THQ Hammered by Sub-Par Homefront Scores
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I got a pre-order through Amazon for the 360, and they threw in a $15 credit, so that was a nice bonus. The engine is clearly dated, but I'll never let that be my sole judge of how I enjoy a game, given that I spend hours across numerous platforms in engines that are by no means modern, and I enjoy the heck out of them. However, if you're put off by paying full price for something that's not the latest and greatest in polygons and textures, then you'll want to reconsider.
The single player game is short, I've heard, but given that I usually play games in one or two hour bursts during the week, it's going to be a few days before I work all the way through it, and I'm not in any hurry to blast to the end. But, yes, if you're expecting a long, drawn out and extensive single player experience, it's not here.
What did impress me was the multiplayer, and the incorporation of vehicles into otherwise tired, tried and true CoD-style gameplay. There were some server issues last night because, so the server messages claimed, there was such high demand. Once I did get into a game, however, it flowed quite smoothly and was fairly intuitive.
I especially like the battle point currency you're awarded for kills and objectives, and how you can purchase equipment on the fly, depending on what options you choose. As a basic Assault kit, for instance, I had a flak vest and a RPG, and I could 'activate' the flak vest for that life with a small amount of BP, and I could buy reloads for my RPG in the same fashion, and those BPs would replenish during the round. Save up enough of them and you can purchase vehicles which you spawn in next time (I don't know if there's a way to buy them while you're still up) but I though that was a good way of everyone fighting over who gets to drive the tank.
I've made purchases that I've regretted, and Homefront definitely isn't one of those. As several other posters have noted, how does a ranking in the 70s qualify as sub-par? Only if you've decided that 'All Games Worth Buying' must receive a 90+. I've played a lot of games, and I'd rank very few of them in the 90s, but that doesn't mean those other games were terrible or that they weren't even good, it just means they weren't among the best I've ever played. I give Homefront a solid 80.
The single player game is short, I've heard, but given that I usually play games in one or two hour bursts during the week, it's going to be a few days before I work all the way through it, and I'm not in any hurry to blast to the end. But, yes, if you're expecting a long, drawn out and extensive single player experience, it's not here.
What did impress me was the multiplayer, and the incorporation of vehicles into otherwise tired, tried and true CoD-style gameplay. There were some server issues last night because, so the server messages claimed, there was such high demand. Once I did get into a game, however, it flowed quite smoothly and was fairly intuitive.
I especially like the battle point currency you're awarded for kills and objectives, and how you can purchase equipment on the fly, depending on what options you choose. As a basic Assault kit, for instance, I had a flak vest and a RPG, and I could 'activate' the flak vest for that life with a small amount of BP, and I could buy reloads for my RPG in the same fashion, and those BPs would replenish during the round. Save up enough of them and you can purchase vehicles which you spawn in next time (I don't know if there's a way to buy them while you're still up) but I though that was a good way of everyone fighting over who gets to drive the tank.
I've made purchases that I've regretted, and Homefront definitely isn't one of those. As several other posters have noted, how does a ranking in the 70s qualify as sub-par? Only if you've decided that 'All Games Worth Buying' must receive a 90+. I've played a lot of games, and I'd rank very few of them in the 90s, but that doesn't mean those other games were terrible or that they weren't even good, it just means they weren't among the best I've ever played. I give Homefront a solid 80.
Agreed my good sir and/or madam, to me it seems unfair to dub this a bad game simply because it is similar to call of duty. i find the online more fun then anything black ops can provide (fan boys can call me a heratic if they wish)even if the campaign is lacking alot of length and some sense. also its good to remember that Bad Co 2's single player was complete shit but the game was worth the sweet multiplayer, so ease off homefront because it isnt just another Alpha Protocol.DaHero said:
Usually, when you take a couple years to build something, you tend to not see the flaws after a while. Not to mention there are probably things cut out all over the place.vrbtny said:
But when your company's shares are riding on the game's success... you should probably take your time to make a good story.
If I had an average of 73% in uni, I'd be happy.
I hate the CoD multiplayer. Just run forward, throw nades, hope you see an enemy before he sees you, fire, die, repeat. No tactics needed at all.
I love battlefield, and if Homefront multiplayer looks like battlefield, I will probably love it.
I hate the CoD multiplayer. Just run forward, throw nades, hope you see an enemy before he sees you, fire, die, repeat. No tactics needed at all.
I love battlefield, and if Homefront multiplayer looks like battlefield, I will probably love it.
I remember a time called the age of gaming magazines, where getting equivalents of 8/10 or above was considered a great score and a worthy purchase.
I remember games scoring 7 or 6 outta 10 being accepted as "good games, with some flaws", now its a guarantee of failure it seems....
How times have changed.
I remember games scoring 7 or 6 outta 10 being accepted as "good games, with some flaws", now its a guarantee of failure it seems....
How times have changed.
not entirely. Playing through the game and I've noticed a few things. it IS a challenge, but the game is also quite short with no real definitive climax. Also there are lots of small things that just take you out of the game. Like some of the reload sequences, and other small factors. Also, a lot of the guns seem to be clones of eachother, sometimes i can't tell if I'm holding a fully-automatic rifle or a semi-automatic because both weapon designs are exactly the same, if not exactly, then pretty darn close.DaHero said:
The game WANTS to be COD with all it's might without being COD. It succeeds in just being a COD clone. I'm not a fangirl of COD, but I can recognize superior gameplay.
QFTBlank Kold said:
All these kids talking big game, pretending like their opinion reflects reality. Oh the game is similar to COD and COD sucks! Yeah... except COD is by far the best FPS series on the market. Don't believe me check the review scores. Don't believe that check the player base, don't believe that check the units sold.
Homefront is multiplayer focused, so who cares about it's short singleplayer? Frankly I havn't liked the new Battlefield games for a while, due to poor class and vehicle balance. If homefront fixes those problems then it might be one hell of a multiplayer FPS.
The only game Homefront should compete with is Battlefield. I'm looking forward to renting it and discovering if it can take down that giant.
I agree. I really hope some of this overly negative press homefronts getting doesn't affect it's sales. I hate seeing good multiplayers with no players.fire-exit-man said:
And will people stop comparing it to cod!? Just because it's an fps set around the present does not mean it's necessarily a cod clone! Give it a gorram chance!
it's biggest problem is it's story, about everyone was already skeptical of it's story from the get-go, but we were also willing to give it a shot. When the game came out, most critics said the same thing "It's single player is short and unsatisfying, but it's multiplayer is excellent." The problem being is that for games like this, the single player is the bate to bring gamers in, and multiplayer is the hook to keep them. So it's not going to matter how good your hook is if nobody is going to bite!
so ya, bad move for THQ, they should have seen this coming, but they charge foreword and fell.
so ya, bad move for THQ, they should have seen this coming, but they charge foreword and fell.
The quality was part of it, but honestly the market is just saturated with "realistic shooters" right now. Bulletstorm is showing that more zany stuff can be successful, though even that game was bogged down by seeriousness. Hopefully DNF overcomes that hurdle and we can go back to run and gun gameplay.
Technically, if you buy it for the multiplayer, you can squeeze hundreds of hours out of there. I never liked online competitive shooters and thus have never paid money for a CoD game. I did borrow them for the single-player, and it is... sort of, worth about half the price. I mean, I beat the MW campaigns, probably explored a fraction of the game's content, and still feel like I owe the developer $20.Bretty said:
But then I realize that games like Crysis had a campaign that took me 30 hours to beat (ok, I'm a bit OCD in large environments), plus a multiplayer. And it looked better. I don't know, what's the excuse exactly?
So... just wondering here... if the story was supposed to be about civilians fighting back the invasion... how come you're a helicopter pilot? I suppose it could've been a civilian pilot (no clue, haven't played the game, don't intend to), but how come you're familiar with the assault heli that you take later on? And how come you know instantly how to use a gun as well as (or probably better than) any soldier? Feeling like they did a major ball-dropping here with the story by not getting the player into a position where they can become immersed in their role, but maybe I'm just missing something
Hilarious. I'd have put money on this being the outcome. I expected exactly the same type of mediocrity we got from the Medal of Honour remake. Not to mention the popular consensus is that realistic, miltary shooters are ironically 'dead', or at the very least, grossly unpopular. Just look at the many comments about how rubbish the COD franchise supposedly is (and yet, sales figures continue to counter these statements. What does that tell you? Well, it tells me it's "cool" to rip on something regardless of whether or not it's objectively good or you even enjoyed it)
Regardless, there's nothing really stand-out about Homefront. As i said before, it's extremely narrow marketing. What if "your home" was invaded? Oh, yeah, sorry. I'm living in Britain. It ain't my home, so that's out the window. As is the case for everybody living in Europe and probably moreso for those living in Japan / Asia.
Regardless, there's nothing really stand-out about Homefront. As i said before, it's extremely narrow marketing. What if "your home" was invaded? Oh, yeah, sorry. I'm living in Britain. It ain't my home, so that's out the window. As is the case for everybody living in Europe and probably moreso for those living in Japan / Asia.
Well if singleplayer is what you're into, I getcha. But the fact is, most people buy FPSs for the multiplayer. With Battlefield: Bad Company 2, I bought that game for the multiplayer and multiplayer alone. I've seen and played through the singleplayer elsewhere and I know it was utter shite (goddamn pretty shite, but shite nonetheless).Bretty said:
But I wanted to play an online FPS and as I'm partial to the Battlefield franchise, I went ahead and gotten it. As for the hours, I've slammed *checks* some 146 or so hours into it. I'd say that's pretty good value for my 25 euros or so (thank you Amazon UK!) and I still play it
Am I the only one worried that Metacritic scores can actually drive a company's share price down?
That's too much power in the hands of a bunch of game journos who can't even get their facts straight most of the time. Picture those guys from IGN, Destructoid, G4 or Game Informer knowing that they can spell such doom with their scores. It's freaking scary.
Then again, it's the industry's own fault. They accepted it, even welcomed it. Now they should live with it.
That's too much power in the hands of a bunch of game journos who can't even get their facts straight most of the time. Picture those guys from IGN, Destructoid, G4 or Game Informer knowing that they can spell such doom with their scores. It's freaking scary.
Then again, it's the industry's own fault. They accepted it, even welcomed it. Now they should live with it.
