Homefront: The Revolution is highly underrated (and now 10 quid incl. DLC)

Soldato
Joined
1 Feb 2009
Posts
3,107
I *really* liked this game, so I wrote a bit of a review. If you just want the link to where it is so cheap right now, here (/edit: it was a temporary sale, price is back up, but game is cheap on other sites):
https://www.humblebundle.com/store/homefront-the-revolution-freedom-fighter-bundle

Homefront 2 didn't interest me much. I finished the first one and it wasn't a good game. On the rails shooting gallery that felt too long even with its pathetic four hours of playtime.
Second one wasn't developed by Kaos, but when I learnt that it's being cooked by Crytek UK, known as the muppets behind Haze, my enthusiasm didn't exactly grow. Plus all the trouble during development, bankruptcy of the publisher, change of dev team to Frankfurt, then back to UK, unpaid salaries of emplyoees, half the dev team leaving, then Deep Silver buying the project (followed by the return of the previously left devs, incl. game director Hasit Zala)...

No good game could have come out of this mess, could it ?

Well, according to reviews, no, it could not and it did not. For inexplicable reason (well..of course it was money) Deep Silver decided to release the game around 4 months before it was finished, at a time when console versions were almost unplayable due to low framerates, and PC version was a lottery ticket - one had it unplayable, the other could play, plagued by huge and numerous bugs.
To Deep Silver's credit though, they allowed Dambusters (new name of Crytek UK aka Free Radical) to finish the game post-release, via some hardcore patching. Of course, the low sales and low review scores are set.

But, patch it they did!

First the technical side then. Homefront 2 looks fantastic, almost photorealistic at times. Cryengine has amazing lightning. War zones have, particularly at night, impressive atmosphere. Framerate is pretty much perfect now - 60fps almost maxed out in 1080p (on 2500K@4ghz, GTX1070) without any significant drops or stutters. There are some ocassional glitches here and there, a bit of pop-in, but nothing too distracting. The patches also added ability to tune HUD (turn off almost everything) and FoV.

Now on to the game itself. Unlike the first one, Revolution is much more open affair. It takes place in Philadelphia divided into multiple zones. These zones are either Red, where most of the battles against Korea took place (Revolution takes place 4 years after the US lost the war), so they are bombed out and reminded me of the 2029 scenes of Terminator 2 (Revolution also takes place in 2029, probably not a coincindence). These zones have great atmosphere and contain the FarCry/STALKER like gameplay with taking over bases and open combat against KPA armed forces.
Yellow zones are full of civilians and instead of open combat, you need to play a guerilla rebel, taking out enemies stealthily. These most reminded me of City 17 from HL2 right after you arrive, except here you are an active saboteur, not just an observer.
Thanks to these zones the game is nicely varied, it is not constantly the same killing gameplay all the time.

I like games that show their interface through ingame object - in STALKER it was PDA, in FarCry 2 you hand held the map, in Homefront you have a korean phone :)
The arsenal is great. There are not many weapons, but each can be modified in multitude of ways and each upgrade feels worthwhile. The punch and feel of the guns is flawless, the sniper rifle is one of my favourites. That reloading animation never gets old. You can transform guns completely, for example make uzi from a pistol, or a flamethrower from a crossbow. Plus there are bombs strapped to RC cars or teddy bears at your leisure.

The game surprised me. I only gave it a chance because of the free weekend and I ended up buying it and finishing it since I enjoyed it so much. I liked it significantly more than FarCry 4 or Division, which I played right before Homefront.
That said, there are some flaws. The most significant one for me - the silent ****ing protagonist. Oh how I hate this trope. There is even a moment in the game when another character shouted at me "Say something Ethan!" and my lovely Ethan just looked, the mute idiot that he is. Please devs all over, stop with this nonsense. It is not adding to immersion. It is hurting it.
Another flaw is that the AI could be better. Felt a bit too canon foddery at times. Too bad we will probably never see AI exceed or at least match what first FEAR offered in 2005.

Anyway. Great game. Give it a chance. Oh and that easter egg is effin' awesome.

Here are some gameplay vids I took:

red zone:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bSG7au_RII

yellow zone:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=weXgxB3PevE

I also finished the DLCs. They are great. Short and linear (all three have around 5-6 hours of playtime combined), but polished and nicely round out the story. One is a prequel, the other two take place after the ending.

And Ethan finally speaks in them! It is amazing what wonders are done when main character speaks.

