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

Forums - Gaming - Kaos: Dedicated servers for all versions of Homefront “means everything is bigger”

Zkuq said:

Yeah, Homefront does actually seem pretty interesting - compared to most other shooters out there. Dedicated servers for all platforms is definitely good. The thing is, they could still have added more players by increasing map size - I personally liked the idea in Battlefield 2, scaling maps according to the number of players on the server. Still, 32 players is the most common player count on PC and I'm pretty happy with that.

Now the only question remains whether it'll be possible to browse servers manually - I can see why people may want a matchmaking service but I also think it should be possible to search for servers manually. Also, player-administrated servers would be a good thing on consoles as well. You know, player-rented servers with player-set rules and admins.

I might actually consider getting this on PC. The only major drawback is Steam.

Drawback? Steam integration was a great decision.



Around the Network
gurglesletch said:
NotStan said:
gurglesletch said:
NotStan said:

Oh. So now I finally realize how COD gets away without hosting the dedicated servers, making dramatically smaller maps.

 

I am starting to warm to Homefront now, will probably wait for reviews before purchasing though, can't just jump head first into a new IP.


Why not?


It just still seems too generic to me, I've jumped on board MoH, even though I thought it looked generic too, but friends nudged me to buy it, I thought that game was apallling, and I ended up losing £5 on it because the staff wouldn't believe me that I didn't use the online code... I really don't fancy purchasing a game straight away again and be burned by the repetitive FPS action that I've come to expect now, with the same weapons, cluncky motion etc.

I thought MOH was worth it. Certainly has better multiplayer than BLOPS.


I thought that MOH tried too hard to copy both battlefield and Blops, the gameplay was jarring and horrid, there was no fluid gameplay at all that they've demonstrated in the trailers. The classes were pants, I don't think there were any physics, copying COD, the maps were like hamster cages, copying cod. The gameplay was slow, copying bad company 2, there were no classes like medic etc that made the slow gameplay fun, again copying cod. The sniper was overpowered without any physics, copying cod. Overall I think they've tried to mix COD and BF2, and failed, miserably.



Disconnect and self destruct, one bullet a time.

shio said:

Drawback? Steam integration was a great decision.

Yeah right. To me, Steam is DRM, quite possibly one of the worst because it ties a physical copy of the game I purchased to a single account. Also, it's practically online activation at the same time. Maybe it does actually offer something beneficial - but not to me. Aside from in-game chat, I don't care about Steam's features, and in the end, I use Xfire for in-game chat. So no benefit for me, only negative things. Practically they're not giving me any choice, and that's what's bugging me. That is also why I'm pretty reluctant to use Steam for digitally getting games, because I don't want to support it due to its policy with physical copies.

The only reason I didn't pre-order Civ V despite my high expectations and interest was Steam, and in the end, that turned out pretty well. The game was below expectations. Also, while I'm fairly confident Shogun 2 is going to be great and I definitely want to get it, I'm not going to do so until it's MUCH cheaper - all thanks to Steam. Also, with Steam's support for rip-off DRM like in the previous games of the Total War series, there's one more negative thing about it.

palancas7 said:

Is it Steam exclusive?

They say it supports Steam and usually when they say it, it means it requires Steam.



whats worst about steam is that THQ are apart of the asshole group of companies on steam, joining sega and activision who decide to up the price of there games for many countries. Why cant they be like EA who have it right on the DD front with my self able to buy games at 50 dollars and there are so many discounts its great. 



Of Course That's Just My Opinion, I Could Be Wrong

NotStan said:
gurglesletch said:
NotStan said:
gurglesletch said:
NotStan said:

Oh. So now I finally realize how COD gets away without hosting the dedicated servers, making dramatically smaller maps.

 

I am starting to warm to Homefront now, will probably wait for reviews before purchasing though, can't just jump head first into a new IP.


Why not?


It just still seems too generic to me, I've jumped on board MoH, even though I thought it looked generic too, but friends nudged me to buy it, I thought that game was apallling, and I ended up losing £5 on it because the staff wouldn't believe me that I didn't use the online code... I really don't fancy purchasing a game straight away again and be burned by the repetitive FPS action that I've come to expect now, with the same weapons, cluncky motion etc.

I thought MOH was worth it. Certainly has better multiplayer than BLOPS.


I thought that MOH tried too hard to copy both battlefield and Blops, the gameplay was jarring and horrid, there was no fluid gameplay at all that they've demonstrated in the trailers. The classes were pants, I don't think there were any physics, copying COD, the maps were like hamster cages, copying cod. The gameplay was slow, copying bad company 2, there were no classes like medic etc that made the slow gameplay fun, again copying cod. The sniper was overpowered without any physics, copying cod. Overall I think they've tried to mix COD and BF2, and failed, miserably.

It was ok but i may be biased from the free copy of Frontline HD.



Around the Network
Zkuq said:
shio said:

Drawback? Steam integration was a great decision.

Yeah right. To me, Steam is DRM, quite possibly one of the worst because it ties a physical copy of the game I purchased to a single account. Also, it's practically online activation at the same time. Maybe it does actually offer something beneficial - but not to me. Aside from in-game chat, I don't care about Steam's features, and in the end, I use Xfire for in-game chat. So no benefit for me, only negative things. Practically they're not giving me any choice, and that's what's bugging me. That is also why I'm pretty reluctant to use Steam for digitally getting games, because I don't want to support it due to its policy with physical copies.

The only reason I didn't pre-order Civ V despite my high expectations and interest was Steam, and in the end, that turned out pretty well. The game was below expectations. Also, while I'm fairly confident Shogun 2 is going to be great and I definitely want to get it, I'm not going to do so until it's MUCH cheaper - all thanks to Steam. Also, with Steam's support for rip-off DRM like in the previous games of the Total War series, there's one more negative thing about it.

palancas7 said:

Is it Steam exclusive?

They say it supports Steam and usually when they say it, it means it requires Steam.


Yeah I agree with you..

I still love CD key install games and the feeling of the physical copy rather than paying the same price for a download.