I tend to use Homefront as a comparative example when talking about FPS games on my Examiner page. At first, I thought this was just because it was one of the few new shooters I had played recently, and I had a limited pool of games to draw from for my articles. Admittedly, this was part of the reason. Hell, I was writing about Modern Warfare 3 before I even played it. Something else about Homefront was dragging me in. It didn?t take me long to realize that, despite all my problems with the game, it was actually one of my favorites from 2011.
A brief synopsis for those not familiar with the title: the game explores a possible near-future scenario in which a unified Korea gains control over much of the Asian continent, growing in power until the new empire invades the west coast of the US. The protagonist you play as is a captured civilian helicopter pilot who is rescued by a small resistance force. You fight through the game as a resistance member, sabotaging the Korean occupation wherever you can.
The premise of the game was a breath of fresh air in the stagnant environment of the modern military shooter. Finally, there are enemies other than Russians and Arabs, and instead of bombing the living shit out of some undeveloped village with an AC130, you?re desperately fighting house-to-house through a small town American suburb. I know what you?re thinking: ?didn?t Modern Warfare 2 have missions where you fought through an American suburb?? Yes, my quick-witted reader, it did. The difference with Homefront is that you and your fellow resisters are untrained in combat, and without the support of an overpowering and technologically advanced US Army. You are forced to rely on whatever weapons and ammo you can find or steal, and you and your friends must learn military tactics through trial and error. This is meant to instill a sense of desperation, and immerse the player in a bitter fight for their own backyard. At least, this was the theory.
Unfortunately, this idea didn?t pan out nearly as well as it should have. Rather than conserving ammo out of fear of running out in the middle of a firefight, I was carrying so much that my inventory was full on a regular basis, and I had to leave extra ammo lying on the ground. Also, with a button control system lifted straight from Call of Duty, I had absolutely no trouble jumping right into the combat. Having an agreeable user interface is always a good thing, but if I?m supposed to be untrained in military matters, I should have a little more trouble getting used to firing a gun at other human beings.
Speaking of human beings and the emotions of said creatures, I couldn?t help but notice my distinct lack of concern for the well-being of my fellow resisters, or even myself. One of the draws of the game was that you were just a civilian fighting for your home and your life, and not just some government trained killer. There were some moments in the game, such as fighting off a KPA raid while a woman shielded her crying baby right behind you, or watching piles of civilians being bulldozed into mass graves, when it did succeed in unnerving the player and reminding them of the severity of the situation. Most of the time, though, I just didn?t give a shit. The dialogue was uninspired, to say the least (the game was written by John Milius, the man behind Red Dawn. You can take that any way you want). There?s little-to-no emotional investment in the characters, and until your piloting skills are needed to fly a helicopter, your presence in the group seems entirely incidental.
While the main story was ultimately a let-down, the overarching history of Korea?s rise over Asia and the US is extremely well done. As unlikely as the scenario of a unified Korea gaining that much power sounds, it is actually very plausible under the right conditions. Throughout the game you encounter scraps of newspaper which tell the history of the game?s story. These scraps detail the death of Kim Jong Il, the unification of the peninsula under North Korea?s charismatic new ruler, and the rapid decline of the Western economy, military and society. While games like Modern Warfare seem to ignore the fact that the Cold War is long over, Homefront paints a disturbing picture of the capabilities of what is currently one of the world?s real threats to stability. It?s important not to get xenophobic at times like these, but the story behind Homefront is definitely one of the most plausible stories to come from a modern shooter.
Another strength of this game, and what is probably the only thing besides the trophies that gives it replay value, is the multiplayer. The single player campaign was tragically short (although the seven missions it had were considerably long by themselves), but the multiplayer is the only area where Homefront was able to stand out. This doesn?t mean it is without its flaws. There are only a few different game modes to choose from, and a small number of maps that get recycled for each one. However, the saving grace for the multiplayer is the Battle Point system, which allows players to call in different weapons or vehicles once they acquire enough points. The BP system, in my opinion, provides a much better reward system for player performance than the kill streaks in CoD. It doesn?t take long to accumulate enough points to call in a tank or helicopter that the player can control themselves. I have yet to experience a better feeling in Homefront than when I request a tank and start blowing the living fuck out of everything in my path. The gameplay in multiplayer is the only reason why this game stays in my PS3 for extended periods of time.
There are other issues and strengths about Homefront that I could touch upon, but this post is already getting pretty long. If I've managed to keep your attention for this long, I heartily thank you. The last thing I will say is this: while the game may have failed in what it set out to do, I think it failed in the best way possible. The gameplay wasn?t innovative, the writing was terrible, but the overall story was very good, and it displayed a real effort to try and make a change in the current FPS trend. I really hope that this game can become a successful franchise. Just don't let Milius write the sequel.
