Just played for a short while but uhm my earlier mentioned concern stays, heavy ground vehicles are totally pointless. You just instant buy a rocket launcher and then bomb them to hell, its just wayyyy too easy.
I rented the game to 'try it before buying'. Where is the battle code for MP past level 5? Is it on a separate piece of paper that comes with the game?
Any of you hardcore BF:BC2 guys in here? Please tell me you are loving the MP. That's the main reason I bought this thing. I just received it from UPS (360), installed it, and now I'm waiting to get done with work and put the baby to bed so I can play.
While I'm not a BC2 "nut", I do prefer the teamwork style of play to the run and gun style of CoD games. That's why I was really happy they went more BC2 route. The shooting isn't as good, but you get the feeling that you're part of something larger going on in the multiplayer, something you don't usually see on console shooters.
I'm a little disappointed overall, but what intrigued me was the story, and I have enjoyed it so far. Alas, we will probably never get Freedom Fighters 2.
While I'm not a BC2 "nut", I do prefer the teamwork style of play to the run and gun style of CoD games. That's why I was really happy they went more BC2 route. The shooting isn't as good, but you get the feeling that you're part of something larger going on in the multiplayer, something you don't usually see on console shooters.
I'm a little disappointed overall, but what intrigued me was the story, and I have enjoyed it so far. Alas, we will probably never get Freedom Fighters 2.
Cool - thanks! That's precisely my take on MP shooters...would rather do team-based/role-based stuff versus just run n' shoot. I won't even touch Homefront's SP. I have played over 300 hours of BF:BC2 MP and I've only beat the first two levels of the SP, lol.
CAW said:
I rented the game to 'try it before buying'. Where is the battle code for MP past level 5? Is it on a separate piece of paper that comes with the game?
It's like the EA Online Pass-kinda thing. Yes, it's a code in the box. I assume they'll have something on the console marketplaces too (if they aren't up there already).
It's like the EA Online Pass-kinda thing. Yes, it's a code in the box. I assume they'll have something on the console marketplaces too (if they aren't up there already).
Yep, just called the manager (she's super friendly) and she found the cards that were taken out of the rental and gave me the code. The people at the local Blockbuster by my house are cool like that. w00t!
Any of you hardcore BF:BC2 guys in here? Please tell me you are loving the MP. That's the main reason I bought this thing. I just received it from UPS (360), installed it, and now I'm waiting to get done with work and put the baby to bed so I can play.
I was all over BC2's nuts, so I guess I fit the bill. I'm enjoying it so far. I played for a few hours and had good first impressions, but I sort of see it as a MP with a ton of potential that may not be capitalized on yet.
Lack of destruction hurts, but in terms of a team game and the actual mechanics of MP (the BP, battle commander, Ground Control, the guns), I'm more than happy with my purchase (so far). Really hoping this gets some good post-launch support.
So, not LOVING it yet, but that may just be because I got stuck in too many TDM matches last night, haha. Ground Control is a blast but, as stated earlier, way too short. Hopefully that will change.
desu said:
Just played for a short while but uhm my earlier mentioned concern stays, heavy ground vehicles are totally pointless. You just instant buy a rocket launcher and then bomb them to hell, its just wayyyy too easy.
WOW @ Chapter 5 "Heartland". Large, expansive areas with nice detail in the environments, varied gameplay...sneaky sniping ala COD, normal fire fights, sniping on a perch to cover teammates, awesome. The openness of this area kind of reminded me of HL2. The previous chapters have been very linear (not a bad thing, just saying).
doomed1 said:
Just played through the SP, and Kaos, I am disappoint. Four hour campaign? Really, a FOUR HOUR campaign for such a charged story with the writer from Red Dawn and Apocalypse Now?? Seriously, that's just wasted potential right there. And the other issue is that the game VERY RARELY explored the scale and scope of this invasion and occupation. The environment design was very "open" while still managing to feel claustrophobic, but not in a good way. I got no sense of the continued suburban landscape. And no city fighting either? Seriously, it's all very narrow, and it's a shame too.
Sounds like you had tunnel-vision. I've explored every area well and picked up like 35 newspapers so far (just finished chapter 5 and have 2 left). It says I've played for 5 hours... let's say you take a half hour off for my OCD-ish exploring and it's still over 4 with a couple chapters left. I don't mind the length because the MP will give me tons of value.
Sounds like you had tunnel-vision. I've explored every area well and picked up like 35 newspapers so far (just finished chapter 5 and have 2 left). It says I've played for 5 hours... let's say you take a half hour off for my OCD-ish exploring and it's still over 4 with a couple chapters left. I don't mind the length because the MP will give me tons of value.
Default difficulty. I seriously played the game, without any intention on beating it in one sitting and just kept going, didn't die much and took it down really quickly.
So, did anyone notice the QR code at the beginning of the second mission in the house. I put my QR reader up to it, and it downloaded a PDF file of how the North Korean government poisoned the Mississippi River to split the country in two.
They had help from Americans. Man, fuck those assholes.
I felt like it had a great start and a great atmosphere that sent chills up my spine.
Watching normal citizens killed in horrific ways on suburban streets hit me pretty hard and I was sold on the game instantly
.
Unfortunately the game is never able to hit those high notes again and what follows is a series of missions with little explanation and a culmination that feels half-baked. The final mission really lets the air out of the entire game and screams "SEQUEL!" when it should have been the preamble to the last third of the game.
You also go from "realistic" or at least believable enemies to
fighting what basically looks like Stormtroopers on top of the Golden Gate Bridge. All of a sudden the game just takes this weird space sci-fi turn in terms of the enemies and completely ignores the type of believable North Koreans you've been fighting from suburban strip malls to America's highways.
The game had a real possibility to be a good, but story-wise it just never takes off.
Also, it's really hitchy... sound issues with characters talking over each other (Character A says something, Character B starts responding before Character A has even told Character B what is wrong), odd animations, etc.
Graphics wise, it's just very poor. If you want to compete with today's games and stand out, you need to be as good as today's games and it's just not. Muddy, pixelated and unclear textures rob the game of atmosphere. For instance, there's a board full of pictures and messages that people had posted for missing family members. I wanted to go up and see what they were, but as I got closer, I realized it was just a mess and nothing was clear. I couldn't read the text, could barely see pictures.
Edit: Props to the editor and team that put together the opening cinema. That really grabbed me when I played. It's tense, instructional and gives you everything you need to know about the world.
Whether or not you decide to pick up Homefront should rely entirely on how much you want to play its multiplayer. It's not quite exciting or remarkable enough to trump the current giants of online dude-shooting, but it's a solidly crafted mode made comparatively impressive by just how tremendously mediocre the game's single-player campaign proves to be. Kaos obviously had ideas for this game, yet seemingly couldn't bring any of those ideas to total fruition. The end result is a brief, brittle campaign bereft of impactful storytelling or creatively designed action, one that ends not with a bang, but with the build-up to a bang, followed by a title card.
I think reviewers are being way too harsh on this game. The multi-player seems to get like barely any weight at all in the review scores, despite being what most of us will spend 90% of our time in.
Thank god I only rented this game. It looks and plays like something made 3 or 4 years ago. Mind you I have not touched multiplayer but I do not think it will be able to change my opinion because the gameplay feels clunky and gunplay feels unsatisfying. I have only played about 3 hours of the campaign but from what I have read, I almost at the end. For those of you on the fence, I highly suggest you rent it first or wait for more user impressions. At this point anything above a 5 rating seems generous.
I think reviewers are being way too harsh on this game. The multi-player seems to get like barely any weight at all in the review scores, despite being what most of us will spend 90% of our time in.
Since they said "expert gamers" can beat it in 5 hours, I've started calling myself a "super expert gamer."
Dangerstepp, one thing you need to know is that a pre-release review for multiplayer can be a bit rough. Not necessarily in this case, but with all games. Often a developer doesn't turn on servers until the day of release or there aren't enough people playing online to get a good impression, etc.
There are a lot of things that go against multiplayer reviews. I'm not saying this was the case with Homefront, I'm just saying it's not always cut and dry.
If THQ wnts to compete, they need to pump more money into it. From the first trailer it was pretty clear that his game couldnt never reach something like CoD/Bf (at least in graphics and texture regions) since it looks like a 2005 game.
I'm a BC2 nut. 700+ hours. I hate the MP in this. It feels like it rewards camping.
I'd pass if you're planning on buying it for the MP. My main gripe is that health is so low, and 1/2 of all teams are snipers, since in most cases it's 1 hit-1 kill, there's no sway to the rifles, and basically no skill in it. Just find a nice spot on the edge of the map, go prone, and watch your K/D ratio go up. It's more CoD than Battlefield. I haven't played the SP that much, but I like what I've seen so far.
Dangerstepp, one thing you need to know is that a pre-release review for multiplayer can be a bit rough. Not necessarily in this case, but with all games. Often a developer doesn't turn on servers until the day of release or there aren't enough people playing online to get a good impression, etc.
