Homefront Review

By Dan Whitehead Published 15 March, 2011

Seoul mates?

Version tested: Xbox 360

"Press X to jump in mass grave". I've been confronted with some bizarre button prompts in my time, but Homefront earns itself a special biscuit for this strangely calm exhortation to dive in amongst my slaughtered neighbours.

The moment also neatly encapsulates the ways in which Homefront takes aim at an obvious and broad target, yet somehow still manages to miss the bullseye.

The plot is as simple as it is implausible. North and South Korea are reunited and become a new superpower, just as America's economy collapses and bird flu ravages the population. Before you can say Senator McCarthy, the evil Communist menace has invaded American soil - and these Reds aren't hiding under any beds. No, they're murdering and oppressing like there's an expiration date for villainy, casually shooting a young mother and father in front of their child during the opening sequence, just in case having enemy soldiers occupying your country wasn't motivation enough to get you up and shooting.

It's here that the game hits the first of several snags. Not only does the situation make little sense, but our relationship to it is flimsy and vague. Maybe you need to be American to truly appreciate the chilling horror of this Tea Party nightmare, but when you're playing as a mute ex-Marine whose reason for fighting back is simply that someone gives him a gun and says, "Hey, shoot those Koreans, would you?", it's hard to care.

The same is true of your companions, a small and thinly sketched bunch of resistance fighters who make all the right action movie noises but never really become characters in their own right. The premise of the game all but demands rich back-stories, personal tales of loss and tragedy that have led each character to this point, but they remain empty cyphers to the end.

1

In case you were wondering, yes, there is a nod to Red Dawn in the game. Go Wolverines!

Not that sub-par characterisation will be at the front of your mind as you follow these cardboard cut-outs through a single-player campaign that is slim even by current first-person shooter standards. Most of the time you'll be wondering why these characters are even here, since you're always either being shoved aside while they move the plot forwards, or left to fend for yourself while they hide behind scenery. There's no middle ground.

So when the game tells you which button to press to jump into a mass grave and hide from a Korean patrol, it's especially pointless. You already know that's what you've got to do because the game has manoeuvred you into a place where it's the only logical response, while your NPC companions have voiced the thought for you and jumped in to illustrate the point - but you can't actually do anything until that prompt appears and gives you permission 10 seconds later.

That's how scripted this game is. Every ladder, every door, every obstacle forces you to step aside and wait while AI drones take the lead. Then you follow in their wake, always heading for the little white blob that says "follow", in case you were in any doubt.

Homefront's first 15 minutes.

The closest you get to breaking ranks is dawdling around while they wait at checkpoints, searching for the glowing golden newspapers that provide your recommended daily allowance of pointless collectible as your companions bellow looped instructions to regroup. Even then, stray too far from the preferred path while rooting around, and our old friend Invisible Walls makes an unwelcome return to shove you back in the right direction.

It's a shame, because when the game stops dragging you along by the hand and lets you make choices of your own, it's generally good stuff. Aiming and accuracy are both perfectly realised, while the best encounters take place in large, open locations with dozens of opportunities to forge your own path through the carnage. But then, all too soon, the game clamps shut again and you're back in the corridor, doing as you're told, watching those digital arses shuffle and sway in front of you.

Graphically, things are similarly flaky. Homefront sometimes musters an impressive view - such as when you first see a makeshift work camp with shacks sprawling into the distance against a sombre sunset - but it struggles in gameplay. Characters glitch into each other, scenery snags and the frame rate wheezes during larger set-piece battles. It's certainly not terrible, but as with high-end racing games, the FPS genre is no place for visual slouching.

It's all over so quickly that you probably won't have time to let such foibles bother you. The problem isn't so much that Homefront's seven stages are too short, but that they spend too much of their meagre time treading water with predictable, generic encounters. You could easily stretch it out to eight hours or so, but it's all so inconsequential; what Homefront needs most is direction rather than length.

Despite the potential of staging FPS battles in familiar suburban locations, the game quickly falls into a rut familiar from too many of its genre peers. There are stealthy sniper bits. There are turret sections. There's a scramble beneath the girders of the Golden Gate bridge which is a virtual redux of Half-Life 2.

But there's no personality and there are no moments: none of those perfect collisions between concept and execution which give you that fist-pump rush that a good shooter needs. You're always aware that this is a pale echo of a more successful formula.

Single-player campaigns are fast becoming a quaint anachronism though, and if this offering feels more vestigial than most, it's largely because the genre itself, particularly this brand of modern military shooter, is ever more interested in the long-term lure of multiplayer. Here, at least, Homefront proves more capable.

Maps are broad and varied, with no end of pathways to discover. Whether you prefer holing up in building interiors, crawling through scrub or charging down the middle, all guns blazing, the game accommodates everyone without ever playing favourites. Vehicles are simple to control, effective enough to be worthwhile, but fragile enough that an enemy tank won't bring the match to a dispiriting halt. There's a satisfying balance, and the fully customisable load-outs mean that it's easy to find a combat role that suits your style of play.

2

It's actually quite cute how we're now supposed to be horrified by all the usual FPS carnage, just because it's the American suburbs.

More noteworthy are two reasonably fresh ideas that KAOS Studio has stirred in. Battle Points are the in-match currency that you accrue for successful play. Separate to your XP, they must be cashed in if you want to use any of the game's more interesting gadgets. Want to spawn in a vehicle? Launch a drone? Whip out an RPG? They all require Battle Points.

The most obvious benefit is that this system tips the balance away from the Call of Duty model where the best and longest-serving players have a veritable arsenal of destruction at their command while new players go into battle armed with a toothpick and a scowl. Battle Points scale it back to focus on the match at hand, so any player capable of downing a few enemies or assisting in an objective will gain access to something cool.

