If the developer believes that strongly in their MP, i'd much rather they spend the time getting that as good as possible and not bothering to include an SP component, rather than have either component feel tacked on and useless.

That goes the other way as well.

Am getting sick of devs feeling the need to tack on more features when it is obviously sacrificing overall quality. Don't know where the blame lies for devs feeling that need.....but either way it's ruining potentially good games.

then you should have focused all of your resources to make a kick ass multi only game.. dont spend the better parts of a year hyping up your games storyline and it turns out that it plays/looks like dogs balls. AND you should be ashamed of making a 4-5 hour campaign on a game.

1) Campaigns are NOT the ONLY main structure of a game.
2) The Multi Player is very very good. IDK what game most people are playing but i throughly enjoy the MP.
3) LAG?!?! what lag... it's dedicated servers meaning only reason your lagging is cause your too cheap for 20mb dsl.
4) Why must everything be compared to a frustrating, fanboy based games, AKA Call of Duty & Battlefield. Yes they're great for there own reason but so is this game.
5) Most reviews are biased anyway. I played this game with an opened mind thinking this would be the same as Front lines: FoW and it wasn't it was a UNIQUE experience.

i just dont trust games from thq anymore after buying ufc 2010 with broken online and waiting around 2 months for a patch which didnt fix it.

game is FREAKING SWEET on PC!!

on console it looks like 90% of other console games, washed out, sub-hd and covered in jaggies

unless a dev has four years to spend optimizing for one single console, the games on ps3 and 360 always look like trash compared to the pc

The pc version of homefront looks wayy better than killzone 3, halo reach, uncharted 2, god of war 3, alan wake or any other console game, The controls are perfect and the action frantic, the game runs at a sexy 90 frames per second!!

Well if the games main focus was multiplayer then why didn’t they just make Homefront an all MP game instead of tacking on a crappy SP. They could have saved a lot of disc space and used it to make an even better MP with more maps, more guns, and better graphics.

Average game. Going back to bfbc2

$60 no way MEH!

I'm a first person shooter fanatic who's played them all and i don't really remember too much from any of the campaign's to be honest. I've prestiged in black ops after whoring around forever maxed out and haven't touched the campaign yet on that game. Even when i play the mass effect games to some extent, there's just something about fighting against other humans that ai can't replicate.

If this game goes on for 40 bucks in Canada like it does in the states i'm all over it, but i'm really enjoying killzone 3 at the moment and with crysis 2 on the horizon, it's so hard to buy all the same thing. Even though fps' are most of what i play, i'm having to moderate myself. I wonder how many fps' a person can play at a time and still be any good at them. That would make a great experiment. Crysis,,,duke nukem,,,,brink,,,rage sometime,,,battlefield 3,,,killzone being awesome,,i'm glad everyone else seems to be as addicted as me.

Played it last night for a few hours.

SP...played for about an hour or so, I like it...but dont like the respawnin or whatever its called ememies. But I do feel something inside when I kill the enemy based on whats happening in the story.

Thats MORE than I can say for other SP campaigns that your shooting ppl and dont really know WHY!?

The MP. Initially jumped on that first and got killed and got zero kills...that was based on not knowing the controls or maps etc.

So went to SP then back to MP. I really like the Battle Points. And getting points as the game goes on is cool. Im hoping they add more weapons and gadgets as time goes on.

Not sure how many maps there are. But I really like them. They are BIG .. but not TO big..a nice size for flanking etc.

I got better as I played more and understood what was going on. I only played TD as that is easy to just get in and get a feel for weapons and such.

Not really liking the pistol...maybe im jus so used to BFBC2s pistols. The hit detection is good, no complaints. Doesnt seem to be any bullet drop for sniping which isnt a bad thing.

GFX...it gets the job done. No its not on the level of Killzone ...BUT...what it does that killzone fails at...is a larger scale battle with more going on then infantry combat.

I love MPs with vehicles and other things to kill besides the enemies...what i mean is..blowing up tanks...humvees...etc.

Is the game worth $60...its up in the air as I rented it and mst likely will purchase it for like $45 from gamefly.

IMO...there really isnt anything on the radar to offer what this game offers until COD and BF3 hits in the fall, So YES I would pay $60 for it ..even though im not...maybe Ill get my GF to buy it for me :)

Now if I can only play the stupid Crysis 2 demo on the PS3. Crytek must dont want PS3 gamers money cause I cant even play the freaking DEMO!!!! It wont let me in one game....not a good sign!