Face-Off: Homefront

By Richard Leadbetter Published 19 March, 2011

Korea advice.

Page 1 of 2
Xbox 360 PlayStation 3
Disc Size 6.0GB 6.4GB
Install 6.0GB 2048MB
Surround Support Dolby Digital Dolby Digital, DTS, 5.1LPCM, 7.1LPCM

The stakes have never been higher for games publishers and developers looking to break into a first-person shooter market dominated by Call of Duty, Halo and Battlefield. In just the last few weeks we've seen the likes of Sony and Epic try their luck, releasing two superb, well-received titles in the form of Killzone 3 and Bulletstorm that have failed to make a substantial impact on the charts despite prodigious development and marketing budgets.

This week it's squeaky bum time for THQ as Homefront launched to a range of mixed reviews, with Eurogamer awarding the title an above average 6/10. While multiplayer offered fresh new game modes and 32-player support (even on console), it seems that the weakness of the single-player campaign combined with its brevity has seen scores for the overall package come in lower than expected.

Technology plays a crucial part in the make-up of a first-person shooter. As we discussed recently in our Medal of Honor Face-Off, the heavy hitters in the genre tie the core experience to unique elements in their technological arsenal: Call of Duty relies heavily on its 60Hz precision response, for example, while Battlefield's Frostbite engine offers a currently unparalleled physics and destruction model combined with state-of-the-art visuals and expansive play areas.

Homefront is intriguing in that a lot of the investment has gone into setting up dedicated servers for all platforms, meaning that its greatest innovations are reserved for multiplayer only. So the technological edge is in the infrastructure and how this allows for a larger, more expansive range of gameplay possibilities. Unfortunately, it does seem that client-side Kaos appears to be lagging behind its competitors, and despite some impressive HDR lighting tech, the game struggles to exceed the visuals standards we've seen elsewhere. In this sense, in terms of both tech and art, Homefront comes up short.

Here's how the game looks on Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3, and in addition we also have a Homefront triple-format comparison gallery, adding the PC version to the mix.

Homefront: Xbox 360 vs. PS3. Use the full-screen button for 720p res, or click on the link below for a larger window.

Homefront is running on Unreal Engine 3, but it's fair to say that Kaos' extensive modifications to Epic's tech make this look quite unlike any UE3 title we've looked at to date. Probably the most noteworthy change to the overall presentation compared to other titles running on the engine is in the lighting: Homefront's HDR-style effects are often impressive, adding mood and atmosphere to the environments and an increased sensation of depth in the night-time scenes. The other key innovation we see is in the multiplayer mode - the sheer real estate in the maps is quite extraordinary. Think MAG rather than Black Ops.

However, it seems that the implementation of these features comes at a significant cost - Homefront runs at a reduced native resolution of 1024x576 on both console platforms, and while the Xbox 360 version of the game features 2x multi-sampling anti-aliasing to smooth off the edges, the PS3 version has none at all, emphasising the upscaled jaggies.

hdr-360
hdr-ps3

UE3's lighting model appears to have been replaced with custom code that produces some impressive effects, though the harsh contrast can serve to emphasis the PS3 version's lack of anti-aliasing.

It's rare that we come across a UE3-based title that isn't running at full 720p (if memory serves, Mortal Kombat vs. DC Universe was the last, and that was a necessity of its 60Hz update) and while the lighting does differentiate itself from the competition in terms of the game's overall look and feel, the resolution drop is a big hit. Kaos isn't alone in modifying Unreal Engine 3's basic lighting systems: EA's Danger Close studio managed to implement a full light pre-pass deferred rendering solution for Medal of Honor. But it still maintained a smooth frame-rate and full 720p resolution.

Performance analysis of both console versions of Homefront throws up some very weird stats. A basic given of Unreal Engine 3-based titles is that in most cases we see a target frame-rate of 30FPS, with v-sync dropped in stressful situations. Screen tear kicks in, but at least the gameplay remains fluid and as responsive as possible.

This state of affairs only seems to apply to the PlayStation 3 version of Homefront, with Kaos coming up with another solution for the Xbox 360 - namely, running the game with an uncapped frame-rate. The results are not so impressive. Homefront tears really, really badly on the Xbox 360 and while the player is getting more visual feedback from the game (control feels a touch smoother compared to the PS3 version), the impact to the image consistency is very significant indeed and definitely detrimental to the overall quality of the game.