There are a lot of things that go against multiplayer reviews. I'm not saying this was the case with Homefront, I'm just saying it's not always cut and dry.
True, but it didn't stop thorough MP reviews for AAA titles like BC2 and MW2.
Honestly, the campaign could be utter dogshit and I wouldn't care. I'm not saying the MP is gold yet, but these reviews seem to suddenly consider SP campaigns important, after the dogshit that was BC2 and MW2 (SP, that is).
I think reviewers are being way too harsh on this game. The multi-player seems to get like barely any weight at all in the review scores, despite being what most of us will spend 90% of our time in.
What proof tells you this is the case? I think it was around half of Call of Duty purchasers have played the game online (at least 1 time). I can dig for the article. Why would you think 90% of Homefront players only play it for the online?
Well, it's their own fault for hyping the SP like the second coming. It just doesn't have the production values that people have come to expect in the genre.
edit: BF3 maybe. Brink doesn't have a prayer.
SirButterstick said:
I'm a BC2 nut. 700+ hours. I hate the MP in this. It feels like it rewards camping.
I'd pass if you're planning on buying it for the MP. My main gripe is that health is so low, and 1/2 of all teams are snipers, since in most cases it's 1 hit-1 kill, there's no sway to the rifles, and basically no skill in it. Just find a nice spot on the edge of the map, go prone, and watch your K/D ratio go up. It's more CoD than Battlefield. I haven't played the SP that much, but I like what I've seen so far.
I am torn on whether or not to pick this up......for every good thing I hear there's another complaint to go along with it....I am a big fan of BC2 so I guess I would enjoy this multiplayer... tough decision
Since they said "expert gamers" can beat it in 5 hours, I've started calling myself a "super expert gamer."
Dangerstepp, one thing you need to know is that a pre-release review for multiplayer can be a bit rough. Not necessarily in this case, but with all games. Often a developer doesn't turn on servers until the day of release or there aren't enough people playing online to get a good impression, etc.
There are a lot of things that go against multiplayer reviews. I'm not saying this was the case with Homefront, I'm just saying it's not always cut and dry.
Yeah, I understand that the conditions for reviewing a multiplayer heavy game are rarely sexy. I suppose I just find it disheartening how difficult it is find a thorough review that was given a little more time after the servers are up. Especially if the majority of the product banks on MP. I'm sure you see where I'm coming from; no fingers being pointed at anyone in particular.
What proof tells you this is the case? I think it was around half of Call of Duty purchasers have played the game online (at least 1 time). I can dig for the article. Why would you think 90% of Homefront players only play it for the online?
Just do the math. If the single player experience is 5 hours long, and people put in 70+ hours of online (I do much more for my favorite FPSs), then its' a fair statement to say that 90% of the time spent with the game will be online. And I agree - I don't give two shits about single player. I bought Homefront solely for the MP. If it sucks, then I'll flip it back to Amazon for $40 or something.
I am torn on whether or not to pick this up......for every good thing I hear there's another complaint to go along with it....I am a big fan of BC2 so I guess I would enjoy this multiplayer... tough decision
Want single-player? Don't buy it, or wait until it is $15 on Steam.
Want multi-player? It's worthy, feels good, and has some interesting ideas. If you're not into any other online game at the moment, you'll probably enjoy it.
Just do the math. If the single player experience is 5 hours long, and people put in 70+ hours of online (I do much more for my favorite FPSs), then its' a fair statement to say that 90% of the time spent with the game will be online. And I agree - I don't give two shits about single player. I bought Homefront solely for the MP. If it sucks, then I'll flip it back to Amazon for $40 or something.
Your logic is faulty. About 50% of Call of Duty players never play multiplayer ever. Single-player campaign and you're done. I am asking why you would assume over 90% of people who purchase Homefront will try the multiplayer while barely 50% even try Call of Duty's, a franchise that is widely known specifically for it's strong multiplayer?
Totally do. It's disheartening all around and a vicious cycle.
The sites need to get their reviews up to get the traffic to get ad revenue, they post as quickly as possible and often times don't do as good a job as they can.
The publishers and PR people punish and reward based on a variety of factors. Often speed is seen as a positive thing to maximize buzz on opening day. The problem is that they don't get games into reviewers' hands far enough in advance; then they wonder why sites can't plow through 15 hour games in a day or two to get their reviews up.
Those twitter posts are so unnecessary and disgusting. I am ashamed at him on behalf of the rest of DICE. I suspect they won't last very long up there before EA gives him a "talking to."
.
