Homefront Review

John Horn

New member
Aug 15, 2010
40
0
0
Murmillos said:
well, ignoring the derp of the people who love to attempt to point out NK can't do anything .. I guess they are the same people who got an F in history, especially when it came to WWI to WWII Germany because they were too busy drawing swastikas and giggling each time the heard the words Nazi & Gestapo...
You are applying Godwin's Law here - using a comparison of Nazi Germany to whatever it is you are arguing about. Godwin's Law: mention Hitler or the Nazis to bolster the argument.

The impoverishment and humiliation of germany after the Versailles Treaty, as well as the hyperinflation caused by the stock market crash of 1920s, had occured in an already strong nation. The hiatus between WW1 and WW2 was a couple decades. DPRK was never this strong in 1954, and it has now been kept sealed for 57 years, and getting weaker still.

Germany became an industrial powerhouse due to a geographically and geologically varied and versatile land. The German Reich took shape prior to Bismarck, but it was Bismarck who refined Germany into a proper republic. Hitler merely usurped it and put the reich on steroids.
To compare DPRK with Germany in terms of potential industrial base or R&D levels is worthy an F in my class.
 

TheRightToArmBears

New member
Dec 13, 2008
8,674
0
0
Hmmm... Looks like someone nicked half of Modern Warfare 2 here. Whilst I actually quite liked MW2 (you read that right), I already own it, and it has more stuff in it, and don't really feel like buying half of it again.
 

Seneschal

Blessed are the righteous
Jun 27, 2009
561
0
0
From what I've seen in youtube playthroughs, the game plays perfectly just like every other modern AAA FPS, etc. I guess Mr. Pitts has reached a point of perfection-fatigue and just being adequately gratifying isn't enough to carry a game anymore. I hope more people are feeling like this.

EDIT: Also, his video reviews are always funny. :D Yes, the entire thing looks like the Burger Town/Arcadia/DC portion of MW2.
 

Conor147

New member
Mar 10, 2011
91
0
0
who actually cares about the singleplayer?

FPS are all about the multiplayer, not the single player. the multiplayer/singleplayer weighting should be 10/1 not 1/1.

i spent 5-10 hours on the singleplayer in every cod game ive ever played. ive spent huundreds on hours on the multiplayer. i really couldnt care less about how short the singleplayer is.
 

Antari

Music Slave
Nov 4, 2009
2,246
0
0
Good review Russ. Covered all the important bases. I got the same feelings watching my friend play this last night.
 

PunkRex

New member
Feb 19, 2010
2,533
0
0
A reveiw that was funny AND a reference to Randy from Southpark, Mr.Pitts just went up'a'notch in my book. Hes on notch 6.
 

SenorNemo

Senior Member
Mar 14, 2011
219
0
21
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.
 

veloper

New member
Jan 20, 2009
4,597
0
0
The most rediculous premise ever cannot save a very generic MW clone.

We never expected that.
 

throumbas

New member
Sep 6, 2009
12
0
0
SenorNemo said:
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)
Milestone 1: North Korea merges with South Korea. No, just no.
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.
 

Jumplion

New member
Mar 10, 2008
7,873
0
0
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.
FFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU-, Ninja'd so hard, man!

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.
 

mattaui

New member
Oct 16, 2008
689
0
0
throumbas said:
SenorNemo said:
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)
Milestone 1: North Korea merges with South Korea. No, just no.
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.
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?

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.
 

SenorNemo

Senior Member
Mar 14, 2011
219
0
21
throumbas said:
SenorNemo said:
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)
Milestone 1: North Korea merges with South Korea. No, just no.
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.
Heh, I didn't think anyone would take me up so quick, but this still isn't quite what I had in mind.

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:
2015: The effects of peak oil are felt as gas prices reach up to 20 dollars a gallon due to a war between Iran and Saudi Arabia. Russia cuts off all oil trade with Europe. Survivalist literature become bestsellers in America. China's influences diminish.
2016: America withdraws its military from Japan and other countries overseas, focusing on its instability back home. Texas splits from the United States, border bloodshed takes place as refugees from other states attempt to enter Texas.
2017: Martial law is declared in the United States as its infrastructure crumbles due to financial deficiencies.
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.
 

Saucycarpdog

New member
Sep 30, 2009
3,258
0
0
D_987 said:
sibrenfetter said:
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?
How is the multiplayer a COD clone? Becuase it has guns?
 

Devil's Due

New member
Sep 27, 2008
1,244
0
0
veloper said:
The most rediculous premise ever cannot save a very generic MW clone.

We never expected that.
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!"

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."
 

LightspeedJack

New member
May 2, 2010
1,478
0
0
Russ Pitts said:
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.
Yes, they actually did. We counted two of them in just the 30 minutes or so we were capturing video.
It's also in Red Dead Redemption and I think Vanquish.
 

zaro27

New member
Apr 15, 2009
80
0
0
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.
 

ZaxqZombie

New member
Jul 19, 2010
86
0
0
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!!!!!
 

vrbtny

Elite Member
Sep 16, 2009
1,959
0
41
Ardenon said:
vrbtny said:
It's sounds a bit like Metro 2033 (Good setting, shitty gameplay)
I beg to differ, Metro 2033 had good gameplay
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...

Admittedly, the gunplay is very good whenever your not facing any humans. It's really quite good against the beasts.