Basic idea is NK conquers SK somehow, and become an imperialistic power, backed up by Russia and China, they launch a preemptive attack on the U.S. starting with a nuclear and EMP attack, decimating the country's command structure during an economic collapse of the U.S. economy. The single player focuses on the resistance afterwards, while the multiplayer focuses on the battles after the initial invasion, where the remaining U.S. forces struggle against the NK forces. The game's biggest MP feature is the BP function, where points are awarded for actions which support the team, which can be spent in-game on ammo, drones (both ground and aerial), AFVs, tanks, choppers, air support, etc. The community has some glimpses of gameplay, and it looks rather interesting. The biggest sP features are... well, go watch the first and third dev diaries, as that's not really what I'm interested in.
Didn't see a thread about it, so I figured might as well. Hoping for the best from the game, it's an interesting premise.
Yes, I heard a lot good about FFoW. This one should be like that but better, as Kaos has far more money. THQ is pushing Homefront to be their big FPS multiplayer franchise to compete with CoD, MoH, and Battlefield.
Melissia wrote:Yes, I heard a lot good about FFoW. This one should be like that but better, as Kaos has far more money. THQ is pushing Homefront to be their big FPS multiplayer franchise to compete with CoD, MoH, and Battlefield.
I hope not. It'll bomb if they push exclusively the multiplayer aspect.
VikingScott wrote:BP system has been in games I've played before. Works well.
One game in particular.
"Frontlines: Fuel of War".
Which, incidentally, was done by Kaos Studios...
Don't even get me started on that glitchy peice of.....
Having said that, they did put alot of work into that game after its initial release that made it at least playable, and I do like the sound of Homefront, so I will be looking into this game.
Kanluwen wrote:You must be unaware of the "controversial" reveal they did for Homefront at E3 a few years ago, huh
I am indeed unaware. I don't really keep up with games news these days - this is the first I have heard of the game actually
You have a link to youtube or something?
Basically: There's a scene in the campaign where the resistance hits a NK outpost with incendiary mortar shells. The NK soldiers are burning, and one of the NPCs tells you to "Put them out of their misery."
Another replies with "Don't waste your ammo. Let the fethers burn, it'll be an example to the rest of them."
Just watched all the videos - looks pretty cool (also saw the "let them cook" bit ).
Though I would love to see a game set in a future where America invades the UK and Dads Army is all that stands between the Americans and our strategic tea supplies (OK, so basically this game set in the UK vs the US ).
SilverMK2 wrote:
Though I would love to see a game set in a future where America invades the UK and Dads Army is all that stands between the Americans and our strategic tea supplies (OK, so basically this game set in the UK vs the US ).
This sounds like a good movie premise... where's Michael Bay?!
Some basic info, from the community forum, courtesy of AngryAngus (red notes are mine)
AngryAngus wrote:(A fair bit of information has been left out. I will not add this information don't even bother ask me for it.)
This new information comes from a xbox 360 leak. The person who uploaded the video is not testing but his friend is testing HomeFront.
We dont know what happened to the OP of the youtube video. He took down the video then closed his account. (Don't bother look for it as you wont find it)
Also if you know the names of weapons/perks seen in the footage please dont post them until a dev posts if its okay to name them.
BRAND NEW INFO
Load Outs.
- Assault
- Smg
- Heavy
- Sniper
- Tactical
- Stealth, a possible unlocked class aside from these five, hinting at a wide variety of classes, perhaps with classes having specific abilities tied to them?
- There are going to be vehicle loadouts.
Person about to be sued
- NGHTSTLKRB
Vehicles
- Drones also confirmed. Land and air recon, a land assault one with an MMG, and an air assault one with rockets are all confirmed, the latter being unlocked early by Steam's preorder bonus.
- Humvee
- Light armor vehicle
- Heavy Tank
- Scout heli
- Attack heli
BP Info
- You can buy a UAV sweep for 400 BP
Miscellaneous
- Private matches are confirmed.
- Private parties are confirmed.
Beta information
- Currently Homefront is in alpha stage. It is being tested by THQ workers. Currently at time of writing there is no way to get into the alpha/beta for Homefront unless you work for THQ.
- Important Notice about alpha footage leak : The people seen in the footage were long time players of FFOW and by long i mean LONG.
Timeline.
- 2011: "North Koreas weapons program continues to intensify .... has surpassed 1000 missiles" This shows that North Korea is arming its self. Some countries also want the UN to put severe sanctions against North Korea.
- 2012: "This morning comes the news of Kim Jong Ils death" Kim Jong has died. "North Korea greets there new leader son of Kim Jong Ils son Kim Jong-un"
- 2013: "Kim Jong-un has united north and south Korea" This now forms the Greater Korean Republic.
- 2015: "Costs at the pump are ready to break the $20 price" This forces America to become destabilized.
- 2017: "Civil unrest has intensified with the demise of the US dollar" There are a lot of riots in america and the military has started to pull of Asia and other countries.
- 2018: "Under threat of annihilation by the Greater Korean Republic....Japan has surrendered" Japan now joins the Greater Korean Republic. Riots continue during 2018-2022.
- 2022: "The president ordered a freeze on bank withdraws." The US economy has completely failed.
- 2024: "Korean annexation continues to spread" Korea takes over many Asian countries (Someone want to comment on which ones as i cant tell from the picture in the video)
- 2025: "The Greater Korean Republic has launched its latest communication satellite claiming it will bring a message of peace" This satellite is really a EMP that knocks out near all electronics in America. The Greater Korean Republic begin the invasion. Greater Korean Republic takes over Hawaii and San Francisco.
- 2026: "US military scattered" This is due to communications being down and the surprise of the attack.
Features of Home Front.
General Features.
- Homefront is released on all three platforms at the same time.
- There will be dedicated servers.
- PC will have modding tools.
- PC will have clan support and support dx 9 - 10 - 11. Dx 11 will have special features.
- Release date is March 8th-11th 2011 depending on your area.
- The game engine is a heavily modded Unreal engine.
- There will be a novel.
- THQ are publishing Home Front.
- Kaos Studios are developing the game and Digital Extremes are looking after the pc version.
- Matt Hardwood is doing the audio.
Singleplayer
- Single player will be written by John Millius (He made Conan <3)
- Single player is going to be story driven.
- Cut senses will be rare if there are even any.
- The single player is set in 2027.
- You are a pilot working for the resistance.
- You are a "magnet" for action.
- Weapons will have various attachments
Multiplayer
- A major feature of Home front is Battle Points. Refer to http://community.homefront- game.com/blog-post/battle-points for information on it.
- Multiplayer will have ranks.
- You play as US or GKR military in MP.
- Matches will have 32 players.
- Vehicles, drones, weapons etc can be bought via Battle Points.
- The in game HUD is changing daily do not worry if you currently dislike it.
- Muliplayer will also like singleplayer be set in real locations of America.
- Ground control is a confirmed game mode. Refer to http://community.homefront-game.com/blog-post/ground-control for information on it.
- Female avatars have been teased but not confirmed.
- At this time PC will only have cockpits.
- Wookie seeking rocket launchers have been confirmed. (http://community.homefront-game.com/forums/topic/602)
- Hardcore mode is not confirmed.
- Spectators is not confirmed but will most likely be add'd.
- VOIP has not been confirmed.
- PC admins can mod there servers and kick people etc
- Servers will be reigion locked along with games.
- DPad will be used for quick buying with BP. Other purchasable objects will be in a menu.
Miscellaneous
- Pc specs to be released during January.
- Check the Steam store for PC specs.
Weapons we know about
- M4 -The standard US Army assault rifle. A well rounded gun with low recoil.
- M16 - The classic American assault rifle. Single-shot only, but high damage, making it very accurate and effective at long range.
- M110 - The new sniper rifle of the US army. It features a five shot magazine with high rate of fire and can eliminate distant targets with ease.
- M200 - A new sniper rifle. 7 round magazine in real life.
- M249 - The standard LMG of the US army. It features a high rate of fire, high damage, and a large box magazine but can be hard to control.
- Scar - The new assault rifle of choice for the US special forces. It uses a three round burst to decimate targets at medium range. Could be 20 or 30 shot magazine.
- Beretta M9 - A widely used pistol by armies all around the world. Contains a 15 shot magazine in real life. Unsure about magazine in game.
- Bushmaster ACR - A assault rifle made in the US. Has low recoil and is versatile. Contains a 30 shot magazine in real life. - Two different attachments seen for this weapon, a red dot sight and an acog scope.
- QBZ - 03 - A Chinese assault rifle. Has 30 shot magazine in real life.
- Heckler & Koch HK416 - HK416 is a modified version of the M4. It has low recoil and a 30 shot magazine.
- Armbrust ATW -
- Panzerfaust 3 -
Melissia wrote:Some basic info, from the community forum, courtesy of AngryAngus (red notes are mine)
AngryAngus wrote:(A fair bit of information has been left out. I will not add this information don't even bother ask me for it.)
This new information comes from a xbox 360 leak. The person who uploaded the video is not testing but his friend is testing HomeFront.
We dont know what happened to the OP of the youtube video. He took down the video then closed his account. (Don't bother look for it as you wont find it)
Also if you know the names of weapons/perks seen in the footage please dont post them until a dev posts if its okay to name them.
BRAND NEW INFO
Load Outs.
- Assault
- Smg
- Heavy
- Sniper
- Tactical
- Stealth, a possible unlocked class aside from these five, hinting at a wide variety of classes, perhaps with classes having specific abilities tied to them?
- There are going to be vehicle loadouts.
Person about to be sued
- NGHTSTLKRB
Vehicles
- Drones also confirmed. Land and air recon, a land assault one with an MMG, and an air assault one with rockets are all confirmed, the latter being unlocked early by Steam's preorder bonus.
- Humvee
- Light armor vehicle
- Heavy Tank
- Scout heli
- Attack heli
BP Info
- You can buy a UAV sweep for 400 BP
Miscellaneous
- Private matches are confirmed.
- Private parties are confirmed.
Beta information
- Currently Homefront is in alpha stage. It is being tested by THQ workers. Currently at time of writing there is no way to get into the alpha/beta for Homefront unless you work for THQ.
- Important Notice about alpha footage leak : The people seen in the footage were long time players of FFOW and by long i mean LONG.
Timeline.
- 2011: "North Koreas weapons program continues to intensify .... has surpassed 1000 missiles" This shows that North Korea is arming its self. Some countries also want the UN to put severe sanctions against North Korea.
- 2012: "This morning comes the news of Kim Jong Ils death" Kim Jong has died. "North Korea greets there new leader son of Kim Jong Ils son Kim Jong-un"
- 2013: "Kim Jong-un has united north and south Korea" This now forms the Greater Korean Republic.
- 2015: "Costs at the pump are ready to break the $20 price" This forces America to become destabilized.
- 2017: "Civil unrest has intensified with the demise of the US dollar" There are a lot of riots in america and the military has started to pull of Asia and other countries.
- 2018: "Under threat of annihilation by the Greater Korean Republic....Japan has surrendered" Japan now joins the Greater Korean Republic. Riots continue during 2018-2022.
- 2022: "The president ordered a freeze on bank withdraws." The US economy has completely failed.
- 2024: "Korean annexation continues to spread" Korea takes over many Asian countries (Someone want to comment on which ones as i cant tell from the picture in the video)
- 2025: "The Greater Korean Republic has launched its latest communication satellite claiming it will bring a message of peace" This satellite is really a EMP that knocks out near all electronics in America. The Greater Korean Republic begin the invasion. Greater Korean Republic takes over Hawaii and San Francisco.
- 2026: "US military scattered" This is due to communications being down and the surprise of the attack.
Features of Home Front.
General Features.
- Homefront is released on all three platforms at the same time.
- There will be dedicated servers.
- PC will have modding tools.
- PC will have clan support and support dx 9 - 10 - 11. Dx 11 will have special features.
- Release date is March 8th-11th 2011 depending on your area.
- The game engine is a heavily modded Unreal engine.
- There will be a novel.
- THQ are publishing Home Front.
- Kaos Studios are developing the game and Digital Extremes are looking after the pc version.
- Matt Hardwood is doing the audio.
Singleplayer
- Single player will be written by John Millius (He made Conan <3)
- Single player is going to be story driven.
- Cut senses will be rare if there are even any.
- The single player is set in 2027.
- You are a pilot working for the resistance.
- You are a "magnet" for action.
- Weapons will have various attachments
Multiplayer
- A major feature of Home front is Battle Points. Refer to http://community.homefront- game.com/blog-post/battle-points for information on it.
- Multiplayer will have ranks.
- You play as US or GKR military in MP.
- Matches will have 32 players.
- Vehicles, drones, weapons etc can be bought via Battle Points.
- The in game HUD is changing daily do not worry if you currently dislike it.
- Muliplayer will also like singleplayer be set in real locations of America.
- Ground control is a confirmed game mode. Refer to http://community.homefront-game.com/blog-post/ground-control for information on it.
- Female avatars have been teased but not confirmed.
- At this time PC will only have cockpits.
- Wookie seeking rocket launchers have been confirmed. (http://community.homefront-game.com/forums/topic/602)
- Hardcore mode is not confirmed.
- Spectators is not confirmed but will most likely be add'd.
- VOIP has not been confirmed.
- PC admins can mod there servers and kick people etc
- Servers will be reigion locked along with games.
- DPad will be used for quick buying with BP. Other purchasable objects will be in a menu.
Miscellaneous
- Pc specs to be released during January.
- Check the Steam store for PC specs.
Weapons we know about
- M4 -The standard US Army assault rifle. A well rounded gun with low recoil.
- M16 - The classic American assault rifle. Single-shot only, but high damage, making it very accurate and effective at long range.
- M110 - The new sniper rifle of the US army. It features a five shot magazine with high rate of fire and can eliminate distant targets with ease.
- M200 - A new sniper rifle. 7 round magazine in real life.
