Homefront: The Revolution Ignites America’s Second Revolutionary War

We have not yet begun to fight.

The original Homefront, released in 2011, told the all-too-plausible tale of a newly-reunited Korea’s invasion of the United States. Through some powerful--and horrific--imagery, the game wove an unsettling tale uncommon to the bombastic nature of modern first-person shooters.

Homefront was developed by the now-shuttered Kaos Studios. The rights to the game were sold to Crysis developer Crytek one year later after publisher THQ went bankrupt. This new Homefront, powered by the CryEngine, strikes the same tone as its predecessor, but takes that game's all-too-short campaign and opens it up with an all new open world design.

Certain weapons can be modified with various attachments in real time.

Homefront: The Revolution is set four years into the occupation of the United States by the Korean People’s Army. Philadelphia--birthplace of American independence--has been twisted into the enemy’s main headquarters, and it falls to the player to take it back. Since open warfare against the technologically superior KPA is no longer an option, players will have to use guerilla tactics to undermine, and hopefully overthrow, their oppressors.

Since open warfare against the technologically superior KPA is no longer an option, players will have to use guerilla tactics to undermine, and hopefully overthrow, their oppressors.

"Our version of Philadelphia is an oppressed, heavily policed environment," said Fasahat Salim, game designer at Crytek UK. "As the player goes through each of the different districts--the game is an open world so you can bounce around between districts--everything you do, each mission or side mission or whatever else, influences the game world and influences all of the civilians who inhabit it. Everything is being influenced by how you approach the game."

That influence is represented by uprising points. As Salim explained, these points reflect the revolutionary state of Philadelphia and are earned throughout the game. "Everything you do, from throwing a brick at a KPA camera to assassinating a high-ranking KPA official, impacts the revolutionary state of the world. How you go about doing these things will also have an impact on the way people respond to you and your idea of a revolution, but either way the KPA will come down hard and try to oppress you as much as they can. Everything that happens in this world is part of a lot of powerful stuff we have going on under the hood."

I only caught a glimpse of this during my brief time with the game, which was a lot of ducking in and out of cover while shooting bad guys in the face. The gunplay felt solid--Crytek is a practiced hand when it comes to making first-person shooters--but also very familiar. Item crafting was actually a big part of what I played as well. I collected supplies and threw together some molotov cocktails on the fly, and later built an RC bomb car that I could control. Since drones were a fan favorite in the previous game’s multiplayer modes, it was nice to see them used again in this sequel.

Speaking of multiplayer, Homefront: The Revolution will support four-player online cooperative play.

One thing I found odd was the amount of emphasis placed on the protagonist’s status as an everyman. Multiple times during his introduction to the game, Salim described the hero as being just an everyday guy without any sort of military training. Of course, in the game itself you juggle all sorts of weapons and are able to use them all with precision and ease. I’m not saying this is a bad thing, but it does seem strange Crytek would want to play up this discrepancy between narrative and gameplay.

Either way, Homefront: The Revolution is coming to Xbox One, PlayStation 4, and PC sometime in 2015. There is still much to be revealed about this game’s open-world play style, which will hopefully help it stand apart from a crowded shooter genre. As Salim noted, giving this game an open-ended structure is definitely one of their goals. "We’re trying to avoid a situation where the player has to do something in a very specific way. The player will always have opportunities to approach a situation in a variety of ways. There’s no right way or wrong way, just different ways. What you have in that moment is what you use to get the job done. It’s very emergent."

See more coverage of E3 2014 →

Got a news tip or want to contact us directly? Email news@gamespot.com

Did you enjoy this article?

