Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
Dumpshock Forums _ General Gaming _ Homefront
Posted by: CanRay Mar 9 2011, 05:16 PM
I really have no idea why, but this game speaks to me on some level. Perhaps it's the Cold War-era thinking I still have (Mine being the last generation...), perhaps it's a few other things...
Anyhow, just wondering if I'm alone in thinking about this game here...
Posted by: Stahlseele Mar 9 2011, 05:19 PM
seeing how most info points at it being console only, i am so not going to buy it.
and even if it does get a computer port, i'll still be sceptical . . porting from PC>Console: OK, NOT the other way around
Posted by: CanRay Mar 9 2011, 05:29 PM
It's coming to PC, and the job of that is being done in my neck of the woods by http://www.digitalextremes.com/.
They look like they might have a decent enough track record.
Posted by: Critias Mar 9 2011, 08:21 PM
I've been keeping an eye on it for a while now. Not in a tremendous rush to pick up another shooter right this second (still digesting a few Call of Duty games that I finally got around to buying), but it's definitely the next shooter on my list.
Posted by: Stahlseele Mar 9 2011, 11:05 PM
if i read/hear good things about this, this might be my next on the list.
else, it's bullet storm, duke nukem 4 ever, crysis 2. crysis 2 only last, because i need an GTX580 first, and that's gonna take some time untill i can afford it <.<
Posted by: CanRay Mar 9 2011, 11:41 PM
Bulletstorm was OK, but suffered from http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation/2863-Bulletstorm, methinks.
Great for a single play through, but anything more than that... Well, I guess it's how much you like getting as many points as possible...
Posted by: Stahlseele Mar 10 2011, 06:19 AM
ah, bugger, sounded like a fun game ._.
Posted by: Thanee Mar 10 2011, 09:18 AM
The GTX560ti should be enough to play it and is much more affordable.
That's the one I will get with my new computer in a few months (as soon as the corrected P67 boards are available).
@Homefront: It does look interesting. I'm not big on shooters, but I might take a look if it gets good reviews.
Bye
Thanee
Posted by: Stahlseele Mar 10 2011, 09:47 AM
I have an 4870x2 right now, if i upgrade, i wanna UPGRADE.
Posted by: Thanee Mar 10 2011, 09:53 AM
In that case, I would wait for the next generation before thinking about upgrading. 
Bye
Thanee
Posted by: Stahlseele Mar 10 2011, 10:03 AM
That IS the next generation.
I jumped over the 2x series of nVidia, i jumped over the 3x/4x series of nVidia.
I jumped over the 5x and 6x series of ATI.
Basically, this is the 3 or 4th generation from my current one <.<
Posted by: Thanee Mar 10 2011, 10:04 AM
I mean the next after the one that is current right now.
At least, if those listings on tomshardware are correct, that card is about on par with 2nd tier current cards. That's more than enough (for me, anyways), and there is no reason to upgrade (yet).
Or is that card too slow for you?
Bye
Thanee
Posted by: Stahlseele Mar 10 2011, 10:19 AM
It is.
I'm planning on getting the Gainward GTX 580 Phantom 3072
Posted by: Thanee Mar 10 2011, 12:10 PM
Heh. What kind of monitors do you use? Double (Triple?) 30"+?
Bye
Thanee
Posted by: Stahlseele Mar 10 2011, 01:38 PM
2x22" widescreen @ 1680x1050 each
Posted by: Thanee Mar 10 2011, 06:57 PM
Ok, that's pretty tame still. 
Bye
Thanee
Posted by: Stahlseele Mar 10 2011, 07:02 PM
Yah, i know . .
it bugs me to no end, that if i go from windowed to full screen with something that's full HD, it becomes SMALLER! x.x
But i simply do not have the Space or Money for Bigger Screens. And i simply can not go back to using only one screen <.<;,
Posted by: CanRay Mar 10 2011, 07:47 PM
My HDTV is my second monitor. 
Posted by: Stahlseele Mar 10 2011, 08:09 PM
My TV is an old CRT Monster that only has one antenna and 2 SCART Plugs.
It weights about half as much as i do and we had to lift that thing with 4 people to get it up into my room and to it's resting place . .
if that thing ever crashes through the cabinet it's standing on, it's going to take out about 2k€ worth of hardware directly beneath it.
and if it decides to fall onto my bed while i'm in there, i'm gonna lose both legs at the knees i think. and i don't think that i'd stop it.
it'd probably go right through me and the bed and hopefully be stopped by the floor beneath that <.< . .
Posted by: CanRay Mar 10 2011, 08:30 PM
And suddenly we're back to the demolitions fun thread with me talking about fun with HVAC-Grade air conditioners.
Posted by: CanRay Mar 13 2011, 07:51 AM
Well, it comes out Tuesday, I'll have to give a report on how I like it.
As I said, something about the game universe and storyline (What there is of one in a FPS) speaks to me for some reason.
Until then, Fallout: New Vegas.
Posted by: Sengir Mar 15 2011, 03:21 PM
Read some reviews today, they were not a good as I hoped. Main criticism seem to be the CoD-esque fights against endless hordes of respawning enemies, which is not exactly how one would imagine a guerrilla campaign. Also some level design issues, AI probs, and for the German translation they obviously hired the guy who wrote the vehicle names in W!
Posted by: Doc Chase Mar 15 2011, 03:37 PM
Reviews also mentioned the story is very, very short - only about five hours worth of single-player play. That tells me they're holding out the lion's share for eventual sequels - not a way I like doing things.
Posted by: CanRay Mar 15 2011, 03:37 PM
*Whimpers*
Posted by: Stahlseele Mar 15 2011, 04:18 PM
*pat pat*
poor guy.
Posted by: CanRay Mar 15 2011, 04:25 PM
Well, it's the Multiplayer that sells FPS games today, and I like what I've been hearing what they have to say about that. So I'll still be getting it. Just got to roll with the times, right? Just like the DLC controversy. (I just think of them as low-priced "Expansion Packs" and it feels better in my mind.).
