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.

It was supposed to be China, but seeing as that is a big cash cow for the entertainment industry these days, they changed it.

 Melissia wrote:
Its premise isn't that ridiculous when you consider the alternate history premises that went in to it. What is ridiculous is the execution.

What do you mean the execution is ridiculous?

--

First thought I had was, people remember home-front, but that was just be being cynical. Homefront was actually kind of memorable. Mostly for bad things, but you know what they say about bad publicity and things. The concept they selling is neat. I don't think we have ever actually had a game were you play at a guerrilla fighter. At least not in gameplay style. We have had tons of games that call you a guerrilla fighter, but then you go in and shoot everyone. I don't think this new homefront will change that though. With what I have read, it sounds like they are doing a semi open world. A good idea and a fun one at that though.

Too much focus on shock value. Not enough story.

Quite so, trying way to hard to build up that hatred for the foreign invader.

Basically HW1's single player was built like an action movie. And that's why it failed-- it's not an action movie. It's an interactive first person shooter game, and it needs to take that in to account.

Homefront 1 was a off-the-mill popamole FPS with a story that had plotholes big enough to dump all the predictable shock moments in.

So excited for the successor! Except not.

 Melissia wrote:
Basically HW1's single player was built like an action movie. And that's why it failed-- it's not an action movie. It's an interactive first person shooter game, and it needs to take that in to account.

A sin committed by far to many games these days.

 Wyrmalla wrote:
Yeah, well I've read worse alt-history stories. I can agree that if they actually spent the time developing the world and writing a plot that was worth a damn then I would've probably not have just disregarded it as soon as the intro started spewling paranoid bullgak. That and well if the thing wasn't so generic (hell Spec Ops: The Line was generic for a reason, Homefront was actually trying to emulate CoD un-ironically). ...But really, the whole DPRK takes over the world plot is so detached from reality that I couldn't take the game seriously (for one the devs seem to believe you can take over a country just through weight of numbers, not youknow, things like having any fuel for your army. That and apparently the rest of the world just watched as South Korea and the rest of Asia was steamrolled. The Chinese seem oddly content with that idea, to the extent they become the DPRK's bitch ....somehow).

It's a shooter storyline. You don't actually expect anything remotely resembling reality to interfere, do you!?

The other day I played through the early portion of CoD: Ghosts on my brother's XBox One, and spent the entire space station sequence mocking the idea that someone could smuggle commandoes up to a military space station without anyone realizing that the people docking weren't friendly.

The multiplayer was good is really the nicest thing I can say. Better than CoD's really. But Ghost has better multiplayer now I think, especially with the increased customization. Still not as good as BL:R.

 Wyrmalla wrote:
. ...But really, the whole DPRK takes over the world plot is so detached from reality that I couldn't take the game seriously (for one the devs seem to believe you can take over a country just through weight of numbers, not youknow, things like having any fuel for your army. That and apparently the rest of the world just watched as South Korea and the rest of Asia was steamrolled. The Chinese seem oddly content with that idea, to the extent they become the DPRK's bitch ....somehow).

I agree with this post so much. My friend rented it once and me, him, and another friend sat around to just laugh at the stupidity behind it.

I LOVE the basic idea but the villians ruined the game for us to take the game beyond (this is idiotic)

A Chinese invasion of America could have been a fun game. I practically would have cried had it just been an alternate reality in which the Soviet Union never collapsed and invaded (World in Conflict is without a doubt my favorite RTS of all times), North Korea conquering not only South Korea but the entire Pacific AND the US? Whatever.

And this is coming from a guy who takes Wolfensteins New World Order plot and says "this is awesome"

I dont mind cutting slack in alternate history but some of these games just arnt picking good nations. Home front and CoD Ghost are 2 games I could never enjoy because I just dont buy the villains.

A Chinese invasion of America could have been a fun game

Do you want the Chinese to not buy the gam- oh wait that's right the Chinese pirated Homefront right up to #1 Pirated Game of the year I just remembered

 LordofHats wrote:

A Chinese invasion of America could have been a fun game

Do you want the Chinese to not buy the gam- oh wait that's right the Chinese pirated Homefront right up to #1 Pirated Game of the year I just remembered

That's pretty much exactly what the plot was before they did focus testing.