Wot I Think: Homefront (Single Player)

Ah, remember the good old days of Nam, eh?

Homefront was finally released in the UK yesterday after a pointless three day delay. Unfortunately a wayward postie failed to deliver our copy in time for a day one review. Day two it is then, because wow, this isn’t very long. But is it concentrated glory, still worth your time? Read on to find out Wot I Think.

Squatting down to take a Homefront.

There’s this strange bravado amongst games reviewers that I’ve noticed. People like to boast they finished a game in the shortest time imaginable, as if that’s some kind of achievement. It’s nonchalantly phrased. “Coming in at around six hours,” they’ll say, because eight is around six, right? And then someone on another site reads this and thinks, “Six?! It took me seven! Um, I’m going to call it five.” Because god forbid you take longer – it would mean you must be bad at the game! Or, perhaps, you took your time, explored it a bit more, stopped to blow up the roses. Games aren’t a race, and it would be rather nice if my cousins in this business could stop the one-upping. Homefront took me four hours.

I wish I were exaggerating. In fact, because I’ve read so much about the game only lasting four or five, I was determined to time it as honestly as possible. But then people kept interrupting me, IMing about stuff, the phone rang, I had to pee. That all racks up on Steam’s record of how long I was going to take. So quitting out after the end credits I was slightly mystified to see I’d played for four hours. Although, in fairness, I really didn’t want it to last much longer.

Homefront is barely a game. I’m drawing the line here. It’s an interactive cutscene with occasional shooting galleries. So far has the Call Of Duty Copying gone that it is believed the ideal game is one in which the player is barely involved. In Homefront, for the majority of the game, you feel like an unwanted irritant. It’s hard to capture quite how much this game seems to hate you for wanting to be involved, and the extent to which it goes to ensure you rarely are. But I’m going to try.

Oh, the premise. It’s 2027 or thereabouts, and a series of (pretty well argued) events has seen a Korean occupation of North America. You are, in theory, in the resistance, fighting back for territory against the new leaders. But what made Homefront look so unique when it was first announced, and indeed what makes it look absolutely incredible today, is the setting: suburbia. These aren’t warn-torn fields, or post-apocalyptic cities. These are American streets and parking lots, familiar homes and playgrounds to Western eyes. And – when outside at least – it has been stunningly realised. From the extraordinary detail of the trees to the uncanny sensation of seeing war occur in such vividly realised neighbourhoods, it’s a technically remarkable piece of work. Apart from the insanely googly-eyed faces, it’s a massive success. To look at.

Let’s talk about doorways. Alec’s enormously popular Locked Door post from 2009 lamented games’ ridiculous habit of filling their world with doors through which we’ll never pass. Homefront manages to take that idiocy a league deeper. In the entire game you are allowed to open one door. Doors are inert, dead objects when you try to interact with them. They have to be opened by someone else for you. One of your companions. You can’t be trusted with doors. So they may open it for you, but then talk to someone else, blocking the way. There’s no way past them. You have to wait your turn. Your turn is last.

Oh my goodness, do you have to wait your turn. One sequence sees a companion open a trapdoor. I was there first, because the game is so determined that I always be in last place that I spent the entire time fighting to be first just to screw things up. “Don’t fire until I say so!” would bark one of the NPCs. BANG! I would instantly respond, no matter how much more tricky that would make the battle that followed. If they were going to treat me like an imbecile, by golly I was going to act like one. But back to the trapdoor. The guy opens it and climbs down, so now it’s my turn. I walk toward it, I mindlessly press “E” even though there isn’t a prompt on screen giving me permission. But I’m shoved out of the way by the NPC behind me. Oh, I think. After you I guess. But no, not after him, because there’s another NPC who’s more important than me, and she gets to go next, once again physically barging me out of the way to ensure I’m in the last place in which I apparently belong.

Did you ever have to hang out with some bigger kids when you were younger? They were obliged to have you with them, and they were going to make sure their resentment was known. Yes, they have to bring you with them, but they don’t have to let you have any fun. That’s the sensation throughout the first two-thirds of the game, of just not being wanted. On the odd occasion when there’s some useful cover not taken up by an NPC, stand in it and they’ll inevitably shove you out into the open. And on some occasions it feels as though they’re deliberately screwing with you. You’ll see them ahead of you (because even if you do manage to squeeze past them, they’ll magically be ahead again anyway), standing, doing nothing. So the coast is clear, you figure. But no, it turns out they’re just staring at a Korean enemy who will shoot you in your face when you come around the corner.

