1. Oldskool

   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

   • Helpful? 5 of 6 users said Yes.
2. mattaui

   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.… Collapse

   • Helpful? 4 of 6 users said Yes.
3. archerj2

   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… Expand

   • Helpful? 2 of 2 users said Yes.
4. Redfordsto

   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

   • Helpful? 1 of 1 users said Yes.

See all 200 User Reviews