Homefront, especially in the game's review scores. We weren't exactly keen on the game, but hardly anybody seems to be. The general consensus has the game taking significant lambasting by outlets over the short, mediocre single-player campaign, tempered by what the title has going on in multiplayer:
- GamePro (4/5): "Homefront does a whole lot right, delivering powerful imagery and actions on the single-player side, as well as interesting multiplayer alterations, but neither end feels fully realized. ... Should Kaos expand on this promising start with meaningful and memorable additions in a sequel, Homefront may prove a potent franchise in no time at all."
- Game Informer (70/100): "Thanks to some well-crafted maps and a unique in-game economy, the multiplayer fares better than the campaign. Rather than give each team a set number of vehicles at the start of the match, Homefront rewards you with Battle Points for each kill, assist, or flag capture."
- IGN (70/100): "[Homefront] controls and feels like a typical shooter, looks like a game that's several years old, and most importantly, has an inexcusably brief campaign. Multiplayer is Homefront's redeeming quality, and those gamers out there who are like me and swoon for alternate/future history settings should certainly look into it. "
- 1UP (B-): "Kaos Studios has made a competent shooter to accompany an engrossing story, one I'm more than willing to finish (assuming a sequel will be made). Multiplayer is where the game's real value lies, and it's certainly more than competent. There's a polish to the online mode that speaks to the developer's true talent."
- Giant Bomb (3/5): "Whether or not you decide to pick up Homefront should rely entirely on how much you want to play its multiplayer. It's not quite exciting or remarkable enough to trump the current giants of online dude-shooting, but it's a solidly crafted mode made comparatively impressive by just how tremendously mediocre the game's single-player campaign proves to be."