Top
150°
8.5

Homefront Review (PS3) - BrutalGamer.com

Video games have had a mature rating for a long time but most of it is delivered in a sophomoric way, whether it's over-the-top violence, a constant stream of colorful four-lettered words, or gratuitous sexual innuendo and nudity. Video games have not typically handled the mature rating in a truly mature manner. Homefront features most of the aforementioned immature, mature-rated content, but it also delivers a serious and bleak storyline, and does so in a very effective manner.

Read Full Story >>
brutalgamer.com
The story is too old to be commented.
Bathyj2415d ago

$3.50 a gallon? Really, thats what you pay?

Why are Americans always complaining when they get the best deal?

Its not a dig, I dont hate you guys, I'm trying to ask a serious question.

We're paying a $1.40 a litre. You do the maths.

I'm asking because its all I ever hear about game prices as well.
$60 for a game would be bloody heaven in Australia.

On topic, this game is looking better and better.
I might have to go plunk my $100 Aussie dollars down for a copy this arvo.

sickbird2415d ago

Because Americans feel the need to drive GIGANTIC SUVs that take $100 to fill. (i am not one of THOSE americans)

tails132415d ago

I'm fairly sure it's not out in Australia until Thursday.

Bathyj2415d ago

Its been out since the 10th. Last thursday.

Hmmm, since I waited this long, I might just eBay it.

KingPin2415d ago (Edited 2415d ago )

this just shows how much reviews and gaming journalism fails!!

please see the review of killzone 2, which scored 9.5
http://brutalgamer.com/2009...

killzone 2 has awesome mulitplayer and a solid single player experience and for all that it only gets 1 point more.

this half assed, P.O.S game only has multiplayer. lets face it, the single player sucks balls, and its not even half the length of most single player campaigns in other FPS.

in all honesty, this game is half the quality of killzone 2, or C.O.D:MW yet it scores along the same lines.

i believe homefront is only half the game of COD or killzone 2 so it should only score half the points! sure, you could say the quality is way more, but if only the multiplayer is good, shouldnt i pay half the price if im only playing the single player?

averyzoe2415d ago

I have to ask: how much have you even played Homefront? It was only released today. I have a hard time believing you were able to play both modes extensively enough to actually make a call on how good it is--just my thoughts.

Keats2415d ago

I think he's working off having read a bunch of reviews. I kind of agree that you have to play a game to know it yourself (and he may have done just that Avery), but it is an interesting point about how scores are weighted (giving preference to single over multiplayer,the strength of the story etc...)

moosehound2414d ago

So why are you comparing a game released earlier TODAY with a game released 2 full years previous?

The genre has moved on since then. If KZ 2 was reviewed now I would have given it a 7 most likely. Comparing KZ2 with any top grade shooter released in the last year or so it fairs very badly. It can't compete with BFBC2, Black Ops or MW2 - sorry it simply can't!

I loved the KZ franchise, heck I score the latest KZ3 (perhaps a more relevant comparison & scoring just 1/2 ap oint more than Homefront!) well but you have to realise that you can't review a game in a "bubble". The genre and technology progresses and you have to give your opinion as you see it based on the current genre leaders.

KZ 2 is a classic game but that doesn't make it still great today ( it is though!). For instance Zelda was scored very highly back on the NES but I can say, without hesitation, that I would prefer to play Zelda: Ocarina of Time.

Thanks for the input, but at least play the game before hand - sink as many hours as the reviewer obviously has - and then come back with your own thoughts.

We look forward to them.

Keats2415d ago (Edited 2415d ago )

@Kingpin There are two problems with that:

1, If games are reviewed directly against each other then there must be a standardised title against which each new release can be reviewed against. This is next to impossible as the various different genres (not to mention sub and hybrid genres) prevent a qualitative standard.

2, You said it yourself, " I believe". Each and every review is a subjective work. It's impossible to quantify value, fun or any other variable into a "real"- an undisputed fact. This means that even if I agreed with you ( and I do think you have a point on paying for content you flat out don't want/use), any number of others can disagree either in whole or in part. It also means that comparing the opinion of reviewer a, who did Killzone vs reviewer b, who did Homefront, flat out doesn't work.

The best any site can hope for is to have a group of writers that love games, can write and are consistent and honest in there reviews and opinions. It's then our job to decide if we agree with the review (and we by no means have to)and if it gives good advice. I find there is a group of individual writers across a number of sites that have a similar taste to me so I trust what they say.