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. RafaelBarrera
    Feb 21, 2019
    7
    It isn't innovative with the controls, it's just another CoD copy, but the story feels epic and rough by showing cruel images. It's a good game.
  2. storygamer
    Sep 10, 2020
    7
    The Xbox 360 version of Homefront is slightly better than the PlayStation 3 one. Graphics look way better and the controls seem to work better. Nevertheless, the story is dumb and the gamplay is nothing special. If you want to play Homefront, get this version!
  3. Review9
    Jun 5, 2011
    6
    Homefront was a massive disapointment for me. The sad thing is that this game was supposed to be one of the best games of 2011 and it sadly wasn't. The campaign is semi different all though it is similar to the modern warfare series's campaign. How ever it is very buggy and INCREDIBLY SHORT. You may enjoy your self sometimes in the campaign but others wise it is a massive let down. Now theHomefront was a massive disapointment for me. The sad thing is that this game was supposed to be one of the best games of 2011 and it sadly wasn't. The campaign is semi different all though it is similar to the modern warfare series's campaign. How ever it is very buggy and INCREDIBLY SHORT. You may enjoy your self sometimes in the campaign but others wise it is a massive let down. Now the multiplayer is as if battlefield took steroids. This is not a good thing. Battlefield is one of the most realistic FPS out there (next to medal of honor) and turning it into what homefront is is a major mistake. The maps are terrible and BTW if you enjoy getting spawn raped you'll love this one. It take FOR EVER to find a game and there are almost no differences between guns. I am insanely disapointed with this game and it is most likely going in the trade in box.… Expand
  4. peoplewhomatter
    Apr 9, 2011
    6
    Although Kaos's last game didn't turn out good i had high hopes for this game. the idea of an American underdog rebel army against a strong korean force seemed very exciting. the campaign was very good and it had good mechanics. although the multiplayer which excited me the most, was a letdown. many people said it would a mix of COD and battlefield, which it was, but the bad sides of theAlthough Kaos's last game didn't turn out good i had high hopes for this game. the idea of an American underdog rebel army against a strong korean force seemed very exciting. the campaign was very good and it had good mechanics. although the multiplayer which excited me the most, was a letdown. many people said it would a mix of COD and battlefield, which it was, but the bad sides of the games. in multiplayer it seems you move too slow and with the huge maps that can affect the gameplay. also it seems like it copied a lot out of call of duty. i felt like kaos should have come up with their own new ideas. one thing they did come up with was battle points. i felt like these were an upgrade of cod killstreaks and a good thing to have in a game. the game was fun at first but began to get boring and unexciting. Thats two strikes for kaos.… Expand
  5. FeelinLuckyPUNK
    Mar 18, 2011
    6
    Homefront - A game on extra ordinary potential, wasted on poor characters and game design.

    Homefront is an FPS developed by Kaos Studios, who are part of THQ. In the near future, North and South Korea have formed a Korean republic which invades America. You play a guy called erm...Jacob I think, who is accosted in his apartment and taken by the Korean Army. The convey is attacked by the    Homefront - A game on extra ordinary potential, wasted on poor characters and game design.

    Homefront is an FPS developed by Kaos Studios, who are part of THQ. In the near future, North and South Korea have formed a Korean republic which invades America. You play a guy called erm...Jacob I think, who is accosted in his apartment and taken by the Korean Army. The convey is attacked by the Resistance who free you and expect you to join your cause.

    Story wise, Homefront is incredibly poor. The game is set 2 years after the Korean invasion and although the premise of a foreign invader coupled with a resistance has the potential for excellent narrative and character design, it is executed poorly. Embarrasingly poor.

    The campaign is short. I finished in on normal in maybe 5 hours and it contains 6 levels. In the marketing campaign, THQ made a point of emphasising that your character was just an every day man struggling to help the resistance. However, you are never given a reason to fight or care about the resistance because they is no scope for character development. You just do!

    The intro to Homefront has one scene in particular which I found to be quite interesting in terms of building empathy for the current climate in the country, but this is not repeated throughout. 6/10. Extremely disappointed. Before Kaos consider Homefront 2, they should look back at why this one is so incredibly flawed.

