[QUOTE=A B.A. Survivor;28648374]Dying multiple times/having to redo certain parts does not mean the story is longer.[/QUOTE]
It makes the experience longer which most people seem to be complaining about.
Is this like the only game that makes the gun look pretty good with camos?
Oh god.
That ending is god aweful...
Fuck the police
[url]http://cloud.steampowered.com/ugc/596932117228051437/88BC3CD22154DE7D200880400916B677950E2A09/[/url]
Is that an M249 with a silencer?
[QUOTE=Raidyr;28649180]Is that an M249 with a silencer?[/QUOTE]
Lol yeah. I was trying it out and it was surprisingly effective. I just fire the LMGs from in this game with the "Straight from the Hip" perk
I just saw you ingame Rammaster. I did fucking terrible, as usual.
14hours to go :suicide:
14 days to go until I get a job.
Then save up minimum wage paychecks for my computer repairs
:suicide:
I think I can wait 14hours....
I'm enjoying it on PC but I do think it could be optimized a little more.
[QUOTE=EliteGuy;28645184][url]http://www.vg247.com/2011/03/16/homefront-2-single-player-will-be-longer-if-it-can-be-balanced-with-multiplayer-says-kaos/[/url]
ahah[/QUOTE]
I'm not going to buy another game or expansion so they can fix their fuckup.
I mean how stupid is it that they don't know how to strike the right balance between MP and SP.
I mean [I]really[/I]?
Are these guys actually developers, or just some chickens with their fucking heads cut off?
How about we look at a few games that got this balance just fine while still producing a fun MP experience?
The Halo series
COD 4:Modern Warfare
Dawn of war
And others.
It isn't rocket science. Why not divide a development team to put equal emphasis on both MP and SP.
How could you possibly not understand it?
Isn't the point of making a game to get the player to play the whole thing? I mean if this guy's concern is hedging SP so as to not detract from MP, why even bother with it at all?
Why not just make a big fucking MP expansion and to hell with SP if he wants to attract more people to the 'brilliant' multiplayer?
Isn't the purpose of Singleplayer not only to provide an interesting narrative, but to better familiarize the player with the nuances of the controls, weapons, and vehicles?
To add more depth to a game than just another run-of-the-mill shooter?
Anyway, fuck that guy, he has his priorities ALL fucked up. I for one am not going to by Homefront two or dlc for the current game.
I can see the campaign being a subpar experience compared to the multiplayer, but only because most other games are like that now. I will give you Halo, it seems to have a good balance, but CoD? Really? Is the Homefront campaign [b]THAT[/b] different from CoD? You seem to be implying the campaign doesn't show you the controls, weapons, and vehicles. From what I have seen, you spend a lot of time shooting bad guys and navigating the environments. And add depth to a game? Where is the depth in a CoD campaign? I haven't played Homefront yet so I can't say you are wrong or anything but, damn, I would really like to see you extrapolate on how the CoD campaign or the Bad Company 2 campaign, or any recent shooter campaign, is significantly better than Homefronts.
I have to admit when I first heard of Homefront, I thought it was going to be quite good. The premise itself and the way they were describing it early felt like you would be managing the rebels sooner or later. Picking the raids yourself, recruiting people, securing supplies etc - on your choice .
Sadly as far as I know not a single element of this is actually in the game and it's a pretty standard railroader :(
[quote]
Isn't the purpose of Singleplayer not only to provide an interesting narrative, but to better familiarize the player with the nuances of the controls, weapons, and vehicles?
To add more depth to a game than just another run-of-the-mill shooter?
[/quote]
In my book a game should be able to stand on the SP itself with the multiplayer being a bonus, not the other way around. Sadly it seems I seem to be a minority with that view.
It's a lot harder for a developer to release a singleplayer only title and for it to be good. Without a multiplayer component the campaign would have to be long, have replay value, and be consistently good throughout the experience, and few developers can manage that these days. Developers didn't start catering to the majority that want a multiplayer focused game; the majority accepted the idea of a multiplayer focused game from developers who didn't want to spend enough time on a great singleplayer experience.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;28651583]I can see the campaign being a subpar experience compared to the multiplayer, but only because most other games are like that now. I will give you Halo, it seems to have a good balance, but CoD? Really? Is the Homefront campaign [b]THAT[/b] different from CoD? You seem to be implying the campaign doesn't show you the controls, weapons, and vehicles. From what I have seen, you spend a lot of time shooting bad guys and navigating the environments. And add depth to a game? Where is the depth in a CoD campaign? I haven't played Homefront yet so I can't say you are wrong or anything but, damn, I would really like to see you extrapolate on how the CoD campaign or the Bad Company 2 campaign, or any recent shooter campaign, is significantly better than Homefronts.[/QUOTE]
Yes, I'm not saying [I]a[/I] CoD campaign, I'm saying the first MW did provide some depth, if only in terms of character development and a reasonably believable and engaging storyline. Although other than that, it isn't a fantastic example.
The difference between BFBC2 and Homefront's campaign and what they do is that the BC2 was pretty much known as a MP game from the beginning. Homefront was explicitly advertised as an immersive single player experience. That guys statement exemplifies how disparate and disproportional the SP and MP components really are.
I wouldn't even say that Homefront does a successful job of conveying all the controls effectively, as it doesn't address drone control at all, and the only vehicle segment it had is nothing like it is in MP. Hell not even damage against the player is the same as it is in MP.
It merely covers basic shooting and movement, something that is known to anyone who has played a shooter before.
[i]Every game[/i] is advertised as an immersive single player experience. I, and the people I will be playing with, all went in expecting a short campaign that works as a tutorial for the meat and potatoes, the multiplayer.
Raidyr, have you noticed how often you post in this thread, mostly defending this game?
Anyway, just got it, playing through the storyline, it's alright nothing too breathtaking.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;28652226][i]Every game[/i] is advertised as an immersive single player experience. I, and the people I will be playing with, all went in expecting a short campaign that works as a tutorial for the meat and potatoes, the multiplayer.[/QUOTE]
Considering how much they said about the SP and how much they said about the MP, citing what writer they got to write for it and a bunch of other stuff, most people I know where expecting it to be an SP game first MP game second.
Just compare how often they said that they want the players to experience the horrors of war (or something similar) to how much they spoke about the MP.
[QUOTE=wraithcat;28652366]Considering how much they said about the SP and how much they said about the MP, citing what writer they got to write for it and a bunch of other stuff, most people I know where expecting it to be an SP game first MP game second.
Just compare how often they said that they want the players to experience the horrors of war (or something similar) to how much they spoke about the MP.[/QUOTE]
I know about the writer for Red Dawn that they brought in and how it was supposed to be a different setting but I still didn't go into the game expecting an incredible singleplayer. Nothing ever, to me, jumped out saying it was going to be different from CoD or Battlefield. It just seemed like it would take place in different environments.
[QUOTE=MoarFunz;28652297]Raidyr, have you noticed how often you post in this thread, mostly defending this game?
Anyway, just got it, playing through the storyline, it's alright nothing too breathtaking.[/QUOTE]
I am not defending the game because I don't have it. And I post a lot in threads for games that I am following/playing. Kinda the point of forums, right?
So does this have LAN/bots?
No/Not outside of singleplayer.
Just got my UK boxed copy, and about to pre-load. I want to play now :saddowns:
[QUOTE=Raidyr;28653103]No/Not outside of singleplayer.[/QUOTE]
Wasn't it was confirmed a while ago though? Or did they just not put it in?
Oh it has LAN. I wonder why everyone is saying it doesn't.
No bots from what I could see, though.
Dammit.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;28652226][i]Every game[/i] is advertised as an immersive single player experience. I, and the people I will be playing with, all went in expecting a short campaign that works as a tutorial for the meat and potatoes, the multiplayer.[/QUOTE]
No they aren't.
And yes, you are defending the game you haven't played yet.
Ok, that was hyperbole, not every game. I am sure Battlefield 2 and Red Orchestra weren't billed as single player titles, but most shooters brag about having an immersive campaign.
Also having an opinion that doesn't fit into your view of the game != defending.
You two are just as bad as the SPUF.
Personally I didn't buy this game for the singleplayer, and to be honest my expectations for any game with a decent singleplayer are low. I was looking for an escape from Bad Ops and I found it. Granted there aren't many weapons in the multiplayer, but I find myself enjoying the experience A LOT more then Bad Ops and its horrible player host connections.
Overall the multiplayer is great, but a little unpolished in the graphics department. For me it was a good buy, if you are looking for a good multiplayer experience.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
