Homefront: The Revolution is coming this week. Is anyone else getting it?

[Ambient_Malice]

Visuals: Shit.

In what universe are these visual "shit"? The console versions are a bit so-so, but it's one of the best looking open world FPS games around, if not the best looking.

I think that's what gets me with these games(and the New Red Dawn film). China or Russia invading the US aren't likely but at least come across as plausible given a large enough military buildup and a seriously antagonistic government. North Korea,OTOH, so far is unable to even invade South Korea, let alone mount a successful trans-pacific invasion. North Korea having hovertanks was stretching it pretty bad in Advanced Warfare but I let it slide because that was the intro mission and the rest of the game has little to do with it.

Seriously, I wish they'd just go with alternate timeline of "China is really expansionist and militaristic in this universe and they're invading the US after a protracted pacific war which the US has been on the losing end of for years" instead of "North Korea, because we don't want to offend the Chinese and lose out on their sales".

It's up there with ISIS invading Texas and somehow managing not only to conquer, but hold it. It's not gonna happen in any semi-realistic scenario.

I'm not sure you understand Homefront 2's story. In Homefront 2, Korea is a technological superpower for decades leading up to an American economic collapse, during which America cannot repay debts it owes Korea in exchange for technology it used to fight wars in the Middle east. In addition, America's economic collapse robs Korea of a valuable market for its technology.

Korea reaches out to an America suffering massive unemployment and economic chaos and offers to help set things right. The government get pissy, but the people revolt, demanding the Koreans be allowed to help.

Anyway, somewhere along the line, negotiations break down, and the Koreans decide to take drastic measures, and using secret backdoors in their technology platforms, they cripple America's military and "invade".

The Koreans bring food, medicine, jobs, economic growth, and so forth to a struggling America.

Anyway, the Koreans are a tad oppressive, and there are rebels, and after one too many terrorist attacks, the Koreans start clamping down.

There is no aggressive invasion. This storyline has nothing to do with the original Homefront, Red Dawn, etc. The American people are desperate and starving, and the Koreans arrive to help. The only problem is they never leave, and they react to violence from rebels with violence of their own.

I want to but uhhh...


Oh my that's sloppy. It's a shame too, I liked the idea of this game. But the execution looks pretty damn bad.

In the game's defense, NPCs getting stuck on corners is extremely common in open world games. And it's especially not surprising given CryEngine games tend to have flaky pathfinding. None of the bugs he shows in the video are especially strange. Fallout 3/New Vegas shipped with characters disappearing, heads spinning round and round, characters floating half-stuck in the floor, and more. And don't forget the Stalker games which mostly shipped in a horribly broken state.

By all means, bugs should be criticised, but this is an open world game. Strange bugs come with the territory, and are insanely difficult to debug.

If no effort is made to patch the bugs post-release, that would be worthy of further criticism, too.

 

[Zhukov]

Visuals: Shit.

In what universe are these visual "shit"?

The universe in which I just endured about 40 minutes of drab, boring, grey, poorly animated monotony.

Even if the visuals were good from a technical standpoint, their design is bland garbage.

... but it's one of the best looking open world FPS games around, if not the best looking.

Oh please.

You're drawing a small circle there. Open world FPS games aren't actually all that common.

 

[Ambient_Malice]

Visuals: Shit.

In what universe are these visual "shit"?

The universe in which I just endured about 40 minutes of drab, boring, grey, poorly animated monotony.

Even if the visuals were good from a technical standpoint, their design is bland garbage.

"I don't like the art design" is not the same thing as "shit visuals". This is always been a problem with Crytek stuff, though. Crysis 2 and Crysis 3 are visually superior to the original Crysis in every way, but some people prefer the tropical art style of the original game, and will swear black in blue it was "way better" graphics.

You're drawing a small circle there. Open world FPS games aren't actually all that common.

Sure. And most of them are running on a crappy Ubisoft CryEngine fork, anyway. But my point is that within this game's genre, it is almost visually peerless. GTA V maybe comes close, since it's an FPS game, too? But this game's character models and lighting and even texture work in places are miles ahead of GTA V.

 

[RJ 17]

Already seen some reviews on it...annnnnnnnnd from the sound of things it's going to be just as crap-tastic as the last one.

