Dethpixie said:
There is a reason so few devs have gone the STALKER route. It isn't what sells. Tell me the average Xbox live user would rather play a combo of Battlefield and STALKER over a boom-fest like Halo or CoD? CoD is accessible, easy to play, and provides hours of mindless "entertainment." A game like that is also easy to make and there are plenty of games to copy the design of. A dev may have a great idea for a game, but the publisher wants something that will sell for sure. Thus, we end up with 6,000 CoD/Halo styled games and only five or six STALKER/Battlefield styled games.
On topic, Homefront is definitely not the most original
concept for a game, but perhaps the gameplay will make up for it. I sure wouldn't mind playing as a rag-tag
American freedom fighter if i actually got to play like a rag-tag freedom fighter (ambushes, booby-traps, hit-and-run tactics). I'm also not in it for the singleplayer. In my experience, the campaigns of most games are terrible compared to their multiplayer (exceptions being Half-Life 2, Frontlines (another KAOS game) and most RTS games). If the multiplayer for Homefront is like BBC2, then it'll be a well spent $50. And it is looking like it will be similar. I even think the buildings/terrain are breakable
On STALKER/Metro. Metro is a good game. It starts out good, gets really dodgy half way through (stealth mechanics are to blame), then finishes marvelously. STALKER Call or Pripyat is a lot of fun, but frustrating. Not in the SoC "get your ass handed to you a lot) way. More of the "You're making me grind tasks and find artifacts that never spawn to pay for travel" way. Later, ammo and guns are free, but only in limited amounts. And you have to pay to travel between zones to win. Makes the game drag less, but if you are like me and must own every unique gun in the game, it gets annoying. But, i'll spoil no more for you.