Homefront

 PC
User Score
5.6

Mixed or average reviews- based on 660 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 176 out of 660
  2. Mixed: 277 out of 660
  3. Negative: 207 out of 660
Buy Now
Buy on

Review this game

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
view
per page
  1. dkerpal
    Jun 29, 2011
    6
    Homefront is a decent game. I'm mostly a PC gamer when it comes to shooters, and I'm not all that hardcore. This review is only about the single player campaign because I really care little for modern FPS multiplayer games.
    Homefront feels like another COD clone, because nowadays everything is a "COD clone", as if COD was the first ever FPS. However the singleplayer campaign is much more    Homefront is a decent game. I'm mostly a PC gamer when it comes to shooters, and I'm not all that hardcore. This review is only about the single player campaign because I really care little for modern FPS multiplayer games.
    Homefront feels like another COD clone, because nowadays everything is a "COD clone", as if COD was the first ever FPS. However the singleplayer campaign is much more exciting and appealing than any crappy iteration of the aforementioned franchise. There are some awkward lines of dialogue, especially when the line is spoken out of cue. For instance, at one point the leader tells the girl to kill a guy, and she heads over to the person to be killed and halfway there she yells that she "didn't sign up for this **** This is followed by the leader telling her to grow a pair and the almost immediate execution of the guy. Mind you, this was in the middle of a "stealth" segment. Because apparently deranged American killers with trigger happy fingers don't see or hear you (or your squad) in broad daylight as you prance around their base and scream at each other. Then there's the matter that the leader himself is a weird obstinate guy that is not very likeable. Your squad also has a Korean tech geek that no one really likes. And then there's the chick, who has amazing hips. There was also a previous leader, but he was black and was therefore shot and hanged early on in the game. Oh, and there's this super awesome cannon on wheels thing that you can use to blow **** up by pointing at your target with a monocle.
    The gameplay itself is lots of fun, though. Guns feel amazing, and some of the scopes are super epic. There's not that much variety of weaponry in the game, mostly the same 6 or so guns with different attachments. I didn't find a way to decide what attachments I wanted and I feel that this was absolutely lame. Sure, you're a freedom fighter and have to use what you can grab, but what would stop me from taking a scope from X gun and putting it on X other one? Regardless, it's not that hard to find a nice suitable setup. Now, something that is really awkward is equipment usage. To swap between your two guns, you press 1. To throw a grenade you press G. Then I can't remember how the **** to throw C4, nor how to use a grenade launcher attachment, because it just wasn't intuitive.
    Enough about combat, what about pacing and missions? Missions are paced well. There are times when a tank will appear after obliterating a house next to you and you run away screaming like a little girl (I know I did) and then there's times when you're "sneaking" around. There's also lots of chest high walls, but there's no way to stick to them, which I like. Then there's also a segment where you fly a chopper and have to get your team to highjack some trucks. This part is very easy, slightly very unrealistic, but very fun nonetheless. It is worthy to note that this segment, which is, by the way, over way too soon, is the reason why these freedom fighters wanted you: you're a pilot. And you're really only useful those 5-10 minutes.
    Actually, that's an understatement, because as in many other shooters, your squad is a bunch of brain-dead morons. Upon occasion I would get shot from behind, only to turn around and see "nice hips" chick standing there staring at the guy.
    There's also an issue with the AI always wanting to kill YOU. For instance, an RPG dude on a tower: you haven't messed with him and for all intents and purposes he is blissfully ignorant of your existence; until you pop your head out of a window (a window on his blind side) and aim at him, then he figures out your location, intent, name, date of birth, sexual inclinations, how hot your sister is, etc., and lands a rocket straight down your throat. I guess some Koreans just have a bit of a David Copperfield thing going on.
    As far as rewards go, there are very little. Remember, you're struggling to fight some crazy asian people, seeing another day is your reward. Also, forget about saving Americans, because you pretty much doomed every single civilian you met.
    There is one really big problem I have with this game, and it's the fact that the ending was rushed and uninspired. Almost as if the devs thought: "hmmmm, I don't feel like writing more story, let's just have the leader kill-errrmm sacrifice himself and end it there."
    In conclusion, Homefront is a solid gameplay experience that will keep you on your toes. And, even though I find it to be better than COD, it just isn't too high a praise, it's just an alright game. In fact, I don't think I'll ever touch it again. So, if you'd like something tastier than COD, and happen to see Homefront on a Steam sale, by all means go ahead and grab it.    … Expand
  2. Marick
    Jul 10, 2015
    6
    Unfortunately the game seems to be a copy of more games. Homefront series looks very much like Medal of Honor and Call of Duty. Not a problem this but outdated mechanics that the game has is lacking.
  3. HasJPiefkeNL
    Jun 25, 2011
    6
    i dont know why ppl give this game a bad score i finished it in 3 hours ok but the gameplay was very entertaining + the battles where on a much better scale then COD more action and harder gameplay COD is much easier this is a real teamplay based war game much more realism then other war games if u like rough gameplay buy this game it wil entertain u till the end.

    my conclusion : shorts    i dont know why ppl give this game a bad score i finished it in 3 hours ok but the gameplay was very entertaining + the battles where on a much better scale then COD more action and harder gameplay COD is much easier this is a real teamplay based war game much more realism then other war games if u like rough gameplay buy this game it wil entertain u till the end.

