Homefront - Catch all

Even by the rock bottom story standards of the FPS genre, I find this game's setup to ludicrous to enjoy.

Here is a multiplayer hands on:
http://games.uk.msn.com/gaming/previ...

Basically it says if you like Battlefield or Joint Ops you will like the multi in Homefront.

Also Dedicated Servers!*
http://www.joystiq.com/2011/01/21/ho...

*For PC

Oh yes, this will do nicely until BF3 comes along. Very interesting.

Edit: That multiplayer review pushes me towards a day one purchase. Huge maps, former BF developers working on it. Nice.

This and Brink have me the most interested in the FPS genre the first half of the year.

My bet is that while at its core it will be a good game, it will be plagued with balance issues and will need really pro-actice post launch support to keep its community together - and this is coming from a guy who loves both Call of Duty and Battlefield

I don't mean to be 'that guy' whose critisises a new game before its released but some of the 'noob friendly' ideas in the game that the interview talked about set off alarm bells for me

Another one from Joystiq

PlainGreyT wrote:

My bet is that while at its core it will be a good game, it will be plagued with balance issues and will need really pro-actice post launch support to keep its community together - and this is coming from a guy who loves both Call of Duty and Battlefield

I don't mean to be 'that guy' whose critisises a new game before its released but some of the 'noob friendly' ideas in the game that the interview talked about set off alarm bells for me

But you are being "that guy" when you put judgements on a game before it's even released.

I think it's standard fare for there to be a lot of balance issues with multiplayer games these days. The question becomes how much ongoing support will the developer/publisher put behind the product to even those things out.

The streaks and battle points thing worry me. I'm not a killstreak fan in CoD games, it is seems to make things even more punishing for less skilled players than their skill deficiency would warrant. However, the "contract" type thing they're talking about where the better you do, the more people are after you might level that out a bit.

Definitely staying interested. But warily.

I just hope they can clear up some of the issues that plagued Frontlines. Specificially, I hope they adopt the Halo/COD control scheme (since it was very cumbersome if I recall correctly).

The Battle Points thing gives me pause as well, but I'm thinking that I don't understand how it works in a practical gameplay sense. But I wish they'd said something about team size. Is this squad-based? How does spawning work, etc? And are the environments destructable?

I'll go back through the thread here and see if I missed anything.

But I am verrrry interested.

lostlobster wrote:

The Battle Points thing gives me pause as well, but I'm thinking that I don't understand how it works in a practical gameplay sense. But I wish they'd said something about team size. Is this squad-based? How does spawning work, etc? And are the environments destructable?

I'll go back through the thread here and see if I missed anything.

But I am verrrry interested.

I think it's 16v16 max. Don't see anything about squads.

lostlobster wrote:

The Battle Points thing gives me pause as well, but I'm thinking that I don't understand how it works in a practical gameplay sense.

I'm not sure what I'm allowed to say, so instead I'll quote what I found in an article that does a decent job of explaining how the Battle Points work...

Gamespot[/url]]If experience points make up the rewards system that stretches across multiple matches to give players a long-term reason to keep coming back to Homefront, battle points are more like the short-term currency that forces you to get a little more strategic with how you use these rewards within each match. You earn battle points for doing anything that helps your team win, from killing enemies to holding capture points in Ground Control mode (a sort of cross between Battlefield's Rush mode and Call of Duty's Domination). These battle points then act as the key to using your special equipment in battle. So if you've got a recon drone equipped in one of your special equipment slots, it might cost you 250 battle points to activate it for one-time use and take to the skies. If you're lucky, you'll be able to use that recon drone to spot and tag enough enemies (which then show up on your teammate's screens a la Battlefield: Bad Company 2) to earn back all the battle points you just spent. That's one of the cheaper unlocks. You could also horde your battle points so that the next time you die, you can choose to spawn in a tank or an attack helicopter, which might serve as the catalyst to help your team win that final, game-winning push. Every bit of special equipment has its cost, and it's up to you when you want to cash in your points.

Thanks, Tkyl. I watched some multiplayer footage and it became more clear. I understand the mechanics of it now, but it seems like the better players will be getting bonuses while those who are struggling will get left behind and end up weaker. Maybe that's not the case. I understand the contract concept, but not sure how that'll work out as far as game levelling as well.

(So, basically, everything that Mannish said several posts above.)

Watching the footage it appears there's no destructability to the environment and it's not squad-based. Too bad. I love both those things about BC2.

TempestBlayze wrote:

But you are being "that guy" when you put judgements on a game before it's even released.

Ok, let me see if I can articulate myself a little better this time:

The line between variety and competitiveness is a fine one and something a lot of FPS's have trouble with. Finding this balance becomes an even harder task when you add:

1) Performance based benefits ie. Killstreaks
2) Vehicles

All I'm saying is that the developers have a taken on a mammoth challenge by trying to combine these elements from other FPS's into one game

Killstreaks leave such a bad taste in my mouth because in Cod many of them are simply automated death machines. But, even things like chopper gunner are only as potent as they are because of the small maps. If folks can purchase and bring in a helicopter or tanks which they then have to use, that could add a very dramatic dynamic element to the game. Instead of spawn points were vehicles could get stolen (a la BF) perhaps they'll pop up anywhere.

