THQ Blames Homefront Single Player for Lukewarm Reviews

Andronicus

Terror Australis
Mar 25, 2009
1,846
0
0
Dr. McD said:
Andronicus said:
If they're going to make it a franchise, they maybe they'll make one for Australia...

If this is the case, then any shortcomings in the first game are completely forgiven, THQ!!

To be honest, I really wouldn't care how unrealistic the situation is, how short the campaign is, or even if the Australians are the guys you're shooting (in fact, I reckon I'd prefer that), it'd just be INSANELY refreshing to see something not set in the US or in Europe; I'd buy it launch day.
NO! THIS SHIT SHOULDN"T HAVE EVEN HAD A GAME MADE FOR AMERICA IN THE FIRST PLACE AND YOU WANT ONE FOR AUSTRALIA!? SERIOUSLY!? ALL IT WOULD BE IS GENERIC SHIT: AUSTRALIAN EDITION.
It would still be more refreshing than playing the exact same GENERIC SHIT: AMERICAN EDITION for the ten thousand'th time. Seriously, anything that featured Australia in it would be majorly shaking up the formula.

Also, you might want to check your shift buttons; I think one of them might be stuck or something.
 

JochemDude

New member
Nov 23, 2010
1,242
0
0
Well if you wanted is to notice multiplayer than you shouldn't be solely boosting the singleplayer as much. Weak PR
 

Arcadia2000

New member
Mar 3, 2008
214
0
0
I know others have said it already and I'm not going to bemoan on my own behalf - chastising is much more fun. ->

NO. (NO!x10^infinity) No, you do not get to BLAME your crap score on the fact that YOU didn't develop more than what amounts to a $10+/hour gaming experience sans multiplayer. BAD THQ. Bad, bad THQ *spanks with the rolled-up newspaper* Even most MOVIE(s)/THEATERS nowadays give you TWO hours per $10 ticket. Granted it doesn't take me that long (3-5 hours) to read a novel of that length (even factoring in exposition made unecessary by gameplay elements)(unless it's the Silmarillion) but... just... gah... HONESTLY, guys, REALLY....

It makes me want to wish death-in-fire (well, not really but maybe career-death-in-fire) to devs and directors and publishers and WTF ever thinks that ANYTHING under 10-12 hours for a single player non-co-op campaign is okay (unless your game is Portal and even THEN it wasn't packaged at $60 by itself because even IF Valve is as slow as molassess in the arctic they aren't Bat Crap Crazy. As far as I know. Like those Rockstar guys. But they're the good kind of crazy so it's okay.)

*And deBlob2 isn't an excuse either, THQ, just in case you were gonna go there. Try again, with less fail, please.
 

Unrulyhandbag

New member
Oct 21, 2009
462
0
0
The campaign was an utter turd and the multiplayer isn't strong enough to stand alone in the market. Yup the game may have been the issue.

NathLines said:
I think it's because the singleplayer wasn't SHORT ENOUGH. They shouldn't have bothered with the singleplayer in the first place. Just focus on the multilayer.
You may be right. Lack of a real single player game never held back Battlefield2, Quake3 or the unreal (barring the fantastic original obv.) games from being successes.

If you want to make a good multiplayer game then get to it and don't even waste time trying to make the mechanics fit into a token story line.
 

squid5580

Elite Member
Feb 20, 2008
5,106
0
41
TestECull said:
At least they're blaming it on what actually did it.
Partly. It wasn't the length of the campaign. It was the campaign. It was poorly paced. Poorly scripted. Full of unlikeable flat characters. They should have called it Poor Man's Red Dawn not Homefront (did like the banner on the school though nice touch there). I swear I spent more time watching people jerk around and waiting for them to open the damn doors (what the MC doesn't understand the physics of doorknobs??) than I did fighting the same damn enemy over and over.
 

squid5580

Elite Member
Feb 20, 2008
5,106
0
41
dogstile said:
I still find it hilarious how 70/100 is considered bad.

I mean, that's pretty damn good considering how everything that isn't games is rated.
These game sites have made 7 the new 5. I think they are all dyslexic.
 

TheKwertyeweyoppe

New member
Jan 1, 2010
118
0
0
The most advertised part of it was absolutely terrible in every way. It was short, gameplay was generic and uninteresting, the player isn't allowed to decide, lead or think in any way, gameplay was interupted constantly by boring dialogue sections during which you can't proceed, the evil of Korean people is shoved painfully down your throat, the resistance(read: Conner) constantly make terrible decisions, the story was quite a bit less plausible than advertised and I'm not even joking when I say that the armoured drone was the deepest and most interesting character in the entire game.

And the game got bad reviews.

SURPRISE!

I didn't even like the multiplayer either. It had some good features like marking successful players to the enemy but it was mostly CoD blended with Battlefield baked till golden-unbalanced and lightly dusted with 'not very fun'.

Personally I think 70 is pushing it, more like 60 going off the weird rating scale, or 2 stars.


(Goliath (the drone)is actually very well characterised, comparable with a lot of human characters in other games which is why I choose to beleive he was sentient. But did he serve the resistance out of loyalty or slavery? Who knows......mystery......deeper character......)
 

Kahunaburger

New member
May 6, 2011
4,141
0
0
On one hand, it is a little strange that people are judging a multiplayer shooter by the glorified tutorial. On the other hand, multiplayer is really hard to review - things like balance, tactical depth, teamwork-friendliness, and commando lunges really only come out of the woodwork after a community already exists.
 

TheKwertyeweyoppe

New member
Jan 1, 2010
118
0
0
Steel_viper said:
because making a game for its multilayer alone always, always fails, dumbshits
Not really no, look at TF2.

I think the problem was that they hyped up the singleplayer whereas TF2 doesn't even pretend to have one.