    my conclusion : shorts gameplay but much fun / without tactics u wil not survive+ i got COD4 and the gameplay was much to easy - my opinion. HF - less missions but way more harder gameplay - so more realism
    4 the ones wo make wanna give it a try have fun and good luck :D    … Expand
  4. nitai007
    Jul 15, 2013
    5
    homefront is a really dissapointing game. its worst problem is its length. i finished it in 3:15 hours
    ( seriously i finished it really fast and this is the actual time it took me). its shortness also makes the characters forgetable, and i didnt care for them. the storys concept is cool, and the game started good but from there it slowed a bit, and changed focus.. the story overall was    homefront is a really dissapointing game. its worst problem is its length. i finished it in 3:15 hours
    ( seriously i finished it really fast and this is the actual time it took me). its shortness also makes the characters forgetable, and i didnt care for them. the storys concept is cool, and the game started good but from there it slowed a bit, and changed focus.. the story overall was mediocore, which is really dissapointing because it has so much potential. the graphics are old and inconsistent. some of the graphics are good while some are old. your friendly npcs are annoying and they shout on you all the time and repeat everything. even when you do what they told you they still tell you to do it. the shooting mechanics in the game are overall good, though i seen better. also some guns barely have recoil. the gun sound is pretty good. the last mission is really good.
    overall a HUGE dissapointment. its really short and not worth your money.    … Expand
  5. whitespider999
    Mar 23, 2011
    5
    If you thought that homefront was going to be a deep, narrative filled, political drama with touches of bioshock styled storytelling influence and mind blowing graphics that did something interesting with it's narrative and structure. Then that picture in your mind is of more value than the actual game. The graphics are quite nice, although somehow disjointing. The sound is messy andIf you thought that homefront was going to be a deep, narrative filled, political drama with touches of bioshock styled storytelling influence and mind blowing graphics that did something interesting with it's narrative and structure. Then that picture in your mind is of more value than the actual game. The graphics are quite nice, although somehow disjointing. The sound is messy and taxing on the ears. The controls are finkey, lax, and don't feel that great, and the engine is unoptimized. Something I have rarely seen on ue3. There is a big idea and political undertones in the game, but it's about 15 minutes worth of content. You get about 10 minutes of well made scripted content. The rest is just action pop-out-and-shoot gameplay, with a few variety sections. One slightly good thing is that some of the areas are a little more open than the cod series, but not open enough to take note as a bold move. The multiplayer is mostly pretty good. I will rank this on a "us dollar scale" although I live in Australia. And I hope you found this helpful. ((How much would I pay for homefront = $10, go for a steam sale, and only if you are a ---strait---line---fps fan)… Expand
  6. AnnoyingPourage
    Mar 16, 2011
    5
    Simply put: Cool story, plays like every other FPS on the market, single-player not very long, multiplayer is take-it-or-leave-it, extremely demanding (graphically) especially if you're used to playing on 1080p, quad-core, with fairly high settings. Not worth $50.
  7. talonius
    Mar 18, 2011
    5
    I looked forward to this game for quite some time; I don't play multi-player but the single player looked incredible, well written and captivating. Unfortunately that single player campaign was only 4 hours long - and that's with my collecting 43 of the 61 collectibles. It lived up to what I thought it could and would be - but why so short? There are so many more opportunities for talesI looked forward to this game for quite some time; I don't play multi-player but the single player looked incredible, well written and captivating. Unfortunately that single player campaign was only 4 hours long - and that's with my collecting 43 of the 61 collectibles. It lived up to what I thought it could and would be - but why so short? There are so many more opportunities for tales to tell!

    I did try to jump into multi-player and, as usual (this is why I don't play mind you) I found myself dying before I could even get my bearings. It did seem like the game favored the winning team - once you lost the first map the winning team had more points to buy vehicles which they then used to roll over you. And if I survived the air strikes and tanks I usually ended up being sniped. *shrug* Not my thing, for sure.

    It's another game using multi-player as an excuse to skimp on single player content. Which is too bad because what little single player content was there was really interesting.    … Expand
  8. jergason
    Mar 17, 2011
    6
    The single player has an interesting story, but terrible execution. It isn't bad that it is so short. The graphics are not great, and the single player is full of frustrating invisible walls and "Ramirez! Shoot those guys!" moments.

    The multiplayer is okay, but not enough to pull me away from Bad Company 2. Weapons are very powerful, with 2-3 shots enough to kill with a rifle. The sniper    The single player has an interesting story, but terrible execution. It isn't bad that it is so short. The graphics are not great, and the single player is full of frustrating invisible walls and "Ramirez! Shoot those guys!" moments.

    The multiplayer is okay, but not enough to pull me away from Bad Company 2. Weapons are very powerful, with 2-3 shots enough to kill with a rifle. The sniper rifle is a semi-automatic lazer beam, so you'll get sniped ALL THE TIME. Battle points are an interesting idea, but I wish there was more incentive to play as a team. Right now it encourages Rambo-style play, and though there is a squad feature, it seems to be of absolutely no use in the game. The Battle commander is actually very well done, where killstreaks mean more people are gunning for you to get extra points and experience. Mediocre at full price, but the multiplayer is interesting enough if you can pick it up on sale    … Expand
  9. Sun_drop
    Jul 12, 2011
    6
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I was really excited about this game when I first heard of it. The story is completely different than that of Call of Duty or Medal of Honor and it was believable (though improbable). I immediately got sucked into the story and connected with the characters and what they were trying to do. I ran through the suburb blasting badguys and trying to escape through the wall. The most awe inspiring part of the game was when we discovered the mass grave, and then had to hide in it. It was shocking. When we finally made it to San Francisco we helped our military take back the Golden Gate bridge and I watched my friend make the ultimate sacrifice so that we could succeed. And then... the game ended. The credits rolled and I was left with a look on my face that I've only had once before; at the ending of Borderlands. I don't play multiplayer fps games, so this game had to stand on singleplayer alone. This game was sprinting for a 10 but tripped and fell flat on its face at a 6.… Expand
  10. wadaltmon
    Sep 11, 2014
    7
    I think the dislike of this game is a matter of perspective. Those who paid a full 60 dollars for this game didn't really get what they paid for, let's be honest. However, after picking it up new at a little shop out of town for only 6 dollars, I can tell you it was worth every penny.

    The single player campaign may be short, but it has a fun storyline and is one of the cooler concepts    I think the dislike of this game is a matter of perspective. Those who paid a full 60 dollars for this game didn't really get what they paid for, let's be honest. However, after picking it up new at a little shop out of town for only 6 dollars, I can tell you it was worth every penny.

    The single player campaign may be short, but it has a fun storyline and is one of the cooler concepts or a guerilla war where you're basically the badass who's the first step in igniting a full on assault against the Korean invaders. The Guerilla difficulty is incredibly difficult, and challenges me to this day. I've played the campaign around ten times because it's a ton of fun for me, especially feeling like the weapons are super powerful.

    The multi-player is fairly good, but it is limited to only two modes with very little information on how to use the various battle points you acquire, and it also lags a lot even with a good connection. But when it works, it's great fun, with some large maps to boot.    … Expand
  11. stealthops77
    Mar 15, 2011
    7
    The concept behind the game is really good and the execution was nearly perfect. The feel that your fighting for the freedom of America is there. The only problem i had with the game was that the single player campaign was ridiculously short. I finished the campaign on normal in 2 hours to put it in perspective. I haven't gotten around to playing multi-player yet so my review is kind ofThe concept behind the game is really good and the execution was nearly perfect. The feel that your fighting for the freedom of America is there. The only problem i had with the game was that the single player campaign was ridiculously short. I finished the campaign on normal in 2 hours to put it in perspective. I haven't gotten around to playing multi-player yet so my review is kind of skewed. There better be a squeal to the campaign or a lot of DLC. Though the graphics aren't the best you can find today, the story behind it all really puts this game above most other FPS.… Expand
  12. Bags159
    Mar 15, 2011
    7
    Got it off steam, no complaints there.

    Graphics/Performance: Let me begin by saying that I feel that the graphical scaling on this game is a bit off. I don't have the best computer, but I can run Crysis Warhead on medium/high settings at my native resolution of 1900 x 1080 with 30 - 40 fps, but in Homefront anything but 800 x 600 and bare minimum settings was horribly choppy and    Got it off steam, no complaints there.

    Graphics/Performance: Let me begin by saying that I feel that the graphical scaling on this game is a bit off. I don't have the best computer, but I can run Crysis Warhead on medium/high settings at my native resolution of 1900 x 1080 with 30 - 40 fps, but in Homefront anything but 800 x 600 and bare minimum settings was horribly choppy and unplayable. With the worst settings I got 60 fps most of the time, but had a few large drops. TLDR: Worse graphics than Crysis with worse performance.

    Single player: Story started out boring but was strangely reminiscent of Half Life 2. Playing through on normal only took four hours. I'm sure it will take longer on harder difficulties, but it's still a very short single player. When the game ended I was like, "whoo let's do this!! Oh, that was the last mission? Okay..." Just when things were really picking up emotionally and gameplay wise the game just ends. They obviously did this so they can make a sequel, but I felt that single player could have benefited from another segment or two. The story was decent but nothing amazing. Newspaper articles laying on the ground and radio transmissions between missions were a nice touch, though. It was nice to not be in the middle east or Eurasia. They made the story believable.
    TLDR: Decent story, reminiscent of Half-Life 2, but too short.

    Gameplay: Almost the exact same as Modern Warfare; everything from the feel of weapons, HUD, melee animations, and cross-hairs. The only difference is vehicles are a lot more prevalent than in COD which I feel is a plus.
    TLDR: Modern Warfare with vehicles.

    Multiplayer: I haven't touched it and don't really plan to. I'm not terribly into COD style shooters' multiplayers, although player controlled vehicles could mix things up.


    Overall: If you like Call of Duty you should like this game. If you don't like Call of Duty very much, wait until it's on sale. If it was long I would have given it a better score.    … Expand
  13. Astrum
    Mar 15, 2011
    5
    I've been excited about this game for quite a while, I found the premise to be interesting and the game play looked like a decent cross between the Call of Duty franchise and the Battlefield franchise. Unfortunately what I got was a mediocre game at absolute best.

    The single player puts you in the roles of an American citizen during the Korean occupation of America. The opening scene was    I've been excited about this game for quite a while, I found the premise to be interesting and the game play looked like a decent cross between the Call of Duty franchise and the Battlefield franchise. Unfortunately what I got was a mediocre game at absolute best.

    The single player puts you in the roles of an American citizen during the Korean occupation of America. The opening scene was actually fairly well done. However, everything after that was nothing more than random gun battles with no real storyline. You meet characters and they die before you even get a chance to start to bond with them. There was no emotional attachment to the story whatsoever. Everything they did has been done before in books, films, and even video games but Homefront lacks all sense of pacing and storytelling making these elements pointless. If there is a silver lining to the storyline it's that it's painfully short. I completed it in just over three and a half hours. There's honestly not much else I can say about this because it was so short.

    The multiplayer is rough around the edges to put it lightly. Again they borrowed a lot of unnecessary things from other games even though there was no compelling reason to do so. I had hoped that this was a good cross between the face paced action of Call of Duty and the slower, vehicular team based combat of Battlefield. Well it is to an extent. This game leans more heavily towards the Call of Duty style of FPS games. It even has a similar oblivious spawning system and poor map design which will get you spawn killed time after time.

    Most of the maps are quite open which is actually a problem. Most people will opt to use the sniper class killing people on the other side of the map as they spawn. I'm not sure whether or not this was ever play tested, and I'm leaning towards no, but some of the mechanics make absolutely no sense. For instance the AQ-11 Buzzard is a drone which fires two rockets before having to reload. Inexplicably if you directly hit a person with both of these they will not die. Further their blast radius is somewhere in the range of 10cm. However, a person will usually die in one hit from a sniper rifle making the AQ-11 Buzzard seem like a terrible thing to buy. Similarly the Humvee can take a direct hit from an RPG without being destroyed. In fact if a Humvee takes a hit from an RPG the driver will likely switch to the gunner position and kill you before you even have a chance to fire a second rocket. So apparently bullets are better than explosives in this game.

    Balancing in multiplayer seems to be non-existent as alluded before. However, what's even worse than the atrocious balancing are the bugs. I've come onto the battlefield with a helicopter only to be permanently marked out of bounds and destroyed. I've even accidentally clipped the out of bounds area and returned only to find that I was still somehow out of bounds when clearly I was not. Server disconnects are also quite frequently, and of course whatever XP you've earned is lost when this happens. One more point of contention is the sheer size of the hit boxes for objects in the world. I know hit boxes can't be exact, but there are plenty of instances where it's amazing just how large the hit boxes are relative to the actual object, generally with trees, rocks, and vehicles. Prepare for an invisible hit box to take the bullet rather than your opponent many times.

    Their much touted Ground Control game type is a cross between the Rush, Domination/Conquest/Sector Control, and push-pull. I was hoping this would lead to large, epic battles. Unfortunately it's incredibly limited. Whereas in Bad Company 2 you have multiple stages within each Rush map, in Homefront you have two stages. Coupled with the bugs and balancing issues this makes the game type fairly uninteresting. The only other real game type is team deathmatch, which is just what you'd expect. There are a total of six maps, so prepare to get bored quickly.

