User Score
6.1

Mixed or average reviews- based on 377 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
    10
    Homefront is a fine game if you give it a chance. The graphics and sound,( voice acting in particular) are poor compared to bombs like BFBC2 or KZ3, and the capaign is shockingly short. I find the excellent multiplayer makes up for this though - once the controls sink in and you begin to adapt to the shoddy graphics there is a lot of fun to be had here. And no, its nothing like COD. Comparing games like BFBC2 and Homefront to COD is akin to comparing Gran Tourismo to Ridge Racer...HF is a squad based game, if you run around by yourself like a headless chicken hunting for kills you will be dead continuosly. Over HF does a great job in recreating large scale battles in a (somewhat) fresh environment, 32 players on a map is something we dont see too much of on console, vehicular combat, drones etc are easy to control and offer a satisfying experience regardless of skill level. Expand
  2. 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
  3. Mar 17, 2011
    6
    A too short single-player campaign, too frustrating, in 2011 it's unacceptable see undestroyable enviroment and a sequence of script like this. I was waiting for it for too long and it disappointed me so much. Too bad.
  4. Mar 15, 2011
    10
    Excellent game. Ashame the CoD fanboys feel compelled to ruin its user rating though. Which is obvious by the 2 ratings. You can know without doubt that those people did not buy and certainly did not play Homefront. Any website that host user ratings should require some kind of verification that the person actually played the game and played enough of it to offer a review. One way for websites to confirm this would be to link the persons XBLA tag or PSNID. Doing this would allow for a check of trophies and achievements. People who stoop to this level or any FanNerd are beyond help and live in a pathetic world devoid of human contact. They are delusional and do nothing but hurt the hobby they claim to love. These people are fans...they are not gamers...not even close.

    Play Homefront...if you are a True Gamer you will enjoy it.
    Expand
  5. Mar 15, 2011
    9
    Finally a new FPS!!! Multiplayer is phenominal with the dedicated servers. The story line is unique and thought provoking. . A great addition to my collection...
  6. Mar 15, 2011
    8
    Ok. The ratings of 2, 5, and 10 do nothing for most readers but show a bit of immaturity and ignorance.

    HomeFrontâ
  7. Mar 17, 2011
    0
    I bought this game with trepidation after reading several of the reviews. Many give the single player outright scorn and rightfully so. I could barely stomach an hour of the campaign it was so bad.

    I really bought the game for the multiplayer, based on reviews that said it was innovative and worth a look. After 10 hours of multiplayer and ranking up to like a level 12 or something I
    called the store and asked how much I could get back for this horrific game. The servers are down all the time, the lag is horrific, and the graphics and framerate jutter make me want to puke; literaly. I played the game for 4-5 hours each day to give it a real shot. I wanted to throw up each time. I've played 50 different shooters across a wide variety of platforms from Doom in the early 90's to all the halo, COD, GoW, Battlefield games. I have never felt like throwing up from any of those experiences. Homefront left me feeling ill with a headache. DO. NOT.BUY.THIS.GAME This is a bargain bin special that the store only gave me 20 dollars credit for when I brought it back the day after launch. The clerks kind of chuckled and said yeah the game is pretty bad. If you really want to try it out, just for the novelty of getting ill and sick from playing a late 90's shooter, give it 2-3 weeks and you will be able to pick it up used for less then 30 bucks I promise. Remember GH Aerosmith? You could get used copies of that for 15 dollars after about a month. That is absolutely where Homefront is headed. Expand
  8. Mar 15, 2011
    10
    This seems to be one of them love or hate games, with majority of the hate coming from fanboys of Cod games, this game is an absolute great time with a great alternative to Cod, finally a FPS with a really interesting story something never before seem. Homefront=Innovation in FPS
  9. Mar 15, 2011
    9
    Being a fan of Battlefield, of course you might be interested in this game. People will try to compare it to COD, but it doesn't have anything to do with COD, it is very similar to Battlefield Bad Company 2, with new features and new concepts. It is a really great game if you are getting it for the multiplayer

    I give it 10 for the multiplayer part alone
  10. 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
  11. Mar 17, 2011
    0
    I am really waiting now only for games that are triple a titles and are reviewed positively great before I buy them. So many times I bet consumers like myself are roped into the hype of a game. Homefront is such a game that professes to be new an innovative. It's all hype don't believe it. Even as I write this I want to go and un-reserve all the games that I have held for upcoming year, based solely on this game. I bought Bulletstorm on a whim and was surprised at how good it was. I was not as "lucky" this time. Graphics: The obvious is that this game looks old and outdated. When playing the multiplayer there are times even on a 55" plasma when both Korean Forces and American Resistance look extremely similar. They both look blocky and underdeveloped. The only way I didn't shoot my team mates what because of the giant green name tag that in design flaw manner would block my vision of enemy behind it and then; pop, dead because of a name-tag. Not only this in single player mode people seemed to be floating over the ground. There are no shadows made from sentry guns spotlights. During the campaign when laying in a mass grave hiding from the KPA clipping issues of being able to see through dead bodies really took me out of the game. This list of terrible graphics could take up my post. Design/game-play: I love it when developers decide they want to slow down the action and express some storyline. Expect when they actually slow my character to that of the speed of a mentally defunct snail on heroine. Oh yes lets explore this small community of rebels hideout, I swear it took me fifteen minutes to walk 30 feet. Invisible walls, all the while the A.I. is telling me to hurry up and get to the next check point. The A.I. is terrible, sometimes standing for minutes at time at a door; unable to go through it. Before allowing me to move to the next part, many times I would have to listen to mindless terrible script. In the multiplayer being dropped by unreliable servers is apparently part of the atmosphere of game; as much as I can figure anyway. The game-play of multiplayer is outdated, a few innovations from battle points, drones, create a class, and many different perks do little to help. The shoddy spawn points several times I would spawn in-front of enemies and would have to wait spawn again. Sound: Don't even get me started, can't even here my gun shoot everything sounds far away. This is not what I expect wearing 5.1 surround sound headphones. The theme music is loud enough to drown out every other sound. C'mon.

    Conclusion: Ripped off, wait for some other game that doesn't suck. Great I just realized I spent 60 dollars for nothing.
    Expand
  12. Mar 15, 2011
    8
    I definitely not Battlefield and COD. But i like it. It's different but in a good way. Great story so far and the multiplayer is fun. I would recommend this game.
  13. Mar 15, 2011
    9
    Homefront offers MP features unique to the competition, and is QUITE a bit of fun to play. Awesome maps, a unique mix of infantry/vehicular warfare, and the feeling of fighting in your own backyard are truly welcome additions to the FPS genre. As others have mentioned, graphically Homefront could have used some additional polish. In order to stand up to other FPS competition, Kaos had its work clearly cut out, as CoD and BF have created some truly memorable vistas and set pieces to battle within. While there is nothing WRONG with the visuals, it seems like they world created simply needed more time. The art IS there... the polish IS lacking.

    Bottom line - MP players, worth the buy. Single players (who don't touch MP), the campaign is short and intense. 6-8 hours tops on Normal difficulty.
    Expand
  14. 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.
  15. 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
  16. Mar 15, 2011
    9
    Call me old fashioned, but I play games for fun. Not that eye-popping graphics or a lengthy campaign can't add to the fun provided by a game, but I've played way too many games with "amazing graphics" lately that bore me to tears. After playing Homefront all night, I can say without a doubt that, though the graphics may not be anything special (they certainly aren't terrible), the game is extremely fun to play. And that sort of seems like what games are supposed to be about. Expand
  17. Mar 15, 2011
    10
    Here's the beautiful deal. FPS games are NOT for the single player anymore. Out of the box, the multiplayer is stellar. It doesn't have the destructible like BF, and lacks bullet penetration that made COD innovative years ago, but it does three things perfectly: 1. It has dedicated servers. 2. It's level of customization and perk/killstreak system is second to none. 3. The game is very much "warlike" as opposed to other FPS games that are simply arcade shooters. Anyway, to all of those that downgrade a game because multiplayer is the focus, for shame! Serious gamers don't buy FPS games for single player anymore, it just doesn't provide the gratification from online warfare. Expand
  18. Mar 15, 2011
    10
    Multiplayer is the highlight of this title. Single player is on the short side but tell a pretty good story. The battle commander feature make the game unique
  19. Mar 15, 2011
    1
    This game is terrible on so many fronts. The graphics are 4 to 5 years too old. Many of the elements in the game look like shapes with crappy textures slapped on them as an afterthought. The guns are also quite bland and generic, with textures almost resembling something from the original playstation or xbox. The voice work and sound are also horrific. Many of the guns end up sounding like popguns or toy pistols, completely lacking the force they need to fully immerse players. The syncing of voices with animations is completely off and the voice work itself is forced and generic, completely lacking the emotional weight the game needs. THQ advertised this game as a single player focused piece, but the single player is abhorring short and ends so abruptly. Despite a strong first 5 minutes, it slowly and painfully descends into chaos and stupidity. Thus Homefront unexpectedly becomes a multiplayer focused game. The one thing i can commend about this game is the good connection and hit detection, but otherwise the multiplayer becomes a mess. After collecting enough "battle points", the game's currency system, players can buy vehicles or small support items. Yet the game descends into big vehicle brawl-fests and the original first person shooter mechanics are completely lost, as players focus more and more on controlling vehicles and destroying them. The paltry amount of game modes does not help, as I predict the play-life of this game will be very very short. The killing blow however, are the horrendous animations involved in simple tasks, like reloading knifing and sprinting. Sprinting feels like taking baby steps. Reloading is unrealistic and a pain to watch. The knifing makes my eyes bleed. Despite a nice try on the part of THQ and Kaos, Homefront falls flat on a market dominated by unique and addicting fps games like Call of Duty, Battlefield and Killzone. Expand
  20. 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
  21. Mar 15, 2011
    5
    the game is decent and it has a lot fault from the campaign to the graphics. seriously where is the atmosphere they're talking about and why the sound effect feel like a toy gun, the voice acting is good graphics feels too old comparing to other game coming this year from the texture to the lighting and why the enemy ai hit you with a with a pin point accuracy and your team AI barely help you feel they are ghost cause the enemy AI always shout at you Expand
  22. Mar 16, 2011
    6
    Just four hours to beat the game in single player without rushing. FOUR HOURS. Multiplayer is fun, too bad there are only 2 real modes. Technically everything in this game looks below average.
  23. Mar 15, 2011
    0
    total crap, looks bad, plays bad. only chiches, bad voice acting, bad score/music, koreans look like power rangers, campaign on easy is beaten in 3 hours tops
  24. pip
    Mar 15, 2011
    10
    Homefront provides the gamer with a realist experience of what it's like to fight for your country and your community. It feels real. It's not just a FPS where you blow through people on a map but also provides a human element. The story is totally exciting, new and original and the gameplay is something I have yet to find in other FPS.
  25. Mar 15, 2011
    9
    This game is all about the multiplayer, single player is cool but short. I give 9 because it has room for a lot of fun. I have had some issues with the servers and lag but I am sure that as time goes on THQ and kahos will straighten this problem out. I would definately recommend
  26. Mar 15, 2011
    8
    This game deserves at the very least, a 7.5. At most, 8.5. It all depends on whether you're a singleplayer guy or a multiplayer guy.

    At first, starting in the singleplayer campaign I was like "Oh, typical, I get saved by a hardcore resistance leader and some broad with a fat ass." Said resistance leader is Connor, who seems to have extremely violent moodswings where one moment he'll be
    thanking a teammate for saving his life and the next he'll be telling them to "stfu and keep shooting".
    You play through, and you meet a pretty cool guy named Hopper. He's Korean-American, and one of the things that make the story so tragic is the fact that Hopper is fighting for his life in the resistance, yet he encounters racism, insults, and threats wherever we go in the story.

    Anyway I'm not going to spoil anything, but I began to get more engrossed in the story and my interest mounted on each chapter until I played through the whole thing in 5 hours. And a surprise ending and a cliffhanger sets the game up for a sequel. Pretty short for a singleplayer game to be honest, but multiplayer made up for it.

    Multiplayer is like a mix of CoD and Battlefield. Shot detection is top notch, and unlike CoD where you needed multiple pistol shots to the head to kill somebody, headshots actually register and kill in one hit. Also, the level design is... glorious. Whoever designed the levels (single AND multiplayer) in this game deserve a year off for their work. For a 'linear CoD clone', they managed to find a way to make it explorable and add all kinds of story-related easter eggs and newspapers that give you an insight into the game's story. Some of the setpieces were awe-inspiring: once leaving the labyrinth of Colorado suburbs, we entered a town surrounded by the Rocky Mountains. One piece I can't stop thinking about was a water tower with several bodies hanging from the side.

    My advice? Don't listen to reviewers if you're looking to buy this game. In fact, don't read anymore reviews after this. Reviewers taint your mind and attempt to ruin the experience for you. Graphics aren't "omg crysis", but they're average for this gen. On a high note, I didn't see any of the N64-ish textures you saw in Dragon Age 2. (lulz) On that note, why does every reviewer think that if a game doesn't have Crysis-level graphics it automatically sucks?

