View Full Version : Homefront - who else has it?
Got Homefront for Xbox360 last week. IMO its an awesome game. Campaign was epic, and I love how the multiplayer works with the Battle Points system.
Speaking of the campaign.... The little kid at literally the beginning of the game that has to watch his parents shot by NK army, ya his crying seriously messed with my head. That was the most freaking realistic thing I've ever seen and heard. Plus the mass graves later on. Game is very realistic, to the point I couldn't hardly look at some points....
Guess that means even though I've played all these mindless violence games, I'm still humans....
Seriously, that was messed up stuff.
Wanna watch a game trailer that will really mess with your head?
Dead Island (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZqrG1bdGtg) This one got quite a bit of a ruckus going about it due to the child in it. Pretty damn good production value though for a game trailer. You can watch it in sequential order if you want on that link too, but I like how they did it in reverse better.
Haven't looked into Homefront yet, hopefully it comes out on PC as well if it's as good as you say it is.
i had high expectations for Homefront, but reports started trickling in about its horrible multiplayer and I backed away.
Only problems with the multiplayer are they are having issues with their dedicated servers. But the game mode Skirmish which is just a "mosh pit" of sorts where u randomly play either team death match or ground control. Skirmish is still Peer to Peer so thats always good to go.
Other problem is with people who play Call of Duty over Battlefield. The game is very Battlefield like, with huge maps, vehicles, and u can't just run around like an idiot like u can on COD, u have to actually use some sort of tactic. Get a kill or 2 then move on.
LowSpeed_HighDrag
03-24-11, 14:47
I have it, I had extremely high hopes for the story, but unfortunately it sucked dick.
Here's what I wanted: Small band of rebel Americans get together against the Koreans. Ambush tactics and guerilla warfare would be the name of the game as you are always outgunned and outnumbered. IED's, mines, snipers, and hit and runs would be the way you would win. Rifles such as bolt actions, lever actions, pump and double barrel shotguns, and revolvers would be your main weapons, and then eventually battlefield pickups would come into play.
Unfortunately, you play as run and gun team of 3 with advanced weaponry and no tactics. The AI of the enemy is simply walk around and shoot. Its weak and not very fun.
The multiplayer is kind of fun, but you play as Marines in Army uniform, not as rebels vs Koreans. There is no specific weaponry to each side. What I do like is how open the battlefield is, but thats it.
I give it a 4/10.
Single player rocked my world despite being short. I'd like to see another two or three 'parts' as DLC to add on to the story, perhaps by either continuing from where it originally left off or by creating several different story lines occurring during the same time.
Multi BLOWS. It's actually not TOO bad, but plays WAY too much like COD4. And there are hackers everywhere. Not sure why VAC isn't working as well with this as with other games, but jesus h. christ is it bad...half the people don't even try and hide it.
It'd be really good if they nerfed airstrikes and similar 'perks' and kept it more of a boots on the ground type game. Too easy for someone to get a few kills and score an airstrike, then keep getting more and more kills and bonuses by just raping everyone on the other team. Same issue I had with COD4...use an airstrike to kill a bunch of people and get another airstrike for your efforts...brilliant :rolleyes:
I also hate the weapons. Somehow if a gun has a different optic on it, or different barrel lengths magazines won't swap between the two. Seriously, there's a good half dozen or so M4/M16 variants and none of them share mags...WTF? I also don't get how the shorty PDW has more 'power' then an M16. I get they have to make all the guns a little different, but it's a bit absurd to make the shorter, smaller gun more powerful then the longer barrel version chambered for the same round. Probably could've just created some new weapons considering it IS in the future.....
In short: pass.
I have it, I had extremely high hopes for the story, but unfortunately it sucked dick.
Here's what I wanted: Small band of rebel Americans get together against the Koreans. Ambush tactics and guerilla warfare would be the name of the game as you are always outgunned and outnumbered. IED's, mines, snipers, and hit and runs would be the way you would win. Rifles such as bolt actions, lever actions, pump and double barrel shotguns, and revolvers would be your main weapons, and then eventually battlefield pickups would come into play.