This reminds me of the system used in Mercenaries. As you captured bounties you earned money which you could use to purchase better vehicles and weapons bundles in the field.

Can't wait to see some multiplayer footage. If there is any chance to get involved on a beta for this Tkyl, at least on the 360, I'd be totally stoked.

Ballotechnic wrote:

Can't wait to see some multiplayer footage. If there is any chance to get involved on a beta for this Tkyl, at least on the 360, I'd be totally stoked.

As of right now, no. But if that changes I'll post here.

Shacknews preview. Kind of gets into the balance concern.

EDIT: And an interview. Mentions they'd like to do betas on the second page, but no announcement.

Some PC details on shacknews. Looks like I'm right at "recommended" specs.

That is all.

What this game does that COD does not is when you get kill streaks you actually have a target on your back.

This results in people who do not have the kill streaks hunting you down to get extra points. Seems balanced enough to me. More so than COD.

Bash podcast interview with the devs on the PC side. Pretty interesting. A lot of the PC stuff sounds great. If I get into this game, I might double dip.

Didn't realize this was Unreal 3 engine.

Ugh...if you're going to run a demo and be a cocky little asshole make sure you can actually aim well.

I really gotta see how this game feels as it is played before I can make a buy/rent/pass decision but Im hoping it will get me and my friends off of Black Ops on 360.

MannishBoy wrote:

The streaks and battle points thing worry me. I'm not a killstreak fan in CoD games, it is seems to make things even more punishing for less skilled players than their skill deficiency would warrant.

I just want to put a placemarker in this thread but I agree with MannishBoy's comment. A game that offers helicopters to the best players and drones to the worst sounds like a nightmare.

The quote from Gamespot included 'If you're lucky, you'll be able to use that recon drone to spot and tag enough enemies to earn back all the battle points you just spent.' I can imagine good players getting enough points to get say a tank and racking up points to get another tank and racking up points to... They got rid of the chaining of kill streaks in codblops for a good reason. This sounds like chaining.

Still, looks like more solid FPS MP fun. Might be enough until BF3 is out.

New SP Trailer is up on Machinima.

doh! cant watch till i'm home from work.

Woo! Can't wait to get my hands on this game!

I am pretty excited about the game, I love online shooters, but I feel (I will be "that guy" too) that we really need a more simplistic shooter that is near perfect in it's mechanics and balance. I like that they are focusing on just a couple of game modes, but I would like to see FPS developers step back a bit from the latest hot features and realize that COD, GoW, Halo, and many other popular shooters are not popular because of their feature set, but because of the mechanics. CoD2 and GoW are great examples. Neither game was conceived as a multiplayer game. The online multiplayer was sort of a throw off feature to add a bullet point to the box. They got lucky because the mechanics themselves were so satisfying that people demanded fully realized versions that were properly balanced.

As a new IP, they need to capture people's interest to be successful in the future. A good shooting mechanic, with responsive controls, and balanced gameplay will get people hooked. Taking and tweaking features from other popular titles will only support the idea that those are the best out there and that you are just adding a variation on an established idea. The leveling, unlocks, and purchasing stuff is just getting tiresome. I like the customization, but that trek up the ladder is getting extremely "grind-y." I know that keeps people plunking in virtual quarters, but does anyone find it fun? Doesn't it keep most players mired half way up the ladder, while the hardcore have all the advantages in game?

heavyfeul wrote:

I am pretty excited about the game, I love online shooters, but I feel (I will be "that guy" too) that we really need a more simplistic shooter that is near perfect in it's mechanics and balance. I like that they are focusing on just a couple of game modes, but I would like to see FPS developers step back a bit from the latest hot features and realize that COD, GoW, Halo, and many other popular shooters are not popular because of their feature set, but because of the mechanics. CoD2 and GoW are great examples. Neither game was conceived as a multiplayer game. The online multiplayer was sort of a throw off feature to add a bullet point to the box. They got lucky because the mechanics themselves were so satisfying that people demanded fully realized versions that were properly balanced.

As a new IP, they need to capture people's interest to be successful in the future. A good shooting mechanic, with responsive controls, and balanced gameplay will get people hooked. Taking and tweaking features from other popular titles will only support the idea that those are the best out there and that you are just adding a variation on an established idea. The leveling, unlocks, and purchasing stuff is just getting tiresome. I like the customization, but that trek up the ladder is getting extremely "grind-y." I know that keeps people plunking in virtual quarters, but does anyone find it fun? Doesn't it keep most players mired half way up the ladder, while the hardcore have all the advantages in game?

??

Yes its still fun... and none of these games released to date has kept someone that didnt reach max level at a disadvantage. You may lack the shiney's and the bling but you still had the ability to double tap someone into yesterday. i definitely prefer it over having everything at the ready at the start for everyone.

Even Counter-Strike had it in a minor form. You had to do something to get enough money to buy all the equipment you needed. CoD4 was a definite improvement over CoD2. Saying its not just boggles my mind. Halo was also created with multiplayer in mind as well. Wasnt just a bullet point for the boxes.

Not every shooter released has had the end all be all combination for the perfect shooter, but they're trying and iterations of a good thing isnt all bad. Besides over time people do learn (normally) what parts are good and what parts arent.

This game seems to be combining a lot of the good that we've seen before and putting it in front of us together in an amazing setting. I'm tickled and cant wait for its beta and release.