History Channel: Battle For the Pacific (XBox360)

[ProfessorChaos]

Anyone played/seen this game? I watched a trailer at gametrailers.com that lookied pretty good. Reviews that I've read so far rate it above average, but of course it's no CoD4. So I'm wondering if it's worth the dough. Any thoughts? I know I could always rent it, but most times when I rent a game it's already been ran through like a ten-dollar hooker, all scratched and dinged up, not worth the time or $$. I know that WWII FPS games have been done to death, but as a Marine, I don't think that one has been done that really does justice to the USMC's Pacific Island-hopping campaign. Any feedback would be greatly appreciated.

[Tricky]

I dont think world war 2 will ever be overdone as far as gaming is concerned,the only thing that makes it seem that way is the limitations of the technology,every WW2 game on a certain platform gets samey as they reach the ceiling of the technology,then "next gen" comes along & brings a whole new dimension to it As for the battle for the pacific game,not heard much about it!might have a look though!im looking forward to sudden strike 3 as well

[Craig]

From what I've heard the History Channel isn't notorious for great games, that said, reader reviews on IGN give it pretty favourable scores on PS2 and XBox 360 and I must say it looks like a pretty interesting game. Tricky, I have to disagree with you slightly, because the best WWII experience I've ever had is Red Orchestra: Ostfront 41-45 which is based on the UT2004 engine. Admittedly it's only multiplayer but it's still the best WWII game I've ever played and one of the best games I've played in any genre.

[MinionZombie]

There was Medal of Honour: Pacific Assault...that came out a couple of years back now, pretty good game. No COD, and was buggy until the first update, but was quite good and showed another side of the war - the Pacific campaign rather than the oft-seen European campaign. You get to be at Pearl Harbour and watch sh*t go down and get stuck in, then you're on a boat and there's ships sinking around you, then you go on a ship that's sinking and you have to rescue people and so on...was bloody thrilling when I played it. And of course, the island assault at the end was bloody marvelous...although the plane mission beforehand was iffy. Didn't really see much in the way of character aging to be honest, which was something they talked about, although maybe it was because the engine was strained and set lower than it could have otherwise been on my rig, I duno...anyway...good game, not superb but pretty good. More Pacific theatre stuff would be good, but COD Vietnam would be awesome.

[ProfessorChaos]

yeah, i rented pacific assault and blazed through it in one weekend, and it was fun the first time, but couldn't sit through that one again. plus the whole next-gen craze is in full swing now, so i can't be bothered with anything that doesn't look all shiny and have online playability.

[SymphonicX]

I am so glad that my grandparents never got to see games like MoH and CoD in the world....!!!! Seriously though, I've always thought....well how would they take it? What would you think if say, you were on Omaha beach in 1942 or whatever and saw those 2000 men get alaughered in 8 hours, and when you're older you see your grandson playing MoH: Frontline....possibly a major mental flashback to the time? or severe anger that the kid is enjoying a fight which potentially killed your best mates? Who knows...interesting thought though.... Still all that said, I bloody love those games...such a huge amount of intense fun!!!

[ProfessorChaos]

yeah, i've had two dreams about being back in iraq since i got call of duty 4. my buddy who did a tour over there said the same thing.

[MinionZombie]

Although some folk who were there in WW2, who have been involved in the making of such games as Brothers in Arms, have said they think it's a good thing. A modern way for young folk who were never there, and will never be in that situation (hopefully, and for the vast majority), to ... what's the best way to describe it? Well, see what it was sort of like ... more so than just reading a book, you're more directly involved or within it than just watching a documentary say... Such games also fulfill a need in people, that need for warfare - it's why things like paintball are so successful...kinda hard to explain. I think if kids say something like 'wow! that's cool", it's just because they don't understand or appreciate the situation if it was in real life (or when it was in real life)...but when they grow up a bit then they will. Young folk tend not to understand or fully appreciate such things until they've gained more life perspective, and I think videogames of such things help towards that understanding. Plus, I don't think it should be taken so literally if a kid says "wow cool" at an Omaha level or whatever. It's just not expressing with the correct terminology I say. If they were in it, they wouldn't be thinking it's cool...I think it's more out of being impressed at the level of intensity, detail and so forth in the game itself.

[SymphonicX]

Although some folk who were there in WW2, who have been involved in the making of such games as Brothers in Arms, have said they think it's a good thing. A modern way for young folk who were never there, and will never be in that situation (hopefully, and for the vast majority), to ... what's the best way to describe it? Well, see what it was sort of like ... more so than just reading a book, you're more directly involved or within it than just watching a documentary say... Such games also fulfill a need in people, that need for warfare - it's why things like paintball are so successful...kinda hard to explain. I think if kids say something like 'wow! that's cool", it's just because they don't understand or appreciate the situation if it was in real life (or when it was in real life)...but when they grow up a bit then they will. Young folk tend not to understand or fully appreciate such things until they've gained more life perspective, and I think videogames of such things help towards that understanding. Plus, I don't think it should be taken so literally if a kid says "wow cool" at an Omaha level or whatever. It's just not expressing with the correct terminology I say. If they were in it, they wouldn't be thinking it's cool...I think it's more out of being impressed at the level of intensity, detail and so forth in the game itself. absoloutely....but I know when I was a kid, I wanted to beat up bad guys like Axel in Streets of rage 2... (greatest game in the world...period!) - you know, aspiring to be a hero etc etc....its kinda a good thing because it sort of instills a notion of being the good guy, all out to destroy evil... But a few weeks back I had a major paranoid thought....what if these games have an underlying notion to young minds - what if they're training kids to be better marines? haha I know its outlandish - but think of the qualities one gets from playing a lot of these games...especially online....we subconciously learn how to to react to gunfire, our hand/eye coordination improves and we learn what to expect from firing guns....it can also desensitise us to the idea of war, the true horrors of war are never really reflected in a game because of the lack of real danger...it's kinda like the US military's training program, it teaches you how to be a killer...but in a much, much more subtle way... I kinda see it like...well....preliminary brainwashing sometimes...take a game like Halo 3 - the enemy in the game are always aliens, they're sometimes given cute voices, they're colourful and the whole experience is good looking and clean...the element of real tradegy and doom is removed but the whole idea of the game is balance...creating an environment for players that can train themselves in an unthreatening combat zone in which they feel no emotion or care for the people they are killing (as with all games really) - also the underlying political and religious themes sometimes echo that of the current conflict with Islam and can definitely fit into the same context just in a sci-fi environment... but that's just me being all conspiracy theorist about it, regardless I really love playing these games but you'd never, ever, EVER catch me in camoflage gear whilst taking cover from rockets and bullets being fired at me....! FFFFFFF**k that!!!

[Craig]

more so than just reading a book, you're more directly involved or within it than just watching a documentary say... I have to say having read a lot of books about various battles on the Eastern Front, you can't beat properly researched information and first hand accounts to get the best idea of what it was like for the men fighting, and documentaries give you first hand footage of the battle or event along with this information. I think that, while providing younger people with maybe an interest in the war that they could expand on themselves (like I have done since I played Red Orchestra), games are the last place I and anyone should look to try and find out what it was like to be there. on Omaha beach in 1942 or whatever and saw those 2000 men get slaughered 1944

[MinionZombie]

I'm not saying that games are better learning tools, they're not, but what I was trying to say was they provide an angle on such battles - or the situation in general - that watching a video or reading a book don't give you. I think if a game can give someone a shred of an idea of what it was like to actually be there, what the chaos might have been like, what the challenges might have been like, then that's a good thing. The games provide a more microscopic view of a battle, you're within it, you're dodging MG-42 fire, you're lobbing grenades, using cover to advance forward and take out an enemy post, the noise is deafening and it's all rather panicked. While not better for learning, which I wasn't saying anyway, they help provide an idea of what it was like to be there, which I think is important. I know that I've thought, when playing through the African campaigns on COD2, 'bloody hell, my Grandfather was in situations like this' (he fought basically anywhere it was hot & sandy)...so I extrapolate the experience, the chaos and the odds, then transport that into real life, then I've got a better idea (again, idea) of what it was like - and therefore, respect for him and all the other soldiers past, present and future. lol, I was gonna point out the 1944 thing too...but just couldn't be arsed.

[Craig]

I think I understand what you're getting at, and one thing I commend CoD 1 & 2 for is actually having the balls to make an campaign on the Eastern Front, even if it was Stalingrad both times (and CoD 1 basically copied Enemy at the Gates which is a terrible film). But yes, I understand how even players who aren't that interested in history might get an idea of the sort of things soldiers would have to experience by playing a game. On a totally unrelated note I heard that MOH:A had Nazi super-soldiers with miniguns? If this is true then... ugh.. If game developers stuck with real life scenarios when doing WWII games they could make an experience ten times more realistic and exciting than having to introduce stupid crap like that. I mean just reading about real life events is exciting enough, if they actually did their research and translated it properly into a game, you'd be able to keep both the history buffs and casual gamers happy.

[MinionZombie]

Allied Assault? Or do you mean another one? If it's Allied Assault, there were no super soldiers with miniguns in that. MOH:AA was a great game back in the day, the Omaha Beach level was incredible at the time, and there was one where you battled through a town, which was likewise incredible...really captured the vibe of Saving Private Ryan...which I guess was more the boost for those earlier WW2 games, in fact the original MOH was down to Spielberg if I remember correctly. And yes, realism is always best in such a genre of games...well, as much realism as you can put into a videogame, some elements would have to be tweaked to be more on the side of videogaming than realism - such as health systems or whatever, but otherwise yes, realism is always best. I must check out COD3 sometime soon, it's like £13 in gamestation now, so I'll have to see about nabbing a copy. It's not proper COD (no Infinity Ward you see), but I'd like to play it nonetheless as a fan of the franchise...plus it's dirt cheap now...and I'm a completist...and I like cinematic drama in videogames...and it's better than spending the money on drugs.

[Craig]

I meant Airborne by the way and when I was at PC World today I looked on the back of a copy and it did indeed have some sort of strange Nazi stormtrooper with an all black uniform, gasmask and some sort of machinegun (MG42 maybe..?). CoD 3... I completed it once around christmas 2006. Then I started playing Red Orchestra properly since I'd put it aside after I first bought in October 2006, because at the time it was too realistic for me. Then, about August this year, I tried to play CoD 3 again... Despite still being the same game, I just really hated it and turned it off. You may enjoy it though, from the sound of it it's your sort of game.

[acealive1]

rock star shoulda jumped on this. imagine mowing down germans with an AK while riding in a willy's jeep all the while ur blaring benny goodman LOL