Homefront Review

Jordi

New member
Jun 6, 2009
812
0
0
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.

SenorNemo said:
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.
You are awesome!
 

Shirokurou

New member
Mar 8, 2010
1,039
0
0
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.
 

fix-the-spade

New member
Feb 25, 2008
8,639
0
0
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.
 

RobfromtheGulag

New member
May 18, 2010
931
0
0
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.
 

Catalyst6

Dapper Fellow
Apr 21, 2010
1,362
0
0
I'm not going to say "I called it" but... well... "called it".

vrbtny said:
It's sounds a bit like Metro 2033 (Good setting, shitty gameplay)
I rather liked Metro 2033; it had enough new features (the gas mask mechanics were awesome.) that it didn't get too boring. Still, YMMV.
 

Tsaba

reconnoiter
Oct 6, 2009
1,435
0
0
Saucycardog said:
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?
I think a lot of people here just want it to be a COD clone and want it to fail, I think the game will succeed however on it's own merits.
(dives for cover!)
 

mental_looney

New member
Apr 29, 2008
522
0
0
Bleh so wanted this to be an awesome epic stroy fps like bioshock shame it's cod level mp focused short rubbish, the stroy seemed really appealing as somehing interesting. I do like cod just it's story is unspectacular and generic even is soap is awesomely scottish.
 

bam13302

New member
Dec 8, 2009
617
0
0
yea, this seems like a cod clone, single player was horribly short, beat it first time, (from when i started the game to when i closed it, with out skipping any cinematics, on normal) in 2.2 hours
hopefully the multiplayer is good
 

Mullahgrrl

New member
Apr 20, 2008
1,011
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.
I think they should just have gone all the way with it and had an alternate reality where the coalition lost the Iraq war and have the occupying power be Iraqui instead of Korean.
 

Samurai Goomba

New member
Oct 7, 2008
3,679
0
0
Narratively is not a word. Even the freaking spell check caught it. You used it at least twice.

Now I'm not saying we're all perfect, but if someone going to present a text review, he or she (like all writers) has an obligation to adhere to correct writing.
 

Wicky_42

New member
Sep 15, 2008
2,468
0
0
Chunko said:
VitusPrime said:
Chunko said:
It seems like a passable game, but I feel like I would have trouble taking its message seriously if the bad guys were Korean. Even if North and South Korea combined there is NO WAY they would ever have the facilities to invade the U.S. China would make a more believable enemy, but even they would be a stretch (because we rely on each other for economic reasons).
Oh for the...All of this complaining about how the plot 'isn't plausible' is just getting silly now. Who honestly cares if it's realistic or not honestly? They have actually explained how this scenario which the game takes place in...and seems alot better than alot of other shooters. The games out, and the reviews are saying the game is meh so just get off the soap box of this game's plot being unrealistic.
I'm alright with silly plots, deadrising is one of my favorite games. It's just that the reviewer said that the plot was trying to be serious and send a message. If it's trying to do that get a more plausible enemy than DPRK. Do they seriously expect that North Korea and South Korea would ever merge?
John Horn said:
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.
A Curious Fellow said:
Waitwaitwaitwaitwait wait wait. Wait. The NORTH KOREANS are the enemy? No. The North Koreans do not have the means to invade the entirety of the United States. No. That is stupid.
throumbas said:
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.
Look guys, if you aren't just trolling then read the bloody plot before commenting on it, geeze. If you'd paid more than a passing interest in it you'd know all the relevant details that create the fictional future where a united Asia, the economic powerhouse of the world, is capable of waltzing into the States to casually molest everyone.

It's fiction, deal with it. Or do you complain that one guy single-handedly takes on a Covenant armada? That a middle-eastern warlord blows up a nuke and kills a bunch of yanks? That a Marshall can lead a rebellion and fly a seriously kick-ass battleship whilst consuming that much whiskey? At least these guys bothered putting together a timeline for you :/
 

Smagmuck_

New member
Aug 25, 2009
12,681
0
0
I'm still optimistic, I mean who knows? Maybe it'll turn out to be a cult classic in the next few years? I'll be borrowing it from a friend when he finishes.
 

ChupathingyX

New member
Jun 8, 2010
3,716
0
0
The opening would've been cool if (for me) it wasn't just Mercenaries: Playground of Destruction meets Modern Warfare 2.
 

Chunko

New member
Aug 2, 2009
1,533
0
0
Wicky_42 said:
Chunko said:
VitusPrime said:
Chunko said:
It seems like a passable game, but I feel like I would have trouble taking its message seriously if the bad guys were Korean. Even if North and South Korea combined there is NO WAY they would ever have the facilities to invade the U.S. China would make a more believable enemy, but even they would be a stretch (because we rely on each other for economic reasons).
Oh for the...All of this complaining about how the plot 'isn't plausible' is just getting silly now. Who honestly cares if it's realistic or not honestly? They have actually explained how this scenario which the game takes place in...and seems alot better than alot of other shooters. The games out, and the reviews are saying the game is meh so just get off the soap box of this game's plot being unrealistic.
I'm alright with silly plots, deadrising is one of my favorite games. It's just that the reviewer said that the plot was trying to be serious and send a message. If it's trying to do that get a more plausible enemy than DPRK. Do they seriously expect that North Korea and South Korea would ever merge?
John Horn said:
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.
A Curious Fellow said:
Waitwaitwaitwaitwait wait wait. Wait. The NORTH KOREANS are the enemy? No. The North Koreans do not have the means to invade the entirety of the United States. No. That is stupid.
throumbas said:
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.
Look guys, if you aren't just trolling then read the bloody plot before commenting on it, geeze. If you'd paid more than a passing interest in it you'd know all the relevant details that create the fictional future where a united Asia, the economic powerhouse of the world, is capable of waltzing into the States to casually molest everyone.

It's fiction, deal with it. Or do you complain that one guy single-handedly takes on a Covenant armada? That a middle-eastern warlord blows up a nuke and kills a bunch of yanks? That a Marshall can lead a rebellion and fly a seriously kick-ass battleship whilst consuming that much whiskey? At least these guys bothered putting together a timeline for you :/
I saw the intro cutscene. It's still not believable.
 

Tdc2182

New member
May 21, 2009
3,623
0
0
Does anyone remember how Red Dawn was actually a pretty terrible movie? Or was that just me?

OT: Really, it makes me realize how much of a good single player Modern Warfare 2 had. Yeah, nonsensical at times, but damn.

Really was some great design.
 

Wicky_42

New member
Sep 15, 2008
2,468
0
0
Chunko said:
I saw the intro cutscene. It's still not believable.
Key word? Fiction. Disbelief? You must suspend it, just as you must with any other piece of fiction. It's tiresome to hear people chundering on about 'hurr, third world country could NEVER invade the US!' when that's completely irrelevant. Anyway, whether you can groove with the plot or not doesn't really matter - the backstory interested me more than the actual game plot and the game play was done and perfected easily by MW1, so not a lot left for this game to sell on in my opinion.