    Pros and Cons:
    +Well written, besides Connor's bipolar moods. Best story I've enjoyed in a while.
    +Large array of balanced and extremely customizable weapons.
    +Deep multiplayer that will keep you until BF3 and R02.
    +Magnificent level design.
    +Balanced gameplay.
    -Civilians felt like clones. They all had different faces, but they all wore the same outfit.
    -The Koreans were mostly faceless enemies with little-to-no voice overs and conversations. I would've liked to hear more about what they think about the occupation and if they felt they "should be here".
    -Short singleplayer (5 hours on normal)
    Expand
  27. Mar 16, 2011
    10
    MULTIPLAYER REVIEW: The multiplayer is best described by saying that it has the vehicle and squad elements of Battlefield: Bad Company 2, It has the pace of Halo Reach or Halo 3, And it has the customization,guns, and graphics of COD 4. The multiplayer is phenomenal i bought this game strictly for the multiplayer, though the campaign is a nice addition, Its has sort of squad elements in it (team strategy) In some situations you may need your friend or other player to start to show targets by marking them in a drone; But you can go lone wolf , though it may be better to stay team focused in Ground Control. The first hour i played this game i did have trouble connecting to a match, but i later found out this was because of the high and unexpected traffic on the servers for this game, this problem has already been addressed by THQ which they have said theyll be putting more servers up. For any one who is having trouble connecting to a match try the skirmish mode as instructed by THQ to get into a match easier. The gunplay is similar to that of COD but it has a sort of halo feel since you can jump rather high. The vehicles control like warthogs (or any other vehicle in halo) from halo. The maps are incredible! They're big an open you dont get that boxed in feeling you get from COD maps, plus theres a map with white castle and hooters, which is awesome!. The battle points make things interesting, its sort of like the kill streaks of COD but less stressful since you can die and still maintain your amount of BPs (Battle Points). This makes things alot funner considering you dont have the frustration of being one kill away from your blackbird or chopper gunner. Over all this games multiplayer is fantastic! Its great and right now i prefer it to COD. Definite buy! GET OUT THERE AND DEFEND YOUR HOMEFRONT! Expand
  28. Mar 17, 2011
    2
    TOTAL Schlock!!! It is 2011 and this is the much-hyped revolutionary FPS from THQ? Really? The graphics are PS2, the conceot is solid, but the story and voicing are worse than Sci-Fy channel Friday night movies like Man-Squito. The gameplay is clunky and simply no fun at all. My character felt like a fat, slow short plumber. Wait til you get a load of the animations of climbing a ladder or jumping into a tunnel, too. Your arms and legs disappear. Invisible walls and enemies that all die the same way are game design elements of 5 years ago. Should I really have to wait for the thousandth time for the NPC to open the door for me or jump over the fence? Play one hour of this, then one hour of Crysis 2 or Killzone 3, or Bulletstorm. Then write your review. If you still can give it anywhere near above a 4, you're an idiot and should go buy Dance Central. Expand
  29. Mar 17, 2011
    2
    How people are giving this a 9 or 10 must not be playing the same game I am.

    Storyline- Not sure how this is considered a "new and exciting" take on standard FPS's. A ton of games have had the US either invaded or attacked by other nations or terrorists. Don't really think that changing them to Koreans should gain the accolades given for this "groundbreaking" story. The buidup
    trailers and teasers at the official site were actually much better than what was in the game.

    Graphics- My opinion, but looks like an unpolished port of a Wii game. Can someone say, cutting edge 2003 technology?

    Sound- Explosions and gunfire. To be expected, no great positives or negatives.

    Controls- Standard controls. Character feels like they are running and moving with an extra 10 lbs. on each arm and leg.

    Support- Nonexistant. I was shocked upon joining the HF community and seeing the general poor attitude and sense of dislike from the developer towards the gaming community. People asking for the popular mode of hardcore were told in no uncertain terms that it wasn't in the game and they really don't care what people say. Thats one example, and there were more concerns like this that people were basically told, "oh, well."

    Singleplayer- All this hype, really? The trailers and site information took longer to look at than the game to finish. I read about all this, basically crap, about how they had "redefined" the FPS shooter and reworked it, and tweaked it, and loved it. Can't change much in a FPS and they didn't. Character developement wasn't even present, you couldn't care less about them really. The emotional card was basically played on shock value such as mass graves at a baseball field. Common now! It was a baseball field, you don't get more American than a baseball field! Double crossing by supposed allies. Death of your main leader, strung up for display. Etc., etc., etc. Multiplayer- 2 game types, you heard me right 2. Capture objectives or team deathmatch, or get really freaky and play skirmish which mixes them up. 8 maps, buildings and open spaces, done. Battlepoints are kind of cool, makes it much easier for players that are not in the 16 hrs/day, 7 days a week skill range to get some good stuff. Bottom line, killing 10 people to get a helicopter and getting points for killing 10 people to get a helicopter really isn't that much different.

    ***MULTIPLAYER SIDENOTE***

    The greedy's that be, have decided that only one person gets the "full multiplayer experience." You heard that right too. This means that if you have for example, two kids and yourself that game, they expect you to pay another $20 so everyone can have the "full multiplayer experience." You rent it and want to play past level 5, $10 for a new code. You buy it used, $10 for a new code. Eat it steaming and fresh is all I have to say about that.

    Bottom line- Its a only half decent game that due to uncaring developers and greedy publishers is brought down to the bargin bin level. I even think the price dropped $20 the day after release, when has that happened before? If you have the game and really like it, I'm happy for you. If you have the game, and like me, think its a stinker. Well, I guess we can wait for a patch and see what happens. A paid downloadable content to fix this mess and they can shove that with their additional battle code idea.

    Call me a fanboy all you want, I readily admit that CoD games have their faults as well, but are also brilliant in many aspects. I was looking forward to this game as an alternative to CoD, its not even in the same league. All I have to backup this statement is that right at this time, there is more than 2x the number of players online on Black Ops than total sales of Homefront.
    Expand
  30. Mar 15, 2011
    5
    It seems like all of the soldiers in every first person shooter game now-a-days are all suffering from hair loss. I swear to God every character looks the same from Soap Mactavish (Call of Duty) to Sevchenko (Killzone) to Connor (Homefront). The game manages to stay Politically Correct as your squad members include a woman and an African-American (Like most modern FPS games that appeal to silly teenagers). It's just a shame that the story is short and the game mimicks the exact same controls as the Call of Duty series. Plant C4 to destroy a tank? Take out a machine gunner? How original! Expand
  31. Mar 17, 2011
    0
    Worst Xbox live game in history. I don't know how you release a game and you can't even get on to multiplayer - server busy, servers not available, you've been dropped from your party... error after error after error. Avoid purchasing at all costs if you want to play on Xbox live as it doesn't work. Interesting story line but complete waist of money and all marketing hype. I hope they don't let us down next time they release a game. Expand
  32. 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
  33. 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
  34. Mar 15, 2011
    9
    Excellent game. Multiplayer is the most fun I've had since Bad Company 2. Battle Commander and Battle Points are the best thing to happen to multiplayer since killstreak awards. I would recommend this to anyone who is a fan of tactical squad base multiplayer. Kill whores stay out. You would be disappointed.
  35. 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.
  36. Mar 15, 2011
    10
    Great game. Storyline is well written, captivating and at times a bit scary. Battlepoints in the mulitplayer makes every game well balanced. Way to go THQ and KAOS.
  37. Mar 15, 2011
    0
    Before I bought the game I was expecting the likes of Half-Life 2 and COD combined together. After playing it for half an hour I got bored and tried the multiplayer. MP was even more pointless than SP. The whole games feels very empty, no mood no atmosphere do depth. The SP characters feel like bots running into walls and what not. I recommend NOT BUYING IT.
  38. 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!
  39. Mar 15, 2011
    10
    Refreshing new story line. I am glad I bought this on the first day. It is well worth the price of admission. It is better to live it first hand instead of hearing about from others. Just like seeing a new movie, best to see it on the first weekend. I didn't find it that short at all, since all the other games are sometimes long and boring after awhile, however I really hope they can add a few missions. This will make it even stronger. I highly recommend this game. Expand
  40. Mar 15, 2011
    10
    This is a great game. I love the story line, it is very unique and evokes a lot of emotion. Everyone seems to agree that the multiplayer is awesome, and if you have not tried it, you are missing out on the best feature of this game.
  41. Mar 16, 2011
    10
    Homefront is truly a fantastic game that deserves more credibility than it deserves. It is a truly astounding game that does set new standards in terms of multiplayer and story plots. Homefront is the first game I have ever played in my life that has truly let me see a real war like environment. For example, there are mass graves where the North Koreans dump dead Americans into. That truly shocked me because they dared to be different. They dared to be unique. The people who gave this game a low rating based only on graphics and sound should be ashamed. Comparing Call of Duty to Homefront would be comparing Fallout 3 to Dragon Age Origins. They are two separate games branched off by FPS tags. Graphics, in my opinion, mean art. And there are different types of art, you don't criticize it just because it is different from one standard. The voice acting could be better, yet nevertheless it gets the message across and allows the person to relate to the characters. The story is short and could be beaten in a short time, but if you only want the game for the story, you are really missing out. The multiplayer features a new system that differs greatly from the standard Call of Duty or Battlefield series. You have to earn your vehicles and even special types of killstreaks that you set up. From helicopters to flying drones, from tanks to Napalm strikes, it is unique. It is a very addicting experience and will keep you occupied with a couple of friends as well. Be warned as the servers are not the best as of right now but should be fixed in a patch later in the future. I recommend this game to anyone because it is quick to grasp if you put in effort, and offers a great story and touching story. Expand
  42. 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
  43. Mar 16, 2011
    8
    Homefront has a decent but VERY short campaign just like Medal Of Honor. The gameplay is unique because as a resistance fighter you are always outmanned and usually outgunned. You spend a lot of time finding weapons and ammo which makes it more realistic. From a campaign standpoint it is entertaining albeit short. Graphics and sound are well behind COD or Battlefield, similar to the original Modern Warfare. The multiplayer has large maps but the feedback and gunplay are just average. This is a good game that could have been great if Treyarch made it! Worth a purchase though, especially if you have read the book. Expand
  44. 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
  45. Mar 16, 2011
    9
    I just bought the game today and, so far, I am enjoying it. The single player follows are great story (but its to short!!!) and has a neat style. The real gameplay is at the multiplayer, where you can play in a 16 v 16 match! The unique features such as battle points and the realistic guns make the multiplayer enjoyable. However, the graphics and sound could use some major tweaking. The graphics need to be good in order to match up to other FPS's. But I still like the game and will continue playing and liking it. Expand
  46. Mar 15, 2011
    10
    This was a great game and much different than the other shooters out now, so graphics aren't spectacular, but the game play is very impressive. Overall, an amazing shooter that will stand alone compared to the other shooters out now.
  47. Mar 15, 2011
    10
    LOVE IT! Lives up to the hype! Playing right now! Graphics are good Gameplay is GREAT! The Battle Point system is similar to CoD, but there are new and more interesting toys.
  48. Mar 15, 2011
    7
    After going into Homefront without any research and expecting a combination of Fallout 3 and Boarderlands, I was greatly disappointed. That being said, Homefront can be at times enjoyable. Single player is short, Multiplayer is buggy and overloaded at the moment. The interesting story is an new take on the "End of the world" themed games. Graphics and controls are tired and slow feeling. If you are bored of greater games give this one a try. Expand
  49. Mar 15, 2011
    8
    The single player is fun and paced well, even though it is short. Playing it on PC, it took me about 8 hours on normal. It is far fetched the that North Korea takes over, but the back-story and initial player opening really sell you on the idea. The multiplayer is where this game really shines. I haven't been much for FPS multiplayer since CS: Source, but this is really fun. I can see myself on multiplayer for a good long while while not getting bored. The only reason this game gets a 8 from me instead of a 9 or 10 is the length of campaign, length aside, I had a blast. Expand
  50. Mar 15, 2011
    10
    Coming from BlackOps, where every time I played it got less and less fun, to this is refreshing. I'm not big into single player, but this one pulled me in, and while i'm not an excellent player, I found turning off aim-assist and playing normal mode was challenging. Multiplayer I got my a** handed to me for the first hour till i got a good feel, then i got enough points to get vehicles and ride in choppers. Really does level the playing field, which is full of chaos! Thank you! Expand
  51. Mar 16, 2011
    10
    great game holds its own for a thq game witch thq is mostly known for sports and mx vs atv games.....they did a great job. i have no idea why you guys think its so bad sure its not comparable to call of duty and battle field BC2 but its some thing new and its a lot of fun.
  52. Mar 16, 2011
    8
    The engine is clearly dated, but I'll never let that be my sole judge of how I enjoy a game, given that I spend hours across numerous platforms in engines that are by no means modern, and I enjoy the heck out of them. However, if you're put off by paying full price for something that's not the latest and greatest in polygons and textures, then you'll want to reconsider.

    The single
    player game is short, I've heard, but given that I usually play games in one or two hour bursts during the week, it's going to be a few days before I work all the way through it, and I'm not in any hurry to blast to the end. But, yes, if you're expecting a long, drawn out and extensive single player experience, it's not here.

    What did impress me was the multiplayer, and the incorporation of vehicles into otherwise tired, tried and true CoD-style gameplay. There were some server issues last night because, so the server messages claimed, there was such high demand. Once I did get into a game, however, it flowed quite smoothly and was fairly intuitive. I especially like the battle point currency you're awarded for kills and objectives, and how you can purchase equipment on the fly, depending on what options you choose. As a basic Assault kit, for instance, I had a flak vest and a RPG, and I could 'activate' the flak vest for that life with a small amount of BP, and I could buy reloads for my RPG in the same fashion, and those BPs would replenish during the round. Save up enough of them and you can purchase vehicles which you spawn in next time (I don't know if there's a way to buy them while you're still up) but I though that was a good way of everyone fighting over who gets to drive the tank.

    I've made purchases that I've regretted, and Homefront definitely isn't one of those. I've seen a lot of comments about this game being hit by 'sub-par reviews. But how does an average in the 70s qualify as sub-par? Only if you've decided that 'All Games Worth Buying' must receive a 90+. I've played a lot of games, and I'd rank very few of them in the 90s, but that doesn't mean those games were terrible or that they weren't even good, it just means they weren't among the best I've ever played. I give Homefront a solid 80.
    Expand
  53. Mar 16, 2011
    9
    Homefront is a decent FPS. It looks a little dated but over all very playable. The whole North Korea taking us over storyline is a very cool concept. The multiplayer is definitely great with the up to 32 players involved in the game. It takes more teamwork in this game during the multiplayer than with Call of Duty. I think it is a cool direction to go in with FPS. If the graphics were better, I would give it a 10 but since they aren't it gets a nine. Expand
  54. Mar 17, 2011
    1
    Single player was far too short, and i'm very annoyed by the "Battlecode" where you've got to have bought the game new in order to effectively play multiplayer. This game was enough of a bomb that I'll seriously think carefully before buying THQ games again.
  55. 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
  56. 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
  57. Mar 16, 2011
    9
    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, 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
  58. Mar 16, 2011
    10
    I don't play campaign modes so will not comment on that. The developer has mixed a bit of COD and BFBC with their own flavor in to a fun and fresh multi-player adventure featuring a great variety of guns, tanks, choppers and much more. The action is intense and the maps large, well designed and offer everyone an opportunity to play according to their style. The perks system is great and varied once again allowing the player to have a vast amount of choices. The graphics are good the sound is particularly well done allowing for judgement of distance. This is a great game worth every penny and congrats are in order to the development team that was ably to break in to the FPS monopoly. There's only so much you can do to a war game to make it different and if you go to far you risk ruining it. I think Homefront has nailed it! It's got just about all you would want a good war game to have.

