Homefront Review


New member
Mar 18, 2011
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.


New member
Aug 11, 2009
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.


This Title is Ironic
May 17, 2009
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.


Mar 19, 2009
SomebodyNowhere said:
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).


New member
Jan 10, 2009
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.


New member
Jul 19, 2010
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.


New member
Mar 31, 2010
John Horn said:
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.


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.

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.


New member
Mar 12, 2011
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.


New member
Jul 19, 2008
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.


New member
Mar 9, 2010
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 :(


New member
Nov 27, 2010
Has anyone noticed that Connor is the worst fucking shot ever? He stands in front of you and sprays bullets...and i get hit by koreans when standing behind him...he's not even a good fucking human shield!!!

EDIT: i was posting as i was playing...just finished...4 hours later! It was a poor mans COD:MW2, with an insanely short story and blatant rip off of COD gameplay.

Glad i only rented it.