    The game feels rushed.    … Expand
  6. CROSSEYEDJIM
    Mar 25, 2011
    6
    I want to like Homefront, and in some ways I really do. But unfortunately good ideas and potential do not excuse poor design and questionable mechanics. I will begin with the single player. At face value, it seems that Homefront has a good thing going for it on the SP front. While it is far from the first game to depict an occupied/invaded U.S. as some have claimed(see Freedom Fighters,I want to like Homefront, and in some ways I really do. But unfortunately good ideas and potential do not excuse poor design and questionable mechanics. I will begin with the single player. At face value, it seems that Homefront has a good thing going for it on the SP front. While it is far from the first game to depict an occupied/invaded U.S. as some have claimed(see Freedom Fighters, World in Conflict, and even MW2), it does seek to exist in a somewhat niche area of the war-based FPS sub-genre. The opening of the game features some truly disgusting and emotional "Oh my God" moments and the setting does provide some utility to the game, but it quickly becomes apparent that all is not right with the game. First of all, Connors, the man you will spend most of the game following, is a horrendously irritating brick head. I wanted to put a bullet in him within the first 5 seconds of the campaign. He is foul-mouthed (and not in a good way), stupid (several of the encounters in the game involve massive firefights instigated by his mental handicap), and downright unlikable. Your female companion, whose name I am tellingly failing to remember now, is about as interesting and memorable as a cardboard box. The only character in the single player who is worth taking note of is Boone, and he isn't around for very long at all. Hopper, the Korean smart kid in your squad, is almost an ok character, but even he falls flat more often than not. This wouldn't be so bad if you weren't forced to interact with them in agonizingly slow walk-around-the-base segments. However, it is clear that the dev team wanted to build up a relationship with these characters and I'm sad to say that effort failed miserably. As a result, the story fails to connect with you in any meaningful way despite some memorable set piece moments (one involving a mass grave really stands out). Unfortunately, all of this spirals into a so-so campaign that you will either not bother with or forget within one wee, a problem I am currently experiencing while trying to write about it. It is also embarrassingly short, which would have been passable were it an impressive experience, but the combination of weak characters and short length make the SP on this game a flop. Now, on to the game mechanics and graphics. The game plays relatively well - the hit detection and ballistics behavior is passable - although the complete lack of bullet penetration through any surface and the questionable weapon handling take a little of the wind out of its sails. The sound design, on the other hand, is atrocious. WIth the exception of the music and some of the ambient sounds, this may be the worst sound mixing I've ever heard. The weapons all sound muffled, as if you are wearing ear plugs the whole time you are wearing ear plugs. This, in turn, reduces the impact and power in the feel of the weapons and leads to an all around less satisfying shooting experience than the competition. The level design is nothing special, and the game generally plays out like your typical corridor shooter, adding to the mediocrity. The graphics are slightly better and are at least average. They are not as bad as some have said, though you will most likely not be finding anything to wow you, especially given the technical achievement that is Crysis 2 being out now (which you really should be playing instead of this game). Still, they do their job well enough to get by and don't break the game. Sadly, though, that's really the best I can say about them. Finally, we have the multiplayer to deal with. Homefront was hyped up to an almost ridiculous degree by Kaos and THQ, so really it should be no surprise that it fails to live up to its promises. What is surprising, however, is how close it came to being great. The underlying system here is, at its core at least, fairly solid. The game plays roughly as a mix of Call of Duty and Battlefield, though it reminds me most of MAG on the PS3 in terms of flow and mechanics. The maps are generally fairly large and feature multiple areas to play in, though this makes the few small, infantry only maps seem incredibly boring by comparison. The new Battlepoints syste allows you to either go for a direct reward like an air strike or UAV sweep or save up for something a little more tangible like a tank or an attack helicopter. Surprisingly, this system works very well and really does add an element of tactical forward planning versus necessary actions at specific moments (using an air strike to clear an objective swarmed by enemy infantry, for example). Unfortunately, outside of its unique infrastructure Homefront is still a mediocre shooter. The weak gun play, graphics, and sound mixing really bog down a game that nearly had what it takes to be great. Homefront does, however, have potential, and I for one hope Kaos takes these ideas and refines them for HF2. For now, though, I recommend renting this.… Expand
  7. Crichtonrygel
    Mar 16, 2011
    6
    Homefront is a game I really hate to criticize. On one hand the story you're presented in the campaign is very unique and you can tell the developers put a lot of time into it with fiction time-lines and the use of Hollywood screen-writer John Milius. Even the characters have distinct personalities and are very fleshed-out. Unfortunately the gameplay feels like a slightly rougher CODHomefront is a game I really hate to criticize. On one hand the story you're presented in the campaign is very unique and you can tell the developers put a lot of time into it with fiction time-lines and the use of Hollywood screen-writer John Milius. Even the characters have distinct personalities and are very fleshed-out. Unfortunately the gameplay feels like a slightly rougher COD (which isn't bad), the graphics in some places look almost like pre-gen XBOX graphics (which IS bad) and the campaign is so short (about six hours) I can't say you get your money's worth. That is if you're only a single-player person like me. I'm sure multiplayer has more to it but if a game's bothering to put a single-player campaign in then why only add so little gameplay? A good effort that falls a bit too short.… Expand
  8. Cavador
    Mar 16, 2011
    6
    Just four hours to beat the game in single player without rushing. FOUR HOURS. Multiplayer is fun, too bad there are only 2 real modes. Technically everything in this game looks below average.
  9. Zam666
    Mar 15, 2011
    6
    So far so good, the story is solid ,gameplay smooth, contraversy is there. Pretty much everything you want in a game. So I give it an eight out of ten
  10. jergason
    Mar 17, 2011
    6
    Terrible single player, so it isn't bad that it is so short.

    The multiplayer is okay, but not enough to pull me away from Bad Company 2. Weapons are very powerful, with 2-3 shots enough to kill with a rifle. The sniper rifle is a semi-automatic lazer beam, so you'll get sniped ALL THE TIME. Battle points are an interesting idea, but I wish there was more incentive to play as a team. Right    Terrible single player, so it isn't bad that it is so short.