    It's sad to see the "pro" reviews, clearly there is something working behind what we read...cash?..advertising deals? I don't know, but any once of reputability they had with me is now gone.

    As for the brain washed fayboy morons posting scores of 0, 1 and so on, it's expected and to be disregarded as pure ignorant horse crap.

    Great game! See you guy's at Hooters!
    Expand
  59. Mar 30, 2011
    8
    Really? I went to the negative reviews out of curiosity and well amazed by how many people rate a game a zero. There is no hope for the human race. Now I understand why the game is ranked so low.
    So I will get the negatives out of the way first since that is why this game deserves a zero in so many people's eyes.
    Yes. The single player is short. Around 5 hours. But that is becoming a
    trend isn't it? And it is mainly shooters with multiplayer right? The COD and MOH games are the same way. Most people will by it for the multiplayer anyways and the devs know that.
    Yes the game kind of hits a sore spot with parents getting shot in front of their kids. Hey? It happens.
    One thing I didn't like about the game is it glitches. And at the time of this writing I can't even play it because it freezes after the title screen.
    So aside from the glitch, everyone is complaining about what has became standard in today's shooters?
    Now let's judge the game on its own merit.
    Graphics- Pretty average. It is about on par with M.A.G. It does have a cartoon look with a lot of color so I found it pleasing to play compared to the drab look of other games. I was told take Battlefield BC 2 and fade the color and add some jaggies and you have Homefronts look. That is a great way to describe it. Animation is good and effects like lighting make the game look better than it probably does.
    Sound- The music is fitting and the sounds of combat are what you expect. It works but it doesn't match shooters by Activision or EA.
    Control- The game shines here to be honest. Great hit-detection and the control is responsive.
    Multiplayer Control- It only takes a few shots to take someone out which is nice. If you shoot first you will get the kill. That is a nice change of pace to other shooters where a full clip will not take someone out or you get killed even though you shot first. Sniping is easy also. Plus the vehicles control similar to halo where the right stick turns and the left stick moves forward and backwards.
    Multiplayer maps- Not a dud in them but none of them are spectacular either except maybe the Suburb map which is on the 360 only. Some maps do favor snipers and campers which is a problem.
    Replay Value- The single player is short but to get all the achievements you will have to go through it twice. It is a decent story but most people will only go through it once and stick with multiplayer. Hopefully the game will be a hit because the multiplayer is a blast.
    In conclusion the story was worth the play through but the only thing that stuck with me was the amount of cruelty and controversial elements . I am surprised Fox News didn't catch on. The mulitiplayer is a mix between MAG and Battlefield. It holds up well to both of these games but Battlefield has a little more polish. I personally prefer Homefront.
    Expand
  60. Mar 16, 2011
    10
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I really can't understand why a lot of people are hating on this game. The campaign is short, yes, however that's the only thing that I don't like about it. The story itself is very good, something new. And at the moment I'm having the best multiplayer experience I've had in any game so far. Graphics look nice, don't really think their outdated at all. So I would recommend it. Expand
  61. Mar 15, 2011
    5
    I was immediately disappointed with the graphics - they remind me of half life graphics which were good back then but things have come a long way since then. I felt like the game could have been made on the original xbox console. They definitely put some thought into the storyline as demonstrated by the newspaper clippings collected throughout the game. The gameplay is ho-hum - nothing really new or remarkable for a typical FPS. The voice acting was decent and fairly humorous at some points during the game. Some of the levels felt solid and were enjoyable but I found myself wanting some of the levels to end a bit more sooner than they did. The game would be considered punishing for new comers to shooters in general as its pretty challenging during some parts and the AI can be very cheap at times seemingly able to almost shoot around corners. This game could have been made better. Expand
  62. Mar 16, 2011
    7
    This is multi player focused game. The Single player game is short, with some fun set pieces but the focus is on multi player, and that the game excels in this area. The new 'Battle Points' feature and the fairly large list of add-ons/perks allows players to customise their play style. I've never been a fan of the 'run and gun' style of COD, much prefer vehicle and group tactics of BF. This reminds me alot of BFBC2 but moves the gameplay forward. Expand
  63. Mar 17, 2011
    0
    I seriously want a refund! I thought that the Black Ops singleplayer was a waste of my money, but 4 hours?? Don't waste your cash on this! Just wait for crysis 2 :D
  64. 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.
  65. Mar 16, 2011
    9
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Homefront provides the gamer with a realist experience of what it's like to fight for your country and your community. It feels real. It's not just a FPS where you blow through people on a map but also provides a human element. The story is totally exciting, new and original and the gameplay is something I have yet to find in other FPS. Expand
  66. Mar 16, 2011
    5
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. To start with, the campaign of Homefront is a terribly disappoint flicker of what it could have been. It does have its moments, a terribly misplaced mortar round, and the much discussed mass-grave scene to name a few. But these moments are few and far in between. The scenery is fun to play through, but I was never left going, OMG, this place looks just like my local _________, which is what I had been led on to believe would happen.

    The majority of the game is a tragically stereotypical FPS, with linear levels, bland weapon choice and frustratingly annoying teammates. You have the typical same three people who run around with you and never die, hardly seeming like they are freedom fighters at all. Your character doesn't even seem to be a person at all. The whole experience was just unpleasant, but it was made downright terrible when one thinks about how much potential was there that was just ignored.

    The redeeming factor for this game is most definetly the multiplayer. It is a pleasant combination of a Call of Duty like gun and class custimization armory and Battlefield like large battles. The battlepoints system adds an extra little bit to the experience, allowing you to use fun little toys like a Hellfire-shooting UAV and a drone to mark targets for teammates, or more powerful options, such as tanks or attack helicopters. The caputer-points (I can't remeber the exact name) mode is rather fun, and changes up the pace and scenery of a game, but static spawn points can be a real annoyance if a few enemies manage to slip behind the main line of conflict.

    The battle commander mode is also an interesting side venture, in which you are targeted as you do better, pointing you out to the enemy, but also rewarding you with various powerups.

    Overall, the multiplayer is the only worth-while venture of this game, and even that seems like it won't be a long lasting experience. Once you've used the various battle-points rewards and gotten your fill of the large battle feeling, the triviality of the game will wear off, and you will be left yearning for more polished games. I had bought this game hoping for a great story and a possibly fun multiplayer distraction, but instead I got a shoddy campaign and a multiplayer experience which I don't think will last.
    Expand
  67. Mar 16, 2011
    10
    Honestly, this game is great. Its a multiplayer game, and not so much of a campaign game. The campaign may not be so good, but i give a 10 just for the multiplayer. It's definately not CoD, which makes it different and fun as hell. I can guarantee that all the people who dont like this game were just expecting another "CoD-like game". well its not, so get over it. On the other hand, the graphics arent that bad. i dont see why everyone is saying that they are terrible, Im not saying they're the best.. but they're not bad. This is going to keep me playing for a while Expand
  68. 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
  69. Mar 29, 2011
    2
    Great idea- poor execution of the strategy

    Single player- was a bit of a different take in terms of the setting, and it had some moments, however I finished this campaign in 4 hours or so on the hard difficulty setting. It just seems like it is half a campaign and was possibly rushed out for whatever reason the developer had?

    Multiplayer- I was really quite excited abbot an alternative
    multiplayer to Black Ops that could distract me for hours on end! This and the fact that dedicated servers were supposed to create the 'ultimate online experience'..... Unfortunately we got only 2 different online game modes, with widespread lag across the world online. For some like myself it is next to impossible to play with consistent freezing during online gameplay and when I do finally get a game it is always 'one red bar'- the worst possible connection. Again, this feels rushed, and many promises have been broken by the developer and publisher with this game- I will never buy one of their online games again

    My score is for single player only, if it was on multiplayer alone this game would get a zero.
    Expand
  70. 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
  71. Apr 9, 2011
    6
    Although Kaos's last game didn't turn out good i had high hopes for this game. the idea of an American underdog rebel army against a strong korean force seemed very exciting. the campaign was very good and it had good mechanics. although the multiplayer which excited me the most, was a letdown. many people said it would a mix of COD and battlefield, which it was, but the bad sides of the games. in multiplayer it seems you move too slow and with the huge maps that can affect the gameplay. also it seems like it copied a lot out of call of duty. i felt like kaos should have come up with their own new ideas. one thing they did come up with was battle points. i felt like these were an upgrade of cod killstreaks and a good thing to have in a game. the game was fun at first but began to get boring and unexciting. Thats two strikes for kaos. Expand
  72. Jul 6, 2011
    5
    Ridiculously short game just like this review should be. Returned it to the shop I purchased it from the same day, and swapped it for something with a decent amount of game-play. The devs and publishers who put this out should be ashamed at the minuscule amount of game-play in the single player campaign. Probably the shortest game I have ever played.
  73. Mar 16, 2011
    6
    Homefront is a game I really hate to criticize. On one hand the story you're presented in the campaign is very unique and you can tell the developers put a lot of time into it with fiction time-lines and the use of Hollywood screen-writer John Milius. Even the characters have distinct personalities and are very fleshed-out. Unfortunately the gameplay feels like a slightly rougher COD (which isn't bad), the graphics in some places look almost like pre-gen XBOX graphics (which IS bad) and the campaign is so short (about six hours) I can't say you get your money's worth. That is if you're only a single-player person like me. I'm sure multiplayer has more to it but if a game's bothering to put a single-player campaign in then why only add so little gameplay? A good effort that falls a bit too short. Expand
  74. Mar 16, 2011
    10
    An intriguing shooter, storyline makes you ponder future possibilities of life and war. I was able to get into the multiplayer twice and liked what I saw. I'm itching to get back in there. Hopefully they get more servers up to take care of the demand with overwhelming intial response of the game. I'm glad somthing new is finally out.. Got to give it some time to really see its capabilities... Expand
  75. Mar 16, 2011
    7
    I'm a fan of COD:MW2 & COD:Black Ops; but, I also like BFBC2 & Medal of Honor. I find Homefront some where below the COD games but ahead of BFBC2. Graphics are a little dated but they've taken it and turned it into a style too. The single player is good but from all accounts a bit short. The multi-player is where the game's at; but early on they've had a lot of server problems...my guess: New Game+Spring Break+typical under preparedness by THQ is leading to the issues, but can be fixed and should be with more servers and better optimization. The Maps are interesting but only about 7 or so per game style, should've shipped with more maps and sleeker, easier interface to get online and stay with your party. I feel those that give this game a 10 or 9 are off the mark, and those that give it a 5 or below are just haters.... it's a good game, just not grade A, but has lot's of potential for fun in multi-player if server issues are resolved. Expand
  76. Mar 16, 2011
    7
    Despite apprehensions from the low review, I bought and played this game last night. I have played most FPS like OFP Dragon Rising, COD -all of it as well as BFBC2. I'm gonna try not to compare it to the games I mentioned...well... maybe a little here and there just to illustrate a point. I want to rate Homefront on it's own merit. Here are some of my observations and experience of the game

    On Single Player : The story sounds too implausible but hey, So was MW2 ;) It's still a good 'what if' story though. I just can't get over the fact that the single player game is too short. Also the textures on the AI characters are just too last gen. Even the Menu interface looked like it was on beta stage. It felt like playing Xbox 1st gen or PS2. The sound of the guns were a bit... meh. I don't know what the exact frame rate is but it felt rough and because of that the close quarters and narrow hallways will give you and i I'm not gonna comment any more on Single Player because I'd rather forget it.
    Multiplayer: IMO here's where Homefront redeems itself. Earlier last night I could not connect, but when I was able to later that evening - I had so much fun I ignored invites from my friends for a round of COD. The maps are quite large and littered with players. It felt like I was in the middle of a war with explosions and smoke trails from rockets. When you get immersed like that, graphic detail and flaws become blurred. Plus i like the way they reward you with Battle Points for helping your team or scoring on your own. It promotes teamwork. From the battle points you get to experience the Helicopters, Airstrikes and those points stay even if you get killed. Which takes the pressure out of getting 7-11 kill streaks. I had some issues with hit detection, when sometimes I was aiming center mass on a stationary target and I still missed. This can be fixable with a patch so it's forgivable. I hope they do this soon though. I'm not sure how many maps are there but I was able to cycle thru 3 only. I hope there are more.
    So I give it a 7 because the single player pulled it down. But +3 if.... THQ, are you reading this?..... IF they add more maps and weapons via Free DLC. Then you would have redeemed yourself totally.
    Expand
  77. 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
  78. Mar 16, 2011
    1
    Okay, I've played the first part of this game... where's the rest? .... there must be more? Right? For 60 bucks? You know, 60 bucks... for, uh... 5 hours? And much of that time is being yelled at by overly-chromatic, terribly textured and rendered, hostile allies who tell me to "shhh" and "hold up" while we sit and watch another war atrocity paraded out in front of us. Then we can play again. Then another atrocity. Then we wait. Then we play. And I loved the opening video, which is completely aped from the movie The Kingdom (eye roll). And much ado has been made about John Milius, the writer of Red Dawn, penning this game. Reality check: that movie sucked.... and, boy howdy, so does this game. What a drag. (don't even get me started with the gameplay iteslf.... ugh... I'm going to go back and play COD again) Expand
  79. Mar 17, 2011
    10
    Well where to begin yeah sure all games have their flaws and in somecases the game glitches people have to remember this in a brand new game line there will be many more to come from what i have seen. Homefront seems like it can become a great franchise game because the story has its twists and turns and it dosent have all of the same animations as call of duty everytime you play call of duty people jump out of the map and into it either that or jump out of helicopters come on home front is not doing that it has a solid story behind it the graphics are amazing. they are using the same graphics set as the new battlefield 3 game. call of duty is dieing out at a slow pace either call of duty changes stuff up or it will be forgotten. Expand
  80. Mar 17, 2011
    9
    Like Medal of Honor before it, Homefront has two distinct personalities but in this instance is all the better for it. While the story mode is an engaging, brilliantly written and emotionally wrenching experience, its brevity may deter gamers not interested in dropping dozens of hours into the addictive multiplayer aspect. In their case, a rental is strongly encouraged. On the other hand, if youâ Expand
  81. Mar 18, 2011
    8
    I truly enjoyed the campaign, but they should have had a few more chapters and in today's FPS market you have to have destructible environments. I have only one complaint with the multiplayer and that pertains to the "battle code" that must be bought if the game is used, rented, or you are not the primary gamer to reach higher than level 5. The rest of the game is great and I do realize that there are only two multiplayer game modes. If the modes are good enough, you don't need more. Expand
  82. Mar 19, 2011
    8
    Unlike the majority of the COD fanboys on this website, I fully believe that graphics do NOT make a game and that games should be scored on the amount of fun had playing them. This games single player campaign is by no means bad. The story isn't meant to be like COD or battlefield. It's meant to give a dirty and gritty look at the occupation of a country during a time of war. It does this admirably. The game does a good job of showing the loss and sacrifice the citizens of america are going through. One of the more powerful moments occurs in the first five minutes of the game when the player witnesses families torn apart and murdered in the street. As for the multiplayer, I find it to be one of the freshest takes on the FPS genre to come out in a long time. The game rewards you for playing well by giving you BP (Battle Points). These points can be used to purchase weapons, killstreaks, and vehicles on the fly. Play well and you are rewarded well. Camp a corner and you will barely earn any points. This gives a sense of high stakes risk and reward gameplay. There are also multiple weapon attachments and camos to be earned by performing well with a weapon. Instead of going for headshots to earn camos, the game asks you to get killstreaks with your weapon of choice. Camos are awarded at 2,4,6,8, and 10 killstreaks. Overall, this game left me very satisfied. The single player campaign may end abruptly, but it does a fantastic job of immersing the player in a battle that you never feel at ease in. The multiplayer is amazing and gives a strong sense of risk/reward gameplay that should not be missed. Expand
  83. Mar 22, 2011
    7
    This game has so much potential but fails to reach it. I enjoyed the single player but really I was begging for some game to knock COD out of first place in multiplayer. I read a review by earlier by Slapper and I wondered what multiplayer game he was playing. The multiplayer servers are terrible. Getting into a game with friends is difficult to say the least. And the game play is lag heaven. I have an excellent internet connection and went so far as to hard wire the modem instead of using a router and I still only get yellow bar connections. I had high hopes, the potential is there but the multiplayer while not a failure is very poor! Sorry Slapper you missed the boat with your multiplayer comments. I really wanted this game to succeed but COD is still in first place Collapse
  84. Mar 25, 2011
    2
    Homefront had high expectation but did not deliver.Graphics suck with horrible atmosphere.The characters are dull and unenjoyable.However story is deep and focused.Gameplay is repetitive and boring.Multiplayer sucks and wont last very long.One game of multiplayer and you will take this disk out.One of the worst games of the year and DONT buy.
  85. Mar 29, 2011
    9
    This is a very good game and don't let some of these fools make you think otherwise. Sure the single player didn't really live up to my expectations but I am REALLY enjoying this game. The story just wasn't there for me, I enjoyed the idea and attempted to care about the story and characters but I just didn't at all. The SP is nothing different from any other PFS you will find out there and it is pretty short, but there are some very cool scenes to experience. The multiplayer is the meat and 'tatoes of this game. I can't express enough how much I enjoy it, the past couple of years I only really played the last two Call of Duty's as far as console MP games and it was such a nice change of pace. There is a big sense of teamwork and I find a lot of players attempting to communicate with their team while in MW2 and Black Ops everyone is too focused on maintaining their immaculate K/D and getting an obnoxious killstreak.

