open All Channels
seplocked Out of Pod Experience
blankseplocked Homefront
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Author Topic

Barakkus
Posted - 2011.03.13 00:14:00 - [1]
 

This looks pretty sweet, I'd actually like to get it, but I think I'm going to need a new PC first:
http://store.steampowered.com/app/55100/

I like the storyline for the single player. Anyone played this yet? (it's only available on consoles at the moment, PC gets released in a day or two).

Caleidascope
Minmatar
Republic Military School
Posted - 2011.03.13 00:28:00 - [2]
 

http://www.joystiq.com/search/?q=homefront&invocationType=wl-joystiq

Alotta Baggage
Amarr
Imperial Shipment
Posted - 2011.03.13 00:29:00 - [3]
 

Looks like Call of Duty

Aiwha
Caldari
101st Space Marine Force
Nulli Secunda
Posted - 2011.03.13 19:18:00 - [4]
 

Originally by: Alotta Baggage
Looks like Call of Duty


Some of us enjoyed CoD4.

Sidus Isaacs
Gallente
Posted - 2011.03.13 19:26:00 - [5]
 

Look like just another run of the mill pointless shooter? Like all the others on the marked?

Barakkus
Posted - 2011.03.13 19:26:00 - [6]
 

Edited by: Barakkus on 13/03/2011 19:28:01
Originally by: Aiwha
Originally by: Alotta Baggage
Looks like Call of Duty


Some of us enjoyed CoD4.


I personally like all the modern warfare based CoD titles, except BLOPS, and that's just because BLOPS multi player runs so ****ty, single player runs perfectly.

Vogue
Short Bus Pole Dancers
Posted - 2011.03.13 19:30:00 - [7]
 

I am looking forward to Homefront. I hope it has more razzle that Fallen Earth did not have.

Aiwha
Caldari
101st Space Marine Force
Nulli Secunda
Posted - 2011.03.16 03:12:00 - [8]
 

Campaign --
Graphics and execution? Meh. Not the worst, not the best.

Storyline? What story?

Atmosphere? My God. Grim, mortifying.

Multiplayer -- Excellent.


All my opinions flame at will.

Citizen20100211442
Minmatar
Carebear Evolution
AEQUITAS.
Posted - 2011.03.16 16:49:00 - [9]
 

This is game with most idiotic storyline ever? Like North Korea decides attack US?

*facepalm

Barakkus
Posted - 2011.03.16 17:04:00 - [10]
 

Edited by: Barakkus on 16/03/2011 17:12:39
Suppose you could say the same thing about Crysis...North Korea has uber technology and aliens wtfpwn a bunch of people on an island?!?!

Have to keep in mind, Homefront happens not now, but in the future. Watch the trailer.

Caleidascope
Minmatar
Republic Military School
Posted - 2011.03.16 22:09:00 - [11]
 

Originally by: Citizen20100211442
This is game with most idiotic storyline ever? Like North Korea decides attack US?

*facepalm

It's a game, get over it.

Barakkus
Posted - 2011.03.16 22:15:00 - [12]
 

Edited by: Barakkus on 16/03/2011 22:16:20
Originally by: Aiwha
Campaign --
Graphics and execution? Meh. Not the worst, not the best.

Storyline? What story?

Atmosphere? My God. Grim, mortifying.

Multiplayer -- Excellent.


All my opinions flame at will.


So is the single player just a mere 5-6 hours or is it kinda at least somewhat epic like the first Crysis?

I get really tired of all these games coming out that can be beaten in like 1 sitting. I miss the days when stuff would take at least a month for your first play through. My biggest disapointment with CoD MW1/2 is the whole thing took one sitting to play through. I just started a replay of Crysis and I'm like barely through the first quarter of the game after about 12 hours or so. I like making sure I kill all the Koreans though :P

Grimpak
Gallente
Midnight Elites
Echelon Rising
Posted - 2011.03.17 00:01:00 - [13]
 

Originally by: Barakkus
So is the single player just a mere 5-6 hours or is it kinda at least somewhat epic like the first Crysis?