The second worthwhile idea is Battle Commander. This game mode puts you under the command of an unseen taskmaster, who will highlight notable enemy targets. It's a way of taking the idea of "kill streaks" and inverting them; the better you play, the more attention you attract. There are alerts for individual soldiers, vehicles, even remote drones. Keep racking up kills and the enemy commander will direct more and more of the opposing team to your location - and they'll all want some of the XP bounty for taking you down.

3

The US military barely features in the single-player story, but is inevitably a more active presence in multiplayer.

The impact of these two ideas is noticeable and beneficial, but still the sum of the experience isn't different enough to the pack leaders to stand out, nor is it polished enough to stand alongside them. It's a decent multiplayer offering, but is unlikely to lure dedicated players away from the dominant franchises and their enormous and enthusiastic communities for long.

Taken as a whole, the online action is just enough to balance out the mediocrity of the single-player campaign. But, ironically, Homefront's place in the FPS genre is an inversion of its own narrative fantasy. In the game's fiction, Korea is the underdog that takes on the American giant and wins; in reality, Homefront similarly hurls everything it has at the FPS behemoths in its path, but can barely scuff their armour.

Homefront floats in the limbo between "not bad" and "pretty good", and is hamstrung by a single-player element that feels like a half-hearted obligation. What's most disappointing is that Homefront wanted so much to join COD and Battlefield at the top of the genre, but has ended up as merely a weekend timewaster for players waiting for the next shooter fix.

6 / 10

Read the Eurogamer.net scoring policy
Picture of Dan.

About Dan Whitehead

Dan has been writing for Eurogamer since 2006 and specialises in RPGs, shooters and games for children. His bestest game ever is Julian Gollop's Chaos.

Read more articles from Dan by visiting the Dan Whitehead archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (144) Latest comment 1 year ago

Comments for this article are now closed, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • Big-Swiss #1 1 year ago

    that score will be discussed for sure!

  • Gambit1977 #2 1 year ago

    Let it begin...

  • kingnothing12 #3 1 year ago

    How...expected.

  • NunianVonFuch #4 1 year ago

    Seems kind of fair. Be worth it for the novelty if nothing else! Not many multi shooters about of decent quality.

  • Er-El #5 1 year ago

    Is this game good?

  • Ranger101 #6 1 year ago

    "Taken as a whole, the online action is just enough to balance out the mediocrity of the single-player campaign."

    That's pretty damning.

  • StolenGlory #7 1 year ago

    "that score will be discussed for sure!"

    You act as if the score is somewhat controversial? Let's be honest, the game has looked like a 6/10 since day one.

  • Shadders #8 1 year ago

    "No, they're murdering and oppressing like there's an expiration date for villainy, casually shooting a young mother and father in front of their child during the opening sequence"

    DON'T THEY KNOW THAT'S HOW YOU MAKE A BATMAN?!

  • dr_zoidthrob #9 1 year ago

    Predictable really... shame

  • ucankurbaga #10 1 year ago

    I predicted this and tried to warn fellow gamers about thinking twice before buying this game, but I was marked troll in forums by blinded fanboys...

  • bad09 #11 1 year ago

    Maybe in the Steam sales but pass otherwise, sorry THQ with Crysis 2 out next week you had no chance.

  • Arsecake_Baker #12 1 year ago

    It'll do till BF3.

  • Cronan #13 1 year ago

    Pretty much what I expected - I played the game last week ...

  • captain_Carl #14 1 year ago

    Lol

  • caligari #15 1 year ago

    The sequence in which the child's parents are shot is rather disturbing. O_o

  • Zombie-Hamster #16 1 year ago

    I'm a bit disappointed by this without being massively surprised, especially given the reviews I've already read. Once I heard the single-player was only about 5 hours long it became a rental at best for me anyway though. Shame, I was really hoping (obviously in a stupidly optimistic manner!) that this would be a decent and refreshing change.

  • Eraysor #17 1 year ago

    It's not even on Steam anyway. Useless THQ.

  • bilas #18 1 year ago

    better than mafia2.

  • thedaveeyres #19 1 year ago

    I, for one, welcome our new sexy Korean boothbabe overlords.

  • MinerWilly #20 1 year ago

    I skipped the single player part of the review just the same as i always planned on doing with the single player part of the game , why even bother wasting resources on having a campaign when the game from day 1 has been touted as a multiplayer shooter.
    Battlefield is the greatest online multiplayer shooter right since the release of 1942 in 2002 and they never properly bothered with campaigns until the console versions came out years and years later.

  • mcmothercruncher #21 1 year ago

    That's one impressive new I.P. right there!

  • TheEarlOfZinger #22 1 year ago

    I knew it, it's shit.

  • muttler #23 1 year ago

    I want multiplayer, but it has to have at least a semi decent sp too. Pass.

  • Ranger101 #24 1 year ago

    The tagline for this review should have been: "No DICE".

  • RobotRocker #25 1 year ago

    DON'T THEY KNOW THAT'S HOW YOU MAKE A BATMAN?!

    Majestic.

    Also, entirely expected, but was hoping for a bit more of a kicking considering that opening scene is probably the most offensive thing I have ever seen in a video game. I'm not a Politically Correct guy (I have the new MK and Duke Nukem Forever pre-ordered) but fuck everyone involved in this abomination and I wish job loss on them till they beg for forgiveness to be let back in the industry. Complete fucking garbage.
    Edited by RobotRocker at 15/03/11 @ 16:20

  • lordofthedunce #26 1 year ago

    I'm starting to think many games would be better served by having the multiplayer part of the review first.

  • Raz76 #27 1 year ago

    Seoul is in South Korea...

