Homefront - Bad game, or worst game ever?

[Tyndmyr]

Plot: Terrible. Absolutely terrible. I accept a lot of poor plot justifications in an action game, but when you have things like the north korea occupying the US after using nukes, you should probably at least bother to come up with a reason we didn't nuke them back.

Controls: Customization options are limited. It's ok, you don't have to worry about being allowed to do complex actions. Like opening a door.

Gameplay: Well, it's a shooter. You understand what the basic gameplay is already. Shoot the bad guys. You have allies, but they're essentially only useful as bullet sponges. They can't hit anything, and they can't die. They do open doors, which would be marginally more awesome if they didn't shove you into the door if you ever happen to walk ahead of them(note: You are often required to walk ahead of them). Then, you're stuck while you frantically jam the control stick to try to wriggle your way of looking longingly into your teammates eyes. The entire plot is set on rails. Oh, I know, shooters are always linear, but they will dictate the order of the most trivial things, such as the order in which you all climb ladders. Things like actually being allowed to fly the helicopter over in the direction of the things they're telling you to kill? No. Right out.

Bugs: Well, it crashes a bit. Thats a problem. Some of the spawn points are in combat, so you get to retry until you don't take a bullet in the face immediately. Enemies can shoot through objects you can't. This results in the occasional box spraying bullets. Random points in space will block bullets. For you only, of course. You can see where enemies spawn. This is surprisingly helpful, as there are occasional infinite spawns that can only be disabled by walking to the right point, and of course, these points are not marked.

Teammate AI: Skipped almost entirely. They will shove you out from behind cover, dry hump you on a door, and move from one scripted terrible idea to the next. If you're lucky, they'll spend most of the time getting back up from being shot. Your bullets, unfortunately, have no effect on them.

Length: Even with the bugs, the spawn killing, and other various frustrations, I polished it off in about four hours. Whoever is responsible for this game is a terrible person, and I hope horrible things happens to him.

[The Rose Dragon]

Video game discussions don't go in this forum. They go in the Gaming (Other) forum.

[SurlySeraph]

I haven't played it, and I mostly lost interest after I learned that North Korea was the occupier. I mean, they *did* set it a couple decades from now and have North Korea take over most of Southeast Asia first, and most of Southeast Asia is a more viable threat than North Korea, but still.

Looks like I'm definitely not going to play it, then.

[Yora]

It's like being invaded by smurfs. How is that supposed to be possible?

[Gaius Marius]

It's like being invaded by smurfs. How is that supposed to be possible?

Or seeing Jabba the Hutt's palace being taken over by Jawas. There is something terribly wrong with that. :smalleek:

[Eldan]

Or seeing Jabba the Hutt's palace being taken over by Jawas. There is something terribly wrong with that. :smalleek:

Or an interstellar empire defeated by guerilla teddy bears...

[Gaius Marius]

Or an interstellar empire defeated by guerilla teddy bears...

The interstellar empire was defeated by guerilla teddy bears, supported by a top-notch battlefleet, a group of the best guerilla warriors available to the Alliance, 5 characters equipped of Character-Shields, and a dude who managed to get the Empire's #2 assassinate the Empire's #1.

Not quite as the same.

[Psyren]

The interstellar empire was defeated by guerilla teddy bears, supported by a top-notch battlefleet, a group of the best guerilla warriors available to the Alliance, 5 characters equipped of Character-Shields, and a dude who managed to get the Empire's #2 assassinate the Empire's #1.

Not quite as the same.

So you admit the teddy-bears played a crucial role? :smallwink:

@ Tynd: Escapist reviewed it (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/editorials/reviews/8718-Homefront-Review) and came to many of the same conclusions you did, did you watch? (Not Yahtzee.)

[Gaius Marius]

So you admit the teddy-bears played a crucial role? :smallwink:


They were there at the critical moment, and provided valuable auxiliary support to the main battlegroup, ennough for the fleet to get the tactical opportunity to strike at the battlestation.

That's about it. If I see the Teddy Bears invading the Imperial Palace, or even starting to conquer worlds, I'll accept North Korea becoming a regional dominant power in Asia.

By the way, isn't it stupid to keep it calling "North Korea", as it's more than likely that they would have had the strenght to reconquer their southern brethens, and thu call themselves just old plain Korea?*


* or the Democratic People's Republic of Korea , I won't start to make a fuss about it.

[Psyren]

They were there at the critical moment, and provided valuable auxiliary support to the main battlegroup, ennough for the fleet to get the tactical opportunity to strike at the battlestation.

That's about it.

Sounds like plenty to me.
Plus, they're fuzzy!

*Please note that I am lampooning Star Bores and have no interest in discussing Korea.*

[SurlySeraph]

By the way, isn't it stupid to keep it calling "North Korea", as it's more than likely that they would have had the strenght to reconquer their southern brethens, and thu call themselves just old plain Korea?

Probably, but "North Korea" is instantly recognizable as "bad guy," and it would be hard to come up with a broad name like the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere that wouldn't sound like it made Asians in general the villains.

[Gaius Marius]

Probably, but "North Korea" is instantly recognizable as "bad guy," and it would be hard to come up with a broad name like the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere that wouldn't sound like it made Asians in general the villains.

*sigh*

Yet another example of complete writer's myopia. Korea won't be split forever. Japan's influence throughout Asia wasn't self-proclaimed as "Japanese Empire". It wasn't "The Russians" who were the main military ennemy in the Cold War.

How quickly people forget? :smallfrown:

[Gaelbert]

Yes, but what's the soundtrack like?

[BRC]

The idea of the Underdog fighting for freedom is a big party of American culture, just look at the popularity of Star Wars or the Matrix. Heck, even the current surge of Zombie Apocalypse media appeals to that: A few everyday survivors, grabbing whatever they can and fighting against a massive, overwhelming foe.
Once they started with that, it's an easy jump to making a game about modern American guerrillas fighting against foreign occupiers, and, well, North Korea's pretty much the only thing left that really suites their purpose. I'll avoid getting into Politics, but there are not many groups out there that are both an undisputed enemy of the United States, and would go with the traditional Invasion/occupation setup.

Yeah, the modern world is severely lacking a good Fascist Military Dictatorship with goals of world domination and the means to do so.


You know what, let's invent one: The Glorious Peoples Democratic Social Republic of Ardica! A large Island nation situated in the north pacific that combines the most villainous traits of both Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia. An industrial wasteland with a fanatical, brainwashed populace heavily devoted to their mysterious, yet highly charismatic leader. Armed with atomic weapons, Smoke-belching factories, and a massive, well-ordered military featuring both cruel officers, strict punishments for failure, AND incredibly devoted troops.

The Ardicans want nothing more than to subject the world to their will, and because their nation is so polluted, the general populace always wear gas masks, meaning that once they join the army, they are so used to it that they continue to do so, even when fighting in places where the air is perfectly clear! (Of course, officers or other Ardican officials are wealthy enough to grow up in areas with clean air, and so go maskless).


There, now, somebody tell Hollywood and Game developers about this. If they ever need a powerful, unambiguously evil nation, they can use Ardica.

[SurlySeraph]

Developers can still do China (at the risk of protests), Russia (at the risk of eye-rolling), a US civil war, or some kind of paranoid fantasy conglomerate of Latin America communists or Middle Easterners. Or aliens, aliens would work. Or time-traveling space Nazis.

@Gaius: I'd say that's largely because it sounds more exciting that way, and is more memorable and takes less time to say.
United States vs Union of Republics, or Treaty Organization vs Pact, sounds like a dispute over civics terminology, not a clash of civilizations. America vs Russia works better.
Trusteeship of the Powerful vs Tripartite Pact? The trusteeship sounds like some kind of malevolent corporate board, and what's the tripartite three parts of? Allies vs Axis is a much better name.

[Eldan]

Eh.

Both nazi aliens and space nazis (or other kinds of surviving nazis) have really been done to death, haven't they?

Let's do something implausible, for once. The Empire of Cornwall and Wales invades mainland Europe. Tuvalu invades China. The Antarctica research stations engage in evil experiments and breed an army of penguin-hybrid clones.

[Mewtarthio]

Developers can still do China (at the risk of protests), Russia (at the risk of eye-rolling), a US civil war, or some kind of paranoid fantasy conglomerate of Latin America communists or Middle Easterners. Or aliens, aliens would work. Or time-traveling space Nazis.

I think they were originally going to do China, actually. Then they realized that China's too important a player on the economic field to risk upsetting them.

[Thanqol]

I have one gripe with this game.

In the original trailer, Kim Jong Un was a handsome, intelligent looking, articulate businessman. He wore a suit, he looked good for the cameras, he looked more like a business genius than a fanatical despot. This was a guy I could believe would be able to diplomatically annex the south.

In the new trailer, they made him fat, ugly and bear a much stronger resemblence to his insipid father. At that point, I lost all urge to ever buy the game. Come on, America, can you stop demonizing your enemies for five minutes?

[Worira]

This may have something to do with the fact that he's fat, ugly, and bears a strong resemblance to his father, actually.

[Thanqol]

This may have something to do with the fact that he's fat, ugly, and bears a strong resemblance to his father, actually.

Then why make him an attractive, erudite and charismatic young international scholar in the original trailer?

[Worira]

Not knowing when the original trailer was released, I suspect it might be because the world really only got its first look at the man in late 2010.

[Sarco_Phage]

In the new trailer, they made him fat, ugly and bear a much stronger resemblence to his insipid father. At that point, I lost all urge to ever buy the game. Come on, America, can you stop demonizing your enemies for five minutes?

First off, demonization is an important tradition in almost all nations' histories.

And second, have you SEEN him?

[Thanqol]

Not knowing when the original trailer was released, I suspect it might be because the world really only got its first look at the man in late 2010.

Haha, point.

But yeah, I'm still cut over it. One of those guys looked like a legitimate threat, and moreover looked like all of the West's cultural influence over the asia-pacific had manifested in the form of one young man, paired with an insane ideology. That image was stuck out for me in the trailer. It was a powerful statement on a lot of political and cultural levels.

A few months later, we're told that this man is capable of convincing South Korea that communism is a great idea and giving speeches that will win over the UN and incite his people to global war:

http://nerdreactor.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Kim-Jong-un.jpg

Let's be frank; there have been numerous evil dictators throughout history with charisma, and this man does not have charisma.

[Gaelbert]

Eh.

Both nazi aliens and space nazis (or other kinds of surviving nazis) have really been done to death, haven't they?

Let's do something implausible, for once. The Empire of Cornwall and Wales invades mainland Europe. Tuvalu invades China. The Antarctica research stations engage in evil experiments and breed an army of penguin-hybrid clones.