I get really tired of all these games coming out that can be beaten in like 1 sitting. I miss the days when stuff would take at least a month for your first play through. My biggest disapointment with CoD MW1/2 is the whole thing took one sitting to play through. I just started a replay of Crysis and I'm like barely through the first quarter of the game after about 12 hours or so. I like making sure I kill all the Koreans though :P


I remember the days of Quake 2Sad

Barakkus
Posted - 2011.03.17 00:24:00 - [14]
 

I unfortunately missed Quake. I played the first one sorta, I liked Doom better though.

Ghost Recon was another one that took quite some time to complete, and you could create entire campaigns for it. That was probably the best FPS of it's time. They really screwed it up though with the Advanced Warfighter series. That wasn't nearly as fun, and the latest incarnation just looks stupid.

Grimpak
Gallente
Midnight Elites
Echelon Rising
Posted - 2011.03.17 10:23:00 - [15]
 

Originally by: Barakkus
I unfortunately missed Quake. I played the first one sorta, I liked Doom better though.

Ghost Recon was another one that took quite some time to complete, and you could create entire campaigns for it. That was probably the best FPS of it's time. They really screwed it up though with the Advanced Warfighter series. That wasn't nearly as fun, and the latest incarnation just looks stupid.
go get quake 2, reallyCool

Mister Rocknrolla
Posted - 2011.03.17 13:36:00 - [16]
 

Originally by: Grimpak
Originally by: Barakkus
I unfortunately missed Quake. I played the first one sorta, I liked Doom better though.

Ghost Recon was another one that took quite some time to complete, and you could create entire campaigns for it. That was probably the best FPS of it's time. They really screwed it up though with the Advanced Warfighter series. That wasn't nearly as fun, and the latest incarnation just looks stupid.
go get quake 2, reallyCool


Would be cool if some these (Doom, Quake I-Iii, Wolfnstein, etc) got a graphical makeover. Would want a purely graphical makeover...keeping the original level-design/storyline.

Just loading up those old games can ruin a good memory...kinda like seeing your first girlfriend/boyfriend at your 20th high school reunion. The memory is better.

But story/content is definitely lagging behind graphical/technical content these days. My guess is that devs love multiplayer, because they can put the bulk of "content" responsibility on players.

Most games seem to be a "good idea" fleshed-out to current graphical standards and multiplayer thrown in...ship...rinse...repeat with "GameName2" "GameName3", etc.

There are some good indie games out there, but they're difficult to track down a lot of the time.

For better or for worse, the game industry has been going the way of the movie industry for a few years: Mass-production for mass-appeal and very little risk-taking/innovation.

[/mini-rant]

Actionbastrd
Posted - 2011.03.17 16:18:00 - [17]
 

I thought it was alright, single campaign was kinda short unfortunately. Also, the story wasn't just "north Korea invades America". Theres bits of news headlines and whatnot that you find around the campaign that explain the whole story. I won't divulge any details. The campaign actually got REALLY good and really fun towards the end. Haven't tried the multiplayer yet. Homefront wasn't anything ground breaking, but it definitely wasn't as horrible as modern warfail2. If it's a matter of money, wait till it goes on sale, Steam usually has sales where games go for way cheap, but I'd say it's worth at least one playthrough.

Barakkus
Posted - 2011.03.17 17:09:00 - [18]
 

Yeah, from the looks of it I'll be waiting until it's like 75% off. Kind of disappointing that the campaign is another one of those finish in one sitting type deals.

Unless I know it's going to be good, I've been just hanging back on my purchases until it's stupidly cheap. I got tired of getting burnt like buying Operation Flashpoint: Dragon Rising....now that was an utterly terrible game and costs way more than what it's worth. I think I spent a whole 3 or 4 hours playing it before I just gave up due to the poor mechanics. I got all the STALKER games for like $7 a month ago, they're not bad, but they definitely aren't worth what their original retail price is, not sure if I'd even spend the $14 they're selling for now.