    The multiplayer is okay, but not enough to pull me away from Bad Company 2. Weapons are very powerful, with 2-3 shots enough to kill with a rifle. The sniper rifle is a semi-automatic lazer beam, so you'll get sniped ALL THE TIME. Battle points are an interesting idea, but I wish there was more incentive to play as a team. Right now it encourages Rambo-style play, and though there is a squad feature, it seems to be of absolutely no use in the game. Mediocre at full price, but the multiplayer is interesting enough if you can pick it up on sale.    … Expand
  11. Total13
    Mar 17, 2011
    6
    A too short single-player campaign, too frustrating, in 2011 it's unacceptable see undestroyable enviroment and a sequence of script like this. I was waiting for it for too long and it disappointed me so much. Too bad.
  12. SatanNYC
    Mar 18, 2011
    6
    Let me start by saying that I am a huge Battlefield fan, and although I am not a fan of COD (no vehicles) I own all of those titles as well. When I saw the trailers for Homefront I was stoked to say the least. Now that I have the copy in my hand and have spent a few nights playing it I have to admit, I am a bit disappointed.

    Singleplayer lays down an interesting story, but slow moments of    Let me start by saying that I am a huge Battlefield fan, and although I am not a fan of COD (no vehicles) I own all of those titles as well. When I saw the trailers for Homefront I was stoked to say the least. Now that I have the copy in my hand and have spent a few nights playing it I have to admit, I am a bit disappointed.

    Singleplayer lays down an interesting story, but slow moments of walking around without the ability to even sprint really takes some tolerance to get through, I didn't, I umped right to multiplayer as that was so annoying I couldn't deal with it. Especially when an NPC tells you were to go, but the game won't let you go that way until each and every slow NPC character has gone through the door/hatch/hole first.