- M249 - The standard LMG of the US army. It features a high rate of fire, high damage, and a large box magazine but can be hard to control.
- Scar - The new assault rifle of choice for the US special forces. It uses a three round burst to decimate targets at medium range. Could be 20 or 30 shot magazine.
- Beretta M9 - A widely used pistol by armies all around the world. Contains a 15 shot magazine in real life. Unsure about magazine in game.
- Bushmaster ACR - A assault rifle made in the US. Has low recoil and is versatile. Contains a 30 shot magazine in real life. - Two different attachments seen for this weapon, a red dot sight and an acog scope.
- QBZ - 03 - A Chinese assault rifle. Has 30 shot magazine in real life.
- Heckler & Koch HK416 - HK416 is a modified version of the M4. It has low recoil and a 30 shot magazine.
- Armbrust ATW -
- Panzerfaust 3 -
Holy crap... I think I just jizzed in my pants right now... sounds like its gonna be great.
- Scar - The new assault rifle of choice for the US special forces. It uses a three round burst to decimate targets at medium range. Could be 20 or 30 shot magazine.
VERY VERY EXCITED FOR THIS... I LOVE SCAR... three round bursts have a special place in my heart.
Both SCAR versions are confirmed. The SCAR-L is an assault rifle with three round burst. The SCAR-H is a fully automatic light machinegun.
Believe me, multiplayer isn't like battlefield, and it's better for it (I honestly don't know why people think the BF series is somehow god's gift to the FPS genre).
Currently, there's four gamemodes.
Team Deathmatch
Ground Control (a modified capture point game similar to Frontlines Fuel of War's titular gamemode)
Battle Commander Team Deathmatch
Battle Commander Ground Control
Battle Commander is an AI similar to The Director in L4D which assigns targets to members of a team depending on who is doing best. Basically, if you get a killstreak, you'll get a slight buff somewhere-- but two people on the enemy team will know where you are and get bonus points for killing you. But say you kill some more, and get a higher killstreak. Well, you get a furhter buff, but more people on the enemy team will know where you are on the minimap. It goes all the way up to five stars, almost like some sort of weird crossover with GTA, until you are a powerful force of destruction but the entire enemy team knows where you are at any given time, and the person who kills you gains a massive boost in points.
These points are used to purchase launchers, extra ammo, flak jackets, drones, vehicles, UAV sweeps, and so on and so forth, so there's a huge incentive to obey these assassination missions, and none of the buffs are excessive.
It looks nothing like the BF game I should note. I recommend you watch this trailer:
Melissia wrote:Both SCAR versions are confirmed. The SCAR-L is an assault rifle with three round burst. The SCAR-H is a fully automatic light machinegun.
Believe me, multiplayer isn't like battlefield, and it's better for it (I honestly don't know why people think the BF series is somehow god's gift to the FPS genre).
Currently, there's four gamemodes.
Team Deathmatch
Ground Control (a modified capture point game similar to Frontlines Fuel of War's titular gamemode)
Battle Commander Team Deathmatch
Battle Commander Ground Control
Battle Commander is an AI similar to The Director in L4D which assigns targets to members of a team depending on who is doing best. Basically, if you get a killstreak, you'll get a slight buff somewhere-- but two people on the enemy team will know where you are and get bonus points for killing you. But say you kill some more, and get a higher killstreak. Well, you get a furhter buff, but more people on the enemy team will know where you are on the minimap. It goes all the way up to five stars, almost like some sort of weird crossover with GTA, until you are a powerful force of destruction but the entire enemy team knows where you are at any given time, and the person who kills you gains a massive boost in points.
These points are used to purchase launchers, extra ammo, flak jackets, drones, vehicles, UAV sweeps, and so on and so forth, so there's a huge incentive to obey these assassination missions, and none of the buffs are excessive.
It looks nothing like the BF game I should note. I recommend you watch this trailer:
I think BF is great and underappreciated. It's CoD that people seem to cream themselves over.
While the game looks interesting the story is kinda, meh. Despite the story writers pedigree, it seems almost campy, overdone, mediocre, etc. etc. etc. Parts of it also seem rather... implausible. From what little I could gather on the backstory/the timeline, I could come up with a million and one more interesting and more reasonable ways for North Korea to invade the US. Despite claims that social, economic and political dynamics were analyzed and extrapolated upon, it appears a bare minimum of research was done....
Besides that, the graphics look fairly below-average, almost last-gen. Really, the only thing that does intrigue me is the multiplayer gameplay.
Amaya wrote:North Korea taking over South Korea and attacking the US is the best idea he could come up with?
North Korea would get rolled over by SK. They don't have a chance against the SK + US.
And the United States didn't have a chance against Britain back in the Revolutionary War.
Upsets happen. And this is a work of fiction.
Yeah, but the presence of a huge ocean kind of won the war for the colonists.
Anywho it does look like and sound like a good game. The graphics do look kind of last gen (sort of like BF2 on the PS2 really) as noted, but sometimes graphics aren't that important. BF2 was a fantastic game and the graphics weren't good.
As far as the points system goes, I would say that is more like Counterstrike. So overall it sounds like a cross between Battlefield 2 and Counterstrike with a Tom Clancy story. Nothing wrong with that as long as they do it right.
The graphics will have DX10 and DX11 support on the PC, if you are a PC gamer. Don't worry, they'll be pretty good.
As far as BF goes, I dunno about the older games, but BFBC2 wasn't really that different from CoD in my experience. I find a bigger difference between different Source engine games than I did between BFBC2 and CoD:BO.
For battlefield 2 think BFBC2 minus the demolishable terrain and class upgrades.
There was also only one game mode and it was a lot like ground war in CoD. There were capture points that acted like spawn points and there were spawn points for each base.
Spec Ops had a silenced SMG, knife, C4, and a flash bang IIRC. Support had a mortar strike, healing kit, LMG, and grenades. There were the same amount of kits as in BFBC2 though and the same kind of kits ie; sniper, assault, engineer, support, spec ops.
Both had boats, helicopters, tanks, and smaller vehicles but the PC version had jets.
In BF2 there was a computer that would let you call in a mortar strike every so often, but it was available to whichever team got to it first. Whenever you did get it a map would pop up showing the locations of enemy/friendly troops and vehicles.
One time I got it and saw a group of blue circles(my troops) next to a red tank(enemy tank) in an area that was a bridge. I thought that the tank was on top of the bridge and my guys were below it so I called in the strike. I saw -20 pop up on my screen and when I went over there the tank was stuck in the canal under the bridge because the driver was stupid enough to go under the bridge. I still ended with a +30, but it was tough.
Then there was that time I killed the entire enemy team with one sniper rifle shot, that was amazing.
So many good memories, hell I remember a guy who managed to land the helicopter upside down.
I was playing on Black Gold as the terrorist group along with 2 other guys. The american team (a whole 8 people) decided to load up into both black hawks and the minichopper.
I saw the first black hawk and took out the pilot. The guy in the passenger seat didn't notice and the helicopter plummeted into the oil rig. The second heli was flying right behind it and crashed into the debris of the first crash which ended up killing the guys in the other helicopter as well. The minichopper pilot was smart and flew around the two exploding black hawks. He, however, flew into the tower on the oil rig.
It was the best thing ever, my two teammates laughed our collective butts off at that. Sure we ended up losing, but it was a great beginning for us.
Just watched a gameplay walkthrough... It looks exactly like BF, only difference: Here you get ingame battle points for stuff you do, in BF you get unlocks.
Earth to Melissia; that's how some people make their purchases!
Seriously, if a game is a lot like a game I like then the chances of me buying it increases.
If its a lot like a game I don't like, then I'm not going to buy it.
If this game is like Battlefield and MAG then chances are I may just buy it. I love both of those games afterall, you probably wouldn't like MAG though because they don't have female characters.
Earth to Melissia; that's how some people make their purchases!
Seriously, if a game is a lot like a game I like then the chances of me buying it increases.
If its a lot like a game I don't like, then I'm not going to buy it.
If this game is like Battlefield and MAG then chances are I may just buy it. I love both of those games afterall, you probably wouldn't like MAG though because they don't have female characters.
halonachos wrote:that's how some people make their purchases!
Yeah, and some people make their purchases based off of flipping a coin too-- let's face it, this is worth just about as much. Simply saying "looks like X" is kinda worthless, you have to look at the actual game features, play a demo, etc to figure out if you are going to enjoy it. I could easily say "BF looks like call of duty" and not be inaccurate anyway, given how similar modern FPS games are to eachother in pure looks.
Amaya wrote:BF is a decent FPS series.
If by decent, you mean mediocre. It really only sticks out if you compare it to Call of Duty, which BF fanboys constantly do to the point of it being a parody of itself.
halonachos wrote:that's how some people make their purchases!
Yeah, and some people make their purchases based off of flipping a coin too-- let's face it, this is worth just about as much. Simply saying "looks like X" is kinda worthless, you have to look at the actual game features, play a demo, etc to figure out if you are going to enjoy it. I could easily say "BF looks like call of duty" and not be inaccurate anyway, given how similar modern FPS games are to eachother in pure looks.
When did anyone say that they would buy it simply because it looks like X game?
Alright Melissia we get it, you don't use comparisons when deciding what games to buy, except for when you do.
Melissia wrote:When I have choices between games in the same relative subgenre (fps war shooters, for example), a game letting me play a female avatar is better than a game that does not let me play one.
Automatically Appended Next Post: As far as CoD and BF being compared the fanboys are going to be silly.
In BF it seems to be a bit harder to kill enemies for some reason and the presence of vehicles is another point where they differ.
To me it looks like that even though BF and CoD are both FPS's they are located in different gameoecological niches. Battlefield is more like what it name implies, a large battlefield filled with people and vehicles of war. Call of Duty focuses more on smaller battles that don't really need vehicles. Another thing is the type of action going on. In CoD I feel more like a 'lone wolf' hero than a teammate because of the small amount of players in a match. When I play BF I feel more like a team player because of the larger amount of players and the class system.
halonachos wrote:As far as CoD and BF being compared the fanboys are going to be silly.
In BF it seems to be a bit harder to kill enemies for some reason and the presence of vehicles is another point where they differ.
It certainly isn't any harder to kill someone in BFBC2 than it is in Black Ops. Tons of lone wolves operating in BC2, too.
And the post you quoted? That was me examining a feature. A subgenre is just that... a subsection of a genre. Like "science fiction FPS game", or "modern warfare FPS game". Most FPS games of their subgenre look significantly similar to eachother when not playing them to the point where it's rather useless to try and use visuals to differentiate them, instead you need to use actual facts about the games.
And annoyingly enough, choppers with miniguns are the most obnoxiously powerful things in both BC2 and in Black Ops. Here's to hoping the recon and attack helicopters are balanced properly, unlike those two games.
Thus far, we know the following vehicle support purchases are in (For reference, you get 150 bp per kill, 200 for capturing an objective, 70 for defending an objective, 30 for marking a target with recon drone, etc):
The following drones you deploy and control remotely. Find a safe place, deploy the drone, then control it until it's destroyed and get back into the game.
- Helicopter Attack Drone - Costs 800 BP. Fires 2 missiles every 4 - 5 seconds.
- RQ-10 Parrot - Recon Drone - 250 BP - A battery powered, remote-control quadricopter. Cameras relay targeting info to teammates. Unlocked at level 1.
- MQ50 MG Wolverine- Assault Drone - 500 BP -A battery powered, multi-terrain tracked drone. The assault variant is equipped with a machine gun. Unlocked at level 1.
- MQ60 AT Rhino - Anti-tank Drone - 400 BP - A battery powered, multi-terrain tracked drone. The anti-tank variant has two modes of fire: unguided and lock on. Unlocked at level 20.
The following air support brings you to a map screen, and you indicate where the ordnance drops.
- Cluster bomb - 2000 BP - A single-use, UCAV guided cluster bomb. High-altitude dispersal creates large area of effect. Unlocked at level 44.
- White Phosphorus - 1300 BP - Single-use, UCAV-launched white phosphorus guided missile. Unlocked at level 19.
- Hellfire - 1100 BP - Two UCAV-launched air-to-surface precision guided missiles. Unlocked at level 8.
The following vehcles you purchase before you spawn, and you spawn inside of them. Allies can man turrets.
- HMMWV -- transport vehicle with an MG, probably
- Light Armor Vehicle (LAV) Piranha – 1400 BPs (Level 10) -- Armored car, not sure of its armaments
- M1A3 Abrams – 2000 BPs (Level 15) -- Main battle tank, aside from cannon not sure of its armaments
- AH-700 Scout – 2400 BPs (Level 22) -- Scout helicopter, has an MG I believe.
- AH-64 Apache – 3200 BPs (Level 30) -- Attack helicopter, uses rockets and possibly and MG.
halonachos wrote:As far as CoD and BF being compared the fanboys are going to be silly.
In BF it seems to be a bit harder to kill enemies for some reason and the presence of vehicles is another point where they differ.
It certainly isn't any harder to kill someone in BFBC2 than it is in Black Ops. Tons of lone wolves operating in BC2, too.
And the post you quoted? That was me examining a feature. A subgenre is just that... a subsection of a genre. Like "science fiction FPS game", or "modern warfare FPS game". Most FPS games of their subgenre look significantly similar to eachother when not playing them to the point where it's rather useless to try and use visuals to differentiate them, instead you need to use actual facts about the games.
And annoyingly enough, choppers with miniguns are the most obnoxiously powerful things in both BC2 and in Black Ops. Here's to hoping the recon and attack helicopters are balanced properly, unlike those two games.
Thus far, we know the following vehicle support purchases are in (For reference, you get 150 bp per kill, 200 for capturing an objective, 70 for defending an objective, 30 for marking a target with recon drone, etc):
The following drones you deploy and control remotely. Find a safe place, deploy the drone, then control it until it's destroyed and get back into the game.
- Helicopter Attack Drone - Costs 800 BP. Fires 2 missiles every 4 - 5 seconds.