Performance analysis shows higher frame-rates on Xbox 360, but an uncapped frame-rate leads to a significantly higher amount of screen-tear.

Based on performance alone, while the Xbox 360 version of Homefront offers higher frame-rates, the PS3 game could be considered the more consistent performer, and with the tearing significantly reduced (though still difficult to miss), that should make the decision of which version to buy very straightforward. Except things aren't so cut and dried, because there are some significant technical differences elsewhere.

First up, texture streaming. This particular weakness of the Unreal Engine 3 tech came to the fore in Mass Effect, where the sudden appearance of detailed art over ultra-low res placeholders had a profound impact on the look of the game. Epic addressed this with blended mip-mapping in Gears of War 2, an enhancement that sees the different quality assets merge, producing a much smoother look. Unfortunately, we don't see much of this in Homefront, where assets regularly stream in and pop up - something especially noticeable on Xbox 360 (even with a hard drive install) but still a factor on PlayStation 3.

The second major difference in the two console versions concerns the lighting model that divorces this game from a great many of its UE3-based competitors. Things are definitely brighter on PS3, but this doesn't seem to be down to any kind of artistic choice - it's more likely that occluding lights are turned off on the Sony platform, meaning that more subtle nuances in the lighting simply aren't being rendered, making the overall game look a bit more basic in comparison. In this respect, the PC version is a match for the 360 game.

lighting-360
lighting-ps3

What seems to be the omission of lighting occlusion on PlayStation 3 does seem to give Homefront a brighter, less complex look in certain situations compared to the Xbox 360 and PC versions of the game.

Page 1 of 2

Comments (59) Latest comment 1 year ago

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

  • MeBrains #1 1 year ago

    in the land of the blind, one eye is king.

    ps3 is clearly superior. ... no, it's 360. Wait, it's not.

    ah. I don't know - i get the games of my liking on the console I own and I hope everybody does.

  • Goodfella #2 1 year ago

    So, shit game looks shit on both consoles.

  • patchbox360 #3 1 year ago

    if ps3 wins- think about your xbox live friends list

    if 360 wins - 360 is awesome, get the definitive, superior version of this awesome game.

  • Paul_cz #4 1 year ago

    Honestly I don't understand how anyone can play these multiplatform games on console. It just feels so ugly and sluggish there compared to 60fps on PC, and when you add the ugly blurry/aliased graphics...ugh.PS3 is good for its exclusives, but other than that, one giant meh.
    Edited by Paul_cz at 19/03/11 @ 08:57

  • lockload #5 1 year ago

    No AA , less lighting effects and lower framerate. I feel sorry for ps3owners

  • roojames #6 1 year ago

    The answer is neither. Buy a good game. I dare you.

  • karooo #7 1 year ago

    "No AA , less lighting effects and lower framerate. I feel sorry for ps3owners"

    Unlike you they have other options, so you can enjoy this 'great game'.

  • smithdown #8 1 year ago

    @Paul_cz: Not every one has the time, money, knowledge or patience for PC gaming. I know I don't. I realise that to you PC gamers consoles seem like the fast food equivalent, and maybe you're right - they're convenient, cheap (as in in no ongoing costs once you bought the console), and they fill a game shaped hole! No need to judge.

  • Dewin #9 1 year ago

    My god you 360 trolls are up early. Its a crappy game on both systems. End of story.

    Get bulletstorm or, if you have a PS3, both bulletstorm and K3. Man i love having choices.
    Edited by Dewin at 19/03/11 @ 09:27

  • NotSoSlim #10 1 year ago

    Fanboys up bright and early. The game looks crap and has a criminal amount of tearing and yet people still claim victory.

    Wheres the Crysis face-off? :)

  • foreal #11 1 year ago

    Listen, DF. WE WANT A CRYSIS 2 PS3/360 FACE-OFF NOW! Screw Homefront. Game's already out... You should face-off with the aforementioned game instead before it goes on sale. Or EA told you not to? Come one, guys. That's why you exist: FOR THE PEOPLE.

    So tomorrow, then? Eh, DF? We want it now...plus it's a guaranteed hit, as I'm sure over a hundred thousand will view that thread.. MAkE iT hApPeN!!!

