History Channel: Battle for the Pacific Reviews

As I await the September 23rd release of "Brothers in Arms: Hell's Highway," I purchased "The History Channel: Battle for the Pacific" for two reasons; one being to quell my mischievous curiosity and the other being to make this something of a WWII placeholder until Gearbox's long-awaited strategy/shooter is FINALLY released.

I'm somewhat familiar with "Battle for the Pacific" developers Cauldron HQ. Although much-maligned in gaming circles, their Holiday 2007 semi-sequel "Soldier of Fortune: Payback" is a guilty pleasure of mine that, while a valiant effort in many ways to recapture "SoF 1 & 2" developer Raven Software's former glory's, didn't quite hit home for too many folks. Be that as it may, I appreciate the game for its mindless action, cheesy C-grade plot & voice acting, and outlandish gore. But "Battle for the Pacific" isn't the Mature-rated game "Payback" is despite its subject matter and, as such, may come as a disappointment to some (or many).

Who am I kidding? "Battle for the Pacific" is exactly what "Payback" would have been with a Pacific Theatre makeover, virtually no gore, and slightly prettier visuals. While "Payback" has an admittedly sharp fun factor on its side, "... Pacific" is something a bit more than thrill kill game play and tons o' gore action packed into an absurd terrorist-infested plot. "... Pacific" has, actually, the makings of a fantastic first-person shooter hidden in there somewhere. Right in there with the black & white pre-mission debriefings - culled straight from the History Channel vaults - and the various true-to-life missions dealing with many assorted moments of great strategic/historic importance of American victory in this particular theatre. There's actually a bit going for this game. But never underestimate the value of... well... value.

Presentation is a must in any form of entertainment medium. Though "Battle for the Pacific" may be rich in historical content and may get many of the finer details right, the question "Is the game fun to play?" should be the most important. To quickly respond to that; not really. Even without the lackluster AI and unexciting gun battles aiding in "Battle for the Pacific's" outright mediocrity, there really isn't much to do, see or explore otherwise. Why is that, you say? Because there is, what I like to call, a "buddy system" in effect. Every mission has you following your superior officer and, if you don't, it's game over. That means if you get too far ahead of him, too far behind him, or just don't follow his orders to tag along, you must restart the mission. Knowing when to go with him or when to stay and fight is also a problem.

The game's difficulty and length are also two facets of this title that weigh down its few positives. Perhaps if the game's firefights were a bit more difficult the game wouldn't feel as unrewarding or, simply put, as short. Playing on the easiest difficulty setting (and there are only three: Easy, Medium, and Hard), the game can be finished in under three hours. The difficulty does increase a bit as the game progresses but never to any level an intermediately skilled gamer couldn't handle.

Even with some incredible graphics, including spectacular shading and lighting, and some outstanding character models, this is just not a fun experience. Cauldron's AI programming was inexcusably abysmal in last year's "Soldier of Fortune" sequel, but here it is just totally unforgiveable. Enemies do not even attempt to find cover. Many of them stand in one spot and simply fire. As a matter of fact, I recall all of them doing this. There is no going prone, there is no flanking, there is no nothing. It is simply aim and fire from a standing position... clearly out in the open... waiting for you to pick them off one by one. Although they are fairly accurate, a couple of bullets should put them out of their misery. To make matters worse, there is none of those fantastic death animations found in "Payback," either. Expired Japanese soldiers simply fall limp to the ground via mediocre Havok physics.

I may have felt cheated out of my money if I paid the full $60 for this, but I waited until the price was reduced drastically before I picked it up. I paid a mere $30 for it (cheap for a 360 game) and although it would be nice to have that money back, I can't say I'm complaining too much. I learned a bit more about the various battles in the Pacific Theatre and was treated to some fairly impressive visuals in the process. Cauldron, heed these words, please go back to the FPS drawing board and rethink your options. "Payback" was a decent excuse to blow off limbs, explode heads and spill (copious amounts of) blood, but this historic endeavor is an inferior retread into that very territory with the exceptions of all the blood, gore, excitement and weapons (there are only a total of (maybe) six weapons at your greedy little disposal here).

If you're absolutely dying to play another WWII FPS, just wait until "Hell's Highway" see's its release next month. If you simply can't wait, play "Call of Duty's 1-3" again. If you have a little extra cash, give this a rent just to see how to do jungle environments right but everything else so very wrong.