- RQ-10 Parrot - Recon Drone - 250 BP - A battery powered, remote-control quadricopter. Cameras relay targeting info to teammates. Unlocked at level 1.
- MQ50 MG Wolverine- Assault Drone - 500 BP -A battery powered, multi-terrain tracked drone. The assault variant is equipped with a machine gun. Unlocked at level 1.
- MQ60 AT Rhino - Anti-tank Drone - 400 BP - A battery powered, multi-terrain tracked drone. The anti-tank variant has two modes of fire: unguided and lock on. Unlocked at level 20.
The following air support brings you to a map screen, and you indicate where the ordnance drops.
- Cluster bomb - 2000 BP - A single-use, UCAV guided cluster bomb. High-altitude dispersal creates large area of effect. Unlocked at level 44.
- White Phosphorus - 1300 BP - Single-use, UCAV-launched white phosphorus guided missile. Unlocked at level 19.
- Hellfire - 1100 BP - Two UCAV-launched air-to-surface precision guided missiles. Unlocked at level 8.
The following vehcles you purchase before you spawn, and you spawn inside of them. Allies can man turrets.
- HMMWV -- transport vehicle with an MG, probably
- Light Armor Vehicle (LAV) Piranha – 1400 BPs (Level 10) -- Armored car, not sure of its armaments
- M1A3 Abrams – 2000 BPs (Level 15) -- Main battle tank, aside from cannon not sure of its armaments
- AH-700 Scout – 2400 BPs (Level 22) -- Scout helicopter, has an MG I believe.
- AH-64 Apache – 3200 BPs (Level 30) -- Attack helicopter, uses rockets and possibly and MG.
BC2 really isn't that good of a game compared to the older ones, IMO the old WW2 one is still the best. Heck BF 1943 was better.
halonachos wrote:As far as CoD and BF being compared the fanboys are going to be silly.
In BF it seems to be a bit harder to kill enemies for some reason and the presence of vehicles is another point where they differ.
It certainly isn't any harder to kill someone in BFBC2 than it is in Black Ops. Tons of lone wolves operating in BC2, too.
And the post you quoted? That was me examining a feature. A subgenre is just that... a subsection of a genre. Like "science fiction FPS game", or "modern warfare FPS game". Most FPS games of their subgenre look significantly similar to eachother when not playing them to the point where it's rather useless to try and use visuals to differentiate them, instead you need to use actual facts about the games.
Okay, you do realize that there is a tad bit difference in BF2 and BC2 right? kind of like the lack of objectives you had to blow up in BF2. Also there was a balance, it was hard fly the minichopper and all snipers had a lock on missile that they could use to shoot the choppers down if they didn't want to snipe the pilot.
And the post I quoted was you examining a feature and seeing if another game had the same feature, last time I checked that's called comparison.
Comparing the facts of a game to another to make a decision is still comparison, face it Melissia you *shudder* compare games to one another.
websters wrote:Definition of COMPARISON 1: the act or process of comparing: as a : the representing of one thing or person as similar to or like another b : an examination of two or more items to establish similarities and dissimilarities <his faults seem minor by comparison> 2: identity of features : similarity <several points of comparison between the two> 3: the modification of an adjective or adverb to denote different levels of quality, quantity, or relation
No, comparing the facts of the game is not comparing the look of the game and saying "this looks like X, therefor I will like it". Watching videos of modern FPS games, people frequently mistake one for the other unless the videos are labeled, asking "is this from X", then the creator of the video answers "no it's from Y".
This is because the aesthetics of most modern FPS games are quite similar, and the important part of hte game isn't the looks, but the actual gameplay-- which one can't discern in its entirety from simply watching videos as some of the more important differences between various game series can be quite subtle.
Now, shall we get back on topic? Homefront and all.
Sadly, I haven't seen any evidence of shotguns in the game outside of the preorder one from gamestop. Hopefully when we get PC information later this week we'll get confirmation of more in depth multiplayer info.
Actually no, I was comparing the facts of what the gameplay was like in the games and the features therefor included.
I have no idea why you thought I was comparing graphics though...
For example Star Wars Battlefront looks a lot like Battlefield. Even though one of them is set in the Star Wars universe they both have a limited class system, spawn points, 'game tickets'( the collective respawn limit), and presence of vehicles.
Get past the graphics and setting, they are the same exact game.
HF looks like MAG, BF, and Freedom fighters.
MAG- Airstrikes that you can use depending on level(lower levels can use mortars while higher levels can call in airstrikes).
BFBC2/BF series- Presence of UAV's and vehicles en masse.
Freedom Fighters- Mostly storyline, guerilla fighters going against a force that has invaded the united states.
Counterstrike- Earning in-game currency to buy vehicles(this was also present in Command and Conquer Renegade multiplayer and worked well).
Am I comparing it to other games, hell yes. Why, because the majority of people on the planet have played Counterstrike, MAG, Freedom Fighters, or BF.
And no, I don't get my games confused based solely on the graphics because I'm awesome.
I'm certainly hoping it's not like BFBC2's vehicle section because that was one of the most unbalanced gakstorms I've played in a long time.
The presence of EMP weapons (a grenade is completely confirmed, but there was also a mention of an underslung EMP grenade launcher as well), proximity launchers (they explode if the rocket is near the vehicle and would miss otherwise), the absence of emplacements, and the fact that there's not infinitely respawning choppers (you have to buy them with battle points and they're the most expensive vehicles in the game) sets it as very different than from the BF series.
There isn't that much of a difference, if you have the points they have the chopper.
Which makes it like C&C Renegade's vehicle purchasing menu.
If the helicopter is the most expensive vehicle I can guarantee that its going to be overpowered and as far as the rockets are concerned they may be slower if they are proximity which means the heli pilot has a chance for evasion.
I didn't think BFBC2 was too unbalanced though. Both sides had armored vehicles and some kind of aerial vehicle whether it was a UAV or the choppers. If the UAV got to the chopper before it took off that would be a dead chopper, if the chopper was in the air it could ram the UAV to take it out.
Anywho, in Renegade you went to a building that had a factory in it and bought the vehicle. Once you bought the vehicle it was built and placed outside of the factory, you then got into it and had fun.
So it makes me wonder if HF is going to have a dedicated place for vehicle purchases or is it going to be similar to how the killstreaks in CoD work(ie you can do them anywhere).
halonachos wrote:There isn't that much of a difference, if you have the points they have the chopper.
... which won't happen until later in the game, because of the cost of the chopper. Points don't carry over between matches, only between lives, so the start of each match is infantry and drones only.
Also, it was mentioned it still only takes two rockets to take down a chopper on the forums. There are guided rockets as well as the proximity rocket, with the price in battlepoints for rocket launchers being unguided < proximity < guided.
halonachos wrote:So it makes me wonder if HF is going to have a dedicated place for vehicle purchases or is it going to be similar to how the killstreaks in CoD work(ie you can do them anywhere).
Neither. You purchase vehicles before you spawn like you were selecting which class you are going to play-- in fact, the class menu has the infantry options up top and the vehicle options below, with whichever options you can't afford being greyed out. You then spawn inside the vehicle and drive onto the battlefield.
Whatever the video they released that was describing the multiplayer "story" arc was. December or so.
And it's absurd to assume that it would only be "before you spawn". They don't want to encourage you to just run in stupidly and die just because you got enough points for something.
Wait, more than two people in the world like Freedom Fighters? I am actually quite surprised.
My brother and I used to play the multiplayer against each other all of the time. Grabbing a sniper rifle and shooting his bunker guards was most satisfying.
halonachos wrote:Wait, more than two people in the world like Freedom Fighters? I am actually quite surprised.
My brother and I used to play the multiplayer against each other all of the time. Grabbing a sniper rifle and shooting his bunker guards was most satisfying.
It certainly isn't any harder to kill someone in BFBC2 than it is in Black Ops. Tons of lone wolves operating in BC2, too.
We should get a time machine and go back to the launch. The hit registry was SO atrocious on any gun that wasn't the Abakan or the M60. I resorted to just spamming out RPGs and Gustavs.
Ima have to agree with the implausible scenario. I love Red Dawn, just because it was one of the first action fills I watched when I was a kid, but really. North Korea? That's a bit too much for me, especially with Shogun 2 coming soon, and Space Marine/Skyrim later down the road. That style of Tom Clancy stories is so 80's. Everyone knows that the bad guys these days are some small crazy band of people with sinister plots to overthrow the world from within
I have no problems with an alternative universe story. The idea is simple, and at least borders the realm of possibility (though perhaps my suspension of disbelief is stronger than most, given that I am an avid roleplayer)-- NK and SK unite together peacefully after KJI's death, eventually forming a very imperialistic Korea. Eventually, they set their sights on the USA, which is facing its worst depression since, well, the Great Depression.
Said Korean Empire plans out a series of EMP strikes that devastate the nation's already staggering economy and disrupt the nation's chain of command-- while some military equipment is capable of withstanding EMP strikes, the nation's military is already in shambles due to roughly twenty years of constant economic downturn and eventually crisis.
Without warning, immediately after the EMP strikes Korea attacks, taking Hawaii and the west coast quickly. This is 2025, the time where the multiplayer takes place-- the US Military is fighting a losing battle against Korea, holding on to what they have and taking back as much as they can, while the Korean army is trying to finish conquering the nation.
Two years later (2027, the time of the single player campaign), Korea has used tactical nukes on parts of the heartland to destroy a large portion of the remaining US armed forces (all along the Mississippi river), and the fate of the east coast is unknown to most of the survivors in central and west United States. But even in the occupied territory, the fight is still going on, with the surviving armed forces and civilians in a constant guerrilla battle against the occupying Korean forces, which have stretched themselves thin in the fighting.
Mn, true... sort of. It's kinda justified by the fact that the US is about 31.5 times the size of the entire British Isles. Regardless, at least you're getting a game set in your country. Poor Canada gets ignored so much.
It still doesn't mean it makes any more sense. The Koreans... really? Combined they would have a population of less than 100 million people. The North Korean economy is virtually non-existent. So much so, that its the primary reason why the South Koreans haven't really tried to reintegrate. A lot of what they do is pure talk. Everyone in South Korea wants the peninsula re-united, very few of them want it done in their own lifetime. Even peacefully, the amount of money that would have to be pumped into North Korea to rebuild its critical infrastructure would be too much to handle. Thats the main implausibility I have with all this.
The second one is China. It has 10 times the population of a unified Korea, and IT wants to be the top dog in Asia. You're telling me that they would allow their next door neighbor to become such a power without trying to keep them in check? Not only that, but invading the US? Assuming China was fine with being a co-power, there is still the issue of Sino-American relations. Even if the US economy is ailing, it is still one of the largest in the world. China has a vested interest in the well being of the US.
The third is Japan. The two nationalities have a really strong distrust of one another. That has been tempered as of late because both Japan and South Korea fear the mutual threat posed by China, but large parts of the civilian population of both countries are very unhappy about this trend. You expect me to believe that in addition to China putting aside its regional/global interests, Japan would peacefully surrender and allow itself to be integrated into what is in effect still a totalitarian regime... one that is still bitter about events that transpired 60-70 years ago?
Melissia wrote:I'm certain my Canadian friends would disagree with that.
You can take Quebec all you want though.
You do know Canadians!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
chaos0xomega wrote:It still doesn't mean it makes any more sense. The Koreans... really? Combined they would have a population of less than 100 million people. The North Korean economy is virtually non-existent. So much so, that its the primary reason why the South Koreans haven't really tried to reintegrate. A lot of what they do is pure talk. Everyone in South Korea wants the peninsula re-united, very few of them want it done in their own lifetime. Even peacefully, the amount of money that would have to be pumped into North Korea to rebuild its critical infrastructure would be too much to handle. Thats the main implausibility I have with all this.
The second one is China. It has 10 times the population of a unified Korea, and IT wants to be the top dog in Asia. You're telling me that they would allow their next door neighbor to become such a power without trying to keep them in check? Not only that, but invading the US? Assuming China was fine with being a co-power, there is still the issue of Sino-American relations. Even if the US economy is ailing, it is still one of the largest in the world. China has a vested interest in the well being of the US.
The third is Japan. The two nationalities have a really strong distrust of one another. That has been tempered as of late because both Japan and South Korea fear the mutual threat posed by China, but large parts of the civilian population of both countries are very unhappy about this trend. You expect me to believe that in addition to China putting aside its regional/global interests, Japan would peacefully surrender and allow itself to be integrated into what is in effect still a totalitarian regime... one that is still bitter about events that transpired 60-70 years ago?
No one's claiming its actually plausible. Think of it as a parralel dimension were North Korea doesn't suck.
It's not our world. Just like a game that would depict a space ork invasion.
Funny... about 2 or 3 weeks ago, gas dropped down to 1.08L, and driving home, every gas station I passed was completely congested with cars. There were several accidents at some pumps where people tried to cut one another off, and I guess you could say it was complete 'Kaos' (quick! someone post a rimshot pic )
Just made me remember the scene with $20.00/L gas and all the cars backed up around the block in the trailer, and I was like "OHSHI- NORTH KOREA IS INVADING BRITISH COLUMBIA!"
metallifan wrote:Funny... about 2 or 3 weeks ago, gas dropped down to 1.08L, and driving home, every gas station I passed was completely congested with cars. There were several accidents at some pumps where people tried to cut one another off, and I guess you could say it was complete 'Kaos' (quick! someone post a rimshot pic )
Just made me remember the scene with $20.00/L gas and all the cars backed up around the block in the trailer, and I was like "OHSHI- NORTH KOREA IS INVADING BRITISH COLUMBIA!"
