THQ Hammered by Sub-Par Homefront Scores

[FoRtMinor44]

I picked it up today and have to say i enjoy this game a lot, i think it the end of the day it comes down to your personal taste and i am just taken in by this game. I feel why buggy and a little short the story is well told and better than the horde of super solider or space marine games out their. It can pull you in deep and make you feel like you are fighting for your life to defend your living room. Also the multilayer is very balanced and i got a good kick out of it and will be playing it for a while now. I would give it a 4/5

 

[Blank Kold]

I love the self righteousness brought on by ignorance. I wonder how many people that are bashing the game have actually played it. The new hipster craze of hating pretty much any fps game gets a bit old when the only thing anyone has to say is that it's like cod and that cod sucks. Get over yourselves, children.

That aside, the single player mediocre at best. The multi player, however, exemplifies everything that I, personally think a multi player game ought to have.

there's also a Qr code that my phone can't decode in the manual.

Also, the servers are down because the game sold more than thq thought it would, dedicated servers, eh?

 

[Jubbert]

Oh.

I thought this game would do badly because it was basically identical to the 2-3 levels in Modern Warfare 2 where the Russians invade the U.S.

The difference is that in MW2 there was both that story arc, and other arcs, as well. MW2 seems to have more variety.

Not to mention that any realistic wargame these days looks exactly the same.

 

[Tdc2182]

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.

Not really, but keep going.

You probably think you're on a role.

First off, it's roll.

Secondly, show me where CoD and Homefront are different, I looked at gameplay from both games and saw little to no difference. Yet, because it's not Call of Duty, it's not going to get high ratings.

Proof now, don't be going the Fox News route with supposition, I don't play to that tune.

Snappy with the spelling check, are we?

Maybe the reason it didn't get good scores for being a Call of Duty clone is because it's a Call of Duty clone?

Medal of Honor did it, it didn't work for them.


Why should it now?

 

[SenorNemo]

I'm in despair, the glaring flaws in the game industry have left me in despair!

Seriously though, one of the bigger problems they're going to be having with sales is, there are just too many FPSs on the market, especially modern warfare shooters. That we even throw around terms like "CoD clone" is symptomatic of the problem. Even if a game were a radically innovative leap forward in the genre, I imagine a lot of us still wouldn't be interested, just because we're weary of the very paradigm of a cover-based FPS. I, for example, wasn't planning on buying Homefront even if it was hailed by fans and critics alike as the best thing since hot chocolate.

Still, I agree that 73 isn't actually bad, and most of the reviews I read had very favorable things to say about a lot of the game's aspects. This is one of the reasons I don't like scores, because nobody has the same metric. I could go on a big spiel about review theory, but I don't think anybody's interested in that... Anyway, the point is, most of the outside world seems to think that 73 is mediocre at best, so whether or not 73 really is a pretty good score, it'll likely hurt sales.

Of course, it hasn't actually failed yet. It could end up selling very well, despite the scores. I think Medal of Honor made a profit, after all.

Whether it's deserved or not (I'm not willing to make that judgement, having not played the game), it's kind of tragic how Homefront seems to be headed towards a tragic ending.

 

[Shoelip]

I don't know what to think of this other than that I find it hilarious how the ratings of games these days basically come down to whether or not they're a big budget title. 10 equals big name title with tons of hype and solid gameplay, 9 equals not so big name title with not so much hype and solid gameplay, 8 equals obviously flawed but still big enough hype and budget to warrant a high score or alternatively not so much hype and budget but an excellent game in it's own right and 7 equals high hype of high budget but an utter failure as an actual game. Or low budget, no hype, but high quality. The rest of the spectrum is reserved exclusively for low budget games of progressively lower mass appeal.

 

[Kortney]

To be honest, I have no sympathy for them.

They had the chance to do something really different here. They had the chance to really change the atmosphere, mechanics and feel of the game. Instead they didn't. The only thing that was different to most first person shooters was the setting. You were still running around with a group of gun-ho Americans kicking ass. Honestly, the game was no different to the invasion sequences in MW2.

I don't care when mediocrity is punished.

 

[Baresark]

snip

1.)They weren't different in play style at all, basically the same game again and again. But they didn't harp on them in reviews.

2.)They weren't any different, just different time periods.

3.)The campaign lengths were not "complained" about, they were mentioned and then the length was written off in reviews.

4.)It is generic, but none of the reviews said that, the communities have said plenty about the failings of CoD.

5.)I'm not bitter, but if it suits you to believe that, go for it. My complaints haven't been about the games themselves really, but the double standard that the reviewers have. Most of the games short comings are completely forgivable. But the reviews by "professionals" are very misleading. The failings are downplayed in CoD, but the same failings are central to reviews for this game. That is a double standard.

The truth, short crappy campaigns on a $60 game are offensive. I hate whenever I am sold a sub par product, no matter who is selling it. So, THQ put a lot on the line, too bad too. They did the exact thing I was afraid they were going to do, they over sold it, and hyped the living hell out of it. But at least the reviewers were honest with it, and I can't fault them for that. But those same reviewers rave about games with the exact same shortcomings. That is offensive as well. You can sit and defend the CoD games all you want, that is fine. I don't mind at all.

 

[Waaghpowa]

Maybe we should start calling CoD a Doom clone, because it did FPS first!

 

[Ldude893]

I'm not going to make any final judgements until I hear from Yahtzee.

 

[Baresark]

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.

You're absolutely right. $10 says the next CoD game gets stellar reviews, even though it won't be any different than the last two iterations. I love how the campaign was criticized for its length when it's no shorter than any campaign lengths from the last 4 CoD games. In the review it says, "it felt short", well so did that last CoD games, but no one was there to criticize them for it. No, CoDBlops S&S (short and shitty) campaign got praised for how good it was. Yeah, nothing beat facing a horde of endless guys every other stage, wow, what excitement.

Edit: I sound bitter, and I'm really not. But, I hate the horrible double standards regarding this genre of game.

I don't think its a double standard. COD doesn't go around flaunting that it has an awesome storyline.. that it will rock your world. COD knows that its now mostly an online FPS these days and it plays to that angle only. It sells itself just no more then what it expects us to get out of it.

Homefront on the other hand.. over sold its worth. When it starting going on and on and on about its awesomely plausible futuristic storyline by the writer of Red Dawn was, unintentionally or not, they literally promised a worthy long campaign. What we got was 5-7 hours of "a brutal shock-value neo-con mental masturbatory snuff film"... er campaign.

So they [Kaos] starting talking shit like they could "hang" with the big boys.. so everybody shouldn't act shocked when they get scored as such for coming up short.

I'm with you, totally over sold. I knew that was going to happen. The storyline isn't even really plausible if you know anything about socio-economics. But reviewers did talk up the campaigns for the CoD games very much, and on top of that, the one element that has been given mostly positive reviews is the multiplayer in this. The double standard I am talking about is not letting the sub par campaigns negatively effect the reviews on the CoD games, but hitting this one hard for that same shortcoming. I distinctly remember reviewers talking about CoD Blops amazing campaign with it's impressive set pieces and memorable characters. None of which I personally found to be true. Homefront is the same as them in this respect, but it gets lousy reviews on the campaign. And even if the multiplayer is good, they review is lessened by the sub par campaign.

I had high hopes about this game, especially with the positive previews it was getting a few months back. Too bad.

 

[Oilerfan92]

Such a disappointing game. Even with my low expectations this game is very unspectacular.

 

[risenbone]

Hey THQ you want sales? Release a demo thats how you get people to try your game and see if they like it. In the desktop enviroment it also lets us see whether it works on our systems or not before we plunk down $50-$60 that we can't get back if it doesn't work for some reason.

All that stupid crap about how realistic the story you made up might be which is what you focused on just leading up to launch is stupid all it did was make me think there must be some weakness in the gameplay. The story crap should of been done months before with gameplay being the lead close to launch. Judging from the reviews I've seen it would appear the story SP campaign while interesting wasn't that great anyway. Seriously with all that setup the best you could come up with for a story was escorting some fuel tankers to the golden gate bridge I mean c'mon man thats pretty weak. So in the end all that attention you guys drew to the story turns out to be the weakest part of the game that you drew attention to just before launch.

Seriously sometimes I think the guys who come up with this kind of marketing verbal diareah can't tell their arse from their elbows possably because they are constantly dribbaling shit.

As to the share price drop well yeah 21% is pretty big but thats exasabatted by the fact that shares dropped pretty much across the board today as well.

 

[FieryTrainwreck]

What a shame. I was watching a playthrough, and yes, it's more or less a CoD game with a different story and enemies. But the story is so important that it's like saying water is just oxygen with two hydrogen molecules.

Agreed. It didn't look like my cup of tea, but I'm not much for realistic military shooters in general. The story, however, was at least more interesting and (more importantly) seemingly integral to the experience. Whether or not they succeeded in the task they laid out for themselves, I respect what they tried to accomplish.

On a more selfish note, I really hope this doesn't spell doom for Darksiders 2...

 

[Kontar]

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.

You're absolutely right. $10 says the next CoD game gets stellar reviews, even though it won't be any different than the last two iterations. I love how the campaign was criticized for its length when it's no shorter than any campaign lengths from the last 4 CoD games. In the review it says, "it felt short", well so did that last CoD games, but no one was there to criticize them for it. No, CoDBlops S&S (short and shitty) campaign got praised for how good it was. Yeah, nothing beat facing a horde of endless guys every other stage, wow, what excitement.

Edit: I sound bitter, and I'm really not. But, I hate the horrible double standards regarding this genre of game.

I completely agree, CoD MW was great but had an incredibly short single player campaign, CoD MW2 was fun but had an incredibly short single player campaign. I have heard that CoD blackops also has a very small single player campaign.

From what I have experienced the multiplayer is no worse, and in my opinion better, than all the CoD MW multiplayers. I like the larger maps, I like the vehicles, and I like the settings. I do not understand why this has got such bad reviews yet ALL the recent CoD games have got such stellar reviews, even though they are all very close clones of each other, especially in multiplayer.

EDIT: Not to mention the fact that Portal had a very small single player campaign, yet it got huge praise. Obviously campaign length is not all the important, but yet here they claim it is.

 

[hobo49]

I just find it a shame its all about stock prices now. How good a game is should not be judged by its over all net income. Take Psyconauts for instance, ( a bit too easy an example to use but run with it ) it is a much better game then ahything ive played in the last couple years. However many people have no idea what it is.

 

[risenbone]

Stock price doesn't really matter that much all it really means that for today more people were selling the shares than buying them. THQ is more solid than one bad game and eventually the stock will be so far below the actual value of the company that people will start buying again and the stock price will go up. Heck plenty of the big boys in the markets make as much money off a share price dropping (short trading)as they do off a share price rising (normal trading as we would think of it). It helps if you stop thinking of the stockmarket as a traditional market and more of a betting ring for the wealthy.

 

[mechanixis]

That's what happens. People get a little resentful when you offer them an interesting premise and then turn it into something boring that other people have done better.