Some retroactive constructive criticism for Homefront: The Revolution

#1
I'll cut to the chase, I'm writing a blog on the flaws of this game and how they can possibly be addressed. Now before I begin, I'd like to first say that I don't think HF:TR is a BAD game per se, but this is when comparing to more horrible games that have been made both in recent and distant years. The worst game I myself have EVER played was LJN's Terminator 2: Judgment Day for Super Nintendo, so that tells you the threshold for tolerance I have. For me, this game's a guilty pleasure; most people hate it, buy I still enjoy it. I still enjoy the rebellion vs. evil empire theme. The opportunity to slaughter North Koreans is still fun to red-blooded Americans, such as myself, and still find that the term "Nork" is the best slightly racist term for North Koreans to come from Australia. I WON'T personally deny that. Over a year into this game's life cycle, I was surprised people still play it. I just finished up with the add-on DLC, and I can appreciate the loose ends it ties up. BUT I'm here to express 9 things I didn't like and hope that maybe someone who manages this website can take it to Cryengine UK and maybe have the devs consider it for a future installment. So without further ado, let's get started.

Flaw #1: The Multiplayer and it's lack of Player vs. Player
One of the more outstanding aspects of the original was its multiplayer. I never had the privilege to experience it before THQ (the original developers) went bankrupt and stopped supporting those servers, but from the gameplay footage I've seen, I apparently missed out! It was more close to the style of Battlefield 3 before Battlefield 3 came out, thus, it was ahead of it's time. Could this have been a TOUGH decision for Cryengine UK? I don't doubt it. But this is part of what made the original at least somewhat salvageable. This time around, you're restricted to Co-op missions that you only end up having your ass handed to you EVERY time you try to go a single mission alone. And while the co-op missions are okay, they can get repetitive real fast. Even altering the difficulty setting doesn't make it any more fun. Then you have the problematic issue of the restrictions with the progression system whereas, you can't go any higher than level 10 per character and can't max out even one specific area. Devs, if the series is going to continue on with a sequel, I HIGHLY suggest bringing back the PvP aspect that even the haters appreciated. Make NATO the opposing faction against the PLA and give them both their own stylized weapons and hardware, if your going to keep the trend of the Norks having their own tech that separates them from the good guys, by all means, knock yourselves out. JUST MAKE IT AT LEAST SLIGHTLY BETTER THAN THE ORIGINAL!

Flaw #2: *Facepalm* Glitches, glitches, GLITCHES!!!
Need I say more? I'm sorry, but this game was in development hell for 8 years and THIS is the best you guys could do?!? It's at version 1.05 and to this day you still see dead bodies floating in mid-air and character models shaking erratically to the point of hilarity up until it no longer becomes funny. Now granted, I'm not at all knowledgeable when it comes to game development, but devs, your debug and QA team deserves to be fired and have their pensions taken away. It's further regrettable that you guys couldn't be bothered to put out more patches to also improve the console version frame rates. Next time, don't take 8 years developing a game only to come out with something like THIS as the end result. Have your QA team point out the bugs and have the debug team GET THEIR THUMBS OUT OF THEIR ASSES!!! People are calling this game average to shitty for a reason.

Flaw #3: The storyline
It was...understandable...as to why you guys chose to make the game a reboot as opposed to a direct sequel. Here's a summary of both stories:
• In the original, the same North Korea everyone has come to love to hate on the global stage rises to global prominence in the midst of an economic market crash after peacefully unifying with South Korea sometime after Kim Jong Un succeeded his deceased father, begins conquering Japan and the rest of the non-Chinese asian nations, launches an EMP bomb over the US to take out it's power grid, then implausibly invades and occupies Hawaii, the West Coast and Midwestern US Mainland.
• In the reboot, we have an alternate history North Korea that became capitalist following their apparent defeat in the Korean War but SOMEHOW maintain their sovereignty, they slowly rise to economic prominence to the point of rivaling modern day China, somehow become the key global distributor in military arms and technology, create a back door to said technology, US ramps up a debt to North Korea, North Korea then decides that they wanna collect their debt, hacks and shuts down the entire US military, THEN occupies the entire US mainland for "humanitarian efforts" only to turn out to be dehumanizing and tyrannical for...SOME reason that couldn't possibly apply to typical communist militant philosophy.
Ever since I heard the game was getting a revamp as opposed to a direct sequel, I’ve been of the mind that the devs should've just made a direct sequel that followed up with what the original had to stay more grounded in reality, as it were...hear me out. The original CORRECTLY predicted the year and month Kim Jong Il died, but was off by a few weeks. I think what COULD'VE been done to salvage the original's story would be making it so that Kim Jong Il would find out that he doesn't have long to live and the survival of his legacy along with everything his regime has built ultimately faces being undone, so he takes the last couple of weeks of his life to map out a master plan to conquer all his nation's rivals and take down the United States. The original book and in-game lore had a backstory as to how North Korea rose to economic prominence. While I'm not saying that the devs should...EMBRACE the implausibility of the original, but rather just elaborate more on HOW it could be plausible. Devs, THQ gave you all the rights to the game, but that doesn't mean you needed to purge the old, implausible story for an alternate, impossible one. I won't knock you guys, however, for making the game helluva lot longer than the painfully 4 hours short original. To your guy's credit with the DLC, you listened to the fans in giving the main protagonist a voice AND you finally get to do something cool before *SPOILER ALERT!* your character dies at the end this time. Nevertheless, you could've actually made a compromise with both settings and made it so that, despite the minor setback the KPA suffered in San Francisco, they still held the advantage in economy and manpower, thus, successfully took out all the remnants of the US military and came to expand their occupation all the way to the East Coast and the game could STILL be set in Philadelphia. THAT'S how I think it could've worked better, and you guys could still have, fundamentally, the same story that meshed with original back story.