Ha! if one line of the story mentions what happens to Canada I'll be very impressed. America get fake-invaded all the time but no one mentions what Canada's doing at the time. Can't even say we're "engrossed in the Stanley Cup playoffs while America destroyed" because there's gotta be some American teams involved in that.
metallifan wrote:Funny... about 2 or 3 weeks ago, gas dropped down to 1.08L, and driving home, every gas station I passed was completely congested with cars. There were several accidents at some pumps where people tried to cut one another off, and I guess you could say it was complete 'Kaos' (quick! someone post a rimshot pic )
Just made me remember the scene with $20.00/L gas and all the cars backed up around the block in the trailer, and I was like "OHSHI- NORTH KOREA IS INVADING BRITISH COLUMBIA!"
Ha! if one line of the story mentions what happens to Canada I'll be very impressed. America get fake-invaded all the time but no one mentions what Canada's doing at the time. Can't even say we're "engrossed in the Stanley Cup playoffs while America destroyed" because there's gotta be some American teams involved in that.
Maybe the moose and caribou are more effective as defensive weapons than we realize.
metallifan wrote:Funny... about 2 or 3 weeks ago, gas dropped down to 1.08L, and driving home, every gas station I passed was completely congested with cars. There were several accidents at some pumps where people tried to cut one another off, and I guess you could say it was complete 'Kaos' (quick! someone post a rimshot pic )
Just made me remember the scene with $20.00/L gas and all the cars backed up around the block in the trailer, and I was like "OHSHI- NORTH KOREA IS INVADING BRITISH COLUMBIA!"
Ha! if one line of the story mentions what happens to Canada I'll be very impressed. America get fake-invaded all the time but no one mentions what Canada's doing at the time. Can't even say we're "engrossed in the Stanley Cup playoffs while America destroyed" because there's gotta be some American teams involved in that.
Actually if you read deeper than surface level, there's good reason for that. Canada completely closed it's borders to Americans 7 years earlier, and Mexico followed soon after. The reason you never hear about either of the two is because we've completely isolated the US. The story talks about Canada moving thousands of troops to FOBs along the 49th parallel to enforce the closure. It's assumed that they're still there in the events of the game, and NK leaves them be because it can't afford to be fighting across the entire continent all at once.
It has to do with some sort of plague - a fatal whooping cough that causes internal bleeding or something. Read the story.
And FoB stands for 'Forward Operating Base'. It's basically a temporary/semi permanent military base or outpost that's put up with the intent of being functional for an indefinate amount of time.
Speaking of that stereotype I find that Wisconsiners act more like stereotypical canadians than actual canadians which is funny as hell because my mexican uncle says 'eh' all the time.
metallifan wrote:Yea, that's also why I think Minnesota should be sold to Canada to help pay off the US National Debt - Minnesota is more like Canada than Canada is
If that means the Vikings are no longer in the NFL I will support that endeavor. Metallifan you have my word that if I ever become president of the United States I will sell the state of Minnesota to Canada. Except for the Mall of America which will become its own micronation.
We got our copies of homefront in along with the game guide. Sadly the game guides are shrink wrapped... anywho the game guides are also free with purchase of Homefront, and you get a $15 dollar gift card to boot. Take that gamestop and your lame offerings!
I find it funny that they put "Groundbreaking 32 player Multiplayer" on the back of both console versions. I don't know about XBox, but 32 players isn't ground breaking for the PS3.
It's more that it is groundbreaking and 32 player. The 32 player thing has been done quite regularly on the PC too.
From what I can tell, it's the following:
Ground Control (a modified capture point system similar to F:FoW): 32 players
Team Deathmatch: 24 players
Both Battle Commander modes (GCBC and TDMBC, using the system as described in this thread): 24 players
Skirmish (I'm not sure what this is): 18 players
I'm hoping on the PC they'll let server owners change GCBC mode into thirty two players though.
I'm tempted to get this... but don't know if I shall or not. Suppose I could trade in some games I don't really play any more (I hate doing that though).
SilverMK2 wrote:I'm tempted to get this... but don't know if I shall or not. Suppose I could trade in some games I don't really play any more (I hate doing that though).
If you do, you and I shall have gaming shenanigans
SilverMK2 wrote:I'm tempted to get this... but don't know if I shall or not. Suppose I could trade in some games I don't really play any more (I hate doing that though).
If you do, you and I shall have gaming shenanigans
halonachos wrote:Homefront 2: What's this all aboot, eh?
Speaking of that stereotype I find that Wisconsiners act more like stereotypical canadians than actual canadians which is funny as hell because my mexican uncle says 'eh' all the time.
Anywho, is there a demo out yet?
metallifan wrote:Yea, that's also why I think Minnesota should be sold to Canada to help pay off the US National Debt - Minnesota is more like Canada than Canada is
I agree. They sure like they're hockey down there eh?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, don't expect this game's single palyer to be easy. The game hates you, and the enemy AI cheats constantly. Cover's basically worthless.
They must have messed something up though - Enemies that're actually smart? Isn't that illegal, or is that just in EA's shooters that they're incredibly dumb?
Freaking comp killed me like 8 times so far. Plus twice from the gas, though that was from a bug with the door.
Maybe it has something to do with me playing it on the hardest setting then. Damn AI's using grenades and cover-fire to flank me and knife me in my spleen!
That's okay though, I -did- stab one of them in the groin-sack.
I don't think the story is particularly plausible in real life, but thats what the word fiction is for.
Either way i think the storyline sounds kinda fun, and if i remember correctly they give you a little bookish type thing in the gamebox don't they?
or is that just 1 of the "omg this costs wayyy too much for a buncha useless crap" things?
As long as everything is nice and fun and makes sense to an extent.
But more to the multiplayer, which actually looks innovative for the first time in a long while for FPS gaming.
that being said battle point type BS has been used for a while in RTS games. The threat levels been in any GTA or need for speed police pursuit game. and the AI director type person was in L4D.
That also being said it still looks pretty cool (and anyone who screams that the graphics arent amazing can go die ^.^ cuz who cares?)
I'm actually debating on trading in black ops and MAG (and madden 11) for this.
Btw if anyone has a 360 and is interested in playing this I'd appreciate some decent teammates with headsets.
metallifan wrote:None of those 'new and innovative' features are new, that's true, but how many games have all of them at once, plus the Battlefield formula maps?
Not many
I would certainly trade in Black Ops for it. If I had bought Black Ops.
I knew better than to do that though
haha i didn't. OH well. now to put a fail into a win.
I would imagine in the usual ways - the enemy know exactly where you are at all times, get bonus to accuracy and damage, can suddenly shoot through walls/cover, get bonus to def, etc.
I like the multiplayer. It's fast paced enough to be interesting without being a total fragfest, and has a lot of playstyles available, moreso than other games. Its vehicles are FAR more balanced than any other infantry shooter with vehicles thus far, and its weapons are quite balanced as well. Battle Commander and recon drones / scout choppers make it easier to get rid of campers and spot snipers. All of the purchases thus far are useful, and it's not too hard to take down vehicles, while at the same time vehicles themselves are still quite powerful.
Playing on the PC currently and I think the MP is also well balanced. At first I wasn't sure how all the new (reused) systems would play together, but they seem to work really well. I'm at rank 11 so far and just found out that you not only assign perks to classes but that you also get to assign perks to your vehicles that you call in. So you now have vehicle load outs and class load outs. I like the pace and feel of the MP action.
At first I thought people could jump a little high, but then I realised it was so that you can get on top of objects that would give a normal person 3/4 cover. So its not so strange once you realise its basically just their mechanic for getting around the map easier. The guns feel really good. They are accurate and deal some good damage when you head shot someone. I also like how when you iron sight you lose some of your aim mobility. Something many games don't apply and therefore you get scoped/iron sight players whipping around and running like mad all the time with the accuracy bonus.
The perks being combineable in any way (instead of groups like COD) is also very nice. I like how each perk has a point cost. It allows them to balance the perks against one another better by simply assigning the right cost to each one compared to the others. Much more balanced gameplay so far across the board from what I have seen.
If you like multiplayer games and don't need bleeding edge graphics I recommend checking this game out.
Melissia wrote:Preloading starts now, at least for US customers.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, don't expect this game's single palyer to be easy. The game hates you, and the enemy AI cheats constantly. Cover's basically worthless.
Naw, they're smarter on Hard, and later levels on Normal. Hard makes me raeg balls. Especially that part where you gotta use the terminals in the Guard booths. A Korean ran up and shanked me in the back of the skull while I was standing there waiting for it to finish
Well, would you shoot at the 10 guys that couldn't hit thin air if they were aiming for it? Or would you be gunning for the guy splattering everyone's brains against the wall from 300yrds with his Ironsights?
That would be the thing to do if you're short tempered, or not drunk enough to play and not get mad when the computer owns you 10 times in 5 minutes
I forgot about another good ultimate fail of mine. The part where
Spoiler:
you have to escape the burning big-box retail store and all those Koreans are running around burning to death. One of them BLINDSIDED ME AND BURNED ME TO DEATH!
That's right. I got T-boned, lit on fire, and killed by a dying guy. Either I'm a TERRIBLE guerilla, or more likely, this game is just coded to intercept your every move and humiliate you.
KamikazeCanuck wrote:So then what do you who have played it think? Score out of 10?
Mind you, I'm sick right now, and not in my right mind. But even sick I still think the game deserves an eight out of ten. Two points taken off for crappy AI in the single player, but otherwise a stellar game.
YMMV of course. Just remember to go into the game remembering it's a new IP, it's not a continuation of an old franchise.
-1 mark because the story was too short. ~ 5 hours is not long enough for all the hype. I may retract this if future DLC adds post-San Fran content to tie in with the events of Homefront 2, but for now that's what it is.
And another -1 because while the graphics were good, they weren't as groundbreaking as THQ claimed. Some aspects of texture quality even looked a bit outdated when up-close, though lighting and HDR were done quite well. The environment should've been more destructive, within the constraints of the missions of course, and there should've been a dismemberment aspect. If some guy gets hit square with an RPG, I want my character to be wiping bits of him off of the screen.
Otherwise, it either met or exceeded my expectations of the game. An excellent addition to the FPS market that leaves other FPS titles realising what they're doing wrong.
Killzone 2's developers talked about creating AI in their game that may explain something for the AI in this game.
They said that they had to purposefully dumb down the allied AI because in testing the allied AI was clearing entire rooms before the player character could get there. This AI was something because the enemy operated in squads the size of five men and they would act like a squad. While three of them fired to keep you in cover one would try to flank you and another would toss grenades to make you break cover so the other three could tag you. Applying this level to both sides' AI means that the player wouldn't feel as heroic.
Army of Two also had an aggro system that may have been implemented in Homefront. The flashier you are, the bigger target you are.
In related news, I heard on NPR this morning that they're changing the remake of Red Dawn (1980's movie for those that weren't around back then) to make the invading enemy North Koreans instead of Chinese.
Yes; however, the remake (shooting has already finished) was Chinese until someone told them it would be a bad idea to make a potential audience that large angry.
Bah, they better not change it. That link says Russians and Chinese. So maybe its just all the commmies NK included.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Nevermind I guess it's already done. I think the article titled "They all look the same" pretty much hits it on the head.
That topic aside, I finally got my proximity launcher. On the round after I earned it, I took down two choppers with it-- it was epic.
My fears of overpowered choppers are turning out to be a bit false, I had no need to worry, I just needed to hurry up and level up.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Aww, people are learning how to deal with recon drones. So I'm having to adapt my flight style to go closer to the ground... it's risky but I can make better use of the cover buildings provide this way.
And finally I've managed to use the Buzzard properly, got a three star killstreak with it.
i'm really enjoying the multiplayer, it just needs building distruction and it would be perfect. I also like the way you can custom fit each class the way you want. This will do me until battlefield 3:-)
Melissia wrote:Building destruction would kinda ruin multiplayer for me. At least how it was done in BFBC2 anyway, ugh., that crappy little game.
I'm pretty sure that building destruction didn't ruin BFBC2. I think BFBC2 ruined BFBC2.
IMO, building destruction in BFBC2 was wierd and terribly balanced. Houses would lose whole walls to a frag grenade, while a lean-to shanty could take a couple rounds from a Bradley and be fine. I think BFBC2 should've done buildings the same way as RF:G. That's still the best building destruction mechanic to date, as far as I see it.
BFBC2's building destruction would've been okay in Homefront I think, because combat moves much faster, and you wouldn't want to spend as much time focusing on knocking down a building that might have a sniper in it.
Never said it was the thing that ruined BFBC2. For me that would be the vehicle spawn camping which happened all the fething time.
dunno, destructible cover would probably benefit snipers in this game more than it would hurt them. Snipers are powerful, and cover being impenetrable and plentiful is the main balance against them.
You can't flank a good sniper. Battle commander sounds a lot like the system from Resistance 2 where the player who was doing the most damage would be highlighted and worth extra points.
The drones sound stupid, I'm sorry but the Parrot is just recon, then you have the wolverine, rhino, etc which are all specialized.
When you could use EMP grenades, rockets, etc to take out a tank the Rhino seems pointless. Sure you have to buy the rockets, but it seemes better to buy a rocket instead of a tracked drone.
Snipers can kill anyone at any distance with one shot no matter where they hit(according to the damage chart in the back of the guide). The overall amount of things you can get with the battlepoints is like a hybrid of Call of Duty(airstrikes) and Battlefield(vehicles).
I also heard that the graphics weren't that good either with the story being the biggest thing it had going for it.
You use the term "sounds like" a lot. I take it that means you have not actually played the game. The difference between you and I is that I have. I know what I'm talking about.
Those things I mentioned? I do in multiplayer matches. On a regular basis.
My team wins more often than not ^.^ These tactics and items work, and work quite well. They are fun to use, as well. You really don't know what you're talking about.
Okay I got something for you all. A lot of the game critics have said the game is good but feels like just another shooter. There really isn't too much innovation with it and it is kind of a let down after playing all the CoD games.
I haven't played hardly any of those games. I played like 2 hours of the first CoD on the original xbox. I played the Halo games, and Killzone 2.
