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. 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
  2. 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
  3. 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
  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. 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
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. 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 ...
  11. 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
  12. 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
  13. 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
  14. 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
  15. 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
  16. 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.
  17. 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
  18. 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.
  19. 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.
  20. 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 ****
  21. 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
  22. 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
  23. 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.
  24. 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
  25. 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
  26. 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
  27. 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.
  28. 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
  29. 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!
  30. 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.
prev
Page:

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 »