By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - IGN: Homefront Review

mantlepiecek on 15 March 2011

Yeah I wondered why he complained about graphics not looking as good as killzone 3 and crysis 2.....



Around the Network
tuscaniman on 15 March 2011

Well I'm picking the game up for the 360 in about an hour. It may or may not be good but from what I've seen from actual players the MP is fun and thats all I can ask. I'm not interested in Crysis 2 after playing the demo and I'm tired of COD. So this is my choice for my FPS fix until Battlefield 3. Obviously I'll be picking up other games soon such as Mortal Kombat and most likely LA Noire but I still need my FPS.



radiantshadow92 on 15 March 2011
Doobie_wop said:
radiantshadow92 said:
Doobie_wop said:
radiantshadow92 said:
Doobie_wop said:

I have no interest in the game, I didn't even know about it before GDC and I can confidently say that I can pick out eight flaws in that review. It reads like a review written by someone who doesn't play games very often or makes very poor choices and comparisons when it comes to writing the review.

The main flaw is that he knew the score and then wrote the review, the text should always come first and then the score has to be based around the text.

Minor, but silly flaw, but they shouldn't compare a game with a limited budget, different goals and different styles, to the two most graphically monstrous First Person Shooters on the market. Halo: Reach, Battlefield: BC2 and Black Ops were'nt compared to Killzone 2 and Crysis (in the visuals department), so I don't see why Homefront should have been picked out.

Barely any info on the multi-player, despite it being one of it's main and most positive features. 

Colin also didn't mention the differences between the platforms. Some recent comparisons have come out and have shown that the 360 version has some serious texture issues, but it was never brought up. Judging by the video review, it looks like he only played the 360 version and decided that the PS3 and PC version aren't worth mentioning, despite the PS3 version being the lead platform and the PC version looking fantastic (according to other sites).

I can go on, but then I'd go long and I don't want to bog the page down. Consistency is the key, I don't want to read a blog, I want to read an IGN review.

you should email that to beyond@ign.com lol..im sure colin would love to read it.

The IGN staff don't read it anyway. Judging from their various podcasts, their public panels and plenty of interviews, you can tell that many of the members of their stuff are extremely stuck up and stubborn. Most reviewers will never acknowledge that they've made mistakes and due to a close knit work environment, they are rarely ever told off. 

Giant Bomb and Classic Game Room HD are the only two independent outlets I trust, mainly because I've gotten to know their reviewers and they are extremely experienced and open with what they do.

I like IGN, I just wish that they'd work harder to stay consistent and factual. The same applies to Eurogamer, Joystiq and Destructoid. I hate Edge though, they probably write the best out of all the other outlets, but they are incostistent as fuck and it's always the same three reviewers making the three same pre misconciptions and mistakes. Edge aren't harsh, they just don't know what they're doing half the time.


i completly agree.

We should start a site together. I review shooters, you review action/adventure and we'll grab someone else to cover RPGs, puzzle games, fighting games and the Wii.

We'll call it Chobo POV or Rawr. A team of five should suffice, will you give me your axe?

lol that would be great, axe handed.



RSEagle on 15 March 2011

He spent 90% of the review praising the game, then gave it a 7. Seriously, I could have read the exact review and seen an 8 at the bottom and would not have questioned it at all.



I'm a filmmaker, writer, and gamer. Add me on Xbox Live or message me!

XBL Gamertag: StraitupBeastin

osamanobama on 15 March 2011
Doobie_wop said:
radiantshadow92 said:
Doobie_wop said:

I have no interest in the game, I didn't even know about it before GDC and I can confidently say that I can pick out eight flaws in that review. It reads like a review written by someone who doesn't play games very often or makes very poor choices and comparisons when it comes to writing the review.

The main flaw is that he knew the score and then wrote the review, the text should always come first and then the score has to be based around the text.

Minor, but silly flaw, but they shouldn't compare a game with a limited budget, different goals and different styles, to the two most graphically monstrous First Person Shooters on the market. Halo: Reach, Battlefield: BC2 and Black Ops were'nt compared to Killzone 2 and Crysis (in the visuals department), so I don't see why Homefront should have been picked out.