So I am wondering, do you all think I might actually get some enjoyment out of this games since I am not burnt out on shooters?
I know a lot of people were disappointed in the first Fable game. I loved it, but I never read one preview of the game before I played it. So if you know anything about the hype of Fable, you would know that I didn't get disappointed since I didn't know about a lot of the info that was said before the game came out. I am wondering if I might have a similar experience with Homefront since I haven't really played many shooters.
I do enjoy this game, the single player was a little too short for my liking (but these days developers don't give 2 poops about single player), but the multiplayer I love, things actually feel useful and every weapon feels like it has a place, unlike black ops where the AK74 is god.
I enjoy having to find a well hidden sniper with a drone, marking his location for the others and pinning them down with a small mobile land drone while your team mates go forward to attack, feels more teamworky sometimes.
or just blast em with a rocket
although getting out of the COD mentality of being able to run through a storm of bullets and survive is still hard to get the hang of, and having sniper rifles that are actually useful is a shock to the system.
overall much better than cod for realism (if you want arcade shooting COD wins though)
much better than battlefield because it sucks
much better than the latest MOH because that was the worst excuse for a game ever invented
does it add anything new to the FPS franchise?...no not really, but its a good addition, and the FPS franchise has gotten to a point where you can't do anything new really, sure you got wacky things like bulletstorm, but it gets repetetive quickly and falls short of the basic FPS premise, so your always gonna see the same ideas repeated.
Lord Scythican wrote:Okay I got something for you all. A lot of the game critics have said the game is good but feels like just another shooter. There really isn't too much innovation with it and it is kind of a let down after playing all the CoD games.
I haven't played hardly any of those games. I played like 2 hours of the first CoD on the original xbox. I played the Halo games, and Killzone 2.
So I am wondering, do you all think I might actually get some enjoyment out of this games since I am not burnt out on shooters?
I know a lot of people were disappointed in the first Fable game. I loved it, but I never read one preview of the game before I played it. So if you know anything about the hype of Fable, you would know that I didn't get disappointed since I didn't know about a lot of the info that was said before the game came out. I am wondering if I might have a similar experience with Homefront since I haven't really played many shooters.
Ignorance is Bliss.
If you're not into competitive multiplayer... I can't honestly recommend this game . The single player is just a bit too short.
Melissia wrote:You use the term "sounds like" a lot. I take it that means you have not actually played the game. The difference between you and I is that I have. I know what I'm talking about.
Those things I mentioned? I do in multiplayer matches. On a regular basis.
My team wins more often than not ^.^ These tactics and items work, and work quite well. They are fun to use, as well. You really don't know what you're talking about.
I haven't played the game as I go on sabbatical during the school year, however working at a toy store that sells the guides allows me the privilege of opening it up and looking at all it offers before I play a game. I look at the theory behind the game before I get into the practice of it and in truth it sounds interesting in theory. There's a chance that there could be a massive vehicle heavy game but there's also the chance you could just have guys calling in airstrikes all game long and using the drones.
I will honestly say that I don't like the idea of the drones, you can blow them up without actually killing the player and it also leaves the player just sitting there. I fault Bad Company 2 for the same thing though.
The fact that you can buy body armor using battlepoints is kind of interesting, but nothing new and I still fail to see how the multiplayer can be 'groundbreaking' even in theory. It has borrowed elements from almost every single game made before.
The game also suffers from almighty Sniper rifle syndrome. I know that sniper rifles are incredibly powerful, but getting shot in the foot with one will most likely not kill me.
Hellfire missiles= Predator missile in Modern Warfare
Drones= UAV in Bad Company 2
LAV= LAV in Battlefield
Heavy Tank= Heavy Tank in Battlefield
Scout Chopper= Scout Chopper in Battlefield
Armed Chopper= well you get my point.
Battlecommander= value system in Resistance 2
So multiplayer really isn't anything new and looks like Call of Duty, Renegade, Counter Strike, and Battlefield. I already have Battlefield and CoD so I don't feel compelled to buy the game for its multiplayer based off of the strategies offered in the guide and the overall description of the gameplay in the guide. The only thing that makes me want to buy the game is the story, which seems interesting from what I've read in the guide.
So yeah, I've read up on the game and I know what I'm talking about. From what I've read though, I'll wait for it to be 20 or 30 bucks before I get it.
Rianna, yes. She's the only true civilian in the group of four, a former game hunter and survivalist, and by far the best developed character in the game.
Homefront is groundbreaking in its execution. One does not have to have something truly unique to be labeled as groundbreaking... one just needs to do it exceptionally well. On the PC at least, Homefront's multiplayer definitely does that.
Drones aren't overpowered in this game-- it takes a skilled pilot for the air drones to survive for long, and the ground drones can be killed with a single knife attack. All of them can be killed with a few bursts from a SCAR-L or other weapons, or a single RPG hit. And all the while you can be killed while using the drones.
Actually it's vehicles that are powerful, rather than drones. Drones just support the infantry, they cannot supplant them. Vehicles however, can single-handedly break through enemy lines, and with a clever driver and accurate gunner can easily lay havoc to battle plans. The Light Armored Vehicle is my favorite due to its adaptability and price.
Melissia wrote:You use the term "sounds like" a lot. I take it that means you have not actually played the game. The difference between you and I is that I have. I know what I'm talking about.
Those things I mentioned? I do in multiplayer matches. On a regular basis.
My team wins more often than not ^.^ These tactics and items work, and work quite well. They are fun to use, as well. You really don't know what you're talking about.
I haven't played the game as I go on sabbatical during the school year, however working at a toy store that sells the guides allows me the privilege of opening it up and looking at all it offers before I play a game. I look at the theory behind the game before I get into the practice of it and in truth it sounds interesting in theory. There's a chance that there could be a massive vehicle heavy game but there's also the chance you could just have guys calling in airstrikes all game long and using the drones.
There's a 'theory' behind games? Interesting.
And no, you can't have guys calling in airstrikes all game long and using the drones. They have to make kills or take objectives to get the points to call them in.
I will honestly say that I don't like the idea of the drones, you can blow them up without actually killing the player and it also leaves the player just sitting there. I fault Bad Company 2 for the same thing though.
...Why would it kill the player? They're not sitting inside of it. It's a drone. People don't sit inside of their drones to operate them.
The fact that you can buy body armor using battlepoints is kind of interesting, but nothing new and I still fail to see how the multiplayer can be 'groundbreaking' even in theory. It has borrowed elements from almost every single game made before.
Find me a game where you can buy an upgrade at any point during the game, rather than a pregame 'shopping period' or having to find a purchase terminal to do that.
Oh right. You can't.
The game also suffers from almighty Sniper rifle syndrome. I know that sniper rifles are incredibly powerful, but getting shot in the foot with one will most likely not kill me.
You're right. Just like it won't in Homefront. I don't know what crummy guide you're reading, but I can put 3-4 rounds into someone's foot and they won't die.
That, by the by, is without the Flak Jacket perk.
Hellfire missiles= Predator missile in Modern Warfare
Duh. Because it actually deploys a Predator that orbits the field, and allows you two shots.
Drones= UAV in Bad Company 2
Yeahhh...no. Try the drones from Frontline: Fuel of War. Using the drone does leave you vulnerable, but at the same time it doesn't require you to find a single spot on the map that has everyone fighting over it.
LAV= LAV in Battlefield
Heavy Tank= Heavy Tank in Battlefield
Scout Chopper= Scout Chopper in Battlefield
Armed Chopper= well you get my point.
Once again: Duh. That's what they are. Just because they're in different games doesn't magically make them something different entirely.
Battlecommander= value system in Resistance 2
Errr...no. "Battle Commander" is a game type, not a "value system".
So multiplayer really isn't anything new and looks like Call of Duty, Renegade, Counter Strike, and Battlefield. I already have Battlefield and CoD so I don't feel compelled to buy the game for its multiplayer based off of the strategies offered in the guide and the overall description of the gameplay in the guide. The only thing that makes me want to buy the game is the story, which seems interesting from what I've read in the guide.
Or it looks like Kaos' previous game...Frontline: Fuel of War.
Which Bad Company ganked a few of its gametypes from, incidentally.
So yeah, I've read up on the game and I know what I'm talking about. From what I've read though, I'll wait for it to be 20 or 30 bucks before I get it.
No, you really don't. So either play the game(I'm sure since you work at a toy store they'll likely have a demo station set up at some point) or stop posting in this thread.
Thaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaanks.
Mind you I did make 3000 points (for reference, Apaches are somewhere around 1500-1800 last I checked, and for every enemy that is marked, you gain 30 points, and for every kill assist you gain 40 points) in one round of Ground Control Battle Commander (Ground Control is a sort of best two out of three capture point system).
But that's because I was repeatedly marking the enemy team and getting assists from my teammates killing them, and the enemy team wasn't able to shoot me down because I was dodging around buildings, behind friendly vehicles, etc. I was helping the team out big time.
And that's why I make recon drones a priority whenever I see the enemy using one.
Sorry, but like I said I go on sabbatical from gaming. I will read the guides while at work but not touch the games.
Most games do use a pre-game buying screen and some use terminals. I find terminals to be better so that way there's no "tactical genius" moments with tanks popping up behind someone.
I know that battlecommader is a game mode, but it is a lot like the system in place in Resistance. However Homefront has an AI that controls who is the priority target. In Resistance the target is determined by who is doing the best, getting killstreaks makes you a more valuable target and you can get 300 or 400 points off of a kill instead of 100.
MAG also had something similar, except a person was in charge of the priority creation instead of an AI. It was called a FRAGO bonus if you attacked a target prioritised by your squad commander or higher.
You also have to get kills to get Killstreaks in other games so an earning system isn't new.
Yes games have a theory or a generic idea behind all of the glitz and glamor. Starting at basics Homefront is a FPS, then it continues to add on to the basic embryo. Multiplayer and other features are added to make it a game and then a cover is added to it. The graphics aren't that good in comparison, the multiplayer is just like every other FPS, but the story(the voice of the game) is different from the others.
Sure Freedom Fighters did something similar, but they used Russians invading New York and a plumber who somehow managed to kick the invading Russian forces' rear. Homefront has a grizzled white guy who is ex military leading the charge. Although they had to stretch the story to America having an economic breakdown to allow the Koreans to invade it works in comparison to Freedom Fighters.
I'm not going to say the game is bad because I feel like it does have a great story, its just that from what I've seen and read it doesn't look too impressive. If I want vehicles I'll stick with Battlefield and if I want to buy weapons in the middle of a firefight, well I don't want to buy weapons in the middle of a firefight.
I love Battlefield and I hope more games would be like Battlefield whenever they add vehicles. I was hoping Homefront would be like Battlefield, but they went to a middle ground.
I fail to see anything 'groundbreaking' besides the fact that 360 owners can now enter 32 player battles instead of 24 or 18.
I'm also a Pandemic, Volition, and Dynasty Warriors fanboy. They're games I enjoy and love although some of them (dynasty warriors) are incredibly bad. I will admit that Mercenaries and Saints Row are basically GTA rip-offs, but I love them because they do rip off GTA. Enjoying a game is purely subjective so arguing against my points is like arguing against me if I say that I don't like pineapples on my pizza.
I don't like the ideas in Homefront's multiplayer and I offer my thoughts to the guy looking at buying the game because he asked if its good for people burnt out on FPS games. It doesn't look revolutionary at all.
In all seriousness: why are you in here talking about the gameplay if you haven't played it?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
halonachos wrote:I love Battlefield and I hope more games would be like Battlefield whenever they add vehicles. I was hoping Homefront would be like Battlefield, but they went to a middle ground.
I fail to see anything 'groundbreaking' besides the fact that 360 owners can now enter 32 player battles instead of 24 or 18.
Why the hell would they have it like Battlefield?
Battlefield's system is crap. Vehicles spawn in set locations. People camp/TK to get the vehicles.
Why the feth would I want this game's vehicles to be more like battlefield? Battlefield sucks. And its vehicle system is the primary reason why.
Vehicles in Homefront are something you earn through your actions in game. They're powerful, and valuable, and if you lose your vehicle, you'll have to earn it back again through your actions in game.
Vehicles in battlefield are just something lying around at the start of the game that you hope you get to first. They're powerful but not that valuable as you'll just get them replaced for free if you wait long enough.
You can gleen a lot from the guide in terms of gameplay. The guide offers you suggestions on how to play the multiplayer which are tactics that most people would follow normally. It also showed damage tables for each weapon vs people or vehicles which gives me an idea of how the weapons will work. Saying that you can't tell anything from guides is silly, you can get a basic idea and basically I don't like it.
Battlefield's system works for me, TKing really doesn't happen because you can't really shoot your own teammates. The class system also works against it, a medic won't really jump in a tank because he can get 50pts for healing. An assault or engineer class would probably grab the vehicles while Snipers will snipe to get more points through scouting.
It works for me because I run an engy class and repair my heli when I take too much damage, but its not everyone's cup of tea. Like I said, its like arguing against why you don't like pineapples on your pizza.
Pfah, why would a medic heal when they can just run around with an LMG going rambo? That's what the overwhelming majority of medics do in the BF series.
BF's class systems are nothing to be excited about, they don't really encourage teamwork like the classes in TF2 do.
Because you can sit with your fail snipers and revive them while prone and not moving. Medics running around with LMG's are fail medics and deserve to be killed. You can also see medics in TF2 run around shooting people, they're called battle medics if I recall correctly. A bunch of people I know run battle engys and battle medics for some reason.
halonachos wrote:You can gleen a lot from the guide in terms of gameplay. The guide offers you suggestions on how to play the multiplayer which are tactics that most people would follow normally. It also showed damage tables for each weapon vs people or vehicles which gives me an idea of how the weapons will work. Saying that you can't tell anything from guides is silly, you can get a basic idea and basically I don't like it.
...So the guides can read people's mind now?
