Something doesn't have to be fresh and new to be fun though.  A game can bring nothing new at all to the table but as long as it's done well and it's fun, that's completely cool.

If the game is fun, what does it matter that it plays like something else?

Well... IGN gave this game a 7/10 stating a very short single player campaign even if the story was ok. Graphic is apparently dated but multiplayer is kinda fun (and very much like cod).

Looks like a decent cod-clone... unfortuntaley, the fate of a good clone is generally that of a mediocre game because it is a clone.

It needs to be GREAT clone to touch its inspiration and Homefront isn't.

I dont think it is as absurd as people make it out to be but anyway.

I havent yet played the game so i cant tell you when i play the game i will tell you

PS2 games had dedicated servers? Since when?

I don't get it. If people want a really good non-CoD clone with vehicles and dedicated servers and the such why don't they just get Bad Company 2.

On the IGN review it is supposed to have horrible graphics and a very short campain but the multiplayer sounds good.

they didnt say it was horrible, they gave it a 6.5/10 from memory

didn't you get the memo in game reviews anything below a 7 is terrible...

Ah they actually said the game was pretty decent, but not worth the money if you're a fan of single player as the length is really short. This is kinda odd consider the effort they made in making and promoting the story. The multiplayer is a cod-clone with some added vehicle for spice, this is fun for a lot of people but I'm not a huge fan of the COD style gameplay... I much prefer the more tactical gameplay from battlefield.

In short while the game got a 7 IGN had almost nothing but praise for it. They only had 2 complaint.

> Single player was too short (but what was there was good!)

> Game's graphic is subpar when compare to their competition

It seems to be bring bad reviewers