Homefront had an excellent plot with N Korea as the bad guy. But it had very poor execution. The visuals were horrid, and there were no "oh damn" moments. The best part of the game was reading the newspaper clippings for the overall story. I wanted to play a game based on the newspaper clippings I was reading. When they say 5x the game, I hope they mean 5x better and not 5x longer. The plot has so much to offer, I hope they can make something special, because the first was mediocre.
Yeah because North Korea invading and over running the US was so believable. Originally it was China and they chickened out on implications of going that route. Same with the Red Dawn remake. So much for being true to your art.
You walked around shorter than anyone else in the game. Couldn't open any doors by yourself, and the game was one monster closet after another. Oh, look, you just tripped and AI spawn marker.
I haven't traded a lot of games in, not ever. But this and Ghost Recon Future Soldier both went into the bargain bin.
I never actually played Homefront 1 because i thought it looked kinda generic, but i might pay it a visit, from what i saw it had this really interesting concept.
I remember seeing a part of the game when a kids parents are shot in front of him, the kid then starts to cry, i dunno why but that seriously disturbed me.
Homefront multiplayer was very good!! When I was at work, I just wanted to get back home asap to play online. Not many games do that. I'm sure HM2 will be awesome! MW3 copied a couple of things from HM's MP.
The multiplayer for the first was pretty fun (if you were able to play). If they could just improve on it a lot and stick to what they say then I think it will be phenomenal. No need for another fiasco where level resets and being unable to play for at least the first month after it released and even after to happen again.
I disagree; Homefront was a good game. Sure, it wasnt great, but it was different, actually had an awesome story/concept, gunplay was fluent and sounded awesome, and the online Multiplayer actually dared to be different - it had very unique features and an individual spin on the genre.
It paid for being different with poor reception from the CoD fanboys and failed to make up good enough sales to save the studio. Im glad THQ realised the IP was actually good and kept going with it.
The story had a good idea, but it failed completely in doing anything good with it. All it really was was a good concept. Gunplay was alright, but nothing great. As you can see, the Homefront online community is pretty much dead. It was a weak attempt at a CoD and Battlefield combination.
THQ held onto it because they aren't doing so hot. It takes time and money to come up with a new idea so they stuck with what they had.
I'm not a CoD fanboy but I avoided this game like the plague because it looked like a generic CoD clone.
The gunplay looked generic, the levels looked uninspired and the AI looked like the typical mofos we've been facing off against the last half-decade (dumb spawn-tripper bots.)
Instead of getting Homefront I got Metro 2033 instead because it actually looked different. Having someone PR-spin the sequel as 5x better/bigger than the first game doesn't do squat for people like me.
Hopefully they can actually deliver an experience that seems like it's more than just a slightly altered CoD-spinoff.
I would disagree with the "terrible" assessment. I think Homefront was a decent shooter. It had a very good story that was horribly directed and fleshed out further bogged down by bad voiceacting. Single player at the end of the day was a let down for sure but it wasnt "terrible" just well short of what most were expecting.
Gameplay wise I think the mechanics and ideas were all very sound on the MP side. The main thing that seemed to really hold Homefront back was its absolutely generic visuals. In a land of COD's, Killzones and Crysis games at the time this needed to better visually. I know people say graphics dont make a game but in this case I think graphics did break the this game from being a more successful debut.
I don't think you mean graphics but visual aesthetic.
For instance, S.T.A.L.K.E.R. has crappy graphics but an awesome, atmospheric aesthetic. It FEELS different and looks different from other games based on the presentation.
What I keep seeing in this thread are people who seemed to be disappointed with its unappealing visual look. So I don't think it was just that the graphics are bad, it sounds like a lot of gamers just felt it didn't hold any atmospheric or visual weight to its presentation.
Wow, seriously...just wow. The "author" is not making any claim, he's just quoting what the Ex-THQ Boss said about the game. And trust me, if anyone has the credibility to make such a statement...it's him.
What do you mean don't making it like COD? The whole point of the game was to be a clone of COD. It will be the same mediocre experience as the first game.
Homefront did a lot of things right but sadly got some major things wrong. This is one franchise that I will gladly support again. Lets hope they really do nail down this game this time around.
There were definitely some great ideas. I liked being able to rack up the battle points with a recon drone, spotting people, then using those points for something more offensive.
If it's not on next-gen consoles it doesn't matter if it's running on the CryEngine 3, the visuals won't blow us away still being on the dated 360/PS3. Especially while PC games next year will be running Nvidia 680GTX cards and Unreal Engine 4 games.
I'm honestly surprised no ones said anything to the effect of "5x0 is still 0" yet. In the end, Homefront was a interesting concept given the most generic execution possible; it's like a bunch of really enthusiastic people came up with the idea, only for it to be given to a bunch of different developers who really didn't care much at all.