OH GREAT AND POWERFUL GUIDE. PLEASE TELL ME WHERE PEOPLE WILL HIDE ON THE SUBURB MAP TO SNIPE FROM.
Battlefield's system works for me, TKing really doesn't happen because you can't really shoot your own teammates. The class system also works against it, a medic won't really jump in a tank because he can get 50pts for healing. An assault or engineer class would probably grab the vehicles while Snipers will snipe to get more points through scouting.
...We must really not be playing the same game when I play Battlefield.
It works for me because I run an engy class and repair my heli when I take too much damage, but its not everyone's cup of tea. Like I said, its like arguing against why you don't like pineapples on your pizza.
No, it's like arguing that a book is terrible based on the cover art.
All you've got to go upon is the artwork on the cover. You didn't even read a single page or the synopsis on the rear of the book.
Sure you can, and you can also sit around in spawn picking your nose, but unlike the BF series both of these are uncommon in TF2 because of better class and game design, respectively. And yes, I can say with some confidence that battle medics are uncommon in TF2... I've played seven hundred hours of that game, and that's just from after when they started recording it. I admit to only having played a tenth of that time in battlefield games, but whenever I used my medic's medical gear to revive or heal teammates, people commented on it and complimented me because it was apparently something uncommon... despite most of the team being medics they were all just running around with M60s, ignoring the various lightning symbols used to show someone can be revived.
And to drag this on topic, the purpose behind Homefront's classes were to encourage customization and adaptability between spawns. The teamwork bonus from classes comes rather from the various purchases you can equip rather than something inherent in the classes themselves.
halonachos wrote:while Snipers will snipe to get more points through scouting.
now snipers in BF is something you can moan about, every game I played was practically everyone on both sides sniping and calling in mortar strikes every 5 seconds, and you probably will die in that if you get shot in the foot, bland bland bland boring.
Lord Scythican wrote:Okay I got something for you all. A lot of the game critics have said the game is good but feels like just another shooter. There really isn't too much innovation with it and it is kind of a let down after playing all the CoD games.
I haven't played hardly any of those games. I played like 2 hours of the first CoD on the original xbox. I played the Halo games, and Killzone 2.
So I am wondering, do you all think I might actually get some enjoyment out of this games since I am not burnt out on shooters?
I know a lot of people were disappointed in the first Fable game. I loved it, but I never read one preview of the game before I played it. So if you know anything about the hype of Fable, you would know that I didn't get disappointed since I didn't know about a lot of the info that was said before the game came out. I am wondering if I might have a similar experience with Homefront since I haven't really played many shooters.
Ignorance is Bliss.
If you're not into competitive multiplayer... I can't honestly recommend this game . The single player is just a bit too short.
Sad news....thanks for being honest. I guess I might rent it this summer when I get a blockbuster game pass.
halonachos wrote:while Snipers will snipe to get more points through scouting.
now snipers in BF is something you can moan about, every game I played was practically everyone on both sides sniping and calling in mortar strikes every 5 seconds, and you probably will die in that if you get shot in the foot, bland bland bland boring.
Play as a medic and prone behind a sniper, easy points from revives. The most annoying snipers are the ones who keep sniping despite the fact they cannot snipe and for some reason refuse to use their sensors. Stupid fail snipers...
I would say that any game with a class system tries to encourage team play, but some people don't believe in team play. Those people play CoD all day long. MAG is the only game I've played that encourages team play because it forces you to defend an objective with your team and you get bonuses for listening to the squad commander, who also gets a bonus for listening to the platoon commander, who gets bonus points for listening to the company commander. You can set up classes in between rounds and its not uncommon to have people running around with an engy tool and a medic tool while sacrificing armor and weapon power. Although if you play with a bunch of CoD players you won't do as well. Wait for the CoD players to get into Homefront then you'll start to see that happen. Don't blame the game, blame CoD.
So, is Homefront worth buying at all? I have been burned on many FPS games so I tend to get actual user reviews. I stopped believe magazine reviews when recently they gave MW2 9s and said it was a great game....
I am still content with playing Dawn of War and Starcraft at the moment so not like I need to buy any more games but the trailers looked really cool for this game.
Have to say I usually play a medic on class based games and really don't understand it when other medics just run around like tools not healing/putting down health packs/etc.
Does Homefront have a class system (in terms of allowing medics?)
SilverMK2 wrote:Have to say I usually play a medic on class based games and really don't understand it when other medics just run around like tools not healing/putting down health packs/etc.
Does Homefront have a class system (in terms of allowing medics?)
According to Mellissia it has the best class system that makes players into team players no matter their play style.
SilverMK2 wrote:Have to say I usually play a medic on class based games and really don't understand it when other medics just run around like tools not healing/putting down health packs/etc.
Does Homefront have a class system (in terms of allowing medics?)
Not really. There's no revive system that I've seen.
It's kinda nice, prevents your teammates from abusing it.
halonachos wrote:
According to Melissia it has the best class system that makes players into team players no matter their play style.
How's your psychic game guide working out for you? Found those sniper spots for me yet?
Crom: it depends on what you're wanting from it. MP--it's still too early to really tell. THQ/Kaos vastly underestimated how many people would buy Homefront and are still adding more and more servers.
If you want a half-decent story about occupied America--it's your thing right here.
Kanluwen wrote:Then this may be your thing. The MP's still got kinks to work out, but that's because the game only released last week.
I dislike a lot of modern MP first person games because they either encourage camping, do not emphasize on team play, and they make maps so freaking huge you spend a full minute running some where if there are no vehicles present.
Kanluwen wrote:Then this may be your thing. The MP's still got kinks to work out, but that's because the game only released last week.
I dislike a lot of modern MP first person games because they either encourage camping, do not emphasize on team play, and they make maps so freaking huge you spend a full minute running some where if there are no vehicles present.
You're going to spend time running, but you can spawn in teammate's vehicles.
Camping is semi-encouraged, but they immediately show your position to whoever you kill--so if you don't move you're boned.
Add in UAV Hellfire strikes and you want to keep on the move, taking shots where you can.
halonachos wrote:Actually I probably could find those sniping spots for you, they already told me some of the camping spots in the maps.
What "camping spots" in the maps? Only an idiot camps in HF.
If he's played Modern Warfare he may be used to the killcam in non-hardcore modes.
Actually they do recommend several spots that are heavy traffic for players on the opposite team. They recommend sitting in those spots and taking out whoever comes by. When I go back to work I'll take a look at the advice they give again. Its really similar to what they do with every game with multiplayer, they show the entire map, spawns, good locations for sniping/camping, etc.
Give it some time and you'll see, no one can stop camping for long.
So are you telling me that you never join a game because there are no spawns? Each game has spawn points, some games have spawn points you can choose, and some rotate the spawns constantly.
Most games will have a dedicated starting spawn point for each team for each game mode.
Battlefield, MAG, Battlefront, and several games offer the chance to spawn at captured points. Certain oher ones allow you to spawn with your squad while in combat. Other games try to spawn you away from enemies and closer to your allies.
Saying that there are no spawns is incorrect, there may be no set spawn points which helps prevent spawn camping, but its nothing new.
Also:
videogamer.net wrote:Learn the maps This might be a key tactic for all multiplayer shooters, but it's just as important to learn your surroundings in Homefront as it is everywhere else. Spend time getting a feel for each of the eight maps. Where are the spawn points? Which are the best places to hide when you're capturing points in Ground Control? What's a good place to hide when you're looking to scout around with the Parrot? Once you've got to grips with the maps you'll be able to focus on tactics and shooting.
So are you telling me that you never join a game because there are no spawns? Each game has spawn points, some games have spawn points you can choose, and some rotate the spawns constantly.
Are you really going to try to act like that's what I'm saying? Really?
Your location is quite apt, because logic sure as hell isn't getting through to you. Go back to battlefield.
You said that there were no spawns. I said that there were spawn points, you kind of failed to see that part I guess. From websites I got information saying that spawn points exist and saying that spawn points should be found.
I guess that they didn't play the game either because spawn points don't exist because they're rotational? How does that logic work?
So are you telling me that you never join a game because there are no spawns? Each game has spawn points, some games have spawn points you can choose, and some rotate the spawns constantly.
Are you really going to try to act like that's what I'm saying? Really?
Your location is quite apt, because logic sure as hell isn't getting through to you. Go back to battlefield.
Lord Harrab wrote:You don't play well with others do you?
He takes some getting used to
@ Halo - What Kan is saying is that spawn points localise to team members, or randomly alternate over the map, thus while you could camp at a spawn point, it is likely that the computer would see there is a member of the other team near the spawn point and just spawn people somewhere else. Even if it did not do that you would probably not see people spawning there often if the spawns are randomised or if they spawn people based on where their team is.
So are you telling me that you never join a game because there are no spawns? Each game has spawn points, some games have spawn points you can choose, and some rotate the spawns constantly.
Are you really going to try to act like that's what I'm saying? Really?
Your location is quite apt, because logic sure as hell isn't getting through to you. Go back to battlefield.
*ahem* Can we please be polite when speaking with other posters please. This applies to all users, it's just video games people, honestly.
I strongly regret buying this game, the premise and story seemed interesting, but what it really is, is an underdeveloped, low quality COD rip-off. It falls flat in every aspect, the controls and gameplay are completly ripped from COD, the story manages to take an interesting concept and degenerate it into a bland shooting gallery, the characters are blocks of wood, all of the weapons are shameless COD rip-offs despite the game taking place in the future. The campaign took barely 4 hours to complete, and even the ending was a letdown. Not to mention this games graphics look like they belong on a PS2. I have heard the multiplayer is good, but the Dedicated servers that are suppossed to exist have been down since day one. This game isnt worth the plastic box it comes in.
The Night Stalker wrote:I strongly regret buying this game, the premise and story seemed interesting, but what it really is, is an underdeveloped, low quality COD rip-off. It falls flat in every aspect, the controls and gameplay are completly ripped from COD, the story manages to take an interesting concept and degenerate it into a bland shooting gallery, the characters are blocks of wood, all of the weapons are shameless COD rip-offs despite the game taking place in the future. The campaign took barely 4 hours to complete, and even the ending was a letdown. Not to mention this games graphics look like they belong on a PS2. I have heard the multiplayer is good, but the Dedicated servers that are suppossed to exist have been down since day one. This game isnt worth the plastic box it comes in.
As an older gamer myself I find all the COD knock off shooters boring, lame, and rehashes of each other. I think the last shooter I really liked single player in was HL2 and all the add ons that came with it. I built a top of the line PC about 2 years ago, and went out and bought COD4, Crysis, and other games (so lame I cannot even remember their titles now) to max out my video card at the time. They were all rather boring and dull. Farcry 2 was totally lame compared to the original. Then I look at games that innovate in a certain way like Redfaction and Singularity that have cool concepts but end up being super crappy games. FEAR was cool, but after a while very repetitive.
Maybe it is just because I am a bit older now and not amazed as much as I used to be by video games. The last series of games I played where I was hooked was God of War series and I never played any of them until I got my PS3.
I was a huge fan of the Half-Life series, and currently Just Cause 2 is what I am playing.
The thing that really got me mad in Homefront is that it was a squandered opportunity, the first level had that sense of immersion as your character rode in that rundown bus past all of the brutality taking place on the city streets really had me interested. But as soon as a gun was put in your hand the game became a poorly made cookie-cutter shooter with technology from last generation.
(the grenade throwing animation made me burst out laughing)
BrookM wrote:That bus ride is a good example of "Trying. Too. Hard."
Actually I disagree. I am totally on board with The Night Stalker, the intro sequences were well done and had a real atmosphere to it. I enjoyed the SP experience about as much as I do any linear non-challengeing game experience in terms of game play (and you can check my steam acheivements I beat this game on the hardest setting first time through).
The multiplayer does have a nice dynamic to it that I haven't seen in anyother FPS to date. No unbalanced kill streak issues (which I normally use to destroy the other teams in COD, MOH, etc.). No dumb point farming exploits due to silly class gimmicks (no medic healing points, no engy repairing a vehicle he damaged himself for points, etc.). Some nice new innovations in gameplay for an FPS (the wanted star system from GTA4 integrated into FPS). Awesome combination of in-game scoring and purchasing of equipment. No vehicle spawn issues since you buy the vehicle whenever you want to use it or spawn in it. Spawn point concerns don't seem to be an issue due to roving spawn areas, being able to spawn into transports and enemy detection. Nice, tight twitch style gameplay which is great on the PC and allows skilled players to do some excellent shooting. No spray and pray COD crap. Snipers are forced to snipe and relocate like in real life due to drones, kill cams, spotters, etc. which helps to cut down on all the QQ'ers who whine about "camping" like its not a valid tactic. Customizable perks for characters and vehicles! Nice selection of current era gear and weapons as well as a couple of futureistic choices for spice (Love the underslung EMP launcher). Drone combat is a great time all around. Zipping through windows to flush out the enemy with a rocket drone while your team mates gun them down or using the spotter drone to mark all the targets in a building for a coordinated sweep and clear by the rest of your squad is satisfying. Voice chat and the (PC only) squad system allows for fun team play and reall strategy and tactics between a small group of people taking part in a larger (32 player) battle. The list goes on and on.
Bad points:
Sub-par graphics. Some scenes of torture/un-humaine treatment of human beings that people may wish to believe would never happen in the real world. Noobs still exist and have bought the game. Bugs do exist or so I am told (mostly on the consoles) but I've never encounterd any on my PC gaming rig or any servers I have joined.
As always these are simply my opinions as a vetern gamer and developer, which should be taken with a grain of salt as everyone wants something different from a game. Is it worth $60? Like most games I doubt it, especially if you only want a single player experience. Go watch three movies instead, its probably more of what you want instead and about the same cost (if you buy food). If you want a different type of MP experience then try it out, but like most new games I feel their needs to be more maps and mod tools to hold my interest for more than two to three weeks.
Freedom Fighters is indeed a good game. Your actions in missions changed what you faced in other missions.