  • menage #28 1 year ago

    Meh, COD clone, cloning a bad game is never a good idea.

    MP might be allright, but why bother when you already have another one with hours invested in it.

  • metalangel #29 1 year ago

    The same is true of your companions, a small and thinly sketched bunch of resistance fighters who make all the right action movie noises but never really become characters in their own right. The premise of the game all but demands rich back-stories, personal tales of loss and tragedy that have led each character to this point, but they remain empty cyphers to the end.

    What rich background story and personal tale of loss and tragedy did Alyx Vance have? Yet people adored her stereotypical spunky female sidekickisms.


    It's actually quite cute how we're now supposed to be horrified by all the usual FPS carnage, just because it's the American suburbs.

    I am confident if it was London that featured, we'd be hearing tosh like "evocative" and "chilling" instead of this predictable anti-American sentiment.

    Anyhow, I'm glad it apparent that the single player is clearly seen as the sideshow. I'm excited for the multiplayer as Frontlines was excellent; and I was disappointed by Bad Company 2's small, cramped maps and overemphasis on infantry.

  • Cronan #30 1 year ago

    So, it turns out that adding controversy can't make up for a mediocre game, what is it the man said about gold plating and turds?

  • Olemak #31 1 year ago

    So this scores LOWER than the cheap, über-generic, download only "Modern Combat Domination" by Gameloft.

    That has got to sting.

  • BBIAJ #32 1 year ago

    Is this actually coming out this week, my GAME pre-order still hasn't updated, even though Yakuza 4 Steelbook is supposedly winging it's way to me now, even though I know that they won't really post it until tomorrow.

    Still working my way through Yakuza 3, 109 hours in, and only on Chapter 9!

  • zide #33 1 year ago

    The best review of the game so far in my opinion, seeing all these 88 and 90/100 reviews i guess somebody has been paying something for someone.

    Anywho, i think that 6/10 is ok score for a game that lack's in SP but has an ok MP so i think i might purchase this after all and play it untill the Brink comes out.

  • PierrePressure #34 1 year ago

    This is what I expected.

    I couldn't understand all the press and hype it was getting when it essentially looked liked a poor mans COD.

  • Cronan #35 1 year ago

    It got 50% from Edge, most of the high scores on Metacritic seem to be from amateur web-sites.

    But what the hell were CVG thinking?

  • rojjer #36 1 year ago

    I guess those that think for themselves, have the cash to do so and want to try some new FPS action to give COD and/or BF: BC 2 a break will be picking this up. Won't be the first time eurogamer has dumped on a game other reviewers have taken a shine to (*COUGH*drivingupsitetrafficforadvertisingrevenue*COUGH*)

  • Anciegher #37 1 year ago

    I was expecting 6-7/10, glad to see I wasn't disappointed.

  • Armoured_Gideon #38 1 year ago

    "Single-player campaigns are fast becoming a quaint anachronism though"

    Because you say so? Don't write speculative nonsense like this.

    It's further encouragement to the developers to abandon single player altogether, and they barely need any prompting.

  • Trent_Steel #39 1 year ago

    Knew all along this would be Blacksite Part 2.

    There's something I love about a generic, out-of-date, shitty FPS though, so might just pick it up in a few months. Just got Singularity for 9 quid and despite horrendous graphics it's been quite good fun so far.

  • megalomaniacs4u #40 1 year ago

    So the edge review was pretty acurate then?

  • geeza2020 #41 1 year ago

    Nothing new here, move on unless your a die hard fps fan who's bored of everything else.
    Edited by geeza2020 at 17/03/11 @ 09:37

  • Dave52 #42 1 year ago

    Meh... Back to KZ3 then....

  • Vortex808 #43 1 year ago

    Ah well, a very quick run through the campaign, but the meat & bones seem to be multiplayer which sounds pretty decent by all accounts. Looking forward to finding out in a few days.

  • persus-9 #44 1 year ago

    Weird design decision. All this game had going for it was a stars and stripes under attack, fighting in your own back yard (if you're American) narrative gimmick and yet they wasted that by making poor single player game and decided to tackle COD head on for the multiplayer crown instead. I know hindsight is 20/20 but that strikes me as obviously suicidal.

  • Mockerre #45 1 year ago

    Reads like a 5/10 ;)

    As to the single player campaigns - they'll be back to full length as soon as the developers realize that there's space for just a few successful online games in each category (CoD/Halo/Battlefield etc. for shooters) and their by-the-numbers multiplayer mode is forgotten in 2-3 months.

  • ninjanutta #46 1 year ago

    review is correct.the graphics are last gen, the ai is crap.its playable for a change of pace but only worth 20 quid at most.

  • superstu1337 #47 1 year ago

    I wanted this game since announcement! I thought it would fill the big empty void of FPS games we are currently experiencing!

  • _tangent #48 1 year ago

    Good review. Not particularly surprised at this - wasn't hopeful from the footage i'd seen so far!
    Edited by _tangent at 15/03/11 @ 19:04

  • scowat #49 1 year ago

    Post deleted at 16:41:01 08-02-2012

  • TheGuvernor #50 1 year ago

    Soon as I heard 5 hr single player it was over for me.
    We need an epic single player revival in the fps genre.

    Thanks for an honest review EG - it's getting 8 & 9's everywhere else.
    Is 9 the new 7?
    Oh well, back to Bulletstorm!

  • sfp_noodle #51 1 year ago

    I always thought this game got a lot more attention that it warranted. Granted, the story is acyually quite original and plausible, but when the actual game Is just trying desperately hard to clone COD which itself has become a parody of itself you know its set up to fail. Give up on the COD pie seriously. It's like Cliff Blezinski said, theres no fucking pie left. It's been eaten and vomited up around 7 times now.

  • Hindle #52 1 year ago

    Post deleted at 23:04:43 04-04-2012

  • Kenshin001 #53 1 year ago

    Regardless, it will still be at the top or near the top of the charts next week. Kind of glad it reviewed poorly though. Thought the plot was stupid even for a FPS. Hopefully bad reviews will be some impetus for FPS developers to try harder at giving better stories and production values.

  • ryandsimmons #54 1 year ago

    Granted, the story is acyually quite original and plausible,

    Oh my sides. They are aching.

    Thanks for cheering me up dude, nothing like a good joke to lift the spirits.

  • greekboy127 #55 1 year ago

    having got a promo copy of this, the single player is short but enjoyable!, but the online is great. Having not loved COD B Ops and still loving BFBC2, this is a welcome distraction to Battlefield, if you want a decent online experience, this is worth a look!!

  • coldfoot #56 1 year ago

    sfp_noodle, the story is neither original (US being invaded by communists/terrorists/aliens) nor plausible. Open the map and look at where Korea is and where the US is, then compare their sizes, economy, population, military strength, etc.

  • Bigmac1910 #57 1 year ago

    I don't know why, but the game still appeals to me and will probably pick it up despite the reviews, mostly for MP though.

  • Desheep #58 1 year ago

    This entire review could easily replace the words "Homefront" with "Call of Duty: [insert subtitle]".

    Yet this is 6/10 and CoD is a guaranteed 9 or 10.

  • Derblington #59 1 year ago

    I get that it's not going to topple any of the big guns but there is another space in the market here: People who want large scale combat but dislike BC2s fps mechanics. Shirley if it can feel like CoD with larger scale then it could entice a lot of people into the middle ground?

  • SeesThroughAll #60 1 year ago

    I am Jack's complete lack of surprise.

  • Darksjeik #61 1 year ago

    I hate to say it, I really do but this review is pretty much spot on. I wanted to like this game so much I could taste it...

  • kadooosh #62 1 year ago

    To be honest, it's lucky the masses dnt read reviews.

    How can u trust any of them when 1 reviewer says it's on par with bfbc2 and cod, clearly he wants to make the FPS pie a little more diverse. When reviewers here clearly favour the flock and big names.

    Maybe not, that's MY OPINION.

    All irrelevant.

  • trotskyicepick #63 1 year ago

    I thought the opening movie was pretty cool

  • trotskyicepick #64 1 year ago

    I thought the opening movie was pretty cool

  • Paulie_P #65 1 year ago

    Certainly seems worth all the news articles and coverage this game has been receiving recently.

    Its tragic when games worth the attention get their coverage shoved aside/drowned out by this shit.

  • sirtacos #66 1 year ago

    Ha. Didn't expect this.

  • jake-123 #67 1 year ago

    well i was sorta looking forward to this till i read this rather negative review. still going to get it and see for myself what its like

  • Ryuken #68 1 year ago

    THQ to go bust off the back of this? Huge marketing campaign for gash game?

    There are plenty of other poor games with gigantic marketing campaigns and which do very well because of that. CoD being the main example here. Regardless of whether this review is right or wrong, the publisher who is shouting the hardest will win every time. Proven fact.

    No word on the PC extras for the multiplayer then?

  • Goodfella #69 1 year ago

    Shelves will be full of traded in copies next week, I guarantee it.

  • Machetazo #70 1 year ago

    My point of contention would be that they're continuing to charge £35+ premium for (maybe) half a worthwhile game. (Which, on the back of reviews reaching similar conclusions could struggle to gain/maintain much playerbase, anyway). I was looking forward to this, but there are better shooters in a similar vein, that don't make an utter pig's ear of it for me to waste much more time typing about this. /am disappoint.

  • Cronan #71 1 year ago

    It's now 72 on metacritic, which means it's fallen into the "no-one gets any bonuses" territory of "Mixed or average reviews".

    Seems fitting.

    (Correction, it's now fallen to 72)
    Edited by Cronan at 15/03/11 @ 17:57

  • NewbieZilla #72 1 year ago

    Lolfront.

    Edit: I can't wait for Metro 2034 though so I'm not a THQ hater by any measure. And was hoping this would turn out better. I mean the campaign, I couldn't give a toss about multiplayer.
    Edited by NewbieZilla at 15/03/11 @ 18:04

  • cowell #73 1 year ago

    Mediocre brown shooter is mediocre.

    Buying public, please go and spend your £40 on Deadly Premonition and de Blob 2 instead

  • jimr9999us #74 1 year ago

    Sad to see this score. THQ has always been a publisher I've respected for giving dev's a long leash, so I was really hoping this would be a home run.

    Seems as though the Activision/Blizzard world domination of the FPS/MMORPG genres continues. -sigh-

  • Cronan #75 1 year ago

    It's not the score that makes me sad, it's the game. I was hoping this would be good too.

  • siallen #76 1 year ago

    not sure hmmmm , tbh i am not bothered about the campaign in shooters i only play the online multiplayer , i will prob wait for crysis 2, brink and the BF3

  • ShriekNL #77 1 year ago

    I like this game. Well, the multiplayer anyway. And frankly, it only fails for most commenters here simply because it's not "CoD".

    Stop fooling yourselves.

  • weejok #78 1 year ago

    lol at everyone taking Eurogamers as the definitive review, like they never get it really wrong! I've already pre ordered this for £29.99 and will enjoy playing through it no matter what Eurogamer thinks, last year they reviewed Mafia 2 at 4/10 and that was one of my favourites so I don't put a lot of faith in their reviews.

  • Nillsens #79 1 year ago

    Saw that coming.

  • Welshnutter #80 1 year ago

    In my opinion they all deserve to lose their jobs this game has been hyped as a call o duty beater for ages not that c.o.d is any good anyway it totally sucks compared to battlefield ( sorry fan boys but it's the truth) any way I will probably still purchase homefront and make my own mind up I can allways part exchange it for crisis 2 next week!

  • Captain_Beardface #81 1 year ago

    Funny, almost every single criticism levelled at the game in this review could just as well be applied to Black Ops/Modern Warfare 2. Yet those games got 9/10.

  • Spekingur #82 1 year ago

    @Eraysor: What you on about? It's on Steam.

    As for people not saying it is plausible, I can agree. Though it isn't as if COD had a super plausible story either.
    The premise, as far as I understood it, is that the oil is basically running out and US main oil suppliers in the Middle East are having problems - such as civil wars, massive burning of fuel lines, etc. On top of that, a major bird flu epidemic sweeps over the US as well. Technically this could all happen. Realistically, I doubt it.

  • Drygore #83 1 year ago

    @Eraysor

    Not on Steam? Maybe not in the UK. It is here in Sweden though.

  • Welshnutter #84 1 year ago

    On another note I bilieve that eurogamers reviews are not always true to the cause they have given many games dodgy reviews and those games have ended up being rather enjoyable a lot of the reviews are bought anyway in my opinion if home front had the words call of duty in front of them then I have no doubt eurogamer would have given it a 9/10 but that's just my opinion make your own minds up people!

  • Murton #85 1 year ago

    Read the review and it's pretty much a summary of the last three CoD games, which are perfect 10s on Eurogamer but this gets a 6 simply for not being CoD as far as I can tell.

    Wasn't expecting much from this one myself if I'm honest, but I do get the feeling that the game has been reviewed as part of the FPS genre rather than on its own merits, which is not only bad reviewing but inconsistent with the approach to reviewing other similar games. Black Ops is just as guilty of taking the player down corridors to scripted events in open locations, has the same weak plot line, weak characters and short campaign but gets heaped with praise while review may as well have said "you don't need to buy this, you've already played it" seems very harsh.

    All that said, the battle points system sounds like a much better way of doling out advanced kit and skills, no more of this "I've been playing since day 1 and have pre-order bonuses, I win" and more "oh shit, you're actually good at shooters, you win" depending on weapons and maps this might actually be balanced, a novel concept in post-CoD FPS but HomeFront gets marked down for it, again, harsh.

  • Darren #86 1 year ago

    Ha, I predicted a 6 and a 6 is what the game got! Knew it wouldn't be much cop. :)

  • SIKFING #87 1 year ago

    I'm getting this for the MP and nothing else.

    Haven't finished the SP versions of any FPS since World at War, and that was only because I was off work poorly!

    The MP looks fun and that's all that matters to me. Yes it's not much different from Cod or BC2 but not much is these days so people need to stop crying off at the slightest whiff of an FPS game re-treading familiar ground ffs.

    If a 5 hour SP campaign gets your knickers in a twist, simply go play ME2 or Castlevania: LoS instead. Your not going to gain tons of satisfaction from an FPS.
    Not many FPS since the days of Half-Life have given a crap about the value they provide, so we should be used to it by now.

    My opinion is that Homefront will do rather well considering its marmite ratings at the moment. Granted it won't be the cod/bc2 killer that some may have hoped for, but by god it'll satisfy my need to play a "new fps" game until the next batch come along.

    And people calling other people "fools" etc for buying the likes of CoD and Homefront?, step down from the soapbox and go home to your pipes and slippers. Bloody grumpy bastys!!. People enjoy games that you don't, live with it instead of whining about it and hoping that someone gives enough of a shit to virtually pat you on the back.

  • Tryhard #88 1 year ago

    I have watched a few live streams of Homefront MP,the maps are huge on Ground Control.And while not holding the detail of Bad Company 2,they have a good design with no chokepoints.I like the Battle Point and Battle Commander idea.And this will be a filler till BF3.It looks a lot of fun with plenty of different tactics to use as you unlock things.

  • beastmaster #89 1 year ago

    A damning SP review. MP seems to have a few decent ideas. This game was always going to depend on 3 reviews for me.

    Edge and EG are in. That's enough for me to know that it's something I'm not going to invest any time & money in. Even an optimistic Games TM review won't sell it to me now.

  • man.the.king #90 1 year ago

    THQ should have spent more of their marketing budget on de Blob rather than this.

  • kristo #91 1 year ago

    Sounds pretty much like the last Modern Warfare campaign then. I'll pick it up, can't get enough FPS malarky. Just a shame they don't have the "marketing" budget as Activision. (ie: press junkets, etc etc)

  • inutaihanyou #92 1 year ago

    The game wasn't meant for Eurogamer, or even a gamer really. it was meant for Tea party idiots who would actually get ginned up about this sort of thing. Say what you want about MW2's story(it made not one lick of sense), but i have to say atleast all the elements BESIDES the overall plot came together, this seems like a travesty considering how much time THQ has invested into it

  • L1nc3 #93 1 year ago

    BF Bad Company 2 is my favourite game at the moment and has been since it came out.
    Campaign? SHITTY. Didn't bothered with it anymore after finishing level 2
    So, a 6 really isn't a 6 here if you buy your games with mp in mind. 'Cos I bet if anyone bought the now best selling game of all-time just for the sp, oh man! that must have hurt *BIG TIME*!

  • Daeltaja #94 1 year ago

    Ya know what? This will sell regardless of Metacritic scores. You only have to look at how well 'Sniper: Ghost Warrior' did.

    Guns = Sales. Welcome to modern day idiotsville.

