🚀 go-pugleaf

On Tue, 02 May 2017 09:44:45 -0400, Spalls Hurgenson
<spallsh...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 02 May 2017 09:01:44 -0400, Rin Stowleigh
><rstow...@nevrhadgmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 01 May 2017 18:59:32 -0400, Spalls Hurgenson
>><spallsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>"Homefront: Revolution" surprised me in that it wasn't as horrid as I
>>>expected, and honestly I don't really regret the 20 or so hours I
>>>invested into playing it, but it's really quite flawed and not a game
>>>I expect to return to anytime soon, nor a game I could easily
>>>recommend. There are just so many other, games that do it better.
>>
>>I evaluated it from the standpoint of "wow, I only payed ten bucks for
>>this", and from that perspective it's quite good.  I didn't get
>>anywhere near 20 hours into it though.  The game started feeling a bit
>>repetitive after about 8 or so, but it was still worthwhile and
>>something I'll go back to.
>
>It is fairly repetitive, yes. The first few maps are basically all the
>same: ruined cities that you skulk about in, taking out enemy bases.
>In the middle, you infiltrate a not-ruined part of the city, which is
>a nice bit of variation but the gameplay remains mostly the same.
>After that it's back to the ruins again for a bit, and then an
>attrocious end-game sequence which is as tightly scripted and linear
>as almost any Call of Duty game (albeit not done as well). 
>
>>I went back and watched Mack's review of this when it first came out.
>>Most of the reasons he trashed it (like keybinding issues) I think
>>were problems at release that have been worked out by now.  It still
>>has bugs, but nothing like the reviews right after release portray.
>
>I'll grant the developers this much; I didn't have any real technical
>issues, at least none that I can remember. Not even any technical
>annoyances, like being unable to bind controls the way I like. It did
>pretty much everything I expected from a PC game. 
>
>>All in all a nice game for ten bucks. I'm pretty sure I'll never
>>complete it unless maybe someone here tells me the gameplay changes
>>dramatically after then 10 hour mark.  I just have this feeling that
>>I've already seen all the game has to offer.
>
>I try to evaluate a game not so much on how much a game costs in
>MONEY, but how much in costs in TIME. The game is low average in
>quality; it doesn't do anything really bad, but it fails to do
>anything really well either. As such, there are better games in which
>to invest your time, games with more polished gameplay, with better
>settings and more variety. You won't be miserable if you play
>Homefront Revolution - which is an incredible improvement over the
>first game - but it's the sort of game you only play after you've
>played the better games and need something to fill the time ;-)

The first game sucked at single player by comparison, but had
competitive multiplayer that was incredibly fun (much more so than the
SP campaign in Homefront Revolution).  Revolution only has co-op.
Rumor has it that co-op is pretty good, but by the time I bought the
game on sale, the multiplayer crowd was long gone and I couldn't get a
session going to find out.  I'm not a huge fan of co-op with random
strangers anyway, because there's this feeling of not being on the
same page most of the time.  At least back when I used to occasionally
play co-op games with friends, things were well-coordinated and we
functioned as a team.  The terrorist hunt mode of Rainbow Six Vegas 2
is incredibly worthwhile and immersive when played with a group of
friends over Teamspeak.  These days, I'm rarely in contact with most
of my old gaming buddies now (I think a lot of them abandoned gaming
due to the lack of worthwhile team MP titles), and shut down my
Teamspeak server a few months ago. I've heard that Ghost Recon
Wildlands is quite fun with friends, but I passed on it for the
reasons mentioned above.