Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Red Dawn was Russians.

KamikazeCanuck wrote:Red Dawn was Russians.

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.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1234719/

Edit:
Here's a link with a Homefront mention: http://www.brandchannel.com/home/post/2011/03/17/Red-Dawn-Remade-China-No-Longer-Acceptable-Hollywood-Enemy.aspx

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:-)

Building destruction would kinda ruin multiplayer for me. At least how it was done in BFBC2 anyway, ugh., that crappy little game.

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.

Getting rid of quickscoping and frag grenades are the way to counter snipers, either that or counter snipe.

That and recon drones, and battle commander, and buzzard drones, and vehicles, and flanking, and....

BFBC2 is a great game. On the xbox it is anyway Are you lot on the PC?

Yes, I play on the PC.

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.

Ignorance is Bliss.

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.

halonachos wrote:blah blah blah game copies everyone else blah blah balh

Nothing is unique and everything has been done before. Every FPS game is just a copy of castle wolfenstein therefor they all suck.

By the way, following that reasoning, BFBC just copied its drone from Frontlines: Fuel of War.

It probably did, but I hate the idea of drones altogether. In BFBC they're too overpowered.

Actually, Wolfenstein never had vehicle combat and I also think it lacked multiplayer.

I don't find Homefront 'groundbreaking' in any aspect except for the fact that it does have 32 player multiplayer on the 360, which is new for them.

BTW, do they have female characters?

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.

halonachos wrote:

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.

If you're such a battlefield fanboy, why are you posting in a homefront thread? Go watch that boring BF3 preview video again.

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.