  • makattack #95 1 year ago

    Eh... I took advantage of the OnLive offer of a free console with pre-order... so I effectively get this game + Metro2033 and a little streaming gaming device for the cost of one game.

  • Xboxfanuk #96 1 year ago

    Someone's not getting their Metacritic bonus at Kaos.

  • Jonny5Alive7 #97 1 year ago

    A harsh review, its certainly better than a 6/10. The single player is very enjoyable whilst it lasts. Its funny the review mentions Half-Life 2 because certain parts do have that HL2 atmosphere to it, the setting and the look are similar Haven't tried the multiplayer so can't comment on that.

  • carlitoswagon #98 1 year ago

    Always a fan of forming my own opinions, so will pick this up in a few weeks on the cheap. Don't care about the campaign as the last great single player shooter campaign was cod4. The rest have just copied and cloned a now tired formula.

    Sad that people are being negged for saying they'll buy this for mp. Hope some people come back to this thread and give some feedback regards online play. They'll be the people I'll listen to as some reviewers are really full of shite.

  • jumpdeveraux #99 1 year ago

    Despite the reviews I'd really like to try the MP... but there's no way I'm paying for the retail to do it at this stage.

    I wonder if THQ sees post-launch server activity ramp down (i.e. people try MP briefly then leave it) they will actually provide a MP demo?

    MP demo would certainly be the best incentive for me to potentially part with my cash if it's any good... until then it's wallet shut. I'd pick up in the bargain bin but first I'd want to see how active the MP side is at that point in time.

  • SniperZoz #100 1 year ago

    Pity!

  • CelticTerry #101 1 year ago

    I still think I'll get this, probably trade in Bulletstorm which I bought of the back of reading Eurogamers 9/10 review. Last time I'll trust Eurogamer when it comes to marking games.

  • Mr_Brown #102 1 year ago

    I've preordered this, 6/10 is not a bad score. I was only ever interested in the multiplayer and I never want the single player to last particularly long. I think alot of people (reviewers included) are being much too harsh on this game. It does not have the budget to match Crysis and COD. So many people have bemoaned the big franchises milking it's fanbase with yearly updates. Now is your chance to support a new franchise. It may only be a stop gap before battlefield 3 or crysis 2 but they are not charging £45 like other publishers are they? I genuinely believe Kaos deserve a break and with the right budget could create phenominal mp games.

  • digitalash #103 1 year ago

    I think this review might be a little too ready to take a pop at Americans for finding the idea of a war in their country terrifying.

    Imagine a game in which Iranian Jihadists run around Central London gunning down men, women and children; not so daffy now, right?

  • Spekingur #104 1 year ago

    In war there are no good guys.

  • frostcircus #105 1 year ago

    @digitalash Actually, that's plenty daffy

  • craziii #106 1 year ago

    seems like the main complain by the reviewer is that he couldn't relate to the story. the entire review seems to stem from that point.

    I feel sorry for devs.

    the scripted gameplay part is right on though. it really sucks. but then, it isn't like the other fps games aren't just as guilty. sirfuzzy's comment is spot on.

  • Stompy #107 1 year ago

    Post deleted at 23:13:35 17-04-2012

  • bosseye #108 1 year ago

    Heh, its pretty funny that everyones been reading half decent reviews of this everywhere else, along come Eurogamer and rip it to bits and for some reason its like they've written the definitive review!

    Personally with Mafia 2 only scoring a 4 (I thought it was a great game) and Dead Nation only getting a 6 (despite being awesome and only costing £10) I don't place much stock in Eurogamer reviews these days. Look at BLOPS, it was a deeply average game and got what, an 8 or 9? Ridiculous.

    Eurogamer may well be correct, but I'll make my own mind up on this, so I'll have Homefront on Friday, blast through the SP and try the MP then trade for Crysis 2 if required.
    Edited by bosseye at 16/03/11 @ 07:35

  • Sodding_Gamer #109 1 year ago

    The only thing this has going for it is the fact its a bunch of Americans trying to take their homeland back. And as I'm from the UK, I don't think I would give a flying f00000k about trying to take back America to be honest.

  • Murton #110 1 year ago

    "Large doses of kudos to EG for being pros about it."

    Couldn't disagree more. If EG were "pros" then the game would have been reviewed in isolation and not tainted by the inherent bias that lead to the perfect reviews for CoD. The description of the single player is remarkably similar to Black Ops or Modern Warfare 2 and the multiplayer actually sounds better from a gamer's standpoint but it gets 6/10 compared to 10/10

    A pro reviewer would be reviewing the game, not the brand and in this review it's quite clear that this is not the case as EG.
    Edited by Murton at 16/03/11 @ 08:13

  • SlackMaster #111 1 year ago

    TBH this didn't really interest me as IMO it didn't really look all that good.

  • Beek4257 #112 1 year ago

    @Murton
    Couldn't disagree more. If EG were "pros" then the game would have been reviewed in isolation and not tainted by the inherent bias that lead to the perfect reviews for CoD. The description of the single player is remarkably similar to Black Ops or Modern Warfare 2 and the multiplayer actually sounds better from a gamer's standpoint but it gets 6/10 compared to 10/10

    Black Ops and Modern Warfare didn't get 10/10 though, at least not on EG. Though I'm not really sure if that's what you meant with the above statement.

  • Nephirion #113 1 year ago

    As other posters have mentioned it is the inconsitency in the quality of the reviews that means its often hard to take the review scores seriously. Black Ops while being popular with the public was not really deserving such a high score, I begin to question that reviews are now more influenced by branding and media presentation than technical excellence and gameplay. Gaming sites sponsored through advertising have a conflict of interest when trying to be honest withy its readership.

