User Score
6.0

Mixed or average reviews- based on 374 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 15, 2011
    4
    The single player campaign is short and crappy. Team members are only good for blocking you as you're trying to run away from a grenade, the battlefield are pretty small and you soak up more aggro than the rest of the group, so moving around is more danger than it's worth, while enemies flank you from all sides because dumbass team members are useless at holding the line.

    Not commenting
    on the Multiplayer yet, but the design is so worthless that Pump Action shotguns, the whole point of which is to be able to interrupt the lengthy reload and fire shots in between slugs so that you're not too vulnerable... well, when that reload animation starts, you have to load every single slug before you can fire. I swear none of the people involved in the game made an FPS before. Expand
  2. Mar 23, 2011
    4
    I would like to be able to give this game a higher score because it shows so much potential, however it lets itself down in to many key areas. The single player has some well made moments in it however they are few and far between, also what is already a short campaign is made to feel all the shorter by regularly taking breaks from the action, this seem to have been done to create atmosphere but comes across as developers playing for time, I wonder if you removed these breaks in play whether the game would even be 3 hours long. The graphics are not as bad as a lot of people are saying, it could do with a polish but I've seen worse, the bigger problem is shoddy level design at several points I have been blocked by invisible walls or knee high objects that are not jumpable. All of this could be forgiven if you are buy this game for the multi-player which when it work's is good fun, unfortunately there are some serious problems with joining games and have games freeze for a great deal of people, kaos studios have patched both the pc and ps3 version but are still yet to fix the problems for 360 players. If you are affected by these problems it mean's roughly 1 in 10 attempts to join a game will be successful (this is not an exaggeration I've been counting) and when you do get in a game you shouldn't expect it to run smoothly. Kaos studios are apparently working on a fix but I fear for many it will be to little to late and they will have already traded the game in. All of the afore mentioned problems are compounded by the majority of the multi-player being limited, each new copy of Homefront comes with a one use "battle code" without this you will not be able to level up past level 5 in multi-player restricting you to only 3 of the 6 game modes as others are unlocked at level 7. If you bought the game second hand you can purchase the code on-line, this is by far one of the dirtiest trick I've seen from a game in a long time, because ignoring the annoyance of having to pay twice get a second hand copy worth playing, If you bought this game new (as I did) and find that you are one of the people affected by the multi-player "glitches" ( as I am) you will more than likely not be able to return this game for a refund (on the grounds that the multi-player is broken) because the store you purchased it from will have no way of telling if you have used the code and therefore devalued the product. leaving you with a broken game and no way of getting you're money back. In summary, if you are buying this game for the multi-player and are one of the lucky few who are not affected by the "bugs" and "glitches" then you may get some good fun out of this game, If however you're buying it for single player, don't bother, and if you are buying it for the multi-player be aware you may be stuck with a £40 game you can't play. Expand
  3. Apr 9, 2011
    4
    Like most shooters now days Homefront tries to rip off Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, the controls are identical, and it's just as short and boring, this should have been called Call of Duty 4.5: Future Warfare, the graphics and sound are dated, and there is delay from the time you hit the button from the time it responds, which for a game that requires fast response time hurts it severely, obviously the best part about it is the multiplayer, but the problem with the responsiveness of the controls hurt it here too, all in all with all the better shooters out there like Call of Duty: Black Ops, and Halo: Reach, and the upcoming shooters like Battlefield 3, I can't find a reason for anyone to buy this crappy game. Expand
  4. Mar 18, 2011
    4
    if 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
  5. Mar 15, 2011
    4
    Picked the game up this morning, and I finished it this morning. Completed the single player in 4 & half hours on normal. Make no mistake about it, this game is a multiplayer only game. If your buying this, your buying it for the MP. The story is semi interesting I give it that. But it's done in a way thats been done 100 times before. The sound and graphics are definitely out dated and not up to par with other shooters that flood the market. The multiplayer is decent but I don't see it holding it's own against Battlefield or Call of Duty. Homefront will once and awhile be something else to play from time to time, but you and youyr friends will only want to return to Battlefield, Call of Duty or Halo at the end of the day. This game is a PASS... Expand
  6. Mar 15, 2011
    4
    Not going to waste much breath reviewing this... will just say don't buy it. You should download the demo first and you will save yourself some cash.
  7. Mar 16, 2011
    4
    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. 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.

