Homefront Review
- Thread starter Russ Pitts
- Start date
Recommended Videos
You can debate whether the events Kaos outlined leading up to 2027 are sound from a foreign policy standpoint (though I really haven't seen anyone give a well written, logically grounded blow-by-blow about why each individual milestone is impossibly far fetched), but you have to give them credit for trying something new. I don't think it's significant in the way they do - I think it's rather sensationalist, to tell the truth - but they had an idea.
A good idea.
An idea that they thought had the potential for an engaging narrative and atmosphere. An idea that they pursued with a very risky amount of resources for a studio so little established and recognized. They did what they could to make this idea fly (and of course make money), and the industry and community asked the hard questions that their idea raised.
But then, not only did almost everybody (rightly for the most part) call bull, it became almost in vogue to hate Homefront before it even got released. The former was inevitable, the latter is just silly and kind of sad. It's a bad habit to criticize games you haven't actually played, especially since that's more or less the argument many of the same gamers used to counter Roger Ebert's denunciation of videogames as art.
As the reviews come in, it seems Homefront did fail, that the gulf between concept and gameplay remains very wide, and the narrative, while the context was very effectively established, failed to move the game along. I can't help but feel disappointed, I was hoping for a success as a step away from the CoD formula (even though I quite enjoyed Black Ops), but also so I could see the people who hated on Homefront as a sport eat their own words.
But oh well. Anyway, solid review, if maybe a bit rushed. Good work Escapist.
Anyway, back on the topic of zomgnorthkoreafailsunrealisticdurr, I'd really like to see a major columnist from FP magazine write their opinions on the matter. That'd be kind of cool. Maybe by Tom Rick or David Rothkopf.
A good idea.
An idea that they thought had the potential for an engaging narrative and atmosphere. An idea that they pursued with a very risky amount of resources for a studio so little established and recognized. They did what they could to make this idea fly (and of course make money), and the industry and community asked the hard questions that their idea raised.
But then, not only did almost everybody (rightly for the most part) call bull, it became almost in vogue to hate Homefront before it even got released. The former was inevitable, the latter is just silly and kind of sad. It's a bad habit to criticize games you haven't actually played, especially since that's more or less the argument many of the same gamers used to counter Roger Ebert's denunciation of videogames as art.
As the reviews come in, it seems Homefront did fail, that the gulf between concept and gameplay remains very wide, and the narrative, while the context was very effectively established, failed to move the game along. I can't help but feel disappointed, I was hoping for a success as a step away from the CoD formula (even though I quite enjoyed Black Ops), but also so I could see the people who hated on Homefront as a sport eat their own words.
But oh well. Anyway, solid review, if maybe a bit rushed. Good work Escapist.
Anyway, back on the topic of zomgnorthkoreafailsunrealisticdurr, I'd really like to see a major columnist from FP magazine write their opinions on the matter. That'd be kind of cool. Maybe by Tom Rick or David Rothkopf.
Milestone 1: North Korea merges with South Korea. No, just no.SenorNemo said:
Milestone 2: Korea assimilates Japan. What?
Milestone 3: Korea invades the US. And they have an EMP. And no other countries intervene. And they have the manpower to do this. And the firepower. Ok. This is not far fetched.
FFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU-, Ninja'd so hard, man!SomebodyNowhere said:
I may get Homefront if it's on sale on STEAM. I had my worries about the game when the writer, a renowned Hollywood writer, said that games are his new medium or whatever. While it's an admirable try for him, you can't write a video game like a film or vice versa. Homefront does look interesting, but I don't think it takes enough risks in the gameplay department or story department, and it's a shame because it does look like it could.
Well, for your first point I hope you realize that there are political forces on both sides that would want this to happen, well against US wishes, even though it's a minority position right now. Would the US actually act to prevent a peaceful reunification? For that matter, do you think all S. Koreans want the US to remain?throumbas said:
As for your second point, they force the Japanese to surrender, as they've presumably been abandoned by their allies, the US. And I doubt the writers of the story factored in the recent tragedy which has placed Japan in a much, much weaker condition.
The third of course relies upon fifteen years of access to the manufacturing capabilities and technical resources of conquered southeast Asia.
So many of the greatest conflicts and losses of life throughout history come from what couldn't, shouldn't or wouldn't happen. I wish more people would at least realize this.