Flaw #4: The graphics engine
Many parts of the game, especially the environment, looked beautifully rendered, but some of it all makes it visible that this game was originally working off the old PS3 engine. When you have to integrate into a new generation, you have to adapt to the new generation and take ideas from what you've seen in other games. Killzone: Shadowfall looks better compared to what this game has to offer in terms of character models and variety. 'Nuff said. Moving on.

Flaw #5: The awkward gunplay

I can't begin to count the number of times the auto aim failed me when I tried to take out guys that were just feet away from me. I say take a page from Fallout 4 and make it more smooth and fluid. Oh, and make it so that the silencers actually extend the range of the the gun rather than decrease it, because that's how they work in real life and it's the mistake most first person shooters make.

Flaw #6: Lack of gun veriety
The weapon modification system WASN'T a bad innovation and if there's any plans to bring that back, I'd more than welcome it. But the lack of variety in the guns you can use that are all simply reduced down to types. The original didn't have this problem, and while it was flawed compared to other FPS rivals such as Call of Duty, it was still manageable. One of the most wounding things I've heard about this game was someone saying that it "makes the original look like a masterpiece" and when you look at the flawed lack of weapon variety, it's hard to disagree. You see the Norks use their own guns but never get the opportunity to use them for yourself because of the oh-so-infamous ID-tagged biometric gimmick lifted from the Metal Gear Solid franchise. NOT AN EXCUSE! Besides, if the resistance can hack a seemingly unhackable Goliath drone tank, HOW WOULD IT BE A PROBLEM TO GET THE NORK'S MORE ADVANCED GUNS!? And then there's the issue of not being able to change the aesthetic of your gun's paint job. The patriotic look the resistance guns have is nice and cool, but also repetitive as they all each have the same paint job! Then it soon becomes painfully boring. Next time, give us more guns that aren't restricted to one type each and give us the option of various basic or colorful paint jobs...that AREN'T just restricted to a $3 DLC.

Flaw #7: Lack of vehicle variety
In the original, you had the opportunity to control helicopters, Humvees, UAVs, UGVs, and TANKS in the multiplayer and a Goliath UGV and a single helicopter in the singleplayer. In this reboot, you can control a motorcycle, an RC car...and that's pretty much it! WADR devs, this's disgraceful! You can temporarily hack small UGVs, at one point, have a Goliath UGV for an ally when it's hardly worth the effort in the end, one of your guys steals an enemy helicopter in one of the DLCs, BUT YOU NEVER GET TO CONTROL THEM! If people like something about the old game, don't take that away. Bring it back and make it superior to the original. It shouldn't be rocket science.

Flaw #8: Forgettable characters
Not much was done, honestly for both games, in the way of character development. Even the original had this Texan with a big belt buckle who's name you can't remember, but in the end, with him, and the rest of the cast, you don't get enough elaboration to even care that much about them. HF:TR is no exception to this either, where you can't bring yourself feel much emotion for the goth chick, who threatened to cut off your nipples at the beginning, when she sacrifices herself at the end. I'm not much of a writer at all when it comes to character design, but there's PLENTY of online articles you can read for the tips and tricks on it. I certainly recommend having the writers giving them a read. This link's a good place to start: https://io9.gizmodo.com/10-tips-and-tri ... 1616544190

Flaw #9: Not being able to swim
What is this? Grand Theft Auto III? Vice City? Assassin's Creed 1? Since when's not being able to swim worked in a game!? No. Give us players the opportunity to swim. It provides us with the opportunity for exploration and hell, North Korean commandos, in real life, are trained to swim for a whole week straight. Capitalize on that and make THEM swim too!

In conclusion, devs, I think you did a good job in taking a bad game that was painfully short from the beginning and trying to innovate on it. But when you take some of the good things from that bad game that got praise, it just sets the game up for failure. Call of Duty has the luxury of still being successful despite pumping out subpar games that are foils for criticism from fans. Homefront doesn't have that luxery and at best has a cult following that can easily be lost over time. You gotta know what you're competing with to hold a candle to them and create compelling gameplay. Look to them, see what they do right, and try to see what you can do better. While it's not very likely that my words will reach Cryengine UK, I want to be able to see that this game had potential and maybe some day see that there will be a good Homefront game. One that no development team should be ashamed of. I hope that these words as critical as they may be, will be innocuous to whoever reads it.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest