I just saw this while perusing through the Fallout: New Vegas Wiki Homefront. It's built on the Unreal Engine like a lot of the shooters coming out recently, and is essentially a reworking of Frontlines: Fuel of War but turned into a completely new game. The developers state that the main idea they wanted to work with on this shooter is the use of guerilla-style tactics. Here's a link to the official website. The trailer looks pretty cool.
Let's be real for a second. Every few months a game comes out that tries to challenge COD. Toward the release of the game, developers of these clones try to claim that their shooter will be better and all of this other crap. Battlefield BC2 did it. We all know how that turned out. Despite the fact that both Activision and EA pay dearly to have review sites praise their games, Bad Company 2 is crap. I thought the first game was bad, but this just blew my mind. Everyone was convinced this game was going to beat COD because of this and that and you can destroy buildings. Sounds great. No one plays that game anymore. Then they try to release a "Vietnam expansion" to try and compete with Black OPs. Lol. That's all I'll say about that. Next we have Medal of Honor. I'll keep this one short and simple. Medal of Honor (reboot) is probably the worst FPS to be released in the past decade. Let me put it into perspective. Casual gamer goes out and buys Medal of Honor. Casual gamer plays the campaign and has a lot of fun. Casual gamer decides he is good enough in the campaign in the harder difficulties to try out multiplayer. Big mistake. Not only is the multiplayer developed by another damn studio than the campaign, but it's exactly the same as Battlefuckingfield BC2. Obviously I haven't played Homefront. But just judging on the storyline. We've had shooters were America is invaded and crap like that, so that's nothing revolutionary. The fact that it's in the future is a bit cool. However, upon watching the gameplay. It's sad that this game handles just like an alpha version of MW2. Exactly like it. Same objective icons, same layout. For this game being in 2050 or whatever the ****, the weapon they used which seemed like a variant of of the M16 carbine family with a crappy old EOTech sight sure looks outdated. I mean seriously, you have a group of rebels running around with old weaponry, but somehow they have an autonomous tank that can lock onto organics and identify friendlies and foes... right... Now, apparently the multiplayer is going to be focused on large-scale warfare. Sounds like BC2 already. "The defining innovation of Homefront MP is its battle points system, which is an in-game currency that allows player to purchase weapons, gear and vehicles. Players earn points by taking objectives and getting kills and are forced to choose between many small purchases versus larger big ticket items like helicopters and tanks." So, apparently this INCREDIBLE IN-GAME CURRENCY, SOMETHING THAT HALO AND BLACK OPS DOES IS INCREDIBLY INNOVATIVE FOR THE 100TH TIME. Great. Here's the MAJOR problem with this. Obviously there's going to be fan boys of this game and they are going to spend a great deal of time on it thinking their the boss hog or some shit. If you can basically rack up tons of this currency and just purchase choppers and tanks, I think it would be pretty damn easy to win most online confrontations. Now I don't think anyone even knows whether purchasing a gun lasts you forever or if purchasing a chopper or tank lasts you that one match. Either way it just sounds really unbalanced, something the casual gamer won't like, therefor, won't play despite how amazing people think this game will be, which It won't. This game was supposed to be an expansion on Frontlines: Fuel of War. That game got an average rating of 65-75%. I doubt this will be any good. tl;dr - this game blows.
Wow, wall of text. I do agree with you on some points, but others I'm a bit confused on. Being that I'm not a fan of any COD, MOH, or Halo game, I'm looking at this game from a different perspective. I'm looking forward to seeing how they plan to implement the guerilla warfare tactic in this game; modern FPS are simply just Run 'n Gun, so I am hypothesizing that this will make for a more of a slower gameplay experience. Contrary to popular belief that modern warfare is fast paced and adrenaline fueled, it's actually very slow. I've talked with many marines who spend hours waiting for something to happen when they are "behind enemy lines" or on patrol and nothing ever does, as opposed to every FPS where everything happens. I'm looking forward to a more realistic style of gameplay, but it will be hard to implement that sort of thing in this case. Let's talk about the battle points. From my understanding, you gain battle points that only last the length of the match, which would be very balanced (assuming the game play is as slow as I hypothesize) in that you kill an enemy, capture an objective or whatever, and you can now buy a tank. That tank gets destroyed, and you have to gain points to buy another tank. I think that's how it works but I may be misunderstanding that. You mentioned the setting of the game not being offset by the weapons that are not 'futuristic'. I would like to bring up the point (and you may throw this out the window; it's still valid) that weapons and technology isn't upgraded every few years. When we made the transition from the F-14 to the F/A-18, It was after thirty years of service, despite the fact that the F/A-18 was around a good ten years BEFORE the Tomcat was retired. In short, even now in the 2011, there are soldiers (mostly rangers I've come to discover) use the M-16, a rifle from the Vietnam era. I will still buy this game, just like I did with Halo, MOH and COD: Black Ops/MW2. The only difference for me is, I actually am hoping for good things from this game. And it may disappoint; that's okay. Also, on the subject of the 'magnetism effect' in this game: I think it's stupid. I don't want to shoot down a helicopter and have it magnetically drawn to me. I think that's a ridiculously stupid concept.
If they manage to make a great game. Then fine, no problem there. But after seeing the gameplay demo from E3 all I really can say is: what's new? The game plays just like a COD clone. At least battlefield and MOH "felt different", particularly the latter as it is just total shit. Sure it's an FPS and there's bound to be some sort of commonality but it's just too much. Aside from that on a graphical level, even the trailer showed poor FPS rates compared to that of the top dog FPS's. The particle effects are AVERAGE at best, they look incredibly outdated. Graphics in general are very average and the textures don't even look like they'd look good on a 720 or higher resolution TV. I don't particularly care for graphics if the game has something to offer. Like Fallout: New Vegas. Graphics that are 2 years behind in time. Sure they look pretty shit, but the game has so much more to offer that I don't really care about low-poly character models. But this game looks as outdated as COD4 looks in 2011. Even if this game get's an 8.0, which I'll be surprised if it does, no one will play it online, and that's the real shame.
COD clone? cod is clone of games before it as well don't say it was first to do it play bad company 2 before i play any cod games but im allowed to like what i like but homefront is ok but anything new no graphics don't mean shit in games i still play first doom games
I never got into Call of Duty, but Battlefield games I cannot get enough of. Interestingly enough, I got Homefront, and it was okay. It didn't feel like it was incredible, but it was a definite change from the typical run n gun style you see in a lot of games these days.
homefront is such a shitty game, it had a great concept but it flopped terribly. battlefield 3 is gonna whoop that ass come fall.
I played HF for a while and thought it was an okay game. Now I am back to Medal of Honor (even though I just picked up Brink).
All I really play is FPS. From the way back COD games to Socom 4. Homefront intrigued me just because of the idea behind the game. (Korean controlled America and you had to play as a small resistance group.) Picked it up and slightly enjoyed. It certainly wasn't any BFBC2 but it had potential. As previously stated... It wont have a leg to stand on when BF3 drops later this year. Then again... Neither will the COD line up.