I'm also getting tired of getting burnt on games that simply do not work period. I bought Frontline Fuels of War thinking I'd be able to play it based on their system requirements. Can't even get the game to load the title screen. I'm hoping it'll work once I get a better computer, but sucks spending $40 on a game I won't be able to play for at least another year. Black Ops was the same way. It should have run fine on my system, but as it is now you have to seriously over compensate with hardware in order to get the multi player to run well enough, and even that doesn't help if you have Windows 7 in some cases. I was kinda iffy on BLOPS to begin with though just from watching the trailers. The concepts behind the multi player made me get it though. I play it just about every night, but the FPS drops during a match are getting really annoying.

Too much focus is put on multi player now a days it seems because it's cheap and easy to crank out. I've always been big on single player campaigns. I really never liked multi player until I tried CoD4. I did a stint with Unreal Tournament when it came out and got bored pretty quickly. I tried Crysis multi player and that was complete garbage. I got CoD4 because I couldn't find anything like Ghost Recon and decided to give it a go. I was kind of "meh" on it at first but when the campaign started to get nuts, I was like "zomg this is awesome" and sat there and played all the way through for like 13 hours. Probably helped that it was the 4th of July and **** outside my apartment was blowing up too while I was playing Laughing Eventually someone at work started insisting I try the multi player, so I gave it a shot thinking it would probably be as lame as Crysis multi player was...I was quite impressed. I still don't purchase for multi player though...I loved BFBC2 single player, but I HATE the multi player with a passion. It's just lame.

I just got Battlefield 2 though (I know I'm late to the party). Hopefully that will be pretty good. From watching some videos it seems kind of dated in terms of graphics, but if the mechanics aren't as bad as BFBC2 multi player, then I won't care too much. Battlefield 3 though, now that is a nerdgasm and a half. I'm probably going to get that regardless.

Like mentioned above, it seems the industry as a whole is much less interested in making something with re-playability and depth. Just crank out generic garbage and move on to the next re-skinned, generic garbage. The only thing I've found in the last few years that was worth replaying was Crysis, Borderlands and CoD4. I do replay the Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighters from time to time, but they're kinda "meh".

The way things keep going in the gaming industry it looks like you really can't buy anything until it's been out a year and had 10 billion patches and is at least 50% off original retail price.

Vogue
Short Bus Pole Dancers
Posted - 2011.03.17 17:29:00 - [19]
 

Global Agenda is a sucky MMO FPS. Lots of heavily instanced zones with bots. The players can get upgrades to play repetitive zones.

Aiwha
Caldari
101st Space Marine Force
Nulli Secunda
Posted - 2011.03.17 18:16:00 - [20]
 

Originally by: Barakkus
Edited by: Barakkus on 16/03/2011 22:16:20
Originally by: Aiwha
Campaign --
Graphics and execution? Meh. Not the worst, not the best.

Storyline? What story?

Atmosphere? My God. Grim, mortifying.

Multiplayer -- Excellent.


All my opinions flame at will.


So is the single player just a mere 5-6 hours or is it kinda at least somewhat epic like the first Crysis?

I get really tired of all these games coming out that can be beaten in like 1 sitting. I miss the days when stuff would take at least a month for your first play through. My biggest disapointment with CoD MW1/2 is the whole thing took one sitting to play through. I just started a replay of Crysis and I'm like barely through the first quarter of the game after about 12 hours or so. I like making sure I kill all the Koreans though :P



I beat it within... 4-5 hours on easy? It's pretty meh, There's kind of an overarching plot to it, but it's more like killing North Koreans over and over with a few sidetrips. Then it kind of just ends.

It had such potential for an awesome campaign, but they really slacked there. Get it for multiplayer if you get it at all.

Actionbastrd
Posted - 2011.03.17 18:36:00 - [21]
 

Crysis was one of the last few FPS games that had any decent length to it (quake 4 actually had a decent campaign to it). Modern warfare 1 wasnt too bad, but 2 was just attrocious, not to mention the horrible blunder that was multiplayer. I would join a server at one point and be the only player NOT CHEATING. What a joke. I really hope crysis 2 lives up to the standard that crysis 1 set. I've been disappointed by alot of sequels lately.

