Homefront

An interesting background and some multiplayer goodness make Homefront a good buy if you love story-driven FPS and some online squad-based massacre. With some more polish, a tighter and slightly longer campaign and more content it could've been a great title.

Despite the single player does not last for long and there are some defects, such as lack of interactivity with the environments, Homefront is an interesting and well told experience, with a multiplayer that can compete with the other heavyweights of the genre.

If you've been looking forward to Homefront since last year's E3 like we have, you'll be glad to know that Kaos has delivered a truly fantastic shooter. And if you're the kind of gamer that values quality over quantity, then you'll definitely want to check it out.

Taken by itself, Homefront's campaign is just plain disappointing. A promising concept ultimately falls flat in the fast-paced, "I don't have time for reading" first-person shooter genre. Once you've accomplished all of the objectives in single-player, the game just "ends". Someone obviously wanted to leave room for a sequel. That person is saved by Homefront's well-designed multiplayer.

The singleplayer-campaign may have nice story ideas and its iconic moments, but with only three to four hours of playtime and its disappointing and confusing ending, Homefront is certainly not worth your money, if that's what you are mainly interested in. If you are into multiplayer, it's a completely different story though! Nice Maps and Modes, exciting battles and a motivating XP-system make Homefront a worthy diversion until the release of BF3.

I'll say it right now: if you're considering buying Homefront today, it needs to be for the multiplayer. The campaign should only serve as a small distraction that you might want to goof around in if you're bored and have already gotten your money's worth out of the multiplayer.

If you are looking for a good story and a different experience look no further. Homefront takes the horrors of war really close. Near the ending of the game it ends up resembling more of a Bruckheimer movie than a war classic, which is a shame. Excellent multi player is sure to entertain players tired of Call of Duty.

Homefront never quite captures the feel of guerilla warfare, but its multiplayer mode is a warzone worth fighting in.

By far one of the shortest campaign experiences that I have played in some time.

The only way for a campaign that short to be worth a damn is if it was the best three hours you've ever spent with a game in your life, and this is most definitely not that. It generally plays like your standard COD clone, only not as exciting or polished.

I have a hard time recommending the PC version of Homefront. It's a decent game with a unique take on world events, and its fresh and fun new ideas for two-mode, bot-less, online only multiplayer kept me coming back long after I'd waved adieu to the single-player portion, but the performance and playability on this platform is far eclipsed by the stability found on consoles.

The single player campaign is short and mostly disappointing, but it's the multiplayer that saves the day. [May 2011, p.81]

It features plenty of enemies, some pretty awesome locations, and a killer premise. Though the story falls flat about halfway through, and the game needs at least five more chapters to feel complete, you will have lots of fun in the short amount of time that you do have with the single player.

Overall I recommend Homefront with some caveats- the multiplayer could use some balancing (which they've announced with a new patch at the time of this review). The single player was disappointing in that it ended when it did- it was like showing up at a party and not even getting to kick off your shoes before it's over.

Great setting, but it's more or less another Call of Duty clone with some nice ideas. But everything feels like the game just had to be released, so a lot of potential hasn't been realised yet. Maybe that's something for the sequel.

Very short but intense firefight shows not a very cheerful vision of the near future for North America. Game story is excellent but playability loses because of over-scripting. [Issue#203]

I feel bad for Kaos Studios because I think the outcome of Homefront was influenced by possible combination of either a lack of time, budget or talent.

If you're going to buy Homefront, do so for the multiplayer. The campaign is six hours you'll never get back. [Apr 2011, p.52]

If you're contemplating Homefront as an inclusive package, forget it. Consider it to be a better-than-expected multiplayer distraction at best, and wait for E3 in June to see if we get an apology for the campaign and an explanation as to how the sequel will be better.

Homefront's engrossing vision of the future and gratifying competitive multiplayer outweigh its squandered potential and workaday game mechanics.

Homefront is certainly one of the most unique shooters I've ever played, driven by an ingenious and surprisingly well-fleshed out plot and a dark and dreary, realistic setting. But it also controls and feels like a typical shooter, looks like a game that's several years old, and most importantly, has an inexcusably brief campaign.

Incredibly rough around the edges, wasteful of unique opportunities, and light on content, we quite frankly question the longevity of this title. But you know what? There are worse games you could spend your money on.

With its interesting premise, evocative opening sequence, and clever variation on multiplayer, Homefront has a strong foundation. It's a shame that technical limitations and a derivative single-player campaign keep the game from realizing its potential.

Ultimately, Homefront's threadbare campaign is like a beautiful, sweeping piece of music being awkwardly recited by a child on a recorder.

An average shooter with typical gameplay and average graphics.

A damp squib, really. The single player is far too short and the multiplayer only occasionally rises above the average. [May 2011, p.90]

Homefront makes a big splash in the multiplayer field; leaves everything else out to dry.

Homefront is a solid, if uneven, experience that features an excellent multiplayer mode, with a very average single-player campaign attached.

Korea invades America, but nothing in this game will make you care. The actors are bad, the story is stupid and the graphics feels outdated, not to mention an only 4 hour long singleplayer campaign. The multiplayer is clever though and the sole reason to get this game.

It is extremely hard to recommend a game which seems half-baked, has a short single-player campaign and is ugly. Leaders of the genre can remain calm – Korea's invasion of USA isn't a big enough reason to sound an alarm. Who knows, perhaps an announced sequel will become such a reason? For now, I still count on the developers' hard work with patching up their latest product.

It's dreadfully average and far too quickly finished, providing nothing more than the most basic type of fun on the first run-through and little incentive to revisit. Not because it's broken; just because it's boring.

It's a shame the game engine isn't flashier, because it does put up a good fight, but without a sexy bullet point like Killzone's graphics, Bad Company's destructible buildings, or MAG's 256 players, it's going to be hard to draw new players in.

The problem with Homefront isn't just that it sucks, which it certainly does. The problem is that it reveals just how badly many first-person shooters are starting to suck. It's a game that magnifies the preexisting trend of developing to the lowest common denominator.

It is difficult to say anything good about Homefront. It's a half-baked idea crammed into a half-baked game, and while I'll freely admit that a quasi-realistic military-style first-person shooter with a heavy focus on the multiplayer mode is not exactly my cup of tea, I've played enough of them at this point that I feel confident in saying when one has gone horribly, horribly wrong.