I'll pass, thank you.

.........not that I could afford it even if I wanted it at this particular time.

 

[Zhukov]

Visuals: Shit.

In what universe are these visual "shit"?

The universe in which I just endured about 40 minutes of drab, boring, grey, poorly animated monotony.

Even if the visuals were good from a technical standpoint, their design is bland garbage.

"I don't like the art design" is not the same thing as "shit visuals".

The art design is visual. I am looking at it. With my vision. My visual sense if you will. It looks like shit.

Therefore I consider the visuals to be shit.

Maybe their shit looking models have a record number of polygons or a really fancy lighting system or something. I don't care. If that's the case then they've used that stuff to make something that looks like shit.

Sure. And most of them are running on a crappy Ubisoft CryEngine fork, anyway. But my point is that within this game's genre, it is almost visually peerless. GTA V maybe comes close, since it's an FPS game, too? But this game's character models and lighting and even texture work in places are miles ahead of GTA V.

GTAV isn't a FPS. It's third person. Although I remember something about a first person mod existing.

I don't know why you chose to specify first person or shooter when comparing graphics.

 

[Ambient_Malice]

GTAV isn't a FPS. It's third person. Although I remember something about a first person mod existing.

In the PS4/XBO/PC version, you can play the entire game in FPS mode. It's an official mode that was added. The whole game was rejigged to make it work, including car damage no longer being able to clip through the driver's head and such.

I don't know why you chose to specify first person or shooter when comparing graphics.

Because they're a completely different genre for a start, with very different visual requirements. It's a lot easier to make open world games that are TPS, hence why so many classic open world games were TPS. The FPS genre brings with it a lot of challenges because we view assets far more closely than they do in a TPS game. Third person games can exercise prescripted control over the camera to improve performance, while first person games can't really do that.

Already seen some reviews on it...annnnnnnnnd from the sound of things it's going to be just as crap-tastic as the last one.

If you're someone who for whatever reason didn't like the first Homefront game, I doubt this one is for you.

 

[RJ 17]

Already seen some reviews on it...annnnnnnnnd from the sound of things it's going to be just as crap-tastic as the last one.

If you're someone who for whatever reason didn't like the first Homefront game, I doubt this one is for you.

Indeed, I thought the first game was utter crap, and so it certainly could be said that this one isn't for me.

I'm just here to answer the question you asked since you asked the forum if anyone else was getting it.

 

[Ambient_Malice]

]Indeed, I thought the first game was utter crap, and so it certainly could be said that this one isn't for me.

Out of curiosity, what did you dislike about the original? Did you ever try the MP? I hear that developed something of a cult following.

 

[kasperbbs]

I'm still holding out on buying Doom because i'm mad at myself for having 10 unfinished games on my PC so theres no way i'm spending any money on this thing, unless it's like 5 euros. It just looks so dull.

 

[RJ 17]

]Indeed, I thought the first game was utter crap, and so it certainly could be said that this one isn't for me.

Out of curiosity, what did you dislike about the original? Did you ever try the MP? I hear that developed something of a cult following.

Just didn't float my boat. Didn't like the story, didn't like the gameplay, and I didn't like the aesthetics.

I'm certainly not going to make fun of you for liking a game that I didn't like, play whatever you enjoy! It just means our tastes are different and there's nothing wrong with that.

That said, I'll certainly let anyone who enjoyed a game know that I personally thought it was crap-tastic.

But that's just the opinion of some random dick-nugget on the internet, so you really shouldn't be all that concerned that I said the first game was crap and that this one looks just as crappy. :3

 

[Mcgeezaks]

GTAV isn't a FPS. It's third person. Although I remember something about a first person mod existing.

In the PS4/XBO/PC version, you can play the entire game in FPS mode. It's an official mode that was added. The whole game was rejigged to make it work, including car damage no longer being able to clip through the driver's head and such.

It's still designed as a third person game, if the game was a FPS I would've hated it because the FoV is horrible, no, horrible is too nice of a word for it.

And Doom is a fresh breeze of air in todays FPS market.

 

[sageoftruth]

Well, I'm inclined to turn it away, but I'll give you a chance to change my mind.