Barakkus
Posted - 2011.03.17 18:40:00 - [22]
 

Originally by: Actionbastrd
Crysis was one of the last few FPS games that had any decent length to it (quake 4 actually had a decent campaign to it). Modern warfare 1 wasnt too bad, but 2 was just attrocious, not to mention the horrible blunder that was multiplayer. I would join a server at one point and be the only player NOT CHEATING. What a joke. I really hope crysis 2 lives up to the standard that crysis 1 set. I've been disappointed by alot of sequels lately.


After playing the Crysis 2 multi player demo, I can assure you, the multi player is a ****ty as the first 2. If you liked the multi player in the first 2 then it'll be ok, it's actually better, but the mechanics just suck. Crysis Warhead was quite trimmed down in comparison to the original, so if they continue that trend, it won't.

Hopefully they didn't cheap out and focus solely on the mp in Crysis 2, we'll see though.

Actionbastrd
Posted - 2011.03.18 01:33:00 - [23]
 

Originally by: Barakkus
Originally by: Actionbastrd
Crysis was one of the last few FPS games that had any decent length to it (quake 4 actually had a decent campaign to it). Modern warfare 1 wasnt too bad, but 2 was just attrocious, not to mention the horrible blunder that was multiplayer. I would join a server at one point and be the only player NOT CHEATING. What a joke. I really hope crysis 2 lives up to the standard that crysis 1 set. I've been disappointed by alot of sequels lately.


After playing the Crysis 2 multi player demo, I can assure you, the multi player is a ****ty as the first 2. If you liked the multi player in the first 2 then it'll be ok, it's actually better, but the mechanics just suck. Crysis Warhead was quite trimmed down in comparison to the original, so if they continue that trend, it won't.

Hopefully they didn't cheap out and focus solely on the mp in Crysis 2, we'll see though.


I never actually touched MP in crysis 1, really only played it for SP, Which I felt had a good campaign as far as length and content, multiple avenues of approach and whatnot. On some of the harder difficulties the game lasted me quite a while as opposed to most other FPS games. I play alot of tf2 so I'm pretty much set for the most part as far as FPS multiplayer goes (till BF3 comes out atleast).

Barakkus
Posted - 2011.03.21 01:31:00 - [24]
 

I had a giggle at this:

Homefront singleplayer campaign summary.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFVz6-A75Fc


Sader Rykane
Amarr
The Dark Space Initiative
Revival Of The Talocan Empire
Posted - 2011.03.21 01:49:00 - [25]
 

Originally by: Mister Rocknrolla
Originally by: Grimpak
Originally by: Barakkus
I unfortunately missed Quake. I played the first one sorta, I liked Doom better though.

Ghost Recon was another one that took quite some time to complete, and you could create entire campaigns for it. That was probably the best FPS of it's time. They really screwed it up though with the Advanced Warfighter series. That wasn't nearly as fun, and the latest incarnation just looks stupid.
go get quake 2, reallyCool


Would be cool if some these (Doom, Quake I-Iii, Wolfnstein, etc) got a graphical makeover. Would want a purely graphical makeover...keeping the original level-design/storyline.

Just loading up those old games can ruin a good memory...kinda like seeing your first girlfriend/boyfriend at your 20th high school reunion. The memory is better.

But story/content is definitely lagging behind graphical/technical content these days. My guess is that devs love multiplayer, because they can put the bulk of "content" responsibility on players.

Most games seem to be a "good idea" fleshed-out to current graphical standards and multiplayer thrown in...ship...rinse...repeat with "GameName2" "GameName3", etc.

There are some good indie games out there, but they're difficult to track down a lot of the time.

For better or for worse, the game industry has been going the way of the movie industry for a few years: Mass-production for mass-appeal and very little risk-taking/innovation.

[/mini-rant]



You're wrong, I redownloaded Quake 2 and found one of the only active Rocket Arena 2 servers. I ended up playing regularly again for months. Then the server died and I stopped playing again.

Quake 2 rocket arena is still one of the most skill based FPS's, games like call of duty, while pretty just don't capture the true essence of twitch skills and movement.


 

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only