Perhaps feeling guilty, they do occasionally let you play with the Goliath tank. This is a remotely controlled armoured vehicle with some hefty firepower. You’re give the button that lets it fire. For a few seconds, here and there, inevitably ruined by men with EMP weapons that mean it’s mostly useless. When the game was first demoed in 2009, the Goliath tank was the selling point. In the end it appears in the game for probably a total of fifteen minutes. And it’s not much fun – you target things, it blows them up, the scene changes. Plod plod plod.

OH YES! The walking! My goodness. They clearly knew the game was coming in ridiculously short when they set the enforced walking pace. My grandmother walks faster than that, and she died when I was 16. It’s like a joke, a spoof of how slowly a game may make you move. You’ll hold down Shift to run the whole time, knowing it won’t work, because if you didn’t it would mean you’d given up hope, and then there’d be nothing. I think I’d have finished it in under three hours if it didn’t keep having us play Glacier Races.

I’ve hinted that the final third isn’t as bad, and that’s true. We are of course talking about literally an hour of sometimes decent game here, and only decent. But there’s a nice sequence in which you’re fighting your way through the countryside which feels that bit more tense, a little less being dragged by your teeth. Also, you’re left alone for the first time too, so you get to feel like you’re actually playing. It doesn’t last long, but when it’s replaced it’s replaced with some other interesting things to do, stuff to fly, and so on. It’s far too little, far too late, and still peppered with idiotic pockets of tiresome waves of combat in which your NPCs do nothing other than shout at you to hurry up while getting in your way. However, had the whole game been like this, it would have been something to recommend playing.

It’s interesting to compare this to Bulletstorm. Both games are set in corridors so tight that both your shoulders rub along the walls, and both offer absolutely no freedom for alternative routes or sneaking around the back. But in Bulletstorm you’re the one at the front. You’re the person playing. In Homefront you’re barely necessary.

This seems to be something an increasing number of gamers want. I cannot figure out what has happened to the international psyche when we deliberately seek out games that make us feel so subservient, and so irrelevant. I’m sure I remember the FPS genre being the one that let you feel like a bloody hero the entire time, one man against the world, unleashing unlikely destruction. The CoDs, Medal Of Honor, and now Homefront are determined to take you down a peg or two, remind you that you’re really a nobody, and if you died the world would pretty much carry on the same without you. Gee, thanks games. But whereas Call Of Duty, and to a far lesser extent MoH, carry this off with a slickness and performance that seems to entrance (not for me, sadly), Homefront’s cynical plot and ghastly attempts at commentary reveal the empty format for what it is.

And wow, the commentary is ghastly. From the spiteful scene at the start in which you watch some parents shot against a wall in front of their infant son, who runs to his dead mother, shaking her clothes and screaming, it sets the tone for some clumsy and downright insulting “horror of war” rhetoric. It just doesn’t mean it, at all. The game loves war. It relishes in gory headshots and atrocities, feverishly wanking itself into oblivion every time it thinks it’s Saying Something. The final third’s epic set pieces have all the sensitivity of a Roland Emmerich film (and are just as memorable – I finished it an hour ago and I’m struggling to remember what happened.) So don’t start preaching to me about the terrible ways of mass graves. Especially if you’re going to follow that up with a scene in which I have to lie inside one with an arm draped over my head. You might call it having their cake and eating it too. With a cake made of shit.

So yes, four hours is plenty. It’s interesting how it was beginning to outstay it’s welcome, despite my finishing it in half an afternoon. A sequence crossing a famous bridge about an hour from the end (again, just phenomenally beautiful looking) had me wondering if it would be wrapping up soon, as I was done. But since it’s being released as a full price game, those not interested in investing in the multiplayer might very justifiably feel a tad ripped off.

It’s unquestionably one of the most impressive uses of the Unreal 3 Engine so far, and a significant proportion of my completion time was made up of staring at the individual leaves on the trees, or watching the sun’s rays twinkling through canopies. But spending most of my time inside it feeling like the unwanted little brother, not needed and with little to do, it feels like a massive waste. I’d love to see what could have been doing with the tech and the premise had there been some narrative sophistication and feeling of actually playing. This, however, wasn’t it.


