Writing about Homefront is probably the single most difficult review I’ve written for this site. Homefront does some things extraordinarily well – better than any other military-based first-person shooter to date – but misses the mark on many gameplay aspects and almost every accessibility consideration.

Written by John Milius (who also wrote “Red Dawn” and “Apocalypse Now”), Homefront is a game about a near-future vision of America occupied by troops from the Greater Korean Republic, a coalition consisting of a unified Korea and other countries in East and Southeast Asia. While the idea may seem far-fetched, the developers created an extraordinarily compelling, logical and ultimately plausible chain of events which results in North Korean soldiers turning football fields into labor camps in Colorado. The inevitable snipe hunt for widgets of a certain type becomes a search for news items in Homefront – news items which help fill in details about how the world came to be this way. It’s a fantastic idea which contributes to a vastly deeper and more detailed environment and helps build the story.

And frankly, that story is the best part of Homefront. Unlike a lot of games which cast the player as some raging epic bad-ass who single-handedly stomps mudholes in an army with superior troop numbers and often better technology, Homefront tells a small story about a pilot stranded in occupied Colorado who is taken into North Korean custody, presumably destined for a labor camp or a grave. Rescued by insurgents, that pilot then begins participating in guerrilla actions against North Korean troops. Players aren’t going to be tasked with killing Castro or blowing up rockets in the former Soviet Union. Instead, players scavenge weapons and ammo and destroy sentry cannons.

Given how the story plays out, it’s impossible not to think of Homefront as political. It’s impossible to think of it as a game without an agenda. However, it’s easy for people with different political beliefs to argue about what those politics are and what that agenda is.

As one example, is Homefront intended to help Americans understand why people in other countries resent having foreign troops on their soil? Or are players supposed to conclude that more presence in other countries is necessary? Were the developers commenting about the validity of regime change in some way? Is the game suggesting isolationism or interventionism? First-person shooters normally don’t raise questions beyond whether certain multiplayer maps encourage wookiees to get their camp on, but Homefront – more than any other game in the genre – encourages discussing ideas and analyzing events.

However, that does not mean Homefront is a nuanced game. From the initial cutscenes, it’s clear that this world is a brutal one and almost dares people not to be enraged by the conduct of the occupying troops. That outrage then extends to examining the conduct of the resistance fighters and other groups who have no discernible goal beyond their own survival. In that sense, Homefront is a highly manipulative game, designed to elicit strong emotional reactions from players, and it’s very successful.

But the most shocking aspect of Homefront’s single-player campaign is that the gradual collections of news items makes the chain of events leading up to the invasion not only seem plausible, but understandable and even reasonable. As a few examples, wouldn’t a North Korean leader trying to peacefully end the Korean War (which began in 1950 and never ended; currently, the two Koreas observe a ceasefire with periodic military incidents) and unify North and South Korea without violence warrant at least a nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize? If 10,000 citizens had been killed in another country because of their country of origin, who wouldn’t want troops sent in to stabilize the situation and protect people? Events like these pave the way for how the world becomes what it is – as players discover news items, they find not that there were major acts of aggression, but rather small changes which seem completely sensible … even though those smaller events gradually form a slippery slope which results in the world of Homefront.

Perhaps the most important consideration is that Homefront may not feel like a typical military FPS and perhaps it shouldn’t. The entire point is that civilians are resisting a military occupation with limited training and limited tools. Players used to games in which they’re highly trained operatives may struggle to adjust to a world in which their allies accidentally shell them with white phosphorus simply because they don’t know any better.

Generally speaking, gameplay in the single-player campaign is consistent with other military-based FPS games such as Call Of Duty and Battlefield: Bad Company and presents similar accessibility challenges. The length of the campaign is approximately five to six hours, consistent with Medal Of Honor, but where Medal Of Honor’s length felt very short, Homefront feels like a wholly realized world, and is the first FPS game I’ve played which makes a legitimate case for the quality of the story justifying a shorter single-player campaign because it isn’t a disjointed collection of poorly-planned and unrelated missions. Every action leads into something else. Every action has consequences, good and bad.

The multiplayer aspect has been difficult to evaluate due to a lack of post-launch server capacity which forces players to use a playlist which randomly spawns match types and teams. Remaining on the same side as other party members seems to require sending an invite to the game through the Xbox interface, not the game interface. Finally, for team-based multiplayer modes, it seems odd that players don’t respawn with teammates; as one example, I spawned directly behind (and then knifed) a player on the other team and racked up one of the single cheapest PVP kills I’ve ever had. Snipers seem overpowered compared to assault classes and the multiplayer game can often devolve into sniping and counter-sniping.

Before the multiplayer component is playable and valuable on its own merits, it will likely require a number of patches. As it is, the multiplayer reminds me of Battlefield: Bad Company 2. However, that isn’t a good thing because it just makes me want to quit playing Homefront multiplayer (and stop tolerating a random playlist throwing me into deathmatch after deathmatch because the server capacity isn’t sufficient for demand) and put Bad Company 2 in while I wait for Battlefield 3 for release.

Ultimately, Homefront’s single-player story, while exceptionally well-crafted, isn’t long enough to justify buying the game when it can be rented and beaten in less than a day. That leaves the multiplayer component to justify the price and the release week problems (including a patch issued on release day) with server capacity and gameplay issues don’t support a $60 price point either.

