Can't wait to fight for my country on the HomeFront
 

Yea, I am pressing my luck on Homefront I mean I mainly want to get it because of the open vehicle environments i love playing games like that. Will it beat any Battlefield game HELL NO!
I know that I can fight for my country on the soil in other games, but I just want to check this game out mix it up a little I like the idea of purchasing vehicles my question "is there a limit of how many of the vehicles are out on the battlefield"
The game looks fun, hopefully it is hopefully it plays nice and smooth due to 32 player online.
Can't wait to kick some North Korean ass, no one and I mean no one messes with the great ol USA if its invading or being invaded.
So if you are planning to get this game for the X-box 360 leave your gamertag (if you want)
So March 8th looking forward to it,
ooh rah!




Follow me on twitter
Lol just kidding I don't have a account and I don't plan to make one there

Looks interesting. Kind of "/eye roll oh great the commies invade again" game.

You got live

5 hour single player campaign. It's just not enough...

All these games with CODlike multiplayer as their sole attractiion...


If I wanted COD I'd play COD.



Now "RISK Factions" on steam, that's a fun take on a classic.

Half Life 2 was completed in 3 hours using the quickest methods possible, but without hacks or cheats or glitches.

Homefront looks average. I'm going to save my money for Battlefield 3, coming later this year. Or Skyrim.

It takes a lot of practice to play Half Life 2 in 3 hours, I don't think it is a fair comparison.

This game just doesn't look that interesting. Ill stick with crysis 2 only for the campaign though. The multiplayer demo was cringe worthy at best.

Got it. Played it.


Graphics... C work. Not too shabby, but I felt like it was kind of, weak. And player interaction with the world just felt fake. Can't really explain it that well. (Flying was absolutely miserable, felt like you were driving a nice camera)

Campaign, this was a missed opportunity. In the early stages, you start out pretty confused as to whats going on, but morbidly aware of the Korean occupation. I immediately felt real emotional drives to fight the occupiers.
(The first five minutes of the game are a passive observer on a bus moving through occupied territory. It hurt. Watching a mother try to comfort a screaming child while she's being walled to be shot... Yeah. Morbid. I get shudders just thinking about it.)

The first few missions are filled with atrocities, aaaaand... Then you do some stuff, kill some guys, and the game ends. They stirr you up in such a revolutionary spirit (At least for the US) then kinda leave you hanging with some standard FPS missions and end just like that. Missed opportunity for a truly great game.


Multiplayer, love it. Love it love it love it. It has guns, drones, vehicles, airstrikes, different modes... And best of all, no kill streaks. Instead, you earn permanent (for the match) points to spend on up to two extra's you can change with your loadout. Drones, airstrikes, RPG's, flak vests, you name it.

Only thing I was looking forward to in this game was the "Epic" singleplayer that it has hyping to have. After reading your review. Not gonna get it. Save up for BF3.

But I think it did have an opportunity to be great. A different take, not WW2, not fighting old enemies, but a different enemy in a different location, which is a nice change.

Could of been great but it's not I guess.

They should have hyped the multiplayer. Excellent.

Why can't we play on the invaders side? That would be more interesting. A nice change.

If you play the game, you will not want to sympathize with the invaders, at all.



No matter what country you're from.


If you did sympathize with them, I'd feel obliged to strike you.

I never said I wanted to sympathise with them.

Didn't the early Call Of Duty games put you in the view of a Russian soldier? (related to my query)

Those were the WW2 ones and they didn't make the Russians look perfect either.

W@W:
"Sir! We found some Nazis who surrendered!"
Sgt. Reznov: "Dimitri (player), you get to decide whether we molotov them or shoot them."

BlOps: Spoiler tag included although I suspect everyone who ever will has played BlOps

I don't care if the side I'm playing for looks perfect. I just want a change from the US always looking perfect and defeating their opponents. Something different from the recent Call Of Duty games, that had lame singleplayer campaigns.

Then you want World in Conflict: Soviet Assault. You play from both perspectives.


But Homefront is just grim. Take every human rights violation you can think of in the last three decades, that's how bad the North Korean occupiers are.

I meant a FPS, not real time strategy.

FPS's are tougher, again, as nobody wants to actually kill their own countrymen. (even digitally) ((which is why fictional countries or countries that don't allow such games are always the enemies))

(((For example, ModernWarfare II and Russia...)))