That, and I want to secure a White Castle, damnit! (Fast food burger chain. I didn't know what they were myself until I went to GenCon Indy.). Although, securing a Pabst Blue Ribbon Brewery/Warehouse wouldn't be a bad idea either. (Even if I could probably pour it back into the horse and make the world a better place, bad beer is better than no beer!).
Heading out now to get it. Let you guys know how it is after I pry myself away from my console. (One day, I'll have a Gaming Rig!).
Posted by: Stahlseele Mar 15 2011, 04:48 PM
if you did not buy consoles, maybe you'd have saved up enough for a propper gaming rig by now *snickers and runs* ^^
Posted by: CanRay Mar 15 2011, 06:46 PM
Actually, I have enough for a gaming rig. The issue is a friend of mine is supposed to be helping me buy/build it as my computer knowledge and skills have atrophied like the Decker Peg's body.
I've already paid for his assistance, and that was last year. Still waiting.
Posted by: Stahlseele Mar 15 2011, 07:54 PM
Demand your money back.
Also, paying somebody to help you buy stuff is . . suboptimal, at best.
paying for it to be built i can see. but if you get your kustom dakka made anyway, get it made at one of the little komputah shops around your corner of the world.
and then pay them to build it for you too. you only need to worry about transporting it home them. oh, and demand a demonstration of the system being all set up and working propperly too.
Posted by: Sengir Mar 15 2011, 08:25 PM
/me fondly remembers the time when this would not have been MENTIONED, but DECRIED for the sheer insolence of selling a game offering less than 30 hours of SP gameplay...
Posted by: CanRay Mar 15 2011, 08:42 PM
FPSes are sold on Multiplayer nowadays. 
Anyhow, first mission in, and I'm liking it. It certainly is going for the feel I was thinking it was. Some of the tactics and suggestions given do not come from a military-standpoint, but rather a very civilian, "OHSHITOHSHITOHSHIT!" standpoint that I might give. (Admittedly, I'm a military nut, but that only puts me one rung above someone who plays a lot of Military FPSes.).
And now seeing the place the resistance has built, hidden away in failed Suburbia, and, my god, the detail and concepts... The survivalist usage of materials...
I dread the First Person mode being so short now. And really hope the Multiplayer is good enough! That said, here's hoping for DLC to expand the First Player mode!
Posted by: Critias Mar 15 2011, 11:03 PM
Ugh. That's unfortunate. From the get-go, I got the impression it was the storyline/setting that was going to make Homefront worth buying. Mechanics-wise it seems to just be another CoD clone, I was looking forward to the story/campaign more than anything else. That's just too bad.
Posted by: Yerameyahu Mar 16 2011, 12:11 AM
All games are just for multiplayer, so no surprise there.
Posted by: CanRay Mar 16 2011, 01:27 AM
Remember when Single Player was the only way to play?
Those were the days... *Looks back fondly*
Posted by: Critias Mar 16 2011, 01:56 AM
Well, no. "All games" aren't (plenty of RPGs, for instance, and most of Rockstar's games have a very, very, long single-player game). The thing that sucks about this is that Homefront was touted and advertised based upon the story, the writer involved, and that sort of thing.
With a Call of Duty game, sure. You go into it expecting multiplayer to be important, and the single player campaign to be the frosting on the cake. With a game that sells itself based on the single-player storyline and the setting, though, you expect it to be the other way around.
Posted by: Yerameyahu Mar 16 2011, 02:21 AM
Yes, obviously the context is 'current shooters'. I wasn't aware that Homefront was billed primarily as single-player, though. If so, yes, sounds disappointing. Honestly, I do view *any* single-player in any 'modern shooter' as 'icing on the cake'. Which is sad, yes.
I enjoyed Borderlands, mostly 2-coop. But that's a wholly different genre.
Posted by: Critias Mar 16 2011, 06:05 AM
There's the distinct possibility that they had a bunch more ads/interviews/previews/hype that I missed, but all of them I remember were all about having the Red Dawn guy writing, the initial trailer with the historic timeline, etc, etc.
Posted by: CanRay Mar 16 2011, 04:25 PM
OK, I have to say after playing through a few hours last night (Stupid lack of attention span. I really should do some... SHINY!), I have to say they nailed the look and feel they were aiming for precisely!
I think I'll try the Multiplayer today later on. Report on that.
Posted by: CanRay Mar 17 2011, 02:18 AM
OK, Multiplayer! There's still server issues (They use dedicated servers, which I like), but there was no trace of lag or any other issues that happened in-game, but only Team Deathmatch had any players going... Not exactly what I was aiming for (I have Bad Company 2 for that after all.).
I like the battlepoints system that allows for the purchasing of bonuses when you want/need them most. The system in place for swapping out equipment is nicely laid out and fairly instinctive. I like that they rank the "Bonuses" so you can ramp up a lot of cheap ones, or a few expensive ones. The choice of drones and vehicles is interesting, and the maps seem pretty decent.
As always, I prove myself to be the 50 Cent of FPSes... I keep getting shot. So I'll slowly work my ways up through the system to see what things happen as you level up.
Posted by: Mr. Mage Mar 17 2011, 06:13 PM
You had no lag in multiplayer? that's nice.
When I tried, my screen kept jumping, especially when I would sprint. Plus I kept losing connection to the server, and I know it isn't a lack if anything on my end. Plus only deathmatch so far, that's what I play on Black Ops for god's sake!
I think this game has potential, and I really like the battle-points system, but hopefully they will fix the buggines soon so I don't lose connection right before redeeming my points to pilot an Apache Helo.
EDIT: Loved the Red Dawn movie, and you can definitely see the similarities. Thank you Mr. Milius!
Posted by: CanRay Mar 17 2011, 11:54 PM
Had to restart the Single Player mode (For a personal reason), so I'm back to square one with that. But catching things I missed before.
Collectibles in the game give you a history you can really sink your teeth into. I really hope for more Single Player options in the future of this game.