    Multiplayer is much better. What I do like about this game, make that LOVE about this game, is that it didn't copy either BF or COD. Granted the graphics are yesterdays technology, and the lack of a destructible environment does hurt, but the Battlepoints system is pretty cool, and the many options available (once unlocked) to customize your loadout to your exact specifications is awesome! The maps are somewhat small and the matches seem to go way too fast. There only seems to be approximately 3 maps on the Ground Control option, maybe more but I seem to keep playing the same 3 over and over, which leads me to believe that like everyone else does, there is some DLC maps in the near future.    … Expand
  13. Ixziga
    Mar 22, 2011
    6
    I some high hopes for the game, but ultimately the game just doesn't constitute a $60 Purchase. The singleplayer frankly has all been done before, although it does have some unique story components and atmosphere at times. The biggest problem is pacing which is frantic on a CoD level and short enough to beat in less than 4 hours on normal. This game would be a total bust if not for theI some high hopes for the game, but ultimately the game just doesn't constitute a $60 Purchase. The singleplayer frankly has all been done before, although it does have some unique story components and atmosphere at times. The biggest problem is pacing which is frantic on a CoD level and short enough to beat in less than 4 hours on normal. This game would be a total bust if not for the multiplayer which I really enjoy because of the scale and hybrid feeling. They did fix issues that made finding available servers impossible at this point, and if not for a very vulnerable and unbalanced spawning positions (Some maps more than others) the multiplayer is a ton of fun, although there's not much to unlock. The games content is good but just too damn limited. When the price drops, it'll be a pretty solid purchase.… Expand
  14. MR_3001
    Mar 29, 2011
    6
    One Word Review...................Sucks......................Say what you will its just not up to par.....the multiplayer is pretty good which is worth giving it a 6 for effort but the graphics are lame...Snipers are rampant and im not sure if the developers have heard of something called a smoke grenade. when the snipes are blended in with the ugly pixels from a distance then you have aOne Word Review...................Sucks......................Say what you will its just not up to par.....the multiplayer is pretty good which is worth giving it a 6 for effort but the graphics are lame...Snipers are rampant and im not sure if the developers have heard of something called a smoke grenade. when the snipes are blended in with the ugly pixels from a distance then you have a major balance flaw. I traded mine in for crysis. Now i feel much better about my money.… Expand
  15. AbeBarnes
    Mar 31, 2011
    6
    It is very rare that I am torn on how to properly review a game. I am not a FPS guy, I like em and I struggle through them for story, but in the end I know Iâ
  16. dohboh
    Jul 7, 2011
    6
    The game could be more polished but the story is great any shooter fan should try the single player out its the same 5 hour crap but its worth the rent fee
  17. CHINESE_TIGER
    Jul 19, 2011
    6
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I was coming in expecting something amazing. I loved the premise - in fact, I love researching things about North Korea. I thought this game was going to be much longer, even stretching to Asia. So, the beginning of the campaign was great. You're dropped right into the action with North Korean soldiers torturing civilians on the streets, and you're stuffed into a bus because your character was a pilot. The bus is ambushed and you're saved by some ragtag freedom fighters, because, once again, your character was a pilot. So, the grand entrance to the game left me expecting something phenomenal, and a game of phenomenal length. After all, this is a lengthy subject. However, at the end, you traveled to San Francisco to deliver fuel to the U.S. Army. So basically, this game is a payload mission with a fancy backdrop. I was absolutely stunned in a negative way when the game ended on the Golden Gate Bridge. The game didn't leave me WANTING more, like a good game should. It left me EXPECTING more. I thought the campaign was going to be a solid 10-20 hours, but instead it was 4. It definitely wasn't worth my money at release, but now it might actually be worth it. The gameplay itself, such as controls, are pretty uniform with approximately every other shooter game on the XBOX 360. One thing that stood out, though, was the lack of ammo. You're pretty much ammo starved half the game and you're forced to pick up a North Korean gun. The latter part was pretty standard, but the kicker is that for every 10 enemy soldiers, only one has the gun model you're after, which is the only way you get ammo. Even then, he probably has half a clip left of ammo. It's a pretty good game, but once you dig deep and realize that the whole game was a payload mission, you feel cheated.… Expand
  18. pabloclippings
    Nov 20, 2011
    6
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. The most average game ever. Fair voice acting, fair graphics, fair controls and fair campaign length. Two things set this apart and earn this a 6 instead of 5. 1. The story takes risks. The setting is interesting and the portrayal of it, while thin, is fairly plausible. Then there's great stuff like hiding in a mass grave, missions gone awry and the murder of women and children. 2. Unlike the Call of Duty franchise, the story follows a very linear narrative. You are running from place to place with an occasional conversation between NPC's. It keeps you guessing and wanting more. Worth $5-$10. A great bargain bin game.… Expand
  19. musto95
    Mar 24, 2012
    6
    "Homefront" really had potential to be a great FPS, but certain aspects of the game prevented that from happening. The campaign was creative and enjoyable, but the shallowness and shortness of it held it back. Multiplayer works, but takes getting used to. The rewards system (BP) could have been developed further with more rewards, but ultimately does its job in the end. THQ threw together"Homefront" really had potential to be a great FPS, but certain aspects of the game prevented that from happening. The campaign was creative and enjoyable, but the shallowness and shortness of it held it back. Multiplayer works, but takes getting used to. The rewards system (BP) could have been developed further with more rewards, but ultimately does its job in the end. THQ threw together "Homefront" with bare minimum effort; if more time was invested in this, they may have had a winner.… Expand
  20. iddqd4
    Mar 19, 2018
    6
    Этот текст здесь для того что бы оценка отобразилась в моем профиле.
  21. Unemportant
    Feb 9, 2023
    6
    Hilary Clinton? Hilary Clinton? Hilary Clinton? Hilary Clinton? Hilary Clinton?
  22. DelTorro
    May 30, 2012
    5
    It doesn't do anything that new. Feeling like an uncomfortable blend between the familiar elements of COD and Battlefield. There's really not enough here to recommend it. The campaign is way too short and a lot of the multiplayer maps are very similar. The fighting itself is actually pretty decent, but spawn camping with vehicles is a major problem on some maps and with games that do theIt doesn't do anything that new. Feeling like an uncomfortable blend between the familiar elements of COD and Battlefield. There's really not enough here to recommend it. The campaign is way too short and a lot of the multiplayer maps are very similar. The fighting itself is actually pretty decent, but spawn camping with vehicles is a major problem on some maps and with games that do the same things better, why would you honestly bother?… Expand
  23. JamesSteal
    Mar 15, 2011
    5
    It seems like all of the soldiers in every first person shooter game now-a-days are all suffering from hair loss. I swear to God every character looks the same from Soap Mactavish (Call of Duty) to Sevchenko (Killzone) to Connor (Homefront). The game manages to stay Politically Correct as your squad members include a woman and an African-American (Like most modern FPS games that appeal toIt seems like all of the soldiers in every first person shooter game now-a-days are all suffering from hair loss. I swear to God every character looks the same from Soap Mactavish (Call of Duty) to Sevchenko (Killzone) to Connor (Homefront). The game manages to stay Politically Correct as your squad members include a woman and an African-American (Like most modern FPS games that appeal to silly teenagers). It's just a shame that the story is short and the game mimicks the exact same controls as the Call of Duty series. Plant C4 to destroy a tank? Take out a machine gunner? How original!… Expand
  24. zonda
    Mar 15, 2011
    5
    the game is decent and it has a lot fault from the campaign to the graphics. seriously where is the atmosphere they're talking about and why the sound effect feel like a toy gun, the voice acting is good graphics feels too old comparing to other game coming this year from the texture to the lighting and why the enemy ai hit you with a with a pin point accuracy and your team AI barelythe game is decent and it has a lot fault from the campaign to the graphics. seriously where is the atmosphere they're talking about and why the sound effect feel like a toy gun, the voice acting is good graphics feels too old comparing to other game coming this year from the texture to the lighting and why the enemy ai hit you with a with a pin point accuracy and your team AI barely help you feel they are ghost cause the enemy AI always shout at you… Expand
  25. Sh0dan
    Jul 6, 2011
    5
    Ridiculously short game just like this review should be. Returned it to the shop I purchased it from the same day, and swapped it for something with a decent amount of game-play. The devs and publishers who put this out should be ashamed at the minuscule amount of game-play in the single player campaign. Probably the shortest game I have ever played.
  26. NerdRage85
    Mar 16, 2011
    5
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Homefront is really short, it has 7 chapters, The single player is about 5 hours long. Decent story, but I would rather see this kind of story in a movie rather than a game or if it was done a tad better. The online is pretty much the only thing this game as going for it. It's kind of like playing battlefield open maps, and I like that you can buy weapons with battle points on the fly. I was hoping more from the single player experience rather than the online, lets face it, they always make the online more enjoyable than the campaign. I want the story longer not 5 hours thats too short. $59.99 for this game isn't worth it.… Expand
  27. dyeguy21
    May 15, 2011
    5
    It has a great idea and a scary premise. The problem is it never comes to fruition. The graphics are 2006 and the online game-play is original but fidgety. Vehicles can become a problem and hit-detection is sometimes off. I hope they don't lose faith in their ideas as another try with some feedback and a future beta could do wonders for this as a franchise.
  28. s3cret_stang
    Mar 17, 2011
    5
    Before I start, just have to make sure I mention that I hate ALL CoD games after CoD 4. That being said, I really liked the first 2 hours of the campaign mode in Homefront. It just drew me in, and even though the gameplay itself is just a really really vanilla FPS, it just felt awesome every time I would take an enemy out. The setting is really well done, and the plot is too, until aboutBefore I start, just have to make sure I mention that I hate ALL CoD games after CoD 4. That being said, I really liked the first 2 hours of the campaign mode in Homefront. It just drew me in, and even though the gameplay itself is just a really really vanilla FPS, it just felt awesome every time I would take an enemy out. The setting is really well done, and the plot is too, until about the 3 hour mark. Then it just seems to fall flat, and even though I started to get pretty bored of mowing down countless Koreans, it was even worse the way it just ended. However, I could get over the incredibly short campaign if the multiplayer had been right. It has a lot of promise with the insane number of unlocks, perks, weapons, and vehicles, but there are a few things that just ruin it. The first is the nauseatingly awful hit detection, if you thought BC:2 had a sketchy hit detection system, Homefront is by far, the very worst. Vehicle controls are horrible, gun and explosion sounds are sub-par, and even if you party up with a few friends, 99% of matches are just a mess. There is no direction other than trying to capture the objectives, and while being able to save BP to get an ability or vehicle is nice, at times you will see way too many at once. While it's fun, it's also completely random and disorganized, and while teamwork can help you win, it's very rare to happen, and even if it does, it usually breaks down once enough drones, or helis are up in the air. It was a nice try, and some pretty nice ideas that they could possibly build on, but overall, a lack of execution. I really hope they do make a second one, and fix everything they got wrong, this game had a lot of promise but, I'm sad to say I was very disappointed.… Expand
  29. Engage
    Mar 26, 2011
    5
    Let me start out by saying that I traded in Halo Reach and Fallout N.V for Homefront and I am sadly disappointed. For all of those looking into this game DON'T get it until it goes on sale for like 30 dollars. The game isn't as bad as say Bionic Commando but the graphics are inexcusably horrible. I read that it uses Unreal Engine 1 and thats not going to fly with most gamers expecting aLet me start out by saying that I traded in Halo Reach and Fallout N.V for Homefront and I am sadly disappointed. For all of those looking into this game DON'T get it until it goes on sale for like 30 dollars. The game isn't as bad as say Bionic Commando but the graphics are inexcusably horrible. I read that it uses Unreal Engine 1 and thats not going to fly with most gamers expecting a AAA title. Its really outdated and I'll end at that. If you can look past the graphics, the game isnt that bad albeit the extremely short campaign. The multiplayer is what people are going to buy this game for so it shouldnt be a huge problem. The multiplayer is VERY team oriented so dont expect to be a lone wolf and do all that well. The spawns can be a little messy but it does a good job in telling you whos around you with the birds eye view of the map before you spawn in. I found that there can be some hit detection problems when other people are behind cover, but otherwise its really good on that front. The game tends to be DOMINATED by vehicles (the choppers) because to my knowledge its up in the air until you shoot it down which is a little to hard to do. Bottom line is it feels like a really polished arcade game (Blacklight: Tango Down) in particular. Its not worth 60 dollars and Im glad i payed only 20 bucks but when it goes on sale and you want to waste some money, go for it.… Expand
  30. CircaNOW73
    May 11, 2011
    5
    I feel like I bought a 2002 game in 2011 and paid 2011 money for it. It's weak. Awhile back it would have been good but games have come too far to put out crap like this. The story is interesting, compelling, it would make for a great movie. The gameplay though, is so broke. You get snagged on things, it's a task to jump over an object sometimes. The graphics are less than you would expectI feel like I bought a 2002 game in 2011 and paid 2011 money for it. It's weak. Awhile back it would have been good but games have come too far to put out crap like this. The story is interesting, compelling, it would make for a great movie. The gameplay though, is so broke. You get snagged on things, it's a task to jump over an object sometimes. The graphics are less than you would expect these days. The campaign is way too short. Mutliplayer is weak too. We have been spoiled with MMO war shooters so the bar is high, this game can't reach the bar, I think you would have a hard time seeing the bar from this game. If you have to play this, pick up a used copy when it costs about $20. Pick it up when Gamestop does those buy 2 used get one free deals.… Expand
  31. amccann
    Mar 15, 2011
    5
    I was immediately disappointed with the graphics - they remind me of half life graphics which were good back then but things have come a long way since then. I felt like the game could have been made on the original xbox console. They definitely put some thought into the storyline as demonstrated by the newspaper clippings collected throughout the game. The gameplay is ho-hum - nothingI was immediately disappointed with the graphics - they remind me of half life graphics which were good back then but things have come a long way since then. I felt like the game could have been made on the original xbox console. They definitely put some thought into the storyline as demonstrated by the newspaper clippings collected throughout the game. The gameplay is ho-hum - nothing really new or remarkable for a typical FPS. The voice acting was decent and fairly humorous at some points during the game. Some of the levels felt solid and were enjoyable but I found myself wanting some of the levels to end a bit more sooner than they did. The game would be considered punishing for new comers to shooters in general as its pretty challenging during some parts and the AI can be very cheap at times seemingly able to almost shoot around corners. This game could have been made better.… Expand
  32. resce
    Mar 15, 2011
    5
    I give it 1 point for the story, 2 for drones being pretty fun to play, and another 2 for fun big games battles with in game purchases for a total of 5 points. Campaign is ridiculously short and easily beaten in a single sitting. Like most shooters like this, the game is very linear, but what is most aggravating are glitchy AI slowing you down all the time. There are literally dozens ofI give it 1 point for the story, 2 for drones being pretty fun to play, and another 2 for fun big games battles with in game purchases for a total of 5 points. Campaign is ridiculously short and easily beaten in a single sitting. Like most shooters like this, the game is very linear, but what is most aggravating are glitchy AI slowing you down all the time. There are literally dozens of times where a file cabinet or fridge is blocking your way and you have to wait for a squad mate to push it over. The graphics are disappointing, but not distracting. I thought the korean uniforms were weird but when you get to shooter falks in plain clothes you quickly realize they are all one of three models.

    The multiplayer is fun however. Drones are interesting and something new. I also like the big team battles where you are vying for points on the map that change based on how the battle is going.

    Overall, I'd say the game is worth renting, but certainly not worth $60. However, be warned that multiplayer with full progression is unlocked with a code you get when you buy the game. Otherwise, its an extra $15 if you rent it or get it used.    … Expand
  33. Bad_Mojo
    Mar 16, 2011
    5
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. To start with, the campaign of Homefront is a terribly disappoint flicker of what it could have been. It does have its moments, a terribly misplaced mortar round, and the much discussed mass-grave scene to name a few. But these moments are few and far in between. The scenery is fun to play through, but I was never left going, OMG, this place looks just like my local _________, which is what I had been led on to believe would happen.

    The majority of the game is a tragically stereotypical FPS, with linear levels, bland weapon choice and frustratingly annoying teammates. You have the typical same three people who run around with you and never die, hardly seeming like they are freedom fighters at all. Your character doesn't even seem to be a person at all. The whole experience was just unpleasant, but it was made downright terrible when one thinks about how much potential was there that was just ignored.

    The redeeming factor for this game is most definetly the multiplayer. It is a pleasant combination of a Call of Duty like gun and class custimization armory and Battlefield like large battles. The battlepoints system adds an extra little bit to the experience, allowing you to use fun little toys like a Hellfire-shooting UAV and a drone to mark targets for teammates, or more powerful options, such as tanks or attack helicopters. The caputer-points (I can't remeber the exact name) mode is rather fun, and changes up the pace and scenery of a game, but static spawn points can be a real annoyance if a few enemies manage to slip behind the main line of conflict.

    The battle commander mode is also an interesting side venture, in which you are targeted as you do better, pointing you out to the enemy, but also rewarding you with various powerups.

    Overall, the multiplayer is the only worth-while venture of this game, and even that seems like it won't be a long lasting experience. Once you've used the various battle-points rewards and gotten your fill of the large battle feeling, the triviality of the game will wear off, and you will be left yearning for more polished games. I had bought this game hoping for a great story and a possibly fun multiplayer distraction, but instead I got a shoddy campaign and a multiplayer experience which I don't think will last.    … Expand
  34. dirtyfinger
    Mar 18, 2011
    5
    It's a decent game ... just like any other shooter of your choice. Graphics are decent, action is ok, multpilayer is there ... yeah, that's about it.

    however, since they made such a fuss about the weird background story, which sounds like america is desperately searching for someone new to fight a war against, it's worth mentioning that the whole "epic" campaign is over and done in one    It's a decent game ... just like any other shooter of your choice. Graphics are decent, action is ok, multpilayer is there ... yeah, that's about it.

    however, since they made such a fuss about the weird background story, which sounds like america is desperately searching for someone new to fight a war against, it's worth mentioning that the whole "epic" campaign is over and done in one weekend.
    apparently they hired some professional author for their backstory ... sweet job, since the game itself fills half of a short story. :(

