User Score
5.5

Mixed or average reviews- based on 482 Ratings

User score distribution:

Review this game

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. Mar 18, 2011
    3
    This game had no beta and has no demo, but I took a chance and bought the game anyway. Big mistake. This is a console game, not meant to be played on the PC. Basic features like aiming with the mouse have bugs. You'll get low FPS in even the lowest visual setting and all eye candy off. There are invisible walls that you can't shoot through. No bullet penetration through any material. Broken spawn points. Game modes with pointless objectives. Last but not least, the first hour I played I ran into a autoaim cheater, and just about everyone who's played MP has as well. If you want a good overview of the problems people are having, take a look at the homefront forums. If you want a better game similar to this one, go with a Battlefield game. Expand
  2. Mar 15, 2011
    9
    So I DL'd it on steam, 9GB and it took around 2 hours. Within minutes I was playing. I played about 5 MP matches first, then the entire first SP level.

    In MP I went 34-16 in those matches and ranked up to lvl. 6.
    SP was engaging and fun.
    MP was a blast. Played 4 on 4 for a bit then 16 on 16. Only tried assault kit. But used perks like BMP, HUMVEE and my favorite, Hellfire missiles. Once
    you save up 1100 Battle points you get 2 shots with the Hellfire. I only missed twice and say I'm about 8/10 with it.

    There is a comma rose for spotting and stuff, there are squads but I couldn't see how to spawn on the squad. Maps are a mix of big and small, most cool thing about them is tons of cover, in and outside of buildings and tons of ladders to climb and get elevated positions.

    Graphics look great, I'm running all on medium at 1440x900 10:9 aspect.

    Set up my controls exactly like BC2. Prone and crouch sprint and knife are all the same.

    I was typically in the top 2-5 on the server. I saw many clans already turning up their servers. But most were like KAOS #101 etc.

    What else? There's no destruction, but considering how softly and thoughtfully you want to move around in this game, that is cool. Most of my kills came from finding a good cover spot with my back protected and just killing idiots who ran runnin' and gunnin' like they were playing COD.

    I really liked the fact that in TDM and BattleGround you never had to worry about a guy spawning behind you, it kept the maps separated by troop concentration for safe spawning.

    I never got spawn camped, and almost always knew what and who killed me and why.

    First 3 hours impression.... I want to play more, but gotta get to work soon.

    I found nothing too odd or glitchey. At one point in MP my controls went screwy, like my crosshairs kept wanting to point in the air on their own, so I restarted the game and it was fine. At another point in one map i couldn't jump up a little one foot step like it was a map error or something.

    Overall I'd find it hard to comparing it to BC2, BF2 or COD. It's kinda it's own thing, a little bit of all of them. Collecting those points and spending them on cool **** is easy, just watch the little meter on the right and when you get 1100 press 4 for Hellfire, or if you want to spend 250 you get 3 AT rockets. They suck vs. infantry though, or I don't know how to shoot them. Of course all that is cutomizable, I unlocked other things like flack jackets and UAV drones that I didn't even load out with yet. I'd say at 4am there was about 600 to 1000 people playing online. I am ranked 1256th on the leader board.

    Anyway ramble complete. If U get the game, you'll likely enjoy it. At least the first 3 hours. Who knows where it goes from here.
    Expand
  3. Mar 15, 2011
    10
    So much better than the PC ports we usually get. The single-player is short but very memorable. The multiplayer is extremely fun. Battle Commander and battle-points are really unique and give some rejuvenation to an old FPS formula. I will definitely be playing this for a while, and this game will be up there with Battlefield 3 and Red Orchestra 2 as the best FPS PC releases for this year.
  4. Mar 15, 2011
    5
    I've been excited about this game for quite a while, I found the premise to be interesting and the game play looked like a decent cross between the Call of Duty franchise and the Battlefield franchise. Unfortunately what I got was a mediocre game at absolute best.

    The single player puts you in the roles of an American citizen during the Korean occupation of America. The opening scene was
    actually fairly well done. However, everything after that was nothing more than random gun battles with no real storyline. You meet characters and they die before you even get a chance to start to bond with them. There was no emotional attachment to the story whatsoever. Everything they did has been done before in books, films, and even video games but Homefront lacks all sense of pacing and storytelling making these elements pointless. If there is a silver lining to the storyline it's that it's painfully short. I completed it in just over three and a half hours. There's honestly not much else I can say about this because it was so short.

    The multiplayer is rough around the edges to put it lightly. Again they borrowed a lot of unnecessary things from other games even though there was no compelling reason to do so. I had hoped that this was a good cross between the face paced action of Call of Duty and the slower, vehicular team based combat of Battlefield. Well it is to an extent. This game leans more heavily towards the Call of Duty style of FPS games. It even has a similar oblivious spawning system and poor map design which will get you spawn killed time after time.

    Most of the maps are quite open which is actually a problem. Most people will opt to use the sniper class killing people on the other side of the map as they spawn. I'm not sure whether or not this was ever play tested, and I'm leaning towards no, but some of the mechanics make absolutely no sense. For instance the AQ-11 Buzzard is a drone which fires two rockets before having to reload. Inexplicably if you directly hit a person with both of these they will not die. Further their blast radius is somewhere in the range of 10cm. However, a person will usually die in one hit from a sniper rifle making the AQ-11 Buzzard seem like a terrible thing to buy. Similarly the Humvee can take a direct hit from an RPG without being destroyed. In fact if a Humvee takes a hit from an RPG the driver will likely switch to the gunner position and kill you before you even have a chance to fire a second rocket. So apparently bullets are better than explosives in this game.

    Balancing in multiplayer seems to be non-existent as alluded before. However, what's even worse than the atrocious balancing are the bugs. I've come onto the battlefield with a helicopter only to be permanently marked out of bounds and destroyed. I've even accidentally clipped the out of bounds area and returned only to find that I was still somehow out of bounds when clearly I was not. Server disconnects are also quite frequently, and of course whatever XP you've earned is lost when this happens. One more point of contention is the sheer size of the hit boxes for objects in the world. I know hit boxes can't be exact, but there are plenty of instances where it's amazing just how large the hit boxes are relative to the actual object, generally with trees, rocks, and vehicles. Prepare for an invisible hit box to take the bullet rather than your opponent many times.

    Their much touted Ground Control game type is a cross between the Rush, Domination/Conquest/Sector Control, and push-pull. I was hoping this would lead to large, epic battles. Unfortunately it's incredibly limited. Whereas in Bad Company 2 you have multiple stages within each Rush map, in Homefront you have two stages. Coupled with the bugs and balancing issues this makes the game type fairly uninteresting. The only other real game type is team deathmatch, which is just what you'd expect. There are a total of six maps, so prepare to get bored quickly.

    In summary I think this game could have been much better. I won't say this game is horrible since it's at least playable, but I won't say it's good either. It's wholly mediocre. If you're only interesting in the single player then I suggest renting it. If you're more interested in the multiplayer then I'd advise you wait until there's been a good deal of post launch support, or until it's in the bargain bin. Whichever comes first. Kaos Studios should have spent more time working on the game than promoting it.
    Expand
  5. Mar 19, 2011
    0
    Let me begin by saying I was a big fan of Frontlines Fuel of War both single player and multiplayer. When I heard THQ was developing another game I was hoping for a sequel without the glitches, lag, etc. Like many of you I was checking the status of this greatly anticipated game on youtube and various other websites for all the information I could get. When the release date was set I began counting down the days only to have it pushed back again and again. "Okay" I thought, I'd rather see a delay then for them to release a game of poor quality. I was wrong, regrettably very wrong! Homefront could have been great; Homefront could have been ground breaking both in premise and game play. Like I said earlier; Frontlines was fantastic, so good in fact the "Big Guys"copied ideas from it such as drones etc. The battle point system was a welcome addition instead of kill streaks which more than likely will and should be copied by other developers. The single player is way to short, the graphics are average to say the least while the movement of your character is like he has a twenty pound dump in his pants! His movements are slow, methodical not at all crisp or sharp like other FPS games. Multiplayer is a joke, that's if you can get in a game at all, joining friends is virtually impossible. It went from dedicated servers to P2P because they underestimated the online attraction; they're in the gaming industry right? MP is what many people play day in and day out and these guys are not prepared? All 16 player games will now be hosted on P2P not dedicated. Make no mistake; multiplayer is a camper / sniper haven which kills it right off the bat, the weapon selection is poor and the fact you can't add more than one attachment to your weapon is a joke. No sight and silencer combo WTF? Why Not? All the while your character is still running around with that dump in his pants! Overall this game is a failure in every way possible, with such high hopes it pales in comparison to other FPS games past or present. I mean really THQ what were you thinking? To add insult to injury if you buy used or rent you have to pay 10 bucks to play online past level 5! This was done of course to prevent people from just renting the game and also brings in a few extra bucks to boot. Like paying 60 dollars for this crap wasn't enough THQ. Put your greedy little hands back in your pockets and try developing a game we were all hoping you would! Save your money and rent if you must. Don't spend 60.00 or even 20.00 for this game, soon enough it will be in the bargain bin or on ebay for 8.00 to 10.00 dollars. Complete and utter fail THQ you should be embarrassed and ashamed! The gamers have spoken and we're not going to take this anymore it's unacceptable, a patch for this, a download for that, a quick fix for the other thing. When are you developers going to get it right? Its no wonder your stock dropped 25 percent the day of release! Thats our way of saying "Congratulations on a job well done" Expand
  6. Mar 24, 2011
    9
    9.o This game is too good for an 8, but slightly missing the mark for a 9. 1st.)This is a solid FPS, and was worth buying. 2.)My friends and I did not have any technical problems downloading or playing this game on our gaming PC's. 3.)the single player mode is driven by an interesting and captivating story, but was unfortunately in my opinion too short, which seems to be the trend in FPS. The graphics are good (nothing new or earth shattering), but good. I did notice differences in graphics when I used different computers. So, if you want it to look good, you'll need an updated graphic card, and a good Flat screen HD monitor/TV. You'll also want to customize your settings. That's what I did anyway, and finally the MP mode is addictive and different. Sometimes you feel rewarded and sometimes frustrated. It will depend on how adaptable you are to different playing styles. You will still find some campers here and there, but at least you have a good shot at squashing them. The game is mostly balanced. It feels good to be able to knife a sniper, who just shot up your team mates, and not see hackers jumping 2-3 stories high in one jump onto a place that no one else can climb up to like in COD. I'm enjoying the MP. So, I really can't complain. Expand
  7. Mar 15, 2011
    10
    I must applaud to THQ for creating a game that's risky yet touches emotions. Never thought anyone would recreate the classic gameplay of Half-Life and give it a new twist. Despite the graphics not being competitive with Battlefield and COD, it was the least of my concerns since the campaign was so unique and inspiring with multiplayer features topping recent FPS games.
  8. Mar 15, 2011
    4
    Play it for the setting if you like the idea of it, otherwise you probably won't enjoy it. I only got 4 hours played out of it. And that's with messing around a bit "talking" to random people and trying to find the news clipping easter eggs, not playing for speed at all.

