THQ Hammered by Sub-Par Homefront Scores

Recommended Videos

beema

New member
Aug 19, 2009
944
0
0
I've been seeing lots of disparaging tweets all over Twitter about it. Things like "will never live up to Battlefield" or "trying to be Battlefield but failing" or "More annoying people running around like idiots than COD." That last one would annoy the crap out of me if it's true.

Well, this is bad news for THQ/Kaos, but maybe good news for me if the game gets a big price drop soon I might actually buy it.
 

Therumancer

Citation Needed
Nov 28, 2007
9,908
0
0
Not a big FPS fan, but I'm not surprised.

The very concept of the game was kind of ridiculous, as a possible future scenario it's hard to take seriously. While a lot of people didn't like my points about the likely reception to a North Korean space program (along with the idea of most similar nations getting as involved in space like this concept requires) it remains true. Then there are of course questions as to how they would be able to just waltz accross the entire world that quickly and establish the supply lines needed to maintain conventional forces on US soil, and of course why even with an EMP device we wouldn't have been waiting for them as a lot of our military is already protected against exactly this kind of thing due to the long-standing possibility of a nuclear exchange. That's why there are all those jokes about the goverment hiding missles and hardware under cornfields and such, the idea was to protect them from a massive country wide bombardment and fulfill our end of MAD if we faced a sudden, overwhelming attack. Not to mention how things like NORAD aren't going to be penetrated by something like this, and all of the military forces we have that aren't in the US (we don't keep all our eggs in one basket). Our submarine fleet alone would ruin their day, stealth is one of their big things, and one of the reasons we have them all over the world is because of exactly this kind of potential situation (albiet with a much more likely source). The US gets flattened, we've still got a whole crapload of WMD and other weapons under the ocean, and almost impossible to detect if it wants to sail right up to someone's coast line (or the closest one) and cut loose. There have been "Techno Thrillers" written about the possibility of US Subs losing all contact with the US mainland due to an unlikely string of events, and then assuming it was destroyed and acting under orders for a "World War III" scenario.

The point isn't the specifics, but simply that a game like this relies on suspension of disbelief to work. With "Red Dawn" this was possible because the USSR was another super power and believed to be as powerful as the USA (our opposite number). Everyone knew The Cold War was a massive conflict we could potentially lose. North Korea isn't that kind of a super power, and likely would not become one in 20 years, and has been so off it's rocker-crazy that nobody is going to trust them to do anything on that level. I mean these guys periodically fire missles at Hawaii to try and prove they can reach it so they can freak
out the US, nobody is stupid enough to let them just develop and launch a "peaceful" satellite.

On top of all of this, it's really apparently a sub-par game. Like it or not the standards are set by the best games out there. This is why so many MMOs failed to compete with WoW, even if they launched with more than WoW had when it first appeared, they weren't competing with WoW then, but WoW now. Right now "Call Of Duty" and "Battlefield" are setting the standards for modern shooters. For more fantastic shooters you have things like "Killzone", "Halo", and numerous others. If you can't produce at that level you shouldn't be expecting to be massively successful.

Ridiculous premise that has little going for it other than being contreversial, attached to a game far short of the current standards overall. It's easy to see what happened.

Honestly THQ's big problem was trying to jump in for a piece of the FPS pie, as that is the usual "cash in" game genere for some quick bucks, but like MMOs that's kind of dried up due to a few franchises rising to finally dominate it. THQ probably should have taken the time to focus on their Warhammer liscences. "Retribution" is okay, but really they could do with another full out "conquer the system" game like "Dark Crusade" or "Soulstorm" to be honest. Not to mention that the liscence DOES have potential for things other than RTS games and MMOs. A single player RPG game in the spirit of say "Dragon Age" or "Mass Effect" is quite doable. There is even a crutch of sorts given that there is a PnP RPG that they can use for the stat portions nowadays.

A game where you say play a Rogue Trader who recruits a crew for his ship and head out looking for some legendary cache of Archaotech would work quite well. Loot in the form of Archaotech, Xeno-tech, and other things is obvious rewards along the way, things like Hive Cities and Space Hulks are pefect for dungeon crawls, you've got spire habitats for towns, and entire planets that can covered with ruins and monsters. Enemies can include the Inquisition (their relationship with treasure hunting Rogue Traders is... interesting), Orks, Aliens, Chaos, and whatever else, there is a huge possible bestiary.

They already have the 40k liscence and just need to work with the RPG guys to use the mechanics, and it's as ready made as D&D ever was.

I mean, with possibilities like that, and given how well they Warhammer 40k franchise seems to have done by them (even if Dawn Of War II is a bit lacking in some areas, I still maintain that Soulstorm is probably the high point of their development there), I'm surprised someone thought "Let's do a Red Dawn game, but with Koreans" was a good idea especially with the FPS genere so heavily camped out by titans right now. With companies like Bioware going increasingly casual for the moment (and we see how that's going with the sloppily made "Dragon Age II" and associated rage) there is a decent market of serious RPG gamers waiting to be exploited and while not as big a market as many other ones potentially are, it IS reliable and has been a backbone market for the industry virtually since there has been a PC gaming industry.
 

TheGuy(wantstobe)

New member
Dec 8, 2009
430
0
0
Lolworthy analyst said:
"The market is a quality driven market
Hahahaha.... No.

This does show how much control the "reviewers" ahve over the well being of the industry though and ends up with devs being forced to make games taht will review well but may not necissarily be what people want ie DA2
 

tzimize

New member
Mar 1, 2010
2,389
0
0
Space Jawa said:
I find it amusing that 73 is considered mediocre...
Well...think of it like this.

Games with a score in the 20-30s are so iredeemably bad that they are not even worth looking at, except as a horror story to how stuff should not be done. So...to actually PLAY a game, it should have a score in the 60s at least (personally my time is too valuable to touch games that lurk in such low scores, in almost all cases). Considering there are a lot of releases, and the best ones are 90+. In that light, 73 can suddenly be thought about as "mediocre".

Of course, if you take the whole spectrum into account, its not in the middle of the tree, but you get my point I guess.
 

omega247

New member
Apr 12, 2010
177
0
0
TheBelgianGuy said:
If I had an average of 73% in uni, I'd be happy.
lol, I got 62% for my degree, so going by the fact 73% is mediocre I guess I did pretty badly ¬_¬
 

FinalHeart95

New member
Jun 29, 2009
2,163
0
0
73 is sub-par? I consider that a game that I could definitely rent, or maybe buy in a bargain bin. Maybe even before it hits the bargain bin if it's in a genre I really like. Besides, last I checked a game in the 70s was PAR, which was when scores were already too skewed.
That annoys me more than anything else in this article to be honest.
 

Dzil

New member
May 20, 2009
41
0
0
green_dude said:
72 isn't that bad. My take on metacritic scores is:

95+ : Everyone should seriously think about buying this game.
90-95: If you like the genre, you will probably love this.
75-89: Not for everyone, but if it interests you you will probably enjoy it.
65-74: Either this game is a flawed diamond (eg STALKER) or a truly average game.
40-65: Only if the game fits into a particular niche you like.
<40 : Garbage
<10 : So bad its funny

I'm guessing home-front is an unadventurous splice between BC2 and CoD, so I think 74 is fair. Doubt there's anything really wrong with it, just doesn't do anything new.
My thoughts exactly. You can't churn out a CoD clone that makes no significant improvement, and expect existing CoD fans to shell out 50-60 bucks on it. You only get to get away with cloning the game and reselling it anyways if you can put a higher number on the end. See Madden 1992 - 2011.

TBH I much prefer the work I see indies doing these days: minecraft, spacechem, dwarf fortress... the FPS just seems... done. There's really only so much you can improve on the recipe as the game is almost entirely about the multiplayer. Oh, how I wish a AAA publisher would take the first person and primitive graphics of minecraft, the mind boggling complex systems of dwarf fortress, and churn out a multiplayer game that did both. I'd shell out 50-60 bucks for a polished version of that in a heartbeat.
 

Nedoras

New member
Jan 8, 2010
506
0
0
I really really hate how games are scored nowadays. It makes no sense.

10/10 - It's pretty good.
9/10 - It's okay I guess.
8/10 - It's decent, I wouldn't really recommend it unless you love the genre.
7/10 - It's bland, I'd pass on this one.
6/10 - Um....what's a 6? There are numbers below 7?

That's how it seems to be to me. Whenever a game scores a 7 or even an 8, people say that it's average or okay at best. Some people that are fans even complain that it didn't score high enough. It blows my mind. I'm gonna give this game a rental to see if it's worth buying. It may be short, but it could still be fun. Plus the multiplayer could be fun as well.
 