    Final thought:
    Save yourself 50 bucks and just borrow the game from a friend (you'll only need it for a day).
    Expand
  8. Mar 17, 2011
    4
    All the hype for this game convinced me to break my cardinal rule: NEVER buy video games without reading several different reviews before buying. I really wished I would've because I feel like I threw $60 down the drain. I found the graphics to be blurry and undefined, the gameplay to be delayed (especially in multi-player), and overall just a big disappointment. I was able to get into two multi-player maps in an hour due to servers STILL being down. Once in, I was frustrated as hell by the fact that the unresponsiveness of the gameplay increased and it takes almost and entire clip of ammo to kill anyone. The storyline is OK, but what does that matter if the game itself sucks? If you are interested in this game, definitely try it through Gamefly before buying. Expand
  9. Mar 18, 2011
    4
    The story was pretty good the downfalls easily outweighed the rest of the game though, the graphics were choppy, i found that even behind cover i was getting hit the hit detection in general was week , only took maybe 5 hours to beat it. Multiplayer was okay it was good to see something different for once but it still needs work in my opinion with that said this game is a rental.
  10. Mar 22, 2011
    4
    Disappointing. I mean really? How are people giving this an 8 or more? I can only assume these individuals are fairly new to the gaming scene, or perhaps haven't played many other shooters on the array of different platforms out there. Because HomeFront is by far, one of the worst AAA titles I've recently had the displeasure of owning.

    A short campaign with a fantastic premise and great
    backdrop. Even with the sub-par graphics, some of the levels set the scene very well. BUT. And yes there is a but.... KAOS failed miserably to capitalize on such a good backstory. It feels just like every other shooter. Your small team of mere "civilians" now fighting for the Resistance seem to have superior military training and weapons to the North Korean's. You will literally destroy entire bases, tanks, helo's, you name it.... the Resistance appears to be stronger than any army on earth. It really kills the immersive world they've put you in. And the fact it is so short does not help the matter.

    Multiplayer is badly designed. Huge maps yet no way to spawn on team members or flags that you control?? If you're going to copy BF at least get the basics right. The Battlepoints system is frustrating. To actually make your class worth while you have to spend points. All this does is give the good players an advantage, and the bad ones feel like they're trying to climb the impossible ladder. What happens? Spawn Camping! Great! The vehicles are something from a cartoon and the overall "flow" (which is important for MP games) is not good at all. Coupled with the lack of servers and lag leaves me with no choice but to eject the disc.

    If you enjoy this type of multiplayer, definitely pick up a copy of Bad Company 2 if you haven't yet. It really does blow this game out of the water.

    I'm just glad you can sell X360 games.
    Expand
  11. Mar 24, 2011
    4
    I've only had the game for a few hours and i already regret spending $65.36 on this junk. Why would anyone continue to support this trash is beyond me. Look, all we want is a F.P.S game that lets the player feel like he's really in a war. Give the player, tanks, choppers, humvees, and weapons that will steal our breath away. Also, get rid of the xp system since C.O.D ran it into the ground already. I know rank is very important, but rank is to show how far you've come along in the game not what you will unlock once you've reached a certain level. At the rate that games are released players don't always reach the highest rank anyway, so why bother putting all that extra garbage in the first place. keep it simple, give us everything we need from the start, step back, and let us enjoy ourselves. The only game that really let us do this was ( Battlefeild Modern Combat 2 ). how i miss that game. I HOPE YOU'RE LISTENING!!!!!!!!!!! Expand
  12. Mar 25, 2011
    4
    Game was 3 hours long, had graphics worse than CoD while only being 30 fps. Game play was ok but kind of generic. The ending was ridiculous, the beginning wasn't half bad though. Game just overall felt underdeveloped, really not worth the money THQ spent on it. Multiplayer is laggy due to the lack o f servers at launch, and was a nice multiplayer although looking very dated and being buggy. Want my advice? Buy Crysis 2. Expand
  13. Mar 30, 2011
    4
    Homefront was one game this year that I thought was going to be great. Being a big fan of Red Dawn, I knew I was going to be a fan of the storyline. But the ultimately, in my opinion, game play and multiplayer was clunky and inaccurate I was very disappointed.
  14. Apr 19, 2011
    4
    Negatives: Too many to list here, but the main ones are stupid, contrived and unbelievable storyline. THQ is too scared of ticking of China who would be a more plausible antagonist. Bullets can't even pierce thin wood, thin metal or bushes. Characters are cheesy and get annoying quickly when they keep kicking you out of cover. Game is far too short. The enemy AI is terrible and has pinpoint accuracy. Positives: Can't honestly think of any. Rating: 4 because the game is a bad Black Ops rip off with a stupid story. Expand
  15. Apr 22, 2011
    4
    VERY short campaign, incredibly linear, unbelievably generic, tons of poorly placed invisible walls, tries to be like Call of Duty but worse, ugly graphics. The story isn't even good and the setting is just shock value ****
  16. Aug 14, 2012
    4
    Homefront was a major disappointment. I was excited by the hype and the unique advertising campaign. Plus, I respected the nod to cult classic Red Dawn. The concept was ambitious, but the game fell through in execution. The primary complaint was with the short and easy solo campaign. It took less the 3 hrs on the hardest difficulty. I started after breakfast and it wasn't lunch by the time I finished. But even deeper, the environmental interaction was lacking, the set pieces were static, and the graphics were sub par. As for minor gripes, why were there so few weapons? I understand that the Korean military may have standard armaments, but where was the variety associated with American personal arsenals? Where were the hunting rifles from the good old boys and the MAC-10's from LA's street gangs? Further, where were these groups in the game in general? As I'm running through the story, the conquest of America seemed to be very easy compared to any semblance of reality. Sadly, the potential character development is lost in the rush of the barely present plot. So potentially interesting characters are one-note. Will all that said, yes there is multiplayer to up the replay value a little, but it's nothing you haven't seen before and doesn't compare with top tier games like COD and BF3. Much like the solo campaign, the multiplayer is anything but remarkable. Expand
  17. May 30, 2011
    4
    Don't buy this game. I believed the hype and the story looked interesting but it is very badly executed. The gameplay is average, voice acting average, graphics average. It is simply not a triple A game. The single player campaign was way too short and very obviously "on rails" as you're guided through the levels. The multiplayer is okay, with large areas to fight in with several others but it's just not worth the asking price. Expand
  18. Aug 27, 2011
    4
    While Homefront has an amusing multiplayer, the singleplayer is obnoxiously short and boring. You can't really feel like this is America because it lacks some of America's defining traits: Suicidal self-preservation by NRA members, a huge military and nuclear weapons. While it is very possible for a foreign nation to invade the US, it is not possible for the North Koreans to invade anyone. Maybe the Chinese could, but not North Korea Compared to South Korea, the North Koreans outnumber them in military, but have much less oil, civilians and weapons. The game also fails to explain why the Koreans don't know how to make their own guns. These same guns seem to have been ripped from thin air. For example, the M16 looks like and is used as a Sniper Rifle. The killstreak system is a bad idea, as is the idea of drones. Makes one feel like playing Call of Duty or Medal of Honor (2010). One very obnoxious feature is that one must have a Battle Code to play past level 5 in multiplayer, which means if Gamestop recommends a Used copy to you, they have never played the game. Expand
  19. Jul 31, 2011
    4
    For a game that touted itself as a "Call of Duty Beater" ever since it was announced, the final product is far from anything that could consider itself in the same league as Call of Duty. About the only thing that works in the game (other than a semi-decent multiplayer) is the story, which is written by John Milius who also wrote the 1984 film Red Dawn which has the same concept of "Baddies try to invade America". The plot and backstory are well written using plausible fictitious events that lead up to the beginning of the game. Shame then that the single player campaign is so shockingly bad that is manages to screw up the whole experiences, visuals are rough around the edges and appear very last generation. Levels are deceptive in that they appear open and roamable, but end up funnelling you in a very tight direction with invisible walls and obstacles you cannot jump over. The teammate A.I. must always be the first down ladders or through doors to the point where the game won't let you go anywhere until your slow and stupid team mates catch you up. Shooting is standard but weapons like any real stopping power, often relying on half a magazine to put someone down. The campaign itself is short, VERY short. On my first go on normal I did it in 4 hours, just when you think the game is starting to show signs of getting good you are surprised to find the level ends and the credits role. Multiplayer is semi-decent with an interesting approach to buying equipment and resources via points earned for performing actions, but all the while you'll wish you were playing Call of Duty or Battlefield. I feel sorry that Kaos Studios the developers were shut down, the game stinks of publisher controlled decisions and I believe this is why the game ended up so shoddy. Expand
  20. Apr 14, 2011
    3
    Wow, this game is awful. Where to begin? First, the story is terrible. Totally unrealistic, but THQ made North Korea the bad guys because they're too scared to anger China who would be a much more plausible bad guy. The string of events leading up to the story are heavily contrived and scoffed at by any reasonable adult who reads the news. The story tries to make you feel like an insurgent in an occupied America, but its so force fed and cheesy that it feels like a lame joke. The support characters are full of stereo types and are one dimensional. As a FPS, the game is also awful. It tries to follow Black Ops, yet bullets are blocked by plants and very thin wood. The AI is a joke as many times the enemy just runs up to cover, only to hide behind it. The enemies literally duck into cover when you place your aiming reticule over them AND jump back out as soon as you move away. Your "allies" sit behind cover while an enemy, who they can see and could easily shoot, unloads on you - yet they do nothing. The overabundance of weapons is a joke as all you see is a bunch of SHINY (Yes, important items shine) weapons littering the battlefield. The only way to know when you truly kill a bad guy is the same audio clip of someone screaming, which gets really old after half an hour. Also, be prepared to kill the same mob over and over as there's only 2-4 models per faction.

    TL;DR This game is awful and a poor Modern Warfare clone. The reviews and scores don't lie. Also - Ignore the THQ employees who pathetically try to inflate the score. You can tell which they are as anyone with half a brain would never give this game more than an 8.
    Expand
  21. Mar 17, 2011
    3
    Unbelievably terrible. The single player is competent and pretty fun for the four or so hours it took me to beat it. The single player ends right at the exact moment any other FPS single player campaign would start to heat up. There's no continuity to the single player experience. All the guns kind of feel the same and while the environments look fantastic, you can't shoot through surfaces or destroy surfaces (but enemy turrets can, for some reason). The multiplayer is downright frustrating, too. I stuck a C4 directly to a player and detonated it. Lo and behold, he did not die, and he put me down with two PISTOL SHOTS. Every game of the multiplayer I have played ends with one team getting spawnkilled to the point of tedium. I love spawning right in the middle of an airstrike and instantly dying... twice in a row. The last game I played, my team was getting spawnkilled by two choppers, a tank, and two snipers. It was impossible to do anything. Great job, THQ. I'm never buying a game on launch day again. This game is exactly the same as paying someone for forced sodomy. Expand
  22. Mar 23, 2011
    3
    With a disgustingly short campaign and a very limited, glitch filled multi-player experience, Homefront fails to deliver on any of it's promises. The single-player campaign starts off well, quickly leaves behind the story in favor of standard shooter action, then abruptly ends. Quite frankly, it's not worth the time (roughly 4 hours) or money to be given half of a game. If the game is expanded with DLC some of these criticisms could be forgotten,but I doubt many would want to throw good money after bad to flesh out characters and finish a story that was intentionally cut short.

    The multi-player graphics are fine considering the size of the maps, and the sound and mechanics are good. The game-play can actually be fun, when and if the game decides to let you play it. This is the first Xbox 360 game that I've ever heard of being unplayable, literally broken (the game actually freezes), right out of the box for some players. Whoever decided this game was ready for release should have their head examined.
    Server and matchmaking problems abound. Glitches where players are half-inside/half outside of a piece of scenery occur too frequently, leaving the player invincible and literally a killing machine. Only having two (2!) game play modes (Team Deathmatch and Ground Control) is laughable in a First-Person Shooter. Only having 8 maps is a letdown as well.

    The Battle Commander and Battle Points systems work well, and add a slightly more strategic element to the game. Vehicles are fun to use as well, and the large maps and large number of players (32 in Ground Control) differentiate this game from others in the genre.

    The game gets points for large scale warfare, large maps, and the Battle Commander and Battle Points elements.
    Unfortunately, the many problems with multi-player, including glitches, too few game modes, too few maps, and a broken match-making system detract from the experience. Couple that with a horribly short single-player campaign and a poorly told story that's not even half finished when the game ends and you're left with a game that I cannot recommend to any gamer, serious or casual. Homefront is an IP that should be turned over to competent game-makers, if only to avoid seeing a great idea further ruined by THQ and Kaos.
    Expand
  23. May 19, 2011
    3
    This game is stupid. It's almost identical to COD (even some of the character voices sounded familiar) and the story is too predictable. You got your stereotypical resistance leaders, your generic-lets-take-our-country-back plot, and a game play that is less than entertaining. The trailer fo this game was more interesting than the actual game. And also, your "team" that you stick with throughout the game are just a bunch of stupid **** I'm so glad I didn't buy ths game. Expand
  24. May 25, 2011
    3
    I HATE this game. The single player was only 2-4 hours on the hard difficulty! A ton of graphical and gameplay glitches that are just make the game look terrible, plus the multiplayer seems like a rip off of Battlefield Bad Company 2. Do Not buy this game.
  25. Sep 28, 2011
    3
    First of all, let's talk about the great big elephant in the room. Homefront's story is about North Korea somehow reuniting with South Korea, then taking over Japan and large portions of Southeast Asia, and ultimately invading and conquering most of the continental United States. This situation is farcical and clearly makes no sense at all. Why did they choose to tell such an idiotic story? Well, from what I've gathered, the original story was going to be about China taking over the US. That also would've been a bit far-fetched and unlikely, but it would've been far more realistic than North Korea. Blair Herter was right, those North Koreans can't even keep their populace from starving, much less mount a credible invasion. But apparently commercial interests in China would've been a bit upset at THQ, so they changed the adversarial role. I find it repugnant that corporate pressure perverted creative integrity, but that's business I suppose. In any case, the resulting game turned out to be a failure, and would've been so with or without the goofy plot.

    The guns in this game have no way to switch firing modes. The M16, for example, is a semi auto assault rifle, and cannot be fired in three round burst mode. Well, that's no good. That's no good at all. Why would this game depict modern warfare/near future warfare if it can't even get something as simple as the M16's three round burst right? Everyone knows that assault rifles have fire selectors that let you switch from semi auto to three round burst to full auto. This makes no sense. All the Rainbow Six games let you switch between firing modes. This is an important detail that the Homefront developers just forgot? That's inexcusable. All they had to do was map it to the D-pad, am I right? In Medal of Honor singleplayer, you could press the D-pad and it would switch firing modes. It made sense. I don't know where they thought people didn't need firing mode switches anymore. Sometimes, you might want to just fire single shots, to conserve ammo. Other times, you might want three round burst or full auto for more firepower. That's the whole point of having multiple firing modes.

    Homefront is supposed to take place in the modern world. It's supposed to be a game about modern combat, of a sort. Modern assault rifles all have this feature, so why would they drop it from the game? Who do they think they are? All the Rainbow Six games were very good about being realistic and having the ability to switch fire modes! Those games were amazing, why have we gone backwards as the years have gone by? Who thinks this is a good idea?! I don't. I wish Rainbow Six would make a resurgence, I really do! This sort of casual nonsense has to end, damnit. M16A2s are renowned for having three round burst. It's what makes them different from M4A1s and CAR-15s, which fire full auto. Homefront takes place in the future, but that doesn't excuse the lack of fire modes. Are future guns going to be designed without fire mode selectors? I doubt it, I really doubt it. And I can guarantee you that in the future, people are still going to be using M16A2s and A4s (M16A2s with an RIS built in). In the near future, those guns will still be readily available.

    There's nothing appropriate about making a game about modern or near-future warfare when you can't even portray the fire mode switching. This is a basic feature of most assault rifles and submachine guns. It is paramount to the experience. The lack of this is a disgrace.

    I'd like to single out the grenade throw animation as particularly silly in presentation. It basically looks like you're throwing the grenade at something two feet in front of your chest, instead of actually winding back and throwing an overhand toss towards a target out in the distance. We're all familiar with throwing baseballs out to the outfield or back to the infield, and that's what you'd expect for the grenade animation. Instead, the character looks like he's a LARPer at a D&D convention throwing a magical pretend-fireball at a friend he's talking to a few paces away. It's just awfully conceived and realized, much like the rest of the game.
    Expand
  26. Oct 12, 2011
    3
    This game is pretty bad. It's not too often that I find myself returning a game, and Homefront is definitely going back. I can tolerate the poor storyline, graphics, and vioce acting, but broken gameplay is something I will not put up with. The story, weapons, and gameplay are recycled and regurgitated from of one of those "other" popular FPS titles that... well... doesn't suck. But the thing is, Homefront does. It doesn't bring anything new to the table and completely misses its mark. I had a hard lockup occur in the second chapter and within the first 3 hours of play time had enemies randomly appearing and teleporting on top of me at least a dozen times. The campaign is short and I will not even tolerate the game any longer to try out multiplayer. At times collision and aiming seem broken and enemies are able to shoot through hard cover while standing protected behind it. The AI of your teammates in campaign mode is extremely poor as well. Spend your money and time on MW or COD - you quite literally have NO reason to play this game over those. Expand
  27. Nov 9, 2011
    3
    The campaign was way to short and not very enjoyable. The multiplayer was ok, but not great. I traded it in after about a month. Overall I would not buy it again.
  28. Oct 4, 2013
    3
    I have played many games in my life, most shooters have the same story line but instead of Communist its aliens. Homefront is for the most part a horrible game, controls are dated, shooting is down right broken, and the AI is annoying. The idea is there, this could of been a really good futuristic shooter since it takes place twenty years from now but instead it goes for bad voice acting, predictable endings to chapters and worse of all it takes it self way to seriously. I get that the whole world is under control and all but i don't care about any of the characters simple because they are all cliches. Even you are a cliche, the silent hero who is thrown into a situation because quote" you have Korean blood on your hands, welcome to the resistance." Why is the person in charge trusting a complete stranger to help them fight. This same guy also had another person who was his "friend" help him get weapons to fight back the KPA and he betrays his ass. He is bad at been a leader. All of this together makes for one of the worst games I played this year. Homefront gets a three out of ten because of its lack of creativity, yes this game does have a cool idea but it holds to many punches and is a let down. Expand
  29. Mar 19, 2011
    2
    TQH marketing department should receive a Nobel prize creating all the hype for such a smelly turd.Four hour single player with flat characters, dull story, bad voice acting , Korean enemies that look like power rangers and graphics probably not meeting standards back in 2005 ! Multiplayer is "the" factor for this game but only for PC since console versions have washed out, muddy graphics and 1 playlist supporting dedicated servers ( rest of em is p2p based) also Kaos studio for some unknown reason deiced to remove 1st person view in all vehicles on 360 and PS3 which is sad... ! Expand
  30. Mar 16, 2011
    2
    This is my first review, and I was hoping to have something more positive to say...however, I am absolutely appalled by this game, as well as those who give this game credit. We live in a console generation that demands more from developers. This game does not live up to Next-Gen standards, despite the fact that we have been in the Next-Gen era for nearly six years. If this game were a movie, it would land squarely in the realm of a Sci-Fi channel made-for-TV-movie starring Luke Perry.

