, because you will be hunting specific players from the opposing team instead of actually doing something useful (like capturing flags/securing capture points).
The whole system is fundamentally broken: First it rewards you for killing enemies and not helping your team (battle points -> extra equipment/weapons), then it punishes you when you're the "best" (ie the most unhelpful) player on your team (puts a bounty on your head).