Unfortunately, you play as run and gun team of 3 with advanced weaponry and no tactics. The AI of the enemy is simply walk around and shoot. Its weak and not very fun.
The multiplayer is kind of fun, but you play as Marines in Army uniform, not as rebels vs Koreans. There is no specific weaponry to each side. What I do like is how open the battlefield is, but thats it.
I give it a 4/10.
That would've been pretty cool as far as weapons go. I at LEAST wanted to be able to get a semi auto rifle besides the .308 and one of the M16 variants. Is it that hard for a freakin' toggle button?
The backstory was impressive. The rest of the game was unimpressive. I've seen better graphics on original XBox games. As others have stated the AI was stupid.
I really felt I wasted my money.
I was an Alpha tester for the game and based on that alone I knew to stay away from the release version. They even based a map on where I live (and comment on the city/state at one point in the campaign) and I still couldn't be bothered to buy it. This is one I'll pick up in a year for $5 to play through the campaign once and then trash it. Too bad too because it was a great idea and the result was basically Call of Duty with worse graphics, worse engine and poorer game play. I'll just stick with the better version which I've already paid for.
LowSpeed_HighDrag
03-25-11, 10:17
I was an Alpha tester for the game and based on that alone I knew to stay away from the release version. They even based a map on where I live (and comment on the city/state at one point in the campaign) and I still couldn't be bothered to buy it. This is one I'll pick up in a year for $5 to play through the campaign once and then trash it. Too bad too because it was a great idea and the result was basically Call of Duty with worse graphics, worse engine and poorer game play. I'll just stick with the better version which I've already paid for.
Montrose? I LOL'd when I saw that Montrose was the setting. And the Montrose Police Officer that ran the rebel group, lived by the Montrose badge, die by the Montrose badge lol.
I still think it was a good game. Definitely not as good as the hype, but not as terrible as ya'll make it out to be.
I still think it was a good game. Definitely not as good as the hype, but not as terrible as ya'll make it out to be.
I've bought it, I've played it, and I stand by what I posted. Graphics was 10 years dated, AI practically walked into bullets, and the campaign was short (2.5 hours) for a $60 release.
Once I'm done with the achievements I'm trading it at Gamespot.
All that said, the backstory was really imaginative and well-written (which one should expect from Milius), but I bought and paid for a videogame not a movie.
Only game that even pulled on my desire to buy into a console in the last 5 years, and I heard it was absolute garbage from a very dedicated gamer.
I will stick to the real world, and my table top games.
But, I have to say the concept looked pretty friggen cool, and it had a lot of potential!
I have it, I had extremely high hopes for the story, but unfortunately it sucked dick.
Here's what I wanted: Small band of rebel Americans get together against the Koreans. Ambush tactics and guerilla warfare would be the name of the game as you are always outgunned and outnumbered. IED's, mines, snipers, and hit and runs would be the way you would win. Rifles such as bolt actions, lever actions, pump and double barrel shotguns, and revolvers would be your main weapons, and then eventually battlefield pickups would come into play.
Unfortunately, you play as run and gun team of 3 with advanced weaponry and no tactics. The AI of the enemy is simply walk around and shoot. Its weak and not very fun.
The multiplayer is kind of fun, but you play as Marines in Army uniform, not as rebels vs Koreans. There is no specific weaponry to each side. What I do like is how open the battlefield is, but thats it.
I give it a 4/10.
You wanted Red Dawn: The Video Game. I agree that would rock
This really should've been red dawn: the game. Hell it was written by the same guy.....
The problem I seem to find with most FPS later is that they either shoot for superb graphics or pick some gimmick to make multi player a bit more interesting...that's all great and fine, but at the end of the day I think most people want awesome gameplay, and not something that's been done a dozen times before.
Hell, I'll GLADLY play a video game with awful graphics if the gameplay is downright awesome. I mean, how many games feature typical civilian owned weapons, or employ different tactics other then run into the bad guys, empty magazine?
In no way did it live up to the hype or justify the $60 price tag. I also found it frustrating that ammo did not transfer over to similar weapons.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.