I would buy all three of those. The third one would be my favourite game if you could play as a penguin-hybrid clone.

[Eldan]

Of course. You can even include the famous quote and make it a Lovecraft game.

[Killer Angel]

I've heard of it, and...


Plot: Terrible. Absolutely terrible. I accept a lot of poor plot justifications in an action game, but when you have things like the north korea occupying the US after using nukes, you should probably at least bother to come up with a reason we didn't nuke them back.

I've totally lost any minimal interest, after knowing this.
I'm in the "worst game ever" field. It's too far stupid.


I think they were originally going to do China, actually. Then they realized that China's too important a player on the economic field to risk upsetting them.

Exactly my thought. But IMO it's not a valid excuse to pick NC.

[Axinian]

The Antarctica research stations engage in evil experiments and breed an army of penguin-hybrid clones.
This needs to made. Like, now.

[Eldan]

Of course, the Elder Things are behind those scientists, trying to take back the world from the humans.

Then, in act three, the Mi-go show up and things get weird.

[Axinian]

I don't know who the Mi-Go are but Cthulhu Penguin Super Soldiers are just about the scariest things ever.

[Eldan]

One of the many other alien races that at some time visited Earth. Some time after the Elder things.

[Winterwind]

One of the many other alien races that at some time visited Earth. Some time after the Elder things.Essentially a cross between crabs and floating space mushrooms. That steal brains.

[Nerd-o-rama]

I still fail to see how North Korea invading the mainland United States is less plausible than any other nation in the world, including China. Wars aren't fought this way in reality anymore (at least not against the US), but they are in video games for the sake of having an Excuse Plot. Not to mention that the whole game seems to be an homage to over-the-top Cold War paranoia films, particularly Red Dawn.

Also now I want a Delta Green FPS. Or even better, CthulhuTech so you can hop in a mecha for boss fights.

[MoelVermillion]

Probably just "bad game", I mean its not Shaq Fu or Superman 64.

[MountainKing]

Plot: Terrible. Absolutely terrible. I accept a lot of poor plot justifications in an action game, but when you have things like the north korea occupying the US after using nukes, you should probably at least bother to come up with a reason we didn't nuke them back.

Homefront IS awful, but, to answer your question there, the answer is simple. If we nuked them back, it'd just turn the game into Fallout. Oops.

[Mewtarthio]

I get that fighting on American soil is more compelling. So why not just make the villains Americans? Maybe there was a coup, or you could just go the "Evil President" route. Realism's not an issue, since roughly 95% of all political discourse in America assumes the opposing party is plotting to burn the Constitution and install a military dictatorship.


Essentially a cross between crabs and floating space mushrooms. That steal brains.

This is a common misconception. I apologize if any of you have been decieved by this or similar urban legends; indeed, I myself once believed in them. I have since then met the Mi-Go, and I can assure you they are a polite and very friendly race who wish only to share their knowledge with us. Alas, they have been driven into hiding by malicious rumors like the one perpetuated above. The "brain-stealing" is in fact perfectly voluntary, and is used to safely transport lucky humans to the utopian world of Yuggoth, where their physical forms cannot survive.

If you would like further information on the wonders of Yuggoth, please contact me in person at my remote cabin in the middle of the woods, miles from civilization. Make sure that you bring all evidence of the Mi-Go's existence with you, and please come alone.

Thank you,

A fellow human

[DeltaEmil]

Your strange rasping voice is completely reassuring, and I wish to know more about those visitors from another world.

[Nerd-o-rama]

I get that fighting on American soil is more compelling. So why not just make the villains Americans? Maybe there was a coup, or you could just go the "Evil President" route. Realism's not an issue, since roughly 95% of all political discourse in America assumes the opposing party is plotting to burn the Constitution and install a military dictatorship

Because then it would just be Metal Wolf Chaos. Not that that's a bad thing.

Also, I say again, the game's just Red Dawn in the 21st century. Blowing the crap out of generic foreign threat #117 while ignoring all logistics, sense, and political correctness is the whole point.

[Psyren]

Homefront IS awful, but, to answer your question there, the answer is simple. If we nuked them back, it'd just turn the game into Fallout. Oops.

So a massive improvement then?

[Rockphed]

Because then it would just be Metal Wolf Chaos. Not that that's a bad thing.

Is that the game where you play as the president of the US who is fighting his coup-de-tat-ing VP in a bipedal warmachine? Because if it is, then I can see room for similar games. A civil war or coup is pretty much more believable than a successful invasion by a foreign power. After all, the bloodiest war for the US is still our civil war(I think), though the revolution might be worse in terms of percentage of people who were casualties.

[Tyndmyr]

Yes, but what's the soundtrack like?

I didn't completely hate it. In fact, I don't really remember it...just average.

So, best part of the game.


Homefront IS awful, but, to answer your question there, the answer is simple. If we nuked them back, it'd just turn the game into Fallout. Oops.

Ah, but Fallout is actually good. And if you ask me which one, I will reply with "yes".

[The Orange Zergling]

I was planning to wait for reviews on this game before buying it as I was somewhat wary but intrigued anyway, but then I learned that Steam gave you a free copy of Metro 2033 (which at the time was $40, so in essence you were getting Homefront for $10) if you pre-ordered it, so I figured it was worth it no matter what.