    The very best part of the game was the setting/atmosphere. Hiding in a mass grave to avoid the Koreans, abandoned
    suburbs with propaganda posters, labor camps, a Walmart type store turned into a ammo/fuel dump for Koreans, survivalists who have gone crazy forcing Koreans to dance with bullets and dig their own graves and hanging their heads on sticks as a warning.

    Was mediocre, multiplayer is unnecessary and probably tacked on. Not worth 50 dollars - maybe 20. Also, the amount of people who only have 1 rating and 1 review reviewing this game makes me suspicious of astroturfing fake high scores from the publisher/developer.
    Expand
  9. Mar 15, 2011
    9
    Great game, very moody atmospheric single player, and I'm loving the multiplayer. The multiplayer is fast paced, and the developers have clearly payed a lot of attention to making this game feel like a PC game, and not just another console knock off. One rather unique thing that this game does very well is how it makes the battlefield feel extremely chaotic, flaming vehicle debris and explosions everywhere :) Expand
  10. Mar 15, 2011
    10
    Great, bold storyline. Eventhough the campign is short, I think it's just the right duration since multiplayer compensate the lifespan of the game. Hope THQ makes a sequel for it. Keep it coming!
  11. Aug 15, 2011
    4
    The game had an interesting (if nonsensical) premise and had some pretty neat stuff around that; I liked their attempts at building the atmosphere of a threat from the greater Korean republic, even if the basic premises involved were silly.

    This was, unfortunately, the only really good thing about the game. Its single player is very short - even on the highest difficulty on you first
    playthrough, it will likely take you only six hours to beat, and that's if you look for the collectibles - and the gameplay is cookie cutter, taken from every other FPS ever. Health regeneration is ridiculously fast and really makes it difficult to feel threatened by anything other than rocket launchers and one really neat sequence where you only start out with a pistol to fight back with (which was easily the best part of the game). The plot itself does little to help you feel complete - it felt a bit trite, and I would have liked to have actually done more to liberate America in that world rather than it simply ending with a single battle.

    If it was cheaper, say, $20, it would be an okay buy (I picked it up as part of the THQ collector's pack; I didn't even buy it for the game, but I figured, why not play it?) but for $50 you're setting your money on fire. Even so, though, the price isn't all that relevant; the gameplay experience isn't all that enthralling, so basically the only reason to play the game is if you find the premise interesting - there isn't anything else to it which will interest you.

    Perhaps the most offensive thing about the single player campaign is how you are led by your nose throughout the game - you basically have someone yell at you what to do, and there is only one way to do it, and only one path forward for a great deal of the game. The most decision making you make is whether to take cover on the left side of the street or the right side of the street - and at many points in the game you do not even have THAT much choice.

    It did well on establishing atmosphere, but there is nothing else to recommend it and a great deal to say that you should pass this by and purchase a better title. If you want an interesting FPS, I'd recommend Crysis 2, which has some neat stuff in it and is a lot more fun to play.
    Expand
  12. Mar 15, 2011
    10
    Wow! This game is brilliant! I love the graphics eventhough they are not the best I have seen, they are definitly atmospheric and also the story is very exciting. The characters are very well chosen and they make this game feel "real" and dramatic. It's like a movie you cannout stop to watch. It reminds me a bit of the TV series Jericho.

    For me one of the best singleplayergames since
    Half-Life. Or even better, due to the characters. Expand
  13. Nov 7, 2011
    3
    Predictable - Nothing imaginative went into this game.
    Old - A 2011 game that uses game mechanics that feel years old... example no free roaming through the levels to get to the other end... there's 1 path & 1 path alone. You might as well be on rails.
    Story - The story is so bad it makes my me want to go play a casual game like peggle for the simple pleasure of having NO story. Using
    a very linear story with no surprises this also pushes how "great" americans are. Very tiresome.

    I bought this game based on magazine reviews that seemed quit glowing. It's sad to see how far "professional" critics have fallen on the standards of goods out now days. Not only was my pre-order of the game a large waste of money but I think Chaos Studios deserved to be liquidated for their failure on producing something this bad. If it was a lawn mower it would have had a sized engine in the 1st hour... AFTER throwing part of the blade at your dog.

    Skip it... go play Duke Nukem Forever instead. Yes it's about the same but at least you go in expecting it & there's humor, bad humor, some advanced mechanics (unlike Homefront) & nudity.
    Expand
  14. Mar 18, 2011
    3
    This is a quick review of the game Homefront for the Xbox 360. I bought this game anticipating a short, but epic single player game, which would inspire me to try the multiplayer afterwards. The single player game is so bad that after the 4th chapter I had to put the game back in the box and got it ready to trade-in. The frames per second are terrible, choppy graphics that look like they were done in the previous decade. I don't understand how anybody would like this game, even with the theme being "original" - it's completely ridiculous, outlandish, and shows how the developers were trying to evoke patriotic feelings. Game sucks, dudes. Buy a different one, trust me! Expand
  15. Apr 25, 2011
    8
    So this is more of a single player first impression, but i'm a few hours in, and i'm really enjoying it. When i first heard the premise i found it kind of ridiculous, but after seeing the lead in news beats, and picking up the collectible newspapers, it sounds more and more plausible. its easy for me to suspend my disbelief and buy into this story. The graphics aren't tier 1 for 2011, but i think that was expected. But it looks good. The style is gritty and run down, but not too brown as many "realistic" shooters seem to be getting. It doesnt have as much eye candy but it looks good, and I'll get my sugar fix with Crysis 2 next week. The combat is solid, but it might be a little easy. I started the game 1 setting down from the highest, but i think I'm going to max it. the only time i died was when i went somewhere i wasn't supposed to to look for a newspaper and a tank we were supposed to be sneaking past killed me. So far the only vehicle i used was the Goliath. Its a 6 wheeled vehicle with guns and missiles that you control by locking on to enemies with binocs (like air strikes in other games). you aim at an enemy, wait for lock, and fire. And the Goliath goes nuts on em. its really visceral and a lot of fun to watch. He feels like a big brother that's kicking your bullies ass. I thought the use of real brands for stores and stuff would bother me (like it usually does) but not so much. Somehow the fact that they wanted these brands here to add a sense of reality, and not just for more ad dollars makes it feel different. The characters are ok, a little cookie cutter maybe, but i don't really know them yet. So, so far I'm really enjoying it. I have heard that the campaign is very short. This is disappointing considering how hard they pushed the story aspect of this game. But that seems to be par for the course these days. I enjoy MP, but I really go for a nice deep immersive single-player shooter experience. Hopefully, now that they have a great game, and hopefully some serious income, now they'll have the resources to pour into a tier 1 shooter with a campaign of some length. I bought this day one because I wanted to support the fact that they were pushing a different angle on shooters. and they were pushing the story. Hopefully they'll hear my dollars asking for more of that when it comes time for Homefront 2. But until then, I'm really enjoying this one...while it lasts. Oh and lastly. Way to go THQ for FINALLY allowing Steam to give us a midnight release! So many publishers wont even let us preload the game at midnight, never mind letting us play it. THQ let us preload, and i was able to install the game at midnite! love it, wish more publishers would do it. Thanks!â Expand
  16. Mar 15, 2011
    0
    Loved this game, apart from the single player story, which doesn't look as nice as BFBC2 and COD. However this isn't really where Homefront really shines.

    Multiplayer was best describe by my friends and I as BF2 and COD4 had merged together. The sound effects are very well done and they help the overall feel of the weapons. The controls are very tight, and this is where THQ and Choas
    really had me convinced.

    The controls actually feel as if they were tweaked for the PC. You can literally grab a SMG and do short burst and hit someone's head meters away with only a few pixels to target.

    Overall this has long been overdue for the FPS PC gamers, I normally never right reviews and this is in fact my first one.

    bottom line, If you like BF2, COD4, there's a good chance you'll cherish the fine work the CHAOS team did.
    Expand
  17. Mar 16, 2011
    4
    What a waste of money. Total disappointment. Mediocre graphics, low poly models, TERRIBLE animations, gun sounds all the same, plays just like a 5 year old console game. Cmon, we're in 2011 now folks get with the times.
    I will never, ever pre-order a game again.
  18. Mar 18, 2011
    1
    wow....where do i start. First off just to let you know, I am going out of my way, MADE AN ACCOUNT ON HERE just to warn you how horrible and just down right poor this game is. it has no demo or beta (i can see why now) so it kinda forces you to put your hard earned $60 on that game and pray to god that its worth it. The beginning is uncreative, just casually showing you what happened in the last 30 years as if your watching the history channel. the game does a poor job introducing the main character of the story, and quickly nudges you through until out of no where some unknown rebels help you, and drag you to a secret base, so basically the game doesnt give any detail or background to any of the characters. the game is also extremely predictable. Its pretty bad when your 5 year old cousin knows whats coming up next. rpg explodes here, trigger happy guy goes crazy there, grenade flies in and kills half your guys here...very little creativity went into this game, period. also did i mention that it looks like a 8 year old made the graphics of this thing? seriously, the graphics in mario are better. And finally, IT ONLY HAS ABOUT 3 HOURS OF GAMEPLAY....WHAT!! i feel like i was playing the demo instead of playing the game. overall, homefront is one of the worst games ive played in awhile, possibly that i have ever played. the only reason i am even giving it a point is i like the concept, too bad it was horribly executed.. Expand
  19. Mar 20, 2011
    1
    Terrible disappointment. Extremely linear. Sub par graphics (and I'm running on maximum). Terrible sound design. Want to jump into the back of a pick up truck? Climb over a 2 foot fence? Nope... invisible walls everywhere. Scripted sequences abound, absurdly stupid AI. Boring NPCs. Multiplayer is even worse... again, invisible walls everywhere so it's almost impossible to intuitively navigate your way through a map. I played for 90 minutes and uninstalled it. If you are looking for Battlefield Bad Company 2, or even Black Ops with a twist, forget it. This doesn't even come close.. not remotely. More fun to be had playing Tetris. Expand
  20. Nov 8, 2011
    0
    LOL. This game's terrible. It doesn't even open in my computer...
  21. Mar 20, 2011
    3
    I looked forward to this game, a lot. I was let down.
    The single player is moderately engaging with a decent plot, but ultimately is short and unremarkable.
    This games bread and butter was to be the multiplayer aspect. However, the game falls short in this category as well. Let me start with the fact that KAOS felt it necessary to not put on any anti-cheat systems, so every game has at
    least one blatantly obvious hacker. The official Homefront forum moderators delete any posts regarding this topic. So, basically, that makes the multiplayer absolutely unplayable, and there are no repercussions for cheaters at all.
    There are problems with invisible barriers, basically you can see someone, and more than once we would fire at each other, and our bullets would hit this invisible barrier and do nothing.
    Bullets do not go through thin walls or fences. Hell, even some weeds are bulletproof in this game.
    Vehicles are hard to kill and overly dominate a game.
    The sound effects are ABSOLUTELY TERRIBLE. Will the people that make these FPS games PLEASE get real sound effects? I feel like I am playing a paintball match, not fighting a war.

