Well... I'll be playing SP first like i do with all the others shooters and to be honest that is what I'm most exited about because I've been looking for so long for a Sandbox-ish FPS Single Player experience that can challenge me not with enemies with more armor and that deal more damange but with Smarther AI that knows how to use cover and that just dosn't stands there when i start shooting it (Yes i know that Crysis 1 had terrible AI and that some videos show that this game also has some dumb AI but most of them are old and the recent ones really show what ive been looking for)

And when it comes to multiplayer well.. I know that a lot of people have been comparining it to CoD and Halo and I am personaly a big BFBC2 fan and dont get me wrong I LOVE Battlefield but Ive been looking for something simpler but still with alot of tactical elements so this is the perfect game for me.



PS. Sorry about my english It isnt my first language

Homefront. I want more than a futuristic Counterstrike.

Actually... a futuristic Counterstrike sounds awesome

SP

I have no interest in MP at all

I will be playing Cod in Nanosuits.

single player first, just for learn to play with the keybinds, then mp mp mp mp

I get this game solely for the SP.

SP and THEN mp..

And then I will (hopefully be able to) play Sandbox3

Serious Sam.

THQ stock drops 21% due to Homefront's review score avarages 72 on Metacritics for 360 and PC.

SP since that's my rule for any game. Then playing the **** out of MP because the demo was amazing even with the amount of flaws.

Homefront's MP looks like regurgitated Battlefield but someone took a giant dump on top of it and added cherry, with the cherry being the cool point system. If you want to spend 60 bucks on a 3 hour campaign and what I said in the sentence before. Then by all means, do so. I'll be enjoying Crysis 2 with a roughly 12 hour campaign and fast paced Nanosuit combat in MP.

SP since that's my rule for any game. Then playing the **** out of MP because the demo was amazing even with the amount of flaws.

Homefront's MP looks like regurgitated Battlefield but someone took a giant dump on top of it and added cherry, with the cherry being the cool point system. If you want to spend 60 bucks on a 3 hour campaign and what I said in the sentence before. Then by all means, do so. I'll be enjoying Crysis 2 with a roughly 12 hour campaign and fast paced Nanosuit combat in MP.

Interestingly conflicting information.

1. There are many other reviews out there not listed on centralised scoring sites. And they average 8-8.5 out of 10. So those plus e.g. Gamerankings, you have a current average of 8. The first Crysis 2 review is: 8 - PSMagazine.

2. So far all reviewers including IGN who score HF a 7, agree the MP is great. IGN lower the score for less than stellar graphics (Black Ops were well outdated btw and scored higher) and a short campaign.

3. Three-hour campaign? Sorry but most reviewers say it is 5 to 7 hours if you take your time. Crysis 2's is said to be 7-10 hours, making it an average 2.5 hours longer. That is huge isn't it;) Let's look at many other AAA SP campaign lengths of late: Black Ops = 4 hours on Easy level, 7 if on Veteran people say. Bulletstorm = 6 - 7 hours. Even Dragon Age 2's is cut by half. Point being, it is the norm today & judging a game by that is futile or judge them all on that. Crysis 2's is in no way considered a 'Long SP campaign' - no chance.

HF offers varied play in MP, from foot soldiering to vehicles, to drones = variety of playing. Crysis 2 offers varied weapons, so though that may be a good selection, it is still a regurgitated Counterstrike for me.

Crysis 2 SP until I start replaying Crysis 2 SP in my head while I sleep, then I will move on to playing with the Sandbox Editor.

SP since that's my rule for any game. Then playing the **** out of MP because the demo was amazing even with the amount of flaws.

Homefront's MP looks like regurgitated Battlefield but someone took a giant dump on top of it and added cherry, with the cherry being the cool point system. If you want to spend 60 bucks on a 3 hour campaign and what I said in the sentence before. Then by all means, do so. I'll be enjoying Crysis 2 with a roughly 12 hour campaign and fast paced Nanosuit combat in MP.

Interestingly conflicting information.

1. There are many other reviews out there not listed on centralised scoring sites. And they average 8-8.5 out of 10. So those plus e.g. Gamerankings, you have a current average of 8. The first Crysis 2 review is: 8 - PSMagazine.