  1. bhlaab says:

    You touched on it a bit, but I wish you had spoken more about how unabashedly tasteless this game is.

    The conceit of Homefront appears to be: “Modern Warfare takes place in the Generic Brown People Country so when a building gets blown up who cares right? Well wouldn’t it be terrible if that happened to Regular White People?” There’s a preview video on GameTrailers where a developer actually confirms as much, stating that their goal was to take the things that happen to “other” people and make them happen to “us,” suddenly lending horriffic events a level of gravitas above zero.

    Effectively, as westerners we can go to Generistan and wreck shit up and become heroes. But… my god… the Koreans, they’ve taken McDonalds! Those monsters have gone TOO FAR!

    That’s another thing. You don’t even mention the in-game Ads. Technically they make perfect sense since the game takes place in an American suburb, but when you examine the juxtaposition parents being gunned down in front of their children while standing in front of a Pabst Blue Ribbon billboard it all comes off a bit ill-concieved to say the least. in the game you are tasked with liberating a White Castle and a Hooters and then some. In a better game this would be played for self-loathing commentary, but Homefront is too fucking gormless to realize it is constantly equating the destruction of a corporate titty bar with the death of the American Dream.

    Then there’s the xenophobia. Koreans are protrayed as vacuously evil charicatures who want to take over America just because. Storyline-wise the country has been ravaged by pandemic, lost all of its resources, had its infrastructure crippled, and 40% of it is a fucking radioactive wasteland. The Koreans are apparently so jealous of our innate freedomy inside juices that they are going to land and murder a ton of civilians and take over a valueless nation.

    And reviewers are dumb enough to call this game emotionally strong. It’s emotionally nothing. It wanted an excuse to kill some foreigners guiltlessly and that is what it came up with.

    • Matt says:

      Hey, don’t besmirch the reputation of real titty bars by comparing them to Hooters.

    • bill says:

      I’m not clear from your post if you think the first idea is a bad one. The idea of moving a CoD war-pornathon to actually have “real” people die seems like a good one to me. At least in theory. The way they usually ignore the “enemy” in those games is ridiculous.

      The problem seems to be that it’s hard to do that while also still reveling in the great visceral fun of war. You can’t have war be horrible and fun at the same time.

    • bhlaab says:

      “I’m not clear from your post if you think the first idea is a bad one. The idea of moving a CoD war-pornathon to actually have “real” people die seems like a good one to me. At least in theory. The way they usually ignore the “enemy” in those games is ridiculous.”

      Well your theory is based on the idea that such a game would be a subversive look at how war-porn games view American and British roles as occupying and invading forces.

      Homefront is not that game. Instead it reinforces the idea that the middle east and is where war, destruction, occupation, and murder are “supposed” to happen, and that such things ONLY become tragic when they happen to American people and American things. And, in true American fashion, the game holds more sentiment towards the Burger King logo than it does for human life anyway.

      As far as being an ironic role reversal goes, you can throw that out the window right now. Koreans are portrayed as anonymously evil; Nazis without even an ideaology.

  2. exurban says:

    You know, Halo 2 just basically killed FPS.

    It seems to me to be taken as a matter of course by developers and publishers that people want to play competitive multiplayer. I remember the amazing amount of shock and complaints on the Steam forums for Metro 2033 from the people that bought it for the multi and couldn’t believe it didn’t have any.

    It shocks me that Homefront, Medal of Honor and Black Ops are marketed by their plots. Homefront is the game where the US is invaded. That’s supposed to be it’s thing, but it’s really just a little appetizer for the main course of noob pwnage. The single player is supposed to sell the games, but it’s also been decided that no one cares about single player.

    Also, remember emergent gameplay? When Crysis was new that was going to be the next big thing, no confrontation in game was going to be the same when you replayed it. Man, what happened to that? Is Crysis 2 going to be CoDified?

    I’ve hit the point where I don’t want to buy shooters anymore. I’m old, I don’t want to start the pwnage online. I can’t justify $60 for 4-6 hours of gameplay, considering that the average length for an action RPG is 20 hours.

    • drewski says:

      Ironically, Bungie have since provided, in ODST and Reach, far more engrossing singleplayer campaigns than anything the CoD clones have.