    There are no absolutely major flaws in the gameplay itself. It's just all the little annoyances and the lack of an anti-cheat system compounds into an unplayable game.
    Expand
  22. Mar 16, 2011
    10
    Homefront brought a great fresh look to the FPS genre that is being run into the ground by COD with yearly game releases with the same bland story and generic setting. Homefront took the time to make an incredibly immersive, powerful story that, while being much too short, brought emotions out that no game has before. The entire time playing the game, I felt like I really was the character, while dashing between cover when facing that first sentry, while assisting your team in the raids, while fighting every last KOR soldier, I felt immersed in the game. The graphics and AI are a little dated, with other minor issues, but overall the singleplayer was very well done. The multiplayer added a few fresh things to the genre as well. The "killstreak" system of high priority targets in Commander mode was a nice twist, and generally gameplay was crisp and rewarding. Overall, despite a few flaws in the design and engine, the stylistic environment of the game, great story, and fresh gameplay make Homefront worth checking out if you appreciate good story and atmosphere over "prestige." Expand
  23. Mar 18, 2011
    4
    f you love bugs, lags, low fps. Stupid scripts, 2006 year's graphic. Parodies on Call of duty. it is game for you! One plus! PR was good./
    This game has 7 Levels in campaign. i completed this game for 2 hours. Multiplayer is not bad but not very good. This game not worth ur money. Save your money for anything else
  24. Mar 19, 2011
    1
    I'll admit that they had me going with their storyline in the previews and the early trailers. io thought i was going to get a 40hr. multipath singleplayer but i was very wrong. just over 3 hrs of singleplayer and that's all you get. do yourself a favor and play a game with a longer, harder singleplayer like BLACK
  25. Mar 15, 2011
    2
    It's a typical first-person shooter with outdated graphics especially since that Unreal Engine 3 is showing it's age. The game play is pretty standard...won't complain about how accurate the guns feel. I just think that they could have done better on using better character models and weapon textures. I feel like I'm playing a game in 2004, yet we have arrived at a quantum leap for graphics. Save your money for next week when Crysis 2 comes out. I knew I have should have done the same. Expand
  26. Mar 15, 2011
    9
    Its single player tells a story in this 'what if' scenario in a very cinematic way, but that has something to do with it being written by John Milius. But the story and the actual single player gameplay are completely different. Although the story is very good, the actual action sequences seemed to try too hard to mimic what was already accomplished in the Call of Duty Franchise.

    Its
    multi player is definitely the pull factor to buy it. The multiple gamplay innovations featured in the game as well as many of the best innovations featured in both the Call of Duty and Battlefield franchises. I wouldn't necessarily name this a "Clone" of those two franchises, but it definitely gets some inspiration from the two. Expand
  27. Aug 23, 2011
    3
    A huge disappointment. Homefront main selling point was supposedly the campaign being written by the great John Milius (Red dawn, Apocalypse now), but it seriously falls short both in content and overall feel. You're supposed to be a guerrilla fighter against insurmountable odds, but often you mow down loads of enemy forces with ease and we reach the common place CoD style objectives and run through of the campaign saturating the market. If you can appreciate what they try to do both story and game wise, you'll enjoy the campaign. Multiplayer is where the title shines boasting both common and new ways to dominate online. Think Battlefield feeling like Call of Duty and that's what you get with the multiplayer component. Expect a balanced and great multiplayer that draws a lot from modern shooters, while taking out the negative aspects. It's worth picking up based on the multiplayer alone if you're that kind of customer, but if you plan on picking it up for the singleplayer expect to be disappointed by its length and depth. Expand
  28. Mar 16, 2011
    4
    2 hours and you are done with the whole single player experience. The single player story if indeed was written by the guy who did the screenplay for Apo Now probably wrote it on a napkin in a coffee shop simply to get the devs off his back. Maybe I have to be American to get all tear eyed about seeing suburbia in ruins, and feel some how like its close to home because of all the brand names used. I didnt feel a thing. This is not a review of the MP experience, maybe it more fun, but dont waste your money anyway, wait until its in the bargain bin. Expand
  29. tmh
    Mar 16, 2011
    4
    I can't say I was anything but disappointed with the Single-player campaign. With the amount of apparent bugs, technical problems, and that obnoxious, drowning sound, I was struggling to keep myself playing through it. And when I did, it was already over. Within a few hours, the single-player campaign was over. The game did have the sort of atmosphere I was expecting, but the overall feel of it just felt like a typical, generic FPS game. Expand
  30. Mar 17, 2011
    8
    I wasn't intending to buy this game until I read a preview about it where the writer said it had the suburban look of MW2 and the feel of Half Life 2. It does feel a bit like HL2 but not as much as I was hoping for. MW2 obvious. I'm a bit over 3 hours into the story line and an hour into MP. The single player is fun! It looks great and the best modded Unreal 3 Engine I've seen so far. The physics in the game are very nice and entertaining. Explosions look great and if timed well will send bodies flying a good distance. The level design is done well. Subtle hints here and there to guide you and to catch your attention. The atmosphere is pretty creepy and embodies what an occupation may be like. You can see LOTS of time was put into the environments. Good attention to detail which most games out at the moment don't seem to be doing. The weapons sound punchy and satisfying. The same with ambient sounds. Nice looking blood splatter and animation. No dismemberment though... Why can't more games have this? It made Soldier of Fortune and COD World at War much more entertaining right?! The dialogue has given me a laugh here and there so far, but over all OK. On the other hand though 95% of all First Person Shooter game dialogue is garbage. When will decent writers start on video games? MP is a nice cross between Battle Field and COD World At War (ever notice how much more open the maps in World At War were?) And maybe a nod to counter-strike when purchasing a flak jacket after a re-spawn? The re-spawning is much better than COD, where as it makes sense and not just a blind spot. Not as much running and gunning compared to cod. Group re-spawn like BF a nice thing. Nothing groundbreaking but they have a decent mix of features from other popular MP games. it would be nice to see some more game modes though. The Game for me so far (3 1/4 hours in) is pretty sweet! It's not genre changing but delivers on everything it should just fine and is quite entertaining. I don't understand most of the negative things i read about it. What games are those guys playing that make them feel the need to condescend to most other games? Over all, the game for me is a solid B when most shooters I've played lately are a C+ at best. Thank God it's not like there PR red balloon stunt. LOL
    If the game keeps going like this, it's worth the $50 and you get to help support new games on PC at $50 and not starting at $60.
    Expand
  31. Mar 18, 2011
    4
    I feel like I'm playing a really poorly animated movie where every now and then I get to, for a few minutes, do something before the main characters, who I am not one of, then stand around and talk to each other for 5 minutes.

    In Homefront half the objects in the game appear to have a forcefield extending a metre or two beyond them. Sometimes it even makes it impossible to shoot the
    enemy!

    On top of that, when NPCs walk in front of objects they get fuzzy lines around them. Not to mention that you can't push past NPCs meaning that they, at times, trap you, or annoy you as you have to wait while 2, 3, 4 or 5 of them take their time to walk through a doorway, etc as you stand there and wait 60 seconds to pass so you can then walk through last, and if you somehow manage to get in front of one of the NPCs half the time the game won't even let you walk through the doorway, etc as if the script of the game requires you to go last.

    Plus it doesn't feel like I'm part of some resistance group who is having to survive this evil occupation considering that 3 of us can take out 500 Korean troops, 5 APCs, 2 helicopters and a tank without breaking a sweat with our superior weapons. How did the US lose in the first place?

    I feel like I paid for the game and then paid again by playing it. At the moment I'm only playing it through because I paid for it. It'd feel like a waste of money if I didn't.
    Expand
  32. Mar 19, 2011
    4
    Oh my, a game which is very fast finish in single mode, not the high price worth it for a new game, I feel cheated, costing 47 â
  33. Mar 20, 2011
    3
    First 50% installed from disc, last 50% installed from Steam. That's poor.

    Only played SP, didn't buy it for multiplayer. Started of very good, if linear. Atmosphere was good, and the mass grave scene was excellent. Went downhill rapidly from there. Ended up in a game that I barely ever felt in control of. And it was over way WAY too soon.

    And the kick in the nuts is this: After 4
    hours I'd finished it, didn't want to play it again, and can't even give it to my nephew to play it because it's tied to my Steam account.

    It's this kind of experience that makes me consider piracy over legit games.
    Expand
  34. Mar 17, 2011
    9
    This game is fantastic. I've been playing it on Onlive and it is running flawlessly. I got to play it right at midnight. Multiplayer is a blast. This game takes the best of Call of Duty and Battlefield and tweaks it enough to differentiate itself from them, but at the same time is familiar enough for fans of those series to immediately enjoy. Battlepoints are an amazing feature of the game and are way better than the kill streaks in Call of Duty. They are much more fair for all players and are balanced very well. In fact, just about everything about the multiplayer game is balanced.That's quite a feat. Vehicle control is very well done and can be customized to your liking. None of the vehicles are overpowered, but they still contribute to the battlefield and should be feared. The guns are all unique and can be customized with a ton of different scopes, etc. A lot of the multiplayer has your typical fanfare like experience, challenges, etc. The maps are fantastic. There is a ton of "stuff" to hide in and take cover with. One thing that I think this game doesn't get enough credit for is the sound. This game sounds like war! Everything from the muffling when a grenade goes off near by to the distant sounds of gunfire are done very well.

    The atmosphere in this game is top notch. I've only gotten about 30 minutes into the singleplayer, but so far that is very engaging and I can see myself being driven through it because of the backstory even though I usually enjoy multiplayer more.
    Expand
  35. Mar 28, 2011
    4
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Like many others, I was a fan of Frontlines and expected a new game witht the qualities of Frontlines and less weaknesses, updated to today's technology level. I really wanted to like this one, so I preordered 2 copies for my 2 gaming PC, thinking they did something good before, they'll do it again, and I think they deserve my money right off the bat, a show of trust. I am disappointed.

    MULTIPLAYER: I was expecting the battle points system to fix the "ME" player that wrecks teamwork in so many other games. Well, the BP system does more than that, it also ensures that actual coordination between teammates becomes unnecessary and useless. That's right, instead of making the game MORE team-based, they turned it into a solo player's dream by giving the team coordination over to the Battle Commander when there is one, and nonexistent when there isn't. So if you are a fan of strong team coordination, there is nothing for you here.

    The game is a huge snipefest, but that is to be expected given the utter lack of ballistics. Every weapon seems to fire the same as any other, negating the need for weapon variety - and there is very little - and of course snipers have a field day with instant hit right in the middle of the crosshairs no matter what, where, when, or how. Of course, every other gun behaves nearly identical. Again I fondly remember Frontlines where you had to compensate for recoil yourself. They took that OUT, what a shame, probably to please the console kiddos. Also, the maps are too small for vehicle combat.

    GRAPHICS: They are OK, no complaints from me.

    SINGLE-PLAYER: I enjoyed it, but it was ridiculously short.

    PRODUCT QUALITY: MP bugs abound, making it an iffy proposition at best.

    OVERALL SCORE 4/10 - IT IS FAIL. DO NOT BUY.
    Expand
  36. Mar 15, 2011
    5
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. At first, I was really excited about this game. It appeared to have an amazing plotline, and interesting multiplayer. The idea of "war isn't fun or pretty" was what really hooked me on it. I downloaded it from Steam and at once had an issue: no sound. I eventually found a fix that required editing a game .ini file. Games should not be released with these types of bugs... Anyways, after fixing the sound, I started the campaign. It looked interesting at first. At the beginning, a kid watches his parents die by firing squad right in front of his eyes. I thought the game was going to be filled with these gut-wrenching, emotional moments... I was wrong. The game is almost an exact clone of Call Of Duty. The game is constant action with things exploding all around you and countless numbers of enemies coming at you from all directions. The so-called "emotional" aspect is either totally screwed up at times, or non-existent at others. The only reason I give this game a 5 is because of the multiplayer. I'd give it a six if the multiplayer wasn't EXACTLY like CoD. A note to developers out there: STOP MAKING CALL OF DUTY GAMES AND CALL OF DUTY CLONES. After you make the exact same game SEVEN times it's not fun anymore, I promise. Expand
  37. Mar 25, 2011
    9
    I got completely fed up with Black Ops and Bad Company and needed a change of pace. I really like this game, I'm kind of surprised that it got such low scores. I should point out that I bought it for the multiplayer, I don't really care how long or good the campaign is. I only play objective mode and I like how they spiced up the multiplayer with little purchases and marking priority targets. Also the hit detection seems much better to me than in Black Ops for some reason.
    I do have one complaint. The game is quite the hardware hog compared to how it looks. I have a i7 2600k running at 4.4GHz, 16GB ram and an ATI HD6950. It's not enough to run the game at 1920x1200 with antialiasing smoothly. To me anything below 50 FPS in unacceptable and I don't like playing without AA (yeck!) so I kept textures at maximum and turned shadows and special effects down a bit and that helped enough.
    Expand
  38. Mar 15, 2011
    7
    The concept behind the game is really good and the execution was nearly perfect. The feel that your fighting for the freedom of America is there. The only problem i had with the game was that the single player campaign was ridiculously short. I finished the campaign on normal in 2 hours to put it in perspective. I haven't gotten around to playing multi-player yet so my review is kind of skewed. There better be a squeal to the campaign or a lot of DLC. Though the graphics aren't the best you can find today, the story behind it all really puts this game above most other FPS. Expand
  39. Mar 15, 2011
    7
    Got it off steam, no complaints there.

    Graphics/Performance: Let me begin by saying that I feel that the graphical scaling on this game is a bit off. I don't have the best computer, but I can run Crysis Warhead on medium/high settings at my native resolution of 1900 x 1080 with 30 - 40 fps, but in Homefront anything but 800 x 600 and bare minimum settings was horribly choppy and
    unplayable. With the worst settings I got 60 fps most of the time, but had a few large drops. TLDR: Worse graphics than Crysis with worse performance.

    Single player: Story started out boring but was strangely reminiscent of Half Life 2. Playing through on normal only took four hours. I'm sure it will take longer on harder difficulties, but it's still a very short single player. When the game ended I was like, "whoo let's do this!! Oh, that was the last mission? Okay..." Just when things were really picking up emotionally and gameplay wise the game just ends. They obviously did this so they can make a sequel, but I felt that single player could have benefited from another segment or two. The story was decent but nothing amazing. Newspaper articles laying on the ground and radio transmissions between missions were a nice touch, though. It was nice to not be in the middle east or Eurasia. They made the story believable.
    TLDR: Decent story, reminiscent of Half-Life 2, but too short.

    Gameplay: Almost the exact same as Modern Warfare; everything from the feel of weapons, HUD, melee animations, and cross-hairs. The only difference is vehicles are a lot more prevalent than in COD which I feel is a plus.
    TLDR: Modern Warfare with vehicles.

    Multiplayer: I haven't touched it and don't really plan to. I'm not terribly into COD style shooters' multiplayers, although player controlled vehicles could mix things up.


    Overall: If you like Call of Duty you should like this game. If you don't like Call of Duty very much, wait until it's on sale. If it was long I would have given it a better score.
    Expand
  40. Mar 15, 2011
    4
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I bought this game on impulse...on Monday evening. I had been toying with the idea of purchasing Homefront since I first learned of it in December. On Monday night, the game finally had a few reviews on Metacritic and some other sites, all indicating how amazing Homefront was, and how it was better than Black Ops and Bad Company 2. Plus preordering came bundled with Metro 2033, which is the only reason I could justify dropping $50 on this game.

    It does absolutely nothing unique. The plot, the gameplay, the characters...nothing feels original. It is not a bad game, per se, but there was so much that could be improved upon. The graphics were pretty subpar for a PC game of 2011. I ran everything at maximum settings, and was unimpressed by the lack of detail in most of the game, and the random white lines surrounding some objects. I recall being promised a DirectX11 experience, and that was NOT a DX11 experience. The only graphics I could praise, was the skyline in the final mission, which was actually rather stunning and beautiful.
    On a comical note, whomever designed the skybox for Homefront must have failed astronomy. The sun was setting to South by west. The moon rose from the North.

    The characters were all caricatures of the usual low-rated soldier films - the tough chick with a soft interior, the clumsy techie with an unintentional comical streak, the commando with the "kill them all" attitude.

    The most common plot element: Something explodes in your face and you fall from your sniper perch. Or off a bridge. It happens so frequently that one of the characters makes a joke about it late in the game.

    And it was short.
    When I completed the campaign, Steam had recorded me playing a total of 3.4 hours. That included the stretch of time in which I tried out multiplayer, and when I left the game running to make a tuna fish sandwich.

    On the plus side, the AI is at least solid, or competent, except for the VIP syndrome. Four resistance fighters and I Jacobs is the only character taking fire. The US Army is between me and the enemy, and the entire KPA is focusing its fire on the chopper pilot hiding behind a truck in the far back. But that occurs in almost every game. The only issue I had with AI is, nobody ran from grenades.
    Overall, what really killed Homefront for me is how short it was. There was so much potential. There was so much story to be told. Iâ
    Expand
  41. Mar 16, 2011
    10
    This game is in my opinion the best game so far this year and generally extremely fun. I enjoy the new setting and the presentation is simply mind blowing. The story is extremely well made and intense, but can be a little bit predictable some times. Im pretty sure this game will be on my top 3 for 2011.
  42. Mar 16, 2011
    10
    Homefront is a game that pretty much lived up to the limited marketing hype it got. When the developers were talking about creating an experience where you feel that war is horrible they do just that. The musical score adds to that and gets you in the mood. For example, in situations in the campaign that demand you to be on top of your gain, the music follows suit. Multiplayer takes aspects from the CoD series and BF series and melds them together to get a fast-placed unlaggy experience in which the field changes dynamically. The game itself is not a AAA game, but an AA game. Hopefully DLC for it comes to expand the campaign. Expand
  43. M13
    Mar 17, 2011
    9
    Multiplayer is unique and fun. Single player is great but too short. All in all a solid game. And I'm sure that some of the flaws people are talking about will be patched soon enough.
  44. Mar 17, 2011
    3
    Sadly another "Over-Hyped Sub-Par Generic Shooter". Had lot of expectations for this one ... and another disappointment on the score board. Nowadays there's a new phenomenon call 'publicity hype' which let you mirror the game on its best angle and let you want for more, which in turn is not always all bad but lately there's been loads of bad games getting 'BIG' loads of resources on publicity/Public Relations to compensate for its knowingly shortcoming. If those 'hype/PR' would be cut in half and let the other half goes into production and programing maybe this game would've get a more favorable treatment. Homefront is one of those over-hyped game where they've put way too much resources on 'hyping' the game and not enough on production values. I've been playing computer game since the Tandy 1000 back in the 80's and believe me I know what im talking about: I've bought my share of bad games over the years and Homefront is not all that bad but certainly not a good investment.

    - Single player: Colorful, Some of the scenes are down right good but most are just ok, Incredibly short. Generic, Nothing stands out from other shooters. I've been in the army and full-auto firing is just way too accurate. Offense-Defense-Sniping scenarios and put it on repeat cycle... get boring after a while.

    - Multiplayer: Complex maps; sneakers and snipers can get away with it, which is good. Map scenes diversity, has lot of it. Numbers of maps, is not enough ...Epic FAIL. Camping; too many snipers camping around, either that and the scouts camping in some bushes to wipe 3-4 players in less than a second with no effort on targeting. Weapons; again way too accurate, no ballistics involved whatsoever, Servers are mostly empty (maybe its the 3rd day after launch effect), No Real sense of achieving anything other than seeing the capture points moving around (maybe im being harsh about it but i like seeing/interacting with objectives by blowing/building/hacking objectives and that would've been a good thing to add on this game even in SP.) Vehicles downright SUCKS (clunky turrets, obstructive terrain and too many ways to bring them down easily) Like I said, i have played loads and loads of games in the past, maybe that makes me less of a 'common' player but yet again i can tell when companies tend to 'butch' things up (*cough* EA *cough*) rather than 'trying and failing' like Homefront. By the way, Homefront has alot in common (other than being the sames two companies Kaos Studios and THQ) with the disappointment going by the name Frontline: Fuel of War which share many similarities: guided mini-tanks/helicopter, way the game feel, objectives type, clunky turrets ... etc, etc, etc ... Total letdown is all im feeling right now ... Not worth 50$.
    Expand
  45. Mar 17, 2011
    4
    I had been waiting for HOMEFRONT for years. I was so excited to finally play it after years of delays. The game had a lot of potential. It had a good story, and good characters. The problem is the game was annoyingly short! I beat the game in one sitting. The Multiplayer isnt bad, but it feels like a mix of Battlefield and CoD... nothing really original going on. My main complaint is that the game was just too damn short. After all the hype, the game was a major disappointment. Worth playing I guess, but wait until it goes on sale. I wouldnt suggest paying over $30 for it. Expand
  46. SPG
    Mar 20, 2011
    10
    Only tried the single player for 1 level, then decided to give the multiplayer ago. OMG how much fun is this game online, reminds me a little of RTCW fairly fast and frantic could do with a few more game types but i am sure that will come. Its another port (like most titles) but considering its only been out 2 days in europe its running really really well, a few memory leaks here and there but i am sure it will get fixed.

    I think the critics have been overally harsh, maybe THQ doesn't have the cash to sweeten them up as much as EA & Activision for there so called triple A titles.

