[QUOTE=ZakKa!;28615577]For those who played this, do you think the singleplayer better than medal of honor? I absolutely hated medal of honor[/QUOTE]
Yeah, MoH had stupid and annoying gameplay, and checkpoints from 20 minutes before the point you're at and there was a lot of waiting about for enemies to pass. However, it had some emotional parts, such as the ending and the part where you hold out with no ammo. But those were both ruined by the fact you can just ask your teammates for ammo, and there was next to no character development.
It was okay, but I hope Homefront is much better.
fuck, i need to up the ADS sensitivity more somehow its maxed at 1.0.
I still can't decide between THIS and Crysis 2 for PC.... I can't buy both :(
Rammaster, what program did you use to record that with?
[editline]16th March 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=digitalforce;28616469]I still can't decide between THIS and Crysis 2 for PC.... I can't buy both :([/QUOTE]
(This still has the TF2 bonus if you're in a country where it hasn't released on Steam yet... or have it gifted, if it has released already :v:)
I never really got into the Crysis games. Crysis 2 MP Demo was ok, but I'd guess you'll get a bigger bang for your buck from this one
I got bored of the Crysis 2 demo after only a couple hours. It was a pretty good game, I dunno, I just felt like after I did the air stomp and stealth executed a few people I had seen all the game had to offer.
I think my worry is, I am more of a SP kinda guy and Crysis 2 SP will probably rule while this has seemingly awesome MP...
And? How is it?
I wonder if its worth a buy anytime soon, with a good deal.
[QUOTE=digitalforce;28616590]I think my worry is, I am more of a SP kinda guy and Crysis 2 SP will probably rule while this has seemingly awesome MP...[/QUOTE]
Well it depends, do you want carbon copy of CoD type SP (which is alright I suppose, nothing special) or CoD with prettier graphics and sliding?
Not gonna get into MP as that never factors into my game purchases
Everyone is a sniper. Everyone jumps-prone, I can't do anything in multiplayer.
My god this SP is short. 3 hours? On Normal difficulty.
Time for multiplayer.
Can someone with the PC version answer a few questions for me please:
1 - Does it have advanced graphics options?
2 - Does it have LAN play or do you have to create an account/login to internet every time you play?
3 - How are the graphics and maps?
4 - If you have played Frontlines, how does the MP compare?
This game doesn't have a queue system for when a server is full? Every game needs this.
Yeah, can someone tell the rest of us how the game is on PC? For me, I want a good singleplayer and multiplayer experience, so please take that in regard when answering. - Thanks.
"Paying $50 for a 3 hour game is okay because I sadded once."
Hmm, hope people like you don't leave an impression on game devs in the future.
[QUOTE=Gogo;28617057]Yeah, can someone tell the rest of us how the game is on PC? For me, I want a good singleplayer and multiplayer experience, so please take that in regard when answering. - Thanks.[/QUOTE]
Singleplayer experience is meh. Finished it in 3 hours on Normal.
Haven't played multiplayer enough to give you an opinion on that.
Please don't tell me the game ends after [sp]they get through the wall[/sp] because I'm less then 2 hours in.
mhmm
[QUOTE=GetBent;28616887]My god this SP is short. 3 hours? On Normal difficulty.
Time for multiplayer.[/QUOTE]
Wait, 3 hours?
What the fuck man. What the fuck
So my friend bought Homefront and the game refuses to start. He launches the game, the window comes up saying "Preparing to launch Homefront...", the program starts up (he can see the exe in task manager), then just stops after a few seconds. We have tried reinstalling DirectX, PhysX and the entire game. His video drivers are the latest Nvidia ones for his card. Does anyone have any idea what would cause this, or have had prior experience with other games?
[QUOTE=Noth;28617271]Wait, 3 hours?
What the fuck man. What the fuck[/QUOTE]
Yep got up at 7. Played the campaign, finished at 10:15.
Also, it ends very abruptly.
[QUOTE=GetBent;28617354]Yep got up at 7. Played the campaign, finished at 10:15.
Also, it ends very abruptly.[/QUOTE]
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGG5DuHyURg[/media]
Oh hey, I can pre-load it now. Thanks for telling me steam
The ending was so sudden. I was like, "Wait, that's the end? WHAT THE FUCK MAN."
This may get me dumbs, but is anyone else disappointed with how this turned out?