For example at one point you could assault a helipad, a communications area, or a power station. If you didn't take out the helipad you faced a heli of doom in the other two missions. Taking out the helipad meant the other missions were so much easier.
Strimen wrote: Noobs still exist and have bought the game.
how dare those noobs buy the game and have the cheek to play it, don't they know that gaming is for the elite only these days, damn them noobs......
well my homefront has already died, it won't even load on the 360 anymore, just crashes the whole console before even reaching the start menu, so money well spent.
It's a good buy, just not a good $50 buy. In retrospect, I'd certainly buy it at half the price, but other than the story and some of the nice 'shock elements' (ie the little kid watching his parents get executed, dumping bodies in a ditch, etc...), nothing makes it stand out. And while the story was good, 5 hours is -not- enough for it to be the pillar holding the game up above competitors.
When it drops to half price, yea I'd suggest scooping it up. It's nothing amazing, but it's still a fun game and the multiplayer isn't too bad. It's sort of the halfway between CoD's failfest and BF's mega-win. When the price drops down, you may want to give it a try.
Strimen wrote: Noobs still exist and have bought the game.
how dare those noobs buy the game and have the cheek to play it, don't they know that gaming is for the elite only these days, damn them noobs......
well my homefront has already died, it won't even load on the 360 anymore, just crashes the whole console before even reaching the start menu, so money well spent.
Reminds me of the Starcraft II forums. If you are bronze league you should just not play the game.....elitism over video games is rather silly, and funny at the same time.
I find that lower level players will beat the hell out of higher leveled people at about half of the times.
"Way to go [random guy], good job showing us that the prestige symbols mean absolutely nothing."
-Random guy to another random player on Black Ops.
There was this guy who was a level 50, 8th something prestige who ended up 13-28 after the match. He lost to a guy who was level 18 without any prestige.
"You know what Prestin_G, even though we make fun of you, you're our favorite noob on this game. We like you Prestin, you're the best."
-Me to a player with the name "Prestin_G" on CoD, he was level 8 at the time, no prestige. I was playing with some other friends online and we decided that he was the best noob on the game, or at least our favorite noob.
I like noobs, they make the game interesting because they don't know all the tricks that experienced players look for.
halonachos wrote:There was this guy who was a level 50, 8th something prestige who ended up 13-28 after the match. He lost to a guy who was level 18 without any prestige
That is not unexpected - could be someones second account, could just be a really good new player vs someone who had ground his way up the ranks, or someone who was normally good but was not really getting into the game, someone who just had a bad game, or someone who was playing on this guys account.
Just because you are high ranked on a computer game doesn't mean you have to be good, or that someone who just got the game isn't going to be amazing. Computer games are the great leveler.
halonachos wrote:There was this guy who was a level 50, 8th something prestige who ended up 13-28 after the match. He lost to a guy who was level 18 without any prestige
That is not unexpected - could be someones second account, could just be a really good new player vs someone who had ground his way up the ranks, or someone who was normally good but was not really getting into the game, someone who just had a bad game, or someone who was playing on this guys account.
Just because you are high ranked on a computer game doesn't mean you have to be good, or that someone who just got the game isn't going to be amazing. Computer games are the great leveler.
Unless you are playing CoD.
Silver speaks truth. He's a Lieutenant Colonel on Halo: Reach and he's terrible!
Strimen wrote: Noobs still exist and have bought the game.
how dare those noobs buy the game and have the cheek to play it, don't they know that gaming is for the elite only these days, damn them noobs......
well my homefront has already died, it won't even load on the 360 anymore, just crashes the whole console before even reaching the start menu, so money well spent.
I'm pretty sure part of your issue is that you have a 360. Money well spent, onto the next box. (I've had 9 die between work and home.)
Joking aside, I was simply pointing it out that people of all skill levels purchased the game. As should be expected, but the internet age generally forgets that lack of skill does not equate to lack of entitlement.
halonachos wrote:According to Mellissia it has the best class system that makes players into team players no matter their play style.
No, I said it was a class system designed around customizability. It's TF2 that has the best class system, makes battlefailed's class system rather laughable in comparison.
In Homefront, it is up to the individual player to make use of this customizability, and they certainly can use it to produce teamwork if they want.
And yeah, Homefront's single player is not worth getting the game for. It's too short, I've had Left 4 Dead campaigns on easy last about as longer. Its multiplayer most certainly is, at least on the PC.
You pick the weapons each class uses. You pick its attachment. You pick its camo. You pick your secondary explosives. You pick your two purchase slots. You pick your various abilities. You name the class.
So its a class system as far as CoD goes. I'm not being critical of Homefront but I just hate it when developers say that there's a class system and it really isn't.
Growing up with Diablo 1 and 2 I saw a class as a specific set of skills and weapons that you could choose to suit your playstyle for the class. CoD doesn't have a class system because you aren't really limited by class but by weapon. A sniper class has a sniper rifle, but having a sniper rifle doesn't necessarily mean you're a sniper class.
No, battlefailed has sort of classes, you can still basically equip the exact same things on every single class if you wanted to, it just has very minor limitations to secondary skills (which most players don't use anyway).
But yes, TF2 is the prime example of a team-based multiplayer FPS game.
Engineers are the only class in TF2 that has shotguns as their primary. And even then ,the Engineer's real primary weapon is their sentry gun, though the shotgun is hardly useless it pales in comparison. The heavy has it for a secondary weapon which most people don't use (in lieu of the sandvich) and the soldier has it as a secondary weapon to balance out his rocket launcher. The pyro has it as a secondary weapon, and the pyro is also just about the only class that uses its shotgun regularly (to finish off enemies set on fire or to deal with other pyros, whom take less damage from fire). The scout doesn't have a shotgun proper, but a unique variation of it. And even then, except for the engineer's shotgun as his primary, they're still just secondary weapons though, similar to how both the scout and engineer have pistols, to serve as medium to long ranged backup weapons.
So no... it's not that comparable to me.
Also, in the latest iteration of the BF series, the only weapon type which isn't available to every class is the LMG. Every class can equip an assault rifle, a shotgun, a sniper rifle (or SDM rifle more appropriately), and so on. And these are primary weapons-- everyone has the exact same secondary weapon choices.
Those are the classes I'm used to, the old BF2 classes which are similar to the TF2 classes.
BFBC2 had different weapons for each class IIRC, but like I said I've never seen a person using a weapon outside of their class.
Just because they name it the 'Force of Nature' doesn't mean it isn't a shotgun. Its a sawn off shotgun, which is a type of shotgun. The only weapons that vary greatly depend on the class; Demoman=Grenade Launcher, Soldier=Rocket, Sniper=Sniper Rifle, Engineer= Shotgun, Spy=Spy kit, Heavy=Machine Gun, Medic= Needlegun, Pyro=Flamethrower, Scout= Sawn off shotgun.
Most of the classes have no special way of helping out. The spy can sneak up on people, engineers can create portals and such, and medics can heal people. Otherwise the other classes are plain guys using a different gun to kill people.
In BFBC2, all classes have access to a sniper rifle (M14), an assault rifle (G3), an SMG (Thompson) and a variety of shotguns. All secondary weapons are the exact same options of pistols. As I said, only LMGs are not available to every class.
And that's definitely false about TF2.
The Heavy doesn't need an item, he has his own size and durability to benefit the team, oftentimes literally being a wall to hide behind for medics. He can also toss sandviches out for team members that need healing too.
The soldier has the option of the buff banner and variations, as well as providing long ranged fire support for the team and vertical mobility that even the scout can't match.
The demoman supports the team through his ability to destroy around corners, or to lay traps for defensive purposes.
The pyro can douse fires on friends and knock ubers around with his(her?) airblast, or just knock enemies off of points or into environmental hazards.
The scout has quite a few options for play, such as the drink that lets him distract sentry guns and take no damage from them (he dodges everything), or the baseball bat which can stun enemies from a distance.
And the sniper has the option to take the Jarate or sidney sleeper to cause allies to deal extra damage to the targeted enemy.
Yeah, so you're saying that they have limitations on class specific skills?
Also, if the gun itself was part of the DLC and extra content for buying the Limited or Ultimate Editions it really doesn't count as an actual class weapon. Its like how any class in TF2 can wear any hat.
Yeah it is. Hats are special pieces of digital fashion that you can equip to any class. The Thompson and M1 were available to those who bought the Limited Edition when the game first came out, the edition I bought, and people also got it for the Ultimate Edition. Not really class specific weapons, but total e-peen enhancers.
halonachos wrote:Yeah it is. Hats are special pieces of digital fashion that you can equip to any class. The Thompson and M1 were available to those who bought the Limited Edition when the game first came out, the edition I bought, and people also got it for the Ultimate Edition. Not really class specific weapons, but total e-peen enhancers.
Actually, most hats are class specific. Only the promotional ones tend to be available for all classes.
They also(except for the ones purchasable from Steam as a 'set') don't really give any bonuses or any in-game benefits.
The Thompson and M1, however, do give in-game benefits.
Homefront actually looks like it could topple CoD in the FPS genre, that is, if it becomes a series, if not, people will still be playing it for a while, because it is awesome in its own right.
Besides acting like normal weapons they don't give any benefits. Also, they are promotional weapons and actually kind of suck.
Homefront won't topple CoD in multiplayer. They cater to two different groups of players. One tries to stay away from vehicles while the other uses them to benefit players who do well.
halonachos wrote:Besides acting like normal weapons they don't give any benefits.
You can shoot someone with a gun. You can't shoot someone with a hat.
Unless you're a striking scorpion.
The hats are just decorative. The guns? They have an actual use in game. This lets you have a medic who snipes, a recon with an SMG, an engineer with a sniper rifle, etc. The two are not comparable in any way whatsoever, and it smacks of desperation to claim such.
Smacks of desperation? Please, they're both used to enlarge a player's e-peen. Not having one of the special weapons isn't going to hurt your options and neither is not wearing a hat. You keep forgetting that these are 'promotional' weapons. They're not meant to be used by every class, just by players who bought the game when it first came out. If joe schmoe bought the game a month after it came out, he wouldn't have the option of getting the thompson or M1, or the M1911 pistol. Not every player has access to them.
You also fail to see how TF2 and Battlefield are also comparable so if you think my comparison's "smack of desperation" I don't really read too much into it.
Face it Melissia, both games have a class system, an actual class system. BFBC2 is more customizable than TF2 due to the number of weapon options typically available(5 different sniper rifles available for the sniper). TF2 doesn't force people to play as a team, no game with a class system forces people to play as a team it forces them to find the class they can get the most points with.
I run heavy, medic, or scout whenever I play because their play styles get me the most points. I play engineer in BFBC2 because I fly around in a chopper to get kills and then land to repair it if I take damage.
The classes are present in both games save for the pyro and spy.
Scout/sniper=Sniper
Heavy/Medic=Support(medic class)
Soldier/Demoman=Assault
Engineer/Demoman=Engineer
halonachos wrote:Not having one of the special weapons isn't going to hurt your options
I take it you haven't actually played BFBC2 then. That would explain this conversation.
Despite your attempt to grasp at straws and draw the topic away from my original point, my point still stands. All of the classes can equip an assault rifle (G3), a sniper rifle (M14), and an SMG (Thompson), as well as shotguns. So except for the medic's LMGs, all the classes basically are the same in the end as far as weapons go. Their support abilities are relatively minor, and most players don't ever use them anyway.
This is, despite your claims otherwise, a marked difference from TF2.
Really Melissia? I just stated that I run engineer most of the time. I used to run a sniper, but after I ran over a UAV with the Apache I fell in love with the vehicles of the game.
I take it that you like to insult other people and say that they haven't played a game whenever they raise a different opinion than yours.
The thompson sucks. Seriously Melissia, it does suck. I mean if I took a hoover vacuum and threw it into space, the thompson would still suck more.
The thompson, M1911, and M1 were given away as promotions when you first bought the game because it was an homage to the first Battlefield games which were set in WW2 and also referenced the Battlefield 1943 game coming out for download.
Were they great when I had the first tier weapons, yeah. Were they good after tier 2, hell no. Although I prefer the tier 1 sniper rifle because the scope has a crosshairs with tick marks compared to the stupid triangle marks the other ones feature.
I've gotten the dentist achievement for using the engineer drill to get a headshot.
I remember the level in the gorge where the defenders started out on a small island and the attackers started behind a ridge overlooking the island. I remember never being able to win that level as an attacker. We would always get past the second set of objectives before failing.
I've team killed people with the UAV by collapsing the building the objective was in. The UAV is an overpowered piece of equipment, especially when you add the secondary weapon perk to it and buzz into a building to mow people down.
My favorite level is the one that sets the US team up with four tanks and some humvees near the bottom of the map. Its a desert setting and there's a lot of wrecked Abrams and humvees near the US spawn point. The Russians spawn in a camp with a rocket turret near the main gate and several tanks of their own.
I've played BFBC2 Melissia, I've played BF2, I've played TF2(although on PS3 so I'm basically playing the Beta), and I've played the CoD's.
TF2 and all of the Battlefield games are similar, no matter how you look at they are similar.
You are entitled to that opinion, but I do not care, and it is irrelevant regardless, as that is not what I was arguing.
You are, as usual, arguing with a man of straw. Try to argue with what I'm actually posting instead.
The point was simple-- all of the classes can have the same basic kind of equipment (except for the LMG, as I noted), therefor making it so that you don't have to play recon to snipe, you don't have to play assault to use an assault rifle, and so on. If you're going to claim the scattergun and shotgun are the same, then hell, certainly the G3 and M4 are the same.
Really, the only thing unique about the classes was that assaults could have an ammo box and an underslung launcher, medics had paddles and a medpack, recon could spot and has mortar, and engineer can repair and has rockets. The classes aren't really dedicated into any specific role, even with these abilities; they're just side effects of choosing a class rather than the primary purpose of the class.
