THQ Hammered by Sub-Par Homefront Scores
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
Yeah, I'll parrot what everyone else said, single player sucked.
Enemies were omipotent, allies were only good for blocking you as you're trying to run away from a grenade or gunfire, and the game played like whack-a-mole (in the hardest difficulty setting, felt like you were the mole).
I could care less about the multiplayer. I'm perfectly happy with TF2 and MNC. That's $50 I'm never getting back.
EDIT: Yeah, probably a good time to add that I've learned my lesson. I'm not the primary modern combat FPS demographic from the looks of it, the industry has nothing to offer that I want.
Enemies were omipotent, allies were only good for blocking you as you're trying to run away from a grenade or gunfire, and the game played like whack-a-mole (in the hardest difficulty setting, felt like you were the mole).
I could care less about the multiplayer. I'm perfectly happy with TF2 and MNC. That's $50 I'm never getting back.
EDIT: Yeah, probably a good time to add that I've learned my lesson. I'm not the primary modern combat FPS demographic from the looks of it, the industry has nothing to offer that I want.
Because 70 is totally an awful score. Seriously, some of the best games I own were in the 60-70 range. Maybe if you got to play as the Koreans it would've done better.
Neat plot that mired with crapy more generic than generic mechanics...and people say mechanics do not matter anymore.......HA!
I think in a general sense 3/5 or 70% is above par. I really hate game review standards. I get why they are what they are but it's a bit ridiculous to send out a game which by most systems of measure is quite good and it be a "disaster". However that's the AAA games business, especially shooters.
CoD and Halo have the market (you can read have as halve if you want) and if you want to make it you have to do something different but familiar which is a fine line to walk.
I must say I don't know a lot about Homefront (I thought it was a movie tbh) but what I've seen is the same guns (not too much can be done) perks, and kill streak rewards. If you are going to try and take on the current champions of the FPS you have to at least not copy the main-stakes of another popular franchise.
The way I look at it it's Halo and CoD (which have very different settings/guns on a cosmetic level at least) and Battlefield which although it has similar styling to CoD it sets itself apart with large maps and destructible environments. I mean this is like the MMORPG thing: you won't dethrone WoW, you have make your own game.
I'm sure someone will take me to task about a lot of this rambling rant about how all FPSs rip eachother off but all Homefront had going for it was a controversial story (no one buys FPSs for the story anymore) and a small possibility of having better mechanics than CoD. But even then CoD is a huge game and it feels good to play. People won't migrate en masse unless it's something revolutionary.
TL
R: don't bother, I don't say anything important. It's all opinion backed up by nothing but assumptions and more opinion.
CoD and Halo have the market (you can read have as halve if you want) and if you want to make it you have to do something different but familiar which is a fine line to walk.
I must say I don't know a lot about Homefront (I thought it was a movie tbh) but what I've seen is the same guns (not too much can be done) perks, and kill streak rewards. If you are going to try and take on the current champions of the FPS you have to at least not copy the main-stakes of another popular franchise.
The way I look at it it's Halo and CoD (which have very different settings/guns on a cosmetic level at least) and Battlefield which although it has similar styling to CoD it sets itself apart with large maps and destructible environments. I mean this is like the MMORPG thing: you won't dethrone WoW, you have make your own game.
I'm sure someone will take me to task about a lot of this rambling rant about how all FPSs rip eachother off but all Homefront had going for it was a controversial story (no one buys FPSs for the story anymore) and a small possibility of having better mechanics than CoD. But even then CoD is a huge game and it feels good to play. People won't migrate en masse unless it's something revolutionary.
TL
R: don't bother, I don't say anything important. It's all opinion backed up by nothing but assumptions and more opinion.Once again, copying mediocre games with big names behind them doesn't work, this proves it. Even if Homefront was an amazing title, it wasn't CoD, so it didn't sell well. The parallel is true as well. Modern Warfare 2 proved that no matter how crappy a game is, just slapping "Call of Duty" on it makes it an instant buy. Homefront proves that unless FPS titles have "Call of Duty" on them, it's not going to sell. It's sad because it proves that the FPS community has become consumers, not customers. Want to know who real customers are? People like Yahtzee, or those raising sand about Dragon Age 2's over simplification. Unless gamers start being customers, all we're going to get is CoD crap over and over again. It was just like MMOs trying to mass copy WoW. When word finally got around to the smart people, new ideas were being worked on. Now we have games like Vindictus, and soon RaiderZ, that shatter the idea of how an MMORPG is played.Tdc2182 said:
FPS games though won't evolve for a long time, so long as those consumers continue to bomb anything non-CoD with a "that's not Boars Head" attitude and glorify the over-noob-friendly gameplay that new titles bring. Brink might try to change it but nobody is sick of CoD yet, it's going to take yearly releases and Treyarch slapping "CoD 2015" on them like the Madden games. I know I'll never buy a CoD or Battlefield game for as long as I live. My friend gifted MW2 to me and he now regrets buying the game himself.