Barely any info on the multi-player, despite it being one of it's main and most positive features. 

Colin also didn't mention the differences between the platforms. Some recent comparisons have come out and have shown that the 360 version has some serious texture issues, but it was never brought up. Judging by the video review, it looks like he only played the 360 version and decided that the PS3 and PC version aren't worth mentioning, despite the PS3 version being the lead platform and the PC version looking fantastic (according to other sites).

I can go on, but then I'd go long and I don't want to bog the page down. Consistency is the key, I don't want to read a blog, I want to read an IGN review.

you should email that to beyond@ign.com lol..im sure colin would love to read it.

The IGN staff don't read it anyway. Judging from their various podcasts, their public panels and plenty of interviews, you can tell that many of the members of their stuff are extremely stuck up and stubborn. Most reviewers will never acknowledge that they've made mistakes and due to a close knit work environment, they are rarely ever told off. 

Giant Bomb and Classic Game Room HD are the only two independent outlets I trust, mainly because I've gotten to know their reviewers and they are extremely experienced and open with what they do.

I like IGN, I just wish that they'd work harder to stay consistent and factual. The same applies to Eurogamer, Joystiq and Destructoid. I hate Edge though, they probably write the best out of all the other outlets, but they are incostistent as fuck and it's always the same three reviewers making the three same pre misconciptions and mistakes. Edge aren't harsh, they just don't know what they're doing half the time.

and if you watch the video review, it sounds like an 8.5

he says it has a 5 hour campain, but so does pretty much all Call of duty's.

he also says the multiplayer is really fun, though doesnt mention much of it.

for the past 6 months ign's reviews confuse me.

im also sick of 1 page and 1.5 page reviews (even KZ3 was a 1 page review, then they did some formating, and it made it into a 1.5 page)

edit: its also puzzling that he compared the graphics to KZ3 and crysis and because it doesnt stand up to them, he critizes it. if they were consistant, that means 99% of games including call of duty should get 5's (but ironically enough MW2 got a 10)



Around the Network
Conegamer on 15 March 2011

not really shocking, it looks very generic IMO

I look forward to the time when we get out of this loop of creating generic FPS clones, the sooner the better if you ask me...



 

Here lies the dearly departed Nintendomination Thread.

ethomaz on 15 March 2011

After...

Gran Turismo - 8.5
Killzone 3 - 8.5
LittleBigPlanet - 9.0

Anyone expect better score from IGN?



osamanobama on 15 March 2011
ethomaz said:

After...

Gran Turismo - 8.5
Killzone 3 - 8.5
LittleBigPlanet - 9.0

Anyone expect better score from IGN?


but they did give halo reach 9.5 (ign Uk gave it a 10) thats like the last game theyve ranked high



ethomaz on 15 March 2011
osamanobama said:
ethomaz said:

After...

Gran Turismo - 8.5
Killzone 3 - 8.5
LittleBigPlanet - 9.0

Anyone expect better score from IGN?


but they did give halo reach 9.5 (ign Uk gave it a 10) thats like the last game theyve ranked high

That's before GT5 ;)... now IGN not give more high scores.



tuscaniman on 15 March 2011

Well I have the game and I've only played about 4 matches online but I must tell you that so far it is more rewarding online than COD. The only thing I'm hating is all the snipers, but this is a teamplay game. You can mark enemies fairly easy with drones that you purchase with Battlepoints so campers won't last long in this game. The Battlepoints concept is awesome. Sooo much better than killstreaks. Its worth a purchase if you are a MP fan. I haven't touched the SP yet.

Graphics wise its a step down from COD so I don't know why he compared it to KIllzone 3 and Crysis 2 which are setting the benchmark graphically for consoles. I agree with the 6.5 on the graphics. They aren't terrible but they are on the level of shooters from the beginning of this gen and not shooters coming out now.

Overall graphically mediocre or not I think I'm going to like it better than Black Ops. This game should have gotten a 7.5 minimum possibly even an 8. Black Ops should have gotten the 7.