Heh, I didn't think anyone would take me up so quick, but this still isn't quite what I had in mind.throumbas said:
The following is only a brief examination, mind, not column length or anything. Don't expect and brilliantly defended points or counterpoints
Milestone 1: "No, just no" isn't a proper argument, but I actually agree. I do see it as very unlikely, and this is probably the most contentious part of the backstory. The recent incident with the artillery attack on South Korea, likely related to Kim Jong-Un's inevitable and ever nearer succession, isn't a big indicator that he'll be any more open to unification than Kim Jong-Il, even if it is part of a long term strategy to establish Korea as a major world power. Still, we don't know hardly anything for certain yet. The biggest issue that makes this unlikely is social inertia. North Korea has used hatred of the outside world as a unifying force for so long, that not even two and a half years is a long enough time to change the public attitude towards reunification, no matter how it was spun. That's not even mentioning South Korea, which has a considerable number of hawkish political figures that would never condone reunification, and reflect a similar general attitude. So milestone one is unlikely in two and a half years. Ten years, maybe, but not two and a half. Yet, it wasn't too long ago that South and North Korea were almost on the verge of reconciliation. Maybe it was something to do with the announcement of Starcraft 2. Only time will tell.
Milestone 2: This is more plausible given the intervening events, which are follows:
None of these are far fetched. There are already significant political forces in Japan that want American garrisons out, and with Korea seemingly a diminished threat, and America undergoing its own significant domestic problems, the decision seems plausible. Texas succeeding is kind of unlikely, but not unimaginable given the circumstances. I imagine that Mexico's horrific and very literal drug wars will have spilled over into Texas by then (in this alternate universe at least), combining with other world events to create a much more survivalist - and therefore independent - attitude. In a post peak-oil world, the financial woes of the United States are mostly credible, if handled poorly enough, so by 2018, I can pretty easily see America as unable to help Japan. Of course, Japan has a very powerful arm...err...self defense force, but given Japan has almost no access to domestic oil and is powered to no small extent by international trade, I can see them suffering even worse in the post-peak oil world as America.
Milestone 3: Lol, not far fetched at all. But seriously, a nuclear device built solely for generating an EM pulse wouldn't be too far fetched by 2027. Most modern American military hardware is EMP hardened, but I'm imagining that a lot of the military hardware we're currently using has aged, and in the economic and domestic crises, was replaced by less secure, unhardened hardware. Still, I don't imagine an EMP attack being nearly as effective as is depicted in Homefront either. No other countries intervene because no other countries can intervene, or have an interest in intervening. Keep in mind that America itself didn't intervene in the Second World War until we were actually attacked, and our depression era economy wasn't nearly as bad as the economic condition of any other powers that could conceivably spare the resources to help in the Homefront timeline. Also keep in mind that from what I've read, the Koreans don't have the manpower to fully control the United States, they have to pick and choose very carefully what resources and targets they take. After all, I imagine (I haven't played the game) that Homefront tells the story about how the Koreans failed to invade America. That's something a lot of people around here tend to forget, that the Koreans didn't succeed, that even though they got as far as controlling several major urban centers, they were eventually pushed back.
So, is is likely? No. Plausible? Maybe. Within range of suspension of disbelief? For me, anyway. I understand that it may vary.
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!"veloper said:
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."
I've got it. It's not completely shit, but it's not super great either. The multiplayer is decent.
Also, the enemies seem to have laser guided grenades. They throw them from 20 feet away and it skids to a stop right in front of you. It's kinda annoying, but meh.
Also, the enemies seem to have laser guided grenades. They throw them from 20 feet away and it skids to a stop right in front of you. It's kinda annoying, but meh.
i beat homefronts campaign in 4 hours but i enjoeyed it all the way through. its a shame that they didnt hit on the multiplayer in the review because it is AMAZING!!!!!
I definitely thought it was the weakest part of the game. The fact that Knives can't puncture basic clothes, grenades are really fiddly and the enemy spams 'em like heck, the guns have questionable damage(even with the ranger pack DLC), the two-tier ammo system is really annoying in combat, the stealth sections, the punishment for trying to fight through stealth section, the silly pneumatic weapons, etc...Ardenon said:
Admittedly, the gunplay is very good whenever your not facing any humans. It's really quite good against the beasts.
I'm sad and surprised to hear that the campaign for this game was so short. Although I have read about some new multiplayer features, I have always felt that the main distinguishing factor for this game was the setting. I would have thought that they'd make a bigger deal out of that.
As for the Koreans invading America being unrealistic. Yeah, maybe. Personally I would have gone with China, but a lot can happen in 25 years. Also, at least for me it is easy to overlook the exact explanation of who did the invading how. Right now with my limited information it seems to me that the United States is by far the most powerful country in the world and is in no danger whatsoever of actually being invaded by any group of other countries. A couple of years ago I heard that the US defense budget was as high as the combined budgets of the top 25 countries in the world. But that doesn't mean that "war on your doorstep" is not an interesting concept to explore in a game. I'm okay with some hand waving as to how it actually happened and focus on what it would be like after it did.
As for the Koreans invading America being unrealistic. Yeah, maybe. Personally I would have gone with China, but a lot can happen in 25 years. Also, at least for me it is easy to overlook the exact explanation of who did the invading how. Right now with my limited information it seems to me that the United States is by far the most powerful country in the world and is in no danger whatsoever of actually being invaded by any group of other countries. A couple of years ago I heard that the US defense budget was as high as the combined budgets of the top 25 countries in the world. But that doesn't mean that "war on your doorstep" is not an interesting concept to explore in a game. I'm okay with some hand waving as to how it actually happened and focus on what it would be like after it did.
You are awesome!SenorNemo said:Heh, I didn't think anyone would take me up so quick, but this still isn't quite what I had in mind.throumbas said:
The following is only a brief examination, mind, not column length or anything. Don't expect and brilliantly defended points or counterpoints
Milestone 1: "No, just no" isn't a proper argument, but I actually agree. I do see it as very unlikely, and this is probably the most contentious part of the backstory. The recent incident with the artillery attack on South Korea, likely related to Kim Jong-Un's inevitable and ever nearer succession, isn't a big indicator that he'll be any more open to unification than Kim Jong-Il, even if it is part of a long term strategy to establish Korea as a major world power. Still, we don't know hardly anything for certain yet. The biggest issue that makes this unlikely is social inertia. North Korea has used hatred of the outside world as a unifying force for so long, that not even two and a half years is a long enough time to change the public attitude towards reunification, no matter how it was spun. That's not even mentioning South Korea, which has a considerable number of hawkish political figures that would never condone reunification, and reflect a similar general attitude. So milestone one is unlikely in two and a half years. Ten years, maybe, but not two and a half. Yet, it wasn't too long ago that South and North Korea were almost on the verge of reconciliation. Maybe it was something to do with the announcement of Starcraft 2. Only time will tell.
Milestone 2: This is more plausible given the intervening events, which are follows:
None of these are far fetched. There are already significant political forces in Japan that want American garrisons out, and with Korea seemingly a diminished threat, and America undergoing its own significant domestic problems, the decision seems plausible. Texas succeeding is kind of unlikely, but not unimaginable given the circumstances. I imagine that Mexico's horrific and very literal drug wars will have spilled over into Texas by then (in this alternate universe at least), combining with other world events to create a much more survivalist - and therefore independent - attitude. In a post peak-oil world, the financial woes of the United States are mostly credible, if handled poorly enough, so by 2018, I can pretty easily see America as unable to help Japan. Of course, Japan has a very powerful arm...err...self defense force, but given Japan has almost no access to domestic oil and is powered to no small extent by international trade, I can see them suffering even worse in the post-peak oil world as America.
Milestone 3: Lol, not far fetched at all. But seriously, a nuclear device built solely for generating an EM pulse wouldn't be too far fetched by 2027. Most modern American military hardware is EMP hardened, but I'm imagining that a lot of the military hardware we're currently using has aged, and in the economic and domestic crises, was replaced by less secure, unhardened hardware. Still, I don't imagine an EMP attack being nearly as effective as is depicted in Homefront either. No other countries intervene because no other countries can intervene, or have an interest in intervening. Keep in mind that America itself didn't intervene in the Second World War until we were actually attacked, and our depression era economy wasn't nearly as bad as the economic condition of any other powers that could conceivably spare the resources to help in the Homefront timeline. Also keep in mind that from what I've read, the Koreans don't have the manpower to fully control the United States, they have to pick and choose very carefully what resources and targets they take. After all, I imagine (I haven't played the game) that Homefront tells the story about how the Koreans failed to invade America. That's something a lot of people around here tend to forget, that the Koreans didn't succeed, that even though they got as far as controlling several major urban centers, they were eventually pushed back.
So, is is likely? No. Plausible? Maybe. Within range of suspension of disbelief? For me, anyway. I understand that it may vary.
I guess the US kinda don't get the whole invasion thing as other countries who have been historically invaded do.
Cause I saw way better explorations of that theme. To put it short - it lacks desperation and hopelessness.
Cause I saw way better explorations of that theme. To put it short - it lacks desperation and hopelessness.
What strikes me is how much it looks like Left 4 Dead 2.
To an extent the setting dictates that, but when even the lighting and textures look alike you're in trouble.
To an extent the setting dictates that, but when even the lighting and textures look alike you're in trouble.
THQ is on my sh!t list after Metro 2033. Went into that expecting a decent shooter with a cool setting and oh did I kick myself afterwards.
I mention it because this strikes me as another novel shooter that should be average if nothing else. I won't go for a rerun of last time though.
I mention it because this strikes me as another novel shooter that should be average if nothing else. I won't go for a rerun of last time though.