Honestly, I was SO excited for Homefront last year, and when i got my hands on it I found myself utterly dissapointed at it's dated graphics, mediocre gameplay, and a cast of characters that were such driveling meatheads that I spent the whole game hoping the North Koreans would capture and kill them, so I'd no longer have to deal with their idiotic macho one-liners for the rest of the game.
From Homefront 2 I'd like to see more developed and 'real' characters, up-to-date graphics (though we can pretty much assume that with CryEngine 3), and less linearity to the campaign missions.
This game and the new MOH are completely unnecessary right now.
Sounds to me like they are promising the same thing that they were about the first Homefront. I don't have much faith that it will be a game changer here...
I'll have this game on my Radar, I thought the first was good. It wasn't great but was good, too many went into it with very high levels and were felt let down. I went in looking for a 4/10 game in Singleplayer and felt it was a 5-6/10 but didn't play any multiplayer. Something fresh is always nice.
So many bad games get sequels promising they'll be less poop.
THEY NEVER ARE.
Good games *can* spawn good sequels, bad games can get a little better, but usually it's the basic fundamentals that are screwy meaning that the only way out is to start from scratch in both design and creation.....something that developers would obviously rather not do.
Don't tell yourself they'll get it right this time, they won't. If they could get it right, they would have done it the first time.
80°
10°
20°
10°
20°
Ad 
30°
You walked around shorter than anyone else in the game. Couldn't open any doors by yourself, and the game was one monster closet after another. Oh, look, you just tripped and AI spawn marker.
I haven't traded a lot of games in, not ever. But this and Ghost Recon Future Soldier both went into the bargain bin.
I remember seeing a part of the game when a kids parents are shot in front of him, the kid then starts to cry, i dunno why but that seriously disturbed me.
yeah I'll give you that, it was fun -the multi-player but the single player was a joke, graphics were hideous...
-but let's just hope Crytek can really make Homefront 2 a top contender to dethrone COD's title as the king of FPS
.____........___...____
.____||......||.......____||
||.........___||.......____||
also its not like HF didn't sell well it sold 3 million within its launch window, i am not sure why but THQ thinks this is their COD.
i like THQ and hopefully HF2 will deliver more sales wise for them
I remember reading the 360 forums for this game and ROFL'ing at some of the posts.
The PS3 forum was even worse and in the end sad.
:P
It paid for being different with poor reception from the CoD fanboys and failed to make up good enough sales to save the studio. Im glad THQ realised the IP was actually good and kept going with it.
THQ held onto it because they aren't doing so hot. It takes time and money to come up with a new idea so they stuck with what they had.
The gunplay looked generic, the levels looked uninspired and the AI looked like the typical mofos we've been facing off against the last half-decade (dumb spawn-tripper bots.)
Instead of getting Homefront I got Metro 2033 instead because it actually looked different. Having someone PR-spin the sequel as 5x better/bigger than the first game doesn't do squat for people like me.
Hopefully they can actually deliver an experience that seems like it's more than just a slightly altered CoD-spinoff.
Gameplay wise I think the mechanics and ideas were all very sound on the MP side. The main thing that seemed to really hold Homefront back was its absolutely generic visuals. In a land of COD's, Killzones and Crysis games at the time this needed to better visually. I know people say graphics dont make a game but in this case I think graphics did break the this game from being a more successful debut.
For instance, S.T.A.L.K.E.R. has crappy graphics but an awesome, atmospheric aesthetic. It FEELS different and looks different from other games based on the presentation.
What I keep seeing in this thread are people who seemed to be disappointed with its unappealing visual look. So I don't think it was just that the graphics are bad, it sounds like a lot of gamers just felt it didn't hold any atmospheric or visual weight to its presentation.
The vehicles were atrocious though.
Im soooooO.o buying it.
Where can I pre-order?
In the end, Homefront was a interesting concept given the most generic execution possible; it's like a bunch of really enthusiastic people came up with the idea, only for it to be given to a bunch of different developers who really didn't care much at all.
From Homefront 2 I'd like to see more developed and 'real' characters, up-to-date graphics (though we can pretty much assume that with CryEngine 3), and less linearity to the campaign missions.
Sounds to me like they are promising the same thing that they were about the first Homefront. I don't have much faith that it will be a game changer here...
So many bad games get sequels promising they'll be less poop.
THEY NEVER ARE.
Good games *can* spawn good sequels, bad games can get a little better, but usually it's the basic fundamentals that are screwy meaning that the only way out is to start from scratch in both design and creation.....something that developers would obviously rather not do.
Don't tell yourself they'll get it right this time, they won't. If they could get it right, they would have done it the first time.
To be fair, there were some good ideas and gameplay mechanics in the first Homefront. They just weren't executed very well.
What is this industry coming to?