    The new battle commander and vehicle system is a nice twist as well. It was £22 this weekend on D2D ok graphically its ok, nothing ground breaking but it fits the game. Sounds are fun. This is how a PC port should be done. A great little underestimated title.
    Expand
  47. Mar 23, 2011
    5
    If you thought that homefront was going to be a deep, narrative filled, political drama with touches of bioshock styled storytelling influence and mind blowing graphics that did something interesting with it's narrative and structure. Then that picture in your mind is of more value than the actual game. The graphics are quite nice, although somehow disjointing. The sound is messy and taxing on the ears. The controls are finkey, lax, and don't feel that great, and the engine is unoptimized. Something I have rarely seen on ue3. There is a big idea and political undertones in the game, but it's about 15 minutes worth of content. You get about 10 minutes of well made scripted content. The rest is just action pop-out-and-shoot gameplay, with a few variety sections. One slightly good thing is that some of the areas are a little more open than the cod series, but not open enough to take note as a bold move. The multiplayer is mostly pretty good. I will rank this on a "us dollar scale" although I live in Australia. And I hope you found this helpful. ((How much would I pay for homefront = $10, go for a steam sale, and only if you are a ---strait---line---fps fan) Expand
  48. Mar 29, 2011
    4
    I got it off Steam when I saw Metro 2033 was bundled in as well. I'll be honest, I enjoyed Metro 2033 a lot more. One thing to note: my computer is a bit dated but it still runs decently enough. Though, I'm not holding the limitations of my computer against the game.

    Gameplay
    - I loathe the health approach of hiding to restore it. It reeks of lazy console FPS design. I know this is
    becoming a common theme in the FPS genre but I think it sucks.
    - In every area of the game you are provided with allies but their effectiveness is debatable.
    - Enemies can manage to hit you through the smallest holes in cover. I find it aggravating since you really can't figure out what's screwed you before you're dead.
    - Pretty simple pathfinding. Go from point A to point B. Constantly. No real clever means for sniping.
    - To move forward in the game, you often have to kill X number of enemies to advance. That isnâ
    Expand
  49. Jul 12, 2011
    6
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I was really excited about this game when I first heard of it. The story is completely different than that of Call of Duty or Medal of Honor and it was believable (though improbable). I immediately got sucked into the story and connected with the characters and what they were trying to do. I ran through the suburb blasting badguys and trying to escape through the wall. The most awe inspiring part of the game was when we discovered the mass grave, and then had to hide in it. It was shocking. When we finally made it to San Francisco we helped our military take back the Golden Gate bridge and I watched my friend make the ultimate sacrifice so that we could succeed. And then... the game ended. The credits rolled and I was left with a look on my face that I've only had once before; at the ending of Borderlands. I don't play multiplayer fps games, so this game had to stand on singleplayer alone. This game was sprinting for a 10 but tripped and fell flat on its face at a 6. Expand
  50. Jan 4, 2013
    3
    A mess of a game, with a bland, uninspired campaign, full of forgettable characters , with bad level design, poorly scripted events, bad AI on our allies, a convoluted story that portraits a poor country such as North Korea as a threat to the US. Avoid at all cost.
    The Multiplayer fares a lot better, but it's still an average experience, that is hardly worth it.
  51. Mar 17, 2011
    8
    I think the single player is really holding this game back, it could have amazing if they developed it more and didn't simply copy paste missions from other fps. The multiplayer is very well made and should not be missed by battlefield and cod fans. The multiplayer is the reason for purchasing the game, do not get if you are only interested in the single player aspect.
  52. Mar 22, 2011
    3
    I can not begin to describe how disappointed I am in this game. I chose to get this over Shogun 2:Total War, to try something new, and I completely regret it. The premise is very good and has lots of potential, but honestly the game is just too boring, no matter how many huge explosions and civilian murders I see. The trailer was better done than this console-port of a game.
  53. Mar 28, 2011
    4
    What a low quality FPS. First, the shooting mechanics are stiff and unresponsive. Second, the scripted sequences force you down one path only, so you will die a LOT until you do things exactly as the game wants you to. Third, the ridiculous premise. The game never explains how America could be taken over by the Koreans. Fourth, the environment: they do create a fairly oppressive mood but I found it too unbelievable and too serious given the low quality nature of the game-play. They want me to care about the characters, but I can't feel much for stupid, wooden, NPCs who get stuck on walls and constantly walk into me. Overall, this is one of the worst FPS games I've played in recent memory. Expand
  54. Mar 29, 2011
    2
    Very buggy game, runs really poorly for some reason despite being an Unreal Engine 3 game (it looks really bad, and every other UE3 game runs at 100+ fps for me while usually looking a lot nicer).

    They still haven't patched it and there is nothing about fixing the performance issues that the majority of players are having in the future patch notes.

    Single player is extremely bad but I
    guess no one would buy this for the sp anyhow.

    The multiplayer is just a poor man's COD, with worse performance, bad controls : mouse input has acceleration and mouse smoothing as well as input lag.
    Vehicle physics are non existent, there are only a few maps, no mod tools, no dedicated server files for adminned to host and moderate their own servers, nothing.

    I very much regret purchasing this game, and would not recommend it to anyone.

    Kaos should have kept working under DICE as trauma studios and do the only thing they are any good at : using someone else's base game and physics engine and code and make a mod with it.
    Expand
  55. Mar 18, 2011
    9
    This game is a mix, a mix between the drones of Frontlines fuel of War, the vehicular warfare of Battlefield and the intense infantry fights of Call of duty, this game does this with great success, its not fully perfect, it campaign is short, and multiplayer may take some getting used too. But overall this game is well worth your money, time and effort. A larger multiplayer communtiy, good optimization, gameplay and sheer fun make this game well worth your time, do not be thrown off by poor reviews and such, as this game does a fantastic job of making you feel like you are your character, your killing humans not just bots, and it really brings in the intensity of fighting in a resistance for you freedom. Expand
  56. Mar 22, 2011
    3
    Review covers multiplayer only: Some great ideas, but the execution is terribly flawed. Aimbotters from day 1 ruining the multiplayer experience combined with a less than polished game leaves me rather bored and going back to my staple BC2 and MW2.
  57. Mar 15, 2011
    10
    I'm not sure what a lot of these people are complaining about. Not going to do a huge review, but this game is great. I feel like the reason this game has gotten pushed aside by reviewers is because the FPS genre is now just dominated by Call of Duty. Everything gets compared to it as a standard, nothing can be it's own separate entity nowadays.

    HOMEFRONT is a great MP game. I have yet to
    try the SP, but if you're looking for a good MP, this is a good place to look. Expand
  58. Mar 17, 2011
    8
    Awesome game, I like it alot, its fresh and new. Single player is a bit short and could have been longer, however the multiplayer makes up for it. If you are not a multiplayer user then you might be a bit disappointed in the length of singleplayer so a 50$ price tag isn't a good deal by any means. Wait for the games price to drop then pick it up. But if you will use both game modes then the asking price is reasonable. Expand
  59. Mar 16, 2011
    5
    Simply put: Cool story, plays like every other FPS on the market, single-player not very long, multiplayer is take-it-or-leave-it, extremely demanding (graphically) especially if you're used to playing on 1080p, quad-core, with fairly high settings. Not worth $50.
  60. Mar 18, 2011
    5
    I looked forward to this game for quite some time; I don't play multi-player but the single player looked incredible, well written and captivating. Unfortunately that single player campaign was only 4 hours long - and that's with my collecting 43 of the 61 collectibles. It lived up to what I thought it could and would be - but why so short? There are so many more opportunities for tales to tell!

    I did try to jump into multi-player and, as usual (this is why I don't play mind you) I found myself dying before I could even get my bearings. It did seem like the game favored the winning team - once you lost the first map the winning team had more points to buy vehicles which they then used to roll over you. And if I survived the air strikes and tanks I usually ended up being sniped. *shrug* Not my thing, for sure.

    It's another game using multi-player as an excuse to skimp on single player content. Which is too bad because what little single player content was there was really interesting.
    Expand
  61. Mar 16, 2011
    10
    I buy games for the story, and boy did this game claim to have a story. As a huge fan of Apocalypse Now, I had high hopes for this new title from Kaos (whose Modern Combat mod I enjoyed for months when I was taking my first steps into the still-new world of FPS). I read and watched everything I could find on this game in the days before it's release with great anticipation, assuming that a game built on such a strong story foundation was destined for greatness. However, my assumptions quickly proved to be false.

    Really, really quickly, to be honest. It only took me a just shy of four hours to beat the single player on regular. Apocalypse Now: Redux clocks in at 3:14:59. It actually took longer to download it than it did to complete. Needless to say I was very disappointed. The characters are shallow and a lot of the heart wrenching drama we were supposed to see ended up just being shock value. Outside of a few other gameplay annoyances, though, I did find the game to be pretty fun, with enjoyable missions and some very cool sets. I'm just hoping they don't expect me to actually pay for DLCs with more single player content, they've already ripped me off enough.

    A lot of reviews praise the multiplayer as this game's savior. This is what's wrong with the FPS genre in general, but I won't go into it here. The online experience is good, dedicated servers are a definite plus. There are a few nice innovations, but overall it feels like a scaled-down Battlefield game (which makes sense, considering the developer), and looks like any of the recent CODs. Though it quickly gets old if you've played much of either. Honestly the only thing that saved it for me was the Steam version came with Metro 2033.

    Final thought:
    Save yourself 50 bucks and just borrow the game from a friend (you'll only need it for a day).
    Expand
  62. Mar 17, 2011
    6
    The single player has an interesting story, but terrible execution. It isn't bad that it is so short. The graphics are not great, and the single player is full of frustrating invisible walls and "Ramirez! Shoot those guys!" moments.

    The multiplayer is okay, but not enough to pull me away from Bad Company 2. Weapons are very powerful, with 2-3 shots enough to kill with a rifle. The sniper
    rifle is a semi-automatic lazer beam, so you'll get sniped ALL THE TIME. Battle points are an interesting idea, but I wish there was more incentive to play as a team. Right now it encourages Rambo-style play, and though there is a squad feature, it seems to be of absolutely no use in the game. The Battle commander is actually very well done, where killstreaks mean more people are gunning for you to get extra points and experience. Mediocre at full price, but the multiplayer is interesting enough if you can pick it up on sale Expand
  63. Mar 17, 2011
    9
    With several titles within FPS military genre HomeFront sets itself apart from the rest. It does some things on the multiplayer side other games have done but in its own way and delivers a different experience in comparison to Call of Duty or Battlefield despite sharing similarities.

    Having vehicles that spawn whenever you have enough battle points to do so thus preventing the typical "x
    amount of vehicles" per map which most MP games have which ends up with one team dominating a match by controlling all of the vehicles, with Homefront this isn't the case.

    You pick your default class and as you "rank up" you will be able to configure classes as you see fit with perks for your play style and for your vehicles too... weapon unlocks, weapon camo and special gadgets like RC Drones and Flak Jacket makes the game appeal to your " battle taste".

    The Single player campaign has a interesting story and plays more like an interactive "book", it is heavily scripted with moments of intense combat in the mix albeit very short it sets the "lore" for the game scenery very well.