Each class has a set of weapons exclusive to their class. The presence of several special weapons(thompson and M1) don't really affect that. These are fun weapons because nobody in a modern combat situation would use a piece of WW2 and Korean War equipment.
The G3 and M14 are rewards for playing enough to earn those weapons.
Shotguns are available to every class, but they aren't class specific(unlike BF2).
There are still defined classes with a set development of skills and weapons. The presence of a few special weapons you get for reaching certain ranks doesn't affect the fact that there are still classes with set skills and devices.
No matter what only the medic can use the defibrillators and throw out health kits, only the assault class can throw out ammo kits, only the engineer can use the engineer tool, only the sniper can use the motion sensor and mortar strike.
A sniper has a shotgun, great, but he still has the motion sensor and mortar strikes he can use.
A medic has the thompson, great, but he still has his defibs and med kits.
TF2 does the same thing, but Valve is smart enough to call them different names and reskin them. Like I said, the scout and engineer use shotguns along with the pyro when he's not using his flamethrower or car battery axe thing or flare gun.
You said that the engineer's main weapons are his sentry guns, no its his ability to build sentry guns, his main weapon is a shotgun. The scouts main weapon is a shotgun, and his ability is speed. Same weapon, different classes.
The sniper's rifle and the huntsman are two completely different weapons, but the same class uses them.
The heavy can throw sandwiches, congratulations, he's now the medic from BFBC2 minus the ability to revive players.
Assault = Assault Rifles, an SMG, shotguns, and a sniper rifle.
Engineer = An assualt rifle, SMGs, shotguns, and a sniper rifle.
Medic = An assault rifle, an SMG, shotguns, LMGs, and a sniper rifle.
Sniper = An assault rifle, an SMG, shotguns, and sniper rifles.
Yes, the weapons are rewards for playing long enough, but then, by that reasoning you would also disclude the medic's medpack and the engineer's repair tool too, because those are just rewards for playing long enough-- you do not start with them.
Those are class specific unlocks Melissia, the thompson and shotguns are part of the 'all-kit' unlock track. You can't unlock a med-kit by playing as a sniper can you? No? I thought not.
So the sniper in TF2 can have a longbow and an SMG(automatic pistol if you must) and still be considered a sniper? But if the sniper class can use an SMG or a shotgun or assault rifle he's no longer the sniper class?
What abilities does the sniper in TF2 have? Jarate, increases damage to the enemy. If he doesn't have his sniper rifle(opting for huntsman) he still has jarate available. If he opts to use his SMG over his main weapon, he still has his jarate ability.
If the sniper in BFBC2 takes the SMG, he still has his mortar strike and motion sensors.
TF2 classes and BFBC2 classes both have the option to different weapons and different styles of play, but in both games the classes retain their abilities. If I'm a scout and instead of using the force-of-nature I use the holy mackeral, I still retain the secondary abilities of the speed and low health attributed to the scoutdespite the fact that I chose to play with a fish instead of a shotgun. I can choose the engineer to use a shotgun, I'll have more health and move slower, but I also have the side effect of being able to build a sentry.
In both games, the ability of the class makes the class. The main weapon unlocked along the class specific track(the unlocks you get for actually playing a class) helps define the class. The health given to the heavy is a side effect of choosing the class as is the heavy's slow speed. The ability to heal is a side effect of choosing the medic, etc.
I will add that I do enjoy arguing with you Melissia, where I'm at real female gamers don't exist so you're the first female gamer with an opinion on the overall electronic entertainment industry. All the girl 'gamers' around here only play Halo 3 and don't really say anything intelligent when it comes to the overall gaming industry. So I will have to thank you for that.
I was playing this game heavy after launch but slowed down on it, Got up to lvl 32 I think, its fun and I enjoyed the damage system. It's mainly there for my FPS fix while waiting on BF3 though.
The community for it drives me insane though, I played as assault most of the time (SCAR, C4, WP and that upgraded RPG) but there was so much hate for snipers. It did get annoying dying in spawn, yes, but otherwise snipers were really easy to deal with, you just had to pay attention to what was going on and not run around like an idiot...
Just finished installing and the whole campaign today and i give it a 3/10. fail ending, lame missions, lame plot in general & crappy graphics. The first FPS that i haven't enjoyed, felt like i was playing a cheap rip off of battlefield. waste of an arvo.
I did enjoy the SP, but far to short and rail driven, had alot of potential but fell short in some areas. They did push the envelope with some things and that was nice. Give the MP a shot though, it has it's bugs but its pretty decent overall.
I really wish you'd pay attention to my posts more...
And I wish you would open your mind to comparisons between other games and TF2. BF2:MC(the console version of BF2) was exactly like TF2 in class set up, BFBC2 derived from it and removed the spec ops class which freed up a certain weapon(shotgun) as the smg went to the engineer in BF:2142.
In BF2:MC classes go like this;
Support=LMG, Med kit, Mortar
Recon= Sniper rifle, laser targeter.
Assault=Assault rifle, grenade launcher
Engineer=Shotgun, blow torch, land mines.
Spec Ops= Silenced SMG and silenced pistol, C4.
This is as rigid a class system as TF2, but it allowed you to change kits by picking up the kit from a dead player.
Halon, Melissia keeps saying that every class has the option to have a sniper rifle and an SMG, which is false. You have explained that only a small amount of people have this, because it required you to link your BFBC2 accounts with your older Battlefield games, which not many people did or could do.
You pick the weapons each class uses. You pick its attachment. You pick its camo. You pick your secondary explosives. You pick your two purchase slots. You pick your various abilities. You name the class.
dogma wrote:You pick the sniper rifle, or you suck.
Great game.
I vastly prefer the FN SCAR weapons, both the light and heavy variants, to either sniper rifle. The FN SCAR-H LMG is incredibly accurate while aiming down the sights prone or crouched, while the FN SCAR-L can kill an enemy with one burst.
Karon wrote:Halon, Melissia keeps saying that every class has the option to have a sniper rifle and an SMG, which is false.
The M14 Mod 0 only requires you reach rank 19, and is available to all classes. The M1A1 Thompson requires you reach rank 10, or have the limited or ultimate edition of the game, and is available to all classes. The G3 is available after rank 22, and is available to all classes. I have all three without purchasing any special edition, without linking my account to any battlefield account, without purchasing any DLC (having not purchased Vietnam because I had had more than enough of BFBC2 base to know I wouldn't want Vietnam), and so on.
My statements are demonstratably true. Be in denial all and look smugly down at me as much as you may want-- you are still wrong.
Melissia wrote:I vastly prefer the FN SCAR weapons, both the light and heavy variants, to either sniper rifle. The FN SCAR-H LMG is incredibly accurate while aiming down the sights prone or crouched, while the FN SCAR-L can kill an enemy with one burst.
All the weapons can kill on hit, the issue is how far away they can execute that maneuver.
And? You still don't want to take a sniper rifle into CQB.
And frankly, with Steady Aim, an ACOG, and going prone, the FN SCAR-H is nearly as accurate as a sniper rifle but with a far better rate of fire and it's far bettter defensively to boot
Melissia wrote:The M14 Mod 0 only requires you reach rank 19, and is available to all classes. The M1A1 Thompson requires you reach rank 10, or have the limited or ultimate edition of the game, and is available to all classes. The G3 is available after rank 22, and is available to all classes. I have all three without purchasing any special edition, without linking my account to any battlefield account, without purchasing any DLC (having not purchased Vietnam because I had had more than enough of BFBC2 base to know I wouldn't want Vietnam), and so on.
My statements are demonstratably true. Be in denial all and look smugly down at me as much as you may want-- you are still wrong.
I have an ACOG on my MP5 in MW1. Clearly that means it is accessible to all players.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote:And? You still don't want to take a sniper rifle into CQB.
Yeah, that semi-automatic weapon totally loses it worth when leg-shots kill.
dogma wrote:I have an ACOG on my MP5 in MW1. Clearly that means it is accessible to all players.
I have access to the mentioned items and I didn't purchase any special edition or DLC.
dogma wrote:Yeah, that semi-automatic weapon totally loses it worth when leg-shots kill.
Its like the AWP all over again.
Leg shots kill... if you hit multiple times. But you can't react as fast while using ADS on a 3x scope compared to ADS on a red dot, and you won't kill anywhere NEAR as many people per magazine as you will with the FN SCAR-H (it has a rather large drum mag due to being used as an LMG) which is oftentimes just as accurate as a sniper rifle anyway-- seriously, you should try it, give yourself steady aim and let the FN SCAR-H rip while prone... you'll find you can snipe with it using controlled bursts, it barely scatters at all in that position.
halonachos wrote:Not having one of the special weapons isn't going to hurt your options
I take it you haven't actually played BFBC2 then. That would explain this conversation.
Despite your attempt to grasp at straws and draw the topic away from my original point, my point still stands. All of the classes can equip an assault rifle (G3), a sniper rifle (M14), and an SMG (Thompson), as well as shotguns. So except for the medic's LMGs, all the classes basically are the same in the end as far as weapons go. Their support abilities are relatively minor, and most players don't ever use them anyway.
This just indicates that you don't understand the game's weapon balance and/or play with bad people. The G3 and M14 are both battle rifles (neither true assault rifles nor sniper rifles), and while the Thompson is an SMG it is deliberately underpowered in comparison to the other SMGs. The Assault class's assault rifles (with underslung weapons) play very differently from the G3; the Sniper class's sniper rifles play very differently from the M14 (note that the M14 doesn't even come with a scope, nor does it kill in one hit to the head), and the Engineer class's SMGs play more effectively than the Thompson.
The classes in BFBC2 are extremely different and play as such. I'm honestly confused as to how you find them so similar.
The M14 is nearly identical to the various semi-auto sniper rifles, statwise-- in fact, it's nearly identical to the SVD, except it has access to ironsights and scatters a lttle bit more while moving and firing in ADS. With the 4X scope it allows any of the classes to effectively snipe.
The G3 actually is beneficial to the Assault class because it provides them with an assault rifle that can also let them equip C4, and it has the best ironsights of the assault rifle class anyway-- as well as recoil similar to the XM8, reload time roughly average for an assault rifle, a rate of fire slightly less than the AUG but doing more damage. Really, it's just another assault rifle, one which has better damage at the expense of recoil and rate of fire, so very much like the T3AK in homefront compared to the M416.
As for the Thompson, I never argued that it was good. But if you want an assault/medic/recon with an SMG, the thompson still works exactly as intended. It's generally at the bottom of the class of SMGs, though it does have decent accuracy while moving compared to other weapons.
edit: Meh, we've had what, two, three pages on this subject? If you really want to jump to battlefailed bad company 2's defense so hard, go make a thread about that. This one's about Homefront. Feth battlefield.
I think the vast majority of sniper hate in HF comes from the Thermal scope, as more people unlocked the thermal goggles I saw less and less crying about snipers in the game.
Dunno, I never really saw snipers as a problem. Marking them with a recon drone means allies kill them rather quickly, while an LAV is more than enough to countersnipe. And in battlecommander mode they usually get marked.
Same, snipers could be annoying, but if they got out of hand, thats when I switch to sniper and start going after the other teams, stationary targets become easy mode with thermals... or a WP bomb.
In any videogame snipers are by definition A-holes. This is why you exterminate them in any way possible and the most embarassing method is often the best(ie; placing a claymore behind them in MW2 or Black Ops, or shooting them long distance with a pistol.).
To quote a very wise man; "Sniper's they'll shoot you in the [male member] just for fun."
Melissia wrote:I have access to the mentioned items and I didn't purchase any special edition or DLC.
So? The point is that unlocks that weight the game towards veteran players are wholly stupid in a game without a system of level exclusion.
Melissia wrote:
Leg shots kill... if you hit multiple times.
What game are you playing? The M110 requires, at most, 2 hits to kill; and its semi-automatic without any discernible recoil. If you're any good you have no reason, at all, to use anything else.
Player health is 100, M110 damage is 50-70; meaning as long as your target isn't fresh you're talking about a 1 shot in most cases.
Melissia wrote:And if the target isn't fresh you can also kill just as quickly with the FN SCAR-H.
31 (max) damage per round, times .3 for hit rate at normal (100-200yds) equals 11 per bullet. As such, you need to fire at least 6 times in order to score the same damage degree as someone with a sniper rifle.
Melissia wrote:And if the target isn't fresh you can also kill just as quickly with the FN SCAR-H.
31 (max) damage per round, times .3 for hit rate at normal (100-200yds) equals 11 per bullet. As such, you need to fire at least 6 times in order to score the same damage degree as someone with a sniper rifle.
That can't be right, the SCAR-L with 3rnd burst drops guys in one burst, that's without any head shots.
They should shrink the headshot box a bit though, maybe its just luck, or the recoil but I do get a stupid amount of heads shots when aiming center mass/crotch level (from crouching going through doorways)
The stats for the console versions as opposed to the PC version are different. On the PC version, pretty much all weapons do more damage, and they're actually nerfing the M110 and M200 sniper rifles.
If you aim for the chest and fire a burst the recoil should be enough to get you to the neck in most games. Don't forget that body shots are typically a lot stronger than limb shots and in most games a headshot adds a damage multiplier.
I think its normally like; limbs=~50% damage, torso=100% damage, and headshots=200% damage. Not too sure but that's what it seems like.
The game may also have some issues with hit detection based on the character stances. I know for a fact that when I look at the areas I shoot the most in Black Ops it shows the arms as bright red compared to the body. I chalk this up to the stance of the character model reading the shots as limb shots and maybe then a torso shot because of bullet penetration(not sure about the additional torso shot). Hit detection is terrible in a lot of games, and then there's the always present 'lag' death syndrome.
New patch out on the PC version-- unfortunately, it looks like they either messed up the netcode or messed up the server code with it. We should probably expect a hotfix patch, though when I don't know.
New patch for the PC version again-- fixing several server browser related bugs, as well as finally fixing the friends list bug so that we can join friends who are in games now (woohoo).