    The battle points system takes the focus off of the long term of your stats and really makes you care about the battle at hand and how you can use them the right way to help your team to win. Although there are few guns I've found myself sticking to a couple anyway and with all the other things you can do in this game it doesn't even phase you. You can use humvees, APCs, tanks, helicopters, and drones. The battles really get crazy after a while with cluster bombs going off and tanks rolling around everywhere, they really captured the sense of a full scale battle. The hit boxes in this game seem really small though. You can be sniping with your cross hairs directly on their head and not hit them at all but in close quarters you don't notice it really. There is also no aim assist and it makes the gunplay tougher due to it but I personally enjoy it, you can't just spray at medium range and take someone out. Also, I've only experienced a noticeable frame rate drop once since I started playing this game and I'm almost a level 50... I have no idea what that reviewer was talking about.

    There are a few quirks about this game though, for one you can't shoot through almost any surface which is pretty odd to me. Also some of the guns sound very cheesy which really bugged me at first but you get over it. Sometimes when i send out a parrot drone it wont let me change the altitude, but I merely just have to leave it and go back then it works fine. Trying to find a game can be difficult but recently it has been running perfectly. With any new game there will be little issues but nothing that is a game changer to me. On the whole this is a good game and very well worth your money if you are looking for a good multiplayer shooter. Some people might be sad because it's not Activision's money whoring machine but considering this being a new IP from a smaller developer I think they did a great job. With huge battles like this there are a lot of different ways to play this game that appeals to a lot of different play styles. I think if people merely gave it a shot they would really enjoy it.
    Expand
  86. Mar 29, 2011
    6
    One Word Review...................Sucks......................Say what you will its just not up to par.....the multiplayer is pretty good which is worth giving it a 6 for effort but the graphics are lame...Snipers are rampant and im not sure if the developers have heard of something called a smoke grenade. when the snipes are blended in with the ugly pixels from a distance then you have a major balance flaw. I traded mine in for crysis. Now i feel much better about my money. Expand
  87. Apr 7, 2011
    5
    The title really doesn't live up to its name. The campaign was exciting and had a very fitting story, but it was a bit short, try 4 hours. The ending was abrupt and unsatisfying. Graphics were pretty good. The multiplayer is fair, at most. What I've noticed is that it is a campers paradise. And if you buy it used, why do you have to pay to continue in multiplayer? The weapons are pretty good, along with the different perks and vehicles. The maps are pretty good too. I just don't understand why first-person shooters now-a-days have shorter and shorter campaigns though. They put too much work in the mutliplayer. I look for a good, long and challenging campaign. Not a 4 hour campaign with an unfitting ending. Expand
  88. Apr 14, 2011
    0
    Well over a month and issues with this game are still not resolved' not good enough. Not to mention the campaign takes 3 hours to beat, the story is boring and predictable and the graphics suck.
  89. Apr 16, 2011
    1
    I hate to be like this, but this game is terrible. This is a single sided (no diversity) this game is all about sniping. The maps are gigantic, you could take four of the largest call of duty maps and still come up sort. Also the host always has the advantage on this game.the gins are ok, but like I said the only useful guns are the snyper ryfuls. My full advice is don't buy it, because if you do you will find out and when you try to trade it in at gamestop you'll get 20 dollars for it. You should just go buy call of duty or gears of war. Expand
  90. 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
  91. Mar 20, 2011
    9
    I think that this game is really good, and it's being criticized for being a COD replica. But here's the thing... why can't anyone just play a game without saying it's not as good as cod, or it is cod? I mean seriously, this game is Homefront, not cod, so stop saying that it's cod. Saying that homefront is like cod is like saying Oblivion is like Dragon age, they are the same genre but totally different story and game play etc. Plus this game is BETTER than black ops anyway, since it has better game modes, and the maps are just fantastic. I would have given it a 10 but the single player is too short and the AI is stupid as **** lol. I would recommend this game, even if some COD fanboys want to downgrade it... Expand
  92. Jun 5, 2011
    6
    Homefront was a massive disapointment for me. The sad thing is that this game was supposed to be one of the best games of 2011 and it sadly wasn't. The campaign is semi different all though it is similar to the modern warfare series's campaign. How ever it is very buggy and INCREDIBLY SHORT. You may enjoy your self sometimes in the campaign but others wise it is a massive let down. Now the multiplayer is as if battlefield took steroids. This is not a good thing. Battlefield is one of the most realistic FPS out there (next to medal of honor) and turning it into what homefront is is a major mistake. The maps are terrible and BTW if you enjoy getting spawn raped you'll love this one. It take FOR EVER to find a game and there are almost no differences between guns. I am insanely disapointed with this game and it is most likely going in the trade in box. Expand
  93. Mar 20, 2011
    7
    At some point during the development cycle, around the time of E3 2010, Homefront was destined to be an amazing game. Unfortunately, somewhere along the line that changed. The worst thing (as you should already know if you've read any other review) is the terribly short campaign. It has its moment, but they're too few and far between to be worth the full retail price in my opinion. The multiplayer is fun, and if it weren't for that I would trade my copy in and buy something else. Overall, it's just not as good as it could have been. If you like multiplayer focused FPS games, give it a rent and see if you like it. Otherwise it probably isn't the game for you. Expand
  94. Mar 18, 2011
    8
    I'm glad I didn't base my rental decision on critic reviews, as I was VERY pleasantly surprised with Homefront. I was reminded of Black (for the original XBOX) with some slight queues (and I mean slight) from Half Life 2.

    The action was VERY intense and the immersion was fantastic. I have yet to play online, but the 4.5 hour campaign was thoroughly enjoyable and I urge anyone looking for
    a slightly different, more straight forward FPS experience to give it a try. As for the graphics? I thought they were at times incredible, at other times, decent. Voiceovers were weak from time to time, but more most of the game were fine.

    Why only 8/10? I cannot recommend ANYONE buy it with such limited re playability and such a short single player campaign. No complaints other than that.
    Expand
  95. Mar 20, 2011
    9
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I give it a 9. More like a 9.5, but since the meter doesn't allow that, just 9. I'm going to split this into campaign and multiplayer sections each with my own score in them. Since the controls fall under both sections, I'll just list it here. The aiming vertically seems to be rather slower than aiming horizontally, which sort of bugs me, and moving the selection box while moving around the main menu, multiplayer menu, etc. it doesn't register me moving the stick up unless I push it so far forward and hold it there, just for it to start jumping up rather quick. I'm sure the stick will start to bend soon if I have to keep doing this. It isn't my controller either, everything else works just fine for me. Also, it's rather annoying to get used to having knife and crouch switched on the controls after every other FPS game I've played had the option to have B as knife and right stick as crouch while leaving everything else the same.


    Campaign: 9.0
    -The campaign was quite entertaining, especially the goliath sections. However, it just seemed to have ended too short. Don't get me wrong here (if you somehow do), I wanted it to go on longer because I was thoroughly entertained with the campaign. So long as they didn't repeat the segments they already did twice (ie. the sniper missions, slow mo moments and goliath rampages) it could have been quite more entertaining.

    -AI were rather annoying. They often got stuck in Hallways meaning I couldn't get past them either so I had to restart from last checkpoint just to get them out of my ways. It's quite annoying also with them having a sort of big invisible box around them where you can't go and if you do you get pushed out of the way. This was one of the reasons why I got stuck.

    -There are parts in the game where if you step on certain things, you get stuck. I went over by a bus on the golden gate bridge and crouched on a pile of random junk sitting there, and I couldn't move and was rapidly moving up and down. I had to restart from the last checkpoint because of that.

    -Movement feels rather clunky, and I often would get caught on a box or stuck on a shelf trying to run behind it for cover, only to be shot in the back because of that.

    -Slow mo moments like in CoD were something I've always hated in FPS games, and this was not different. The 2 times it happened it was rather more annoying than fun.


    Multiplayer:10
    Best multiplayer I've played in a while. I haven't been able to put it down since day 1. Whether with or without friends, it's still rather fun. It still has an issue or 2 though, but nothing that's so bad it would really affect the score. The weapon unlock and attachment unlock system is rather good at making you want to unlock stuff for a gun or the gun in general.


    Bottom line: It's a game not focused on campaign otherwise it would be longer, but the multiplayer is a must have. This game seriously needs better reviews. It doesn't deserve some of the extremely low ones shown here, but maybe it's just because I got the hang of multiplayer rather early on that I think so highly of it. GET THIS GAME.
    Expand
  96. Mar 18, 2011
    9
    This is one of those games you have to play before you judge. A lot of reviews are saying it's good at best. I bought this game this afternoon and finished it in about five hours. But it was some of the best five hours of my life. Sure, the graphics aren't groundbreaking like some of the games coming out later this year but that doesn't really matter to me. It still looks great. The soundtrack fits perfectly but the voice acting isn't the best. The story itself is great. I haven't been this immersed in a game since Half-Life 2. The campaign has some epic moment especially towards the end of the game. It could have been longer but I'm very happy with what I got. Multiplayer is amazing... when it actually works. It could be just me, I don't know, but my friend and I weren't able to join a match together. Then when we did finally get into a match we were on opposite teams. It also lagged a lot to the point where I got incredibly frustrated and may have broken my controller. But when it does decide to work, it's perfect. Guns are balanced, vehicles are easy to use and the emphasis on teamwork really makes the game more fun. It is very similar to Bad Company 2 but I'm finding it more fun. The BattlePoints system is a great little invention and can save your ass if you use it right. The maps are huge and perfect for the 32 player ground control matches.

    In my opinion, Homefront is a great game. The campaign is short but sweet, and the multiplayer will keep you playing for a long time.
    Expand
  97. 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
  98. Mar 22, 2011
    8
    I enjoyed the story. I found it addicting and at perfect length. It tells a story that doesn't take a friggin' enormous amount of time. Multiplayer is addicting, but not the best I've played. A pleasant relief from Black Ops.
  99. Mar 16, 2011
    5
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Homefront is really short, it has 7 chapters, The single player is about 5 hours long. Decent story, but I would rather see this kind of story in a movie rather than a game or if it was done a tad better. The online is pretty much the only thing this game as going for it. It's kind of like playing battlefield open maps, and I like that you can buy weapons with battle points on the fly. I was hoping more from the single player experience rather than the online, lets face it, they always make the online more enjoyable than the campaign. I want the story longer not 5 hours thats too short. $59.99 for this game isn't worth it. Expand
  100. May 15, 2011
    5
    It has a great idea and a scary premise. The problem is it never comes to fruition. The graphics are 2006 and the online game-play is original but fidgety. Vehicles can become a problem and hit-detection is sometimes off. I hope they don't lose faith in their ideas as another try with some feedback and a future beta could do wonders for this as a franchise.
  101. Mar 22, 2011
    0
    This game has so much potential but fails to reach it. I enjoyed the single player but really I was begging for some game to knock COD out of first place in multiplayer. I read a review by earlier by Slapper and I wondered what multiplayer game he was playing. The multiplayer servers are terrible. Getting into a game with friends is difficult to say the least. And the game play is lag heaven. I have an excellent internet connection and went so far as to hard wire the modem instead of using a router and I still only get yellow bar connections. I had high hopes, the potential is there but the multiplayer while not a failure is very poor! Sorry Slapper you missed the boat with your multiplayer comments. I really wanted this game to succeed but COD is still in first place Collapse
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.