What makes the gameplay of this game special? Does it have special unique weapons like Resistance, an interesting combat mechanic like Max Payne or Vanquish, or if neither of these, is there anything that would make the combat feel different from playing Call of Duty 4 in an open world setting?

The thing is, I've already played Far Cry 3 and 4, and feel kind of burnt out playing open world shooters, so it being open world really isn't a plus for me at the moment. Is there anything special about it that could help me overlook that?

 

[Ambient_Malice]

I can't name a single on-foot FPS in the past 15 years that let the player move as fast as Doom-guy 4, and "generic FPS" has meant "narrow hallways, zero exploration" for far too long now.

Generic means whatever people want it to mean. Doom was always full of narrow hallways. And we've had many, many Doom knock offs. Doom 4 is fundamentally the same game as Doom and Doom II and the various expansions, with a splash of knock-off added to the mix. None of the mechanics like vaulting are new or original. Doom 4 is about as fresh and innovative as Call of Duty 4.

Sure, Homefront 2 is not particularly fresh. It's kind of like TimeSplitters. TimeSplitters wasn't fresh. It was a bunch of recycled ideas from GoldenEye and Perfect Dark. It did however mash them together with a few small twists into a competent, enjoyable package.

All your blabbering about the Homefront world-building seems to willfully ignore the obvious fact that, like the garbage Red Dawn remake, it was built for the Chinese to be villains because that would make sense but they were changed to N. Korean because it otherwise made *too much* sense.

This has no connection to the first Homefront. The basic premise is completely different. The entire logic behind a Chinese invasion, I think, is military might. The war in Homefront 2 is based upon technological trojans rather than military might. Based upon an America that wants to be invaded. You could substitute China, sure, but you seem to be getting caught up on the idea these nations are related to their real world versions, which they are not.

And Doom is a fresh breeze of air in todays FPS market.

It's a retread of a game done many times before. Your logic is akin to claiming new WWII Medal of Honor games would be "fresh" in 2016 despite the fact there are so many of them already and they've all looked and played more or less the same.

Doom is a throwback game. It's a very nice throwback game, with brilliant design, and I intend to buy it soon, but it is nonetheless an unoriginal, highly generic Doom game where you fight Demons on Mars and Hell. It's the game the fans wanted, so to speak.

The thing is, I've already played Far Cry 3 and 4, and feel kind of burnt out playing open world shooters, so it being open world really isn't a plus for me at the moment. Is there anything special about it that could help me overlook that?

If you're burnt out on open world design, I really don't think it's for you. I think the best way of thinking of the game would be "Crysis 2, but open world and no nanosuit, from the developers of TimeSplitters." A huge part of the appeal of a game like this is exploring the open world, fighting, completing objectives, experiencing the story, soaking in the atmosphere. It's important to note that Homefront 2 started out as a linear game, but was changed into an open world one. People bitched and moaned about how Crysis 2 and Crysis 3 were linear. It strikes me as extremely "damned if you do, damned if you don't".

Anyway, when I finally get my hands on the game, I'm going to play it with an open mind. I'm not going to blindly defend serious flaws if they do exist.

 

[Livingskeletons_v1legacy]

Looks very generic and I enjoy FPS's like Black Ops 3.

 

[Ambient_Malice]

Looks very generic and I enjoy FPS's like Black Ops 3.

What exactly do you mean by "generic"? (I don't mean this harshly. This is a weird thing that has been bugging me for a while.) I think the game isn't particularly original in terms of design, with elements from Crysis 3 (their last game) blended with elements of Ubisoft's Far Cry games. But "generic"? I'm really not seeing it. There are three FPS games this can be directly compared to in terms of setting, design, and scope. Far Cry 3, Far Cry 4, and Dying Light. And of those games, only Dying Light was set in an urban environment.

Despite being a less than original game resembling State of Decay, Dead Island, and Far Cry 3 (right down to tower climbing and pat-down animations), Dying Light largely escaped the "generic" stigma.

"Oh, boy, we've got a crafting system, just like every Ubisoft game ever! And an open, mostly empty world to drive around! And NPCs who give out side quests! And random NPC encounters where they reward you with money for saving them, just like every Ubisoft game ever! But we're an incredibly bold and innovative zombie game because reasons!" Maybe drowning itself in chromatic aberration helped? I say this as someone who loved Dying Light. Best FPS game in years, easily.