I... wouldn't call it terrible, but it's the most hilariously derivative game I've ever played in my life; it's trying to be Call of Duty so hard you can see it sweating with every slow-motion door breach or enemy helicopter strafing you. The plot might have been compelling if the game's absurdly short length (the campaign will take roughly 5 hours to complete) didn't utterly murder any chance of it going anywhere, and of course it has to end on a cliffhanger that resolves nothing and just baits us for a sequel. If the game was 15 hours long rather than 5, then it would be derivative as hell but at least it would have the potential to go somewhere with the plot. The entire goal of the campaign is, I kid you not,

to steal 3 tanker trucks full of jet fuel. And the sick thing is, it's implied that these 3 tanker trucks help turn the tide in the war. Of course, the game just abruptly ends at that point, so we don't get to actually see any of this, but even so, what?

I dislike the multiplayer for the same reason I dislike Call of Duty's multiplayer; you can only take a handful of shots before dying, so most fights come down to who sees the other person first rather than any test of skill, and even though it does have point-capture modes they really don't take any coordination or cooperation with your teammates. And, on top of that, even though there are different guns with slightly different clip sizes, rates of fire and reload times, the problem is that almost universally they're still all just guns and largely interchangeable, rendering the class system superfluous. It's not like Team Fortress 2, where each class plays dramatically different from every other class because each weapon works fundamentally different. Also, at least on the PC, vehicles are difficult to control with helicopters being downright impossible.

In short... I might recommend that, if a friend owns a copy, you borrow it from your friend and play it (and subsequently return it after completion later that same day). I wouldn't pay money for it, even to rent it, unless you are really sure you'll like the multiplayer.

I actually really, really want to do a Let's Play of Homefront because it's prime material for that sort of project; only problem is I'm having difficulties with my recording software and my computer, so I'm going to have to get those resolved first, and I'm a stutterer so it'll take a lot of overdubbing to make sure comedic timing stays in tact. But still, it's a project that's definitely on the table.


Yes, but what's the soundtrack like?

It's alright; typical orchestral score for a game like this. It's probably not something I'd buy a soundtrack for, but it does its job at setting the mood pretty well.

[Sarco_Phage]

I dislike the multiplayer for the same reason I dislike Call of Duty's multiplayer; you can only take a handful of shots before dying, so most fights come down to who sees the other person first rather than any test of skill

But... that's what bullets do.

And besides, CoD requires actual aiming. Pray-and-spray is not a viable tactic; even if you get a lucky hit a calm hand works better than rapid fire.

[druid91]

But... that's what bullets do.

And besides, CoD requires actual aiming. Pray-and-spray is not a viable tactic; even if you get a lucky hit a calm hand works better than rapid fire.

And that is why I hate it. I hate it so much.

It wastes a button... And get's rid of the best form of combat there is!

There is no kill like overkill.:smallbiggrin:

Which is why I play Armoured Core 4.

[Sarco_Phage]

And that is why I hate it. I hate it so much.

It wastes a button... And get's rid of the best form of combat there is!

There is no kill like overkill.:smallbiggrin:

Well, technically a full team of machine gunners is not something you want to deal with (especially since bullets of high-enough power punch through the walls) so it's viable, just inefficient.

On the other hand, there's nothing quite like sheer dakka for blowing through the other guy's riot shield.

[warty goblin]

But... that's what bullets do.

And besides, CoD requires actual aiming. Pray-and-spray is not a viable tactic; even if you get a lucky hit a calm hand works better than rapid fire.

And situational awareness is most definitely a skill.

[Sarco_Phage]

And situational awareness is most definitely a skill.

Yes. Noticing someone first isn't about luck, it's about paying attention.

In fact, victories almost all FPS games are partly based on who notices who first (although the earlier games were also about who had the bigger gun and more armor/shield/what-have-you).

Yet, it is possible to see someone first and still lose because your aim is the rough equivalent of that of an old lady.

[puppyavenger]

One of the many other alien races that at some time visited Earth. Some time after the Elder things.

You know, for a universe with a central message of human irrelevance and cosmic nihilism, the Cthulhu mythos sure does have a lot of deities and alien races messing around on earth.

[Sarco_Phage]

You know, for a universe with a central message of human irrelevance and cosmic nihilism, the Cthulhu mythos sure does have a lot of deities and alien races messing around on earth.

Humanity is irrelevant. Earth, however, is pretty important. The deities and alien races were here first, for one thing.

[druid91]

Yes. Noticing someone first isn't about luck, it's about paying attention.

In fact, victories almost all FPS games are partly based on who notices who first (although the earlier games were also about who had the bigger gun and more armor/shield/what-have-you).

Yet, it is possible to see someone first and still lose because your aim is the rough equivalent of that of an old lady.

Personally I like mech combat with the factor of speed.

I love taking something in that wouldn't take more than one or two hits... but you can't hit it.

[Sarco_Phage]

Personally I like mech combat with the factor of speed.

I love taking something in that wouldn't take more than one or two hits... but you can't hit it.

Ever played any of the Mechwarrior games? There's something remarkably satisfying about taking out an Atlas with a Flea/Razorback equivalent.

Of course, if it tags you with its big gun, you'll probably flop over dead, but then, you're literally running circles around it and shooting it in the bum.

[Mewtarthio]

Humanity is irrelevant. Earth, however, is pretty important. The deities and alien races were here first, for one thing.

