Now for today's review, we will be going over a free-to-play game for the Steam Virtual Console released December 6th. It will be my most recent review so far this week.
The Title is of course
And I can sum up both the experience and the idea behind it with one single sentence.
It is a poor man's Call of Duty.
Of course, you didn't click my link just to hear someone state what was probably obvious to begin with. So let me break down exactly how and probably why this game is so much like the COD franchise, and why it is very different. The good, the bad, and the ugly, as always.
The Overview
Call of Duty is considered by many an expert to be the best selling video game franchise of our current generation. It has millions of players logging on to its multiplayer base for every stroke of the keyboard I make. I type about 45 words per minute, so that's about 45 million people fragging, shooting, and dying on a virtual video game every sixty seconds. These numbers aren't based off of any actual statistics of course; I say this only to emphasize my point.
They say mimicry is the best form of flattery. If that is the case, consider Call of Duty to be the most flattered game on the market. From Battlefield to Medal of Honor to pretty much any game with a soldier and gun on the front box cover is based in a lot of ways off of Call of Duty. Arctic Combat pretty much takes this kind of unoriginal thinking to the extreme, borrowing everything from weapons to perks to kill streaks and game modes and putting them in a free to play game, where you buy the upgrades with points instead of simply leveling. It works much in the same way as Farmville does, as in you pay for the things you need to play the game with fake money, and buy extra cool stuff for real bucks. Farmville joins COD in being so very flattered.
Arctic Combat, on the other hand, has no real originality to deliver at all, and the only thing that keeps me from calling it a total crapfest is the fact that it is a free version (as opposed to sixty bucks plus $25 season pass!) and it has adjustable graphics.
These adjustable graphics are, to be frank, godsend to those who have computers with dubious quality video cards. If you have something that still runs Windows XP, set your graphics to low. If your computer has internal parts comparable to something from Star Trek, you can get more bang for your (hopefully) non-existent buck. This allows gamers who don't have cray supercomputers to play alongside those who are overclocking their PCs at home while I type this.
Arctic Combat, on the other hand, has no real originality to deliver at all, and the only thing that keeps me from calling it a total crapfest is the fact that it is a free version (as opposed to sixty bucks plus $25 season pass!) and it has adjustable graphics.
These adjustable graphics are, to be frank, godsend to those who have computers with dubious quality video cards. If you have something that still runs Windows XP, set your graphics to low. If your computer has internal parts comparable to something from Star Trek, you can get more bang for your (hopefully) non-existent buck. This allows gamers who don't have cray supercomputers to play alongside those who are overclocking their PCs at home while I type this.
How it compares
If I had to chose between sawing my own leg of and play this game for two hours, I would wind up playing for four. That said, If someone gave me the choice to have Black Ops 2 for free or have a zillion points in this game, I would tell them to take their virtual money and shove it up their derriere.
There is simply no comparison; cue the music, Sam.
Anything AC can do, COD can do better. COD can do anything better then AC. End of music.
COD has, among other things, better selection of EVERYTHING, from kill streaks to weapons to perks to upgrades to YOU F()&*(& NAME IT! Plus, the graphics on AC (even in "very high" settings) are infinitely lower then COD, especially when you play on a good console. And if you want story, COD delivers on a very cinematic (if not always top notch) narrative while AC offers absolutely nothing. Killstreaks are boiled down to pick-me-ups and temporary weapons, and even your own team mates litter the playing field with "health packs" that look like they belong in a 1999 game. AC is like the caboose at the end of an steam engine locomotive, while COD is more like the Japanese bullet train at warp 9. If you can afford it, pick COD over AC any day of the week.
That being said, give it a try.
It is a free to play game, and so long as you don't get shopping fever over the purchases, you will get more for less, only because free is better then any price. Sign up, try it on different modes, and see how many kills you can rack up. It won't remotely compare to anything else you actually pay for, but try it before you spend your hard earned money at GameStop. Might be worth it. If not for stellar game play, at least a laugh and a new experience.
Conclusion
The description still stands: it is a poor man's COD. Do not let yourself be fooled into thinking otherwise. It will not make or break any conventions, and the real COD is hardly shaking in their boots. Still, it is free to play, and as Benjamin Franklin liked to put it, a penny saved is a penny earned. So if you ever feel like waiting for the next COD, save yourself 6000 pennies with this game. Won't kill you in real life.
Seven Word Synopsis
No comments:
Post a Comment