    anyway, decent game. just not anything worth comparing to, say, Crysis 2.    … Expand
  35. cypherpunk
    Mar 19, 2011
    5
    I have been waiting for this game for a long time now, and it is hard to be critical of it...but here we go. I agree that CoD fanbois are pretty harsh on this game, because I am on myself and I don't think it's as bad as they say. But there are several fundamental design problems that KAOS and THQ have no excuse for allowing into final release of this game. The clipping of environmentalI have been waiting for this game for a long time now, and it is hard to be critical of it...but here we go. I agree that CoD fanbois are pretty harsh on this game, because I am on myself and I don't think it's as bad as they say. But there are several fundamental design problems that KAOS and THQ have no excuse for allowing into final release of this game. The clipping of environmental objects with rounds fired is similar to games made in the late 1990s. When you can clearly see the target, see down the length of the weapon above the object you are in cover behind, yet still your bullets are blocked by the object, it's time to take the game back to QA to fix the issue. Multiplayer has been ridiculously impossible from day 1 (I concede this is true for most popular shooters when they come out.) The campaign was so short that I beat it the day I bought it, and I picked it up after work one night.
    I really, REALLY want to like this game more, and give it a higher score. The story is good, if not predictable, and the script wrenches at you just as Red Dawn did 25 years ago. Too bad the story wasn't supported by better game mechanics and design.    … Expand
  36. GamerTheory
    Mar 19, 2011
    5
    I got some words for this game...Totally Douche-ular!! I got this game a couple of days ago, and was immediately disappointed. I was expecting the perfect marriage between Battlefield 2 and COD, but boy was I wrong! The guys at THQ need to talk to their designers about trying to market their product as if it can compete or compare with what Dice did with Battlefield. I admit there are someI got some words for this game...Totally Douche-ular!! I got this game a couple of days ago, and was immediately disappointed. I was expecting the perfect marriage between Battlefield 2 and COD, but boy was I wrong! The guys at THQ need to talk to their designers about trying to market their product as if it can compete or compare with what Dice did with Battlefield. I admit there are some things I enjoy about the game....but they miss the mark by far in too many areas....but mainly I hate how out of focus the enemy is even at a decent proximity, no co-op mode for main game, and a non-destructable environment.. Not to mention the fact that the designers promised a game that would offer everyone an edge, but a couple of hours worth of some guy raping you and your entire team with a helicopter that you can't shoot down, because there isn't a such thing as a heat-seeking missle that you can shoot at it. I should have known to wait for Battlefield 3, because this was a waste of time and money! Can't wait til I sell this on Ebay or Craigslist!!… Expand
  37. Lunchy306
    Mar 25, 2011
    5
    I have to admit, I was very disappointed with Homefront. I was seriously looking for the next replacement for Black Ops, and instead what I found was little better than a polished beta. That's not to say that THQ isn't on to something though, and the franchise may have a future if THQ pays very close attention to what they have done wrong and improves upon it.

    First the campaign is    I have to admit, I was very disappointed with Homefront. I was seriously looking for the next replacement for Black Ops, and instead what I found was little better than a polished beta. That's not to say that THQ isn't on to something though, and the franchise may have a future if THQ pays very close attention to what they have done wrong and improves upon it.

    First the campaign is really just an extended tutorial to get you ready for multiplayer. I finished the campaign in just 4.5 hours. While the opening scenes are as disturbing as they promised the overall play through did not live up to the hype. I did not feel that sense of connection that you would expect with the characters in the story, nor did I feel any sense of accomplishment having completed the game. I like the story line though but there just wasn't enough of it.

    Second, online play does have some positives, but the negatives ultimately bog down the title. I like the concept of Battle Points and the ability to earn your kill streaks multiple times during a match. But like other reviewers, I was disappointed with the lack of weaponry to chose from, and the number of maps to play on. I'm also disappointed that THQ obviously is going to try to squeeze players for every dime they can as the launch day pre-order DLC was for a 870 shotgun DL. This weapon is not included in the game as an unlock, but the plan is obvious that it will be a gun that you will have to purchase. Which undoubtedly means they have plans to charge for additional gun(s) packs, in addition to maps. This amounts to little more than a money grab in my book.

    Third, hit detection is atrocious. I tend to be a sniper in most FPS games, as I just prefer the go for precision shots rather than the run and gun method. The first two rounds i played, I was dead on target and pulled the trigger on what should have been easy confirmed kills, and was annoyed that the rounds never hit. Thinking that perhaps it was a simulated Coriolis effect, my excitement grew, only to be crushed when I tried to apply the principle to the game. The game simply is flawed in that it routinely does not register hits. Furthermore there is no bullet penetration to speak of. If you do not have a LOS, you do not have a shot. Flimsy picket fences are adequate cover against what would realistically be a 7.62x51 NATO round from the M110 which is the starter rifle you get to shoot with. Don't get me wrong, I realize that bullet penetration varies depending on the medium, but a picket fence? Really?

    Anyway rent this if you want, but save your money for the next Black Ops DLC and hope that THQ comes with a better version in Homefront 2.    … Expand
  38. TargetGiftCard7
    Apr 7, 2011
    5
    The title really doesn't live up to its name. The campaign was exciting and had a very fitting story, but it was a bit short, try 4 hours. The ending was abrupt and unsatisfying. Graphics were pretty good. The multiplayer is fair, at most. What I've noticed is that it is a campers paradise. And if you buy it used, why do you have to pay to continue in multiplayer? The weapons are prettyThe title really doesn't live up to its name. The campaign was exciting and had a very fitting story, but it was a bit short, try 4 hours. The ending was abrupt and unsatisfying. Graphics were pretty good. The multiplayer is fair, at most. What I've noticed is that it is a campers paradise. And if you buy it used, why do you have to pay to continue in multiplayer? The weapons are pretty good, along with the different perks and vehicles. The maps are pretty good too. I just don't understand why first-person shooters now-a-days have shorter and shorter campaigns though. They put too much work in the mutliplayer. I look for a good, long and challenging campaign. Not a 4 hour campaign with an unfitting ending.… Expand
  39. Necrotic-King
    Apr 14, 2011
    5
    I will keep this very frank. The controls are good. The campaign was decent, with an o.k. story, but nothing that really sticks with you. The multiplayer, though, was a big disappointment. There are only 2 different game modes. A ripoff of domination, and a regular old deathmatch. I found the multiplayer can pretty much be equated as; who can hide in a bush (or crevice) better than theI will keep this very frank. The controls are good. The campaign was decent, with an o.k. story, but nothing that really sticks with you. The multiplayer, though, was a big disappointment. There are only 2 different game modes. A ripoff of domination, and a regular old deathmatch. I found the multiplayer can pretty much be equated as; who can hide in a bush (or crevice) better than the other guy. The spawn system is kind of funky too. It feels like a game they just rushed out. I really wish I didn't throw away 60 bucks on this P.O.S. Don't waste your money. Pick up a game that actually was fully developed.… Expand
  40. fidelcastr067
    Apr 23, 2011
    5
    I only bought this game for the Multiplayer so the Campaign is just an added bonus for me.