My favorite illustration of that was "Shadow Out of Time," where the aliens du jour live in the distant past and have the power to swap bodies with sapients in the future. Our hero is the subject of one of their short-term swaps (which they perform regularly to collect information on future-history), and discovers that they are all gearing up for a massive, culture-wide body swap to take over the Earth. Yes, the aliens are going en masse to steal the bodies of... the race of evolved cockroaches that will rule the Earth after humanity's gone extinct. They only bother with humans because they like their future-history books to be as comprehensive as possible on general principle.

[The Orange Zergling]

But... that's what bullets do.

And besides, CoD requires actual aiming. Pray-and-spray is not a viable tactic; even if you get a lucky hit a calm hand works better than rapid fire.

This is one of those cases where realism makes for a very poor game. Just because taking maybe 2 or 3 hits before dying is realistic doesn't necessarily make it deep and engaging, or even fun. As for aiming, it's important in literally every FPS I've ever played - twitch-based like CoD or tactics-based like TF2 - to pretty much an equal degree, so I really wouldn't say that's a point in its favor so much as a fundamental part of the genre.

As for situational awareness - okay, granted, but there are so much better ways to implement this (and games exist that have done this) so that it's not nearly this frustrating. In its current form here it completely replaces any form of brain power required with pure reflexes, which I guess might have appeal for some people but, at least for me, gets really old really fast. And I know for a fact that this doesn't have to be an inherent part of the FPS genre, either; I know I keep going on about it, but TF2 (in my opinion) basically does everything about a competitive multiplayer FPS right, including requiring awareness without twitchiness and having some reflexes involved but rewarding smart play above all else.

I do have to very much disagree with the notion that noticing somebody first is always a matter of paying attention rather than luck, though. Per the genre, you are of course restricted to a cone of vision and, unless you expect to be spinning around constantly like a human tilt-a-whirl, it's completely impossible to keep track of all directions (and all elevations, for that matter) at once and, even if you were to do that, you can't spend enough time on each angle to process everything on the screen to pick out the tiny cluster of pixels on a rooftop or peeking from behind a car that makes up an enemy.

[Sarco_Phage]

As for situational awareness - okay, granted, but there are so much better ways to implement this (and games exist that have done this) so that it's not nearly this frustrating. In its current form here it completely replaces any form of brain power required with pure reflexes, which I guess might have appeal for some people but, at least for me, gets really old really fast. And I know for a fact that this doesn't have to be an inherent part of the FPS genre, either; I know I keep going on about it, but TF2 (in my opinion) basically does everything about a competitive multiplayer FPS right, including requiring awareness without twitchiness and having some reflexes involved but rewarding smart play above all else.


I dunno, man, this is like saying that basketball is a bad game because it only rewards tall people.

[The Orange Zergling]

I dunno, man, this is like saying that basketball is a bad game because it only rewards tall people.

To be perfectly honest, I never liked competitive physical sports for exactly that reason, because it means you're not testing (entirely for) who is the better player but rather who was born with the most favorable genes for this activity.

I guess it's alright to have relatively mindless sports and games, but given that it's possible for them to provide both whizbang shooty fun and actually require thought, I really don't see why the former would be preferable, except, I suppose, to unwind after a long day. I, personally, don't find any enjoyment in that route at all, so I dislike it. If you happen to like it, then go ahead and enjoy it, even if I think that there's much better out there. :smallwink:

[Sarco_Phage]

To be perfectly honest, I never liked competitive physical sports for exactly that reason, because it means you're not testing (entirely for) who is the better player but rather who was born with the most favorable genes for this activity.

But if you're talking about tactical video games, you're not testing (entirely for) who is the better player, but rather who was born with the most favorable genes for this activity, specifically the ones that result in a higher intelligence! :smalltongue:

[warty goblin]

This is one of those cases where realism makes for a very poor game. Just because taking maybe 2 or 3 hits before dying is realistic doesn't necessarily make it deep and engaging, or even fun. As for aiming, it's important in literally every FPS I've ever played - twitch-based like CoD or tactics-based like TF2 - to pretty much an equal degree, so I really wouldn't say that's a point in its favor so much as a fundamental part of the genre.

As for situational awareness - okay, granted, but there are so much better ways to implement this (and games exist that have done this) so that it's not nearly this frustrating. In its current form here it completely replaces any form of brain power required with pure reflexes, which I guess might have appeal for some people but, at least for me, gets really old really fast. And I know for a fact that this doesn't have to be an inherent part of the FPS genre, either; I know I keep going on about it, but TF2 (in my opinion) basically does everything about a competitive multiplayer FPS right, including requiring awareness without twitchiness and having some reflexes involved but rewarding smart play above all else.

I'm not sticking up for Homefront in particular here; I've not played it and am unlikely to do so.

That said, I've found nothing encourages intelligent play like extremely lethal weapons. Having a lot of health is basically a crutch that gives you room for error, playing where only a few bullets can end you takes that away. Map design and weapon balance can obviously undermine this, but at the end of the day a successful player in a game where bullets kill you has to play more carefully and thoughtfully than one where you can eat most of a magazine.

Take Red Orchestra. Bullets are exceedingly lethal and weapon ranges are very long. If you want to live you can make at most one mistake, and probably not even that. So you learn cover and concealment, how to move safely from point to point, when it's safe to return fire and when to hunker down, and a myriad of other little tricks.


