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. 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
  2. SmashedPulp
    Mar 19, 2011
    10
    A lot of the reviews I've read about this game really irk me to no end. While it is understandable for publications to focus on the single player aspects of a game a bit more than the multiplayer portions as many people who purchase games do not have xbox live, I nonetheless find this focus entirely off-base. The single player campaign only serves as a backdrop to Homefront'sA lot of the reviews I've read about this game really irk me to no end. While it is understandable for publications to focus on the single player aspects of a game a bit more than the multiplayer portions as many people who purchase games do not have xbox live, I nonetheless find this focus entirely off-base. The single player campaign only serves as a backdrop to Homefront's outstandingly enjoyable online package and is nothing more than a diversion to spend a few hours time once online becomes somewhat stale; THQ's marketing campaign is probably most at fault for over-hyping the campaign while under-selling multiplayer. It sickens me that so many Metacritic users are ignorant **** when it comes to rating a game. I mean, I understand if Homefront isn't your thing, but is it really deserving of a 0? It's a solid yet somewhat unspectacular multiplayer rich game that should be appreciated by any Bad Company 2 fan.… Expand
  3. 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
  4. M1ckJagger
    Jun 1, 2011
    0
    Bjk1 is a fool. Sorry just had to get that off my chest first. This game is trash simply put. It's red dawn with Koreans instead of Russians. Great job millius you douche. I preordered it anticipated i ven counted down the days only to be left with a short single player a horrible mutiplayer which didn't work on release. Sorry kaos but this is junk pure and simple
  5. 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.
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. 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
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. Bibowski
    Mar 18, 2011
    8
    I'm glad I didn't base my rental decision on critic reviews, as I was VERY pleasantly surprised with Homefront. I was reminded of Black (for the original XBOX) with some slight queues (and I mean slight) from Half Life 2.

    The action was VERY intense and the immersion was fantastic. I have yet to play online, but the 4.5 hour campaign was thoroughly enjoyable and I urge anyone looking for    I'm glad I didn't base my rental decision on critic reviews, as I was VERY pleasantly surprised with Homefront. I was reminded of Black (for the original XBOX) with some slight queues (and I mean slight) from Half Life 2.

    The action was VERY intense and the immersion was fantastic. I have yet to play online, but the 4.5 hour campaign was thoroughly enjoyable and I urge anyone looking for a slightly different, more straight forward FPS experience to give it a try. As for the graphics? I thought they were at times incredible, at other times, decent. Voiceovers were weak from time to time, but more most of the game were fine.

    Why only 8/10? I cannot recommend ANYONE buy it with such limited re playability and such a short single player campaign. No complaints other than that.    … Expand
  12. ALL
    Mar 22, 2011
    10
    This game is terrible!!! It looks like an old Xbox game! I'm sure the story line would be great, but the game looks so terrible and is so glitchy that it's not even worth playing! Unfortunately, it's even worse on multiplayer! Computer and Video Games says that it's multiplayer is better than CoD??? Insane!! It's the worst!! Glitchy, hack ridden, and awful to look at, and that's ifThis game is terrible!!! It looks like an old Xbox game! I'm sure the story line would be great, but the game looks so terrible and is so glitchy that it's not even worth playing! Unfortunately, it's even worse on multiplayer! Computer and Video Games says that it's multiplayer is better than CoD??? Insane!! It's the worst!! Glitchy, hack ridden, and awful to look at, and that's if you can get into a match. Of course none of the 32 player matches work either because the developers didn't know what they were doing and had no Quality Control. They should take the 32 player advertisements down, because it's impossible to get into those matches.… Expand
  13. 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
  14. bigmookalookie
    Apr 3, 2011
    9
    I must say that the single player isnt all that bad but it is a nice compliment to the extremely fun multiplayer. This is not cod and thats the reason why people prob dont like it. You can camp in corners it it new and fresh. Alot of the server issues have been fixed and the graphics are well done and with all the vehicles and explosions that are going on you will be suprised that the gameI must say that the single player isnt all that bad but it is a nice compliment to the extremely fun multiplayer. This is not cod and thats the reason why people prob dont like it. You can camp in corners it it new and fresh. Alot of the server issues have been fixed and the graphics are well done and with all the vehicles and explosions that are going on you will be suprised that the game does not slow to a crawl. before you spawn in you see a over view of the field so if there is a spawn camper you dont get cheated. I has a buddy play it and couldnt get enough of it he loved all the action going on and all the vehicles and weapons you could purchase with battle points. I tried to go to black ops but couldnt get into it for the main that is just that it isnt much fun. If you want something differant and you give this game a chance you will love this game and esp if you play your role as either a sniper or you like to assault youll get the bang for your buck but if you cod no scope try to kill people you will get schooled. Play it give it a chance youll love it and wont go back to cod trust me I did and cod will get traded in.… Expand
  15. 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
  16. 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.
  17. 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
  18. 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.
  19. 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.
  20. 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
  21. 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
  22. 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
  23. Xiphus200
    Apr 6, 2011
    8
    Great multi-player, bad campaign.... It's hard to give a game one score when the single player portion is such a let down but the online combat is great so I give it an 8 over all. I'd give the single player a 5, it's very short and the plot narrative and lack of interaction with the environment make you feel like your character is just along for the ride. The AI is buggy in spots and yourGreat multi-player, bad campaign.... It's hard to give a game one score when the single player portion is such a let down but the online combat is great so I give it an 8 over all. I'd give the single player a 5, it's very short and the plot narrative and lack of interaction with the environment make you feel like your character is just along for the ride. The AI is buggy in spots and your Allies are rarely helpful in a fire fight. It had some memorable moments, but to few to justify buying the game just for the story. I give the Multi-player part of the game a 9, the 32 player support and large maps make for some fun game modes. I like the Battle Points system, it's a bit like kill streak abilities in CoD but more forgiving since you have a running total for the match so you can bank them up to use a devastating higher cost ability without worry about a death or two. I also love the way they did vehicles. In the respawn screen you have the option to spend some of your Battle Points to spawn in a vehicle. I found this to keep a good mix of armor and infantry on the game map since you can't just hop out of your vehicle and run to get another one over and over. The vehicles seem fairly balanced as far as cost vs firepower. This game will be my regular online console shooter for a while.… Expand
  24. InformedGamer
    Mar 18, 2011
    7
    For a FPS it is not a terrible game. The Single player campaign is very short and very linear. The graphics are also dated. What this game does have going for it is an incredible if somewhat implausible story. I was so interested in the story I made it a point to collect all of the newspapers. The story is also why I gave it a bump in the rating since FPS games are lacking in this area.For a FPS it is not a terrible game. The Single player campaign is very short and very linear. The graphics are also dated. What this game does have going for it is an incredible if somewhat implausible story. I was so interested in the story I made it a point to collect all of the newspapers. The story is also why I gave it a bump in the rating since FPS games are lacking in this area. The Multiplayer is what really shines though. Very new concepts and strategies incorporated. I don't want to put in any spoilers but the game does take a few new directions in multiplayer. In short: Don't buy it for just the campaign, buy it for something different on the Multiplayer side of the fence. Not the best FPS you'll ever play but still worthwhile. Good Gaming!!… Expand
  25. 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
  26. 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
  27. 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!
  28. MNiT
    Apr 12, 2011
    10
    I gave this amazing game a 10/10 because the single player was good and believable and the MP is AMAZING. Atleast it was much better then CoD's. The MP is pretty much the large scale warfare of BF and the fast pacing of CoD
  29. 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
  30. 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
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 »