Homefront trailer plots "future history"

Published 15 March, 2011 Duration 3:01

"Begins today with war in the Middle East."

Comments (30) Latest comment 1 year ago

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

  • The-Bodybuilder #1 1 year ago

    The cynic within me would see this as some kind of Propaganda...
    The cynic within me.

  • coolbritannia #2 1 year ago

    Review time naow?

  • jonbwfc #3 1 year ago

    I'd be much happier if we had less of this Homefront-friendly marketing and, you know, a review. I'm sure there's nothing to be concluded from the fact this is one of those times where the review will be going up after most online orders have been dispatched (i.e. past the point of no return for gamers).

    Jon

  • coolbritannia #4 1 year ago

    Also, these are almost exactly the same as the intro to The Kingdom.

  • Spekingur #5 1 year ago

    jonbwfc: Most gaming sites do not have a review up, no diffirent for EG.

  • geeza2020 #6 1 year ago

    maybe I missed it in the trailer but where the hell are China supposed to be during all this? I'm pretty sure they would have something to say about Korea unifying then allying themselves with Japan. Something to say being a rather large kick in the balls. And I'm sorry, but even a unified Korea allied with Japan would be brushed aside by the american war machine. Let alone being able to invade the USA.

    Shit is weak.

  • Spekingur #7 1 year ago

    @geeza2020: If the US warmachine isn't properly oiled up then it won't move that much. But I agree on your point of China.
    Edited by Spekingur at 15/03/11 @ 10:28

  • carlitoswagon #8 1 year ago

    Have read a few reviews elsewhere. Singleplayer ok. Looks like a buy for the muliplayer and a whole lot of fun online. Don't care about graphics although reviews range from ; they're dated to it's a polished beast!??! Typical shite from reviewers.

    All reviews agree the mp is a winner, so not sure what EG will say.

    Edit: don't think I've ever read so many mixed reviews for a game. Edge (who talk shite) gave it 5/10.
    Edited by carlitoswagon at 15/03/11 @ 11:34

  • spekkeh #9 1 year ago

    I guess they did a good job of making the premise that a tiny impoverished country with very little technical prowess could colonize half of Asia and the US slightly believable.... but it's still a story of angsty US teenager girl desperately wanting to have some chinese up her funhole (c) zeropunctuation.

  • HisDudness #10 1 year ago

    Clearly China lost a civil war to Tibetan rebels, who then espoused a doctrine of trascendental peace, allowing North Korea to roll over them by making use of their vast resources and efficient central planning.

    Also I'm sure America's weakness is a product of Obama's second term...

  • Olemak #11 1 year ago

    Everything about this game setting seems stupid to me, espescially the korean domino theory.

    Looking forward to the review. It might still be good, somehow.

    Why don't they just replace Korea with China? Too controversial? Not "Innovative" enough, since Battlefield 2 already did that?

  • Eraysor #12 1 year ago

    I've been desperately trying to avoid buying this game, but that trailer is awesome.

  • RobotRocker #13 1 year ago

    jonbwfc: Most gaming sites do not have a review up, no diffirent for EG.

    Ooooh. Is it time to play "Guess which company has an online review embargo up till launch day because they are scared of the critical reception hammering their Metacritic score before release" now?

  • BBIAJ #14 1 year ago

    Homefront review goes up at 4pm this afternoon, as was stated elsewhere on EG yesterday in a comments thread.

  • evild_edd #15 1 year ago

    @SirFuzzyDunlop: "Can't help but laugh people moaning at the setting....will people claim that Star Trek is far fetched when it gets a new game?"

    I think the difference is that when something allies itself with current/recent events and use real footage then it's definitely pitching itself as realistic. Star Trek's (and a lot of other Sci-Fi's) setting way in to the future (or past - i.e. Star Wars; or alternate dimensions etc, etc....) rather takes attention away from the plausibility of the scenario.

    Definitely holes in the set-up of this, as others have said. Russia and China wouldn't be too happy having the main purchasers of their goods invaded by Korea. Unifying N & S Koreas by 2015? Good luck with that! I fancy the Israelis and palestinians to wake up and decide they're bum chums before that happens.

    Hell, let's even just think about the plausibility of a country that can't adequately feed the majority of its citizens invading a coutry that has the 3 largest military powers (more is spent on the US army, navy, and airforce individually than any other country's combined military program). Even fragmented, the US would pwn the Koreans.

    Still, it's a scenario designed for a videogame, and a game based on Korea building atomic weapons, then nuking the shit out of the wetern world as its country's infrastructure crumbles is far less interesting, even if it's a worryingly more plausible scenario...

    Despite the well made trailer and exposure I won't be buying this for 2 reasons:

    1. Meh. More CoD which became very dull since (and including) MW2
    2. 5/10 in Edge. In Edge reviews I trust.

  • BBIAJ #16 1 year ago

    @evild_edd:

    "2. 5/10 in Edge. In Edge reviews I trust."

    Methinks that's where you're going wrong! ;o)

  • spekkeh #17 1 year ago

    metacritic score starting to drop in advance of the embargo.

    I thought this would be a game squarely aimed at the American IGN populace, but even they give it "only" a 7 (in all other media critique this would be a very good score, but it's IGN so it's not a very good score).

  • mezzomorto #18 1 year ago

    Whatever can be said re the feasibility of the plot, with the way Saudi Arabia and Iran are currently squaring up over Bahrain, the mention of the "Saudi - Iran war" doesn't seem too far fetched unfortunately.

  • raloB #19 1 year ago

    Trailer or game intro.... 0_o

  • Eraysor #20 1 year ago

    Also, I don't know how anyone can complain about the setting. Firstly, it's not real. It's just there to make things interesting (which it evidently succeeds at by making people complain about it). Secondly, it's no less ridiculous than either of the last CoD storylines. I mean, in MW2 the US is invaded over one man being framed in a terrorist attack.
    Edited by Eraysor at 15/03/11 @ 12:23

  • CrispyLog #21 1 year ago

    That trailer needed Hell March in the background.

  • skowhegan Verified Staff Writer, Eurogamer Network #22 1 year ago

    @raloB

    Yeh, this is the opening to the game too. I rather like the vid - I'm a history nerd, especially prone to geeking out at alternate history stuff.

    Speaking of the opening to the game, we'll have the first 15 minutes up alongside the review.

  • Dave52 #23 1 year ago

    So... are the Americans Resistance Fighters or Insurgence...? I'm so confused...

  • jonbwfc #24 1 year ago

    I think the whole notion that an invading force - ANY invading force - could actively suppress the population of a country where more military grade hardware is in the hands of civilians than exists in any other army on earth bar two is just fatuous.

    Having said that, it's a game. Logic and Consistency isn't something games really do very much (let alone 'well').

  • Eraysor #25 1 year ago

    If you watch the earlier trailer, Kim Jong Un is portrayed by a completely different actor (see this video for example).

  • FWB #26 1 year ago

    A Chinese invasion would be infinitely more plausible. They could hide their troops in Walmart products, springing out in a coordinated assault across hickville America.