I do have to very much disagree with the notion that noticing somebody first is always a matter of paying attention rather than luck, though. Per the genre, you are of course restricted to a cone of vision and, unless you expect to be spinning around constantly like a human tilt-a-whirl, it's completely impossible to keep track of all directions (and all elevations, for that matter) at once and, even if you were to do that, you can't spend enough time on each angle to process everything on the screen to pick out the tiny cluster of pixels on a rooftop or peeking from behind a car that makes up an enemy.
If you pay attention right, you really don't have to look in all directions. Situational awareness isn't just about seeing where an enemy is, it's about observing the landscape, noticing where enemies could be and along what lines they are likely to advance, determining a best course of action, and implementing it.

Put another way, you can't comprehend every detail of your environment. Which ones you do pick up on however is a matter of training, and one can learn to pick up on more relevant ones over the less important.

Again, Red Orchestra. There's no radar, beyond very short ranges no names over players' heads, no crosshairs to turn red, and unless you're lucky enough to be playing a sniper or commander, you don't even get any magnification. If somebody ambushes you though, it's entirely your fault. They had the same tools you did, and you lost to them. If you had been better, you could have gotten around that, by taking a different route, by suppressing their position or flushing them out with a grenade, or calling in artillery or armor support.

[The Orange Zergling]

But if you're talking about tactical video games, you're not testing (entirely for) who is the better player, but rather who was born with the most favorable genes for this activity, specifically the ones that result in a higher intelligence! :smalltongue:

I could respond to this, but doing so would open a whole 'nother can of worms entirely unrelated to video games, so I'll leave this alone. :smallwink:


I'm not sticking up for Homefront in particular here; I've not played it and am unlikely to do so.

Ditto with Red Orchestra, unfortunately, so I'm afraid this conversation may be slightly disjointed.


That said, I've found nothing encourages intelligent play like extremely lethal weapons. Having a lot of health is basically a crutch that gives you room for error, playing where only a few bullets can end you takes that away. Map design and weapon balance can obviously undermine this, but at the end of the day a successful player in a game where bullets kill you has to play more carefully and thoughtfully than one where you can eat most of a magazine.

Take Red Orchestra. Bullets are exceedingly lethal and weapon ranges are very long. If you want to live you can make at most one mistake, and probably not even that. So you learn cover and concealment, how to move safely from point to point, when it's safe to return fire and when to hunker down, and a myriad of other little tricks.

If you pay attention right, you really don't have to look in all directions. Situational awareness isn't just about seeing where an enemy is, it's about observing the landscape, noticing where enemies could be and along what lines they are likely to advance, determining a best course of action, and implementing it.

Put another way, you can't comprehend every detail of your environment. Which ones you do pick up on however is a matter of training, and one can learn to pick up on more relevant ones over the less important.

Again, Red Orchestra. There's no radar, beyond very short ranges no names over players' heads, no crosshairs to turn red, and unless you're lucky enough to be playing a sniper or commander, you don't even get any magnification. If somebody ambushes you though, it's entirely your fault. They had the same tools you did, and you lost to them. If you had been better, you could have gotten around that, by taking a different route, by suppressing their position or flushing them out with a grenade, or calling in artillery or armor support.

The biggest problem with having everything be a 1 or 2-hit kill is that it's immensely more frustrating. Enemy players can and will shoot you and kill you instantly purely because they attacked from a position you weren't looking at far away or because they were crouching behind a rock you didn't even know was there.

And the reason why this happens is that, in Homefront (as I type this I realize this may very well just be game specific), I've spawned on one side of the map, died, then not 5 seconds later respawned on literally the opposite end of the map. What constitutes cover changes completely depending on what direction you and the enemies are coming from, and this changes far too rapidly given how rapidly people die and respawn that you just simply cannot keep up, no matter how aware you're being or even how well you know the map. Merely knowing that X location is a good sniper's nest means that there probably is a sniper there and you can take cover from it, but if X, Y, Z and Q are all sniper's nests, then taking cover from one will very likely make you easy pickings for the others. And if they were clearly divided along, say, team lines that never moved, this would be fine, but they're not, because what territory your team controls (in terms of having players there, not in the control point sense) is so hyper-fluid that keeping track of it all is nearly if not entirely impossible.

[warty goblin]

Ditto with Red Orchestra, unfortunately, so I'm afraid this conversation may be slightly disjointed.

You really should, it's pretty cheap anymore and a whole bundle of joy. It's even got bayonets!


The biggest problem with having everything be a 1 or 2-hit kill is that it's immensely more frustrating. Enemy players can and will shoot you and kill you instantly purely because they attacked from a position you weren't looking at far away or because they were crouching behind a rock you didn't even know was there.
This is mostly addressed in my points about situational awareness, although there's a learning curve there as well. Until you know the maps, you're gonna die a lot. This however is probably true no matter how much health the game gives you. The only difference is that in a game with highly deadly bullets, you'll die faster.

I played quite a bit of Breach (which has exceedingly low player health and weapons geared for long range combat) when it came out, and died like crazy for about four straight days. After that I learned the maps, I figured out how to conceal myself and move with the minimum of risk, and got a lot better. I'm not a particularly good twitch player, but I could play smarter than most people.

Honestly I'd still be playing, but I got really tired of the BS unlocks - I hate level-up mechanics in my shooters. That however is a different kettle of fish.