However, you haven’t played a game like Homefront before. It doesn’t have Modern Warfare’s bravado or Bad Company’s sense of humor, and it isn’t Medal Of Honor’s love letter to troops. This is something radically different – more than any other military FPS to date, Homefront is a profoundly emotional game, but that exceptional storytelling isn’t enough to overcome its flaws.

Accessibility Issues / Concerns

Homefront presents a number of accessibility issues and is actually less accessible than similar titles in the military FPS genre. While players will encounter similar problems with precision and mobility as other FPS games, Homefront presents a few new and more problematic accessibility wrinkles.

First and foremost, while cut scene subtitling is usually relatively easy to read, the remaining subtitling is difficult to read. On a 32” LCD HDTV, the font is squat and small. The letters seem compressed and the letterforms are distorted, seeming both flattened from the top of the letter to the bottom, and stretched out at the sides. There is no letterboxing and the text can occasionally be difficult to see against backgrounds. Finally, it typically appears at the left side of the screen instead of centered at the bottom of the screen which is an added challenge since players are conditioned to look at the center of the screen in gaming – it’s where the target reticle is and it’s where we have to look to see danger. Positioning the text at the left side of the screen, even if that is how books are laid out, presents a usability issue both because of where players are looking in games and where nearly every other game places its subtitles. It isn’t an innovation, it’s a deviation from a convention which exists for a reason and which nearly every other game follows.

Likewise, NPCs in the game will call out target locations verbally – these cues usually aren’t subtitled, meaning deaf gamers will need to react more quickly to deal with an enemy coming over wreckage at them. Furthermore, although this is a small concern, the subtitles occasionally differ from the voice-over track. Although this doesn’t affect how the game plays, it does affect how the story is presented to deaf gamers – as one example, I suspect most people would agree that there is a significant difference between planning something and debating something.

Gamers with a form of color blindness need to be aware that red-dot sights use both red and green for the target reticle. Some sights have a red dot while other sights on the same type of weapon will have a green dot. Furthermore, they’re all identified on the weapon as a red-dot sight, regardless of the actual dot color. The screen turns red as players take damage, and friendlies and hostiles are indicated with green and red text, respectively. Likewise, target reticles turn red over enemies and green over allies. Multiplayer presents similar issues for players with color blindness.

Gamers with precision concerns need to be aware that in addition to the typical issues associated with FPS games, players will need to cross narrow beams in the final act. Generally, the game doesn’t require much precision with movement – players will need to move quickly to avoid being attacked by sentry cannons, but will not need to avoid mines or other such traps. Players will occasionally need to move from cover to cover at somewhat timed intervals, but Homefront usually sets checkpoints at the beginning of such sequences and has frequent checkpoints along the way. Furthermore, sniping players at range can be an issue because Homefront includes sniper rifle sway, but does not include a mechanism to hold a player’s breath to steady the rifle, which is another deviation from most military-based FPS games which presents additional accessibility issues for players with precision and motor function concerns.

For the most part, Homefront features a controller layout consistent with other FPSes. There are three stick layouts and two button layouts, but Homefront offers no ability to remap any controls. An aim assist option exists in the controls, but the game does not offer the ability to toggle aim on and off, a common accommodation for gamers with use of only one hand. Instead, gamers must use one control (the default option is the left trigger) to aim and another (the default is the right trigger) to shoot. Considering that one level requires players to repeatedly shoot enemies at range with a sniper rifle, this may present some difficulties for gamers with use of only one hand.

Ultimately, many disabled gamers will experience significant challenges playing Homefront which will likely present serious obstacles. While the single-player campaign is a fantastic story, disabled gamers who are interested in it should rent it and determine how accessible the game is for them before committing to a purchase.

My original purchase price: $59.99
Recommended purchase price: $39.99 for multiplayer, rent for single-player

Mobility: 1
Visual: 3
Hearing: 1

At A Glance

Precision: The game presents the same problems as other military-based FPS games, but only offers three stick layouts and two button layouts with no remapping possible. Players will need to snipe at range and deal with sniper rifle sway, but do not have the common option of pressing a button to temporarily steady the rifle. Recommend rating of 1 out of 10.

Deaf Gamers: Subtitles are hard to read due to a poor font choice which yields small text with awkward letterforms and are positioned at the left side of the screen, forcing the player to look away from the target reticle when subtitles appear in a mission. In-game verbal direction (i.e. target location) usually isn’t subtitled. Recommend rating of 1 out of 10.

One-handed: The game does not include a toggle aim feature, but includes a level in which players are required to target enemies at range and snipe, requiring use of both triggers. As usual, movement and look controls are on separate sticks, but the game only offers three stick and two button layouts, and no options for even limited controller remapping. Recommend rating of 1 out of 10.

Subtitled: Subtitles are hard to read due to a poor font choice which yields small text with awkward letterforms and are positioned at the left side of the screen, forcing the player to look away from the target reticle when subtitles appear in a mission. In-game verbal direction (i.e. target location) usually isn’t subtitled. Recommend rating of 1 out of 10.

Color Blind: Red-dot sights use both red and green target reticles; both are called red-dot sights. Friendlies and hostiles are indicated with green and red text and target reticles, respectively. Recommend rating of 3 out of 10.

Checkpoint / Save System: The game, consistent with other FPS titles, uses a checkpoint system. The checkpoints seem fairly close together, but it is difficult to tell when the player passes one. Recommend rating of 7 out of 10.