I know what your saying, but you should check out NoobToob, they give great, hilarious, unbiased reviews.Onyx Oblivion said:
THQ: Homefront Is Not a 71
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
Homefront plays like a half-speed Call of Duty. It feels like to me that you're ALWAYS in a cut scene and the game is scripted to the point of being nonsensical. Players are given basically no freedom on how to complete objectives or much of anything other than what cookie-cutter gun to pick up. It might as well be a rail shooter with tons of gimmicky things to momentarily hold peoples attention.
The story was rehashed of things that have been better. And why did all the enemies look like hulking super soldiers in football pads?
And once I heard the server was basically shut down for around a week I nearly pissed myself laughing. That's a death stroke for a shooter on the 360.
It was mediocre in every way. 70 is about the right score.
The story was rehashed of things that have been better. And why did all the enemies look like hulking super soldiers in football pads?
And once I heard the server was basically shut down for around a week I nearly pissed myself laughing. That's a death stroke for a shooter on the 360.
It was mediocre in every way. 70 is about the right score.
Is homefront still relevant? I mean even my redneck stupid friend who ranted about it for a bit has stopped talking about it. Homefront was a mediocre game, with cliched characters and the overdone (Communists attack America!!!!) storyline. Im sorry, but because you explained how they rose to power doesnt make it better. Its a bad mark on the gaming world for even letting such a pooryl designed thing sell at all
THQ, I would like to point out to you that a 71 is pretty good, it's nothing to be ashamed of.
Second, I haven't played any of your games in years, but I think calling Homefront "art" is a little generous.
Second, I haven't played any of your games in years, but I think calling Homefront "art" is a little generous.
Suck it Spock! (c) DBZA
Also, Homefront is a cheap attempt to capitalize on US newly rediscovered fear of being invaded. Which I wouldn't call art, more of a fad really.
Also, Homefront is a cheap attempt to capitalize on US newly rediscovered fear of being invaded. Which I wouldn't call art, more of a fad really.
Thing is, 7 has been 'meh' ever since we started getting magazines with 'official' in the title (I'm looking at you, ONM!). Only NES game I owned that was scored less than an 8 in that mag was the first Ridge Racer... which I hated. On the plus side, meant I very rarely played a bad game in my formative years (go Chip n Dale rescue rangers, SMB3 and Zelda!)
Edit: I think Mega Man 2 got an 8, and I loved it so much i bought all the rest in the series (up to 6) and some of those got 7 or less but that was series love and I don't think I read the reviews until after I'd played them. Remember going nuts with my parents over my pocket money because I found Mega Man 4 in a Boots in london and just had to have it!.
These days, unless the review mag is Games(tm) or Edge, then I don't expect to see a game that is worth paying the money to play get less than about 85% or 8/10 (Games and Edge rate harsher than most, so their numerical rating is a lot more relevant than the sycophantic likes of OXM, PS3M etc.)
Edit: I think Mega Man 2 got an 8, and I loved it so much i bought all the rest in the series (up to 6) and some of those got 7 or less but that was series love and I don't think I read the reviews until after I'd played them. Remember going nuts with my parents over my pocket money because I found Mega Man 4 in a Boots in london and just had to have it!.
These days, unless the review mag is Games(tm) or Edge, then I don't expect to see a game that is worth paying the money to play get less than about 85% or 8/10 (Games and Edge rate harsher than most, so their numerical rating is a lot more relevant than the sycophantic likes of OXM, PS3M etc.)
While I think the statement was made as an attempt to qualify the "low" rating that the game got, I do agree with the sentiment
I find it rather humourous that he spouts off about wanting every game they make to be a 100, then goes on to say that you can't put a number value on the quality of a game. Piss or get off the pot. Either you support numeric rating systems or you don't. You can't pick and choose which you like because it is or isn't favourable to the point you're trying to make.
