Homefront Review

Phlakes

Elite Member
Mar 25, 2010
4,282
0
41
I just played it about twenty minutes ago, and I have to say I would give it no more than a 5/10. There's not a single bit of immersion, all the emotional scenes come off as forced and gimmicky, there's no connection with any of the completely cliched characters, the entire story is predictable from before you even start the game, every texture is all dirty and gritty and the graphics (while I don't care that much about them) feel like they're from '06, the guns feel like heavy plastic and have no recoil, the music is completely uninspired and forgettable, all my deaths were either because I was standing in the wrong place during a scripted event or something randomly exploded beside me, and there was even one time where I climbed into a truck where you can't move and have to wait for a scripted chase scene, and I got insta-killed by a rocket.

I could go on for hours, but basically, there is not a single reason to get this while Black Ops and BFBC2 are still available.
 

Dougomite

New member
Mar 19, 2010
3
0
0
As someone who isn't a CoD player I enjoyed Homefront. The review constantly mentions how 'this or that' aspect of the game was already done in CoD. Well for those of us that haven't been through all 5(i think) CoD games those interesting moments were simply interesting and fun.

I'm getting tired of reviews taking short cuts by simply labeling a games as 'just like "insert game"'. It usually doesn't really help describe the game and people who haven't played the referenced game are left with still knowing absolutely nothing. I'd have preferred a more descriptive review and less of a comparison to CoD type video.
 

beefpelican

New member
Apr 15, 2009
374
0
0
This was great. Hilarious but still informative, in a way that only a review about a bad game can be.
 

YoUnG205

Ugh!...
Oct 13, 2009
884
0
0
Even after this review and some other reviews that I have read I still want this game. I don't know why but it just looks like something that I would enjoy but maybe thats just me.
 

BrownGaijin

New member
Jan 31, 2009
895
0
0
OptimusPrime33 said:
BrownGaijin said:
I said it before and I'll say it again: Seriously? North Korea invades the United States? Seriously?
Hey it's a videogame, anything can happen.
True. And now that I think about it, the game may have been a bit better if it had a gun that shot shurikens and lightning.

I kid.
 

DaHero

New member
Jan 10, 2011
789
0
0
Moral of the story: If it ain't CoD, it's probably crap, right?

Sure, if this had CoD on it? Definitely would have gotten better reviews. CoD has a worse storyline idea, less plot twists (at least in the last level of Homefront it wasn't some pathetic general whining about war itself) and overall just seems like the pathetically generic "bad guy, go shoot them" that we've all become used to. Yes, Homefront didn't quite make it, but only because it was an FPS that wasn't Call of Duty. It tried something new, but nobody WANTS something new unless it's labeled "CoD: MW3."
 

DTWolfwood

Better than Vash!
Oct 20, 2009
3,716
0
0
i get a very big sense of "MEH" after reading and hearing about this game XD

guess the score is a big MEH

Well i wish someone would be bold enough to make a game where the USA invades another country and is considered the big bad meanie. You know something closer to reality.

Seeing my country, most powerful nation on the planet atm, portrayed as the underdog no long jive well with my constitution. I really don't mind being the villain for once.
 

xchurchx

New member
Nov 2, 2009
357
0
0
Comparing this game to modern Warfare i think was wrong
This is a war game where CoD is Shooter
Maybe u should have compared battlefield with it
 

Ham Blitz

New member
May 28, 2009
576
0
0
I will agree with mot of the review. I did actually enjoy the story, though it was very short in my opinion. Not just short in the feels short way, but the fact that it literally took me 4 hours and 30 minutes to complete. The multiplayer is quite fun, but somehow I feel like it would be better to wait to buy this game when the price goes down. (I would say used, but the game decided to add in a code to all new copies that allows you to go past level 5 in multiplayer... yeah that means without it you can't really get much in multiplayer customization)
 

Ajna

Doublethinker
Mar 19, 2009
704
0
0
xchurchx said:
Comparing this game to modern Warfare i think was wrong
This is a war game where CoD is Shooter
Maybe u should have compared battlefield with it
Just as comparing Homefront to CoD is an insult to Homefront, comparing Battlefield to Homefront is an insult to Battlefield.

Don't get me wrong, Homefront is fun. I played it until 4 AM this morning. I have school today. But it isn't on the same level as any Battlefield game I've played (and I've played a lot of them). In BF, you actually care who your teammates are. It's important to talk to them, work together, stick together, etc. In Homefront, you can do well with your team, yes. Hell, if you're running a vehicle operation, they're essential, because every vehicle can have a teammate in it, and there's no downside to it. But you can also do very well solo. I got the achievement for getting a 3-star wanted level just by running around the map in a circle with an SMG. If you tried running around alone in a BF game, you would get your shit wrecked quickly, frequently, and thoroughly.

Homefront is in its own category. It shouldn't be compared to anything. Hell, no game should be compared to another game, because that detracts from the merits of the game itself.

Except for COD. COD doesn't have any merits, so compare it to whatever you want. HEY-OH![footnote]Seriously though, COD's only redeeming feature is that the people who plug in their mics online take the game seriously, so you can have a LOT of fun trapping them in corners, shooting while following them, and generally acting like a complete n00b.[/footnote]
 

GBM

New member
May 20, 2009
6
0
0
No kidding. I can't tell if whoever wrote this was trying to make fun of the paranoid streak in American politics, or just doesn't realize how fantastically stupid the idea of North Korea invading the US is.

Excluding the fact that they would have to defeat our navy and airforce just to land, how exactly are they going to get here? Their navy has nothing but coastal boats for crying out loud! Their Air Force STILL USES ANTONOV AN-2s!