Posted by: CanRay Mar 21 2011, 07:50 PM
OK, getting deeper into the Multiplayer, I see this as a keeper. The options that are unlocking are certainly interesting, and the drone combat that I finally got to play with (And gives you a good idea why DGIF!) certainly gives it an interesting game. Annoying buggers as well, when they're on the opposing team.
The Ground Commander Mode is an interesting twist, as it rewards, and punishes, good players. You get bonuses, but your general area is tagged for a group of the Opposing Force, which means everyone and their dog will eventually be after you for the points that go into killing you. I don't care how good a sniper you are, a dozen guns Zerg Rushing you is a Bad Thing. Especially with someone marking you as a target with a Drone to give your exact position away.
Vehicle combat is a little wonky, as they only come in when you or someone on your team respawns with a character, but there's an interesting group of vehicles. Hummers are the most common ones I've seen so far, and they're quite fun even to just drive around.
Multiplayer has legs, and I can hope for DLC Single Player add-ons. If not, well, there's always Fallout: New Vegas.
Posted by: Wounded Ronin Mar 25 2011, 03:40 AM
Played it through. Long for a movie, short for a FPS.
Story by Milius well told, but I wish they didn't make it feel like a mod of Call of Duty. I don't really get the visceral urge to scream, "WOLVERINES!!!!" if I have the ability to mysteriously regenerate from bullet wounds. The combat didn't feel desperate enough to get that fear and loathing that tended to come out in older, scary games that required resource management, like System Shock 2, or Thief 2.
Posted by: CanadianWolverine Mar 27 2011, 04:20 PM
So, you liked the story? You liked the movie Red Dawn?
How does this game stack up against another console port, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_Fighters_%28video_game%29?
Posted by: Wesley Street Mar 27 2011, 05:10 PM
I loved Freedom Fighters! I was hoping Homefront would be in the same tradition. It sounds like yet another disappointing game FPS release. The lack of creativity coming out of mainstream game development studios is overwhelming.
http://www.cracked.com/article_19125_6-groups-who-dont-work-as-movie-bad-guys-anymore.html. See entry #4.
Posted by: KarmaInferno Mar 29 2011, 04:00 PM
Finished the singleplayer game in five freaking hours. Very disappointing.
As I don't really play multiplayer, I'm gonna be getting some of my money back by trading it in. Does anyone want my multiplayer code?
-k
Posted by: Wounded Ronin Apr 1 2011, 03:51 AM
How does this game stack up against another console port, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_Fighters_%28video_game%29?
I didn't play Freedom Fighters, but I liked Red Dawn. The way I see it, Red Dawn is a snapshot of the American national cultural narrative. It's a story that everyone should know and understand.
Posted by: CanRay Apr 1 2011, 04:16 AM
Everyone in the USA and most of Canada maybe. Less so other places.
Posted by: KarmaInferno Apr 1 2011, 05:25 AM
So, apparently the bad guys in this game were SUPPOSED to be the Chinese, but were changed to North Koreans because of publishers being nervous?
Same thing that is happening to the Red Dawn remake?
-k
Posted by: CanRay Apr 1 2011, 06:05 AM
Remember the days when we didn't have to be PC? When we could have action heroes that blew away minorities and villanized groups with a grin on their faces?
Yeah... Well, we still have the Nazis, I guess. Must be why there are so many WWII games.
Posted by: Wesley Street Apr 1 2011, 04:36 PM
Same thing that is happening to the Red Dawn remake?
A little of that. And a little of it not making sense that the Chinese would invade us seeing as how we're major trading partners. But mostly the producers not wanting to piss off potential Chinese buyers.
Posted by: CanRay Apr 1 2011, 06:08 PM
What about Korean and Japanese buyers?
Australian buyers are just screwed with anything isn't G-Rated apparently.
Posted by: Wesley Street Apr 1 2011, 07:11 PM
One point three billion potential consumers vs. 175 million... If I was a good little capitalist I know which group I'd be okay with honking off.
Posted by: Yerameyahu Apr 1 2011, 07:16 PM
I dunno why everyone always pretends to be tweaked about this stuff. I'd play a game where you shoot evil Americans, or as an alien/fantasy race against humans, whatever.
Posted by: Wounded Ronin Apr 1 2011, 07:24 PM
Lol, yeah. I can see it now. Noam Chomsky gets involved in the script of a video game featuring cutscenes of Americans, who are universally portrayed as fat belligerent cowboys, who appear in Ethiopia and begin tying up innocent civilians so they can stuff Big Macs in their mouths while punching them in the crotch, before hosing down all the local objects of cultural significance with fire trucks converted to spray high fructose corn syrup.
Posted by: Yerameyahu Apr 1 2011, 07:26 PM
I think I've already seen that. New ground, c'mon!
Posted by: CanRay Apr 1 2011, 09:08 PM
The US Invasion of Canada for it's oil, hydro-electric dams, and other natural resources?
Posted by: Yerameyahu Apr 1 2011, 09:14 PM
I'd buy that for a dollar.
Posted by: CanRay Apr 1 2011, 09:25 PM
I'd pay full price for that. Of course, it'd be a drinking game where the US Soldiers are sent home without uniforms or equipment because they were taken away while they were all passed out drunk...
Posted by: Sengir Apr 1 2011, 09:56 PM
Isn't that part of the Fallout backstory?
Posted by: Stahlseele Apr 1 2011, 10:05 PM
yes and no.
technically, CHINA invaded and US of A COUNTER invaded and then stayed there and took it all . .
or something like that at least . . maybe the US of A counter invaded first and then china decided to invade before the US of A got it all to themselves . .
And then somebody threw the first nuke and it all became academical from there on . .
Posted by: CanRay Apr 1 2011, 10:36 PM
Yes, it is. 'Ronto ("Toronto") is mentioned in Fallout 3's DLC, as well.
Posted by: Stahlseele Apr 1 2011, 10:50 PM
Ahh, Operation Anchorage . . such a nice dungeon crawl with horribly over powered gear ^^
Posted by: CanRay Apr 1 2011, 10:57 PM
Nope. The Pitt.