  • jonbwfc #114 1 year ago

    "Why can't we ever get to play the OTHER side in a game too? Why is it fine to gun down Russians, Arabs or Koreans but the thought of shooting an American is massively controversial?"
    Well it's going to be if your biggest market is America. Which for English language corny shooters with bordering-on-the-paranoid exploitative plot lines, it certainly is. Travel to the middle east and you'll find locally produced games where Americans are the bad guys. It's all relative, y'know?


  • Retro_ #115 1 year ago

    It's not COD, that must be worth an extra point or two.

  • marcgiu #116 1 year ago

    Makes me laugh all these posters trying to justify their pre-orders. The rating looks about right (only acheived 7's on IGN, Gamespot and Videogamer + a B- on 1UP). Its just an average game that is not as good as BFBC and MW2 - Live with it

  • geeza2020 #117 1 year ago

    I think this game deserves the score its got, but that doesnt mean that I agree with all of EG's scores. As others have said if this gets a 6 then Black Ops has to get a 5 or 6 too because its arguably even less innovative and fresh, with just as many stale concepts as Homefront.

    But I wish people would stop bringing up the Mafia 2 review. The game was rubbish. I bought it as I loved the first game but unfortunately the open world genre had moved on since then and Mafia 2 failed to move with the times. The cars were all boring to drive, the weapons all felt over-powered and far too accurate for the time period and the story was full of cliched characters, and an uninspiring conclusion added to the overall impression that the game was just a bit rubbish and thoroughly deserving of that crusty 4 rating it got.

    Anyway, back on topic, Homefront; dont bother unless you havent played any fps games in the last 5 years, then it might seem fresh and exciting.

  • SomaticSense #118 1 year ago

    So, short, dated, average on-rails single player duck-shoot, with top quality (if you are so inclined, anyway) multiplayer.

    Did I just describe Homefront? Or any of the CoD games released in the last few years? Homefront gets slated as an 'average' game, whereas CoD gets spaffed over. Strange world.

    Like others have said, if this was a CoD game, the reviews this is getting wouldn't have been anywhere near as scathing.

  • TheEnforcer000 #119 1 year ago

    That's a shame

  • tehehe #120 1 year ago

    What an irony - in reality amerikans are like koreans in this game.

  • ArcticGabe #121 1 year ago

    I knew this was crap all along.

  • local_celebrity #122 1 year ago

    I'm sure this game had an amazing Metacritic score at the start of the week. 89 something. Now it's sliding down the charts like a slimy shit stain. This repeated flushing won't help matters.

    You gotta feel for for the THQ developers right now. That's their kid's college fund gone.

  • Luvbeers #123 1 year ago

    Funny how at the exact moment this review comes out, I can no longer cancel my pre-order with Game.

  • local_celebrity #124 1 year ago

    That's because GAME are complete cunts.

  • metalangel #125 1 year ago

    They're also the only shop with the preorder bonus.

    In other news, my copy arrived from bee.com today... just as I was getting ready for work. Fuck!

  • himmelsturmerIX #126 1 year ago

    I could not imagine non american would want to play this game. Face it, america is no victim, america is the bully.

  • TRUTH #127 1 year ago

    Street Fighter IV on Iphone for£0.59p from 15-22/03...All sales will be donated to Japan.

  • digitalash #128 1 year ago

    @frostcircus Not saying it's a likely possibility, or even possible in the near future. Just that it might make for a scary game. Children of Men, is about a Britain where the population is declining with no explanation, for example - silly sci-fi concept - but it feels scary because it's familiar.

  • shave_my_donkey #129 1 year ago

    im actually quite disappointed, the game looked like it could have an interesting (if unlikely) story and gameplay. like a stealthy gurrilea style fighting.....oh well il just play mass effect 2 through again

  • addyb #130 1 year ago

    Got my copy today from bee.com.(ps3 version) MP is fantastic, lots of fun and the battle points system works really well. In comparison it kind of handles like cod but in a battlefield environment. Graphically the game isn't brilliant, maybe on par with blops but to be honest once your in the heat of battle you don't really notice.

    Grenade throwing is a bit weird but melee attacks are well done. There seems to be a lot of snipers at the moment but you can soon turn the tide when playing battle commander mode. So for anyone who's like me, bored of cod, doesn't like KZ etc then this should keep you entertained for a while. Hit detection is brilliant and although the controls feel a tad clunkier than other fps's you soon adjust to it. As mentioned above the battle points system is inspired. Do you save up your points for a chopper or just buy a flak jacket mid round? Lots of customisation and load outs and pretty much enjoying all the maps. In fact the only gripe I have is that the standard TDM games only last around 5 mins which is a bit short for me.

    Haven't played the campaign yet so can't comment on that but I'd give the online a solid 8/10

    Edited by addyb at 16/03/11 @ 22:09

  • MagicM75 #131 1 year ago

    They should have been that brave to release this game as Multiplayer-only with a training "campaign", just to learn how to fight. I have played the former release of KAOS, Frontlines - Fuel of War and I liked the multiplayer there very much!!! I even like it more than Battlefield BC2, which I bought later. So, I´m very much looking forward to play the Multiplayer of Homefront - this has to be a great experience with al least 8/10 points!!! (Btw., I played Frontlines on the PC, I think on the XBox 360 is was not that good...)

  • busboy33 #132 1 year ago

    Been playing since launch, and when me and my friends can get into a match . . . its pretty fun.

    . . . HOWEVER . . .

    We can't get into a fucking game! 90% of attempts just boot us back to the main menu (or freeze our consoles) after 30 seconds of trying, and the rare times we do get in invariably half the squad can't make it (even though the game lobby shows them in the game. Want to quit out to re-group and try again? well, you quit to the main menu . . . so you have to re-form your entire party. Again. And again. And again. Given that the focus of the game was clearly on multiplayer, this is just insane.

