Source: Youtube Channel IGNentertainment
Developer: Kaos Studios, Digital Extremes (PC)
Publisher: THQ
Platforms: PC, Playstation 3, Xbox 360
Release Date: March 15, 2011
Genre: First-Person Shooter
Pros:
-The game wasn't revolutionary, but it was fun
-Multiplayer was a nice blend of Call of Duty's fast-paced action and Battlefield's vehicular warfare
-The class and point system in multiplayer encourages using all classes and learning their role
Cons:
-Single-player Campaign took only 4 hours to complete
-The game's graphics is still not optimized (for the PC version) just like previous games like Frontlines: Fuel of War
-Maps were sometimes too large for on-foot fighting and too small for vehicular warfare
-Servers were laggy when there were a large amount of players connected
-Multiplayer is completely dead now (On PC at least)
With the controversial (even if it is fictional) plot the game is set in and Kaos Studios' previous mediocre game Frontlines: Fuel of War, I wasn't sure what to expect out of their newest creation Homefront. After watching some trailers, I was finally convinced to try it out and added it to my list of most anticipated games of 2011. The single-player wasn't revolutionary and is what one would expect from a typical military tactical shooter campaign, but it was at least pretty fun. The problem was that it only lasted for 4 measly hours. Multiplayer was interesting with the ability to use vehicles, special equipment, and choose from different classes; however, there were problems with lag and level design. Homefront is still being sold for $30+. With a 4 hour campaign and a dead multiplayer, there is less of a reason to get the game than when it was $60 when it still had a decent multiplayer. Possibly the biggest problem it probably faced was that it was sold at a price that didn’t reflect the expectations gamers had for it. If you just want to play the campaign for the experience, play it at a friend’s house or rent it.
Aesthetics
Anyone who has played a modern-warfare military tactical shooter should be familiar with the controls, thematic look, HUDs, and story concepts. The game is mostly set in urban streets and houses of
Buttons
As mentioned in Aesthetics, anyone who’s played a modern-warfare military tactical shooter should feel at home. Campaign feels a lot like Call of Duty or Battlefield Bad Company’s style of singe-player with cinematics, point-to-point objectives, and vehicle chases. The controls are the same with aiming-down-sight (ADS) system, sprinting, crouching, etc. Some of the differences would be the equipments in both campaign and multiplayer. There are certain computer controlled vehicles the player can command using devices to target enemies or mini-copters, etc. There was nothing really new about the concepts and controls which was alright because it worked for the game. Anyone who was familiar with First-Person Shooters could easily pick up the game and know how to play it albeit learning the maps and new equipment for multiplayer. Buttons: 8/10
Concept and Content
Homefront isn’t as unique as Kaos Studios’ previous games Frontlines, but it felt more polished and engaging. The story is a lot more provocative and controversial than Frontlines which caused quite a stir in the media. The problem is that the story didn’t go any farther than people resisting the oppression. All the objectives are point-to-point which leaves the player with very little freedom but marks the goal very clear. There were a few variations in the campaign such as chase scenes and sniping, but not much else. Multiplayer had an okay amount of choices between classes, weapons, and equipment, but it didn’t really provide that large of a difference in play styles overall. Also, there were that many maps to play on for the initial $60 the game charged and DLCs didn’t help very much. Now the multiplayer community is dead and so campaign is the only thing going for the game. With no other modes other than campaign and no support for the multiplayer community, a $30 charge for a 4 hour campaign doesn’t justify the purchase for it. Still, the game’s campaign was fun and I would’ve still been playing multiplayer if there were others still playing so it isn’t completely disappointing. Concept and Content: 6/10
Duration
I keep mentioning how the campaign is only 4 hours long, but my main concern isn’t even the length of the story. It’s that customers were being charged $60 for a 4 hour campaign that bothers me. Perhaps it is correct to say that most people were paying for the multiplayer, but it took no longer than a month after I purchased it before the entire online community bailed out and abandoned the game completely. The pacing of the campaign moved along pretty well and delivered a decent single-player experience in terms of gameplay; however, the story didn’t do much. Multiplayer was actually pretty fun. It had its high-action moments with fire-fights between teams and then there were the more tactical times where teams flanked, used vehicles, and went around enemy lines that made it more strategically challenging. Unfortunately, multiplayer quickly died and I pretty much lost all interest in the game with not extras modes and no desire to replay campaign again. If only multiplayer were still alive, the game would probably be viewed differently. Duration: 4/10
Fun
The opening scene and first mission of Homefront had the most impact throughout the game. The story had a lot to do with the flow of the game and the tension it conveyed throughout the campaign. As part of the resistance against the oppression of the Korean military, the player will continually have a sense of desperation, struggle and helplessness. There were a few scripted scenes where I felt it was unnecessary or slow, which might have been used to add the length of the short campaign. The game was entertaining for the most part. The gun firing felt powerful enough, the HUD felt comfortable to the eye, the various guns was fun to experiment with, and some of the gadgets were pretty cool. I got to play multiplayer for a short while before the community bailed and it was actually pretty interesting. Getting enough points from fulfilling goals and helping team mates granted equipment such as the mini-copter or a RPG. Some of the vehicles were fun to use. Other times, they’re a hindrance since the maps sometimes have very little room to maneuver around. Some of the problems with multiplayer are that some maps are too big for ground fighting while some are too small for vehicular warfare, the network starts to lag for everyone when it starts to get populated, and some parts of the map are poorly designed to create one-sided battles for certain modes (such as one of the maps for capturing points had a high hill above one of the points for opposing teams to camp and snipe on the other team trying to capture it. I would probably still play Homefront now for the multiplayer, but no one else plays it which pretty much makes it pointless to play it anymore. Fun: 7/10
Overall
Had THQ sold the game for $15 or even $20, the game wouldn’t have been looked down upon by so many of those who paid $60 and felt like they didn’t get their money’s worth and those who didn’t want to pay for that much would be more willing to buying it to try it out. The game is fun, but it doesn’t have as much content as other games being charged $60 to live up to the price tag. It’s a wonder why it’s still being sold at $30 or more right now when a major component to the game’s content is within the multiplayer. Without the support of players and servers for multiplayer, the game is hardly even worth a $5 purchase for its campaign. I’m glad I got to play Homefront, but I still feel ripped off with my purchase as I spent the same amount of money on games that provided me with more gameplay time and entertainment. If you want a single-player experience, rent the game or borrow it from a friend. Otherwise, you’ll still be paying a hefty price for a short campaign. Overall: 6.4/10
No comments:
Post a Comment