Posted by: Stahlseele Apr 1 2011, 10:58 PM
Whut?
Pittsbourrough?
Operation Anchorage is the Chinese Invasion . .
Posted by: CanRay Apr 2 2011, 12:08 AM
"The Pitt" mentions 'Ronto as one of the cities that's jealous of the full might of The Pitt. As well as a place where they get fresh "Meat".
Posted by: Stahlseele Apr 2 2011, 12:33 AM
Ah, okay.
Been quite some time since i actually played F³ . .
New Vegas pretty much has me burned out. Of course, i pretty much played that one for one month straight <.<
Posted by: CanRay Apr 2 2011, 02:08 AM
I burned out my PS3 with Fallout 3. Let's just say it was good therapy for me, and a good stress test of the PS3. Luckily, I still had three whole days to call Sony for a replacement unit.
I'm eagerly awaiting DLC for New Vegas, however.
Posted by: Stahlseele Apr 2 2011, 09:19 AM
Yah, that's probably going to sucker me into playing again too . .
Posted by: Wounded Ronin Apr 4 2011, 01:07 AM
On the subject of griping about multiplayer centric development...
I am thinking in the lines from the play Macbeth where things are going contrary to nature and the world is going mad. I just found an article with some publisher comments about Mirror's Edge.
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2010-11-29-ea-mirrors-edge-fell-short
"What I learned from Mirror's Edge is that you have to execute, you have to spend more time on a game to ensure it's polished, and you need to have the depth and persistence of an online game," he explained.
"There were issues with the learning curve, the difficulty, the narrative, and then there was no multiplayer either."
I just got Mirror's Edge on a steam sale. I love it. It's got an artistic visual presentation, and it manages to make jumping puzzles (mostly) fun. Maybe the combat is a little rough around the edges but I respect the originality and the vision of the game designer and enjoy focusing on what the game does differently. The reason I didn't buy it originally when it came out was because I had no freaking idea from the TV ads what the hell the game was about. I thought it was an Assassin's Creed ripoff. If they had just said it was single player only attempt to implement free running from a first person perspective in a video game, I would have bought it.
The same guy also had some stuff to say about Dead Space.
"So when we re-worked Dead Space [for the upcoming sequel], we looked at how to make it a better idea, how do we make the story more engrossing, how do we build Isaac as a character, how do we make this game a success online."
Apparently game execs hate games that have a learning curve and that don't have multiplayer.
What the hell is up with everyone wanting multiplayer? I generally don't like multiplayer. I played multiplayer from the days of DikuMUD, and from the days of Marathon on Macintosh computer labs in school, but it doesn't interest me anymore for the most part, because I would rather focus on the vision of the game designer in terms of what they realize for the game than focusing on quasi-social interaction with the boy-men who play multiplayer while constantly exhibiting poor sportsmanship, bizarre misplaced elitism (i.e. vote kicking a guy for not using exploits or for being new to the game), cheating, and rage-quitting.
Rage-quitting says it all. Someone doesn't have the maturity to handle not doing well in a game so they quit. It is the most disgusting exhibition of immature empowerment-fantasy-seeking behaviors. I used to play Left for Dead and Left for Dead 2, and I always went the distance. You wouldn't quit a soccer game or a marathon halfway through just because you weren't winning, and I feel that's just extremely basic character and maturity.
For that reason I prefer single player detail, challenge, and atmosphere nowadays.
Goddamn it. Only multiplayer swill from here on out.
Posted by: CanadianWolverine Apr 4 2011, 03:35 PM
Wasn't that the Saint's Row games?
Posted by: CanadianWolverine Apr 4 2011, 03:55 PM
I am thinking in the lines from the play Macbeth where things are going contrary to nature and the world is going mad. I just found an article with some publisher comments about Mirror's Edge.
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2010-11-29-ea-mirrors-edge-fell-short
I just got Mirror's Edge on a steam sale. I love it. It's got an artistic visual presentation, and it manages to make jumping puzzles (mostly) fun. Maybe the combat is a little rough around the edges but I respect the originality and the vision of the game designer and enjoy focusing on what the game does differently. The reason I didn't buy it originally when it came out was because I had no freaking idea from the TV ads what the hell the game was about. I thought it was an Assassin's Creed ripoff. If they had just said it was single player only attempt to implement free running from a first person perspective in a video game, I would have bought it.
The same guy also had some stuff to say about Dead Space.
Apparently game execs hate games that have a learning curve and that don't have multiplayer.
What the hell is up with everyone wanting multiplayer? I generally don't like multiplayer. I played multiplayer from the days of DikuMUD, and from the days of Marathon on Macintosh computer labs in school, but it doesn't interest me anymore for the most part, because I would rather focus on the vision of the game designer in terms of what they realize for the game than focusing on quasi-social interaction with the boy-men who play multiplayer while constantly exhibiting poor sportsmanship, bizarre misplaced elitism (i.e. vote kicking a guy for not using exploits or for being new to the game), cheating, and rage-quitting.
Rage-quitting says it all. Someone doesn't have the maturity to handle not doing well in a game so they quit. It is the most disgusting exhibition of immature empowerment-fantasy-seeking behaviors. I used to play Left for Dead and Left for Dead 2, and I always went the distance. You wouldn't quit a soccer game or a marathon halfway through just because you weren't winning, and I feel that's just extremely basic character and maturity.
For that reason I prefer single player detail, challenge, and atmosphere nowadays.
Goddamn it. Only multiplayer swill from here on out.
Because game publisher and developer execs are idiots when it comes to game design - they have business model vision, not game play vision. They are convinced that the only way to keep their physical copy from ending up on the used game market or being pirated is to use systems that don't work, thus the multiplayer and DRM gets the sweat and treasure spent on it, on top of the incredibly wasteful advertising to audiences that generally don't give a shit. As a general rule, these trip A execs are hugely risk averse as they try to eke out every possible cent of profit, irregardless of its impact on the gaming experience, and that even goes into how they approach DLC and why so many sequels get made as opposed to new IP. The more the console dev license and kits cost, the more there is focus on graphics fidelity, and the more marketing focus groups determine what bullet points sell - the more this ridiculous, multi-million development driven by execs in their corporate towers will get. They want to make movies basicly and call it a game because you get to hit a few buttons while you are on the rails, sheesh.
But as they shy away from the areas that made gaming great, they create space that Indy Developers are moving into. How easily these morons forget the games industry crash that happened in the 80s when the glut of sequels and shovel ware hit the shelves. Thank god for digital distribution on the PC and how it has allowed Indy Devs to flourish with more focus on how games are fun.
Oh, and I watched a few different Let's Play of Homefront ... Freedom Fighters is a way better game. IMHO, Homefront is Call of Duty fan fic ... trashy, flat fan fiction. I'm definitely not buying this crap.
Posted by: Doc Chase Apr 4 2011, 04:07 PM
That's what Deus Ex was.
Or portions of CoD: MW2.
Posted by: CanRay Apr 4 2011, 04:09 PM
"Hey, why doesn't my fancy sight light up any longer?"
Posted by: Doc Chase Apr 4 2011, 04:11 PM
You aren't a man until you pull a knife out of your own chest and impale the dude who stabbed you in the first place in the eyeball.
Posted by: Wounded Ronin Apr 4 2011, 08:38 PM
To be fair I thought that was a great moment when that happened.
If the game were more realistic, the question would be, "why don't my bullets go where the aimpoint is whenever I'm the one shooting?"
Posted by: Wounded Ronin Apr 5 2011, 03:58 AM
Played Homefront again tonight. I have to say I really do like it.
I like John Milius film. I obsessively watched Conan The Barbarian. I loved Dirty Harry. Red Dawn is a classic.
What Homefront is is an interactive John Milius film. I decided the real point of that game isn't the gameplay, but the cutscenes and the situations. After all, who but John Milius could have come up with the psycho killer militia men, for example? Who but John Milius would have the idea to make a scene about white phosphorous lighting up a parking lot full of Koreans, and then have a character react to the horror of that happening?
John Milius is all about masculine, almost careless storytelling, driven by passion and intensity. I can't say that I'm unhappy to have what is effectively an interactive John Milius movie.
Probably the biggest detraction from Homefront is the Call of Duty style gameplay. They probably picked it thinking it would be the easiest to script their detailed scenes. But the style of the gameplay lacks gravitas. How can I be impressed by a bad guy pointing a pistol in my face during a cutscene when I know that I regenerate from bullet wounds in seconds? That's like the opposite of Dirty Harry's magnum. The gameplay would have been better with beefy, deadly weapons. They should take longer to aim, be deadlier, have more recoil, and there should be no health regeneration. I think the game would have made a lot more of an impression on most people if the gunplay was like something out of Dirty Harry, or if enemy vehicles would own you like the Hinds in Red Dawn. What Call of Duty manages to do is make it not scary when an APC opens up on you with a .30 cal machine gun, when that should instead be absolutely terrifying and badass in order to convey the drama and gravity of the setting. The style of gameplay, with respawning endless enemies, also detracts from the gravitas. There should be fewer enemies, but they should be deadlier.
Milius once stated that he didn't like violence in movies that cheapened human life, or something like that. In keeping with this, HF could have fewer enemies, perhaps introduced some of them in cutscenes, and maybe had Soldier of Fortune II style suffering and dismemberment: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNICWlm5tU0 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPpi-0H2-Gw
Posted by: CanRay Apr 5 2011, 04:43 AM
You can probably thank the watchdog groups for something like that. Can't humanize anything or make it realistic in that way.
Posted by: Voran Apr 5 2011, 08:43 AM
At times I get a little frustrated at FPS 3PS games of late, that give you what...maybe at most 8 hours of a single player campaign nowadays? And I'm wary of the idea that speed running a game is actually a good thing. To me it just implies there's just alot of bare bones stuff hidden behind fluff. That blackops video that shows how you can go through the whole mission letting your npc squaddies clear everything is also not a good sign for me.
I kinda wish they let you do it in installments. Like, if you just want the SP, its 10 bucks, or 15 bucks, and the remainder is the multiplayer unlock. If you never want to play multiplayer you don't have to pay for it, etc. Halo Reach was kinda like that for me, ran the story, but found that I didn't want to run around MP.
These tend to be the games that if I rented games, would be a good week rental, but not really worth a purchase.
Theme wise, heh a 'world shooter' might be fun. You play an <X> national supersoldier and get to stomp on everyone from other realms, with multiple 'endings' since you can be an American one time, a Japanese soldier, a german one, a brit, a frenchie, whatever. Hm, like a mixture of Risk plus FPS.
Posted by: Doc Chase Apr 5 2011, 07:31 PM
I'd love to have a level in one of these FPS games that just has a single enemy that doesn't have boss-level health or anything like that, just a scoped rifle and a position, and you've got to ferret him out before he takes out your entire squad.
MW2 was interesting in that the Army Ranger you play during the Wolverines! mission essentially obliterates an entire company of Russian paratroopers (or Sgt. Foley does) using a drone and a variety of rifles. I didn't think there were terribly many Black Hawk Down events in reality.
Posted by: Wesley Street Apr 6 2011, 01:33 PM
That's really hard to accomplish in a FPS. Your field-of-view is greatly diminished plus the other senses that you rely on in real life, such as balance, momentum, and awareness of body, are impossible to replicate. Audio cues could work but it would hard to do it subtly and people without stereo sound would be screwed.
I'd rather see something like the sniper battle with Sniper Wolf in MGS, without the "health meter". Some system where you can instantly switch from third- to first-person without awkward finger stretching.
Posted by: CanRay Apr 6 2011, 03:16 PM
Makes me wish VR had gone somewhere, that did a decent job of stereo sound and peripheral vision. Even if the equipment was massively bulky and heavy at the time.