    In theory this game is beyond awesome. But once you get to the nitty gritty, this is an unfinished game, bugs galore, dedicated server netcode that places you in games in other continents rather your own. The game is a mess and everything might be resolved in this so called patch 2, but who knows    I only bought this game for the Multiplayer so the Campaign is just an added bonus for me.

    In theory this game is beyond awesome. But once you get to the nitty gritty, this is an unfinished game, bugs galore, dedicated server netcode that places you in games in other continents rather your own. The game is a mess and everything might be resolved in this so called patch 2, but who knows when that will be coming.    … Expand
  41. Killer_Kast_One
    May 21, 2011
    5
    Pros: Campaign was fun for me, although people say it was short, I am not sure what they expected. There are plenty of achievements to tackle. My first playthough I got 300. and on casual mode. The guns feels and sound great too. The premise is indeed probably one of the more appealing things about the game.

    Cons: Overall I somewhat disliked this game, I love tackling achievements after    Pros: Campaign was fun for me, although people say it was short, I am not sure what they expected. There are plenty of achievements to tackle. My first playthough I got 300. and on casual mode. The guns feels and sound great too. The premise is indeed probably one of the more appealing things about the game.

    Cons: Overall I somewhat disliked this game, I love tackling achievements after having fun with a game, but the achievements here were time consuming....well let me put it another way. Say you need to beat a lvl without dying. You load up a stage, and you have to sit through a cutscene with no way to skip. You then have to follow someone for an extra two minutes. You are ripping the stage apart and then you die, so reload the stage, watch the cutscene, follow the person...ugh.... that is truly hard a waste of time for me to deal with enough so to stick me at the 300 chevos and I normally get at least 500. This happens on nearly every stage. Another thing I didn't like too much was that you need an online code to play multiplayer. A lot and I mean a lot of achievements revolve around the MP on this game and because of the code issue, it makes it hard to trade or re-sell. With no code you are stuck at lvl 5.

    Overall I enjoyed the story up unitl a little over half way, it started to get dull. The premise is awesome though. N. and S. Korea merge and fully deploy on the U.S taking it over almost completely until You as a player show some resistance and strike back.    … Expand
  42. darthgamer79
    May 8, 2011
    5
    DARTHGAMER79

    ¨Men i fell like i buy only a piece of a game for the price of a complete one. i fell ripped off. i think that´s lame. a dlc must be an addition to the hole experience of playing a game and not another part missing on the original game. very very poor and deception¨.
  43. Necrotaur
    Jun 12, 2012
    5
    I was fairly excited for Homefront when it was released. A group of about 3 of my friends and I all bought it, with the expectation that we'd play it online together. What wound up happening wa, after playing a little bit online, we all shelved it and never spoke of it again. The campaign is pretty short and forgettable, where you ultimately spend most of your time waiting around forI was fairly excited for Homefront when it was released. A group of about 3 of my friends and I all bought it, with the expectation that we'd play it online together. What wound up happening wa, after playing a little bit online, we all shelved it and never spoke of it again. The campaign is pretty short and forgettable, where you ultimately spend most of your time waiting around for someone to move tipped over refrigerators so you can continue to the next area. Multiplayer is... well... it felt like a cross between Battlefield and Call of Duty, and not in a good way. Guns sound and function almost exactly alike, there is little customization, and killstreaks are bizarre and unbalanced.… Expand
  44. gstiker5
    Jul 6, 2013
    5
    Average thats what it is the story is fantastical how could North Korea do this there is so much potential missions in North Korea and where is the UK and Canada. The multiplayer is pretty fun but it still dosen't make it good and the graphics are ok
  45. Jamison12
    Jan 12, 2016
    5
    There is incredible potential, potential that's wasted on a game that can be knocked out in an afternoon. The multiplayer has its moments, but it's not enough to help just a largely forgettable game. Homefront feels like a discount Call of Duty with Red Dawn thrown in just for fun. This game has rightfully been forgotten.
  46. 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
  47. 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
  48. 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
  49. 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
  50. 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
  51. 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.
  52. 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
  53. 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
  54. 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.
  55. 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
  56. 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
  57. 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
  58. 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.
  59. 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
  60. 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 ****
  61. 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
  62. 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
  63. 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
  64. 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
  65. 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
  66. 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
  67. 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
  68. 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
  69. 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.
  70. 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
  71. 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
  72. 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.
  73. 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
  74. 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
  75. 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
  76. 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
  77. 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
  78. 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
  79. 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?
  80. 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.
  81. 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
  82. 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
  83. 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.
  84. 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
  85. 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.
  86. 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
  87. 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.
  88. 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
  89. 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.
  90. 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
  91. 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
  92. 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.
  93. 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
  94. 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
  95. 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.
  96. 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
  97. 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
  98. 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!
  99. 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.
  100. 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.
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 »