THQ: Homefront Is Not a 71

[Captain Pirate]

The campaign was laughably shite. But the thing was, it was dressed in a big boy's clothing.
If it was blatantly just very bad that would've been better than what it is; which is something desperately trying to be good and failing, yet still bigging itself up as good.

They got everyone talking about it, sure: One of my friends bought it, and we've all been borrowing it off him to see how awful the campaign is, because we can't do MP: Very 'smartly' of THQ you need a one-off code to play multiplayer... Nice one. The supposed one relatively good part of the game, and I can't even play it tp testify it.

If everyone's talking about how bad it was, it's not like we'll give the sequel a chance unless the reviewers give it a good %90 or over.
Numbers, strangely enough, do give a good insight into the general opinion of a game. 8-10 is usually great-excellent.

Also:

I love the juxtaposition of "Our goal is always to get a perfect score" and "You can't apply math to art." Numbers aren't important at all! Unless you give us GOOD numbers, that is. Then they're the only thing that matters.

This made me lol. Too true.

 

[Frankster]

I actually agree with Danny, homefront is NOT a 7.

It's more of a 5 if we were to go back to a time when we used the full 1-10 rating.

Numbers, strangely enough, do give a good insight into the general opinion of a game. 8-10 is usually great-excellent.

Disagree with thee, 8-10 nowadays just means the game is Flavor of the month or trendy.

 

[Muco5681]

while i agree with ''can't apply math to art'' homefront is NOT! art its a 5 hr on rail shooter with the same old chest high wall and 7 different shade of brown shooter that every other game is now a day and honestly i like it has gotten such low score to me that shows the people are finally getting fed up with fat space marines and MW clones and would like something new so to me it looks like THQ whines about the cash cow has run out of milk and now they gotta be a little innovative

 

[joshthor]

he is right... it should be a 60. i beat it, i played the multiplayer. it wasnt great, it had a lot of bugs, it felt rushed and the story seemed cut short.

 

[Thunderhorse31]

I don't give places like metacritic much consideration but from the reviews I've read Homefront is hardly stellar material.

So wait, you don't give Metacritic (a collection of reviews) consideration, but you do give it to a few random reviews? Reviews that are most likely also on Metacritic?

Alrighty then.

Anyway, I love the angle of Bilson's story.

"The numbers don't matter... but in case you're wondering we sold a million copies. Because of marketing."

XD

 

[KarmicToast]

I only agree with one thing: Homefront is NOT a 71. It's like a 50. Firstly, they didn't ship enough of the promised preorder items to Best Buy, so even though my sotre had 30 preorders, there was only ONE headset. Then, after beating single player in 4.5 hours, for 10 days I only got multiplayer working one time out of hundreds of attempts. The overarching story of single-player was cool, but the incidentals were trite. I wanted to know more about the macro universe, but the only way to know more other than watching the opening cutscene (which was available free on youtube 3 months before release) was to find newspapers scattered around. Look, without looking super intently but still looking I found 12! WTF, like I'm going to go back and re-play your 4.5 hour game 8 times to flesh out your story. Ugh. Homefront FTL

 

[Korzack]

Well, TBH, if they didn't want such a "Meh, it's okay" review, then maybe they should've tried a little bloody harder to make a better game, eh?

 

[RUINER ACTUAL]

I love the juxtaposition of "Our goal is always to get a perfect score" and "You can't apply math to art." Numbers aren't important at all! Unless you give us GOOD numbers, that is. Then they're the only thing that matters.

Duh. lol. These CEOs (or whoever)for these game companies should just stop talking. "You can't apply math to art" is an absurd statement in the first place. Homefront is lucky to have sold that much and be a 71. I would give it a 5/10, the length of its campaign in hours. That game did not live up to anything the devs were talking about.

 

[Saucycarpdog]

Probably easiest way to put it...
Prepatch - Like Call of Duty in hardcore mode
Postpatch - Like regular Call of Duty

Originally, people would die after a few bullets, but a lot of people complained. They nurfed the snipers (which were overpowered anyway), but they did something else that nurfed the rest of the guns. Not sure if it is lower damage or increased player health or what, but it isn't like it was prepatch.

Could you please explain how in any way that Homefront is a COD ripoff like you accuse it of being.

 

[Gennadios]

The final chapter of the game kind of redeemed it to a 60. Protip for the devs, if your testers are repeatedly muttering "where the f--- does this game want me to go? " after dying for the 6th time in yet another infinite enemy spawn corner, you're doing it wrong.

 

[Freechoice]

Is a 7 bad or something?

The average scale seems to be 1-10. And how things work are 7 = meh, 8 = great, 9 = awesome, 10 = super-duper awesome!.


And everything below a 7 means the game is crap. And yes I'm aware of how completely stupid and destructive this is, but the vast majority of gamers don't seem to care.

And thus, X-Play was vindicated in a 5 point system.

 

[itsausernamewhatofit]

The biggest problem i had with Homefront is not what they did wrong, it's just that plenty of games had already done their gameplay elements before them. The moment i saw a trailer for
Homefront I said "that's a copy of Modern Warfare 2 and it can't hope to outsell COD." Making a Call of Duty clone is like aiming for second place. I doubt a Homefront sequel will do any better; after all, the definition of insanity is repeating the same thing and hoping for a different result.

 

[Zhukov]

Not worthy of note even by the abysmally low standards of video games.

What is this low standards of video games you speak of?

Exactly that. Games are lauded as brilliant when they manage to do things that other mediums can do in their sleep.

Hence, low standards.

But don't worry. I think it's slowly getting better. Slowly, but surely.

 

[Netface]

"A million units in a week on an original IP coming out of nowhere I think speaks a lot to the concept and the marketing of the game," he told IGN [http://uk.pc.ign.com/articles/116/1161057p1.html].

Absolutely.

And the resulting score speaks a lot to the actual quality of the game.

 

[samwise970]

You can't apply math to art... but Homefront isn't art. It isn't original in any way or even very good. It's a quick cash in on the CoD market, the farthest thing from art that the video game medium has to offer.

 

[Phlakes]

Ignoring the whole scaled review score debate, Homefront was as generic as it gets. Everything felt forced because it all was. They went "look at all the realism and emotional investment and shock value isn't our game so good?", and that's what brought them down. You don't tell the player what they're feeling or make it obvious, you have them experience it, and if they're not invested the way you want then they should never even notice you were trying.

And then, of course, you have to do something with the gameplay. There was absolutely nothing new in that game. Not a single thing. In fact, everything it had ahas been overused beyond belief by now.

This sounds like when your friend asks you to be honest with his artwork, and when you tell him what's wrong with it he gets all defensive.

 

[Fippmeister]

you can't apply math to art

Well, it's about time somebody disproved the whole Golden Ratio hype. *nods*