Posted by: Stahlseele Apr 6 2011, 03:39 PM
with todays tech, it should be possible again . .
smaller, higher resolution screens that are lighter too.
and you can get "3D" in these to boot . .
Posted by: Sixgun_Sage Apr 6 2011, 06:24 PM
Still a few companies out there working on VR I think, but not as core projects and more as test beds for new technology, the frustrating thing is, ya, totally doable with modern technology.
Posted by: CanadianWolverine Apr 6 2011, 11:20 PM
I hold out more hope for good AR than VR going much further other than being lighter.
Posted by: Wounded Ronin Apr 7 2011, 12:31 AM
One time I played a VR game. I put on goggles, held a plastic gun, and walked around in a hamster ball.
It fucking blew. The plastic gun didn't aim at all, because instead your aim was controlled by looking. So all you did was hold down the trigger and look around. Instinctively, I tried to shoulder the gun and geisha walk, which caused me to lose my balance, as the ball rolled faster and faster in one direction and I ended up sprinting at the edge of my balance to not fall over. The image in the goggles was totally blurry too.
I felt completely disappointed. What the hell is the point of VR if you can't translate your actual physical skills into the game?
Posted by: Fabe Apr 7 2011, 01:18 AM
It fucking blew. The plastic gun didn't aim at all, because instead your aim was controlled by looking. So all you did was hold down the trigger and look around. Instinctively, I tried to shoulder the gun and geisha walk, which caused me to lose my balance, as the ball rolled faster and faster in one direction and I ended up sprinting at the edge of my balance to not fall over. The image in the goggles was totally blurry too.
I felt completely disappointed. What the hell is the point of VR if you can't translate your actual physical skills into the game?
Good point but VR technology is still pretty young,It's going to be a few more year before it get like it is in the movies. Just look at how far video games have come in a few decades.
Posted by: Wesley Street Apr 7 2011, 12:13 PM
Graphics have come a long way since the Atari 2600 days. And the whole online multiplayer thing. But the technology wouldn't be unrecognizable to someone in 1985.
Virtual Reality has a long way to go. Reading and translating subtle movements from the human body is still beyond our technology level; or at least at a level where it would be commercially feasible. Have you ever seen a motion-capture guy work on a video game cut-scene? He gesticulates in an extremely exaggerated manner in order for his motions to be read by the scanners. I wouldn't want to have to swing my arms around like a lunatic just to get my gun in the right position when I could simply twitch my thumb.
I think Augmented Reality is the next realistic step for gaming, after 3D (well, once they get it to the point where it doesn't give me a raging headache...), and it might be how we see hardcore gamers return to an arcade or public gathering place. What I would picture would be a something like a warehouse or a paintball course covered in laser sensors that a player moves through. The sensors track the player's position within the course and change what he sees through his eyepieces. Rubber cylinders on the physical course become trash barrels, logs and streetlights in AR. Sort of like Laser Tag meets the Holodeck from Star Trek.
Then again, most video gamers don't want to be moving more than their eyes or fingers anyway so the whole AR/VR game discussion might be moot. People who would dig AR would be Wii Sports fanatics, casual gamers, and weekend warriors.
Posted by: CanRay Apr 7 2011, 02:25 PM
They're getting some major movement, however. Check out what Rock* is doing with L.A. Noir and it's facial system.
Posted by: Wounded Ronin Apr 8 2011, 07:20 PM
At a certain point, I say screw trying to implement this stuff in software, and let's just go and have simunitions battles. If someone set up a pay-to-play MILES arena similar to a lazer tag arena, I know I'd want to try it out.
Posted by: Stahlseele Apr 8 2011, 07:27 PM
Heck, if Virtual World Arcades with Mechwarrior were opened here, there'd go both my money and my social life . .
Posted by: Doc Chase Apr 8 2011, 07:46 PM
Buying a plot of land to turn into a giant paintball/MILES facility is on my list of "Things To Do When I Have The Bankroll." It's actually fairly high up, and I could see police training or ROTC using the facility as well.
Posted by: Voran Apr 9 2011, 01:18 AM
I'd really love a modern version of battletech centers, complete with cockpit sized interfaces, vibration, whatever.
Posted by: Stahlseele Apr 9 2011, 11:34 AM
*nods* yah, that'd be rad!
Posted by: Wounded Ronin Apr 9 2011, 02:46 PM
You know what else could work? Those old school simunitions where you'd re-load cartridges with a soft parafin wax bullet. As long as the weather isn't too cold the parafin will splatter when it hits you.
Posted by: Wounded Ronin Apr 10 2011, 04:34 AM
Well, I just finished Mirror's Edge. Took about 5 hours.
I really don't know what people were complaining about re the learning curve. It was challenging but not that hard. You know what was harder and less fun? Pretty much every other game focusing on jumping puzzles.
Firearms combat was a little rough around the edges, and too easy. I agree that the game should have focused on avoiding bad guys and not defeating them in order to play to its strengths and be very unique.
Not a bad game.
Posted by: Tiralee Apr 10 2011, 08:50 AM
Heh, Co-incidence, got a shovelware issue (ie: bargin bin) yesterday and am having some fun with it.
Now, I'm useless when it comes to jumping puzzles and fighting games so I can't claim a 5 hour run like Ronin's, but by god, the gunfight stuff was over in ~ 4 seconds, tops. AI always knows where you are, so you can lead it about and then blow the crap out of it. The guns actually felt..hmmm, real? Lotsa damage, no ammo indicator visible (That sorta sucked when you clicked dry behind the guy with the squad weapon...) and you made people HURT when shot.
I will say, the "escape the training area" bit was the hardest part so far - I had managed to beat the living snot out of my assailants (Run, run, run die. Run, kick off wall, flip and flying kick, WINNING!) and then was flying-kicked off of the edge by the scripted "bursts though the door guy". After that, I just went "stuff it" and ran like hell.
If I get any better, I am so tossing one of those taser bastard off of a roof, just to hear them scream on the way down. My initial pacifistic tendencies were quickly subhumed by bloodlust after the first tasering, oh yes...
-Tir
Posted by: hermit Apr 13 2011, 06:05 PM
Anyhow, just wondering if I'm alone in thinking about this game here...
I was thinking the same thing. But then: North Korea? What the hell? Why not SAY China when you MEAN China?
Posted by: Doc Chase Apr 13 2011, 06:07 PM
Because they want the Chinese to buy it.
Posted by: hermit Apr 13 2011, 06:10 PM
I don't think they don't get that it really means them ...
Posted by: Doc Chase Apr 13 2011, 06:13 PM
True, but they made the effort nonetheless.
Because they're a 'most favored' trading partner, corporations tend to puss out if anything is anti-Chinese.
Just look at the upcoming Red Dawn remake.
Posted by: hermit Apr 13 2011, 06:16 PM
Way to chicken out.
There's a remake? Uhm, okay. Didn't even know that. Who's the big bad? Russian Nationalists?
Posted by: Doc Chase Apr 13 2011, 06:20 PM
There's a remake? Uhm, okay. Didn't even know that. Who's the big bad? Russian Nationalists?
It was the Chinese, until said Chinese bitched and moaned about it, so they changed it to a North Korean invasion in post-production. It'll be out sometime in 3rd quarter, I think.
Posted by: CanRay Apr 13 2011, 06:55 PM
Part "Chinese Bitched", part "Don't want to piss off a major trade partner", part "They're our major trade partner, why would they invade us after all?"
They probably had Kimmie talk with a bunch of other crackpot dictators into assaulting the US. Watch Castro (Whichever one is in power now.
) be part of the leadership against the USA.
Posted by: Wesley Street Apr 13 2011, 07:24 PM
Why do I feel like this is the beginning of a gussied up "http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/yellow_peril" fad? If Hollywood wants to use Red Dawn name recognition, why not just re-make the movie as an '80's alt-history flick? It worked fine for Watchmen and it looked hella cool.
) be part of the leadership against the USA.Eh, tinpot dictators can't even feed their own people. I know they like their missile and marching parades but I don't know how they would manage a coordinated assault on the world's last remaining military super-power.
Posted by: CanRay Apr 13 2011, 07:43 PM
Get a good leader, some boats, a few events that gets the US Military weakened or unable to communicate in some way, job done. The US is a big place (Although still smaller than Canada
), and the Army/Marines/Air Force are spread out over quite a bit of property. The Navy just has issues getting to Kansas for some odd reason.
Posted by: Doc Chase Apr 13 2011, 07:51 PM
Because movie studios are staffed by idiots.
Well, that's the big thing. Nobody's got the transport power to move the troops on the scale required for an invasion of the United States.
The Chinese have the manpower and decent enough technology handy to do it, and I could see them appropriating a bunch of supertankers/cargo ships to move materiel over and stage an invasion of the West Coast. From there, lob a bomb onto NORAD to shut it down, nuclear response is paralyzed as it's U.S. soil, and then the guerilla warfare begins; gets nasty in the mountain states and probably stalls to a stalemate in the Rockies.
The North Koreans have the people, but I'm not so sure about the hardware. They could come in the same way, but doing something like that would enable the South Koreans to roll over the border and unify.
Posted by: Wounded Ronin Apr 13 2011, 08:38 PM
I think all public schools should teach riflery to students w/out gang affiliation or criminal record. That would make things hilarious if anyone tried to invade. The schools already teach chemistry...
Posted by: Stahlseele Apr 13 2011, 08:58 PM
In american schools, do they even NEED to teach them that?
Don't they have metal detectors there because they don't need to? o.O
Posted by: CanRay Apr 13 2011, 09:08 PM
Don't they have metal detectors there because they don't need to? o.O
"You have been to grade school, so I feel you are proficient in small arms." - The Simpsons, to a Drill Instructor that just handed Bart Simpson a 40mm Grenade Launcher
Posted by: Stahlseele Apr 13 2011, 09:11 PM
[Bart fires off five grenades. Four hit the targets, but the fifth flies off into the distance]
Firing range instructor: Four out of five, Simpson, impressive. But you missed the last target.
Bart: [cooly] Did I?
[Cut to a blackened Principal Skinner, standing next to a smoking crater where his car (Bart's intended target) was. Nelson watches in the background]
Nelson: Ha-ha!
Posted by: CanRay Apr 13 2011, 09:16 PM
That's the one.
To be fair, that's only some US Schools. The rare ones in high crime gang territory. You know, the place where time traveling Shadowrunners could drop out of the sky and feel at home in. The rest are pretty decent. Even if they are brainwashing students into being content factory workers when there's no more factories to work for.
But that's another discussion.
BTW: The Boy Scouts have a Rifle Shooting Merit Badge. So does that count?
Posted by: Stahlseele Apr 13 2011, 09:19 PM
Always prepared, even for School, so of course it counts *snickers*
Posted by: CanRay Apr 13 2011, 09:24 PM
It's sad that I didn't stick with that sort of thing as a child... My merit badge collection would be epic.
...
Or Exhibit A.
Posted by: hermit Apr 13 2011, 09:50 PM
The good thing about North Koprea is that it's led by a man who lives the dream of actually being a Bond villain. Down to beige jumpsuits and weirdo hair. I bet he also has a huge, white cat.
Nobody remotely sane would want to invade the states. And the only two states who once wanted to were both led by insane people, with one receiving the beating of it's lifetime (Mexico) and the other not even building up the technology to potentially invate the US due to crushing defeat by US forces at our own doorstep (Germany).
Even if someone had (china might in a few years), with the states' nuclear arsenal, everyone who invades the states will see all their logistics, reinforcements and homeland nuked mere hours after starting the invasion. You cannot win a war against a nuclear power. You can just make it lose too with your own nukes.
It's just highly implausible in general. And really, North Korea. What would they use to invade the US? Miniature submarines?
Posted by: Stahlseele Apr 13 2011, 09:52 PM
And 5 minutes after the US of A launch the first, somebody else has launched the last. 2 Hours later, Humanity has vanished.