    In summary I think this game could have been much better. I won't say this game is horrible since it's at least playable, but I won't say it's good either. It's wholly mediocre. If you're only interesting in the single player then I suggest renting it. If you're more interested in the multiplayer then I'd advise you wait until there's been a good deal of post launch support, or until it's in the bargain bin. Whichever comes first. Kaos Studios should have spent more time working on the game than promoting it.    … Expand
  14. Chrono
    Nov 24, 2011
    6
    This game has so much potential, it was a COD Killer the hype building up was massive and i was deterred by the Graphics the campaign looked long like a movie, but then the game came out boom washed down the water you've got possibly one of the shortest campaigns in FPS it just ends abruptly and multiplayer is balanced it's great, big maps but the thing that lacked was variety that was theThis game has so much potential, it was a COD Killer the hype building up was massive and i was deterred by the Graphics the campaign looked long like a movie, but then the game came out boom washed down the water you've got possibly one of the shortest campaigns in FPS it just ends abruptly and multiplayer is balanced it's great, big maps but the thing that lacked was variety that was the downside, Homefront 2 here we come.… Expand
  15. wardad71
    Mar 16, 2011
    6
    I'll keep this short since many others have voiced similar thoughts about this game. So far it has been a real let down for me. A buddy of mine says the gameplay feels quote "it feels like some clunky, free-to-play, and pay-to-perform Korean FPS." - Irony (?) I won't compare it to BC2 or COD because I didn't want to be unfair. At this point all I can say is I'm glad I didn't pick up anI'll keep this short since many others have voiced similar thoughts about this game. So far it has been a real let down for me. A buddy of mine says the gameplay feels quote "it feels like some clunky, free-to-play, and pay-to-perform Korean FPS." - Irony (?) I won't compare it to BC2 or COD because I didn't want to be unfair. At this point all I can say is I'm glad I didn't pick up an additional copy for my son(s) to play...I always get extra copies as I am a gaming dad, but not going to waste my money on this one. Final thoughts are...I really hope they can polish/tweak things a little better or they won't be seeing any more cashflow from this particular gaming consumer. Please, Homefront devs...read these reviews and fix things. Better still...maybe play some BC2 and COD games and get a feel for what works in them and maybe repeat it...yeah you might not want to copy them but they did something RIGHT that us gamers keep going back to.… Expand
  16. Danda
    Mar 23, 2011
    7
    Honefront, it has an excellent idea and something fresh from the other FPS titles out there. It was anticipated and people wanted it. This offered so much and really has some great ideas, but it was executed poorly in some areas. Let us discuss the Single Player first: It has a great story idea and something that not many games have: The reality of what war REALLY looks like. Its brutal,Honefront, it has an excellent idea and something fresh from the other FPS titles out there. It was anticipated and people wanted it. This offered so much and really has some great ideas, but it was executed poorly in some areas. Let us discuss the Single Player first: It has a great story idea and something that not many games have: The reality of what war REALLY looks like. Its brutal, dark, and heartbreaking and it just states facts. Some titles like the recent 'Call of Duty' shows war like if it was a action packed movie where the good guy always wins. While the story was good and the idea was excellent, it was excited poorly. This game is very VERY scripted. You cant do anything unless the game tells lets you, so it limits the player very much on what they want to do. The game is basically fool proof, which is boring. They do show the brutality of war in this game, but the game shoves it in your face. They show it like "LOOK AT THIS, LOOK HOW BAD WAR IS, LOOK AT THOSE CIVILIANS DYING" which you do want to feel bad, but you cant cause you really cant take it seriously. There are parts where the game makes you gasp, but very few scenes do that. The guns are limited. The game does not give you a whole not of choices which disappoints me, I like variety and so do many other players. The Recoil in the guns is limited, which takes off the realism in the game. The Single Player promised alot, but didnt excite it properly. The NPCs are almost useless, but The story is also very VERY VERY short, expect it to finish it in about 4-6 hours, depends on what difficulty. Now the Multiplayer is where the game shows itself fully. The multiplayer is alot of fun and has a combination of Battlefield games and CoD4. It has something for everyone who enjoys killing players or vehicles. The implementation of BP (Battle Points) was a unite idea, rewarding players who capture points, killing high value targets, destroying tanks, and just killing players. With those Battle Points, you can purchase tanks, helicopters, drones, or other perks that can benefit the player on the battlefield. Parks are in this game, but the perks you get are worth Points. Every player starts with 4 points and are offered a number of perks that are worth different number of points. For example, The Quick reload only costs one point, and the "From the Hip" perk costs 3 points, after that you cannot select anymore perks for that loadout. Progressively, you will get more points for each loadout the player has later in levels. The Gametypes are "Ground Control" which is like Bad Company 2's Rush and Conquest combined together. Theres also Team Deathmatch and in TDM and GC there is another gametype that is allowed in same games: Battle Commander. BC is basically a lone wolf type of gameplay. Should you go out and go on a killing spree, you are awarded BC. You gain perks the more you kill, but then sends a signal to the opposing team that you are a threat and must be eliminated. The more players you kill, the more are notified and the higher your rank becomes. If a player kills the BC, then he is awarded BP, depending how many stars the BC had. The only complaint I have for the multiplayer, is the recoil on guns and snipers, which is not a problem, but again sniper rifles DO NOT have recoil so they can recover much faster. The multiplayer is alot of fun and is definately worth it.

    In Summary: The SP story is good, but was executed poorly. The Multiplayer is alot of fun and will keep you playing for hours. This is a definite buy for the Multiplayer and a bit for the SP.    … Expand
  17. Jmans
    Jul 6, 2011
    5
    It may be a turd sandwich, but at least it's not a soggy one.

    Homefront has the exact same issues that ruin every good recently released fps game. So linear that it hurts, scripts are obvious and ridiculous, the characters are cliched. Hell, you can't even lean or interact with cover, which makes not dying something akin to making yourself a "shoot-an-insurgent" carnival game. I played    It may be a turd sandwich, but at least it's not a soggy one.

    Homefront has the exact same issues that ruin every good recently released fps game. So linear that it hurts, scripts are obvious and ridiculous, the characters are cliched. Hell, you can't even lean or interact with cover, which makes not dying something akin to making yourself a "shoot-an-insurgent" carnival game.

    I played the entire game through on guerilla difficulty and that's when the best and worst aspects of the game both really come out. The gameplay was fast and furious and more realistic than any other fps I've played to date, but the limitations hurt even more too. Creative solutions are a no-no here, since the literally endless supply of enemies and horribly cramped level boundaries mean you've gotta play it their way, plus with no real control over your weaponry, mods, or knowing anything about how good one is versus the other, you've got a looooot of trial and error ahead of you.    … Expand
  18. TheDemonFrog666
    Mar 15, 2011
    5
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. At first, I was really excited about this game. It appeared to have an amazing plotline, and interesting multiplayer. The idea of "war isn't fun or pretty" was what really hooked me on it. I downloaded it from Steam and at once had an issue: no sound. I eventually found a fix that required editing a game .ini file. Games should not be released with these types of bugs... Anyways, after fixing the sound, I started the campaign. It looked interesting at first. At the beginning, a kid watches his parents die by firing squad right in front of his eyes. I thought the game was going to be filled with these gut-wrenching, emotional moments... I was wrong. The game is almost an exact clone of Call Of Duty. The game is constant action with things exploding all around you and countless numbers of enemies coming at you from all directions. The so-called "emotional" aspect is either totally screwed up at times, or non-existent at others. The only reason I give this game a 5 is because of the multiplayer. I'd give it a six if the multiplayer wasn't EXACTLY like CoD. A note to developers out there: STOP MAKING CALL OF DUTY GAMES AND CALL OF DUTY CLONES. After you make the exact same game SEVEN times it's not fun anymore, I promise.… Expand
  19. RefusedAMA
    Mar 18, 2011
    7
    Generaly, a very good game. I was really wanting this game to replace BF, my usual FPS choice. But it wont, maybe when HF2 comes, but not this time. Instead it will be a filler till BF3, and a good one at that. I loaded up on the second day of release, got a BIG patch DL, so not to many bugs when I played MP. Every now and then I get the "stuck drone" bug when on sharp edges. ThatsGeneraly, a very good game. I was really wanting this game to replace BF, my usual FPS choice. But it wont, maybe when HF2 comes, but not this time. Instead it will be a filler till BF3, and a good one at that. I loaded up on the second day of release, got a BIG patch DL, so not to many bugs when I played MP. Every now and then I get the "stuck drone" bug when on sharp edges. Thats it. However, cheaters are pretty rampent, hopefully VAC will catch them soon. SP, short and heavily scripted. Kaos promised a good mix of RPG in it, nope. A lot of "follow the leader". Still the story is good and enlightening. Very well told. MP - Not my cup of tea. Very CoDish. Its challenging, and therefore Im still entertained, when not frustrated by the ease of my death. 1-2 bullet hits and your gone. Plus the maps are a campers paradise. But they are very detailed and elaborate. They also make good use of all levels of elevation. Plenty of things to climb. Too bad there isnt any bullet drop. The "unique" features that Kaos talked about, Battlepoints and Battle Commander, very well planned and implemented, making the game interesting and more fun. Also the in game chat box is obscure, so chat flammers are barely noticed. Squads formation is available, but its an aferthought. There is no squad spawning, everyone just spawns randomly around the map.

    Graphics - Just a little better then PS2 lvl. I was hoping for better w/ PC copy since it was codeveloped instead of a full console port. Nope. Still very dated. Too bad, b/c this game has a lot going for it. Its not bad, it just doesent make the bar, thats all.

    Sound - This pertains mostly to PC users. Sound is as basic as it gets. Like a lot of new titles, your soundboard is barely utilized. Also, no multi channel speakers used, just basic stereo. No EAX, 3D sound positioning or anything, same with headphones. VOiP - doesent work.    … Expand
  20. maverickuw
    Mar 17, 2011
    7
    Bought off steam. Good game but the campaign was over in 4 hours, and since for a shooter that is competing in the same narrative as CoD and MoH, even if they don't want that comparison, it's painfully short.

    I note that I'm not normally a FPS player, but overall the story was great, very crisp, but again, too short. Hopefully the campaign will be extended via cheap DLC since right now    Bought off steam. Good game but the campaign was over in 4 hours, and since for a shooter that is competing in the same narrative as CoD and MoH, even if they don't want that comparison, it's painfully short.

    I note that I'm not normally a FPS player, but overall the story was great, very crisp, but again, too short. Hopefully the campaign will be extended via cheap DLC since right now it seems that we're missing half a game. Haven't tried multiplayer yet, but I will later.

    Pros: Great story, if you pre-ordered on Steam you get another game to play when you're done with this one.
    Cons: Too short, price is high for a 4 hour game.    … Expand
  21. tyler89
    Mar 15, 2011
    6
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Honestly, I wanted to like Homefront, I truly did. When I saw that this was a game about what would happen to America, if we were occupied, it caught my imagination immediately. Unfortunately, the game itself failed to live up to its expected expectation. First, the character dialogue is pretty crappy, and the characters themselves are not really believable. You have Rianna, who for some reason is caring a gun and is in the resistance in a major war, but yet complains every other minute about what were "doing." (Killing Americans, fighting soldiers, etc) Well, then there is Connor, the complete opposite of Rihanna. He's the type of guy who is all about the bloodshed of the enemy, he's a true patriot in the sense that he's a complete psycho and truly unbelievable. His viewpoint is that no matter the cost or sacrifice, the end justifies the means. Next, we have the tech. guy, who is unmemorable, as he barely talks the entire game and Connor treats him like his personal punching bag. All three characters are way too polar-opposite in their own personalities, that makes the Spartans in Halo: Fall of Reach, seem more "realistic."