I'm sorry to hear of this. I was getting an inkling pretty much from the moment that information started dripping in about Homefront that it wasn't going to get a spot on my list- I dislike "broad brush" attempts at emotional manipulation, and games that don't allow the player to feel like they have some independent agency in the scope of a game's plot- but 73% really isn't a bad score, and despite my own reservations, I've never gotten the impression that the game was other than competently put together.
More to the point, I'm really looking forward to Saint's Row 3, so I'm not looking to see THQ dragged down.
More to the point, I'm really looking forward to Saint's Row 3, so I'm not looking to see THQ dragged down.
This argument is sound because we live in a heavily commercialized society where brand is a staple of capitalism. If you've ever worked retail like I do, you frequently get the question "Is this a good brand?" when asked about something that isn't, for example, Sony or LG. to which I respond "Don't get too hung up on brand, some brands ARE better than others, but for the most part they sell the same product with a different name". There are a few companies that actually have their own off shoot company that sells the same thing, but with a cheaper price tag and different name. Basically people are fooled into thinking that Sony is a big name, therefore it's better than the cheaper model from someone else even if they have the same tech specs.DaHero said:
People buy things will familiar names because they're familiar.
I never understood why people take reviews so seriously. I mean most reviewers are complete fanboys (especially IGN and the like) and so are most game reviewers. They really should institute some sort of a test to see whether the reviewer actually played the game as I'm pretty sure there's a couple pissed off CoD fanboys that just gave Homefront a 50% because it wasn't up to their "standards."
Well since this game is clearly made and oozing of fail i say they get back on track and make another fps that is all and only story and no multiplayer and maybe then i will decide to purchase and play an fps once again because multiplayer has been done to death and is never properly implimented.
Their main problem is they spent far too much time and money into multiplayer developement and not anyway of enough single player storyline to play through, so lets get back on track like i said and focus on singleplayer for once because the online system does not mean single gameplay should suffer now should it?.
Their main problem is they spent far too much time and money into multiplayer developement and not anyway of enough single player storyline to play through, so lets get back on track like i said and focus on singleplayer for once because the online system does not mean single gameplay should suffer now should it?.
Well it really depends on what style of multiplayer you like. If you want a fast paced, twitch reflex fragfest, CoD has you covered. If you want a more team oriented game where you have to coordinate with others and think your actions through (though twitch reflexes are still important), the you'll want to go with Homefront (or maybe Battlefield 3 when that comes out, or TF2 according to many, not me though).Trevor Burch said:
Well that and that they promised an immersive single player campaign and gave a 5 - 10 hour stint.DaHero said:
THQ should stick to making bitchin Dawn of War and Warhammer 40,000 games.
It proves absolutely nothing, because that is entirely your opinion. Modern Warfare 2 was my one of my more liked Single player games ever. It only suffered bcause of the poor job explaining the story and the unfortunately short Single player.DaHero said:
You see, a game series can't become popular by not being good. People will stop buying the games when they fail to deliver, and as of late the Call of Duty series has not failed to deliver. Yes, people will act on a herd mentality, but when the herd starts jumping over the cliff, they tend to realize "wait a sec, let's not do that."
I have no doubt CoD will bomb one day. But until it stops being a generally well made series, why should it stop?
No, actually Brink is going to fail because it doesn't look fun. The reviews its gotten back so far have pretty much knocked it down.
I'll repeat what I said earlier. Homefront failed because it tried to be CoD. If it had revolutionized the series before Modern Warfare had, it undoubtedly would have done much better. But here's the big kicker. CoD came first. Homefront was a shitty knock off. So therefore it's getting knocked down by the FPS community.
Are you trying to tell me that people should accept this game? Because that seems to go against the whole "Consumer" thing that you were telling me about.
Congratulations.
Between fanboy bombing, young ass reveiwers with no clue and a 1000 yard cod stare, reveiws these days are useless. And even more so the metacritic, i once saw the same dude give the same game 1 on xbox that he just gave 10 on ps3.
Problem is they let every retard with fingers bang on the keybord.
Problem is they let every retard with fingers bang on the keybord.
I have a question. How many non-American players who've sampled Homefront have had the message "hit home"? How much of Homefront depends on you identifying with the USA suburban backdrop? And as such - how many non-Americans would therefore give the game a lower-score than a US reviewer would?
For example, as an Australian, thought the Russia-invades-USA subplot of Modern Warfare 2 seemed contrived and cartoonish, but maybe those who live in streets like the ones the Russians tear through had their heartstrings plucked a bit harder. Can anyone attest to this?
For example, as an Australian, thought the Russia-invades-USA subplot of Modern Warfare 2 seemed contrived and cartoonish, but maybe those who live in streets like the ones the Russians tear through had their heartstrings plucked a bit harder. Can anyone attest to this?