    The Graphics - 1/10: Oh my god. They are the worst. I know it is not fair to compare games to titles such as Call of Duty or Battlefield, but lets be realistic. Those titles set a standard, and it is our job as a consumer public to demand that those standards be met or exceeded. This game barely meets the standards set by the Ghost Recon series for the original Xbox. The textures are poorly crafted train wrecks that can not be justifiably defended, unless you are just now putting away your PS One and stepping up to 360 with no frame of reference. Game models are absolutely dreadful, and do not do any of their real-world counterparts justice. Character animation is a joke, resulting in laugh-out-loud moments when you see just how terribly they interact with the down right ugly environments. The "fog-of-war" effect made famous by old-era shooters on PC makes a return in this game in what I'm only guessing is KAOS Studios best shot at saving frame rate. I give this section 1 mark for the developer's loving attention to detail on the Hooters restaurant signs. Way to go. I could go on and on literally forever but lets just leave it at this; This game is ugly as sin, and if you value presentation, save your money.

    The Sound - 3/10: The sound engine doesn't do anything new. Its the same old shooter audio environment that we have been used to for a decade or more. KAOS should have learned a lesson from the Battlefield: Bad Company franchise, which has nearly perfected a fully realized audio experience. This game lacks emotion in its sound...and for god's sake, we know that they spent good money creating the music...but that does not mean we want to hear it. Where is the option menu? Why do developers choose to cram their game down our throats. This game represents a trend in which developers charge more for games and give us less options. I don't like being spoon-fed the experience they demand we have. I'm not a child, and I am not gonna open my mouth for the proverbial airplane.

    Game play - 1/10: I don't give a damn about single player games. If I wanted story, I would buy a book or see a movie. I didn't play the SP campaign. Developers should take note of the smash success of BF2. I did, however, brutalize myself with the multi-player mode for two rounds. Not enough time to effectively rate this game, you might be saying? I say you are wrong. If you are anything like me, you probably wanted to gouge your eye balls out of their sockets for having laid eyes on such an ugly, clunky, cluttered, and convoluted mess. As I said before, the graphics are barf-tastic, the sound is boring, the character animations are unrealistic, weapon models are weak, textures...ugh...the textures. I would have rather played a game that takes place on a texture-less world populated by stick figures and stick figure guns. The gun-play is retarded, recoil is unrealistic, and the Counter-Strike wanna-be "battle-point" system reeks of the stench of rotting cd-rom games in the garbage. I found the whole fiasco repulsively simplistic in movement and form. Ah yes, and don't even get me started on the dedicated server nightmare. How many times are developers going to punish their devoted fan-base by being unprepared for a major title release. It screams laziness, and I will not tolerate it for one more second. I implore you to do the same. If today's generation of network developers worked for me, I would have fired them long ago. Enough is enough.

    Overall - 2/10: Its no wonder that KAOS and THQ opted not to release a demo or beta prior to release. I suspect they knew they had a major stinker on their hands and didn't want to damage their chances of making sales or capitalizing on their huge marketing push. If this were my product and I wanted to make a few bucks, I would have done the same. But make no mistake, guys and gals...This game sucks. Plain and simple. I would not have launched into this tirade if I didn't desire to protect your wallets and keep the FPS community structurally sound. As a devoted hardcore shooter gamer, I demand excellence in a video game. We all invest so much time and money into this that we should expect no less than the standard set by today's AAA titles. This game is so pathetically below those standards that I foresee this game being a bargain bin, used game sales nightmare. You couldn't get me to pay 99 cents for this pile of refuse. Harsh? Yes. But this is reality, and reality hurts.
    Expand
Metascore
70

Mixed or average reviews - based on 85 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 34 out of 85
  2. Negative: 4 out of 85
  1. May 24, 2011
    84
    The story is way too short and the multiplayer doesn't deliver the fun you know from the Call of Duty or Battlefield games.
  2. Apr 25, 2011
    70
    One of the most interesting shooters of the year. [Issue#108, p.114]
  3. Apr 19, 2011
    50
    The core focus of Homefront is online but with rival releases doing this just as well if not better, there isn't any real incentive. A fun rental perhaps, but spend your money elsewhere and you'll thank us.