    Next, I absolutely hated the fact that the U.S. army was maimed, killed, and for all intents and purpose, raped by the N.K. army. U.S. helicopters blown out of the sky, soldiers blown to hell, and the sense that the U.S. army was ran by some inexperienced general made for a lower opinion of this game. To me, it seemed like the only way the the U.S. army won back San Fransico was by Jacob's hand alone. Jacob, a helicopter pilot by nature, somehow manages to always be put on the spot to act like James Bond. Taking on many soldiers by himself, destroying key targets, and being that silent figure of "mystery." I truly wanted to like this game, and I bought it way in advance because the game was so hyped, and the story just seemed so intriguing. I beat the game in four and a half hours flat, and I truly feel like it was not worth the money nor time. I didn't learn anything new about America's struggle against the N.K. empire. Before you cry "what??," it was simply do to the fact that I already knew America was fighting N.K., I knew that Americans were divided, and I knew that the N.K. army was brutal to the civilian population. What I wanted to learn more about was what the world was thinking, what else was happening outside of just the four man mismatched squad of saviors. In the end, when Homefront 2 comes out, I will wait until after its release for the reviews on it before making a call as to rather or not to buy it. I don't think this game was half-***ed, but I do think that the creators totally f*cked it up.    … Expand
  22. Gamingking007
    Mar 31, 2011
    6
    The story and plot is brilliant and very realistic, graphics good but nothing exceptional! The thing that destroyed the game was the short single player campaign! How can all the great companies pack in a great single campaign and a very long one!was so hyped for this game but was let down!
  23. crymouth
    Apr 17, 2011
    7
    Let me start by saying that this game is not as terrible as some reviews are making it out to be, it has a lot wrong with it but it is definitely worth the 4 to 5 hours of SP game time alone. IMO it is a better SP game than Black OPS was by a margin.
    Sadly it is let down by some stupid mistakes, the main one being invisible walls - I mean if you do not want me to walk there at least add a    Let me start by saying that this game is not as terrible as some reviews are making it out to be, it has a lot wrong with it but it is definitely worth the 4 to 5 hours of SP game time alone. IMO it is a better SP game than Black OPS was by a margin.
    Sadly it is let down by some stupid mistakes, the main one being invisible walls - I mean if you do not want me to walk there at least add a fence or something, a small tin can is not going to justify me not being able to cross it. It is riddled with this. There was one or two places where I witnessed some dodgy AI but this is thankfully kept to a minimum and at times the voice acting is very forced where the story makers want to know that person is this type of person in as quick a space as possible. The story is told well, not by the game play itself but cleverly depicted through the scenery and newspaper articles you collect throughout the campaign. There are some seriously disturbing moments and scenes which really give the player a real sense of oppression and sadness (well at least I felt it) - sadly there is very little humor added in except for a certain section where some uncomfortable comments are made to me about a pet of sorts....but that was really the only moment throughout - perhaps due to the context of the story it is not required though. All be told at the end I felt a real sense of satisfaction and I will be giving it one more play through on the hardest setting to try and collect all of the newspaper clips.

    Onto the multiplayer - the game play is brilliantly smooth and satisfying, the streaks are interesting and not overpowered IMO although I typically only use the personal UAV and Flack Jacket. Note that you need to purchase these by using battle points which you earn by kills, headshots = more points - you effectively choose you loadout which includes the perks. The maps are massive and well designed providing a nice balance for all classes, the downside is it does promote a lot of camping - attempt to run and gun ala COD and you will die a quick death, it is less tactical than a battlefield game however I suspect that this is due to the very limited game types - effectively Team Death Match and Ground Control (which is like Domination (COD)/ Sector Control (MOH) / Conquest (BFBC2)), and that is it - nothing more. I am very disappointed that they did not copy and improve game modes from other titles namely the ever favorite RUSH from BFBC2 and the simply awesome Combat Mission from MOH - this would really have rounded this game off and added to the re-playability. Sadly after a couple of hours of playing it gets boring pretty quickly (at least for me).

    All in all - get it for the SP, it is worth it and try out the MP but I suspect (and based on the number of active players) that it wil merely be a distraction from other online titles.    … Expand
  24. warpuke
    Mar 17, 2011
    5
    Dislike: Squads are largely pointless as it randomizes each time and often puts you on the opposite team as your friends. Furthermore you can't spawn on your squadmates. I also dislike that in the server browser the friend list doesn't work. If you're a lonewolf person and enjoy the fast pace of black-ops it might be for you, but for me it was annoying watching guys jump then prone,Dislike: Squads are largely pointless as it randomizes each time and often puts you on the opposite team as your friends. Furthermore you can't spawn on your squadmates. I also dislike that in the server browser the friend list doesn't work. If you're a lonewolf person and enjoy the fast pace of black-ops it might be for you, but for me it was annoying watching guys jump then prone, jump then prone - all the while killing me. I don't suck at FPS but damn, just annoying.

    Severe imbalances with helicopters but what else is new.
    Like: Campaign, although short was really good.    … Expand
  25. KentKarma
    Mar 19, 2011
    5
    A lot of criticism on this game that I hear is that it plays too much like other shooters and really didn't do anything special graphically.
    Honestly, this is pretty much the truth. Story wise, however, it starts out really good and I thought they did a really good job setting up the plot of the game well. It didn't seem too far fetched and used realistic footage with some context changes    A lot of criticism on this game that I hear is that it plays too much like other shooters and really didn't do anything special graphically.
    Honestly, this is pretty much the truth. Story wise, however, it starts out really good and I thought they did a really good job setting up the plot of the game well. It didn't seem too far fetched and used realistic footage with some context changes to make it seem like it was really happening in the opening video. The problem with the story, however, is it feels like they advertised a game in a way that made it seem like you'd be playing as some sort of everyday man fighting with normal people.
    Unfortunately, you're playing as ex-military pilot (I assume so it makes sense when you use military weapondry/vehicles and know what you're doing) and you're fighting along resistance members who can take out several soldiers on their own.
    Seriously, I know I'm not alone when I say its too unbelievable that the Koreans would have gotten that far in the occupation if we had the super soldiers just waiting to create some sort of resistance. Its really distracting to the entire game.

    In the end, its not a bad game. It really doesn't look bad, in fact they did a great job integrating brand names and small details to make the world believable. The problem is, the game plays like it was made in 2005. I don't really know why it required PHYSX installed when the only thing I saw using physics where cars and bodies. I think thats why the game seems so dated. In most games today, shooting an enemy who is behind a thin piece of wood will damage them, however not here. Bumping into empty barrels usually tips them over, but not here.
    Its sadly a disappointment when the effects look so great. There are parts where they do things so well you forget about all the other problems but in the end they just resurface. The animations were actually believable and I can't understand why I'm reading reviews that say they were terrible, considering some games don't bother much with detailed facial expressions or even making sure the characters have any emotion.

    Play it, its not a bad game, but you'll have to enjoy the story to enjoy playing it.    … Expand
  26. AlcoJaguar
    Apr 12, 2011
    5
    Really DICE made a better online modern combat game a year ago with Bad Company 2 which you can pick up for $30 cheaper than Homefront. On the singleplayer side the campaign is skippable (very short, played through it in about 3-4 hours one afternoon). It's not bad but nothing in Homefront stood out. After playing it with a group of friends we decided the game only made us want to play BadReally DICE made a better online modern combat game a year ago with Bad Company 2 which you can pick up for $30 cheaper than Homefront. On the singleplayer side the campaign is skippable (very short, played through it in about 3-4 hours one afternoon). It's not bad but nothing in Homefront stood out. After playing it with a group of friends we decided the game only made us want to play Bad Company 2 again (and that's exactly what we did, leaving behind Homefront). If it's in a Steam sale for $10-$20 I'd recommend picking it up if only to waste some time, but it's certainly not worth $50.… Expand
  27. Raggz
    Mar 20, 2011
    7
    A classic FPS game with multiplayer elements ripped from other games like COD MW and FOW. Singleplayer is nice enough though short. I really miss a cover system or lean.
    This game is all about multiplayer which i find quite good and fun. Big maps with lot's of action that includes drones, choppers and vehicles. All in all a good game from Kaos studios. Well done chaps!
  28. chr1z
    Mar 20, 2011
    6
    This Game was fun (awsome graphics, lots of action...), but WAY too short. It took me only ONE (!) sunday afternoon to get through the SP mode, which was very disappoiting. (I buy those games mainly for the SP.) Even the 2010 Medal of Honor had a longer play time.
  29. toolintention
    Mar 22, 2011
    5
    I gave it a 5 because this game honestly had potential. The only cool parts were the very beginning and the last level where you assist the US Military! The multiplayer is horrible, its like a rougher version of COD with vehicles... and we all know you dont give COD fan boys vehicles, they have no idea what to do with them! The area where this game gets the most credit and apparently theI gave it a 5 because this game honestly had potential. The only cool parts were the very beginning and the last level where you assist the US Military! The multiplayer is horrible, its like a rougher version of COD with vehicles... and we all know you dont give COD fan boys vehicles, they have no idea what to do with them! The area where this game gets the most credit and apparently the majority of the funding, is the back story... aided by the writer(s) of Red Dawn and several military analysts the story seems somewhat believable assuming certain key events happen over the next 15 years in accordance with the game.... not likely though! Overall the game falls short on delivering what could have been a fresh start for the THQ and Kaos teams... instead we see a somewhat-polished version of fuel of war with a better story, and much better voice acting. Pick it up if you have to, otherwise watch your friend play and follow along... it'll be just as satisfying and it'll save you $50 bucks!… Expand
  30. fryzee
    Mar 29, 2011
    5
    Not only was the single player short (took me 3-4 hours), it's buggy, the AI are annoying, always run in front of you and knock you out of the way so they can climb ladders first etc. And the multiplayer barely works. 1 in 50 games actually connect properly, others lag out and have players continuously running forwards. Overall it's not the game it should have been. Very disappointed.
prev
Page:

Awards & Rankings

27
#27 Most Discussed PC Game of 2011
40
#40 Most Shared PC Game of 2011

Critic Reviews

All reviews »
Metascore
70

Mixed or average reviews - based on 36 Critic Reviews

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 13 out of 36
  2. Mixed: 20 out of 36
  3. Negative: 3 out of 36
  1. Worth Playing
    Mar 12, 2012
    75
    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.
    Read full review
  2. LEVEL (Czech Republic)
    May 22, 2011
    70
    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]
  3. Bit-Gamer
    May 18, 2011
    50
    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.
    Read full review
See all critic reviews »