Could you please explain how in any way that Homefront is a COD ripoff like you accuse it of being.Assassin Xaero said:
THQ: Homefront Is Not a 71
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
Recommended Videos
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
They're right, you can't strictly apply numbers to art, it's all subjective.
On the other hand, those numbers can be a general indication of how good the game is when put all together. The difference between 70 and 71 is nothing, but the difference between 70 and 80 can mean a big difference in the general consensus.
Just saying.
Also, Homefront was mediocre. Not bad, but not great. The game might be art in the "games are art" sense, but it's certainly not *great* art.
On the other hand, those numbers can be a general indication of how good the game is when put all together. The difference between 70 and 71 is nothing, but the difference between 70 and 80 can mean a big difference in the general consensus.
Just saying.
Also, Homefront was mediocre. Not bad, but not great. The game might be art in the "games are art" sense, but it's certainly not *great* art.
So, you guys adding arbitrary scores to your reviews last year doesn't make you look like giant hypocrites right now how? Really, I'm gonna be quite interested to see how you'd respond that one.
The standards now are:Onyx Oblivion said:
0-5: Laughable crap, it doesnt even work. Some gamers may play it for the lulz (I love the Vampire Rain demo because it sucks so much)
6: The game sucks but some people may find themselfs still playing for whatever reason (unique game mechanic, etc) but the game still isnt worth 60$
7: It sparks some interest but it wont blow your mind, it still has flaws that get in the way.
8: The game is good, even if it isnt interesting the 8 means that it is a good game overall. 60$ start to sound ok.
9: It is both interesting and has good quality. It is worth 60$ if its your cup of tea.
This is how things are seen, and I understand.
I dont have a problem with buying XBL Arcade games that have a 5.0 score since they are cheap but buying a 5.0 game for 60$ is kind of hard to do. The good of it isnt worth it.
It has a lot to do with the price.
Nurfed? How.Assassin Xaero said:
Yeah this shit really pisses me off.And whats worse any publicity(e.g. indie games)the shows like gamespot won't touch it.And the independent reviewers normally rate a game more harshly so on a site like meta critic its gonna have a much lower score.And this normally wouldn't annoy me accept for idiots like my friend who will type in Game Xs score on Google and will get meta critic *sigh* this whole industry has become pussiefied.Onyx Oblivion said:
Maybe I should have used that excuse in high school art class. Damn low marks.
(The following is a real conversation from back then)
Teacher: What are those you painted in the sky?
Me: Ummm...They're clouds?
Teacher: They look like rocks! Do them over again and make them fluffier.
Me: *Sighs and re-does the clouds*
Teacher: They're too fluffy!
(The following is a real conversation from back then)
Teacher: What are those you painted in the sky?
Me: Ummm...They're clouds?
Teacher: They look like rocks! Do them over again and make them fluffier.
Me: *Sighs and re-does the clouds*
Teacher: They're too fluffy!
Really? Show me where I said it was copying Call of Duty... Oh wait, I didn't. Go troll somewhere else.Saucycardog said: