Homefront

 Xbox 360
User Score
6.1

Mixed or average reviews- based on 412 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 149 out of 412
  2. Mixed: 153 out of 412
  3. Negative: 110 out of 412
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. zombieattacker
    Mar 15, 2011
    4
    Picked the game up this morning, and I finished it this morning. Completed the single player in 4 & half hours on normal. Make no mistake about it, this game is a multiplayer only game. If your buying this, your buying it for the MP. The story is semi interesting I give it that. But it's done in a way thats been done 100 times before. The sound and graphics are definitely out dated and notPicked the game up this morning, and I finished it this morning. Completed the single player in 4 & half hours on normal. Make no mistake about it, this game is a multiplayer only game. If your buying this, your buying it for the MP. The story is semi interesting I give it that. But it's done in a way thats been done 100 times before. The sound and graphics are definitely out dated and not up to par with other shooters that flood the market. The multiplayer is decent but I don't see it holding it's own against Battlefield or Call of Duty. Homefront will once and awhile be something else to play from time to time, but you and youyr friends will only want to return to Battlefield, Call of Duty or Halo at the end of the day. This game is a PASS...… Expand
  2. TheQuietGamer
    Apr 9, 2011
    4
    Like most shooters now days Homefront tries to rip off Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, the controls are identical, and it's just as short and boring, this should have been called Call of Duty 4.5: Future Warfare, the graphics and sound are dated, and there is delay from the time you hit the button from the time it responds, which for a game that requires fast response time hurts itLike most shooters now days Homefront tries to rip off Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, the controls are identical, and it's just as short and boring, this should have been called Call of Duty 4.5: Future Warfare, the graphics and sound are dated, and there is delay from the time you hit the button from the time it responds, which for a game that requires fast response time hurts it severely, obviously the best part about it is the multiplayer, but the problem with the responsiveness of the controls hurt it here too, all in all with all the better shooters out there like Call of Duty: Black Ops, and Halo: Reach, and the upcoming shooters like Battlefield 3, I can't find a reason for anyone to buy this crappy game.… Expand
  3. Fordman555
    Apr 16, 2011
    1
    I hate to be like this, but this game is terrible. This is a single sided (no diversity) this game is all about sniping. The maps are gigantic, you could take four of the largest call of duty maps and still come up sort. Also the host always has the advantage on this game.the gins are ok, but like I said the only useful guns are the snyper ryfuls. My full advice is don't buy it, because ifI hate to be like this, but this game is terrible. This is a single sided (no diversity) this game is all about sniping. The maps are gigantic, you could take four of the largest call of duty maps and still come up sort. Also the host always has the advantage on this game.the gins are ok, but like I said the only useful guns are the snyper ryfuls. My full advice is don't buy it, because if you do you will find out and when you try to trade it in at gamestop you'll get 20 dollars for it. You should just go buy call of duty or gears of war.… Expand
  4. Redfordsto
    Aug 14, 2012
    4
    Homefront was a major disappointment. I was excited by the hype and the unique advertising campaign. Plus, I respected the nod to cult classic Red Dawn. The concept was ambitious, but the game fell through in execution. The primary complaint was with the short and easy solo campaign. It took less the 3 hrs on the hardest difficulty. I started after breakfast and it wasn't lunch by the timeHomefront was a major disappointment. I was excited by the hype and the unique advertising campaign. Plus, I respected the nod to cult classic Red Dawn. The concept was ambitious, but the game fell through in execution. The primary complaint was with the short and easy solo campaign. It took less the 3 hrs on the hardest difficulty. I started after breakfast and it wasn't lunch by the time I finished. But even deeper, the environmental interaction was lacking, the set pieces were static, and the graphics were sub par. As for minor gripes, why were there so few weapons? I understand that the Korean military may have standard armaments, but where was the variety associated with American personal arsenals? Where were the hunting rifles from the good old boys and the MAC-10's from LA's street gangs? Further, where were these groups in the game in general? As I'm running through the story, the conquest of America seemed to be very easy compared to any semblance of reality. Sadly, the potential character development is lost in the rush of the barely present plot. So potentially interesting characters are one-note. Will all that said, yes there is multiplayer to up the replay value a little, but it's nothing you haven't seen before and doesn't compare with top tier games like COD and BF3. Much like the solo campaign, the multiplayer is anything but remarkable.… Expand
  5. Jerik02
    Apr 14, 2011
    3
    Wow, this game is awful. Where to begin? First, the story is terrible. Totally unrealistic, but THQ made North Korea the bad guys because they're too scared to anger China who would be a much more plausible bad guy. The string of events leading up to the story are heavily contrived and scoffed at by any reasonable adult who reads the news. The story tries to make you feel like an insurgentWow, this game is awful. Where to begin? First, the story is terrible. Totally unrealistic, but THQ made North Korea the bad guys because they're too scared to anger China who would be a much more plausible bad guy. The string of events leading up to the story are heavily contrived and scoffed at by any reasonable adult who reads the news. The story tries to make you feel like an insurgent in an occupied America, but its so force fed and cheesy that it feels like a lame joke. The support characters are full of stereo types and are one dimensional. As a FPS, the game is also awful. It tries to follow Black Ops, yet bullets are blocked by plants and very thin wood. The AI is a joke as many times the enemy just runs up to cover, only to hide behind it. The enemies literally duck into cover when you place your aiming reticule over them AND jump back out as soon as you move away. Your "allies" sit behind cover while an enemy, who they can see and could easily shoot, unloads on you - yet they do nothing. The overabundance of weapons is a joke as all you see is a bunch of SHINY (Yes, important items shine) weapons littering the battlefield. The only way to know when you truly kill a bad guy is the same audio clip of someone screaming, which gets really old after half an hour. Also, be prepared to kill the same mob over and over as there's only 2-4 models per faction.

    TL;DR This game is awful and a poor Modern Warfare clone. The reviews and scores don't lie. Also - Ignore the THQ employees who pathetically try to inflate the score. You can tell which they are as anyone with half a brain would never give this game more than an 8.    … Expand
  6. xxAntag0nisTxx
    Mar 29, 2011
    2
    Great idea- poor execution of the strategy

    Single player- was a bit of a different take in terms of the setting, and it had some moments, however I finished this campaign in 4 hours or so on the hard difficulty setting. It just seems like it is half a campaign and was possibly rushed out for whatever reason the developer had? Multiplayer- I was really quite excited abbot an alternative    Great idea- poor execution of the strategy

    Single player- was a bit of a different take in terms of the setting, and it had some moments, however I finished this campaign in 4 hours or so on the hard difficulty setting. It just seems like it is half a campaign and was possibly rushed out for whatever reason the developer had?

    Multiplayer- I was really quite excited abbot an alternative multiplayer to Black Ops that could distract me for hours on end! This and the fact that dedicated servers were supposed to create the 'ultimate online experience'..... Unfortunately we got only 2 different online game modes, with widespread lag across the world online. For some like myself it is next to impossible to play with consistent freezing during online gameplay and when I do finally get a game it is always 'one red bar'- the worst possible connection. Again, this feels rushed, and many promises have been broken by the developer and publisher with this game- I will never buy one of their online games again

    My score is for single player only, if it was on multiplayer alone this game would get a zero.    … Expand
  7. RedLeader
    May 30, 2011
    4
    Don't buy this game. I believed the hype and the story looked interesting but it is very badly executed. The gameplay is average, voice acting average, graphics average. It is simply not a triple A game. The single player campaign was way too short and very obviously "on rails" as you're guided through the levels. The multiplayer is okay, with large areas to fight in with severalDon't buy this game. I believed the hype and the story looked interesting but it is very badly executed. The gameplay is average, voice acting average, graphics average. It is simply not a triple A game. The single player campaign was way too short and very obviously "on rails" as you're guided through the levels. The multiplayer is okay, with large areas to fight in with several others but it's just not worth the asking price.… Expand
  8. jbulmer025
    Mar 18, 2011
    4
    The story was pretty good the downfalls easily outweighed the rest of the game though, the graphics were choppy, i found that even behind cover i was getting hit the hit detection in general was week , only took maybe 5 hours to beat it. Multiplayer was okay it was good to see something different for once but it still needs work in my opinion with that said this game is a rental.
  9. Skull-o-mania
    Mar 17, 2011
    0
    I am really waiting now only for games that are triple a titles and are reviewed positively great before I buy them. So many times I bet consumers like myself are roped into the hype of a game. Homefront is such a game that professes to be new an innovative. It's all hype don't believe it. Even as I write this I want to go and un-reserve all the games that I have held for upcoming year,I am really waiting now only for games that are triple a titles and are reviewed positively great before I buy them. So many times I bet consumers like myself are roped into the hype of a game. Homefront is such a game that professes to be new an innovative. It's all hype don't believe it. Even as I write this I want to go and un-reserve all the games that I have held for upcoming year, based solely on this game. I bought Bulletstorm on a whim and was surprised at how good it was. I was not as "lucky" this time. Graphics: The obvious is that this game looks old and outdated. When playing the multiplayer there are times even on a 55" plasma when both Korean Forces and American Resistance look extremely similar. They both look blocky and underdeveloped. The only way I didn't shoot my team mates what because of the giant green name tag that in design flaw manner would block my vision of enemy behind it and then; pop, dead because of a name-tag. Not only this in single player mode people seemed to be floating over the ground. There are no shadows made from sentry guns spotlights. During the campaign when laying in a mass grave hiding from the KPA clipping issues of being able to see through dead bodies really took me out of the game. This list of terrible graphics could take up my post. Design/game-play: I love it when developers decide they want to slow down the action and express some storyline. Expect when they actually slow my character to that of the speed of a mentally defunct snail on heroine. Oh yes lets explore this small community of rebels hideout, I swear it took me fifteen minutes to walk 30 feet. Invisible walls, all the while the A.I. is telling me to hurry up and get to the next check point. The A.I. is terrible, sometimes standing for minutes at time at a door; unable to go through it. Before allowing me to move to the next part, many times I would have to listen to mindless terrible script. In the multiplayer being dropped by unreliable servers is apparently part of the atmosphere of game; as much as I can figure anyway. The game-play of multiplayer is outdated, a few innovations from battle points, drones, create a class, and many different perks do little to help. The shoddy spawn points several times I would spawn in-front of enemies and would have to wait spawn again. Sound: Don't even get me started, can't even here my gun shoot everything sounds far away. This is not what I expect wearing 5.1 surround sound headphones. The theme music is loud enough to drown out every other sound. C'mon.

    Conclusion: Ripped off, wait for some other game that doesn't suck. Great I just realized I spent 60 dollars for nothing.    … Expand
  10. s0cks
    Mar 22, 2011
    4
    Disappointing. I mean really? How are people giving this an 8 or more? I can only assume these individuals are fairly new to the gaming scene, or perhaps haven't played many other shooters on the array of different platforms out there. Because HomeFront is by far, one of the worst AAA titles I've recently had the displeasure of owning.

    A short campaign with a fantastic premise and great    Disappointing. I mean really? How are people giving this an 8 or more? I can only assume these individuals are fairly new to the gaming scene, or perhaps haven't played many other shooters on the array of different platforms out there. Because HomeFront is by far, one of the worst AAA titles I've recently had the displeasure of owning.

    A short campaign with a fantastic premise and great backdrop. Even with the sub-par graphics, some of the levels set the scene very well. BUT. And yes there is a but.... KAOS failed miserably to capitalize on such a good backstory. It feels just like every other shooter. Your small team of mere "civilians" now fighting for the Resistance seem to have superior military training and weapons to the North Korean's. You will literally destroy entire bases, tanks, helo's, you name it.... the Resistance appears to be stronger than any army on earth. It really kills the immersive world they've put you in. And the fact it is so short does not help the matter.

    Multiplayer is badly designed. Huge maps yet no way to spawn on team members or flags that you control?? If you're going to copy BF at least get the basics right. The Battlepoints system is frustrating. To actually make your class worth while you have to spend points. All this does is give the good players an advantage, and the bad ones feel like they're trying to climb the impossible ladder. What happens? Spawn Camping! Great! The vehicles are something from a cartoon and the overall "flow" (which is important for MP games) is not good at all. Coupled with the lack of servers and lag leaves me with no choice but to eject the disc.

    If you enjoy this type of multiplayer, definitely pick up a copy of Bad Company 2 if you haven't yet. It really does blow this game out of the water.

    I'm just glad you can sell X360 games.    … Expand
  11. Rogue
    Mar 19, 2011
    0
    Let me begin by saying I was a big fan of Frontlines Fuel of War both single player and multiplayer. When I heard THQ was developing another game I was hoping for a sequel without the glitches, lag, etc. Like many of you I was checking the status of this greatly anticipated game on youtube and various other websites for all the information I could get. When the release date was set I beganLet me begin by saying I was a big fan of Frontlines Fuel of War both single player and multiplayer. When I heard THQ was developing another game I was hoping for a sequel without the glitches, lag, etc. Like many of you I was checking the status of this greatly anticipated game on youtube and various other websites for all the information I could get. When the release date was set I began counting down the days only to have it pushed back again and again. "Okay" I thought, I'd rather see a delay then for them to release a game of poor quality. I was wrong, regrettably very wrong! Homefront could have been great; Homefront could have been ground breaking both in premise and game play. Like I said earlier; Frontlines was fantastic, so good in fact the "Big Guys"copied ideas from it such as drones etc. The battle point system was a welcome addition instead of kill streaks which more than likely will and should be copied by other developers. The single player is way to short, the graphics are average to say the least while the movement of your character is like he has a twenty pound dump in his pants! His movements are slow, methodical not at all crisp or sharp like other FPS games. Multiplayer is a joke, that's if you can get in a game at all, joining friends is virtually impossible. It went from dedicated servers to P2P because they underestimated the online attraction; they're in the gaming industry right? MP is what many people play day in and day out and these guys are not prepared? All 16 player games will now be hosted on P2P not dedicated. Make no mistake; multiplayer is a camper / sniper haven which kills it right off the bat, the weapon selection is poor and the fact you can't add more than one attachment to your weapon is a joke. No sight and silencer combo WTF? Why Not? All the while your character is still running around with that dump in his pants! Overall this game is a failure in every way possible, with such high hopes it pales in comparison to other FPS games past or present. I mean really THQ what were you thinking? To add insult to injury if you buy used or rent you have to pay 10 bucks to play online past level 5! This was done of course to prevent people from just renting the game and also brings in a few extra bucks to boot. Like paying 60 dollars for this crap wasn't enough THQ. Put your greedy little hands back in your pockets and try developing a game we were all hoping you would! Save your money and rent if you must. Don't spend 60.00 or even 20.00 for this game, soon enough it will be in the bargain bin or on ebay for 8.00 to 10.00 dollars. Complete and utter fail THQ you should be embarrassed and ashamed! The gamers have spoken and we're not going to take this anymore it's unacceptable, a patch for this, a download for that, a quick fix for the other thing. When are you developers going to get it right? Its no wonder your stock dropped 25 percent the day of release! Thats our way of saying "Congratulations on a job well done"… Expand
  12. adcoy
    Mar 17, 2011
    0
    I bought this game with trepidation after reading several of the reviews. Many give the single player outright scorn and rightfully so. I could barely stomach an hour of the campaign it was so bad.

    I really bought the game for the multiplayer, based on reviews that said it was innovative and worth a look. After 10 hours of multiplayer and ranking up to like a level 12 or something I    I bought this game with trepidation after reading several of the reviews. Many give the single player outright scorn and rightfully so. I could barely stomach an hour of the campaign it was so bad.

    I really bought the game for the multiplayer, based on reviews that said it was innovative and worth a look. After 10 hours of multiplayer and ranking up to like a level 12 or something I called the store and asked how much I could get back for this horrific game. The servers are down all the time, the lag is horrific, and the graphics and framerate jutter make me want to puke; literaly. I played the game for 4-5 hours each day to give it a real shot. I wanted to throw up each time. I've played 50 different shooters across a wide variety of platforms from Doom in the early 90's to all the halo, COD, GoW, Battlefield games. I have never felt like throwing up from any of those experiences. Homefront left me feeling ill with a headache. DO. NOT.BUY.THIS.GAME This is a bargain bin special that the store only gave me 20 dollars credit for when I brought it back the day after launch. The clerks kind of chuckled and said yeah the game is pretty bad. If you really want to try it out, just for the novelty of getting ill and sick from playing a late 90's shooter, give it 2-3 weeks and you will be able to pick it up used for less then 30 bucks I promise. Remember GH Aerosmith? You could get used copies of that for 15 dollars after about a month. That is absolutely where Homefront is headed.    … Expand
  13. c1ph3rr
    Mar 17, 2011
    2
    TOTAL Schlock!!! It is 2011 and this is the much-hyped revolutionary FPS from THQ? Really? The graphics are PS2, the conceot is solid, but the story and voicing are worse than Sci-Fy channel Friday night movies like Man-Squito. The gameplay is clunky and simply no fun at all. My character felt like a fat, slow short plumber. Wait til you get a load of the animations of climbing aTOTAL Schlock!!! It is 2011 and this is the much-hyped revolutionary FPS from THQ? Really? The graphics are PS2, the conceot is solid, but the story and voicing are worse than Sci-Fy channel Friday night movies like Man-Squito. The gameplay is clunky and simply no fun at all. My character felt like a fat, slow short plumber. Wait til you get a load of the animations of climbing a ladder or jumping into a tunnel, too. Your arms and legs disappear. Invisible walls and enemies that all die the same way are game design elements of 5 years ago. Should I really have to wait for the thousandth time for the NPC to open the door for me or jump over the fence? Play one hour of this, then one hour of Crysis 2 or Killzone 3, or Bulletstorm. Then write your review. If you still can give it anywhere near above a 4, you're an idiot and should go buy Dance Central.… Expand
  14. Senor_Frog
    Mar 17, 2011
    2
    How people are giving this a 9 or 10 must not be playing the same game I am.

    Storyline- Not sure how this is considered a "new and exciting" take on standard FPS's. A ton of games have had the US either invaded or attacked by other nations or terrorists. Don't really think that changing them to Koreans should gain the accolades given for this "groundbreaking" story. The buidup    How people are giving this a 9 or 10 must not be playing the same game I am.

    Storyline- Not sure how this is considered a "new and exciting" take on standard FPS's. A ton of games have had the US either invaded or attacked by other nations or terrorists. Don't really think that changing them to Koreans should gain the accolades given for this "groundbreaking" story. The buidup trailers and teasers at the official site were actually much better than what was in the game.

    Graphics- My opinion, but looks like an unpolished port of a Wii game. Can someone say, cutting edge 2003 technology?

    Sound- Explosions and gunfire. To be expected, no great positives or negatives.

    Controls- Standard controls. Character feels like they are running and moving with an extra 10 lbs. on each arm and leg.

    Support- Nonexistant. I was shocked upon joining the HF community and seeing the general poor attitude and sense of dislike from the developer towards the gaming community. People asking for the popular mode of hardcore were told in no uncertain terms that it wasn't in the game and they really don't care what people say. Thats one example, and there were more concerns like this that people were basically told, "oh, well."

    Singleplayer- All this hype, really? The trailers and site information took longer to look at than the game to finish. I read about all this, basically crap, about how they had "redefined" the FPS shooter and reworked it, and tweaked it, and loved it. Can't change much in a FPS and they didn't. Character developement wasn't even present, you couldn't care less about them really. The emotional card was basically played on shock value such as mass graves at a baseball field. Common now! It was a baseball field, you don't get more American than a baseball field! Double crossing by supposed allies. Death of your main leader, strung up for display. Etc., etc., etc. Multiplayer- 2 game types, you heard me right 2. Capture objectives or team deathmatch, or get really freaky and play skirmish which mixes them up. 8 maps, buildings and open spaces, done. Battlepoints are kind of cool, makes it much easier for players that are not in the 16 hrs/day, 7 days a week skill range to get some good stuff. Bottom line, killing 10 people to get a helicopter and getting points for killing 10 people to get a helicopter really isn't that much different.

    ***MULTIPLAYER SIDENOTE***

    The greedy's that be, have decided that only one person gets the "full multiplayer experience." You heard that right too. This means that if you have for example, two kids and yourself that game, they expect you to pay another $20 so everyone can have the "full multiplayer experience." You rent it and want to play past level 5, $10 for a new code. You buy it used, $10 for a new code. Eat it steaming and fresh is all I have to say about that.

    Bottom line- Its a only half decent game that due to uncaring developers and greedy publishers is brought down to the bargin bin level. I even think the price dropped $20 the day after release, when has that happened before? If you have the game and really like it, I'm happy for you. If you have the game, and like me, think its a stinker. Well, I guess we can wait for a patch and see what happens. A paid downloadable content to fix this mess and they can shove that with their additional battle code idea.

    Call me a fanboy all you want, I readily admit that CoD games have their faults as well, but are also brilliant in many aspects. I was looking forward to this game as an alternative to CoD, its not even in the same league. All I have to backup this statement is that right at this time, there is more than 2x the number of players online on Black Ops than total sales of Homefront.    … Expand
  15. Size9ed
    Apr 14, 2011
    0
    Well over a month and issues with this game are still not resolved' not good enough. Not to mention the campaign takes 3 hours to beat, the story is boring and predictable and the graphics suck.
  16. morgansage
    Mar 17, 2011
    0
    Worst Xbox live game in history. I don't know how you release a game and you can't even get on to multiplayer - server busy, servers not available, you've been dropped from your party... error after error after error. Avoid purchasing at all costs if you want to play on Xbox live as it doesn't work. Interesting story line but complete waist of money and all marketing hype. I hope theyWorst Xbox live game in history. I don't know how you release a game and you can't even get on to multiplayer - server busy, servers not available, you've been dropped from your party... error after error after error. Avoid purchasing at all costs if you want to play on Xbox live as it doesn't work. Interesting story line but complete waist of money and all marketing hype. I hope they don't let us down next time they release a game.… Expand
  17. Firemom
    Mar 18, 2011
    4
    if you love bugs, lags, low fps. Stupid scripts, 2006 year's graphic. Parodies on Call of duty. it is game for you! One plus! PR was good./
    This game has 7 Levels in campaign. i completed this game for 2 hours. Multiplayer is not bad but not very good. This game not worth ur money. Save your money for anything else
  18. Slippyfists
    Mar 17, 2011
    3
    Unbelievably terrible. The single player is competent and pretty fun for the four or so hours it took me to beat it. The single player ends right at the exact moment any other FPS single player campaign would start to heat up. There's no continuity to the single player experience. All the guns kind of feel the same and while the environments look fantastic, you can't shoot through surfacesUnbelievably terrible. The single player is competent and pretty fun for the four or so hours it took me to beat it. The single player ends right at the exact moment any other FPS single player campaign would start to heat up. There's no continuity to the single player experience. All the guns kind of feel the same and while the environments look fantastic, you can't shoot through surfaces or destroy surfaces (but enemy turrets can, for some reason). The multiplayer is downright frustrating, too. I stuck a C4 directly to a player and detonated it. Lo and behold, he did not die, and he put me down with two PISTOL SHOTS. Every game of the multiplayer I have played ends with one team getting spawnkilled to the point of tedium. I love spawning right in the middle of an airstrike and instantly dying... twice in a row. The last game I played, my team was getting spawnkilled by two choppers, a tank, and two snipers. It was impossible to do anything. Great job, THQ. I'm never buying a game on launch day again. This game is exactly the same as paying someone for forced sodomy.… Expand
  19. cyberfunk
    Mar 17, 2011
    1
    Single player was far too short, and i'm very annoyed by the "Battlecode" where you've got to have bought the game new in order to effectively play multiplayer. This game was enough of a bomb that I'll seriously think carefully before buying THQ games again.
  20. StrykerMojo
    Mar 16, 2011
    2
    This is my first review, and I was hoping to have something more positive to say...however, I am absolutely appalled by this game, as well as those who give this game credit. We live in a console generation that demands more from developers. This game does not live up to Next-Gen standards, despite the fact that we have been in the Next-Gen era for nearly six years. If this game were aThis is my first review, and I was hoping to have something more positive to say...however, I am absolutely appalled by this game, as well as those who give this game credit. We live in a console generation that demands more from developers. This game does not live up to Next-Gen standards, despite the fact that we have been in the Next-Gen era for nearly six years. If this game were a movie, it would land squarely in the realm of a Sci-Fi channel made-for-TV-movie starring Luke Perry.

    The Graphics - 1/10: Oh my god. They are the worst. I know it is not fair to compare games to titles such as Call of Duty or Battlefield, but lets be realistic. Those titles set a standard, and it is our job as a consumer public to demand that those standards be met or exceeded. This game barely meets the standards set by the Ghost Recon series for the original Xbox. The textures are poorly crafted train wrecks that can not be justifiably defended, unless you are just now putting away your PS One and stepping up to 360 with no frame of reference. Game models are absolutely dreadful, and do not do any of their real-world counterparts justice. Character animation is a joke, resulting in laugh-out-loud moments when you see just how terribly they interact with the down right ugly environments. The "fog-of-war" effect made famous by old-era shooters on PC makes a return in this game in what I'm only guessing is KAOS Studios best shot at saving frame rate. I give this section 1 mark for the developer's loving attention to detail on the Hooters restaurant signs. Way to go. I could go on and on literally forever but lets just leave it at this; This game is ugly as sin, and if you value presentation, save your money.

    The Sound - 3/10: The sound engine doesn't do anything new. Its the same old shooter audio environment that we have been used to for a decade or more. KAOS should have learned a lesson from the Battlefield: Bad Company franchise, which has nearly perfected a fully realized audio experience. This game lacks emotion in its sound...and for god's sake, we know that they spent good money creating the music...but that does not mean we want to hear it. Where is the option menu? Why do developers choose to cram their game down our throats. This game represents a trend in which developers charge more for games and give us less options. I don't like being spoon-fed the experience they demand we have. I'm not a child, and I am not gonna open my mouth for the proverbial airplane.

    Game play - 1/10: I don't give a damn about single player games. If I wanted story, I would buy a book or see a movie. I didn't play the SP campaign. Developers should take note of the smash success of BF2. I did, however, brutalize myself with the multi-player mode for two rounds. Not enough time to effectively rate this game, you might be saying? I say you are wrong. If you are anything like me, you probably wanted to gouge your eye balls out of their sockets for having laid eyes on such an ugly, clunky, cluttered, and convoluted mess. As I said before, the graphics are barf-tastic, the sound is boring, the character animations are unrealistic, weapon models are weak, textures...ugh...the textures. I would have rather played a game that takes place on a texture-less world populated by stick figures and stick figure guns. The gun-play is retarded, recoil is unrealistic, and the Counter-Strike wanna-be "battle-point" system reeks of the stench of rotting cd-rom games in the garbage. I found the whole fiasco repulsively simplistic in movement and form. Ah yes, and don't even get me started on the dedicated server nightmare. How many times are developers going to punish their devoted fan-base by being unprepared for a major title release. It screams laziness, and I will not tolerate it for one more second. I implore you to do the same. If today's generation of network developers worked for me, I would have fired them long ago. Enough is enough.

    Overall - 2/10: Its no wonder that KAOS and THQ opted not to release a demo or beta prior to release. I suspect they knew they had a major stinker on their hands and didn't want to damage their chances of making sales or capitalizing on their huge marketing push. If this were my product and I wanted to make a few bucks, I would have done the same. But make no mistake, guys and gals...This game sucks. Plain and simple. I would not have launched into this tirade if I didn't desire to protect your wallets and keep the FPS community structurally sound. As a devoted hardcore shooter gamer, I demand excellence in a video game. We all invest so much time and money into this that we should expect no less than the standard set by today's AAA titles. This game is so pathetically below those standards that I foresee this game being a bargain bin, used game sales nightmare. You couldn't get me to pay 99 cents for this pile of refuse. Harsh? Yes. But this is reality, and reality hurts.    … Expand
  21. solidsnack
    Mar 15, 2011
    1
    This game is terrible on so many fronts. The graphics are 4 to 5 years too old. Many of the elements in the game look like shapes with crappy textures slapped on them as an afterthought. The guns are also quite bland and generic, with textures almost resembling something from the original playstation or xbox. The voice work and sound are also horrific. Many of the guns end up sounding likeThis game is terrible on so many fronts. The graphics are 4 to 5 years too old. Many of the elements in the game look like shapes with crappy textures slapped on them as an afterthought. The guns are also quite bland and generic, with textures almost resembling something from the original playstation or xbox. The voice work and sound are also horrific. Many of the guns end up sounding like popguns or toy pistols, completely lacking the force they need to fully immerse players. The syncing of voices with animations is completely off and the voice work itself is forced and generic, completely lacking the emotional weight the game needs. THQ advertised this game as a single player focused piece, but the single player is abhorring short and ends so abruptly. Despite a strong first 5 minutes, it slowly and painfully descends into chaos and stupidity. Thus Homefront unexpectedly becomes a multiplayer focused game. The one thing i can commend about this game is the good connection and hit detection, but otherwise the multiplayer becomes a mess. After collecting enough "battle points", the game's currency system, players can buy vehicles or small support items. Yet the game descends into big vehicle brawl-fests and the original first person shooter mechanics are completely lost, as players focus more and more on controlling vehicles and destroying them. The paltry amount of game modes does not help, as I predict the play-life of this game will be very very short. The killing blow however, are the horrendous animations involved in simple tasks, like reloading knifing and sprinting. Sprinting feels like taking baby steps. Reloading is unrealistic and a pain to watch. The knifing makes my eyes bleed. Despite a nice try on the part of THQ and Kaos, Homefront falls flat on a market dominated by unique and addicting fps games like Call of Duty, Battlefield and Killzone.… Expand
  22. taktoncho
    Mar 17, 2011
    4
    All the hype for this game convinced me to break my cardinal rule: NEVER buy video games without reading several different reviews before buying. I really wished I would've because I feel like I threw $60 down the drain. I found the graphics to be blurry and undefined, the gameplay to be delayed (especially in multi-player), and overall just a big disappointment. I was able to get intoAll the hype for this game convinced me to break my cardinal rule: NEVER buy video games without reading several different reviews before buying. I really wished I would've because I feel like I threw $60 down the drain. I found the graphics to be blurry and undefined, the gameplay to be delayed (especially in multi-player), and overall just a big disappointment. I was able to get into two multi-player maps in an hour due to servers STILL being down. Once in, I was frustrated as hell by the fact that the unresponsiveness of the gameplay increased and it takes almost and entire clip of ammo to kill anyone. The storyline is OK, but what does that matter if the game itself sucks? If you are interested in this game, definitely try it through Gamefly before buying.… Expand
  23. M1ckJagger
    Jun 1, 2011
    0
    Bjk1 is a fool. Sorry just had to get that off my chest first. This game is trash simply put. It's red dawn with Koreans instead of Russians. Great job millius you douche. I preordered it anticipated i ven counted down the days only to be left with a short single player a horrible mutiplayer which didn't work on release. Sorry kaos but this is junk pure and simple
  24. thegamerbro
    Mar 25, 2011
    2
    Homefront had high expectation but did not deliver.Graphics suck with horrible atmosphere.The characters are dull and unenjoyable.However story is deep and focused.Gameplay is repetitive and boring.Multiplayer sucks and wont last very long.One game of multiplayer and you will take this disk out.One of the worst games of the year and DONT buy.
  25. beidlpracker
    Mar 15, 2011
    0
    total crap, looks bad, plays bad. only chiches, bad voice acting, bad score/music, koreans look like power rangers, campaign on easy is beaten in 3 hours tops
  26. G4MR
    Mar 17, 2011
    0
    I seriously want a refund! I thought that the Black Ops singleplayer was a waste of my money, but 4 hours?? Don't waste your cash on this! Just wait for crysis 2 :D
  27. iworkatnight
    Mar 15, 2011
    0
    Before I bought the game I was expecting the likes of Half-Life 2 and COD combined together. After playing it for half an hour I got bored and tried the multiplayer. MP was even more pointless than SP. The whole games feels very empty, no mood no atmosphere do depth. The SP characters feel like bots running into walls and what not. I recommend NOT BUYING IT.
  28. RagingPacifist
    Mar 15, 2011
    4
    Not going to waste much breath reviewing this... will just say don't buy it. You should download the demo first and you will save yourself some cash.
  29. kegboygsr23
    Mar 30, 2011
    4
    Homefront was one game this year that I thought was going to be great. Being a big fan of Red Dawn, I knew I was going to be a fan of the storyline. But the ultimately, in my opinion, game play and multiplayer was clunky and inaccurate I was very disappointed.
  30. Borkus
    Apr 10, 2011
    2
    This game is lame, it is not any better than many budget shooters and shouldn't cost $50. I didn't pay for it hahaha, because I refused to be ripped off by unethical video game developers anymore until I can try the game out. This one I would buy if it were $10, the game story is gay and it just gets even gayer as you play it but you get to headshot waves of north korean bots who are veryThis game is lame, it is not any better than many budget shooters and shouldn't cost $50. I didn't pay for it hahaha, because I refused to be ripped off by unethical video game developers anymore until I can try the game out. This one I would buy if it were $10, the game story is gay and it just gets even gayer as you play it but you get to headshot waves of north korean bots who are very predictable, and so it is satisfying if you enjoy blowing peoples heads off casually this is great. Multiplayer is gay too, you can make vehicles appear out of nowhere. Don't know what is up with the game industry anymore, between this and bulletstorm, I don't think it can get any gayer. No bots, you can't run your own dedicated servers anymore, and they charge you more for much less. What a rip off. This game is not any better than Soldier of Fortune Payback or Sas Seure Tomorrow and those are only $10. Save your money this game is a big rip off.… Expand
  31. dancrum
    May 10, 2011
    0
    Honestly, one of the worst games I've ever played. Short story with stupid ai, bad graphics, and **** controls. It felt like a beta. The multi player seemed like it might be okay, but I rented the game and couldn't get past level 5 thanks to the code **** so I can't say.
  32. SargeGO
    May 25, 2011
    3
    I HATE this game. The single player was only 2-4 hours on the hard difficulty! A ton of graphical and gameplay glitches that are just make the game look terrible, plus the multiplayer seems like a rip off of Battlefield Bad Company 2. Do Not buy this game.
  33. XanderStrike
    Mar 16, 2011
    4
    I buy games for the story, and boy did this game claim to have a story. As a huge fan of Apocalypse Now, I had high hopes for this new title from Kaos (whose Modern Combat mod I enjoyed for months when I was taking my first steps into the still-new world of FPS). I read and watched everything I could find on this game in the days before it's release with great anticipation, assuming that aI buy games for the story, and boy did this game claim to have a story. As a huge fan of Apocalypse Now, I had high hopes for this new title from Kaos (whose Modern Combat mod I enjoyed for months when I was taking my first steps into the still-new world of FPS). I read and watched everything I could find on this game in the days before it's release with great anticipation, assuming that a game built on such a strong story foundation was destined for greatness. However, my assumptions quickly proved to be false.