    In my book its a fun game, I'm loving the PC version.
    Expand
  64. Mar 17, 2011
    10
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. So i found out about this game a couple weeks ago. and i got around to try it and even tho the single player campaign is a bit short. it is very good and the multiplayer is a great mixture of call of duty battlefield but in it's very own way. Thanks for a kick ass game Kaos studios :D Expand
  65. Mar 17, 2011
    9
    I REALLY dont understand why so much fuss about this game... The game certainly has its flaws, but bottom line: I had a blast playing it and I will likely continue to do so for a long time... that to me is well worth the $60 I paid for it. The multiplayer is as good if not better than any of its competitors, and the story was (short but) brilliant.
  66. Mar 17, 2011
    9
    This game has a new point of view that takes on realistic politic genre, the ideal of working through a linear story line, and the classic novella in gaming. These ideals are no longer popular among many gamers who are used to "sandbox" elements that allow to make "interactive" and potentially unique decisions in games that they are playing. In comparison to other FPS games, I would more closely compare this game to Half Life 2 than Modern Warefare series games. There is a distinct storyline that is potently available to players who take the time to collect and read the newpapers laying around in the single player. If you only want to play Multiplayer, then it is a best case marriagse between the Modern Warfare genres and Battlefield 2. The decisions to build your character make sense, they are balanced, and they are FUN. My only warning to anyone who is considering buying this game is that this game is mean to be enjoyed like a good meal- you dont wolf it down. Peers of mine have blown through the single player only to realize that they missed critical ambiance that lies in the smaller details. To tell you what that would be in this thread would be akin to a spoiler, so I will avoid describing it and just say- take your time, there is no hurry. In regards to getting to "know " your character, this is a new concept in gaming that has only become relevant in recent years, but being that I dont like to "play house" and "dress my paper dolls" in the game, it has been a very pleasing experience so far. I'm half way through the game and I cant wait to see what happens next. The cities I have fought in are realistically detailed, and being from one locale in the game, I was shocked and excited when I realized that I understood the EXACT location I was in. This game is a buy and only recieves a 9 because the linear model could be a smidge wider to allow for exploration and fun. Expand
  67. Mar 17, 2011
    0
    I feel bad for those of you who were horn-swaggled with this game. If you happen to like it, great. I purchased this game, paid 50 bucks, and before I cracked open the seal, I used what was left of my brain cells and started reading the user reviews, from this site and others.

    Thank God and Greyhound, I took this stinker back to the store and got my hard earned money back. What a
    dissapointment! I was so looking forward to a long, interesting, challenging story from this game, only to hear of a 3-5 hour demo. What a bunch of crap.

    NO THQ.....you WILL NOT get my $50.00 this time.
    Expand
  68. Mar 19, 2011
    10
    People are bashing this game way too hard, i was sceptic from the moment i watched screenshots and videos but still decided to buy it on Steam just before launch.

    I thought i would be regretting it but boy was i wrong, sure the Single player was short with a weird sudden ending but what makes this game is Multiplayer.

    Online the game has its own identity and it feels like its own game,
    it is NOT like Call of Duty and people need to wake up and stop comparing games to Call of Duty as that series has only gone downhill.

    The lack of killstreaks is just a positive thing, i do not miss it and i praise the new system they have, choosing two items per class that you buy with Battle Points makes things much more interesting, you can choose what to use depending on your situation and really promotes teamplay.

    I had no idea that the Battle Commander would be optional but after experiencing both sides i think its a really good idea, playing a game with BC really puts pressure on people doing well (as I've reached a 3 star threat so far i know how it feels).

    All in all, it's a breath of fresh air on a genre with way too many cloned games (CoD, BF etc) and brings its own formula, proving it can challenge the other popular online fps games.

    Being able to play the game from the launch is a big plus, no problem with lag or fps like Black Ops had and even still have, Unreal 3 engine not only makes it look good but provides a solid online platform.

    Buy.
    Expand
  69. Mar 20, 2011
    1
    Yet another installment of an FPS game that slaps it together quickly, promises the world, and delivers a bill. Alot like the latest MoH and I expect its support will be dropped just as fast. A four hour single player???Really?? All this talk of a great storyline and it being penned by John Milius, what a gimmick seems more likely that he wrote a paragraph on a napkin and these monkeys tried to turn it into a game. There was also alot of talk about how the vehicle controls are going to be with beginner, intermediate, and ace settings. Novel idea except when you can somehow throw away all decent helicopter physics, last time I checked choppers didn't have a forward and reverse gear as well as an up and down. Not to mention the rudder and strafe are mixed up and the tilt of the helicopter has literally nothing to do with movement. Gotta love it when they can take a vehicle that operates off a stick, and consolize so much that its completely useless to use a stick. Seems as if Kaos failed physics class as there is no decent physics work to be seen. Multiplayer is pretty generic nothing groundbreaking except the amount of invisible walls or the fact the server browser is one of the worst I've ever had the displeasure to use. Nothing like joining a server with 24 people only to find out the server is actually empty. These high reviews seem to come from the ones who will buy whatever comes out next because its put in-front of them, with no real expectations of improvement. I wanted this game to be great but sad to say it wasn't even close to what was hyped. Maybe buy it if its under $5 buy it, but then again you'd get more out of the dollar menu. Expand
  70. Mar 20, 2011
    10
    I was drawn in by the many trailers and the buzz around the game, thinking the single player would be a huge success; maybe a 20 hour campaign with a good storyline, but I was wrong about the single player campaign. It took only 3 and a half hours to complete, the story was very linear, and the AI was flawed. But what they did do well with the SP, was to make the player feel something and not just be killing the enemies because you were told to, but because you were fighting for your land, and defending American citizens. There was one scene where a young child's parents are shot to death in front of him, and another where you have to hide in a mass grave, it's scenes like that that can make the campaign feel worth-while. On to the multi-player. I gave the game an 8/10 because of the multi-player, it could 've gotten a 9/10 if the campaign were better. The multi-player is REALLY addicting and plenty fast-paced. The huge maps and vehicles and upgrades all come together perfectly. It isn't an easy game to master, but its impossible to be really bad at. The multi-player is very solid and i really cant think of anything negative to say about it. It is definitely better than call of duty multiplayer and possibly better than bc2. Overall, its a game worth buying if just for the multi-player, but could have been much better if the campaign were longer and less linear. Expand
  71. Mar 21, 2011
    1
    The game was OK, nothing ground breaking. What killed it for me was technical issues. Excessive screen tearing and artifacting at high resolutions and max settings, even with the latest drivers and every known fix, still made the game almost unplayable. I've never had technical issues this bad with a game before. I am an A+ certified technician so I do know what I'm doing technical wise.
  72. Mar 21, 2011
    2
    This game is not recommended. Ms. part is short lots of gfx errors, sound does not match the environment you are in. The human voice is very bad made
    Then you will spend money on a very bad game you should buy this.

    My computer.
    i7-950
    Kingston HyperX DDR3 1600MHz 6GB
    OCZ Vertex 2 Series 120gb x 2
    GeForce GTX 580
    Samsung SyncMaster 2433BW
  73. Mar 23, 2011
    4
    Nothing new. Fuel Of War comes to my mind, those little helicopters etc. I wish i could turn of that Chinese English commentary...
    Soldiers animation is from 80s.
  74. Mar 26, 2011
    10
    If you started FPS on the Call Of Duty Series this game is not for you. The problem on why it's getting bad reviews is becuase Call of Duty of Duty players simply can't play this game becuase they are not skilled enough to play on bigger maps and not use lag to move around. Homefront has no lag you shoot the guy and he's DEAD! Where as call of duty it takes you a whole clip to kill someone. COD players can't play on anything bigger then a sardine can for a map Homefronts maps are a perfect size not to big and nto to small! I have been playing FPS since the days of Novalogics Delta Force and watched the FPS games dwindle down to small map games and bunny hopping losers playing on small maps. If you are a COD players who likes to run around like a fool and use lag to win this game is not for you. This game is for the skilled FPS who knows their awereness on the battlefield and knows how to shoot and survive. Thank you Homefront for finally making a great game. I for one am dead tired of the crap COD series and it's community and the sardine size maps! Don't get this game if you can't stay alive without lag. Do get this game if you want great size maps, no lag and a TON OF FUN! People need to learn that the COD series is dead and the reason you buy it is because of the marketing, adds, and the name brand! Think outside the box, just because you didn't see Homefront on TV or you didn't see alot of adds doesn't mean it's bad. COD has all of you sucked in with their makreting skills and puts out a worse and worse product every time cuz they already have you! Expand
  75. Mar 26, 2011
    10
    When I was in college I bought my 1st computer to play Delta Force 2. This was in 1999. Since 1999 I have evolved as a online gammer play the Delta Force Series / COD series / etc.. you get my point. This game is ABSOLUTLY AWSOME if you are a true old'skool gamer!!! I have been waiting for a game like this for over 6 years. This game takes skill, actually all the skills that were needed for OLD-SKool games like DeltaFocre. I assume that non-skilled gammers that compare a game to Blackops etc will not like this game cause they are n00bs and do not have the gamming skills that old-skool gamers have. They need lag and tin can maps to try to win. This game is OLD-SKOOL BABY!!!! IF you have no skill don't bother getting it. Granted it is a bit buggy it is 100% better that Blackops and battlefield bad company 2. The people that give this game a bad review are children that base there gamming experience on the call of duty franchise. This game will go far.. Expand
  76. Mar 27, 2011
    3
    Singleplayer: on rails, cannot get immersed because they exagerate it, they overdo it. They don't let you do anything, you feel unwanted. 2/10

    Multiplayer: performance problems, framerate drops, nice graphics and concept but i don't like the combination of long range fight with very high bullet damage. Weapons are unbalanced (sniper!!) 4/10
  77. Mar 28, 2011
    1
    This is the worst game ive ever bought, theres so many glitch about this game. Sniper rifles are over powered, hackers aimbots on the first day of release. Very bad map design theres few maps you can pretty much snipe from your spawn point to the other teams spawn point. only one spawn location for the team = spawn rape. Bought the hard copy installed it & still requires me to install another 2Gb of crap, Finished the campaign mode in less than 2 hours. its so short that it took me longer to download the patch than to finish the story mode. I am so mad about this game, i even registered an account just to rant about this game. Never BUY IT! Expand
  78. Mar 30, 2011
    9
    Homefront is a great game. It is a bit on the short side, but the engrossment of the story is top notch. Having a firefight in a TigerDirect store while it's burning down is quite exhilarating. I disliked multiplayer for Call of Duty: MW2 but actually enjoy the combat system in Homefront's multiplayer.
  79. Apr 4, 2011
    2
    It isn't unusual for PC games to have a £25 price tag, or at least it wasn't a few years ago, so taking the fall and purchasing Homefront from Amazon didn't seem like such a bad idea. With the expectation of little more than a highly linear campaign which most would attribute to Call of Duty, and a multiplayer which is much the same I wasn't hoping for a modern masterpiece, nor was I expecting what I would find. The easiest way to break this down would be to follow a chronological order. Firstly, the game isn't all on the DVD. You'll find only one DVD in the case and several GB will need to be downloaded from Steam. Secondly, the game is artistically bland, graphically poor, and performs equally horribly. With screen tear, stuttering frame rates and some atrocious textures the game runs inexcusably poorly on an HD6950, i5 2500k and 4gig of RAM. As poor as the graphics in general may be, they're not nearly as bad as the effects used - gunfire is weak and bullets will totally disappear if shot at allies or nearby walls or doors and as far as hits on soldiers go, they're alike to being hit with an exploding jar of jam. With the likes of Crysis running at a steady 60FPS it's safe to assume something went horribly wrong during development and optimization. The gameplay itself has horrible and unexplainable imbalances, two shots from any gun seems to kill an enemy on the default difficulty if you shoot them in the chest, that means two single bullets kills an enemy, but it takes two bursts from rifles which have burst fire 90% of the time. Meanwhile, looking down whatever site every weapon has attached grants 100% accuracy, while hip firing means only one in 10 shots will hit an enemy. The game also has a totally linear path which is set up by invisible walls, I'm the last person to complain about linearity but then the invisible walls are on top of a tomato plant or absolutely nothing at all blocking your path, as if often the case, then I have cause to complain. As for the story and writing, "from the writer of Apocalypse Now", I would have hoped for something more engaging. I very quickly grew to dislike the main cast (Connor particularly, who is a typical brutish hothead marine type) who stumbled along from checkpoint to checkpoint causing the slaughter of dozens upon dozens of people. Pacing was also a big issue, as there was nothing at all to develop. The KPA were immediately set up as a 2D enemy who were there as fodder and not to develop, as in the first 2 minutes they manage to commit every war crime known to man. A lackluster singleplayer (and incredibly short, at Expand
  80. Dec 1, 2012
    1
    This buggy piece of junk is only pretending to be a game. And to be honest, i didn't see so many bugs in one game in my entire life. While single player is very dynamic and can be kinda addictive, multi player is masterpiece of lazyness and ignorance. Only 1 good thing is, i have paid for it 5 $
  81. Apr 17, 2011
    3
    So I bought Homefront on Steam for 49.99. I played through the campaign with a steady 35 fps with decent graphics settings, though I could have gotten better if Direct X 11 would go away, but w/e. The campaign was satisfying to say the least which earned this review the 3 score. Then I hit multiplayer... I don't know what happened to my computer to make it chug away at 10 fps, even on the lowest settings possible, but I sincerely wish I could get my money back. This is precisely why Console gaming will never die. Expand
  82. Apr 17, 2011
    3
    A complete waste of money, I became so bored and annoyed that I never even finished the single player and found the multi-player to be pretty lame. I thought the premise might be interesting, but it turned out to be totally ridiculous. The game is totally scripted, you cant even open a door on your own. The dialogue is terrible, I found myself constantly yelling at the characters to shut up. If i ever get stuck in behind enemy lines with these Conner and the rest I will be turning myself in. The game looks good at times, but that is little consolation. This game feels like it is ten years old and it plays like it too. Expand
  83. Apr 19, 2011
    0
    This game is rubbish. Wasted money on a massive advertisement campaign instead of developing game content and story. They claimed this game would have an emotional impact on the player... what a load of faeces. Singleplayer was boring, multiplayer was crap, numerous problems i wont even bother to mention because other people have mentioned them in their reviews. I just had to vent my frustration about this game and state the obvious, the games industry is crumbling yet people still buy trash like this. I can't believe they had the gall to announce a sequel even before the original was released! Dont bother with this game! Should i check the box that says "contains spoilers"? The only spoiler i'm going to reveal is the utter disappointment you will experience after playing this game. Expand
  84. May 4, 2011
    0
    Imbecilic game.Game-play is from door to door. Narrow playground is made for monkey mind. Not to mention hypocrisy of USA military intervention into sovereign countries. But when communist come to USA than itâ
  85. May 5, 2011
    2
    There is nothing you haven't seen here before. If you have played any decent FPS games in the last decade, you've probably seen all there is in Homefront, and seen it done better. Quite disappointing, honestly. Single player is an interactive movie, and a weak one at that. You constantly lack control and mobility, just so they can show you a specific story piece from a specific angle. It would be better with a cutscene, since it would have more dramatic angles, and the scenes would possibly be SKIPPABLE! It's not so bad the first time, but replaying the game is so frustrating to sit through. There is only about 2 hours of real gameplay, lengthened by extraneous story scripting. Modern Warfare 1 had compelling and intense scripted events; Homefront lacks the heart and adrenaline to compare.
    On to multiplayer. It was great the first day, but after time the level imbalances became more apparent. The Battle Points seemed original at first, but then I realized it's CounterStrike with vehicles and without the strategy. Helicopters are near-impossible to fly and shoot accurately, and cost far more than the drones that can get far more kills more easily. The perks are mostly minor, and mostly focused on buffing drones. Combat can quickly turn into camping, spawning drones, and killing without dieing, and repeat. With enough kills by drones, you can afford another, and simply repeat the process without ever putting yourself in danger. There are only 2 modes in the game, team deathmatch and capture the point (with a ground control option on both that makes small changes). Ground control does help the game by giving incentive to kill spree-owners, and to defend your kill leader. Still, teamwork is mixed and many times the spawn system doesn't protect you from enemies. Most maps have many camping spots and mistakes. Maps also don't allow for easy travel of the bigger vehicles, reinforcing the usefulness of drones. In a fight between any human and a camper with drones, the drones win almost always. The fun is slowly bleeding out of this game, online and off, and I completely intend to beat it and delete it.
    Expand
  86. May 11, 2011
    2
    hmm wat i can say.i have bad games this one
    bad mistake here is too dont like this one
    not like single player games but here is beter then multiplayer
  87. Jun 29, 2011
    6
    Homefront is a decent game. I'm mostly a PC gamer when it comes to shooters, and I'm not all that hardcore. This review is only about the single player campaign because I really care little for modern FPS multiplayer games.
    Homefront feels like another COD clone, because nowadays everything is a "COD clone", as if COD was the first ever FPS. However the singleplayer campaign is much more
    exciting and appealing than any crappy iteration of the aforementioned franchise. There are some awkward lines of dialogue, especially when the line is spoken out of cue. For instance, at one point the leader tells the girl to kill a guy, and she heads over to the person to be killed and halfway there she yells that she "didn't sign up for this **** This is followed by the leader telling her to grow a pair and the almost immediate execution of the guy. Mind you, this was in the middle of a "stealth" segment. Because apparently deranged American killers with trigger happy fingers don't see or hear you (or your squad) in broad daylight as you prance around their base and scream at each other. Then there's the matter that the leader himself is a weird obstinate guy that is not very likeable. Your squad also has a Korean tech geek that no one really likes. And then there's the chick, who has amazing hips. There was also a previous leader, but he was black and was therefore shot and hanged early on in the game. Oh, and there's this super awesome cannon on wheels thing that you can use to blow **** up by pointing at your target with a monocle.
    The gameplay itself is lots of fun, though. Guns feel amazing, and some of the scopes are super epic. There's not that much variety of weaponry in the game, mostly the same 6 or so guns with different attachments. I didn't find a way to decide what attachments I wanted and I feel that this was absolutely lame. Sure, you're a freedom fighter and have to use what you can grab, but what would stop me from taking a scope from X gun and putting it on X other one? Regardless, it's not that hard to find a nice suitable setup. Now, something that is really awkward is equipment usage. To swap between your two guns, you press 1. To throw a grenade you press G. Then I can't remember how the **** to throw C4, nor how to use a grenade launcher attachment, because it just wasn't intuitive.
    Enough about combat, what about pacing and missions? Missions are paced well. There are times when a tank will appear after obliterating a house next to you and you run away screaming like a little girl (I know I did) and then there's times when you're "sneaking" around. There's also lots of chest high walls, but there's no way to stick to them, which I like. Then there's also a segment where you fly a chopper and have to get your team to highjack some trucks. This part is very easy, slightly very unrealistic, but very fun nonetheless. It is worthy to note that this segment, which is, by the way, over way too soon, is the reason why these freedom fighters wanted you: you're a pilot. And you're really only useful those 5-10 minutes.
    Actually, that's an understatement, because as in many other shooters, your squad is a bunch of brain-dead morons. Upon occasion I would get shot from behind, only to turn around and see "nice hips" chick standing there staring at the guy.
    There's also an issue with the AI always wanting to kill YOU. For instance, an RPG dude on a tower: you haven't messed with him and for all intents and purposes he is blissfully ignorant of your existence; until you pop your head out of a window (a window on his blind side) and aim at him, then he figures out your location, intent, name, date of birth, sexual inclinations, how hot your sister is, etc., and lands a rocket straight down your throat. I guess some Koreans just have a bit of a David Copperfield thing going on.
    As far as rewards go, there are very little. Remember, you're struggling to fight some crazy asian people, seeing another day is your reward. Also, forget about saving Americans, because you pretty much doomed every single civilian you met.
    There is one really big problem I have with this game, and it's the fact that the ending was rushed and uninspired. Almost as if the devs thought: "hmmmm, I don't feel like writing more story, let's just have the leader kill-errrmm sacrifice himself and end it there."
    In conclusion, Homefront is a solid gameplay experience that will keep you on your toes. And, even though I find it to be better than COD, it just isn't too high a praise, it's just an alright game. In fact, I don't think I'll ever touch it again. So, if you'd like something tastier than COD, and happen to see Homefront on a Steam sale, by all means go ahead and grab it.
    Expand
  88. May 23, 2011
    1
    This game is TERRIBLE! I got 2/3 of the way through the single player campaign and decided to stick it out for the achievements. The storyline had promise, but failed to deliver. Gameplay is linear with enemies that charge towards you. The SP could have been extremely entertaining with some development of the NPC's and AI.