    • Dominic White says:

      Halo? You mean that series with interesting combat across large environments, varied weapons and enemies, solid AI, multiple routes through each battlefield, and now even level editing/basic modding tools built in on consoles? Yeah, THAT ruined the FPS genre, I’m sure.

      Need I mention that Call of Duty started out on the PC?

    • exurban says:

      The reason I point the finger at Halo 2 is because it’s the first game that really made multiplayer shooting a selling point. It is basically the game that made Xbox Live. I don’t disagree that Bungie delivers a great single player experience. CoD and MoA used to back in the Pentium III days as well.

    • Dominic White says:

      Halo 2 brought online to the forefront. Halo: Reach has a campaign that scales for up to 4 players in online co-op and a whole bunch of co-op instant action modes. I want more of that. Lots more. A good solo campaign that automatically expands as more players join? Yes please!

      Reach is a seriously good game. I reckon it’d go down with PC gamers a lot better than Homefront. Or, at least, it would if so many didn’t have this ridiculous axe to grind with Bungie.

    • Hunam says:

      Where were all you guys when millions of us we’re playing CS? CS is probably where a lot of people who moved into modern warfare games came from.

    • malkav11 says:

      Your definition of “good” and mine apparently differ widely. I was bored with Reach’s campaign about two missions in and sent it back to Gamefly. The gameplay formula did not appear to have changed at all from the first Halo, where it was “plunk you down in large but featureless arenas and throw the same four enemies at you over and over with a theoretically interesting set of weapons that you will forego because you can only carry two weapons and the boring old assault rifle is much more generally useful”.

      Except that Halo had the Flood, and I’m assuming Reach doesn’t because it would make no sense given that it’s a prequel.

    • Srethron says:

      @exurban: “The reason I point the finger at Halo 2 is because it’s the first game that really made multiplayer shooting a selling point.”
      Erm? I’m not much of a Halo fan, but I’m pretty sure that would be Unreal Tournament and Quake III, or possibly even Quake II. I can remember a miserable pile of people (and some reviews) saying, “yeah, the singleplayer sucks, but who cares! That’s not why anyone is playing it. Get it for the multiplayer!”

      (If there were games even earlier than this using multiplayer as the main selling point, forgive me. Quake II was my entry point into multiplayer deathmatch.)

    • Hoaxfish says:

      quake 3 was entirely mulitplayer… no singleplayer plot, except fighting arena bots

    • exurban says:

      This is my time line of FPS.

      Up until Halo, it was mostly a PC genre. While there was competitive multiplayer going on all the way back to Doom 2. I know there were competitive multiplayer only shooters on the pc. At that point though, I would argue that they were a were a specialty product. The “default” FPS was still the single player, plot-driven type; Half-Life 2, FEAR, Crysis, etc. Those games all had a competitive multiplayer version, but they weren’t the main selling points of the game.

      Halo 2 was the game that made online shooting for the consoles. During the era of the PS2 and Xbox, you still had development for individual systems. With the the 360 and PS3, you see nearly every FPS released for them, the PC and sometimes even the Wii. The increase in console gaming and the availability of more FPSes on consoles has changed the fundamental nature of how the games are built. It’s been decided that the players want to shoot each other more than anything, so the single player part goes to 4-6 hours, but it wasn’t CS or Unreal Tournament that caused the change. Halo 2 started it, Modern Warfare was the last nail in the coffin (for the most part).

  3. Bob says:

    I hope developers realize when you play a game you actually want to play it, not just watch from the sidelines. I’m thankful that John’s preview put me off buying this. At $80 I want more than pretty scenery and,(hehehe), obnoxiously rude AI.

  4. merc says:

    Great review, very incisive. Other reviewers should be made to read this and take notes.

  5. frags says:

    So you could say this is all ‘shock’ but no ‘awe’? I saw some of the scenes in the beginning. Very reminiscent of CIty 17 but ratchet up the shock factor.

    You see, this is where the DICE guys get it. You don’t try to beat Call of Duty by trying to be Call of Duty. But maybe this is good ‘enough’ for THQ.

  6. Fondue says:

    May I ask why it is that in this game, your resistance group of like 5 dudes just outshoots the hell out of hordes of highly trained Chinese soldiers?

    Is it because you play an American? Or is it because designing an asymmetrical game involving ambushing/sabotaging an overwhelming enemy (to fit the theme and storyline) instead of CoD-style manshoots would require some effort put into the gameplay and level design?

    Yes. Probably.

    • heretic says:

      “May I ask why it is that in this game, your resistance group of like 5 dudes just outshoots the hell out of hordes of highly trained Chinese soldiers?”

      You must be new to gaming.

      (oh and they’re Korean soldiers).

    • Dreamhacker says:

      They’re North Korean, not chinese…

      As for the game, I hope THQ just closes the studio and dumps all the unsold copies in a landfill so we can all move on.

    • SuperNashwanPower says:

      If they landfill the DVDs then I am happy to take a free copy off their hands. If nothing else it’ll make a colourful coaster.

    • TDM says:

      It doesn’t really make a difference, here, whether they’re Chinese or Korean because the point of the game is let you fire away at faceless foreign devils.

      The story is already farcically stupid enough that it doesn’t matter.

  7. Chaz says:

    Oddly despite all the middling reviews and general negative press, I still wouldn’t mind buying this at some point. When it’s become a lot cheaper of course.

  8. Spatula says:

    must admit after watching the opening on youtube i found it to be in quite poor taste- especially the parents getting shot in front of their son bit (but that could just be because i’ve just become a father myself).

    Game and it’s premise just looks clumsy and i’l;l though out- like lord of the flies but without the lieterary excellance after it.

    Also- pedant note: The term “you can’t have your cake and eat it” is incorrect and this is an exceptionally common misue. The correct term is “you can’t eat your cake and have it”, for what should be obvious reasons.

    Pet peeve lol

    • RegisteredUser says:

      Actually as a logical statement both ways around work as the connecting AND makes order irrelevant.

      And for added head assplosion: “I’m ‘having’ cake” translates into “I am eating cake” if you want, so essentially you CAN have your cake and eat it, too.

    • Soon says:

      “Also- pedant note…”

      That isn’t the “correct” phrase, just the logical way of wording it. Nor did John misuse it.

    • Nick says:

      pedant fail.

  9. RegisteredUser says:

    Just thought about this the other day.

    Games should be paid for the amount of enjoyable gameplay hours they contain.
    Imagine – something like Oblivion of FO3 would clock in say 50 cents x 200, whereas most manshootingmanshooters got around a fiver tops..

    Yet disturbingly enough, the sales are usually the exact opposite of this.

    • Malawi Frontier Guard says:

      It’s not about length man, it’s how you use it.

    • Apocalypse 31 says:

      Yeah, but then you get games like Far Cry 2, filled with insane amounts of boring, traveling and sporadic missions (that are terribly lame). Games would be 90% fluff, 10% content

  10. Apocalypse 31 says:

    I’ve been playing FPS since Seal Team in 1993 and I will say that Homefront’s SP campaign is by far the WORST SP campaign I’ve ever played.
    Talk about linear and predictable. The review was spot on.

    Multiplayer, on the other hand is pretty good. There’s a few good design features in multiplayer that I’ve never seen before, and has kept me hooked for a few days now.

  11. duffers says:

    It really is surprising the story is utter shit when the man at the helm has proved his genius in a recent interview, if it was in doubt already with the incredibly hard hitting RED DAWN.
    “I am a total man of the people. I am much closer to a Maoist. However, I am a Zen anarchist.” – Hello, I don’t know what I’m talking about.

  12. drewski says:

    I wonder how many copies this needs to sell to get a sequel. I know THQ budgeted for 2m sales, but I wonder if it comes in just below they might take a punt on a second one rather than invest in another new IP.

  13. jamie says:

    gotta be one of my favourite reviews ever

  14. Iskariot says:

    The best phrased and most entertaining review I have read about Homefront. You’ve said all I would have liked to say myself about this waste of a game. Thanks John Walker.
    I hope game devs read this and hang it on their wall when developing the single player part of a new game.
    I would like to add that many in the comments ‘complained’ about the unrealistic plot of the game. But I think nobody would have really cared about realism if this game had lived up to its promise of Halflife 2 comparable single player storytelling.

  15. stkaye says:

    So with fairness to Dragon Age 2 – yes, I’m going there – at least the most awesome things that happen during the game are very much your own doing. You can nuke a whole screen of enemies with magic in a damn satisfying way. None of this watching others and cutscenes covering all the awesome – no no, the cutscenes in DA2 are reserved for dullness.

