THQ Hammered by Sub-Par Homefront Scores

Jul 22, 2009
3,595
0
0
This news makes me sad *sadface*

THQ are one of my favourite companies out there... Dawn of War is excellent, Metro 2033 was astounding, Saints Row is always my choice over GTA just for the insanity of what's going on.

Maybe they should get their studios talking to each other a bit more... Homefront had a mediocre singleplayer, let them talk to the guys who made Metro 2033, Etc.
 

twm1709

New member
Nov 19, 2009
477
0
0
I'm sorry for the people that work there but the "Realistic shooter" genre is already overdone and an interesting story and setting aren't going to do much to change that, since most of it's audience only care about the multiplayer, anyway.
 

jVictor

New member
Mar 23, 2010
16
0
0
Skywolf09 said:
Space Jawa said:
I find it amusing that 73 is considered mediocre...
Same here. Last time I checked, that actually is a pretty decent score.

But then again, for whatever reason video games have to abide by a 3/30-point score system instead of actually using those 10/100 points to their full worth. One reason why I hate review scoring systems...
I feel the same way. Gamers don't seem to view the rating system for games like a rating system and instead like some kind of grade. 73? That's a C-! Come on guys, it's a game, it's not applying to med school.

But on another note, I do wish that the ratings would rail against the CoD sequels like they do against the CoD clones (which Homefront shamelessly is, in spite of how lately THQ has been lecturing the industry on how games should be made), considering that's what they both are. I got CoD4 and was blown away, but after I got Modern Warfare 2 it just felt like more of the same. It was still fun, and my friends and I still play the multiplayer in Modern Warfare 2, but that's because I traded in CoD4 awhile ago. I never got Black Ops, and probably never will because next year the new CoD will come out and render it obsolete anyway.
 

Astalano

New member
Nov 24, 2009
286
0
0
If you wanted better scores, you shouldn't have copied Call of Duty.

The game had potential and you screwed it up. You deserve whatever punishment you get for producing a mediocre Call of Duty clone, as well as hyping up a sub-par campaign as something emotional and special.
 

Pandaman1911

Fuzzy Cuddle Beast
Jan 3, 2011
601
0
0
Personally, I wasn't surprised. I stopped holding out hope that the game might be good when I saw the trailers that depicted it as another grim, super-serious romp through Call of Duty land. I liked the whole Modern Warfare thing for a while, but kind of got sick of it around thirty hours into MW2 gameplay (five for the single player campaign, twenty-five for the multiplayer). Now, with Black Ops, Bad Company 2, and this, I'm just... sick... of the grizzled super-seriousness. It's a shame THQ is gonna take a rocket right up the exhaust pipe for this, I actually liked them...
 

Melissia

New member
Apr 4, 2010
2
0
0
I would hardly say this game received sub-par scores. Most of its scores have from what I can tell been eight or above.
 

Fortuan

New member
Oct 14, 2008
72
0
0
vrbtny said:
That.... wasn't really unexpected... was it?

We all knew it was going to happen.
Not really, infact the game was one of THQ's best selling, also the servers were bogged down last night with too many people. The media may have not liked the game but the consumers are saying otherwise.
 

Fortuan

New member
Oct 14, 2008
72
0
0
Astalano said:
If you wanted better scores, you shouldn't have copied Call of Duty.

The game had potential and you screwed it up. You deserve whatever punishment you get for producing a mediocre Call of Duty clone, as well as hyping up a sub-par campaign as something emotional and special.
It's hardly a Call of Duty clone. Just because it has loadouts and is an FPS doesn't make it a clone. Infact it actually is in a different setting. The campaign definately sets this game apart. Also the multiplayer is far more varied in action than COD. If you REALLY want to get technical COD is just a clone of earlier FPS games and just made it more popular. They all copied ID's concept of a FPS with games like Wolfenstein and DOOM.
 

GeekFury

New member
Aug 20, 2009
347
0
0
THQ make Generic Shooter 1,624,731 and are shocked at a low score from people? In a world full of games with soldiers and guns maybe not making a soldier and gun game for a year or two would make it 'new and edgey', hmm?
 

Astalano

New member
Nov 24, 2009
286
0
0
Fortuan said:
Astalano said:
If you wanted better scores, you shouldn't have copied Call of Duty.

The game had potential and you screwed it up. You deserve whatever punishment you get for producing a mediocre Call of Duty clone, as well as hyping up a sub-par campaign as something emotional and special.
It's hardly a Call of Duty clone. Just because it has loadouts and is an FPS doesn't make it a clone. Infact it actually is in a different setting. The campaign definately sets this game apart. Also the multiplayer is far more varied in action than COD. If you REALLY want to get technical COD is just a clone of earlier FPS games and just made it more popular. They all copied ID's concept of a FPS with games like Wolfenstein and DOOM.
-Short campaign.

-Better multiplayer than campaign.

-Mowing down dozens of enemies.

-Varied missions where you get in chases with vehicles, a helicopter ride, etc.

-A mute character and buddies who are unlikeable.

-A setting that is not even remotely possible for another 50 years.

-Insert other comparison here.


The game is salvagable with multiplayer, but the biggest slap in the face is how much they hyped up the campaign and refused to listen to the players who were telling them it looked shit.
 

Weaver

Overcaffeinated
Apr 28, 2008
8,977
0
0
You mean Kaos studios which made the ever mediocre"Frontlines: Fuel of War" made ANOTHER mediocre FPS? Shock and amazement!

I really, honestly can't understand why people thought this game was going to be anything special.
 

mattaui

New member
Oct 16, 2008
689
0
0
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.
 

ZaxqZombie

New member
Jul 19, 2010
86
0
0
DaHero said:
hem dazon 90 said:
Well that sucks for THQ.
There is only one single reason why this game was hit bad.

It didn't have "Call of Duty" in the name, so the fanboys didn't buy it and instead bombed it because it could have been what Modern Warfare 2 and BlackOps will never be.
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.
 

McNinja

New member
Sep 21, 2008
1,510
0
0
vrbtny said:
That.... wasn't really unexpected... was it?

We all knew it was going to happen.
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.

But when your company's shares are riding on the game's success... you should probably take your time to make a good story.
 

TheBelgianGuy

New member
Aug 29, 2010
365
0
0
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.