    Really, really quickly, to be honest. It only took me a just shy of four hours to beat the single player on regular. Apocalypse Now: Redux clocks in at 3:14:59. Needless to say I was very disappointed. The characters are shallow and a lot of the heart wrenching drama we were supposed to see ended up just being shock value. Outside of a few other gameplay annoyances, though, I did find the game to be pretty fun, with enjoyable missions and some very cool sets. I'm just hoping they don't expect me to actually pay for DLCs with more single player content, they've already ripped me off enough.

    A lot of reviews praise the multiplayer as this game's savior. This is what's wrong with the FPS genre in general, but I won't go into it here. The online experience is good, dedicated servers are a definite plus. There are a few nice innovations, but overall it feels like a scaled-down Battlefield game (which makes sense, considering the developer), and looks like any of the recent CODs. Though it quickly gets old if you've played much of either.

    Final thought:
    Save yourself 50 bucks and just borrow the game from a friend (you'll only need it for a day).    … Expand
  34. 3dguy
    Mar 16, 2011
    1
    Okay, I've played the first part of this game... where's the rest? .... there must be more? Right? For 60 bucks? You know, 60 bucks... for, uh... 5 hours? And much of that time is being yelled at by overly-chromatic, terribly textured and rendered, hostile allies who tell me to "shhh" and "hold up" while we sit and watch another war atrocity paraded out in front of us. Then we canOkay, I've played the first part of this game... where's the rest? .... there must be more? Right? For 60 bucks? You know, 60 bucks... for, uh... 5 hours? And much of that time is being yelled at by overly-chromatic, terribly textured and rendered, hostile allies who tell me to "shhh" and "hold up" while we sit and watch another war atrocity paraded out in front of us. Then we can play again. Then another atrocity. Then we wait. Then we play. And I loved the opening video, which is completely aped from the movie The Kingdom (eye roll). And much ado has been made about John Milius, the writer of Red Dawn, penning this game. Reality check: that movie sucked.... and, boy howdy, so does this game. What a drag. (don't even get me started with the gameplay iteslf.... ugh... I'm going to go back and play COD again)… Expand
  35. Gene
    Mar 15, 2011
    4
    The single player campaign is short and crappy. Team members are only good for blocking you as you're trying to run away from a grenade, the battlefield are pretty small and you soak up more aggro than the rest of the group, so moving around is more danger than it's worth, while enemies flank you from all sides because dumbass team members are useless at holding the line.

    Not commenting    The single player campaign is short and crappy. Team members are only good for blocking you as you're trying to run away from a grenade, the battlefield are pretty small and you soak up more aggro than the rest of the group, so moving around is more danger than it's worth, while enemies flank you from all sides because dumbass team members are useless at holding the line.