    Matches suffer unplayable lag 30% of the time, and random glitches are rampant -- for example, spawning a vehicle but the camera remains fixed on your prone character, so you're trying to drive/fly without being able to see where you are going. Thanks for wasting your points. I've had 4 matches just dropped midway because I "lost connection to the host" -- and this after THQ and Kaos bragged about this game being run on dedicated servers.

    Like I said before, the (very) few times we've all been able to play a non-lagging match have been fun, and we're all desperate for a group game we can play besides Blops. But the situation, as it stands, is insulting. I have yet to get into a 32-player match unless I'm trying solo -- one single additional person in my party guarantees a100% failure rate.

    I am desperately trying to like this game, and to play it . . . but right now all I can muster is a blinding rage at how incredibly poorly the online functions.

  • addyb #133 1 year ago

    Weird!! A few of us bought HF on weds and we have all been fine connection wise. Not one hint of lag.

  • NHDavid #134 1 year ago

    I have playing it online a ton and it is fun.....MUCH better than Bulletstorm 9/10 which is complete and utter shite............

  • CelticTerry #135 1 year ago

    @Stompy I don't expect reviews to be personalised for me. My point is there is no way in hell Bulletstorm is 9/10 quality. It's incredibly average and repititive. Strange you called me up on mentioning the Bulletstorm rating when people have mentioned the scores on various other games.
    Edited by CelticTerry at 18/03/11 @ 09:51

  • Stuart78 #136 1 year ago

    Great game. hits the spot right inbetween COD and BFBC.. whichs suits me nicely! No lag problems abit slow in getting into a game but haven't been kicked out yet like Busboy33 is saying he's having problems with.
    Even single player is alot of Fun, and im glad It isn't that long or graphicly good cause it seems online is where this game is at!

    Also Why don't Online get review differently from single player?

  • Sir_STRESSHEaD #137 1 year ago

    "Weekend Timewaster" sounds about right. I'd go as far to say it's resposible for ruining my weekend!

  • DarthMartious #138 1 year ago

    This actually looks ok. I wouldn't pay 40 quid for it, but I don't pay 40 quid for any game given that most of them get dramatically reduced in price mere weeks after release. The idiocy of video game pricing strikes again - had this been released for £15 I'd have bought it already and I bet it would have reviewed more positively.

  • TheGuvernor #139 1 year ago

    Funny hearing all these comments hating on Bulletstorm.
    Played pretty much every military fps in the past decade & Bulletstorm is more fun than 80% of them.!
    There's a lot of depth to it - as stupid as that sounds given the whole vibe it has.
    Totally love it.

  • bosseye #140 1 year ago

    Yeah, I take it back. 6/10 is probably a little generous if anything - bad game. SP clocks in at barely 5 hours, so I was done the day after I bought it, which is ridiculous. Its clunky, slightly crappy looking and so linear it hurts. The whole 'destroyed americana' thing is fairly lightweight, theres very little here that makes you think America - genuinely that mission on MW2 was it, where you fight through the american suburbs to a set of restaurants etc was far better.

    And the MP, don't even get me started. Broken half the time either playing on your own or trying to join as a party, you'll just sit in the lobby waiting for '16 more players' which never materalise - when you do get in half the time you'll lose connection. If you do finally get a game you'll find dismal poorly balanced sub battlefield rubbish requiring no real skill, just run and gun. The Battlepoints isn't a bad idea, its just lost among the mediocrity.Looks terrible and the place is full of snipers as using a sniper rifle requires zero skill.

    Best thing about this game is the SP grenades, they're stupidly overpowered and fling bodies everywhere all doing that stock audio file 'man screeches' - its hilarious.

  • username84 #141 1 year ago

    Single player is baaaaad (and not in a good way)
    Multiplayer has promise I think. May be a slow burner but once I''ve dedicated a couple more hours it may really take off.

  • Madder-Max #142 1 year ago

    there are a load of us who regularly play Frontlines Fuel of War(a hardcore battlefield MP game) and everyone is really dissapointed by Homefront.

    All the unlockable crap and immersion killing on screen stuff just kills it and puts it in the category of COD clone.

    The only unlockables in Fuel of War are the class specialities which provdes just enough incentive to capture points and get kills. All vehicles are available from the off as well as drones if you have selected drone class. matches are 2 player to 64 player (on the Kaos servers) and are flexible enough to allow for teamwork and lone wolves. matches can last an hour and are totally immersive with many intricacies, rivalries etc building throughout the game.

    Its a real shame with Homefront that the frontlines lot who went to the trouble of buying this game were back on Frontlines within the same day. Says it all really. i think Homefront will fall by the wayside because it tried to be like cod
    Edited by Madder-Max at 22/03/11 @ 13:04

  • turkish150 #143 1 year ago

    This is probably on par with the first "Conflict" title games that i played on the PS2. Its shocking to think that they can produce something so lame and ask £40 for it. The 7 levels are a joke, the graphics are crap and the AI is terrible. Let me just say...Normal difficulty...died 3 times and it took me just short of 3 hours. Its safe to say THQ are going to have to bring something awsome out for me to buy anything of theirs again. I mean...have they not seen COD or BATTLEFIELD?? As for the Multiplayer...alot of people are saying that it justifies the lame singleplayer...it doesnt. Its just as shocking and is a blatent copycat approach..only a bad copy. And to think that i traded in my 6 year old's Viva Pinata (that she doesn't play on anymore) for this...I should have kept it!!

  • guardiant7 #144 1 year ago

    IMO it was a pretty good campaign. Mulitplayer is a lot of fun, too. This game, though, seems like a game you will either like a lot or dislike it entirely.