Brendan dropped our Homefront review only yesterday, awarding it a solid 8. However, he wasn't fond of the all-too-brief campaign, which most are finishing within four or five hours. This has called into question Homefront's merits as a full-priced game, whether it's deserving of a forty pound price-tag if your money is only lasting so long. However, developers Kaos Studios have come out in defense of their game, claiming it offers "hundreds of hours of gameplay".
While the campaign might be short - although admittedly quite moving - the focus of Homefront's development was obviously on its online multiplayer component. And it shows, what with the glowing reports and THQ forced to upgrade their server capacity to handle the droves of fans looking to duke it out online.
And according to Kaos' David Votypk, Homefront absolutely deserves its forty pound price-tag, citing a "strong single-player and multiplayer component". However, Votypk did admit he'd like to expand the length of future Homefront games. "I think going forward we'd certainly work on extending it a few hours," revealed Votypk, but paused to explain that, "going past the 10-hour mark and doing a category-leader multiplayer game, you just have to balance your development resources there".
It's an interesting dilemma, as on the one hand Homefront offers a robust and potentially genre-topping multiplayer component. On the other, however, however "strong" the campaign is, it's simple unacceptable to deliver an experience so short some LIVE Arcade and PSN titles eclipse it. But what do you think, dear readers? Does a good multiplayer component atone for a slack single-player portion? [CVG]