Chasing Call of Duty was Homefront's folly, says Gearbox boss

Last week, Gamasutra posted an expose on the downfall of Kaos Studios, developer of Homefront, THQ's attempt to enter the military shooter genre.

This week, Gamasutra had a chance to talk to Gearbox president Randy Pitchford, who heads up the Borderlands studio. The conversation turned to bad decision-making at studios and publishers. Asked by Pitchford for an example of a bad situation, Homefront sprang to mind.

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
Soldierone2321d ago

Chasing Call of Duty was just one of the doesn't take a genius to figure out what was wrong with it.

1 Weak SP that had HUGE promise. It was an interesting concept that never developed. When it was FINALLY going somewhere it ended. It was short.

2 Glitchy online play. Why do games ship broken? I don't care if you can patch it, its an immediate turn off when you pop in the game and its broken for two weeks.....especially when you have a game like COD sitting there.

3 It was TOO generic. I understand shooters going for the COD basics, but this felt way too generic. Like they put it together in a public FPS engine...again it PROMISED a lot, and failed to deliver it entirely....

Overall its just like many (many) other games. If they would take their time and release it when it was ready, and not "when the time is right" then they would have had a running shot....

joab7772321d ago

I agree with everything. It's funny because even cod has alot of issues. So, if u r gonna compete with them (which u automatically do in a military Fps genre), u better bring it. And I mean bring it. Big budget, big engine, alot of testing, and alot of content. And the singleplayer better be really good. Because the first game will be a cult classic like borderlands and then u can begin competing with cod. Battlefield has done a brilliant job. I give homegrown credit for it's advertising campaign. They sold alot of copies for an average game. Had it been really good with great support, the follow up would have been huge. That being said, it still could be. The genre isn't yet dead. MoH has the unenviable task of taking on a fresh version of cod this year along with other great games, and I bet it does well despite the fact that the last one was mediocre. But it could have been a rejuvenated ip also. I believe that publishers simply want yo quickly cash in on a phenomenon, but aren't willing to go all in.

Skateboard2321d ago (Edited 2321d ago )

Capcom has a mission to follow the COD crowd.

ironcreed2321d ago

Chasing COD is many developer's greatest mistake this gen. Spend that money hiring people with great ideas who can innovate. Then do something original that stands out from the pack and will make people turn their head and say, "wow, where did this come from." Leave COD to burn itself out and don't be afraid to take risks. Else stagnation sets in and all the games start to run together and look the same.

Skateboard2321d ago

Now this guy knows what he is talking about.

venom062321d ago

THANK GOD FOR BF3!!! thats a great game that doesn't try to chase that garbage franchise... and NO Close Quarters wasn't trying to be CoD ... there were no stupid killstreaks and deathstreaks in Close Quarters..

wicko2321d ago

BF3 campaign was definitely chasing CoD - which sucks because I really enjoyed bad company 1 for it's openness.

christheredhead2321d ago

DICE is definitely catering to the COD fans, that's a given.

SJPFTW2321d ago

nope. Homefront's folly was it was a crappy game. period.