    Not commenting on the Multiplayer yet, but the design is so worthless that Pump Action shotguns, the whole point of which is to be able to interrupt the lengthy reload and fire shots in between slugs so that you're not too vulnerable... well, when that reload animation starts, you have to load every single slug before you can fire. I swear none of the people involved in the game made an FPS before.    … Expand
  36. HOPEBETRAYER1
    Mar 24, 2011
    4
    I've only had the game for a few hours and i already regret spending $65.36 on this junk. Why would anyone continue to support this trash is beyond me. Look, all we want is a F.P.S game that lets the player feel like he's really in a war. Give the player, tanks, choppers, humvees, and weapons that will steal our breath away. Also, get rid of the xp system since C.O.D ran it into the groundI've only had the game for a few hours and i already regret spending $65.36 on this junk. Why would anyone continue to support this trash is beyond me. Look, all we want is a F.P.S game that lets the player feel like he's really in a war. Give the player, tanks, choppers, humvees, and weapons that will steal our breath away. Also, get rid of the xp system since C.O.D ran it into the ground already. I know rank is very important, but rank is to show how far you've come along in the game not what you will unlock once you've reached a certain level. At the rate that games are released players don't always reach the highest rank anyway, so why bother putting all that extra garbage in the first place. keep it simple, give us everything we need from the start, step back, and let us enjoy ourselves. The only game that really let us do this was ( Battlefeild Modern Combat 2 ). how i miss that game. I HOPE YOU'RE LISTENING!!!!!!!!!!!… Expand
  37. Hawkeye117
    Mar 25, 2011
    4
    Game was 3 hours long, had graphics worse than CoD while only being 30 fps. Game play was ok but kind of generic. The ending was ridiculous, the beginning wasn't half bad though. Game just overall felt underdeveloped, really not worth the money THQ spent on it. Multiplayer is laggy due to the lack o f servers at launch, and was a nice multiplayer although looking very dated and beingGame was 3 hours long, had graphics worse than CoD while only being 30 fps. Game play was ok but kind of generic. The ending was ridiculous, the beginning wasn't half bad though. Game just overall felt underdeveloped, really not worth the money THQ spent on it. Multiplayer is laggy due to the lack o f servers at launch, and was a nice multiplayer although looking very dated and being buggy. Want my advice? Buy Crysis 2.… Expand
  38. jimmy68
    Mar 26, 2011
    0
    Wasted my time and money. Freezes my console right after the kaos logo at the very beginning. The game will not load when my LIVE account is activated. Problems all over the place. Can't imagine why it was released with so many issues but for one reason and that is greed. As someone said I should have waited for reviews before purchasing. SMH!
  39. Delta_Assault
    Sep 28, 2011
    3
    First of all, let's talk about the great big elephant in the room. Homefront's story is about North Korea somehow reuniting with South Korea, then taking over Japan and large portions of Southeast Asia, and ultimately invading and conquering most of the continental United States. This situation is farcical and clearly makes no sense at all. Why did they choose to tell such an idioticFirst of all, let's talk about the great big elephant in the room. Homefront's story is about North Korea somehow reuniting with South Korea, then taking over Japan and large portions of Southeast Asia, and ultimately invading and conquering most of the continental United States. This situation is farcical and clearly makes no sense at all. Why did they choose to tell such an idiotic story? Well, from what I've gathered, the original story was going to be about China taking over the US. That also would've been a bit far-fetched and unlikely, but it would've been far more realistic than North Korea. Blair Herter was right, those North Koreans can't even keep their populace from starving, much less mount a credible invasion. But apparently commercial interests in China would've been a bit upset at THQ, so they changed the adversarial role. I find it repugnant that corporate pressure perverted creative integrity, but that's business I suppose. In any case, the resulting game turned out to be a failure, and would've been so with or without the goofy plot.

    The guns in this game have no way to switch firing modes. The M16, for example, is a semi auto assault rifle, and cannot be fired in three round burst mode. Well, that's no good. That's no good at all. Why would this game depict modern warfare/near future warfare if it can't even get something as simple as the M16's three round burst right? Everyone knows that assault rifles have fire selectors that let you switch from semi auto to three round burst to full auto. This makes no sense. All the Rainbow Six games let you switch between firing modes. This is an important detail that the Homefront developers just forgot? That's inexcusable. All they had to do was map it to the D-pad, am I right? In Medal of Honor singleplayer, you could press the D-pad and it would switch firing modes. It made sense. I don't know where they thought people didn't need firing mode switches anymore. Sometimes, you might want to just fire single shots, to conserve ammo. Other times, you might want three round burst or full auto for more firepower. That's the whole point of having multiple firing modes.

    Homefront is supposed to take place in the modern world. It's supposed to be a game about modern combat, of a sort. Modern assault rifles all have this feature, so why would they drop it from the game? Who do they think they are? All the Rainbow Six games were very good about being realistic and having the ability to switch fire modes! Those games were amazing, why have we gone backwards as the years have gone by? Who thinks this is a good idea?! I don't. I wish Rainbow Six would make a resurgence, I really do! This sort of casual nonsense has to end, damnit. M16A2s are renowned for having three round burst. It's what makes them different from M4A1s and CAR-15s, which fire full auto. Homefront takes place in the future, but that doesn't excuse the lack of fire modes. Are future guns going to be designed without fire mode selectors? I doubt it, I really doubt it. And I can guarantee you that in the future, people are still going to be using M16A2s and A4s (M16A2s with an RIS built in). In the near future, those guns will still be readily available.

    There's nothing appropriate about making a game about modern or near-future warfare when you can't even portray the fire mode switching. This is a basic feature of most assault rifles and submachine guns. It is paramount to the experience. The lack of this is a disgrace.

    I'd like to single out the grenade throw animation as particularly silly in presentation. It basically looks like you're throwing the grenade at something two feet in front of your chest, instead of actually winding back and throwing an overhand toss towards a target out in the distance. We're all familiar with throwing baseballs out to the outfield or back to the infield, and that's what you'd expect for the grenade animation. Instead, the character looks like he's a LARPer at a D&D convention throwing a magical pretend-fireball at a friend he's talking to a few paces away. It's just awfully conceived and realized, much like the rest of the game.    … Expand
  40. seventypercent
    Mar 23, 2011
    4
    I would like to be able to give this game a higher score because it shows so much potential, however it lets itself down in to many key areas. The single player has some well made moments in it however they are few and far between, also what is already a short campaign is made to feel all the shorter by regularly taking breaks from the action, this seem to have been done to createI would like to be able to give this game a higher score because it shows so much potential, however it lets itself down in to many key areas. The single player has some well made moments in it however they are few and far between, also what is already a short campaign is made to feel all the shorter by regularly taking breaks from the action, this seem to have been done to create atmosphere but comes across as developers playing for time, I wonder if you removed these breaks in play whether the game would even be 3 hours long. The graphics are not as bad as a lot of people are saying, it could do with a polish but I've seen worse, the bigger problem is shoddy level design at several points I have been blocked by invisible walls or knee high objects that are not jumpable. All of this could be forgiven if you are buy this game for the multi-player which when it work's is good fun, unfortunately there are some serious problems with joining games and have games freeze for a great deal of people, kaos studios have patched both the pc and ps3 version but are still yet to fix the problems for 360 players. If you are affected by these problems it mean's roughly 1 in 10 attempts to join a game will be successful (this is not an exaggeration I've been counting) and when you do get in a game you shouldn't expect it to run smoothly. Kaos studios are apparently working on a fix but I fear for many it will be to little to late and they will have already traded the game in. All of the afore mentioned problems are compounded by the majority of the multi-player being limited, each new copy of Homefront comes with a one use "battle code" without this you will not be able to level up past level 5 in multi-player restricting you to only 3 of the 6 game modes as others are unlocked at level 7. If you bought the game second hand you can purchase the code on-line, this is by far one of the dirtiest trick I've seen from a game in a long time, because ignoring the annoyance of having to pay twice get a second hand copy worth playing, If you bought this game new (as I did) and find that you are one of the people affected by the multi-player "glitches" ( as I am) you will more than likely not be able to return this game for a refund (on the grounds that the multi-player is broken) because the store you purchased it from will have no way of telling if you have used the code and therefore devalued the product. leaving you with a broken game and no way of getting you're money back. In summary, if you are buying this game for the multi-player and are one of the lucky few who are not affected by the "bugs" and "glitches" then you may get some good fun out of this game, If however you're buying it for single player, don't bother, and if you are buying it for the multi-player be aware you may be stuck with a £40 game you can't play.… Expand
  41. nufrequency
    Mar 19, 2011
    2
    TQH marketing department should receive a Nobel prize creating all the hype for such a smelly turd.Four hour single player with flat characters, dull story, bad voice acting , Korean enemies that look like power rangers and graphics probably not meeting standards back in 2005 ! Multiplayer is "the" factor for this game but only for PC since console versions have washed out, muddy graphicsTQH marketing department should receive a Nobel prize creating all the hype for such a smelly turd.Four hour single player with flat characters, dull story, bad voice acting , Korean enemies that look like power rangers and graphics probably not meeting standards back in 2005 ! Multiplayer is "the" factor for this game but only for PC since console versions have washed out, muddy graphics and 1 playlist supporting dedicated servers ( rest of em is p2p based) also Kaos studio for some unknown reason deiced to remove 1st person view in all vehicles on 360 and PS3 which is sad... !… Expand
  42. City17
    Mar 19, 2011
    1
    Wow what a terrible game, first off the graphics right from the start look jagged and low res. I seriously have seen wii games with better more impressive graphics than this. Secondly the controls seem like they are from a ps2 game hard to describe but they just don't feel right at all. So glad I just rented this game. I would be extremely annoyed if I paid full price for this mess of a game.
  43. SystemActive
    Mar 16, 2011
    0
    Stop encouraging them..... Buying games like this just encourages them to keep doing it. It is a popular scheme nowadays to just copy another game entirely, hype like no other, add a pre-order bonus, and rake in the launch day money.