Posted by: hermit Apr 13 2011, 09:52 PM
There's still much of Africa and South America left (and quite possibly India, sicne the Himalayans will shield them from the China fallout for the most part). And radiation is way, way overrated.
Posted by: KarmaInferno Apr 14 2011, 12:26 AM
They probably had Kimmie talk with a bunch of other crackpot dictators into assaulting the US. Watch Castro (Whichever one is in power now.
) be part of the leadership against the USA.I did mention this about 50 posts ago.
Both the new Red Dawn and Homefront were originally supposed to have the Chinese invading. Of course, we know what happened there.
In the case of Red Dawn, the decision came so late that most of the filming had already been completed, so they re-shot some of the Chinese dialogue with Korean, and are going back and digitally altering every Chinese insignia, marking, and lettering in the movie to North Korean equivalents.
That said, China invading the US doesn't make much sense anyhow. The US is their biggest trade partner. They are dependent on the US economy by this point - much like a LOT of the rest of the world. If the US goes down, so do they.
Quite honestly, there are no credible "invasion" threats to the US anymore. I remember a study a few years ago that calculated the US military spending per year was more than the next five nations combined.
-k
Posted by: Wounded Ronin Apr 14 2011, 03:35 AM
Not the worst way to die!
Posted by: Wounded Ronin Apr 14 2011, 03:40 AM
Don't they have metal detectors there because they don't need to? o.O
Shooting is a discipline. There's a big difference between a trained marksman, and someone who has access but doesn't really know what they're doing.
In my opinion I think that legitimate firearms owners who spend thousands of dollars on training and ammunition, and lots of free time in building and maintaining skills, are harmed by negative sterotypes of firearms users as being careless, or undisciplined. If only people knew how much discipline and dedication was involved I don't think that they would feel the need to try and regulate access. Right now the problem is that lots of people think a firearm is like a Wand of Magic Missile.
Posted by: CanRay Apr 14 2011, 04:14 AM
I blame Hollywood and the News.
I mean, even folks that shoot for a living (Soldiers) fire off hundreds of rounds before hitting a target. Admittedly, said target is shooting back, which changes things greatly.
Posted by: KarmaInferno Apr 14 2011, 04:33 AM
Personally, I do think waiting period for all firearm licenses should be required.
Not for stopping crime. That's stupid. Gun control at the consumer level doesn't do a damn thing to stop crime. A staggering majority of gun crime is committed with already-illegally obtained weapons. Criminals don't give a crap about gun laws, so restrictions on gun access only affect law-abiding folks.
You need to go higher up the food chain, after illegal suppliers, to even begin to address gun crime. But I suppose that kinda stuff isn't as politically sexy.
No, I believe all licenses should require a full operational and safety certification before they are permitted. That would do more to save lives, simply because better trained firearm owners are safer firearm owners.
-k
Posted by: CanRay Apr 14 2011, 04:49 AM
-k
You mean like the system Canada has in place now. You need to pass a safety lesson from a registered trainer in order to start the paperwork to legally buy firearms or ammunition. Thing is, when it was first put into place, it had a lot of... Oddities: Such as having to know about Black Powder and Bow Hunting as well as conventional rifles and shotguns for a standard firearms license. Not sure if it's the same today.
I just have issues with the Firearms Licensing System, however. It is a money dump that has done jack squat. Hell, if half of the rifles in Northern Canada are actually licensed, I'd be majorly surprised. And those are responsible firearms owners.
Posted by: Critias Apr 14 2011, 05:39 AM
Yeah, 'cause having operational and safety certification keeps anyone from ever getting into car wrecks, right?
Posted by: hermit Apr 14 2011, 08:53 AM
Actually, yes it does. It would prevent the frequent cases of death because of failing to remember which pedal is gas and which is brake.
Of course, America's staggering murder and gun crime quota isn't directly related to gun ownership, but to the prevalent mentality of gun use. That's different in other countries with prolific weapon ownage (like Switzerland).
Posted by: Doc Chase Apr 14 2011, 12:13 PM
Both the new Red Dawn and Homefront were originally supposed to have the Chinese invading. Of course, we know what happened there.
In the case of Red Dawn, the decision came so late that most of the filming had already been completed, so they re-shot some of the Chinese dialogue with Korean, and are going back and digitally altering every Chinese insignia, marking, and lettering in the movie to North Korean equivalents.
That said, China invading the US doesn't make much sense anyhow. The US is their biggest trade partner. They are dependent on the US economy by this point - much like a LOT of the rest of the world. If the US goes down, so do they.
Quite honestly, there are no credible "invasion" threats to the US anymore. I remember a study a few years ago that calculated the US military spending per year was more than the next five nations combined.
-k
You did say that before, and it was so good it bore repeating. I was even going through typing that saying "I KNOW I've seen it before, which thread was it..."
No wonder I couldn't find.
US military spending by % of GDP is more than all other nations combined. Hard dollars wise, it's pretty far up there. I'm not sure the next five nations could add up.
Posted by: Wesley Street Apr 14 2011, 12:24 PM
Meh. Rifles are for babies. I won the archery competition at Boy Scout Camp in 1988. Anyone wants to invade my hometown is getting a carbon hunting arrow through the eye socket. GREEN ARROW, BABY!
Which is why I prefer my that my invasions involve aliens or extra-dimensional menaces. WW2 style conventional warfare doesn't exist in the 21st century context except in tribal skirmishes or insurgencies.
Watch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eT96sgTwmvo all the way through. When you're done shaking from terror you have my permission to cry.
Posted by: CanRay Apr 14 2011, 02:42 PM
Compared to countries that don't have licensing systems in place, nor a culture that teaches children to drive (Like Northern Canada and Southern USA), and where the illiteracy rates are so high professional drivers can't even read road signs...
One good part of firearms safety is demonstrated on the show "Sons of Guns", where new firearms owners walk into the store and the shop owners explain exactly what the people are getting into. Right up to, and including exactly how most home invasion shootings occur using the indoor pistol range.
Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)