Homefront (PC, 360)

yeah, but i don't consider that within the realm of normal 'scripted events'

and that doesn't even really happen in medal of honor anyway...

Nocbl2 wrote:I want a game that kills anyone that hasn't moved say, 50 feet in the last 15 seconds.

...


No.

If you want an arena shooter, go play Quake Live, its free.

ReconToaster wrote:Korea has a REALLY large land army in comparison to most of the world, and most of US troops are abroad.

It could happen.

Not really im sure with our technology we could tell a large moving army before they even leave their country.

ntm their air force is weak.

and in a sovereign war, air superiority is the single most important element.

I like how you guys disregard the story and setting they have in place to explain why NK was able to do it. The novel also talks about more stuff and a little more detail.

Ruski wrote:I like how you guys disregard the story and setting they have in place to explain why NK was able to do it. The novel also talks about more stuff and a little more detail.

Well can you (or anyone really) explain it more? Cause from what I've seen (and basically understand) NK could not take over the US.

Felix wrote:

Ruski wrote:I like how you guys disregard the story and setting they have in place to explain why NK was able to do it. The novel also talks about more stuff and a little more detail.

Well can you (or anyone really) explain it more? Cause from what I've seen (and basically understand) NK could not take over the US.

It's not just NK it's a united Korea(NK already has a lot of troops, with SK they would have a pretty big army) and this Korea has taken over Japan, China, Philippines, and other Island nations. It has loads of troops and resources to call upon. While/before all this is happening the US is pulling out of foreign nations and downsizing their military due to a MASSIVE economic decline in the western world. A war between Iran and Saudi Arabia drives oil prices to nearly 20$ a gallon to make things much worse. Also before the Koreans even invade the mainland US they EMP the entire nation and wait a month or so before they even go in just so everything has gone to hell. They Irradiate the Mississippi river to divide east and west (They only needed the west and America is a BIG place, korea doesn't even have a strong enough army to bring all of it under control.) to make it easier to keep America under control.

I played the game today and I love it, a very good campaign but on the short side tbh but the multiplayer is so fun. The servers are kinda iffy right now but they are working to fix it.

I agree with EVERYTHING this guy says.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52jM6ifK5zo&feature=

Did i mention it's practically a clone on Call of duty? But worse.

JumpingJet wrote:I agree with EVERYTHING this guy says.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52jM6ifK5zo&feature=

Did i mention it's practically a clone on Call of duty? But worse.

Okay, how in the FUCK is this anything like Call of Duty?!

um...its a more battlefieldy gameplay than call of duty. with some actual depth to the play-styles.

He is talking about the singleplayer JJ, The multiplayer is built in a fasion similiar to battlefield. With a Section 8 style perk choice system

I know he is talking about single player.

The game seems so scripted, silly amount of enemies, silly guns, poor graphics.

It has the call of duty approach to single player, i can't say im surprised.
This game wasn't built to be a blockbuster it was just built to be a solid game.

and the graphics aren't that bad your being pessemistic

JumpingJet wrote:I know he is talking about single player.

The game seems so scripted, silly amount of enemies, silly guns, poor graphics.

Except it has something call of duty doesn't have in it's single player games, a good story. There is already back story to this game not to mention things like the collectible Intel inside the game adds even more back story.

Scripted=/=Bad, and these events don't dominate the entire game like you may think. JJ this is a shooter, there is always a lot of enemies in these games to keep the game fast paced and fun. The guns are fine, btw I wouldn't bitch about these REAL guns when I have heard no complaints from you about halo's guns which can be very "silly".

wait....real guns are silly?

JumpingJet wrote:I know he is talking about single player.

The game seems so scripted, silly amount of enemies, silly guns, poor graphics.

1. As Death said, scripted doesn't equal bad.

2. Last time I checked, if you invade a nation, you don't fucking bring 50 guys. You bring a lot of people. It's not "silly" in the least.

3. "wait... real guns are silly?" This.

4. The graphics are not poor in the least. Don't know where you got that from.

I stoped by a local RedBox after work just now and gave this game a rental...

Let's see how much I can like it...

Divine Virus wrote:I stoped by a local RedBox after work just now and gave this game a rental...

Let's see how much I can like it...

We still don't have game rentals at Ohio RedBoxes

Well I finished the single player and it was ok. It was of course short and pretty predictable.

I played so far 2 games of MP and so far...it's ok. What I like is the whole big team V. big team aspect. The amount of weapons and sights and scopes etc etc. Vehicle combat. Drones and cars and aircraft. Bout the only thing missing is boats like in Bad Company 2, but it doesn't really need'em.

But yeah, I deffinatly like it, just not enough for a full $60 purchase. If people are still playing this after some time for a price drop, then I'll pick it up.

I'm glad I rented this to see how I like it. To get my shooter fix instead of this, today I'm going to pick up Crysis 2.

So yeah, overall, good game with good multiplayer to make it last for a while. Just not exactly what I wanted it to be.

My buddy said the campaign was terrible, and the multiplayer "Battle Points" system was atrocious as well.

Nocbl2 wrote:My buddy said the campaign was terrible, and the multiplayer "Battle Points" system was atrocious as well.

Maybe you shouldn't listen to your retarded buddy...

Nocbl2 wrote:My buddy said the campaign was terrible, and the multiplayer "Battle Points" system was atrocious as well.

Despite what your friend says, I'm not taking this into account as your opinion or anything you say about the game until you play it yourself.

Ruski wrote:

Nocbl2 wrote:My buddy said the campaign was terrible, and the multiplayer "Battle Points" system was atrocious as well.

Despite what your friend says, I'm not taking this into account as your opinion or anything you say about the game until you play it yourself.

Wait, when did he say that's his opinion? I'm confuzzled. =/

Anyways, buying a $60 game for just multiplayer is a waste for me.

I've seen lots of single player videos and it doesn't look as fun as lets say... Bad Company 2.