And the reason why this happens is that, in Homefront (as I type this I realize this may very well just be game specific), I've spawned on one side of the map, died, then not 5 seconds later respawned on literally the opposite end of the map. What constitutes cover changes completely depending on what direction you and the enemies are coming from, and this changes far too rapidly given how rapidly people die and respawn that you just simply cannot keep up, no matter how aware you're being or even how well you know the map. Merely knowing that X location is a good sniper's nest means that there probably is a sniper there and you can take cover from it, but if X, Y, Z and Q are all sniper's nests, then taking cover from one will very likely make you easy pickings for the others. And if they were clearly divided along, say, team lines that never moved, this would be fine, but they're not, because what territory your team controls (in terms of having players there, not in the control point sense) is so hyper-fluid that keeping track of it all is nearly if not entirely impossible.

As I said, it's certainly possible to design a really bad game with highly lethal weapons. That shouldn't be surprising, it's possible to design a frustrating game based around any mechanic.

[Sarco_Phage]

You really should, it's pretty cheap anymore and a whole bundle of joy. It's even got bayonets!

Gods, you know what I want? A WWI based FPS and RTS. The RTS would probably be easier to execute.

In the FPS you'd be expected to do ridiculous things like lead a cavalry charge against a heavily entrenched machine gun nest. Not because it's the sensible thing to do, but because OUTDATED COMBAT TACTICS VS. AUTOMATIC WEAPONRY. And it will be glorious.

Also? Vicious trench-to-trench fighting.

[The Orange Zergling]

You really should, it's pretty cheap anymore and a whole bundle of joy. It's even got bayonets!

I'm usually not into hyper-realistic games, but I'll look into it if I've got any extra money lying around. :smallwink:


This is mostly addressed in my points about situational awareness, although there's a learning curve there as well. Until you know the maps, you're gonna die a lot. This however is probably true no matter how much health the game gives you. The only difference is that in a game with highly deadly bullets, you'll die faster.

I played quite a bit of Breach (which has exceedingly low player health and weapons geared for long range combat) when it came out, and died like crazy for about four straight days. After that I learned the maps, I figured out how to conceal myself and move with the minimum of risk, and got a lot better. I'm not a particularly good twitch player, but I could play smarter than most people.

Honestly I'd still be playing, but I got really tired of the BS unlocks - I hate level-up mechanics in my shooters. That however is a different kettle of fish.

This is beginning to diverge into a different conversation now (though still slightly related, I think), but in my opinion a game shouldn't be quite so frustrating and brutal to new players. Don't get me wrong, it's not always a deal breaker for me - I play Dwarf Fortress - but there's a difference between being deep enough that mastery takes time and basically just punishing the player for not having mastered it. I don't know how much time you spent in those 4 days, but assuming it was a decent amount - at least an hour or two - that's still a pretty significant investment before the game starts being engaging and I think it's well within a player's right to give up if the game isn't fun or engaging within several hours.


As I said, it's certainly possible to design a really bad game with highly lethal weapons. That shouldn't be surprising, it's possible to design a frustrating game based around any mechanic.

That's very true, yeah.

[Misery Esquire]

Let's do something implausible, for once. The Empire of Cornwall and Wales invades mainland Europe. Tuvalu invades China. The Antarctica research stations engage in evil experiments and breed an army of penguin-hybrid clones.

Canada takes over the world America Yugoslavia.

...There's more maple syrup and apologies for everyone in the first twenty minutes of the war than they'd seen in thier entire life.

[warty goblin]

I'm usually not into hyper-realistic games, but I'll look into it if I've got any extra money lying around. :smallwink:

It's a pretty realistic game, but hardly fetishistic about it. In general it takes things from reality and turns them into engaging mechanics, but seldom goes completely over the top. OK, maybe modeling the selective trigger of the MG-34 is a bit extreme, but it's also damn useful.




This is beginning to diverge into a different conversation now (though still slightly related, I think), but in my opinion a game shouldn't be quite so frustrating and brutal to new players. Don't get me wrong, it's not always a deal breaker for me - I play Dwarf Fortress - but there's a difference between being deep enough that mastery takes time and basically just punishing the player for not having mastered it. I don't know how much time you spent in those 4 days, but assuming it was a decent amount - at least an hour or two - that's still a pretty significant investment before the game starts being engaging and I think it's well within a player's right to give up if the game isn't fun or engaging within several hours.

Oh I was having plenty of fun and was engaged from fairly early on; otherwise I wouldn't have sunk the time into gaining any sort of mastery of it. Believe me, if a game doesn't click for me I'm out; I'm hardly a masochist about things. I think I once snap judged, quit and uninstalled a game inside of ten minutes.

I was playing a competitive thing however, and getting my ass handed to me because I sucked. If I found the game unenjoyable because of my own lack of skillz, that's entirely my fault for being a sore loser. Since I try not to act like a five year old, I didn't let losing to people who were legitimately better than me get under my skin. A game should be fun from the beginning yes, but victory should only go to those who earn it. If a person can't have fun without winning and lack the skills to do so, playing against other people simply isn't for them and I don't see that as the game's fault.

Conversely the game should not punish new players for being new, which is one of the reasons why I hate unlocks and level-up systems. I don't mind losing to somebody who outplays me, it pisses me off when I outplay somebody and lose because they have a bunch of in-game advantages from having played the game longer. The first is fair, the second is anything but.

[SurlySeraph]

[Red Orchestra]'s a pretty realistic game, but hardly fetishistic about it. In general it takes things from reality and turns them into engaging mechanics, but seldom goes completely over the top.

You do know there are people who find STALKER and Rainbow Six 3 overly simulationist, right? Speaking as someone who has never played ARMA, Red Orchestra is totally over the top with realism.

[Mr.Bookworm]

Gods, you know what I want? A WWI based FPS and RTS. The RTS would probably be easier to execute.

In the FPS you'd be expected to do ridiculous things like lead a cavalry charge against a heavily entrenched machine gun nest. Not because it's the sensible thing to do, but because OUTDATED COMBAT TACTICS VS. AUTOMATIC WEAPONRY. And it will be glorious.

Also? Vicious trench-to-trench fighting.

You should check out The Darkness, then. It'll be, what, eight bucks used around now? There's some awesome World War I sequences in the game. It also has the best story I've ever seen in a video game.

EDIT: My opinion on realism varies. I do love really realistic shooters, and even in other shooters I'll generally gravitate towards the more realistic modes (I pretty much exclusively played Hardcore in MW1), but really, as long as it's a good game, I'll play it.

[SoC175]

twitch-based like CoD or tactics-based like TF2 Of course it's only twitch based as long everybody tries to be a one-man-army. As soon as you have a squad that truly works together and obeys the leader (even at the cost of the personal player stats), then it becomes tactics-based and will make the twitch-based one-man-armies cry.

It's amazing how in Battlefield 2 having a commander who really looks at the greater whole instead of upping his personal kill-count with artillery strikes and only 2-3 squads who actually follow his orders can turn around a whole map.

[warty goblin]

You do know there are people who find STALKER and Rainbow Six 3 overly simulationist, right? Speaking as someone who has never played ARMA, Red Orchestra is totally over the top with realism.

As I said, Red Orchestra's pretty high on the realism scale. I've spent a considerable amount of time playing it however, and there's very few mechanics that feel gratuitous in their realism. Most of them, once you get past the 'holy crap, why?' stage actually force you to think and engage with the game at a far deeper level than is typical for a shooter. Not having onscreen ammo read-outs is a good example of this. I've had some wonderfully tense moments wondering when my MP-40 is going to run dry.

In fact a lot of their overtly hardcore and realistic features actually makes the game easier and more intuitive. The adjustable sights on the Panzerfaust or the ability to stabilize weapons on bits of the environment or manually bolting a rifle are the standouts here. Playing other shooters after RO usually makes me wish my grenade launchers had sights like that, or that I could prop my rifle up on that bench. Stuff like that makes the game more complex to control, but after a slight learning curve easier to play well.


And there certainly is a learning curve. The thing is however that once you get over that, you can kick as much ass as in any other shooter, and get so much more out of doing so.

[toasty]

Of course it's only twitch based as long everybody tries to be a one-man-army. As soon as you have a squad that truly works together and obeys the leader (even at the cost of the personal player stats), then it becomes tactics-based and will make the twitch-based one-man-armies cry.

It's amazing how in Battlefield 2 having a commander who really looks at the greater whole instead of upping his personal kill-count with artillery strikes and only 2-3 squads who actually follow his orders can turn around a whole map.

First of all this. Its amazing what happens in team-based games when teams actually work like teams. :smallbiggrin:


To be perfectly honest, I never liked competitive physical sports for exactly that reason, because it means you're not testing (entirely for) who is the better player but rather who was born with the most favorable genes for this activity.

This is the same with everything. The truth is, everything can become competitive (School, Music, Work, Sports, etc) and certain people are better at certain things, whether because of natural skill/genes or because they work harder than you. There isn't really anything you can do about it.

One of the reasons I like Video Games and not sports is because I'm good at video games and bad at sports (I can't catch/kick/hit/throw a ball to save my life) I've managed to get to the point where I can play League of Legends (my game of choice) at a pretty decent level. I dislike Call of Duty because I get my ass handed to me every time I play it, not because I'm bad, but because I don't know the game very well. Given time I could get good at it, I'm sure.

[Klose_the_Sith]

Gods, you know what I want? A WWI based FPS and RTS. The RTS would probably be easier to execute.

In the FPS you'd be expected to do ridiculous things like lead a cavalry charge against a heavily entrenched machine gun nest. Not because it's the sensible thing to do, but because OUTDATED COMBAT TACTICS VS. AUTOMATIC WEAPONRY. And it will be glorious.

Also? Vicious trench-to-trench fighting.

WW1 and you waste it on the Western front? Bah!

I demand an RPG wherein you play as Felix Von Luckner, German Naval Captain. Command a sailing ship in an age of ironclads and successfully wage war without any casualties on either side! Be captured, escape and start over again!

At this point I'd personally direct the game into alternate history territory where someone invented a delicious turnip recipe that kept the German morale up and led to Imperial victory ... but that's just me >.>

[Kris Strife]

I think this (http://nerfnow.com/comic/473) is relevant to the original topic.

Disclaimer: I have not played either of these games, nor do I intend do, just felt it was appropriate.

[warty goblin]

I think this (http://nerfnow.com/comic/473) is relevant to the original topic.

Disclaimer: I have not played either of these games, nor do I intend do, just felt it was appropriate.

I think the error there is anybody thinking MW2 had a story worth the paper it was printed on. I at least have never met such a person.

[MoelVermillion]

I think the error there is anybody thinking MW2 had a story worth the paper it was printed on. I at least have never met such a person.

I have. A girl in one of my classes plays Call of Duty for the story and thought that MW2 had a great story =/.