Sign In to Upvote

140 comments
Foppe
Foppe

Could be interesting.

mkelly215
mkelly215

I can't wait to play a game set in my hometown. Maybe I'll be able to destroy the building I work in!

rIVAL_sWORD84
rIVAL_sWORD84

So Basically its Crysis overtaking Home front franchise now, Cant judge the game since no gameplay is seen....

emiliano222
emiliano222

What's this? Wolfenstein: The new order, but with North Koreans?

james1919
james1919

I'm confused. In the last game, the Resistance and the US Army captured San Francisco and parts of California (there were mentioning of the US Navy breaking into San Diego harbor). How did it lead to the GKR invading the east coast? And where did all of this new tech came from in just two years. In game, it was clear the Koreans were still playing catch up and had to push the US backward just to level out. The first game was good in my opinion, just too short and a bit choppy. Crytek better have a good reason to explain how the second game background ties in to the first.

tramadoler
tramadoler

Yeah, the scenario is completely unrealistic. Even the China invading the USA original one. Nobody wants to invade the USA.  Okay, North Korean dictators probably wished to do it but they never could and if they tried it would be more likely they get invaded by China because Chinese people don't want to have their business, you know, what made China go from 3rd world country to an economic competitor for the western countries.

doquangminh
doquangminh

it is crytek so at least we know that the game will look good!!!!!!!! 

leviathanwing
leviathanwing

hopefully enemies wont have the same horrid animation and the deadly accuracy of a laser precision robot surgical tool.  i mean for frikks sakes its a sniper nest and im being pelted through a hard surface at hundreds of meters?  anyone who played the campaign should remember that one.

tkw
tkw

Watch Dogs + Hunger Games + FPS = Homefront 2?

Amirygon
Amirygon

I'll pass unless it offers a proper third-person view instead of all this first-person bullshit.

catsimboy
catsimboy

Open world? New developer? I'm cautiously optimistic about this one.

delta5931
delta5931

Considering the first game sucked...

No.

VegasAceVII
VegasAceVII

Well, I didn't care for the first HomeFront very much but...I wasn't expecting them to go futuristic.  Pass.

rob9999991
rob9999991

Don't know... I'm sure the graphics will be awesome, but the story just takes me out of it. Couldn't even finish the first one. I'll keep an open mind until release though.

kerrman
kerrman

"All-too-plausible tale of a newly-reunited Korea" If you think that is plausible then you have never met and talked to a South Korean apparently.

cure_4_humanity
cure_4_humanity

I really loved the story in Homefront. I can't wait to play the story out more.

cboye18
cboye18

Just look at their F2P game WarFace, and you can fish out how creative and innovative these developers really are....

onixevil
onixevil

The trailer looks good and the gameplay did not appear on it to start gagging about the final game specially the franchise now owned %100 to Crytek which leaves nothing related to the first game installment .

BrokenChaos666
BrokenChaos666

I am someone who is very bored with current FPS games. They are all the same stale story with the same stale game play. But this has my attention. I will be keeping an eye on the news for this game in the future.

Pierce_Sparrow
Pierce_Sparrow

First game was mediocre at best, but I have confidence in Crytek's hands. They know how to make an awesome open world FPS and the setting for Homefront was the best thing about the first game. So, returning there in glorious next gen should be a pretty awesome experience.

CnConrad
CnConrad

I have been tinkering around with an idea very similar to this. If only I had the talent or connections to get my idea out there.

Basically take the whole Zombie Open world survival genre as a starting point.

Get rid of the zombies and put in a real story and a superior force that is constantly putting out patrols and controls 90% of the resources and weapons.

Gather supplies, weapons and other revolutionaries and overthrow the invaders.

Moral choice between being a terrorist or a freedom fighter. Based on the collateral damage you are willing to inflict.

cboye18
cboye18

Cryteks can't make games, more like tech demo's. 

Fizzman
Fizzman

Should have made a Freedom Fighters sequel over this ****.  

Brakkyn
Brakkyn

@james1919  Who said it does?  It could be a completely different backstory--a reboot, if you will.  It's a new developer, so it isn't outside the scope of possibility.

l33tek
l33tek

@tramadoler Your comment has no creditability here. You're regurgitating what people were saying about the first Homefront. Hey, 2011 called they want their comment back!

