I can't wrap my head around what you're saying--or what they apparently said--none of it makes sense. Homefront is nothing like Call of Duty.

Every shooter with an M16 in it doesn't share gameplay by merit of setting and weapons alone.

I just have a problem with the perception that there's a "typical modern war shooter," mostly because none of these games actually play that similarly. Sure, the lines are beginning to blur (thanks mostly to Halo) with stuff like the grenade and melee hotkey, health systems, etc.. but Call of Duty doesn't feel thing one like Battlefield or Medal Of Honor when you're actually playing those games. Call of Duty is this twitch-fest run and gun shooter (often mistakenly played in a corner, spawn camping other noobs in absolute fear of movement.. but that's a player problem), while Battlefield has a slower pace and an entirely different feel to combat. I'm just saying: just because they look similar, doesn't mean the gameplay actually is. It's rooted in and inspired by the same reality, but they all deviate from the source in different ways and none of these games are really the same at the end of the day.

I expect the "feel" of this game to have more in common with Frontlines: Fuel of War than any of those other titles.

I'm sure the everyman stuff has more to do with setting and story and stuff than actual gameplay though. How is holding and shooting a gun different for one of these guys than it is for a soldier? Guns aren't that complicated, and people learn quickly.. I'd think in this kind of scenario you'd feel.. well.. like a soldier. The separation would come from tactics and whatnot, not the feel of your weapon.