Andy of Comix Inc

New member
Apr 2, 2010
2,234
0
0
Zetion said:
Not saying Im surprised. Now they can get back to Metro 2034 and STALKER :D
Yeah um, THQ didn't make either of those games, they just published them.

bahumat42 said:
Andy of Comix Inc said:
I actually think THQ is going about it like a dick. "Oh, Kaos Studios didn't make the game good enough. It was their own fault, and now they're going to have to be exiled. Tough break."

Your marketing, dear THQ, was appalling, and this is nobody's fault but your own.
no it wasn't. That game had a HUGE marketing push. See shogun 2 total war for poor marketing. (mind you total war will always sell well.
Oh no, I know their marketing was huge. It was appalling all the same. It was like EA-level atrocious, and it pushed all the wrong elements of the game at all the wrong people. Atrocious marketing, not nonexistant marketing.

And Shogun 2 got that TF2 pack-in over Steam, so it doesn't matter how well it's marketed now - it will sell one bajillion digital copies. And you can quote me on that.
 

Moeez

New member
May 28, 2009
603
0
0
I guess Cliff Blezinski was right about that the "middle class" of games is DEAD. You can now only have AAA titles, or indie titles that'll do well.
 

Nick Angelici

New member
Feb 14, 2010
116
0
0
I have the reason why this failed THQ, you made a MODERN DAY SHOOTER, good work, way to be bland and try to beat a market that CoD, though terrible, pretty much owns every fan of the genre.

This is great news to me, every time a shooter like this fails, it tells the industry to try something else, take a risk, or go home, nobody did well in the industry of games being like the leaders, because then nobody buys their games. see this cycle of stupidity, dont follow it
 

DTWolfwood

Better than Vash!
Oct 20, 2009
3,715
0
0
And ppl wonder y the enemies are always russian, cause when its anything else the game bombs XD

joking aside, the game did look a bit on the generic side other than the preposterous setting, which would have been the same game if the Russian invaded, brought nothing new to the genre.

I can almost see the same thing happening to Crysis 2 XD
 

KO4U

New member
Aug 15, 2010
50
0
0
Are stock holders aware that Homefront is THQ's most pre-ordered game ever? It kinda is selling!
 

Flatliner74

New member
Mar 3, 2010
5
0
0
OK.. I finished the campaign in two nights. Just like Call of Duty BlOps, and just like Halo Reach. The campaign didn't feel short as much as it kind of felt incomplete in a way. The production values could have used some polish, and graphically, the game can't stand up to the likes of Crisis and the upcoming Battlefield 3, but it's passable.

I personally enjoyed the narrative. The story was really intense. I loved the future history take on things. The multiplayer in this game is awesome though. I felt it is handled much better than CoD.

I think the game deserves a real chance. There aren't many 32 player FPS's out there.
 

JayDig

New member
Jun 28, 2008
142
0
0
Too much concentration on multiplayer these days. At least they didn't make a deathmatch killbox type online game like every COD game seems to recycle. Since many of us have been tired of that since Unreal Tournament, I'm glad they went for the Battlefield style. But Homefront seems to lose a lot of points on it's single player.

Even if their campaign was 15 hours in play-time, it's not long enough to ensure that players won't trade in, so multiplayer must be in there for 'unlimited' play-time.

I guess I'm the target audience for this game, (I play a lot of FPS) but I play very little competitive multiplayer, so these type of games have less and less value for me as single player shrinks and online balloons.

I still buy Call of Duty games for the short campaign... but their high point for MP was COD:United Offensive more than six years ago.
 

electric discordian

New member
Apr 27, 2008
954
0
0
Why did Homefront fail? The single player is stilted and emotionless despite being lauded as being written by the bloke that did Red Dawn and Apocalypse Now! The servers on the Multiplayer are non existent, you can't play with your friends as they have disabled that feature whilst it's repaired, if you do by some fluke get a game you find that you are at the bottom of the heap as they fixed the US servers first therefore some places already have level fifties whilst us poor sods in the UK are still level 4 usually because of the bug which resets your xp level!

Oh and the multiplayer code for the XBox works infrequently often asking me to pay a second time to play online.

The lag is horrendous, the glitching is unbelievable and the community are fiercely protective of the game as are the publishers who have taken down most of the negative posts on their forums, usually asking for Bug fixes!

I would trade this pile of junk in but its only worth Twenty five pounds so it has depreciated half its cost in four days!

This could be why it got bad reviews!