    They will NOT patch, they will act like the game doesn't even exist.
  44. PL3
    Mar 22, 2011
    2
    This game suck

    take your money go out buy a super nintendo go find Barbie all star and its gonna be a lot better!

    for real the firt 15 minute is sick but when you start playing damn that old school like a ps2 game really that a mess for real wtf?
  45. Rook008
    Mar 23, 2011
    3
    With a disgustingly short campaign and a very limited, glitch filled multi-player experience, Homefront fails to deliver on any of it's promises. The single-player campaign starts off well, quickly leaves behind the story in favor of standard shooter action, then abruptly ends. Quite frankly, it's not worth the time (roughly 4 hours) or money to be given half of a game. If the game isWith a disgustingly short campaign and a very limited, glitch filled multi-player experience, Homefront fails to deliver on any of it's promises. The single-player campaign starts off well, quickly leaves behind the story in favor of standard shooter action, then abruptly ends. Quite frankly, it's not worth the time (roughly 4 hours) or money to be given half of a game. If the game is expanded with DLC some of these criticisms could be forgotten,but I doubt many would want to throw good money after bad to flesh out characters and finish a story that was intentionally cut short.

    The multi-player graphics are fine considering the size of the maps, and the sound and mechanics are good. The game-play can actually be fun, when and if the game decides to let you play it. This is the first Xbox 360 game that I've ever heard of being unplayable, literally broken (the game actually freezes), right out of the box for some players. Whoever decided this game was ready for release should have their head examined.
    Server and matchmaking problems abound. Glitches where players are half-inside/half outside of a piece of scenery occur too frequently, leaving the player invincible and literally a killing machine. Only having two (2!) game play modes (Team Deathmatch and Ground Control) is laughable in a First-Person Shooter. Only having 8 maps is a letdown as well.

    The Battle Commander and Battle Points systems work well, and add a slightly more strategic element to the game. Vehicles are fun to use as well, and the large maps and large number of players (32 in Ground Control) differentiate this game from others in the genre.