While I actually agree with him that numeric ratings aren't the right way to go, I somehow doubt we'd see him making any statement at all (beyond self praise) if the game did score only 90 and higher. You'd never hear him saying "Yes, our game averaged 95% in reviews but you should throw all of those out because it's a piece of art and numeric review scores aren't pertinent!"
While I actually agree with him that numeric ratings aren't the right way to go, I somehow doubt we'd see him making any statement at all (beyond self praise) if the game did score only 90 and higher. You'd never hear him saying "Yes, our game averaged 95% in reviews but you should throw all of those out because it's a piece of art and numeric review scores aren't pertinent!"
The metrics system currently used is retarded...In my opinion any game is ok and playable and has certain selling points.There's some that make you cringe though.Like Blacksite Area 51 was ok,playable...Just nothing great and plain boring after a while.Except Blacksite has a 62 rating on metacritic while Homefront has 71.
The system is retarded and the meh reviews were mostly by CoD fanboys.I'd award a 71 just for the campaign,while not that bad didn't achieve what it set out to do hence why it failed.The online multiplayer was well above that.I'm not particularly a fanboy of THQ with their somewhat lackluster sandboxes and amazing Dawn of War series.But I can see how bringing a new guy on the table of the big publishers can do some good things for the industry.
The system is retarded and the meh reviews were mostly by CoD fanboys.I'd award a 71 just for the campaign,while not that bad didn't achieve what it set out to do hence why it failed.The online multiplayer was well above that.I'm not particularly a fanboy of THQ with their somewhat lackluster sandboxes and amazing Dawn of War series.But I can see how bringing a new guy on the table of the big publishers can do some good things for the industry.
This basically.
Okay, how about this:Andy Chalk said:
The idea was very good, the execution (graphics, sound, gameplay) was slightly above average, it is way too damn short. In other words, say it was better than maybe 70% of the games out there...
which would be...
70 out of 100.
Hm. Apparently you CAN apply math to 'art'.
This.Onyx Oblivion said:
But like so many have said, reviewing things numerically doesn't make sense in general. How do measure the quality of a game? By the amount of fun you have or by it's craftsmanship? If it's really poorly made but fun as hell because of it's poor build then where would it rest on a scale of 1-10?
But anyway...
OT: The guy is talking out of his arse, Homefront looks about as interesting as a monday morning, and nobody will give a shit in a few months anyway.
He's clearly proud of his game though, so I guess that's worth something.
I'm actually surprised the game was rated that high. I actually found it to be a good rental experience, but was disappointed with the story based on the hype. Basically it was a piece of red dawn so the writing budget might have been better spent on the quality of the actual game, which by the way should get a sequel that hopefully utilizes some of the writing budget instead of 3-4 hours worth. finally, one thing that I don't think game reviewers get and gets to me is that we're not obsessed with scores. We understand that a 70 is good enough to play. What the games press doesn't get is that we don't get every game for free(and don't give me some BS like "I buy the games I like to support the developers of those games," well it must be nice to play games to completion first then buy them if you really like them.)Most of us get maybe 3 new games per year tops and whatever scraps we can find from our trade in credits so of course a 70 won't be good enough when there's 4 90s and 8 80's out there.
Unbelievable. They just don't know when to quit. First they try to sell us an utterly ridiculous story in the pre release hype. Then they give people a 4-6 hour COD(/Any ADS for laser accuracy game ever) rip-off with the terrible story and expect everyone to be happy about it.
The bar isn't going up it's already high and Homefront did nothing worth reaching more than halfway.
The bar isn't going up it's already high and Homefront did nothing worth reaching more than halfway.
I mentioned Call of Duty as an example of how they have hardcore mode (die after 2 bullets people die) and regular mode (about a clip to kill), and since everyone knows what Call of Duty is, it was an easier way to explain the pre/post patch differences in terms of how much it takes to kill someone. I thought that was pretty obvious, especially with the explanation following the comparison.Saucycardog said:
