GameLight Review - Homefront

Official Site: http://www.homefront-game.com/home

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 California.  It has the same action and feel of games like Call of Duty: Modern Warfare with scripted scenes, explosions, firefights, and cinematics.  The graphics were alright, but they weren’t optimized for the PC just as Frontlines: Fuel of War wasn’t.  This caused the game’s graphics to skip, glitch, discolor, and impede on the experience.  The HUD system is fairly easy to understand, and it was very clean for multiplayer as well.  The voice acting was pretty good for the most part, but the story never really evolved past “we’re oppressed and we’re resisting it”.  The audio for the guns and effects were decent and worked well for both campaign and multiplayer.  The game looked, sounded and felt very average though.  It wasn’t bad, but it wasn’t great either.  Aesthetics: 7/10

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

GameLight - Homefront Multiplayer

Official Site: http://www.homefront-game.com/#/home

Source: Youtube Channel Gamehelper

I mentioned this a few time before, but I saw banners for Homefront in the hallways at last year's E3 2010 and didn't see any booths or videos for the game.  I eventually found information on what the game was about sometime after I got back from E3 and was astonished at the premise of the story taken place.  I find the idea of both North and South Korea to unite and suddenly attack America to be a frightening story to tell at such unstable times for North Korea's Government and the rest of the world's economic crisis.  Story aside, there wasn't any gameplay footages for the longest time.  Recently, there has been single player and multiplayer videos floating around here and there and I finally saw the video shown above.  It's kind of what I expected for multiplayer: Military Tactical shooter, urban areas, vehicles to drive around, deathmatch/capture points type modes, points system to level up, etc.  The footage didn't capture me like Crysis 2 did, but the game does look interesting and I'm considering on purchasing it for PC if my laptop can handle it.

What I'm hoping for:
-More strategical push factor like in Battlefield: Bad Company 2 or Frontlines: Fuels of War
-Lots of weapons to choose from as well as gadgets and vehicles
-My laptop can at least run smoothly on the lowest settings

Concerns:
-Lag!  Lag is a very common problem in first-person shooters that kills the experience
-The graphics too demanding for my laptop to handle even at the lowest settings (like Crysis 2)
-Nothing new to present.  What if I don't like the game?  I don't want to waste $50-$60 for that

Here's hoping for a great game!

GameLight - FPS Games of 2011

After playing 20+ First-Person Shooter (FPS) games in 2010, I guess it wasn’t too surprising when a few of the games I’m looking forward to in 2011 were shooters.  Yes, there are a lot of shooters, like there always have been in the past, that look the same but don’t play the same.  After having an extensive experience with a wide range of FPS games, I can see and respect the differences between them which makes it all the more difficult to choose between them all.  I’ve picked out three to highlight on today: Bulletstorm, Homefront, and Crysis 2.

Source: Youtube Channel GamerLiveTV

Bulletstorm – This game was announced quite a while ago and has caught my interest in its crazy, over the top, arcade feeling with the points and extreme methods of killing an enemy.  The game is bright and colorful as opposed to the military shooter where everything is dark, brown, and muddled.  Tactical shooters aren’t bad, but it’s nice to see that there can be variety among shooters within the industry (or genre).  I’ve tried out the demo and laughed at all the crazy combos the game allowed the player to do.  I was able to tether and enemy, pull them towards me, kick in the face, shoot them with an explosive, and have it collide with all his buddies in the back.  What I was hoping for was a local, two-player split-screen co-op campaign that I could play with my friend.  Games are lacking local multiplayer nowadays and it makes it hard to bring friends together to play some games at home.  Because of this, I’m not very sure if I’m going to get it full price at $60.  I might wait till it drops down to $40 or $30 before purchasing it since it’ll mainly be for the single player campaign.

