Jump to content

 

Sequel? Wow.


StayonTarget
 Share

Recommended Posts

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!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 2 months later...

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

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.

Edited by bearmod
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...
  • 4 weeks later...
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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 2 months later...
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.

Edited by InsaneKane87
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
  • 2 years later...

The developers claim the campaign will be 30+ hours long. Some sites are claiming that is a good thing.

 

I disagree. If I was forced to play 30+ hours on a game like Brink, I would smash my head on my Xbox just so I wouldn't have to.

 

This is a shooter. No one wants to slough through 30+ hours of take cover, shoot, move, take cover, shoot, move, etc. This ain't no Witcher, Fallout, or Skyrim. GTFO.

 

Also, I bet the filler that makes the campaign 30+ hours long are repetitive and mind-numbing quests.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The developers claim the campaign will be 30+ hours long. Some sites are claiming that is a good thing.

 

I disagree. If I was forced to play 30+ hours on a game like Brink, I would smash my head on my Xbox just so I wouldn't have to.

 

This is a shooter. No one wants to slough through 30+ hours of take cover, shoot, move, take cover, shoot, move, etc. This ain't no Witcher, Fallout, or Skyrim. GTFO.

 

Also, I bet the filler that makes the campaign 30+ hours long are repetitive and mind-numbing quests.

 

 

 

I disagree, if the story is good enough its well worth it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
  • Create New...