Homefront Review

[Triforceformer]

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.

Except that one of the MAIN selling points of the game was that it's story was supposedly "Unsettlingly plausible". While the "It's not realistic" complaint wouldn't hold much water for an RPG, I think we can hold a game accountable for its bullshit when it claims to NOT have any bullshit.

As for the actual game, I called it. Basically CoD but with Koreans and a less terrible story.

 

[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). 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.

 

[karloss01]

wasn't really expecting much of it, i've gotten tired of Mordern warfare games. i've been playing Halo: Reach since launch while black ops i stopped after two weeks, i've got Duke Nukem pre-ordered and waiting for some more fun shooters.

 

[Triforceformer]

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.

So assume everything that could've possibly went wrong, did.

For example: The US sold most of their warheads, then through good fortune or spies they instantly attacked the remaining warheads or the remaining warheads happened to be too dusty to work correctly.

Yes, but does the game ever imply that any of that ever happened? No, the game just says "This happens to America" while kindly sweeping any form of realistic retaliation under the rug. Also "Too dusty"? Fucking really?

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.

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.

 

[ReiverCorrupter]

Meh. I don't care as much about the single player, but from what I understand the multiplayer in this game might be a lot better than the random spawn fest that the CoD franchise has seemed to turn into. Seriously, how hard is it to implement an option where I can spawn next to a teammate so we can coordinate our moves across the map? Reach did it.

 

[Brian Hendershot]

That's saddening to me. I'll probably still give it a whirl though and sell it back though.

Probably should stop buying first person shooters now. (Except For Bad Company.)

 

[the_pleasure_is_mine]

Yes, but does the game ever imply that any of that ever happened? No, the game just says "This happens to America" while kindly sweeping any form of realistic retaliation under the rug. Also "Too dusty"? Fucking really?

Maybe I should shell out for that SarcMarc...

Let me rephrase my original sentence: ...too dusty. /Satire.

Yes it should imply, however arguing about the plausibility of the backstory is a bit of a wasted point that doesn't get anywhere until there is developer clarification. Let it be.

 

[sibrenfetter]

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.

 

[Korten12]

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.

Agreed, is Multiplayer is part of the product, it should be included in the review.

 

[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.

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.

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.

 

[Kruxs]

Red Dawn? More like Far Gone.

oh, my sides are splitting

 

[WanderingFool]

I just hope the MP is good, it cant be any worse than COD's...

 

[vrbtny]

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

 

[MrRetroSpectacles]

More focus on being innovative and fresh in the narrative than actually creating a plausible story with fresh gameplay design to match it. Happens all the time really, for example, every COD game after MW1. Bring on LA Noire, then when i'm done with the supposedly intelligient gaming for the year i can revert back to comic book action in Arkham City, crazy sci-fi in ME3 and get some fantasy dragon ass kickery done in Skyrim. No room for boring FPS's on my schedule thank you very much.

 

[Vibhor]

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".

 

[Celtic_Kerr]

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

 

[D_987]

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?

 

[winter2]

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.