Homefront Review

[DTWolfwood]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[blackxino]

great review.

game was disappointing!
so short, just 4hours long.

also from the video the graphics look neat:/
on the ps3's version it suffers so much lack of AA! Absolutely no use of AA!
the graphics was just terrible.

 

[Warachia]

Well this was a horrible review supplement.

I mean the video supplement was bad, the written part was actually good, but the video is bad not because it is biased or anything, but because you go through the games moments when a reveiw should be telling you the general quality of a product, what works, what doesn't and why.

 

[SturmDolch]

The only thing that bugs me about the story (from what I've heard) is this:

So North Korea becomes a powerhouse by invading Asian countries. Ok. Let's say the UN turned a blind eye, to not piss them off. Where was China during all of this, though? I don't think they'd be too happy with North Korea conquering small countries all around them.

Anyways, North Korea decides to invade America. America's armies are stretched thin, so the invasion could succeed.

Wait, where's Canada, the EU, Israel, and every single other country that this would piss off? I'm sure the British PM would look at the news one day, see "America Invaded by North Korea" and say, "Oh. Well, that's too bad."

Anyways, the review was good. Those complaining about no multiplayer review, didn't they link to one in this review? Or was that edited in after the comments were posted?

Since it's a multiplayer focused game, I can wait. I have Blops and Minecraft to play until Battlefield 3 comes out.

 

[Ajna]

Did they actually put the wilhelm scream in their video game?
I know a lot of things were covered in the article and video, but that's what stuck with me most.

What's funny is they totally lampshaded its use with an achievatrophy. It's called "Wilhelm's Nightmare" (for knocking a bunch of people off ledges in one mission, which triggers the scream).

 

[Jim-a-Lim]

I love Russ pitts' reviews, man that dude makes me laugh... should homefront occur here in my tea sipping biscuit nomming homeland, I want my last words to be "wolverines!" for the one guy who gets the joke down bristol highstreet to laugh. It'd be worth it...almost... yeah sure why not.

 

[snfonseka]

The hype was so high.... Then it turned into another MW game.

 

[Alandoril]

Finished the campaign this morning. It only gets what little length it has from it's many, many insta-gib moments such as soldiers intentionally placed completely out of view so they can kill you and make you restart the checkpoint.

I got to chapter 4 before I actually realised that I was over half way through the game, combined they all came across as a single chapter.

The campaign needed to be at least double the length. But they're already planning a sequel which will no doubt actually be the other half of the story that should have been in the first game. I mean honestly what do these companies spend their time dicking about with to only produce a 4-5 hour campaign which is only as long as it is because of the insane number of frustrating moments?

Maybe if they'd had an in-house team of writers working on the story rather than hiring a big name to pen it that wouldn't have happened.

 

[VulakAerr]

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.

I've felt this EXACTLY ever since I saw a developer interview. The guys sounded like they were ultra-right wing and selling a game as anti-complacency progaganda. That watching polygon civilians being battered by polygon Koreans would get me emotionally invested seems like a major stretch. Particularly as far as a CoD-esque FPS goes.

Everything about this game: the story, the mechanics and the length has bored me to tears. The only thing that had me at all interested was the multiplayer, but I still have Bad Company 2. I'm pretty happy to stick with that until Brink comes out.

This stuff is just lazy.

 

[ScoopMeister]

What was the point in this game? Make Americans feel patriotic and hate the North Koreans? As a brit the whole concept of the game doesn't really appeal to me.

 

[Yvressian]

After finally playing the game, I can't help think of all the other "invasion fantasies" that some games have been putting forward in the past few years (World in conflict, CoD:MW2). I just can't understand the appeal of that kind of scenario. I can understand it in movies, if it's done well, becuase it's a more passive experience. In games, it seems sligthly disturbing, and unattractive.

Also, Homefront seems to me like propaganda for the militia movement in the US.

 

[PersistanceMB]

First of all id like to apologise for bumping a seemingly dying thread, but I had a few opinions about the game I wanted to share.

Firstly the whole idea or premonition if you will :

I think it's good. Aside from some of the issues such as no intervention with the expansion of a south east Asian power it works. Kim jong Un is out of favour with some of his fathers own people I believe for being UN friendly, with talks of concentration camps in DPKR. The idea as a whole has to be looked at from a what if scenario, and Intervention may not be likely ... no oil .... nuclear weapons, cost benefit is all it is.

The EMP idea works. Most military hardware isnt protected against it, aside from the more meaningful things such as defence silos etc, and with the ongoing downturn in the global economy, could America afford such costly preventatives? However it is the effect that this scenario would have on the civilian populace that I find most intriguing. Most people would be thrown into a torrid existence, and the game so nearly portrays this. Now the reviewer says that the scenes in the opening sequence of cut scenes are not necessary. I would argue they do something that very few video games have ever done. Shock. It drew me in.

Secondly : Gameplay :

Now this might just be because im British, but resistance for me conjures up images of early 1940 western Europe. Enthralling and heart in mouth stealth aspects,I think, should have defined this game, not your standard FPS shoot em up. Blowing up ammo caches, taking out key military and political figures, breaking down infrastructure and comms. You are fighting for a resistance, a supposedly rag tag band of militia ... wouldn't the game have been better if you couldn't just openly start a fire fight with the occupying forces, if instead infiltration was the only way to secure an objective? The game then could have tied the resistance forces to the actual US military, the Resistance easing the way in, you know, like what happened before D Day for example.

This game should have been brilliant, minus those retarded sentry towers and garish armour, and that odd tank the resistance has. A missed opportunity to make something truly great