I mean the campaign was about 3-4 hours, and utterly failed in my opinion to capture any iota about how I was fighting 'FOR AMERICA!'. Maybe it was because I had to kill about a million North Koreans in each level, to the point where, frankly it was embarrassing.
There were few defining moments in the game where I felt they 'got it'. Other than that, maybe it is just me, but showing me dead bodies or a crying child, or speaking to 'citizens' mumbling the same 3-4 lines over and over really doesn't do it for me.
Whats more, being supplied with an endless stream of backup in certain scenarios really didn't bring home the sense of struggle and futility the developers were trying to attempt.
Why might you ask? Because everyone acts like a professional fucking soldier.
The end of the game was a travesty. Also, for a game where you are supposedly a pilot, you barely fly anything.
I expected to be faced with a few interesting moral decisions when presented with two characters in particular, but they were just as shallow as the rest of the game, and amounted to little more than what achievement I wanted.
I really didn't have much of a positive experience in MP either, but I'll attribute that to playing it at 4am in the morning. It just felt like an expansion on the Call of Duty series.
In a complete twist, IGN and Eurogamer have given it 7/10 and 6/10 respectively. With almost all of their complaints leveled at the singleplayer, and praising the multiplayer.
[QUOTE=Framperton;28617743]This may get me dumbs, but is anyone else disappointed with how this turned out?
I mean the campaign was about 3-4 hours, and utterly failed in my opinion to capture any iota about how I was fighting 'FOR AMERICA!'. Maybe it was because I had to kill about a million North Koreans in each level, to the point where, frankly it was embarrassing.
There were few defining moments in the game where I felt they 'got it'. Other than that, maybe it is just me, but showing me dead bodies or a crying child, or speaking to 'citizens' mumbling the same 3-4 lines over and over really doesn't do it for me.
Whats more, being supplied with an endless stream of backup in certain scenarios really didn't bring home the sense of struggle and futility the developers were trying to attempt.
Why might you ask? Because everyone acts like a professional fucking soldier.
The end of the game was a travesty. Also, for a game where you are supposedly a pilot, you barely fly anything.
I expected to be faced with a few interesting moral decisions when presented with two characters in particular, but they were just as shallow as the rest of the game, and amounted to little more than what achievement I wanted.
I really didn't have much of a positive experience in MP either, but I'll attribute that to playing it at 4am in the morning. It just felt like an expansion on the Call of Duty series.[/QUOTE]
I enjoy the multiplayer. But the singleplayer is exactly like you said.
What a shock. A THQ published game getting 5/6/7 ratings.
Am I the only one who went in/is going in with low expectations for the singleplayer?
Did no one here play Frontlines? It was the same story there: 4 hour long rudimentary campaign to set up the much better designed multiplayer.
[editline]15th March 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Take_Opal;28618078]What a shock. A THQ published game getting 5/6/7 ratings.[/QUOTE]
What a shock. Major publishers missing the point entirely and reviewing an obvious multiplayer title on it's singleplayer shortcomings.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;28618091]Am I the only one who went in/is going in with low expectations for the singleplayer?
Did no one here play Frontlines? It was the same story there: 4 hour long rudimentary campaign to set up the much better designed multiplayer.
[editline]15th March 2011[/editline]
What a shock. Major publishers missing the point entirely and reviewing an obvious multiplayer title on it's singleplayer shortcomings.[/QUOTE]
Well it certainly seemed that there would be an exciting singleplayer. I remember hearing about moral decisions to make, and being able to side with the Koreans. Although that was probably just a fan made rumor.
But the multiplayer is interesting.
lol, BF2 review from both, 9/10. No singleplayer
haha oh wow, BC2 review on Eurogamer, saying the singleplayer campaign is a "stand out in the genre"
I guess THQ should have paid them more.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;28618091]Am I the only one who went in/is going in with low expectations for the singleplayer?
Did no one here play Frontlines? It was the same story there: 4 hour long rudimentary campaign to set up the much better designed multiplayer.
[editline]15th March 2011[/editline]
What a shock. Major publishers missing the point entirely and reviewing an obvious multiplayer title on it's singleplayer shortcomings.[/QUOTE]
Well, multiplayer can be anything. You could find it bad because you had the world's douchiest team or you could be having incredible fun because you are doing great. It's too dynamic.
Singleplayer is the closest you can get to the perfect representation of what the game actually is.
So it's logical that reviewers ignore Multiplayer more so than the Singleplayer in games that boast having a Screen Writer of a very popular 80's film.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