Source: Youtube Channel TheEGBot

Homefront – I remember seeing the banner for this game along the halls of E3 2010’s convention but didn’t see any videos or game booths promoting for it.  When I got home to look at trailers for it, I was shocked at the premise of the story.  North Korea and South Korea unites and attacks America?  Not only is that politically thought provoking, but it’s also a very scary scenario seeing how North Korea has an unstable government as it is.  I’m not sure why, but I’m drawn towards the game and am very curious of how the game plays in both campaign and multiplayer.  After watching some more gameplay videos that were released, it doesn’t seem that far from other shooters like Call of Duty and Battlefield Bad Company 2.  Does this game have anything special that separates it from the rest of the genre besides its story?  Multiplayer will support 16 v 16 maps from what I know so far and will take largely in urban areas.  I don’t think I want to buy it, but I definitely want to try it out once it has released.

Source: Youtube Channel eavision

Crysis 2 – The game looks amazing!  Truth to be told, I didn’t care about Crysis 2 until just a few days ago when I saw some videos of how the gameplay for multiplayer will look and how fluid all the actions and animations look.  The visuals are breathtaking, which brings me to the big question: should I even get this for PC or should I get it on PS3?  I don’t mind playing FPS on console, but there are times where I would like to play it on PC for that freedom using the mouse to whip around 180 degrees and such.  But the problem is that Crysis 2 will be a very demanding game for the graphics card and processor and I don’t think my laptop can handle that.  I had the same problem when choosing between PC and PS3 for Medal or Honor (I chose PS3 and am happy with that decision).  So in the videos I saw, the nanosuit augmentations play a large part in the strategy against other players and emphasizes the Sci-Fi part of the game rather than just be another shooter.  The sliding and fence hopping puts Brink in a very difficult position since those were the main features for their game.  Will people still buy Brink if Crysis 2 has all the functionalities of it?  I was actually really excited for Brink since their first trailer, but now I’m not very sure after comparing the gameplay videos between Crysis 2 and Brink.  Out of all the FPS announced so far, Crysis 2 is on top of the list for me (and is the absolute last one to really cross my mind until just a few days ago).  There’s only one thing I need to do first before it comes out…play through Crysis 1…

Here are the other FPS games coming out this year:

-Killzone 3 – I didn’t play the first two and I didn’t really like the controls after trying out the demo for Killzone 2.  Perhaps the 3^rd one will surprise me.

-Brink – I had a lot of hope for this one, but I’m not sure how it will play out anymore.

-Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 – I’m curious what Sledgehammer games have in store for the franchise, but it also worries me how the story will end (yes, I care very much about the story).

-Battlefield 3 – I didn’t play BF2 that much since I played it at a friend’s house, but it was a fun and interesting experience.  DICE isn’t showing much of BF3 yet, so I have no opinions of it.

-Rage – I saw this at E3 and I’m not particularly interested in the game from what I saw so far.

-XCOM – The ideas they have for the game sounds interesting so far, but I have nothing to compare it to since I never played the original XCOM games.

-Resistance 3 – I stopped caring about Resistance after I got through the 2^nd one.  The first one was fun and I played through it five times on all the difficulty levels and I played the PSP spin-off “Retribution” and thought it was an interesting experience (not necessarily as fun as the original, but a good story and solid gameplay).  Resistance 2 just disappointed me gameplay wise and story wise.  The multiplayer was fun for a short while, and then I got bored of it.

-Duke Nukem Forever – It’s sad because it seems more of a joke rather than excited enthusiasm for the announcement of this game getting a release.

-Serious Sam 3 – The game stops being as funny after a while.  I’m not sure what else they can really do with the series besides better graphics.

-Doom 4 – I never got into Doom that much.  Doom 3 got kind of boring after a while and I never finished it.  I really wanted to, but I didn’t feel like I made much progress.

-F.E.A.R. 3 - I haven’t played any of them, but I really should.  Despite it being a horror shooter, I heard the gameplay was decent and players had a lot of fun.

-Conduit 2 – I’ve been meaning to buy the first one, but not for its full price.  I would much rather buy the game at a lower price and play through the campaign than having the online multiplayer tied into it.  I don’t think there are really all that many “public” online players on Wii, only private games held by friends/communities.

That’s it for today, here’s hoping for some good shooters in 2011.