I've seen a couple of videos of this game now. Not entirely impressed to be honest.

I've heard the campaign story is incredibly short which isn't a great sign to start with but hey, CoD Black Ops doesn't have a particularly long campaign either.

The gameplay tried to mimmick CoD and quite simply failed. It just looks like a worse version of the game. While it's good that it can be a bit of fresh air from the benchmark game that is Black Ops, if it's generic, it won't work. Simple as that.

I'd say the next biggest FPS to come out will be Crysis 2. I've been playing the multiplayer demo (demo's finished now) and I have to say I enjoy it more than CoD and definitely something innovative and new while taking the best bits out of CoD and Halo. I'd have saved my money for Crysis 2.

I liked the crysis 2 demo as well. I was thinking about sinking cash into it, but I've been refereed to "RIFT", as a former WoW player, RIFT looks pretty smexy... (since some say its a knockoff with better graphics, same gameplay, new story, new graphics??? ^________^)

Yes I know why you play as the US (or "good guys") in these games. However your statement that "nobody wants to actually kill their own countrymen" is irrelevant. The US soldiers are not my countrymen, nor do I care if they were. It would just be good to have a different perspective on things.

I should note that there was one mission in MW2 in that you took the role as a terrorist in the airport, mowing down hundreds of people. THAT took me as a surprise, since it was a much "darker" move for Infinity Ward.

And is the reason for the ban in Russia. Because you were killing Russian civilians.

Can't wait to fight for my country on the HomeFront
 

In Modern Warefare, I found myself much more attracted to the British side than the Marines. I personally never got into Battlefield, but Homefront reminds me of a modern CoD2, where there are vehicles, balanced gameplay, and lower graphics. By stepping back a generation in graphics, it actually lessens the lag that you get. Same with CoD2 at the time. CoD2 was the onlu CoD game that I liked.

Personally I'm saving for Brink, SC2: HotS, and Skyrim. Halo: Reach stopped impressing me after a few months and I just can't stand another Modern Warfare ripoff from Treyarch, IW, or Respawn. Brink looks lime a real breath of fresh air.

What everyone else said.

Another carbon-copy "fight-fer-yer-country-herp-a-derp-derp-srsfaic-modernwarfare" game.

Call me when someone else realizes how sick most people are of the same rehashed garbage and maybe I'll pick up the proverbial phone.

The only way it resembles modernwarfare... Is its weapon sets.

I'm not talking about CoD.

I'm talking about this stupid trend where every shooter has to be a "modern warfare" shooter.

Similar settings, plot, antagonists, weapons, everything. Battlefield, CoD, and now this are all the same.

This is the main reason why I don't play many shooters outside of Gears and Halo; no variety, and very little imagination. Black Ops *almost* broke out of that mold for me, but in the end the story felt like the same old rehashed ****.

I want another company to step up and make another really good sci-fi shooter. There are already lots of sci-fi games, but as for competitive/semi-competitive online TPS/FPS games Halo is the only one (and Gears, but to a lesser extent because the online is effed up).

The main thing is the weapons, for me. I look at CoD, for example, and while in the context of the gameplay each rifle and shotgun are different, that only exists within the techinical context of the gameplay; to the person watching, and in terms of overall gameplay flavor, it's all rifles, handguns, shotguns, and rockets/missiles etc.

Halo and Gears have those too, because they're the "meat and potatoes" of shooters, but then they have unique and interesting guns and weapons that they made up. Halo has a sword made of magnetically-bound ionized gas, a hammer that can project gravitational fields, and Gears has an explosive crossbow and grenades that double as maces.

It's far more thrilling for me to take down an enemy with a sword made of blue plasma or to mash someones face in with a mace-grenade and then let it explode than to just run around for 10-20 multiplayer games shooting people with guns that all look the same and work more or less the same way.

You're praising Gears and Halo for originality...

Nope.

I'm saying that I wish someone else would get up and make a game with similar settings and weapons other than rifle/handgun/rocket/shotgun.

Yeah, Halo. Right there in a nutshell.

Where do plasma swords, gravity hammers, and beam weapons fall in, then?

The UAV, Airstrike, and Chopper category :cool: