Normally I would say better late than never when it comes to reviewing a game, however better never is by far the superior option with Battle for the Pacific. At least some good can come out of this; others will be warned of and won’t have to experience what I’ve been through. Though you might already have known that, at least given the quality of some of the previous History Channel releases. Though even they have been able to offer a campaign which lasted for longer than one and a half hours.
Anyway, giving this game the benefit of the doubt. Throughout Battle for the Pacific you take control of an American soldier, who has no noticeable personality and for who you will care little for. The campaign is set in the familiar environment of World War 2, but in the relatively unfamiliar setting of the Pacific Ocean. Thankfully this means there is not a Nazi in site, instead a lot of Japanese Soldiers. Perhaps solders is the wrong term, perhaps cannon-fodder would be more appropriate. The man is taken throughout various stages of the conflict. Starting just hours after Pearl Harbour and finishing with the famous lifting of the flag scene. The conflict is nicely explained via the use of History Channel footage, nicely voiced and presented, you might actually learn something.
The trouble starts when the game is actually played. Most first person shooters can be described as linier to a greater or lesser extent; however Battle for the Pacific takes this to a whole new level. Who knew the war has almost entirely engaged within trenches in the beach, or between two cliff faces in the jungle? There is no room to explore here, but then there almost no time to do so anyway. Effectively the sergeant becomes your minder in this, stray too far from him and the mission ends, forcing a return to the last checkpoint. The sergeant storms though the levels as well, this effectively keeps the pace very high, but also means there is no backtracking. An interesting concept, but one which offers little new and often frustrates.
The AI is terrible throughout; there is no other way of putting it really. After the first level there were many such examples, I thought it couldn’t get worse but I was wrong. Some of this would prove humorous if it wasn’t so tragic. Allies would try and shoot through solid trenches to hit the Japanese, allies and foes would stand right next to each other, guns pointing at heads and somehow missing every time. Orders are to follow the sergeant, yet it doesn’t help when he just stands there doing nothing. He is additionally a bit of a poser, literally, occasionally just freezing in one position for about ten seconds or so. There were also many shouts of ‘They’re everywhere’ even though no enemies were around. These where just a few examples of the long list drawn up after just the first level.
On the other hand, sometimes it felt like I wasn’t needed. Your minder, the sergeant, felt like the star of the show. He would go from missing entirely to clearing out every Japanese soldier before I had even arrived, while easily taking anything they threw at him. It’s almost feels like they overcompensated in his abilities to account for the complete lack in anyone else’s.
The actual gameplay is one of Battle for the Pacific’s better features. The aiming feels relatively solid, much more so than other, more highly rated, games. Aiming and firing is quick and easy, with the bullets going where they are meant to. Three weapons can be carried at once, usually consisting of an assault rifle, a bolt action gun and a pistol; however these can be swapped for Japanese weapons, though there is often little need. Grenades on the other hand are a bit of an issue, mainly because, with the risk of sounding sexist, our man throws like a girl. Useful as they are, extra care is needed here as they only travel a very short distance.
Unfortunately the competent gameplay mechanics actually turn out to be a disadvantage when the rest of the game is so bad; they make an already easy game, even easier. On normal difficulty settings I died a handful of times throughout the entire campaign, with times feeling like I was invincible. There shouldn’t really be times where you are able to stand in the open, in the middle of an air field, and take waves of soldiers out without being killed yourself. Cover is available here; however it is very much optional. The games more relaxed difficulty also made it rather repetitive, as the same formula could be employed throughout. Stroll in, empty a clip (usually all the opponents are standing in a group which helps), reload as you advance and repeat. There were only a few instances in the entire game where this needed to change.
Some of the graphics were nice to look at, some of the textures particularly stood out. However for the majority, they did little to buck the overall trend of the game. Given that there was very little to actually see, one would have expected a lot better. And especially as there were only two or three environments repeated throughout the whole game. For most of the fighting there is the bog standard desert and the bog standard jungle levels, everywhere looks very familiar to the extent that it feels you’ve never left the first island. What’s even worse is that the same level is used again and again and again. One river in a jungle level was crossed three times, an advance, a retreat, then another advance to take the same point we had just taken, there was nothing new in taking it the second time. There are additionally a few fame-rate issues; I don’t know how these managed to crop up, as this game is far from taxing.
The sound fairs just about the same, if not a little bit better. The gun shots and explosions actually add to the atmosphere and are non to bad, additionally the war is developed well, albeit briefly, in the cut scenes. However errors are quickly noticeable and come in the form of some very bad voice acting. It’s hollow, boring and repetitive. The same chants of ‘follow me, that’s an order’ can be heard regularly thought the entire game, with some not even making much sense. The voices don’t even make you care about any of them, indeed some instances had me laughing at just how poor they were. I realise that some very young men must have gone into this conflict, but one member of my squad early on sounded like he was twelve.
Battle for the Pacific’s length is impressive, yet again for all the wrong reasons. On the normal difficulty setting, the full game was over in one hour and thirty minutes, now that must be some sort of a record (also bear in mind that includes times I paused the game to make notes). Perhaps add another half an hour or so for the hard difficulty, but that is still embarrassing. You might think the games multiplayer might add an additional few hours on. Well multiplayer is included in name only, on the several occasions I went up for a game there was no-one else even trying, it was like a ghost town.
So although Battle for the Pacific is not fundamentally broken in the traditional sense of the meaning, as in you are able to complete the game, with some competent gameplay mechanics. This is fundamentally broken when you consider the astonishingly short amount of game time this will offer. Easily finishable in a single sitting, with no replayability and no multiplayer to speak of, are the prime reasons for why the score is so low. However very poor AI, repeated environments and terrible voice acting also play their part.
CheatCC writes: "Quick, answer these two questions. Name the one genre that has saturated the market. If you answered the 'first person shooter' then you're correct. Okay, now for the next question. What particular historical period has provided the source material for this genre more than any other? If you answered "World War II" you're correct yet again. Now, surely developer Cauldron must have asked themselves the same questions. Why have did they ignore the clear signs that the market could do without another WWII shooter?"
IGN's review for The History Channel: Battle for the Pacific.
Score 4.5/10
R. Clements writes:
"There's little left to say in regards to Battle for the Pacific, besides the fact that you should probably avoid it. If you absolutely need to try it out, we suggest you give either the 360 or PC version a try. Then again, you probably shouldn't bother. This is just a bad game, and Jonathan Farrell needs to find himself a better job."
3/10
Some of these companies need to really take a step back and analyze what makes a good game, and stop with this throw away junk they are rushing out. Plus, this makes two terrible games made by the History Channel.