    The game gets points for large scale warfare, large maps, and the Battle Commander and Battle Points elements.
    Unfortunately, the many problems with multi-player, including glitches, too few game modes, too few maps, and a broken match-making system detract from the experience. Couple that with a horribly short single-player campaign and a poorly told story that's not even half finished when the game ends and you're left with a game that I cannot recommend to any gamer, serious or casual. Homefront is an IP that should be turned over to competent game-makers, if only to avoid seeing a great idea further ruined by THQ and Kaos.    … Expand
  46. Jumper_351
    Apr 19, 2011
    4
    Negatives: Too many to list here, but the main ones are stupid, contrived and unbelievable storyline. THQ is too scared of ticking of China who would be a more plausible antagonist. Bullets can't even pierce thin wood, thin metal or bushes. Characters are cheesy and get annoying quickly when they keep kicking you out of cover. Game is far too short. The enemy AI is terrible and hasNegatives: Too many to list here, but the main ones are stupid, contrived and unbelievable storyline. THQ is too scared of ticking of China who would be a more plausible antagonist. Bullets can't even pierce thin wood, thin metal or bushes. Characters are cheesy and get annoying quickly when they keep kicking you out of cover. Game is far too short. The enemy AI is terrible and has pinpoint accuracy. Positives: Can't honestly think of any. Rating: 4 because the game is a bad Black Ops rip off with a stupid story.… Expand
  47. philpee2
    Apr 22, 2011
    4
    VERY short campaign, incredibly linear, unbelievably generic, tons of poorly placed invisible walls, tries to be like Call of Duty but worse, ugly graphics. The story isn't even good and the setting is just shock value ****
  48. Morguerat
    May 12, 2011
    2
    Where to begin. Way too short for one. Your character moves like a gorilla with lead boots and the environmental glitches are too numerous to count. Multi-player is not much better with laggy connections (if it connects at all), and sluggish movements. This game feels like it was rushed out to make a quick buck. Be cautious of any other titles from this brand.
  49. emmy92
    May 19, 2011
    3
    This game is stupid. It's almost identical to COD (even some of the character voices sounded familiar) and the story is too predictable. You got your stereotypical resistance leaders, your generic-lets-take-our-country-back plot, and a game play that is less than entertaining. The trailer fo this game was more interesting than the actual game. And also, your "team" that you stick withThis game is stupid. It's almost identical to COD (even some of the character voices sounded familiar) and the story is too predictable. You got your stereotypical resistance leaders, your generic-lets-take-our-country-back plot, and a game play that is less than entertaining. The trailer fo this game was more interesting than the actual game. And also, your "team" that you stick with throughout the game are just a bunch of stupid **** I'm so glad I didn't buy ths game.… Expand
  50. MechMarine
    Aug 27, 2011
    4
    While Homefront has an amusing multiplayer, the singleplayer is obnoxiously short and boring. You can't really feel like this is America because it lacks some of America's defining traits: Suicidal self-preservation by NRA members, a huge military and nuclear weapons. While it is very possible for a foreign nation to invade the US, it is not possible for the North Koreans to invade anyone.While Homefront has an amusing multiplayer, the singleplayer is obnoxiously short and boring. You can't really feel like this is America because it lacks some of America's defining traits: Suicidal self-preservation by NRA members, a huge military and nuclear weapons. While it is very possible for a foreign nation to invade the US, it is not possible for the North Koreans to invade anyone. Maybe the Chinese could, but not North Korea Compared to South Korea, the North Koreans outnumber them in military, but have much less oil, civilians and weapons. The game also fails to explain why the Koreans don't know how to make their own guns. These same guns seem to have been ripped from thin air. For example, the M16 looks like and is used as a Sniper Rifle. The killstreak system is a bad idea, as is the idea of drones. Makes one feel like playing Call of Duty or Medal of Honor (2010). One very obnoxious feature is that one must have a Battle Code to play past level 5 in multiplayer, which means if Gamestop recommends a Used copy to you, they have never played the game.… Expand
  51. DunleerUK
    Jul 31, 2011
    4
    For a game that touted itself as a "Call of Duty Beater" ever since it was announced, the final product is far from anything that could consider itself in the same league as Call of Duty. About the only thing that works in the game (other than a semi-decent multiplayer) is the story, which is written by John Milius who also wrote the 1984 film Red Dawn which has the same concept ofFor a game that touted itself as a "Call of Duty Beater" ever since it was announced, the final product is far from anything that could consider itself in the same league as Call of Duty. About the only thing that works in the game (other than a semi-decent multiplayer) is the story, which is written by John Milius who also wrote the 1984 film Red Dawn which has the same concept of "Baddies try to invade America". The plot and backstory are well written using plausible fictitious events that lead up to the beginning of the game. Shame then that the single player campaign is so shockingly bad that is manages to screw up the whole experiences, visuals are rough around the edges and appear very last generation. Levels are deceptive in that they appear open and roamable, but end up funnelling you in a very tight direction with invisible walls and obstacles you cannot jump over. The teammate A.I. must always be the first down ladders or through doors to the point where the game won't let you go anywhere until your slow and stupid team mates catch you up. Shooting is standard but weapons like any real stopping power, often relying on half a magazine to put someone down. The campaign itself is short, VERY short. On my first go on normal I did it in 4 hours, just when you think the game is starting to show signs of getting good you are surprised to find the level ends and the credits role. Multiplayer is semi-decent with an interesting approach to buying equipment and resources via points earned for performing actions, but all the while you'll wish you were playing Call of Duty or Battlefield. I feel sorry that Kaos Studios the developers were shut down, the game stinks of publisher controlled decisions and I believe this is why the game ended up so shoddy.… Expand
  52. AdamReid
    Aug 4, 2011
    0
    This is the worst game ever made, im not even joking, the story line sucked because it was short and the story line wasnt very good either the multiplayer had some good combat, but the lack of wepons that you could actually get was crap and its defently not a game i would play forever, the maps were alright... but they just grabbed bits from the campagin and stuck them in the multiplayerThis is the worst game ever made, im not even joking, the story line sucked because it was short and the story line wasnt very good either the multiplayer had some good combat, but the lack of wepons that you could actually get was crap and its defently not a game i would play forever, the maps were alright... but they just grabbed bits from the campagin and stuck them in the multiplayer and that was pretty boring... The graphics on the game are a huge let down. pretty much anything in the distance was just a pixel and was so hard to see, so theres sniping gone... when i went to the shop and bought this i was like "Yeahhh Homefront!" and then i get to my Xbox pop it in and play the game expecting to be playing a campagin that was like 5 hours long but actaully took me about 1 hour to finish. Every day i ask myself "why did i buy this?" I could have bought Operation flashpoint red river or crysis 2 that were the same price. The case makes the game look a million times better than the actualy game, so i guess you cant judge a book by its cover... the very fact that i actually went to sell this about 2 days after i bought it shows how bad this game is, only to realise that the price has went down from about £40 to like £20 in like 2 days... if another HomeFront is made im defently never buying it, unless reviews say its the best game they have ever played, witch i strongly doubt becuase the game is utter balls and i cant see anyway of improving on this terrible game.… Expand
  53. TENCESAR
    Sep 23, 2011
    0
    I admire your courage in the age Call of Duty vs Battlefield THQ dare to release a game so weak. Graphics and disappointing plot. Multiplayer in the shadow of others FPS. He tried to cure the boredom of the successful Black Ops, and plunged into a deep depression! Do not buy this garbage ...
  54. matthias61984
    Oct 12, 2011
    3
    This game is pretty bad. It's not too often that I find myself returning a game, and Homefront is definitely going back. I can tolerate the poor storyline, graphics, and vioce acting, but broken gameplay is something I will not put up with. The story, weapons, and gameplay are recycled and regurgitated from of one of those "other" popular FPS titles that... well... doesn't suck. But theThis game is pretty bad. It's not too often that I find myself returning a game, and Homefront is definitely going back. I can tolerate the poor storyline, graphics, and vioce acting, but broken gameplay is something I will not put up with. The story, weapons, and gameplay are recycled and regurgitated from of one of those "other" popular FPS titles that... well... doesn't suck. But the thing is, Homefront does. It doesn't bring anything new to the table and completely misses its mark. I had a hard lockup occur in the second chapter and within the first 3 hours of play time had enemies randomly appearing and teleporting on top of me at least a dozen times. The campaign is short and I will not even tolerate the game any longer to try out multiplayer. At times collision and aiming seem broken and enemies are able to shoot through hard cover while standing protected behind it. The AI of your teammates in campaign mode is extremely poor as well. Spend your money and time on MW or COD - you quite literally have NO reason to play this game over those.… Expand
  55. tb12
    Nov 9, 2011
    3
    The campaign was way to short and not very enjoyable. The multiplayer was ok, but not great. I traded it in after about a month. Overall I would not buy it again.
  56. 2ndchild
    Mar 13, 2012
    1
    Simply a horrible game, it's like someone described COD to someone over a cell phone going through a tunnel and then made a game out of what they could make out.
  57. Thisisthetruth
    Apr 28, 2012
    0
    Gotta give it a zero. Expand the page for more information.. Like, the beginning scenes are horrible. That is the most obscene, brutal, emotionally and mentally changing scenes. If you look out the window of the bus in the beginning, I saw things that made me want to cry. I got 10 minutes in and had to stop just from my mentality. These THQ tards should be thrown in jail for suchGotta give it a zero. Expand the page for more information.. Like, the beginning scenes are horrible. That is the most obscene, brutal, emotionally and mentally changing scenes. If you look out the window of the bus in the beginning, I saw things that made me want to cry. I got 10 minutes in and had to stop just from my mentality. These THQ tards should be thrown in jail for such emotionally nerve-racking, brutal, and graphic scenes.… Expand
  58. VideoGameCritic
    Oct 4, 2013
    3
    I have played many games in my life, most shooters have the same story line but instead of Communist its aliens. Homefront is for the most part a horrible game, controls are dated, shooting is down right broken, and the AI is annoying. The idea is there, this could of been a really good futuristic shooter since it takes place twenty years from now but instead it goes for bad voice acting,I have played many games in my life, most shooters have the same story line but instead of Communist its aliens. Homefront is for the most part a horrible game, controls are dated, shooting is down right broken, and the AI is annoying. The idea is there, this could of been a really good futuristic shooter since it takes place twenty years from now but instead it goes for bad voice acting, predictable endings to chapters and worse of all it takes it self way to seriously. I get that the whole world is under control and all but i don't care about any of the characters simple because they are all cliches. Even you are a cliche, the silent hero who is thrown into a situation because quote" you have Korean blood on your hands, welcome to the resistance." Why is the person in charge trusting a complete stranger to help them fight. This same guy also had another person who was his "friend" help him get weapons to fight back the KPA and he betrays his ass. He is bad at been a leader. All of this together makes for one of the worst games I played this year. Homefront gets a three out of ten because of its lack of creativity, yes this game does have a cool idea but it holds to many punches and is a let down.… Expand
  59. crying
    Sep 9, 2015
    0
    my f*cking god it's so baddddddd eh eh MEHHH MEEEHHH MEEWEEEWEEE terrible gaym bad gwafikz bad voys actyn nd bad shuutin not enuff liek cod lulz rainbow land im trippy af dawgz yh i be sm0kin dat kush um.. anyway this gaym iz bad no buy it plz.... i beg u plzzz
  60. gamingisgreat
    Oct 27, 2016
    3
    Homefront is a terrible futuristic FPS.

    The gameplay is an awful COD rip-off,and keep in mind I really don't rate many of the COD games.The AI for both your allies and enemies are stupid.The level design is ridiculously linear too. The graphics are decent,with consistent framerate problems. The story is interesting admittedly,but it is not as well-developed as I'd have liked.    Homefront is a terrible futuristic FPS.

    The gameplay is an awful COD rip-off,and keep in mind I really don't rate many of the COD games.The AI for both your allies and enemies are stupid.The level design is ridiculously linear too.

    The graphics are decent,with consistent framerate problems.

    The story is interesting admittedly,but it is not as well-developed as I'd have liked.

    The sound design is mediocre,and the soundtrack is hilariously bad.

    Overall,Homefront is a straight-up waste of your time.    … Expand

Awards & Rankings

15
#15 Most Discussed Xbox 360 Game of 2011
31
#31 Most Shared Xbox 360 Game of 2011

Critic Reviews

All reviews »
Metascore
70

Mixed or average reviews - based on 85 Critic Reviews

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 34 out of 85
  2. Mixed: 47 out of 85
  3. Negative: 4 out of 85
  1. Videogameszone.de
    May 24, 2011
    84
    The story is way too short and the multiplayer doesn't deliver the fun you know from the Call of Duty or Battlefield games.
    Read full review
  2. games(TM)
    Apr 25, 2011
    70
    One of the most interesting shooters of the year. [Issue#108, p.114]
  3. Gamestyle
    Apr 19, 2011
    50
    The core focus of Homefront is online but with rival releases doing this just as well if not better, there isn't any real incentive. A fun rental perhaps, but spend your money elsewhere and you'll thank us.
    Read full review
See all critic reviews »