 |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| The Entertainment Review |
| Genre: Strategy Developer: Activision Publisher: Activision |
Let me preface this review by saying I am a history nut, it was one of the few classes I actually looked forward to attending. Activision
released “History Channel: Civil War” last year for the PS2 and the 360, and it wasn't the best game in the world, very mediocre and
looked like it came from a crew of rookie developers who just got there "Creating your first FPS for Dummies" book. Unfortunately, other
than a few minor changes, the same can be said again for the 2007 follow up, “History Channel: Battle for the Pacific.”
The thing I do like about these History Channel games is that they focus on wars or parts of wars that barely got that much attention
before. “Battle for the Pacific” takes place in the islands to the south of Japan throughout 10 missions set during World War II in locales
like Wake Island, and Iwo Jima. It is a little bit of a refresher than the usual European wasteland battlefronts most other WWII games
take place in, whereas “Battle for the Pacific” plants you in lush jungles, desolate caves, and trenched out coasts.
Unfortunately the game play is just as rudimentary and archaic as it was last year. I played on hard, and just like the hard difficulty level
on “Civil War,” I finished the game within three hours and died only a handful of times. Now I am not what one would call a pro gamer by
any means and I almost always plug through most games on Normal difficulty levels and usually have a pretty fair challenge on that
difficulty, but the AI in “Battle for the Pacific” is laughable. Enemies will usually stand right in front of you and not bother to take cover and
I don't even recall a single instance where they threw a grenade in my direction.
It feels like Infinity Ward gave developer Cauldron their developing tools because there are times with the interface and game play
design that it almost feels like I'm playing a “Call of Duty”-caliber game, but it ends up being one big tease. There are some brief bright
spots where you get to shoot down some war planes with anti-air artillery and the two missions that start off with a beach invasion ala
“Saving Private Ryan” gave me a little bit of an adrenaline rush, but the AI and the horrible game play mechanic of always staying within
a certain distance of your CO trounces over the few glimpses of a good game that “Battle for the Pacific” can showcase.
That's right, if your CO happens to get within about 35-40 meters away from you, the mission automatically is over, now that wouldn't be
a problem but for whatever reason Cauldron decided to give your CO one of those handy sprint buttons from of “Call of Duty 4,” and
decided to rob the player of a sprint button all together, which means you always are lagging behind. I lost track of times I had to restart
a mission because I had to dodge for cover while my CO was running ahead of me and I couldn't catch up in time.
There isn't that much of actual story to “Battle for the Pacific” like you see in the “Medal of Honor” or “Call of Duty” games that places you
in the role of the underdog soldier that could. Instead, just like in “Civil War,” there are nicely put together packages from the History
Channel setting up the stage of war for each mission that I found a real treat to watch. Good use of the license, but the history nut in me
wanted unlockable History Channel bonus videos for some sense of replay value because “Battle for the Pacific” has none of it. It did
add online multiplayer for up to 12 players, but on the several occasions I tried to hop online I couldn't find a single match to participate
in, which honestly isn't that much of a surprise given the high pedigree of online shooters also released in 2007 like “Shadowrun,”
“Halo 3,” and “Call of Duty 4.”
I'll give it to the developers for stepping up the graphics this year since “Battle of the Pacific” actually looks like it was designed with the
360 in mind where “Civil War” looked like a polished up PS2 port. The jungles levels in particular do look stunning, though a couple
bouts of slowdown and a low draw-distance that caused frequent pop-up did mar the improvements made. Aurally, the score is very
fitting for the WWII tone, but the voice acting from your CO and other fellow squad mates leaves a lot to be desired.
So for the few baby steps “Battle for the Pacific” made over “Civil War,” they were put right back where they were with no improvements
made to the horribly aging game play and poor AI. Don't bother picking this one up, especially since no one is on Xbox Live and this is
just a three hour game, but that single player is just so refreshing from what all else is out there that it wouldn't hurt to give it a rent and
plow through it in a sitting.
released “History Channel: Civil War” last year for the PS2 and the 360, and it wasn't the best game in the world, very mediocre and
looked like it came from a crew of rookie developers who just got there "Creating your first FPS for Dummies" book. Unfortunately, other
than a few minor changes, the same can be said again for the 2007 follow up, “History Channel: Battle for the Pacific.”
The thing I do like about these History Channel games is that they focus on wars or parts of wars that barely got that much attention
before. “Battle for the Pacific” takes place in the islands to the south of Japan throughout 10 missions set during World War II in locales
like Wake Island, and Iwo Jima. It is a little bit of a refresher than the usual European wasteland battlefronts most other WWII games
take place in, whereas “Battle for the Pacific” plants you in lush jungles, desolate caves, and trenched out coasts.
Unfortunately the game play is just as rudimentary and archaic as it was last year. I played on hard, and just like the hard difficulty level
on “Civil War,” I finished the game within three hours and died only a handful of times. Now I am not what one would call a pro gamer by
any means and I almost always plug through most games on Normal difficulty levels and usually have a pretty fair challenge on that
difficulty, but the AI in “Battle for the Pacific” is laughable. Enemies will usually stand right in front of you and not bother to take cover and
I don't even recall a single instance where they threw a grenade in my direction.
It feels like Infinity Ward gave developer Cauldron their developing tools because there are times with the interface and game play
design that it almost feels like I'm playing a “Call of Duty”-caliber game, but it ends up being one big tease. There are some brief bright
spots where you get to shoot down some war planes with anti-air artillery and the two missions that start off with a beach invasion ala
“Saving Private Ryan” gave me a little bit of an adrenaline rush, but the AI and the horrible game play mechanic of always staying within
a certain distance of your CO trounces over the few glimpses of a good game that “Battle for the Pacific” can showcase.
That's right, if your CO happens to get within about 35-40 meters away from you, the mission automatically is over, now that wouldn't be
a problem but for whatever reason Cauldron decided to give your CO one of those handy sprint buttons from of “Call of Duty 4,” and
decided to rob the player of a sprint button all together, which means you always are lagging behind. I lost track of times I had to restart
a mission because I had to dodge for cover while my CO was running ahead of me and I couldn't catch up in time.
There isn't that much of actual story to “Battle for the Pacific” like you see in the “Medal of Honor” or “Call of Duty” games that places you
in the role of the underdog soldier that could. Instead, just like in “Civil War,” there are nicely put together packages from the History
Channel setting up the stage of war for each mission that I found a real treat to watch. Good use of the license, but the history nut in me
wanted unlockable History Channel bonus videos for some sense of replay value because “Battle for the Pacific” has none of it. It did
add online multiplayer for up to 12 players, but on the several occasions I tried to hop online I couldn't find a single match to participate
in, which honestly isn't that much of a surprise given the high pedigree of online shooters also released in 2007 like “Shadowrun,”
“Halo 3,” and “Call of Duty 4.”
I'll give it to the developers for stepping up the graphics this year since “Battle of the Pacific” actually looks like it was designed with the
360 in mind where “Civil War” looked like a polished up PS2 port. The jungles levels in particular do look stunning, though a couple
bouts of slowdown and a low draw-distance that caused frequent pop-up did mar the improvements made. Aurally, the score is very
fitting for the WWII tone, but the voice acting from your CO and other fellow squad mates leaves a lot to be desired.
So for the few baby steps “Battle for the Pacific” made over “Civil War,” they were put right back where they were with no improvements
made to the horribly aging game play and poor AI. Don't bother picking this one up, especially since no one is on Xbox Live and this is
just a three hour game, but that single player is just so refreshing from what all else is out there that it wouldn't hurt to give it a rent and
plow through it in a sitting.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