2. So far all reviewers including IGN who score HF a 7, agree the MP is great. IGN lower the score for less than stellar graphics (Black Ops were well outdated btw and scored higher) and a short campaign.

3. Three-hour campaign? Sorry but most reviewers say it is 5 to 7 hours if you take your time. Crysis 2's is said to be 7-10 hours, making it an average 2.5 hours longer. That is huge isn't it;) Let's look at many other AAA SP campaign lengths of late: Black Ops = 4 hours on Easy level, 7 if on Veteran people say. Bulletstorm = 6 - 7 hours. Even Dragon Age 2's is cut by half. Point being, it is the norm today & judging a game by that is futile or judge them all on that. Crysis 2's is in no way considered a 'Long SP campaign' - no chance.

HF offers varied play in MP, from foot soldiering to vehicles, to drones = variety of playing. Crysis 2 offers varied weapons, so though that may be a good selection, it is still a regurgitated Counterstrike for me.

actually....the first review was a 9, there is also a 9.2 and a 9.5 by german magazines (there is a thread here somewhere about them)

as for the campaign length of crysis 2, Camarillo said the playtesters took about 12 hours to finish the game, less experienced players will take longer so I do not know where the 7 to 10 is coming from

Homefront. I want more than a futuristic Counterstrike.

I don't know if the MP for Homefront is any good. I would have to play it to know. But SP wise Homefront is just sad. Very short, the walkthroughs posted on Youtube show rediculously stupid AI.

Homefront for me.

The game reviews are only scoring low because of a short singleplayer, all sites have agreed that the multiplayer is very good.

A shame that CoD games can have even shorter campaigns with the same reskinned MP each year and buy out 95% reviews anyway. I trust the public, not sketchy review sites, and the public opinion is very positive.

Playing MP first, the reason I even got interested about the game. No, I didn't think the game will svck back then, but I never wasn't interested in travelling in New York wtih a nanosuit. I thought you can't do almost anything cool with nanosuit there. But I was horribly wrong indeed. All because of the multiplayer made by Crytek UK this game got me interested and then, MAXIMUM HYPE ACTIVATED!

if anyone think homefront is good deserves to be shot
such a pos game
only 2 games modes and 2shots from a pistol in the foot kill you from mile away
MOH N HOMEFRONT worst games that coulda been great

Homefront for me.

The game reviews are only scoring low because of a short singleplayer, all sites have agreed that the multiplayer is very good.

A shame that CoD games can have even shorter campaigns with the same reskinned MP each year and buy out 95% reviews anyway. I trust the public, not sketchy review sites, and the public opinion is very positive.

Exactly. Most games today are releasing short campaigns, it is the norm. And yes, CoD is literally re-skinned MP, yet it still receives maximum scores. I'd like to know what is ground-breaking about Crysis 2's MP? It literally is simply Counterstrike with futuristic weaponry - what is so great about that when you have already played similar games countless times? At least HF is trying to do something new e.g. Battle Commander, and stopping campers from refusing to participate in games actively.

I have read countless posts on this forum calling Crysis 2 MP a complete CoD clone - the same people call HF's MP. But with pilotable vehicles and drones, HF goes one step further than Crysis 2. I tried the PC demo - it's alright. I tried the PS3 demo, it's alright. Neither are 'great', as they involve the same game mechanics as most other top MP games out there today. Homefront may not be fantastic, but neither is Crysis 2.

Read the HF MP reviews: almost all give it thumbs up.

Good luck to Crysis 2, but it in no way is 'ground-breaking'.

if anyone think homefront is good deserves to be shot
such a pos game
only 2 games modes and 2shots from a pistol in the foot kill you from mile away
MOH N HOMEFRONT worst games that coulda been great


That part about getting shot in the foot sounds like a horrible decision on the developers part. But the two game modes wouldn't bother me.

My favorite MP game that I have played is Bad Company 2, and I only played Rush mode, never anything else. With something as great as Rush mode you don't need anything else. So maybe that's the way it is with Homefront MP as well.

If the Game come out.........

I get a nice Magazine........and play with myself! Ahhhh.......lol

We need an option for Crysis Wars...I'll be playing the real thing rather than a simplified imposter.