  16. jamie says:

    derp! best review ever

  17. whydidyoumakemeregister says:

    This game reminds me so much of Mafia II last year. It seems hard to mess up Commie invasions and gangster period pieces in film, but both of these games prove you can’t get by with good looks. They were slightly different games, but the limitations and frustrations are one in the same.

  18. JuJuCam says:

    It’s interesting that this game has generated the most lively and interesting discussion I’ve seen here in days, it reminds that as with all art sometimes it’s most interesting when it’s done wrong and thought and discussion turns to why and how it is wrong and how it might have been done better.

    To me, Homefront represents a direction so far removed from classic FPS that it could easily be considered a whole new brand of beast divergent not only from first person shootage but from gaming altogether. Some sort of First Person Animated Feature Film. Ironically if the protagonist did not have a gun but instead his only weapon was a camera, the plot revolving around being an agent of change via the media a la Beyond Good and Evil, I believe at least some of the problems would be justified and the game somewhat forgiven.

    • Dominic White says:

      There is actually a first-person cameraman action game. Michigan: Report From Hell on the PS2. You play as the cameraman on a news crew during a Stephen King-esque foggy monsterville situation, and are scored on capturing as many horrible things on camera as possible. However, as you’re the one watching the anchorwoman, you’ve got to warn her or knock her out of the way if there’s something about to kill her.

    • malkav11 says:

      It has some of the worst voice acting known to mankind. Just intensely, amazingly terrible.

    • Dominic White says:

      B-List game localized on a shoestring budget during the twilight years of the PS2. Par for the course.

    • JuJuCam says:

      Cheers, Dom, the Wikipedia entry makes the gameplay sound if not amazing then at least unique and innovative.

      Imagine what could be done with the concept with modern triple-A production values. Then weep at the uncreativity of the publishers and developers that control our marketplace.

  19. oceanclub says:

    “First Person Animated Feature Film”

    That one’s a keeper.


  20. MrPants says:

    Spare a thought for the Australian users who earn 60% greater satisfaction from not buying this game. Thanks to (publisher-driven) regional pricing on Steam, this game is US$80 for Australians rather than US$50. It’s the cost of flipping those zeros as they cross the equator.

    Of course, THQ brings us many other regionally-priced Steam gems, such as the colon-dense Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War II: Retribution: US$30 elsewhere, but unavoidably US$60 in Aus due to the cost of isotopes required for equatorial bit rotation on its way to the local mirrors.

  21. Triangulon says:

    “You might call it having their cake and eating it too. With a cake made of shit.”

    I liked this bit. Pretty much summed it up for me.

    • bascule42 says:

      Damn…was gonna make my pleasure known about the “..cake made of shit” comment. You beat me to it. By about 3 days.

      It was rather like Spinal Tap’s “Shit Sandwich” review I thought.

  22. Onemoar says:

    I have Learned to avoid anything published by THQ

  23. Branthog says:

    The concept of Homefront was more exciting than the reality. Hopefully someone takes up the mantle and carries on in a better fashion with a different game, in the future.

    It’s far too short (about four hours) and it’s too linear and the only point of grand excitement is the very end of the game (which is breathtaking). Along the way, there are plenty of elements that make it feel dated. Kind of like Half Life 2 — but not made today. Made when Half Life 2 originally came out. Even annoying things like “now press E to climb the ladder”.

    The story isn’t even all that great. In short, the story is this: You are a pilot and the rebels need pilots, go from Colorado to San Francisco shooting stuff.

    I’d have much rather had it been less of a standard (lower quality) shooter and more of a survival game. It had so much potential. So disappointing. I had a good enough time, but that’s only because it was so short and that’s ignoring the fact that it was a full priced game.

    I’d have advised them to leave the multiplayer out and invest that time and money in making a good game.

  24. DarkByke says:

    Did anyone else laugh uncontrollably at the part where the little boy asks for food and the guy pretty much tells him to “piss off, we have guns!!!”. I watched the kid walk away with a crippled leg and climb over a pile of garbage to go die in the corner.

    I also was hoping throughout the game the main characters would climb up a ladder to be ambushed and killed off so I could be the hero. But no…

  25. tomovo says:

    “Last person shooter”