Few screenies I took from Beyond the Walls, the epilogue of the game:

223100_20170422173008ujuyf.png


223100_20170422174807j8u1c.png


223100_20170422180550oyuqj.png


223100_20170422184139reu13.png
 
Last edited:
Associate
Joined
23 Nov 2013
Posts
2,358
Location
Manchester
I must be one of the few people in the world that absolutely loved the 1st, I had it for the Xbox360, later the PS4 and then PC. The story was brilliant I cared for all the characters, the writing was amazing. The AI was terrible, the game was barely 4 hours long, and the colour palette was mostly a murky grey and brown. But I loved the single player. But what I mostly loved was the multiplayer, there wasn't any bullet drop, the colour palette was still terrible, the graphics were worse playing online, even on PC, and the leaves stopped your bloody bullets. But the gameplay and the maps were brilliant, the gunplay (awful BB sounds aside..) was excellent, it 'felt' fluid like CoD with the open maps of Battlefield, but best of all was the matches themselves, along with a quite genius mechanic where you earn currency as you played and that currency could be spent in game on weapons, scopes and vehicles, the games evolved and got more tactical and more chaotic, Loved Homefront 1! And yet, I haven't gotten round to playing 2, in a online closed QnA with the final development team (forget the name) I asked if the amazing online multiplayer would be making a return, the answer put me off immediately, no online Vs multiplayer...

I may get this just to finally get around to playing the campaign, I hope the writing and story is as good as the 1st
 
Soldato
OP
Joined
1 Feb 2009
Posts
3,107
I must be one of the few people in the world that absolutely loved the 1st, I had it for the Xbox360, later the PS4 and then PC. The story was brilliant I cared for all the characters, the writing was amazing. The AI was terrible, the game was barely 4 hours long, and the colour palette was mostly a murky grey and brown. But I loved the single player. But what I mostly loved was the multiplayer, there wasn't any bullet drop, the colour palette was still terrible, the graphics were worse playing online, even on PC, and the leaves stopped your bloody bullets. But the gameplay and the maps were brilliant, the gunplay (awful BB sounds aside..) was excellent, it 'felt' fluid like CoD with the open maps of Battlefield, but best of all was the matches themselves, along with a quite genius mechanic where you earn currency as you played and that currency could be spent in game on weapons, scopes and vehicles, the games evolved and got more tactical and more chaotic, Loved Homefront 1! And yet, I haven't gotten round to playing 2, in a online closed QnA with the final development team (forget the name) I asked if the amazing online multiplayer would be making a return, the answer put me off immediately, no online Vs multiplayer...

I may get this just to finally get around to playing the campaign, I hope the writing and story is as good as the 1st

I only played the campaign of the first game, never the multiplayer. And yeah...I was not a fan. To me it felt like a cheaper copy of CoD, but even shorter. There were few strong scenes, but I felt like it was a wasted opportunity for the most part.

Second game is much better though. It is among my favourite shooters now, with STALKERs and Dying Light and some others.
 
Associate
Joined
18 Oct 2013
Posts
1,475
Location
far side of the moon
The unfinished release was the thing that was putting me off getting this.........now that its reported its been finished and dlc is also solid I think I will snag it finally. I've loved the concept - the first one really ****** me off - just as I was really getting into the game it ends I was like WTF? multiplayer was fun in a wtf wait did that just really happen kinda way :D
 
Soldato
OP
Joined
1 Feb 2009
Posts
3,107
Liking it so far and it runs pretty good on a rx580 at 1080p.

I found shadows on highest have huge perf impact, lowered it to high and it runs 60 throughout.

And TAA is a must, there is literally zero aliasing with it.

The unfinished release was the thing that was putting me off getting this.........now that its reported its been finished and dlc is also solid I think I will snag it finally. I've loved the concept - the first one really ****** me off - just as I was really getting into the game it ends I was like WTF? multiplayer was fun in a wtf wait did that just really happen kinda way :D

This game is mostly centered around the singleplayer campaign, but it is great. Takes that concept from first game and fleshes it out.
 
Soldato
Joined
9 Jan 2016
Posts
3,727
Location
Derbyshire
it was 3.99 with dlc the other day on cdkeys, i had it one xbox one, only played so much of it, was a good game, it felt like playing dishonored 2 which took me a little while to get in to. i was tempted to get the pc version for the low price when i got anno 2205, but i hadnt see anything of late to suggest it had any bugs ironed out.
 
Back
Top Bottom