  • TheNinkyNonk #12 1 year ago

    Is it me or are we too heavily invested in UE3? It doesn't seem quite fit for purpose given it's little drawbacks here and there.

  • Paul_cz #13 1 year ago

    smithdown - fair enough. I actually have ps3...but I only use its for the exclusives like Uncharted 2/Heavy Rain etc (and even then, I wish they were PC exclusives instead..).

  • Graftonator #14 1 year ago

    @Smithdown "they're convenient, cheap (as in in no ongoing costs once you bought the console), "

    Most PC games are £10-£15 cheaper than their console counterparts and do not require an xbox live subscription. Over the 5 years of most consoles lifetime, most people will get 20-30 games? That's £200-£400 there. Possibly another £150-£200 for Xbox Live if you want to play online.

    Steam makes everything so easy (automatic updates to games you have downloaded) and the big sales are simply unbelievable! It also has crossgame chat and invites. For free.

    Gaming isn't cheap. IF PC gaming is more expensive then it's not by much and it looks and performs much better.

  • makeamazing #15 1 year ago

    Yeah i dont think you can complain about PC upgrade costs, because over the lifetime you will have probably made the money back to invest in the kit with the saving in games costs.

    I again looked at the videos and didnt see any major differences, Xbox looked slightly darker, but other than that, looked identical. Of course, they may look different when you take a single frame image and compare them... but i dont play my games like that :D

    I am surprised this far into the gen that screen tearing is still a problem though :(

  • metalangel #16 1 year ago

    Something I have noticed is that some sequence caused the framerate to downright chug. Playing on 360.

    (minor SP spoilers) There's a bit where you are confronted by a tank so you get Goliath to crash through the ground floor of a house to make an escape route. My framerate plunged during this sequence and I died a few times as a result, as I simply couldn't tell where I was going well enough to steer around obstacles, not aided by the tank's gunner shooting at me.

  • RobotRocker #17 1 year ago

    You forgot the best advice

    Don't buy Homefront

  • DozyKipper #18 1 year ago

    Thanks for confirming my suspicions. Game looked ghastly on my TV via PS3, had an inkling there was some big upscaling going on.

  • Syrette #19 1 year ago

    PC ftw then

  • FuzzyDuck #20 1 year ago

    BF: BC2 multiplayer is still very much alive and kicking.

    Bulletstorm is hands down the most fun i've ever had in single player with an FPS.

    There's no need for something like Homefront, especially if the game is a tech shambles on both consoles.

  • mr2ange #21 1 year ago

    Well through my eyes, it looks bloody horrible regardless of console.

    I guess this is really a win for the pc

    Edit - and I don't play any games on pc at all these days.
    Edited by mr2ange at 19/03/11 @ 11:27

  • Badassbab #22 1 year ago

    Hmmm.....on Lens of Truth screen shot comparisons all the PS3 fanboys were giving it a PS3 win, they won't be pleased with the full H2H.

    So for PC version....yeah as usual it will win if you have a goodish rig. BUT you can't rent games on PC from Lovefilm so unless I'm willing to buy the game (in this case definitely not), PC is out of the equation.

  • coolbritannia #23 1 year ago

    Fuzzyduck, I mostly agree, but Homefront looks to have it's charms in multiplayer. I play Bulletstrorm, Reach, BC2 and soon Crysis 2 however, so Homefront unfortunately doesn't get a look in.

    I am amused by the rising chant of the PC brigade as the consoles approach the last years of their relevant lifecycles. The fanboy wars are halo, Xbots battling valiantly against the growing numbers of Sony Defence Force zealots, only to be faced with an even greater menace, the PC fanboy society!

    *sticky nades self

  • HokutoNoKen #24 1 year ago

    For anybody who's interested, MAG data:

    1280x720 with 2xMSAA (14Mb) + HDR + vsync (zero tearing) + triple buffering @ 30 fps with 256 players online.

    compared to 1024x576 with 2xMSAA (exactly 9Mb)...

    / Ken

  • GooseUK #25 1 year ago

    The answer is - wait for Crysis 2 next week, have a game with excellent graphics, and interesting storyline and that does something a bit different (suit powers) than most other fps

  • technicianTed #26 1 year ago

    Mag looked a bit rubbish though ken i have to admit.
    Despite the decent specs you mention.

    Badassbab,i saw the lens of truth screenshot comparison and you're right,most people were raving about the ps3 version.
    Surprised me a little bit as it was only screenshots after all.


  • pantherjag #27 1 year ago

    It seems to me like you can have the 360 version with a couple of major probs(heavy screen tearing,bad texture pop in) and minor prob of inconsistent framerate............or you can have the ps3 version which has 5-6 minor probs(frame rate dips, minor screen tearing, lack of AA, lighting, textures) most off which are not noticeable.

    Call it a draw shall we???

    Either way is not exactly a pretty looking game but looks quite fun

  • HokutoNoKen #28 1 year ago

    @technicianTed

    If you think MAG looks a bit rubbish I can't imagine what you think about Homefront, which is sub-HD, has allot of tearing, texture streaming popup, only 32 players online, doesnt support 7.1PCM and so on...

    At least MAG looks better then Modern Warefare 2, cheers!

    / Ken

  • Zerobob #29 1 year ago

    Am I the only one baffled by the conclusion?

    "What seems to be the omission of lighting occlusion on PlayStation 3 does seem to give Homefront a brighter, less complex look in certain situations compared to the Xbox 360 and PC versions"

    "The rendering of the ground in the top shots suggests that Xbox 360 has an advantage when it comes to texture filtering."

    There are huge differences in the graphics department from the screenshots, one of the biggest I've ever seen between 360 and PS3 versions of a game.

    "Multiplayer is also where Xbox 360 can claim extra credit: it has an extra map and first dibs on the DLC. "

    So multiplayer has its advantages on the 360.

    "In theory, the Xbox 360 game with its more refined graphics and higher performance level should emerge triumphant, but the uncapped frame-rate really impacts the quality of the visuals."

    "For its part, the PS3 is also prone to intrusive tearing, which occurs when it shifts below 30FPS - unfortunately, in the thick of the action, this is a frequent occurrence. "

    So the 360 version's framerate is uncapped but prone to tearing, while the PS3 version's framerate is capped but is still also prone to a fair bit of tearing, so there doesn't seem to be a major advantage to the capped framerate on the PS3.

    "Conclusion:
    If you own both HD consoles and you're wondering which SKU to invest in, it's fair to say that online is the deciding factor..."

    OK so in the conclusion seems to be trying to say both 360 and PS3 versions of the game are flawed, so just get it for whichever console you have the most friends on, but that simply isn't the issue in question, the issue being which is the better version.

    As I interpreted the findings yes, of course, the PC version runs away with it, but the 360 version seems hands down the better console version, yet this wasn't concluded whatsoever. Curious.

  • americorloliveira #30 1 year ago

    In the Screen shots from LoT there are huge diferences in the friend face´s geometry, the PC and PS3 has more detail.
    In this H2H there is no mention to that.
    What hapend? No diferences?

  • technicianTed #31 1 year ago

    I'm not comparing Homefront to Mag ken, i'm just saying i wasn't impressed by Mag.

    Homefront looks rubbish.

  • kirankara #32 1 year ago

    whinging blah blah, 360 better fuck yeah, ps3 version whooo, pc wins, grrr , fuck u pc snobs, Killzone 3 beats anything on 360, 360 wins face off again ha ha, ad infinitum.

    The above doesn't apply to everyone of course, and i enjoy this section as i usually learn something from mostr of u, and ur opinions are usually interesting, but wtf is wrong with the people that above applies to???

    The latest thing seems to neg anyone who has an opinion, not even fan boy comments, just opinions, its retarded man.

    Anyway, cant disagree to much with face off, although as others have pointed out, it seems slightly 360 orientated, and seems to omit other stuff lot pointed out. Ultimately though, who cares, its ugly ass game on all formats. It has its fans for gameplay(and haters), but no one is going to show this off to their mates as a looker for their format, its like the ugly girlfriend no one tells their friends about, but gives a visit to when they need some "loving"

  • pantherjag #33 1 year ago

    @zerobob

    The conclusion essentially is thats is a draw, yes whilst the PS3 has more disadvantages than the 360 they mostly are of a minor nature, for example the texture filtering isnt noticeable unless looked for specifically and even then their not conclusive they only suggest 360 is better in that regard. The minor lighting and AA differences also dont effect gameplay.

