Homefront Reviews - Average so far... 72%
- Thread starter Korten12
- Start date
Recommended Videos
More because having read the novel before the game (never mind having praised it) gives the impression that the reviewer didn't come to the game with objectivity in mind. An impression bolstered by the review itself. It's difficult to come to a game with a blank slate in the storm of media that typically accompanies a triple-A release, but a reviewer who wants to be taken seriously should at least try, not seek out spin-off material.Korten12 said:
..I.. suppose they had already spent their vocabulary and didn't have any words left for describing "an involving experience, without being either pretentious Hollywood bullshit or pseudo-emotional whining".tellmeimaninja said:
Seriously, though. It's rare that you get a story and a setting that isn't offensive to Americans in some way, that also is fairly well written. ..I mean, we're talking about.. back to the 1800s here to get another example of something like that
The problem is, every gameplay footage I've seen involves the Americans kicking ass against unbelievable odds.Enkidu88 said:
And that's the main reason why I'm not that interested. It still involves being on the "good" side and kicking the ass of the opposition. Nothing has really changed - except the setting and the clothing your character is wearing.
And how North Korea are managing to use US firearms makes no sense at all.
That video did not leave me with a good first impression. I thought it was doing a pretty good job building atmosphere, I was genuinely impressed. Until the parent shooting incident happened. That scene just seemed completely ridiculous, relegating the Koreans to comic book villain status. All they needed to do was have you hear the child screaming, that would have been enough, and it's far more subtle.
Another big mistake they made was to have all the Korean soldiers masked. They don't seem human anymore, so it's just become America versus the giant evil empire. As usual.
I haven't played the game, but that left a really poor first impression, just looked like a really hamfisted attempt at creating emotion. Without that emotion they've been hyping so hard, there's nothing really seperating it from the myriad of other shooters. It may be that it gets absolutely amazing later on, but a first impression is incredibly important, and that one failed.
Another big mistake they made was to have all the Korean soldiers masked. They don't seem human anymore, so it's just become America versus the giant evil empire. As usual.
I haven't played the game, but that left a really poor first impression, just looked like a really hamfisted attempt at creating emotion. Without that emotion they've been hyping so hard, there's nothing really seperating it from the myriad of other shooters. It may be that it gets absolutely amazing later on, but a first impression is incredibly important, and that one failed.
Yeah, I can't argue with you there.Kortney said:
I was basing my views on their promotional content on the main website. Even featuring a "Suicide Bomber" video from an American schoolteacher. So that made me think this was going to be a gritty, desperate, almost survival-horror style shooter. Having to sneak through dark alleys to ambush unsuspecting Korean patrols, or rigging a bomb on a barracks to blow up the unaware troops inside, would have made for an awesome game.
Unfortunately it looks like your right, its mostly a coverbased shooter with America kicking ass and taking names...again, despite the fact that North Korea controls the Pacific Coast and the American mid-west.
Also, yeah, the weapons is just a weird oversight on their part. NK forces today wield old Soviet-era weapons, and even if they requisitioned weapons from our military, why are we still wielding the same M16s and shotguns we have today. This is 2027 (supposedly) and your telling me our military didn't upgrade our weaponry in the slightest?
Game reviewers don't give anything lower than a 6. Below that it reserved for joke games and sonic games. If it gets an 8 that means its a generic, by the numbers FPS, exactly identical to Call of Duty, Battlefield Bad Company etc. If that's what you like you will enjoy it but remember there is no originality, creativity or innovation involved.
IGN...reputable? I see what you did there.Korten12 said:
While i'm sure the game has solid design, i'm just not intrested in another shooter that's set in the modern era, that features real countries, and uses the standard guns that have been in use since Counter Strike.
I just can't get excited about "realistic" shooters anymore.
I just can't get excited about "realistic" shooters anymore.
I'll wait for PCG's review, and RPS's (their preview for the first 3 missions was pretty scathing).
Russ Pitts' review was hardly enthusiastic either.
Russ Pitts' review was hardly enthusiastic either.
You'd be surprised by how many people consider parts of the CoD games emotional. Amazing what a moustache, some walking clichés and some slow-mo will do.tellmeimaninja said:
And it sounds like they docked a lot of points for that, too. And the complaint about no replay value except for beating it on a different difficulty settings or finding collectibles is just stupid.Korten12 said:
OT: It seems okay, I'll give it that. The MW2 school of short, explosive campaigns is something I adore.
However, it looks really dated.
Depends on what you mean by "emotional" in this particular scenario.Woodsey said:
Nobody cries over Modern Warfare 2. Nobody sobs over Black Ops. However, both of them do invoke emotions - anger, excitement, more excitement, you know?
No, I'm talking about people who have specifically talked about bits they thought were well done and emotional.JourneyThroughHell said:
As for the review, describing it as "emotional" has one primary connotation; whilst everythign you listed is technically correct, hardly anyone will infer that from it above the interpretation of it being sad/morbid/touching.