SydLexia.com - The Forums :: View topic

Posted: Mar 21 2011 09:38 pm

I'm really only posting this out of curiosity. The game isn't a flop yet, but it seems it may go that way due to the being anywhere near as good as promised and, if anything, has really annoyed a lot of players with its short single player and good but not great multiplayer. The ratings for the game so far from review sites and players have been average (6.8-8.6) to low (6.4 an lower).

I haven't bought the game myself and have no plans on doing so, but I did find out something interesting from a friend of mine. He rented the game to see if it was any good. Apparently, the game has to be new to be played online at all or you have to pay $10 to play. This, coupled with the short and, what he claimed was a sub-par single player campaign, actually disgusted him to the point that returned the game after about two hours of playing and the rental place refunded him because of all the complaints they got about the game.

As for my curiosity, well, has anyone actually played the game and if so, could they weigh in?

Joined: Apr 09 2008 Location: Pennsylvania Posts: 3112

I'd like to try it. Not too many Battlefield-style shooters with big maps and teams, with a tug-of-war-style gameplay out there, but I've heard enough "mehs" out there to keep me away.

Joined: Dec 06 2007 Location: Connecticut Posts: 11244

We'll see how it is when they put it on a super 75% Steam sale come July.

Posted: Mar 21 2011 10:02 pm

With all due respect, I have a feeling I'll just wait for Battlefield 3.

Posted: Mar 22 2011 01:19 am

Bought it launch day, went home, beat it in 5 hours.

Online's pretty fun, if you don't have one of those super tactical fuckers who only responds to "Bravo 2-3" and not "Fucker with the rocket launcher." Campaign was alright, pretty basic, and short. I found it pretty annoying with the random deaths I seemed to get but I just suck.

Not worth $60.

Posted: Mar 22 2011 05:44 pm

Quote:

Not worth $60.

All i need to know

Posted: Mar 22 2011 11:16 pm

I bought this on Steam because you get Metro 2033 free and the headband on the box art for the Soldier in Team Fortress 2.

Holy Christ, this game is mediocre. It brings nothing new to the table outside of the (admittedly interesting) story, which lasts 4-5 hours to begin with. I regretted my purchased almost instantly.

Posted: Mar 23 2011 06:50 am

LowEndLem wrote:

Bought it launch day, went home, beat it in 5 hours.

That's just criminal in this day and age. It's always shocking to me when I hear of brand new games in 2011 having such a short lifespan.

Posted: Mar 23 2011 10:13 am

I had more fun playing Sniper Elite (Which was a budget title upon release) then I did Homefront. Homefront had the looks of a good game. Graphics were great, animation flowed well. But, there was nothing that really set it apart from all the rest.

6 hours of every action prescripted, liner maps. Might has well been a rail shooter.

Joined: Apr 09 2008 Location: Pennsylvania Posts: 3112

Adrock4 wrote:

I bought this on Steam because you get Metro 2033 free and the headband on the box art for the Soldier in Team Fortress 2.

Holy Christ, this game is mediocre. It brings nothing new to the table outside of the (admittedly interesting) story, which lasts 4-5 hours to begin with. I regretted my purchased almost instantly.

But you have Metro 2033, which is one of my favorite games of all time:

http://www.sydlexia.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=14145&highlight=