    The 360's problems are more critical to the game than the PS3 minor missing elements. Whilst the PS3 screen tears as well the article does state that the 360's uncapped frame rate does cause "significantly" more tearing. It also has bad texture pop in compared to PS3 these are both problems that are very noticeable and impact playing the game. Plus digital foundary has never liked uncapped frame rates. It was the same in Test drive 2, ps3 was uncapped and often higher than 360 but it was critisised for giving a juttery feel(i disagreed with that though), same thing here i guess.

    looks a tad nicer on 360 but plays a tad better on PS3...........A draw
    Edited by pantherjag at 19/03/11 @ 12:55

  • inutaihanyou #34 1 year ago

    Nobody won, they're both crap, the game is crap infact. So just skip Homefront and a buy an actual good game for your console of choice be it 360, PS3 or PC

  • rojjer #35 1 year ago

    @inutaihanyou

    I for one am glad that dipshits like you aren't playing this game. Its a refreshing change to the FPS genre, with a leaning to battlepoints rather than things like killstreaks to let you dynamically add weapons and vehicles on the fly in the game. No dancing around the helipad and teamkilling/blowing up the chopper to get 'first dibs'

    And hey - I've actually played the game so I can pass comment on it properly.

    As for which platform is better, I don't know but the PS3 appears to have more lockups/freezes for whatever reason so I went for 360 version.

  • L1nc3 #36 1 year ago

    For the pc savvy out there

    "To reach the heights of 1080p60 at the same extreme level you'll be looking for a fast i7 in combination with an NVIDIA GTX580 or similar"

    He's kidding right? LOL
    This, although modified, is a ut3 engine. You'd be running at nearly 100fps (with everything maxed out) with a configuration like that.
    Also, is he biased? Why nvidia? AMD has equally impressive hardware, AND cheaper.

    p.s.: I'm a nvidia owner, but DF constantly acts as though AMD doesn't exist.
    Just sayin'

  • M1chl #37 1 year ago

    Isn't this worst looking "A" game to this date? The screens is terrible, I mean f*cking terrible. Worse than CoD, which is 60FPS game. Looks like poor job overall...

  • onezeonx #38 1 year ago

    Most of the idiots in here saying Homefront is crap haven't even played it.

    Why don't you play the game and decide other than read others comments and then "knowing" it's shit.

    All quite sad...

  • Sharzam #39 1 year ago

    You mention Sli, but what is the situation with crossfire you know that 'other' multi GPU setup.

    Regards to settings and the needed card i am not 100% sure how AMD stack up against Nvidea but would i be right in thinking my 6950 2gb is more than enourgh or does it have to be Nvidea.

    edit: Iam using a phenmon x4 965 as my CPU if that matters. Just thought mention it as state a i7 which i thought was massively pointless in gaming as the CPU is rarely the bottleneck.
    Edited by Sharzam at 19/03/11 @ 14:19

  • Whizzo #40 1 year ago

    For a game that's supposed to have shedloads of tearing on the 360 version I can't remember noticing it playing the entire single player campaign (not a particularly long experience of course) nor while playing a fair amount of MP. I'm not tearing blind either, I can spot it at 10 yards in thick fog, a strange way of playing games I'll admit.

    There are some frame rate drops when it's obviously not for cinematic reasons in SP but I've not experienced any in MP.

    Homefront isn't the second coming of FPS games but for anyone wanting Frontlines 2, it's here.
    Edited by Whizzo at 19/03/11 @ 14:27

  • bluetoothion #41 1 year ago

    The game looks quite bad for todays standards both on pc and consoles....i call it a waste of DFs time to make a face-off. A simple review to the play-ability of the game as this is FPS No 5380..sth available to us would be enough.

  • billy-beauts #42 1 year ago

    It's quite funny to look at all the sad losers who can't afford a decent new shooter to have a bit of fun over the weekend, and instead have to come on here and say oh it'd bloody terrible blah blah blah.

  • Lince #43 1 year ago

    is there any Unreal Engine 3 based game that performs/looks better on the PS3? definitely that engine is not pushing the hardware at all, waste of Cell.

  • sybixsus #44 1 year ago

    So when did 6/10 become "above average" again? I thought on the new advertiser-friendly review scales, 6/10 was the lowest score you can safely give without publishers having a conniption.

  • BlinkeredAxis #45 1 year ago

    This far into a console lifecycle, I'd be stunned if PC versions weren't visually better. However, it's hard to go back to the rickety office chair, 20 inch screen, and triggerless, soulless feel of a mouse and keyboard. I know this combo is more responsive than a console controller, but for me it doesn't feel right anymore. The trigger is king for FPS.

  • Bluetooth #46 1 year ago

    Just buy the cheapest version at the time, the PS3 prices tend to drop quicker

  • Sunyavadin #47 1 year ago

    Since Glenn Beck doesn't have a show on this side of the Atlantic, nobody is actually going to BUY this colossal turd of a game. So there's really no point in a comparison. Not unless EG plan on doing new face offs such as "being hit in the face with a cricket bat vs being hit in the face with a baseball bat" or "Being kicked in the balls with someone's left foot vs being kicked in the balls with their right" - and who would miss out on the classic "Stepping in someone's puked up kebab vs stepping in their vomited up pizza, on a saturday night out in town"

  • womble #48 1 year ago

    @badassbab

    "Hmmm.....on Lens of Truth screen shot comparisons all the PS3 fanboys were giving it a PS3 win, they won't be pleased with the full H2H."

    Yet another reason why LoT's "analysis" doesn't even compare to DF.

    Judging games by screenshots, heh. What's the point? Might as well review movies based on their publicity shots or the poster.

    Sadly, this game looks like a lemon. Jaggies AND low-res AND average gameplay AND tearing AND an extremely short campaign. Wow, that's just bad. I think it's lucky to get a 6/10.

  • orangpelupa #49 1 year ago

    @BlinkeredAxis
    why not plug your PC to the TV and use xbox gamepad?

    my Xbox and PC share 1 TV and its works. sometime i plug my laptop there too.

  • coldfoot #50 1 year ago

    orangelupa: Because you'll get owned badly if you play multiplayer on the PC like that.

  • Darksjeik #51 1 year ago

    I have both consoles and played both versions. I found in this case the PS3 version has the edge. It has a better clarity to the picture.

  • weejok #52 1 year ago

    The game looks like shite and doesn't even deserve a face-off. I got it last week and sold it 24 hours later. Pile of wank!

  • WJF #53 1 year ago

    'This, although modified, is a ut3 engine. You'd be running at nearly 100fps (with everything maxed out) with a configuration like that. '

    Yeah, that struck me as a bit overkill, too. My guess is that DF don't have a machine anywhere near the 'cutting edge' so need to overstate the specs in case they get an angry i3/mid-range card owner come on and complain. That's fine and all, but it may be misleading to those looking to get a decent gaming PC in the near future without overspending.

  • sfp_noodle #54 1 year ago

    So in conclusion, if you have a PS3, buy Killzone 3. If your on 360, stick with Halo Reach. To the people telling us to shut up and buy it before commenting - why? Why sould we waste £40 on an average game (currently just above a 70 rating on both consoles on metacritic) when there are so many better alternatives available in the shooter market? I suspect this game will suffer the same fate as Medal of Honor in that the servers will be empty within 2-3 months of release. It's just not worth the investment when it does nothing new other than increase the overall player count in MP matches.

  • KrispyBacon #55 1 year ago

    Shame Eurogamer don't do a online multiplayer rating because the game is broken. My ps3 locks up every single game.Thank god I rented it.

  • ThaneKrios #56 1 year ago

    This game is fucking ugly.

  • IneptPercy #57 1 year ago

    I am another where the PC shares the TV and sit back with the 360 controller,

    "Because you'll get owned badly if you play multiplayer on the PC like that."

    I will admit this is very true, but I have also find that keyboard and mouse just doesn't work for me anyway so I get owned either way, in short I nots play FPS's online and stick to racers, with that I hardly play online as I prefer single player anyway.

  • Quixz #58 1 year ago

    A bad game is a bad game regardless of platform.

  • americorloliveira #59 1 year ago

    The H2H from Lens of Truth is out, compare to this one and draw your conclusions.
    In my opinion there is valids point in the 2, but DF does not comments the diferences in the faces. ;)