You can find this same review and others (with images!) at my blog: http://trophy-enabled.blogspot.com/
A brief synopsis for those not familiar with the title: the game explores a possible near-future scenario in which a unified Korea gains control over much of the Asian continent, growing in power until the new empire invades the west coast of the US. The protagonist you play as is a captured civilian helicopter pilot who is rescued by a small resistance force. You fight through the game as a resistance member, sabotaging the Korean occupation wherever you can.
The premise of the game was a breath of fresh air in the stagnant environment of the modern military shooter. Finally, there are enemies other than Russians and Arabs, and instead of bombing the living shit out of some undeveloped village with an AC130, you?re desperately fighting house-to-house through a small town American suburb. I know what you?re thinking: ?didn?t Modern Warfare 2 have missions where you fought through an American suburb?? Yes, my quick-witted reader, it did. The difference with Homefront is that you and your fellow resisters are untrained in combat, and without the support of an overpowering and technologically advanced US Army. You are forced to rely on whatever weapons and ammo you can find or steal, and you and your friends must learn military tactics through trial and error. This is meant to instill a sense of desperation, and immerse the player in a bitter fight for their own backyard. At least, this was the theory.
Unfortunately, this idea didn?t pan out nearly as well as it should have. Rather than conserving ammo out of fear of running out in the middle of a firefight, I was carrying so much that my inventory was full on a regular basis, and I had to leave extra ammo lying on the ground. Also, with a button control system lifted straight from Call of Duty, I had absolutely no trouble jumping right into the combat. Having an agreeable user interface is always a good thing, but if I?m supposed to be untrained in military matters, I should have a little more trouble getting used to firing a gun at other human beings.
Speaking of human beings and the emotions of said creatures, I couldn?t help but notice my distinct lack of concern for the well-being of my fellow resisters, or even myself. One of the draws of the game was that you were just a civilian fighting for your home and your life, and not just some government trained killer. There were some moments in the game, such as fighting off a KPA raid while a woman shielded her crying baby right behind you, or watching piles of civilians being bulldozed into mass graves, when it did succeed in unnerving the player and reminding them of the severity of the situation. Most of the time, though, I just didn?t give a shit. The dialogue was uninspired, to say the least (the game was written by John Milius, the man behind Red Dawn. You can take that any way you want). There?s little-to-no emotional investment in the characters, and until your piloting skills are needed to fly a helicopter, your presence in the group seems entirely incidental.
While the main story was ultimately a let-down, the overarching history of Korea?s rise over Asia and the US is extremely well done. As unlikely as the scenario of a unified Korea gaining that much power sounds, it is actually very plausible under the right conditions. Throughout the game you encounter scraps of newspaper which tell the history of the game?s story. These scraps detail the death of Kim Jong Il, the unification of the peninsula under North Korea?s charismatic new ruler, and the rapid decline of the Western economy, military and society. While games like Modern Warfare seem to ignore the fact that the Cold War is long over, Homefront paints a disturbing picture of the capabilities of what is currently one of the world?s real threats to stability. It?s important not to get xenophobic at times like these, but the story behind Homefront is definitely one of the most plausible stories to come from a modern shooter.
Another strength of this game, and what is probably the only thing besides the trophies that gives it replay value, is the multiplayer. The single player campaign was tragically short (although the seven missions it had were considerably long by themselves), but the multiplayer is the only area where Homefront was able to stand out. This doesn?t mean it is without its flaws. There are only a few different game modes to choose from, and a small number of maps that get recycled for each one. However, the saving grace for the multiplayer is the Battle Point system, which allows players to call in different weapons or vehicles once they acquire enough points. The BP system, in my opinion, provides a much better reward system for player performance than the kill streaks in CoD. It doesn?t take long to accumulate enough points to call in a tank or helicopter that the player can control themselves. I have yet to experience a better feeling in Homefront than when I request a tank and start blowing the living fuck out of everything in my path. The gameplay in multiplayer is the only reason why this game stays in my PS3 for extended periods of time.
There are other issues and strengths about Homefront that I could touch upon, but this post is already getting pretty long. If I've managed to keep your attention for this long, I heartily thank you. The last thing I will say is this: while the game may have failed in what it set out to do, I think it failed in the best way possible. The gameplay wasn?t innovative, the writing was terrible, but the overall story was very good, and it displayed a real effort to try and make a change in the current FPS trend. I really hope that this game can become a successful franchise. Just don't let Milius write the sequel.
You can find this same review and others (with images!) at my blog: http://trophy-enabled.blogspot.com/