Brakkyn
Brakkyn

@Amirygon  What is the reason behind your favoritism toward third-person?  Do you find it more immersive to be able to see the back half of yourself?

FuzzyPancakes
FuzzyPancakes

@Amirygon Third person can be annoying, and that would be cool to see a sandbox fps... idk if i played a sandbox fps

Metroid827
Metroid827

@delta5931 That's pretty stupid logic. It's an entirely different studio this time around with a totally different structure. The only thing it's really going to have in common is the setting.

PinkFloyd2003
PinkFloyd2003

@rob9999991 Couldn't finish it? Really? Because you could pretty much finish the campaign in 1 sitting. I remember thinking the game was just getting into the second act when all of a sudden it ended. I know that wasn't your point but still. It was the shortest game I remember playing in a long time. Like it's my go to "Damn that was a short game" game.

TheWatcher000
TheWatcher000

@cure_4_humanity 

I know, it was so plausible and completely realistic.

And I really, really meant that.


Seriously.


I promise.

TheExxorcist
TheExxorcist

That's like making fun of Wolfenstein for Nazis taking over the USA.... it's not logical, but the setting is immersive to players with imagination.

xKnees
xKnees

@freedomzealot did you not play the first game? North Korea united with S. Korea and annexed china and then took over the US. so china was involed.

Amirygon
Amirygon

@Brakkyn @Amirygon First-person has never been done right to even remotely be immersive on its own to begin with, and it certainly never will outside of virtual reality (and even within virtual reality, it's unlikely to get right for years to come). So yes, I find it far more immersive to be able to see the back side of the character I am playing.

Amirygon
Amirygon

@FuzzyPancakes @Amirygon You find third-person annoying; I find first-person as it has existed thus far annoying while saying it is at all annoying is barely even scratching for me to begin with at the surface as I find there neither anything immersive nor intuitive about first-person view to begin with. So like I said, I will pass unless it offers a proper third-person view.

FuzzyPancakes
FuzzyPancakes

@bourne714 @catsimboy yeah i guess, at least their graphics are still slightly above average xD and yeah their games can be pretty corny... but that's with a lot of games made out side of the US, so if they can make a good multiplayer it could be successful... like the battlefield games... the story is always terribly and really corny, but they have a good multiplayer.

rob9999991
rob9999991

@TheExxorcist  Well, if the Nazis did not invade Russia there is a very good chance they would have taken all of Europe including England and then with the help of Japan would have probably massed an invasion of the US. Invading Russia following a declaration of War on the US was their downfall. Cost a lot of lives but a good thing.

Alecmrhand
Alecmrhand

@freedomzealot you dont know much about North Korea do you. Alone they have 10 million troops today. Backed by China and forced by conscription, they could easily have 20 million troops for an invasion. American is far more technologically advanced but by the end of the next troop cuts we will have fewer than 600,000 active troops. Our miltary is tired and our government is corrupt. We have no real allies any longer and rely on our enemies for oil.


Never be so arrogant to think we are invincible. We were strong enough to scare away such thoughts by countries such as North Korea 10 years ago. Not any longer. 


The one thing truly stopping a country from invading the US are the citizens. Enemies know that they would have to fight millions of gun wielding Americans. 


You should do some research on France.  Its strength during WWI, its arrogance in the lead up to WWII, and its complete defeat in 3 weeks in 1940. 


Germany took over France with around 3 million men. 


And no, enemy soldiers wouldnt just defect if they invaded....That is a ridiculous premise, my friend.



Pierce_Sparrow
Pierce_Sparrow

@freedomzealot Never say never. No one ever thought a bunch of colonists would ever beat one of the most powerful armies in the world, but it happened. A lot of things that seem implausible happy. And one of the worst things you can do is underestimate an enemy. Most North Koreans are brainwashed into obedience. I doubt they would just give up. They would do what their government tells them, even if it means sacrificing their lives to invade the U.S.