"Generic" has become a catch-all description that doesn't really say much. If taken to its logical conclusion, almost everything is generic. We end up falling into the "It's just like Skyrim" cliche, where everything is just like Skyrim if it involves open world and horses. Or everything is a Fallout clone if it involves wastelands and bandits. I mean, if STALKER were released in 2016, it would be labelled as a "generic" "Fallout 4 clone" with "terrible graphics" and "unacceptable bugs".

In the context of the Call of Duty series, Black Ops 3 may have had a terribly designed campaign, but it wasn't a generic one. It was a hybrid of Syndicate and FEAR 3, and those games were fairly unique. The storyline was essentially Age of Ultron: OMG WHAT A TWIST Edition, which isn't actually that common.

 

[Livingskeletons_v1legacy]

Looks very generic and I enjoy FPS's like Black Ops 3.

What exactly do you mean by "generic"? (I don't mean this harshly. This is a weird thing that has been bugging me for a while.) I think the game isn't particularly original in terms of design, with elements from Crysis 3 (their last game) blended with elements of Ubisoft's Far Cry games. But "generic"? I'm really not seeing it. There are three FPS games this can be directly compared to in terms of setting, design, and scope. Far Cry 3, Far Cry 4, and Dying Light. And of those games, only Dying Light was set in an urban environment.

Despite being a less than original game resembling State of Decay, Dead Island, and Far Cry 3 (right down to tower climbing and pat-down animations), Dying Light largely escaped the "generic" stigma.

"Oh, boy, we've got a crafting system, just like every Ubisoft game ever! And an open, mostly empty world to drive around! And NPCs who give out side quests! And random NPC encounters where they reward you with money for saving them, just like every Ubisoft game ever! But we're an incredibly bold and innovative zombie game because reasons!" Maybe drowning itself in chromatic aberration helped? I say this as someone who loved Dying Light. Best FPS game in years, easily.

"Generic" has become a catch-all description that doesn't really say much. If taken to its logical conclusion, almost everything is generic. We end up falling into the "It's just like Skyrim" cliche, where everything is just like Skyrim if it involves open world and horses. Or everything is a Fallout clone if it involves wastelands and bandits. I mean, if STALKER were released in 2016, it would be labelled as a "generic" "Fallout 4 clone" with "terrible graphics" and "unacceptable bugs".

In the context of the Call of Duty series, Black Ops 3 may have had a terribly designed campaign, but it wasn't a generic one. It was a hybrid of Syndicate and FEAR 3, and those games were fairly unique. The storyline was essentially Age of Ultron: OMG WHAT A TWIST Edition, which isn't actually that common.

Yeah generic was probably a poor word choice. In any case it looks mediocre like a C tier shooter, something that would have been made during the PS2's hey day.

 

[Ambient_Malice]

Also, the backstory is fucking retarded and full of plot holes (for one thing North Korea annexing the south, by force or peacefully, would destroy the south's economy and bring it the their level, and at that point they would suffer more than enough causalities to make it rather easy to take back).

I think you're confusing Homefront 2's backstory with Homefront's completely different backstory.

You can view the Homefront 2 backstory here, spanning from the 1950's to 2020's.

https://history.homefront-game.com/

North and South Korea sign a peace treaty. There is no "annexing".

The Koreans come to America to deliver food and aid and economic stability, since the American economy has collapsed, and they cannot repay their immense debts to Korea for technological services rendered over the decades. They decide they're not leaving, and that's when they "invade" by using killswitches in the technology they've sold over the years.

In this timeline, it was Korea, not America, who led the computer revolution.

Maybe they could have promoted it better, but there's really nothing wrong with Homefront 2's backstory.

 

[SweetShark]

I am the kind of player I want to play something visually more exciting than what I see in this game.
However from what I saw, I think Jim Sterling putting a 1/10 score is a little bit harsh...
Jim being the only person as far I know who played a TON of bad games, giving this score is not very well thought.
Now, I am not saying is was bad who gave a bad score. It is his opinion after all and he had a well written review as well. But 1/10? I don't think he is fair.