THQ: Homefront Is Not a 71

[Moffman]

Theatre (and movies) is given scores and it is very much considered art. It's up to us as consumers to take things with a pinch of salt, you may enjoy a show even if a big named critic gave it 3 stars, however if it hits the 2 star rating it is very likely to be a piece of poo on a stick. Same with game scores.
Some will even hate art that is given a five star review: "Krapp's last Tape" with Michael Gambon playing the lead, split the critics, some giving it 5 stars others giving it 1 (perfect for art in my opinion, because you should love or hate it, what a terrible reaction to get from an audience if they say "meh")

I would say that a 70% is a 3 star, if you like FPS then give it a go, I won't be buying coz I'm not a huge FPS fan

So in short I don't think scoring negatively effects art it just helps us as consumers consider whether we want to invest money in it because neither video games or theatre are cheap. When I spend money on crap I'm get pretty annoyed.

 

[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.

Really? Show me where I said it was copying Call of Duty... Oh wait, I didn't. Go troll somewhere else.

Please do not try to start a flame war my friend because that will get nowhere. Your post sounded like it was saying that Homefront was just like cod which you say it didn't so I guess you could've kindly stated it instead of accusing people of trolling.

 

[Laser Priest]

They're right about one thing: Scores can't be applied to art.

Good thing Homefront is about as far from art as games get.

 

[TheIronRuler]

The game was decent, but they set up so many answers and didn't answer them!
You had a shread of information about the asian man in your squad, one tiny bit of monolouge, a one-liner when you see north koreans handing on ropes from under a bride. "They burned down my house" he said. That could have been such a great path to explore, but no.... Rednecks with rocket launchers are much better!!

 

[ThisIsSnake]

http://www.paradoxplace.com/Perspectives/Italian%20Images/images/PPPortraits/Leonardo/Leonardo%20by%20himself.jpg
Art and Math? been there done that and then built it into a vehicle 500 years ahead of its time.

 

[Alar]

A four hour campaign, yep, very artistic...

 

[ThisIsSnake]

http://www.paradoxplace.com/Perspectives/Italian%20Images/images/PPPortraits/Leonardo/Leonardo%20by%20himself.jpg
Art and Maths? been there done that and then built it into a vehicle 500 years ahead of its time.

 

[ThisIsSnake]

Damn quoted instead of edited x.x

 

[Entreri481]

I ignore reviews anyway (unless they are seriously bad) since the opinion of someone I know trumps a guy who is paid to try a game and make up his own mind based on what he cares about in a game. For all I know he wants exactly the opposite of what I want.

I've come to distrust user reviews MORE than professional reviews lately...As they tend to be extreme praise or extreme hate, in my experience. There are of course, exceptions. But it's easier to comb through the forest of professional reviews for quality, than it is to comb through infinite user reviews for quality.

Also, my best friend and I have drastically different gaming tastes.

I know what your saying, but you should check out NoobToob, they give great, hilarious, unbiased reviews.

 

[ryai458]

Yes it is, THQ.

71 isn't bad.

But the Single player IS!
SERIOUSLY! The whole selling point was the 'controversial'/laughable storyline behind the game, and then they go and give us a campaign 4 HOURS LONG!?! And he wonders where all the hate is coming from.

And then multiplayer was the best of COD and Battlefield, so lazy and unoriginal.

 

[HaussVonHorne]

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.

 

[ninja51]

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

 

[WorldCritic]

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.

 

[Shirokurou]

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.

 

[Tzatziki3301]

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.)

 

[Crumpet Man]

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

 

[StriderShinryu]

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!"

 

[Hristo Tzonkov]

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.

To be honest with you, I see Battlefield 3 on the horizon and the bar is going up.

This basically.

 

[Branches]

It deserves it. It's single-player was crap. It's multi-player is the only part that holds up the 70.

 

[solidstatemind]

THQ: Homefront Is Not a 71


THQ Vice President Danny Bilson says you can't apply math to art but when it comes to Homefront [http://www.amazon.com/Homefront-Xbox-360/dp/B003Q53VZC/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1302635491&sr=8-1], it's "clearly" better than a 71.

Okay, how about this:
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'.