PDA

View Full Version : Sequel? Wow.


StayonTarget
12-10-2011, 12:06 AM
I thought the first game did terribly. I loved the story but it's a little surprising they're making a sequel. What are your guys thoughts?

romanzad
12-10-2011, 12:14 AM
I thought the first game did terribly. I loved the story but it's a little surprising they're making a sequel. What are your guys thoughts?

same feelings, great potential in the game and although ridiculously short the story was good. will be interesting to see what they do with the game and the story it self!

Iceskater101
12-10-2011, 12:24 AM
maybe there making a second one to try and improve the first one?
that's the only reason I can think of.
Well if they do make another one I sure hope they improve
and maybe they will
and make the campaign longer

Dz06lt
12-10-2011, 02:53 AM
The first game sold well and had a great story i dont get all the hate sure the graphics were not good but graphics arent anything. That said this wont be a problem for the sequel because its being made by Crytek using cryengine 3

StayonTarget
12-20-2011, 04:28 AM
I don't know if hate is the right word. Yes it's being bashed for legitimate reasons. But it wasn't a shitty game. It had a good story and lots of potential. The story just needed to be a lot longer. The multiplayer wasn't great just cause no one really played it.

Penguino Rojo
04-01-2012, 04:28 PM
Im a little annoyed that there is a sequel, although i don't have to buy it if I don't want to, lol.

I liked the story, despite how short it was. The concept was sound. The achievements and graphics sucked.

Crytek did pretty good with Crysis 2, so i will hold hope that this will turn out better.

I really hope they don't include any needlessly shocking stuff in the sequel like they did in the first 5 minutes of the first game. I nearly returned the game when I saw that.

Scrubber
08-17-2012, 12:13 PM
Other than the fact that the campaign was WAY too short, possibly the shortest i've ever played. The game itself was good. Campaign had a decent story, multiplayer was fun.

its RIALTO
08-17-2012, 12:24 PM
I think the problem was it was massively hyped up and promoted. It just didnt meet the expectations.

The story line was amazing, i loved the history and paper clippings in cut scenes and loading screens. It actually made me want to read the book based on the game and i really enjoyed that.

Sequel??!! why not, id give it a go!! and then let you know.

Shiftie
08-26-2012, 01:03 AM
After the launch of the game the developer definitely seemed to notice the complaints people had about certain things in the last game. Whether or not they listen for the second one isn't guaranteed though.

ChickinOnaChain
08-26-2012, 01:16 AM
I had the first one and thought the idea was great but I didn't care for the game at all. No sequel for me.

InsaneKane87
11-03-2012, 11:36 PM
Seriously? A sequel.. why waste the money. The multiplayer was awful, single player wasn't very good either. The story itself was alright but besides that it wasn't very good.

Someone mentioned graphics, which is true they don't matter. Look at that the game minecraft, pixels am I correct? At least that's how they look and yet the game is amazing. Graphics can look however they want it wont determine if I play a game or not. All games have different graphics and if graphics were the main focus half these games wouldn't be played.

bearmod
11-17-2012, 06:59 AM
The first game was trash. Which was disappointing because it had so much potential, really the only thing that was good about that game was the story and I'm pretty sure that's just cause the guy that wrote the script for the game also wrote the script for the original Red Dawn or something like that. Hopefully if this actually gets made they take their time with it and try to make a halfway decent game.

Barad
03-07-2013, 03:57 AM
The singleplayer was decent, if it was twice as long then it would have made up for the terrible multiplayer. Crytek and making this so at least it will look nice. :p Plus like someone said Crysis 2 turned out to be one of the best games of that year.

Direkin
03-31-2013, 02:02 AM
The singleplayer was decent, if it was twice as long then it would have made up for the terrible multiplayer. Crytek and making this so at least it will look nice. :p Plus like someone said Crysis 2 turned out to be one of the best games of that year.
Singleplayer was shit. The story was lackluster and very short. Multiplayer was shit too, and not just because of the low population it had, but the glitches, seriously bad lag and really poor balance just ruined it. They got it right when they did Frontlines, so it just baffles me how they could have screwed Homefront up so bad, and on top of that they gave pathetic excuses by saying it's a new genre and it's a learning experience. Really? Did they forget that they developed Frontlines?

FrozenRaptorz
04-12-2013, 02:10 AM
The rights to Homefront 2 were purchased for next to nothing I guess. $300, 000. Chump change! I think everybody t was the guys who did the darksiders series.

InsaneKane87
07-07-2013, 06:08 AM
The singleplayer was decent, if it was twice as long then it would have made up for the terrible multiplayer. Crytek and making this so at least it will look nice. :p Plus like someone said Crysis 2 turned out to be one of the best games of that year.

The real crisis that year was Homefront. ;) I know, lame but hey, lol.

Singleplayer was shit. The story was lackluster and very short. Multiplayer was shit too, and not just because of the low population it had, but the glitches, seriously bad lag and really poor balance just ruined it. They got it right when they did Frontlines, so it just baffles me how they could have screwed Homefront up so bad, and on top of that they gave pathetic excuses by saying it's a new genre and it's a learning experience. Really? Did they forget that they developed Frontlines?

Don't forget poor ass hit detection, but I guess that can go with lag right? I remember countless times trying to shoot someone with sniper rifle while they weren't moving over and over. The fact you had to basically use a full clip or more into one enemy was beyond me. Unless you could manage to get a headshot without the terrible backfire in every gun even with tapping the trigger.

EMP
07-07-2013, 06:10 AM
I'll probably pick up the first cause it's cheap. I played the online at a friends and it wasnt bad. Just needs some touches and they can make a better game. We'll see.

LewievilleSlugR
07-12-2013, 12:33 AM
the first homefront definitely was lacking but still a fun multiplayer game. I got the full 1000g's for it....which included the achievement Expert of War...which was very time consuming. I think had they spent a little more time on it, it could have been a pretty good game..let's hope that homefront 2....if it is ever coming out....lacks a lot of the issues that the first had. and not that BF3 is bad...but I think I would still rather play homefront instead of battlefield.

H0p3sfalL
07-12-2013, 03:21 AM
I'm for it. I enjoyed the first one a lot despite its flaws. Now that Crytek have the rights to it I think the graphics issue will be addressed(fan of cry engine 3).

Coruba
07-28-2013, 09:44 AM
I really enjoyed the SP and I thought it was a good length ( I hate it when developers stretch out a story until it loses focus ), the MP was great, as were the map packs, very creative team. I was disappointed to find out Crytek would be doing the sequel as most of the Crysis games are pretty lame imo.