North Korea invading the US is about as likely as Chad invading the US, and would be about as successful if attempted.
 

SyphonX

Coffee Bandit
Mar 22, 2009
956
0
0
This game sucked pretty bad. Regrettable purchase.

Basically, they use the outlandish story of Koreans invading the US, which we've all talked about. So, going-in while knowing this, I figured.. what the hell, we'll suspend belief for a bit and I'll just pretend to be a guerrilla in Colorado suburbs.

Well, at no point is there anything remotely interesting in regards to "guerrilla warfare" or playing the part of a rebel in an oppressed war-zone. No, you just run around like you do in Call of Duty, absorbing bullet after bullet and mowing down waves of enemies. Uninspired, creative-defunct shooter. The story would have served better in a shooter-hybrid RPG or 'stealth-action' game. Even though the story is mostly crap. The characters, who are undeveloped, are just jumbles of cliches. Connor, the rage-rambo, a tech-nerd, some empathetic feminine presence and the others I can't even remember. The only interesting character in the entire game is in for about 1-2 chapters, used to "tie levels together", then dies.

Everything about the game is forgettable. The only elements that tie everything together are the shock-elements that are all but meaningless due to the hokey plot and lack of pacing.

But. If you're into the bullet-sponge, waves of enemies, float-y gameplay akin to CoD, then this is right up your alley. I'm sure those folks will claim this is "realistic".

All of this just makes me yearn for a real open-world Saboteur style game. One that is less shooty-shooty, and more saboteury.
 

Fox242

El Zorro Cauto
Nov 9, 2009
868
0
0
I actually found the story to be excellent. There was a sense of decay and hopelessness as well as savagery that hasn't been this well translated since Freedom Fighters in 2003. Being forced to hide in a pile of corpses as well as fighting off "Norks" while a woman cowers with her baby behind cover next to me will always stick with me. The characters were actually quite relateable and I especailly love the goat farmer who got suspicious of my intentions around his goats. They also acted realistically, such as when Connor's anger gradually rose until it burst into a fit or rage after seeing corpses of American detainees being dumped into a mass grave like garbadge. Yes, the game is short, but it made me want to see more of this bleak world rather than just forget about it after it was over. I genuinly hope Kaos makes a sequel to this game so I can see more of this universe.
 

Brian Hendershot

New member
Mar 3, 2010
784
0
0
I actually like this game, more so then Black Ops or Modern Warfare 2. (Go flame shield go!)

The story, while some might say is unrealistic (and it kinda is, but since when has the gaming industry being known for being realistic? I could nit-pick at a any games story until kingdom come), is actually different then its so called "CoD counter-parts". I know that some of the things I did in there sit with me more longer then MW2s mowing down an airport terminal. And I realize this story is set in America, but boo fucking hoo, doesn't change the quality of it. At least I am not invading Normandy/Germany/Desert looking country, for the millionth time. (Although I will say this, Conner looks very similar to the main character on Black Ops. At least, I think it is the main character. I didn't get two hours into that campaign.) And while the whole objective of a the single player game is to deliver fuel is kinda lame, what else can a single resistance cell do in an occupied country? Bring world peace and rainbows to everyone? NO! Cause that would be unrealistic.

That being said, the game has some glitches and rendering problems which make it hard to be fully immersed in the game. Some of the voice acting is...good...and some...well...it isn't. I was saddened by the lack of character depth (particularly in Hopper) and the shortness of the campaign, but whatever. Also, it would be nice to be a little less of a bad ass who can take a million bullets to the face. However, I have grown to accept the badass part as being as a part of every modern FPS these days.

The multiplayer part of the game however, is stellar. It looks like Black Ops, plays a little like Unreal 2's massive (forget what they are called) modes were you have objective markers, and the whole BP system is quite nice.

All in all, I think the reason this game is getting such poor reviews is because people were expecting a wedding cake and instead got a pie. A tasty pie, but a pie nonetheless.

EDIT: I would also like to point out that this game is a total what if scenario that takes place many many years down the future. The newspaper articles you find in the game, coupled with the introduction actually make it seem a little bit more plausible.
 

Eclectic Dreck

New member
Sep 3, 2008
6,662
0
0
ryai458 said:
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.
Just because something is "hardened" does not make it "impervious" in much the same way that slapping armor onto something does not make it invulnerable to bombs and projectiles. To your larger point of a nuclear response, keep in mind that the story is predicated on the assumption that North Korea has a sizable nuclear stockpile at it's disposal (the intro movie stops counting at around 1000 and that was years before the start of the game) meaning that a nuclear response would, almost certainly, result in the annihilation of both the US and Korea. In general, the basic plot an premise of the game is far more reasonable than the scenario presented in Modern Warfare for a variety of reasons not worth getting into here.

That said, I am increasingly annoyed that the EMP concept is used as a magic wand that allows us to utterly ignore any of a dozen reasonable problems with a video game plot. The one presented in Homefront, which we see is capable of shutting down the entire US grid, presents all sorts of interesting questions that are at least as difficult to resolve as any narrative problem it seeks to resolve. For example, how precisely did one generate an EMP with sufficient yield to cause electrical shorts in critical components across trillions of miles of conductive material? How did this event, sufficient to affect any device withing 1500 miles, suddenly stop at the Mexican and Canadian border? Even if we assume that this device "worked by magic" and achieved this effect, that still leaves a number of problems related to the invasion itself. It isn't as though intelligence agencies around the world wouldn't be watching every move of an expansionist nuclear armed nation and to think that they somehow prepared an invasion force sufficient to conquer most of the US (which would require substantial military power thanks to the size of the affected area alone) without anyone noticing is easily one of the great narrative missteps of the game.