    Tried the multiplayer and sold it back after a couple of
    sessions. It seems as if the developers tried to copy COD, but failed at making anything unique to the game. The perks system was boring and graphics were mediocre (for both SP and MP). If you are still considering buying this title, PLEASE DON'T!! This game is no good. Expand
  89. Jul 21, 2011
    2
    To break this review down into more readable pieces I'll do a dashed line spaces to break it up. I'M A GENIUS!! Yes - Homefront. Well the idea was for Homefront to be different, and believe me - its anything BUT different. The crooks of the game is that America gets invaded - stop me if this sounds familiar, don't confuse it with MW2 where America gets invaded, or the end of BFBC2 where Russia gets invaded, or Command and Conquer where Russia is invaded, or Turning Point: Fall of Liberty where Nazis invade or even Fallout where China Invades Alaska which technically was America being invaded!! But feel free to get confused with Freedom Fighters because it's the SAME DAMN GAME!!!
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Don't get me wrong in the run up it looked the part, it looked like the writers ate babies for breakfast without any milk, the intro movie was cool too (I watched it twice). It genuinely looked like a good game with a great single-player and story. So I ordered it and sat down for an evening of Homefront....and stood up 3 hours later because I was done. Yes. 3 HOURS! 3 BORING, TERRIBLY SLOW, CRAP 3 HOURS WHICH I WON'T GET BACK EVER! ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I'll keep the overview as brief as the game, it's REALLY, REALLY, REALLY REALLY BAD BAD BAD BAD BAD! Save your money for something else like food, shelter and breathing - not this load of rubbish
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The basic story is that the US goes into crisis due to some middle east wars and Korea decides to invade for very poorly justified reasons - using a cool space program which wasn't as cool as Star Trek but enough to overthrow a world super-power, and then you get taken by the resistance and then steal an oil tank drive from the Koreans (dunno why nothing I own that says "made in Korea" on it works, but hey) and take the oil tanker it to California to fuel the US and steal back some city I don't know I got bored with the story. It tries to be a HL2 knock off with the mute protagonist and the characters it has based itself on and the whole invasion suppression thing, but it fails to copy HL2 in the way of a long well written story or good game-play or being...GOOD!
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The characters are a big rip-off from HL2 and are all about as warmable as a day in the arctic - especially Conner (who is the biggest prick this side of the occupied border) and made me not care about them to the point that when Boon or Broon or the black guy got tortured (SPOILER ALERT) the game assumed I'd made a bond where the worst I felt was that's one less character to open doors for me for all the scripted events the game has, and then I realised the AI wouldn't push me out of cover again for their stupid scripted events - seriously, I got killed twice - TWICE! All because the AI had pushed me out of cover into the line of the enemy so that Conner T*at could yell at some civilians he was "trying" to liberate.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Remember when I said that the game was like Freedom Fighters, well it looks like Freedom Fighters too, it's graphically dated - and when I say dated, it's so ugly the game would have to rape it's own hand. Now usually people say eye-candy doesn't matter in a game and usually I'd agree with them provided the game can stand up on something else like story or game-play. For example, Homefront looks like it was beaten with the ugly stick, whereas Half-Life 1 looks like it was gang-raped by the ugly forest - the distinction is Half Life 1 was good. Homefront looks ugly on modern consoles, which is really hard to pull off, but is just plain bad. Now don't get me wrong there were some good bits like the whole first chapter, the helicopter bit and hiding in a pile of corpses but those bits were few and far between and the game isn't special, really.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Now everyone says the multiplayer makes up for it. It doesn't. I tried joining a game and after 10 minutes the game told me there was no mother playing it, so after another 10 minutes of waiting to find someone the game descended into tedium and boredom. Good multiplayer my arse!, and it doesn't excuse such a terribly short and bad campaign, no where near as good as TF2 or CoD4.
    Bottom line: AVOID THIS GAME, do not buy it!
    Expand
  90. Jul 17, 2011
    1
    Terrible game, it's poorly optimized for the PC, the controls are poor, and You'll get a poor frame rate unless you have a really good pc. My computer can play crysis 2 at an average of 60 fps on the gamer settings but this game rapes my rig. The story is boring and the multiplayer is unbalanced and glitchy, players who pay for the map packs get access to weapons that are completely over powered (a shotgun that can 1 shot kill across the map, while snipers take 2-3 shots to kill). There is no bullet penetration what so ever and bullets often hit invisible barriers when you try to shoot from behind cover. Expand
  91. Jul 28, 2011
    0
    First off, this game has the worst campaign I think I've ever played. Long story short, it's a failing 3 hour story about saving a bridge, doesn't get anymore original than that folks. Second, the multiplayer is very underdone.. It has performance bugs, low gen graphics, crappy server support.. Oh, and guess what! It's $49.99! What a shocker! I was hoping for this game to be great.. clearly I expected too much. Expand
  92. Jul 30, 2011
    1
    i know people dont like it, but this is what it is: Call of Duty, the same boring gameplay mechanics that have made such a series fall dead except to the 8 year old console gamers. Except it did suprise me. With all the hype, i expected it to be another COD clone, but i was going to get it for it's single player. The surprise was how terrible a COD clone could possibly be. I thank the piratebay, for allowing me to sample the SP before i poured my money into it for the full game. Because i dont know what i could possibly do with the Disc and case that wouldve been worth the 60 dollars i wouldve paid. setting a disc and case on fire isnt something id pay 60 bucks for.

    But heres WHY. Its the same old shallow gameplay mechanics from COD, once they and most of the FPS genre adopted it, in the worst format ive seen, it has the shortest campaign ive ever seen on a FPS.....or ANY game for that matter, it has bugs bursting from the seams, and its a wonderful thing this game didnt sell well. THQ lost BIG bucks on this game, and rightfully so. With that ad campaign that showed it as another best seller, then delivering this worthless pile of super-discount-bin material, they deserve it. its not all bad though. At least it will show companies what churning out something as awful as this will end up earning them, especially after that phony ad campaign.
    Expand
  93. Aug 11, 2011
    4
    Ever get the feeling like, thank god I didn't buy this game? well, thank God, I didn't buy this game. my " piratebay" edition just made me hate it, was expecting something good from it though Pros: 1.Nice Theme to begin with, 2. intro that portrays the situation pretty well Cons: Gameplay 1.Really linear gameplay * I mean u cant event jump on a box or reach a certain point without going through a specific door, in fact, if I remembered correctly u can only open one door, the rest are opened by NPCs. Most annoying would be the Unmanned vehicle, seems smart enough to shoot infantry, but u still have to designate targets urself ? Can't the vehicle do it itself since it's so smart?
    Have I mentioned u cant go through openings or exits without the NPCs going first ? even when there's millions of enemy troops shooting at you ?

    Characters
    2. The characters are not lovable, in fact my favorite from this story was actually the guy who died in the intro, the rest of them are rather annoying, sometimes u wish they would shut up. NPCs fail to convey emotions or urgency in achieving an objective but rather makes u wanna shoot them

    Weapons
    3. If North Korea invaded any country, wont they use their arms to do so ? All the weapons in this game looks like a derivative of the M16 and they all feel the same with the exception of the sniper rifle which still looks like a M16 and the M249 which is....used by the North Koreas as well for strange reasons,
    Even the vehicles used by the North Koreans all seem strangely american, except for the Tank and that's all..............


    Graphics
    4. For the amount of juice it sucks, the game does look pretty awful, I honestly think the graphics in Valve's Left 4 Dead 2 is much better, I still cant believe Bad Company 2 looks better than this game, while they're both set to the same settings and my system hitting the same frame rate, BC2 feels smoother too.
    BTW, I run a Radeon 6950 with I5-2500K.

    Multiplayer
    5. Didnt bother to try since the single player was so terrible.




    Weird:
    1. North Korea invading America? How the hell they do that? would be more plausible if it was a pack of nations like China+ Russia .........then North Korea.....
    2. Like some posters have said, those 10 point reviews seem suspicious as they do not comment much on the game and are from 1 post only posters.


    Conclusion: Not really a bad PC port, just a bad game itself
    Expand
  94. Oct 12, 2011
    2
    Yet another desperate attempt to create a Call of Duty clone. And guess what, yet again it desperately failed. Unless you find this in a bargain bin somewhere for 3 bucks, dont buy it.
  95. Jan 5, 2013
    3
    I logged in for the first time for a long time just to say this game sucks.

    Played and beat this game in 5 hours, generic gunplay, no character depth, story, whatever. Spent like 10 minutes in multiplayer before uninstalling. A generic fps war game. You just shoot Korean soldiers if I remember correctly. The mech parts in the game are pretty cool though.

    I only pre-ordered this game
    for the TF2 item and man, that's pretty much all I got. Expand
  96. Dec 12, 2011
    2
    i only payed 4,99 on steam for this piece of crap but this still was a terrible waste of money. i would also say it was a waste of time but i completed the singleplayer "campaign" in four hours so it is luckily not worth complaining about the time i wasted.
    outdated graphics, AI acts like chicken, leveldesing is terrible.
    and if you ask me, this game is pure propaganda. the first hour i
    nearly barfed a few times on my keyboard because this scenario with his "hail america" patriotism and "fight the evil asians" is so over the top but (or is it real) that it makes you sick. seem like america is preparing his people for another enemy after the russians and the arabs are gone. Expand
  97. Mar 3, 2012
    10
    One of the good game related with WAR with good tailored story. Do not go with critics over here, they are mostly Americans who don't want to see America losing in any war it's typical with them. Give this game a good try and you will really enjoy it. It's better than what Activision Call of duty offers now years.
  98. Jun 26, 2012
    1
    Terrible online, Combining 2 Great game elements-CoD and Battlefield-And completely Ruining it, Maps are too small for vehicles and vehicles are too easy to obtain. Guns are WAYY too inaccurate and feels very un-lifelike(3 M16 bullets to kill, 2 Clips of ACR to Kill) No Vaulting Move leaving you struggling to get over a small fence, getting you killed. Objectives make no sense and are biased. This game looks like it was Thrown together in a week, Doesn't even Come Close to the games it's trying to Compete with.

    Runs Terrible on Mid-High range PC-Struggle to get more than 50FPS on Medium Settings-I've played FPS Games on the PS2 which are better than this junk.,

    I Paid £3 for it on steam and even I felt ripped off, Don't ever try this game, their are enough reviews on here to prove my point.
    Expand
  99. Sep 8, 2012
    10
    GREAT game, had a lot of fun with it and the multiplayer rocks. The campaign is not very long, but the showdown and many events are of epic scale. Fighting on american soil against a korean invasion is simply a great setting.
  100. Jul 27, 2012
    0
    I played the first 2 single player missions and to be honest the first thing that came to my mind when i saw the "usa invaded" was "SERVES YOU RIGHT !"
    Now to be honest, they are trying to get the player to feel something for the americans just because they threw in s few kids to make it mode dramatic. But in my opinion, that really backfired on them because the things they use to TRY to
    make me feel sorry for the americans in A GAME, are the things they are doing right now to other countries IN REAL.
    Ok, got that out of my system :D
    Now for the gameplay, most of the 2 missions i got to play were dragged on by cut scenes and waiting for an enemy to pass 2 meters in front of you without seeing you. And when you Finally get to play a little, the controls are buggy aiming is slow to respond, movement feels like you are superman on holiday casually floating in the air with a gun stuck on your face.
    In short, it has a bad story, fails to make you feel anything for anyone, because face it, if you let your continent get invaded by sea so easily, then you probably deserve it. Its a game that you forget about it 5 minutes after you stop playing it, all i can still remember about it at this point(1 day after playing) are some videos taken from real life but even in those i'm not sure what they were talking about.

    It's a bad first person shooter, where enemies take 2 bullets to get killed, and you take it one clip like Rambo then just hide behind a wall and eat dirt to regenerate health (Let's say in the plot maybe that's why USA got invaded ... for it's great health regenerating dirt, in which case the enemy did a bad job with all of them wearing helmets making it impossible for them to take advantage of that)
    Expand
Metascore
70

Mixed or average reviews - based on 36 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 13 out of 36
  2. Negative: 3 out of 36
  1. Mar 12, 2012
    75
    I have a hard time recommending the PC version of Homefront. It's a decent game with a unique take on world events, and its fresh and fun new ideas for two-mode, bot-less, online only multiplayer kept me coming back long after I'd waved adieu to the single-player portion, but the performance and playability on this platform is far eclipsed by the stability found on consoles.
  2. 70
    Very short but intense firefight shows not a very cheerful vision of the near future for North America. Game story is excellent but playability loses because of over-scripting. [Issue#203]
  3. May 18, 2011
    50
    It's dreadfully average and far too quickly finished, providing nothing more than the most basic type of fun on the first run-through and little incentive to revisit. Not because it's broken; just because it's boring.