Homefront: Not so original?
- Thread starter Nocola
- Start date
Recommended Videos
well to be fair it isnt out yet, so we dont know how good/bad it is though I do find it refreshing to see a FPS thats more or less story focused (you know, for a FPS) and the trailer did definetly spark my interestXzi said:
also mabye thats also because I dont play COD or any shooter thats remotley "realistic" (you know army stuff) only one Ive played is far cry 2
I'm not pumped for it in any way, for the reasons you mentioned, but I'm sure all the people still obsessing over FPS games (for some reason) will pick it up.
Then again, even superior games to CoD (like BF: BC2) don't sell as well, so I have a feeling this one won't take much of the market's pie in comparison to CoD. Seriously, I don't understand CoD players... they reskin the game, add something new (something minor and relatively insignificant), change a perk perhaps, and sell the game. They've been putting out the same deal since CoD4, but if it's still selling like it has been, they'll just keep doing that.
Then again, even superior games to CoD (like BF: BC2) don't sell as well, so I have a feeling this one won't take much of the market's pie in comparison to CoD. Seriously, I don't understand CoD players... they reskin the game, add something new (something minor and relatively insignificant), change a perk perhaps, and sell the game. They've been putting out the same deal since CoD4, but if it's still selling like it has been, they'll just keep doing that.
When I heard of this "Homefront", I wasn't particularly excited.
Then I hear this talk of "originality", which, personally, I think is up to other people to decide, not the ones making the game itself.
I think sometimes originality is just taking the standard formula for any kind of game and just shaping it into something different (A plane crashing or resistance story would not be really something different, really spectacular). Like a gritty, realistic FPS with wolves that fly by firing a laser through their bum. Maybe they should have added that to Homefront.
Then I hear this talk of "originality", which, personally, I think is up to other people to decide, not the ones making the game itself.
I think sometimes originality is just taking the standard formula for any kind of game and just shaping it into something different (A plane crashing or resistance story would not be really something different, really spectacular). Like a gritty, realistic FPS with wolves that fly by firing a laser through their bum. Maybe they should have added that to Homefront.
That's true. Even Bad Company 2 didn't deviate too far from the CoD path, tho it is a much better game than MW2 or Blops. Actually, it's a bit like STALKER in that you can only survive a few bullets and you have to tape a med kit to your face to not die, at least in multiplayer. But it still feels like just another samey shooter during the single player. At least it has some more colors besides brown, grey-brown, and slightly greenish-brown. I imagine that Homefront will feature a lot of brown, grey, and red (blood).Dethpixie said:
If you liked STALKER SoC, you'd really like Call of Pripyat. It takes what SoC did and improves on it vastly. It's a more balanced, more terrifying, more atmospheric game. The biggest improvement is the Heads Up Display, the armor and weapon systems, and the medical system. Best realistic shooter i have ever played.
Dunno if you played it, but you might also like Metro 2033. It's a lot like STALKER, but i hope you don't rely on stealth too much cuz Metro's stealth system is shot to hell and back.
Out of curiosity, how is this different from every other game genre.SteewpidZombie said:
Last year I got into sandbox games. They're amazing fun, but...
I doubt I saw anything new after about the third one. Most of them use a water-downed FPS run-and-gun mechanic. Side missions include all sorts of challenges, like water-downed racing games or watered-downed bowling games and the like. Main missions are just go from Point A to Point B and kill everything in your way or maybe Defend Point C or an escort mission. You know, nothing I haven't seen a million times in first person shooters over the last 20 years. There's not much variation in the type of city you're in. Assassin's Creed was probably the most original take on the sandbox game since GTA III and by the second game, they had pretty much exhausted that vein of originality. New cities, but traveling across them are exactly the same as traveling across the ones in the first game.
Platform games... whether 2D or 3D, new ideas are few and far between. I remember hanging out in arcades in the late 80s and seeing the same platform shooter over and over... or the same hack-n-slash platformer over and over. LittleBigPlanet 2 pretty much contains every idea the jumping platformer ever came up with. Bit more visual flair since they're drawing on a cartoon aesthetic, but a lot of samey gameplay. Quick, tell me the name of that game that had that sewer level... or that one that had you getting knocked off of ledges by bats.
Fighting games... has there been game play innovations since someone gave everyone signature moves? I've played random ones over the years and it is probably the most samey game genre I've ever encountered.
RPGs... three words: standard fantasy setting. I recently started getting into them and burned through the current generation non-fantasy major releases in a couple of months... and that's counting Alpha Protocol as a major release.
Yeah, first person shooters can be really samey, which isn't a surprise considering that it's been a AAA genre for nearly 20 years. And shooters have never been exactly known for their innovative game play. Berserk, shoot everything that moves. Defender, shoot almost everything that moves but escort the humans back to the ground. Robotron, save the humans by shooting stuff as quickly as you can. Seems like half the games are military shooters, while the other half are sci-fi military shooters... and every so often someone tosses in Western. I'm not as smitten with the genre as I used to be back when the genre was still adding gameplay elements; but I'm always on the look-out for a good one.
I've been trying to wonder what the big deal with this game was too. Apparently the big deal seems to be...nothing. I was right all along. My powers of clairvoyance continue to amaze me.
No, I know it sucks because they`re offering another, better game if you prepurchase for no extra cost.IronicBeet said:
THAT is how I know it sucks.
What game do you get for free? This could be win-win for me as I intend to check out Homeworld anyways. I'll pre-order if the other game sounds good or as you put it is "even better".GreyKnight3445 said:
I don't expect Homeworld to be the second coming but I am interested to see what they are doing with it.
Homeworld is a good game, but we`re talking about Homefront, and the game is Metro 2033. and I hope you enjoy your purchase.Savagezion said:
ROFL. I used Homeworld in that entire post. Yeah, I meant Homefront. Ironically, I don't care much about Metro 2033. But that isn't a bad deal, I guess. Thanks for the heads up. I am not expecting Homefront to be that original or spectacular. It definitely won't "set a new bar" for anything. But I would be ok with just getting a decent game. Even if it turns out the one I prefer Metro 2033. Thanks all the same.GreyKnight3445 said:
...Banned means not allowed to be sold, doesn't it? I know MoH wasn't banned, and I know 6DIF just never got finished, but I'm saying a game with USA as the bad guys would either be banned or abandoned because of the controversial material. I used MoH and 6DIF as examples of the American reaction to things like this.cjbos81 said:
I know what banned means. No need to condescend.
More likely, Americans cease being concerned with Canada after they're conquered. It's a perfectly legitimate reason.Nocola said: