Blacklight: Tango Down Review

By Dan Whitehead Published 9 July, 2010

But not Seven Up.

Version tested: Xbox 360

Blacklight has arrived on the FPS scene with unusual swagger. Kicking in the door, it slumps in your favourite chair, puts its blood-crusted combat boots up on your coffee table and starts making wild, testosterone-fuelled boasts. "Yeah, I'm bringing AAA gameplay in a download game," it scoffs while stubbing a cigar out on the arm of the sofa that you haven't even started paying DFS for yet.

"Oh, and I'm going to be in a comic and a movie," it adds, spitting a sticky mouthful of tobacco phlegm onto your carpet. "Basically, I'm awesome, and you should be licking the powder burns off my still-smoking assault rifle in gratitude because I cost less than a large stuffed crust from Dominos."

It's an impressive display, but it always helps to make sure you're walking the walk before talking the talk. Blacklight doesn't.

The aggressive PR is understandable, up to a point. The FPS genre brings with it certain machismo requirements and no successful shooter franchise was ever launched with humility. Yet the boasts of Blacklight's publisher, Ignition, ring hollow in the face of common sense or the realities of the game itself. It might have passed as a AAA title in 1999, but it's left looking like a little boy wearing Daddy's clothes in 2010.

More on BlackLight: Tango Down

Whatever criticisms lie in wait, Blacklight certainly can't be accused of lacking generosity. You get seven game modes - Deathmatch, Team Deathmatch, Retrieval, Domination, Detonate, Last Man Standing, Last Team Standing - and while they're all slight variations on the expected themes, there's enough variety among them.

The maps are even more bountiful. You get 12 of those, with grrr tough shooty names like Brutalism, Derailer and Wharfare. The weapons top even that, with "literally trillions" of customisation options available for the usual spread of pistols, SMGs, assault weapons, shotguns and sniper rifles as you earn and unlock more goodies.

All this, plus four co-op missions, for around 10 English pounds? What could you possibly complain about? Well, too often it feels like Blacklight is sheltering inside the snuggly bosom of the lazy caveat, hampered as it is by numerous poor design choices that can only really be defended by appealing to the low-cost nature of the enterprise.

Movement is slick enough, the sort of fast and slippy fragfest control that harks back to the Quake matches of yore. All the major functions are present, correct and mapped exactly where you'd expect to find them. The sprint feels a bit sticky, and grenade throws are imprecise with weak splash damage, but the genre basics are pretty much as they should be.

With a genre as long-established and popular as the FPS, the devil is in the details, and it's here that Zombie Studios slips up. The elements that would have been tweaked and focused and honed over months of playtesting in a true AAA title are left here with their rough edges on display.

Weapon balancing, for example. SMGs are overpowered, sniper rifles are underpowered. Assault rifles can kill you in a heartbeat from across the map. The aforementioned grenade problem makes them all but useless, since you can't place them with any accuracy and their damage is inconsistent.

'Blacklight: Tango Down' Screenshot 1

The game's co-op mode is as crude as everything else. You won't need to suppress and flank here.

The co-op modes sound great in theory, but are drab in practice. They're so short, linear and heavily scripted that it's only really co-operative in the sense that you're playing alongside other people. There's certainly no need to work together in a tactical way - you just make sure you're all mowing down the enemies until they stop spawning. You can also play these missions solo but since the game is over the moment you die, and you can't actually pause the action, it's not really worth the effort unless you want to grind out some experience for the online modes.

Most problematic are the maps, which are generic at best. At worst, they're throwbacks to the days before developers worked out how to minimise bottlenecking and spawn camping through subtle design. There are maps here that are virtually unplayable thanks to the insanely archaic idea of fixed spawn points.

In my very first Team Deathmatch game, we pinned the opposing team inside their HQ for the entire duration. Automated sentries stop you from storming in but, equally, heavy weapons trained on the exit points do a pretty great job of making sure the other guys don't get out either.

In a later game of Retrieval, or Capture the Flag by any other name, karma caught up with me and I found myself on the receiving end, trapped by players at both sides of my solitary spawn point, picked off the second I inched around the corners to try and retaliate. By the time of our inevitable defeat, my team had dwindled to just two players, and this is a recurring sight at the end of each match - one team still in full force, one populated by a few tenacious die-hards, as previously full lobbies bleed out through frustration.

"Aah!" crow those gamers who take bizarre pleasure in defending mediocrity. "You're playing it wrong! The Hyper Reality Visor is there to stop this sort of thing!" And, yes, it's true that you have a fancy visor that allows you to see the location of other players, as well as health and ammo stocks, for a few seconds. You're defenceless while doing this, but it is undeniably useful for checking the surroundings before making any sudden moves.

Trouble is, the problem often isn't knowing where enemies are - clue: they're right outside your base, camping like Kenneth Williams - but just getting lucky enough to break through their lines before their bully tactics do you in for the twelfth time. The simple fact is that while the visor is an occasional assist against such situations, it shouldn't be bloody necessary in the first place.

Tom's first match. It doesn't go well.

The visor is also one of several important gameplay features left curiously unexplained by the obtuse front end, unless you happen to stumble across it. This is a game so unjustifiably proud of itself that it doesn't even bother illuminating the few new ideas it offers or instructing you in how to make use of the things you unlock. A brief text flash informed me I'd unlocked "Ice Hex" as I hit the first rank, which sounded very exciting. After digging around in the menus, I finally found out what I'd won - a new skin for one of my weapons. W00t.

The later unlocks are much better, and the customisation is fun (if never as compelling or useful as the PR blurb would have you believe) but the fact that you have to work these things out says much about the blind spots in Blacklight's construction. This is especially true of the story, which is set in a crumbling Soviet state in the near future and revolves around a special operations military group called Blacklight. They're battling against The Order, a rebel group that has assassinated the president, as well as civilians infected with SIV (Sentient Insanity Virus) which turns them into slobbering maniacs.

'Blacklight: Tango Down' Screenshot 3

He'll be camped outside your base then.

You won't know any of this, however, since the game makes absolutely no mention of it, instead just throwing you into the fray and assuming you'll care about the different factions. I had to dig out the press releases and hit Google to piece together what backstory is on offer. Such narrative frippery doesn't really matter in a multiplayer game where shooting faces is your top priority, of course, but given the self-aggrandising announcements about graphic novels and movies set in the "Blacklight universe", this is a spectacularly ham-fisted way of introducing the game world.

And that's Blacklight in a nutshell, fine with broad strokes and bold announcements, not so great at the little details that really matter in the long term. If you're in the market for yet another grim dystopian Soviet-styled shooter, and haven't had your itch scratched by Metro 2033 or Singularity or S.T.A.L.K.E.R. or Killzone 2 - or if you're an FPS fan on a budget and have already downloaded Battlefield 1943 and Serious Sam 2 and Perfect Dark and Doom 2 - then Blacklight's unvarnished meat-grinder may hold some appeal.

Those lists of similar, often better, rivals reveal the game's true weakness: it's just not that special. With a few patches and some better maps, it could be an adequate diversion, but the world simply doesn't need another passable multiplayer shooter whose only selling point is how little it costs compared to "real" games.

5 / 10

Blacklight: Tango Down is available now for Xbox 360 on Xbox Live Arcade for 1200 Microsoft Points (£10.20 / €14.40). It will be released for PC on Steam next week, and for PS3 on PlayStation Network in "about 6 weeks" according to the game's Twitter.

Read the Eurogamer.net scoring policy
Picture of Dan.

About Dan Whitehead

Dan has been writing for Eurogamer since 2006 and specialises in RPGs, shooters and games for children. His bestest game ever is Julian Gollop's Chaos.

Read more articles from Dan by visiting the Dan Whitehead archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (70) Latest comment 10 months ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • SupremeSkill #1 2 years ago

    These things come and go.

  • ckyman2 #2 2 years ago

    funny how the seem to be doing the reviews in the different order to how the arcade games were released on Wednesday lol wheres monkey island :) maybe there saving the best till last >_

  • KDR_11k #3 2 years ago

    Dunno, so far I enjoy it more than MW2 since the fixed spawn points give you an idea of where to go to get a battle, in MW2 I often ended up on the wrong side of the map with nothing going on there.

    But yeah, the weapon customization seems questionable, either half the stats aren't shown (likely, I don't think accuracy is represented in the three stats shown) or some things are just plain useless with lower stats overall than another item.

    I like how there's no need for tactics in the SP/coop mode, sometimes (well, okay, almost all the time, I prefer my FPSes like Earth Defense Force) I just want to gun down everything that moves and the increasing sophistication of games these days makes that a rarity.
    Edited by 1 at 09/07/10 @ 07:21

  • INSOMANiAC #4 2 years ago

    About 2 points too many tbh, the spawn camping is the worst thing about it. This kind of stripped-down emulation of better games really isnt needed on XBLA.

  • xenoss #5 2 years ago

    This is why Eurogamer is 1 of the only reliable sources for reviews.

  • CaptainQuint #6 2 years ago

    Oddly, everyone on my friends list seems to playing this. I guess the novelty will wear off soon.

  • Peew971 #7 2 years ago

    I need to try the demo as my favourite MP game only got a 6 from EG (Shadowrun). Nothing like making your own opinion.

  • Cronan #8 2 years ago

    I'll save my money, looks like it's turned out just as the previews indicated.

  • Doctor_What #9 2 years ago

    'The world simply doesn't need another passable multiplayer shooter whose only selling point is how little it costs compared to "real" games.'

    Ouch.

    Interesting use of 'real' though. There still is a perceptual difference between a download and a boxed game, isn't there?

  • beastmaster #10 2 years ago

    I've not really got the time to play the trial and decide for myself. I'm more likely to believe EG (although I've not seen other reviews for it). Therefore, I'm going to pass on this.

    I am a bit surprised by the score. Was expecting a solid 7.

    Edit: I tend to trust reviews which highlight the negatives for some reason.
    Edited by 1 at 09/07/10 @ 08:51

  • KDR_11k #11 2 years ago

    I wonder how the spawn camping will develop, whether players will learn the countermeasures (at least in smaller matches dashing out of your spawn area instead of walking seems to be enough to avoid the campers and then engage in a regular fight, once you're in their flank you can often get free kills on them because some develop a tunnel vision) and it goes down or they don't and it goes up.

    As for other imbalanced weapons, I don't think any weapon is as useless as the LMG. Even the sniper has its uses but the LMG is like a slow and shitty SMG, it has half a use in Black Ops mode but runs out of ammo so fast it's limited even there. I'm not sure if the SMG is dominating though, the AR is quite popular and I got one of my best k/d ratios using one (usually I use an SMG and I've got a ratio of around 0.6).

  • markmitt #12 2 years ago

    Tried the demo. But when the "host migration" message popped up, that was it for me. Don't want another poor experience to go hand in hand with MW2. Think I'll stick with MAG...

  • Masaroth #13 2 years ago

    Rather liked the trial, but i was probally quite lucky in that i was in a lobby with max players throughout about six games and never really saw any spawn camping. Plus i think in any MP if your dominating personally its always more fun.

    Could see it getting crap real quick though, if they sorted the wepon balance out and allowed players to join mid-game then it has potential to be a decent game for a quick online blast but as it is, its unlikely youll hit the sweet spot when everything falls into place.

  • geeza2020 #14 2 years ago

    Wow, another grey and brown, mediocre shooter. I'm really starting to get sick of shit fps games now. Its like theirs some giant horrific beast somewhere that just keeps shitting these games out. Who actually wants this?

  • Retroid #15 2 years ago

    I'll be sticking with the rather excellent Battlefield 1943 for XBLA FPSness, then.

  • ignatiusjreilly #16 2 years ago

    Who actually wants this?

    I'm betting it'll sell pretty well.

  • Emmit_Assassin #17 2 years ago

    This is just a poor version of a poor FPS. Its so unfinished its laughable. If they'd have marketed it as an FPS-lite and done some decent beta, then it could have been so much better. I like the IDEA of the visor, but they don't tell you anything about it. Same with the story, no mention of it whatsoever. The weapons, as the review says, are unbalanced worse than BF:BC2 were before the patch.
    Avoid!!! Don't be taken in by its promises, because just like MW2, it just doesn't live up to expectations. Good job there's a generous trial version to make sure people don't buy this lump of meat.

  • Bloke1182 #18 2 years ago

    Great review. Played it at a friend's house, and wasn't all that impressed. What I do find admirable is that the people who made it obviously put a lot of love in the graphics for the budget that they supposedly had. They must have known it wouldn't become the best game ever but gave it there best.

  • CDRLYNX #19 2 years ago

    FPS gamers ask yourselves this: would I pay 1,200 Microsoft Points for Blacklight: Tango Down, or would I pay 1,500 points for three new maps (and two old maps) for MW2?

    I'm not saying that the answer is one OR the other, but that - as a consumer - I am weighing up what I am getting for spending circa £10 on (reasonably) comparable experiences. I played a great deal of MW2 and got to level 68 in MP, and I beat the SP on Veteran (check my Gamertag, 'CDR LYNX': my FPS credentials are amongst the nerdiest of super-nerds, making me highly qualified to make an observation in this regard). I've played a LOT of FPS (not a boast, but relevant for perspective). I would, in my opinion, consider MW2 to be a 'real' game.

    HOWEVER, by no means do I think that B:TD is not a 'real' game. That is a stinging conclusion to come to. Punishing a small developer who doesn't have the resources of a corporation like Activision with a stinging review is not going to encourage other small developers. I, for one, like this game and some of the things it does. The use of the HRV to see through walls is fairly innovative, and brings a level of tactics to the game that makes me think and play differently from when I play other FPS's, which I welcome. The use of the EMP/digi grenades - IMHO - are fun alternatives to the classic/cliched flashbang/smoke grenades of other FPS's. The spawn-camping can be irritating, but, to be perfectly honest, I am always the culprit, taking advantage of inexperienced players. Experienced players will use the HRV and not suffer from this problem. It's a legitimate tactic. Anyone who has played CS: Source will know the frustration of being headshot sniped by an AK-47 from the other side of a map, so singling out B:TD for criticism in that regard does not take into account the broader picture.

    EG reviews are sometimes very scathing, which is why I like reading them; I appreciate astute, critical comment and review (because it helps me make an informed decision about a product in which I am going to invest in), but ultimately, I think that B:TD is good value for £10, and - most importantly - I'm having a lot of fun playing it. If anyone reading this is undecided, but you think you might enjoy B:TD, then I would implore you to at least download the trial and come to your own conclusion.

  • Petulant_Radish #20 2 years ago

    Do you know the most jarring thing about his review? Dominos do not do a stuffed crust pizza. Stuffed base sure, BUT THERE IS NO STUFFED CRUST!!! HOW DARE YOU!!!!!!!

  • muscleblade #21 2 years ago

    "I beat the SP on Veteran (check my Gamertag, 'CDR LYNX':"

    No need to check as that was a cakewalk. Getting all the stars in Special Ops was much more of a challenge.

  • Elando #22 2 years ago

    Brillient Subtitle there EG, actually made me Lol.

    Shame about the game though...

  • metalangel #23 2 years ago

    Yeah, was just about to say, it's Pizza Hut who do the stuffed crust.

  • lordofthedunce #24 2 years ago

    @ CDRLYNX

    HOWEVER, by no means do I think that B:TD is not a 'real' game. That is a stinging conclusion to come to. Punishing a small developer who doesn't have the resources of a corporation like Activision with a stinging review is not going to encourage other small developers

    I think the reviewer's use of the term "real" in quotes is a representation of general feeling/opinion of XBLA games V full titles, and not their opinion of this game as such.

  • TruWari3r #25 2 years ago

    @ CDRLYNX
    The "real" game angle is brought up by the developers of BTD themselves, in promotion, in interviews. This is not some belittling of the game by eurogamer, it's holding the BTD developers to their word and giving them a fail.

  • DanWhitehead #26 2 years ago

    @CDRLYNX

    "HOWEVER, by no means do I think that B:TD is not a 'real' game. That is a stinging conclusion to come to. Punishing a small developer who doesn't have the resources of a corporation like Activision with a stinging review is not going to encourage other small developers."

    To clarify, the comment about "real" games was aimed more at the PR guff which aggressively positioned Blacklight as a AAA title in a download format. That's a boast that suggests, to me, that download games are somehow lesser than retail games, and that Blacklight is the first game to cross that divide. Which is nonsense on both counts.

  • metalangel #27 2 years ago

    @CDR LYNX: Implore? IMPLORE? *spits tobacco juice*

  • CHACK #28 2 years ago

    The 'real' games comment was an eye opener, as cutting and as clever as Eurogamer may think that is to say that the truth is that the way of the expensive AAA shooter will need to evolve into more DLC led software, retail is evolving in that the consumer want's to spend less not more on video games. The MW2 map pricing is also a very good comparison, who's conning who here?, for the price that Blacklight is against perceived value from a top tier publisherof a map pack you have to be able to look at that in perspective.
    For me the best value on XBL has been Battlefield 1943 and I defy anyone to get more quality out of refreshed MW2 maps than that full game any day of the week, proof that DLC and £10 is where its going.

  • lordofthedunce #29 2 years ago

    If it's crap it doesn't matter what it costs

  • Petulant_Radish #30 2 years ago

    @DanWhitehead. What about your heinous pizza gaff? I demand you resign immediately for confusing the mighty Dominos with the lacklustre Pizza Hut, they who are surpassed by even Papa Johns.

    I feel that resigning is the only appropriate course of action for such a crime, as next you would be claiming you could get a whopper from McDonalds.

  • DwarfyP #31 2 years ago

    Wow, what a totally inaccurate review.
    The weapon balance in this game is spot on unlike bigger names like Battlefield and to some extent CoD (pre-fixes).
    Guns kill people with efficiency and don't rely on you emptying a clip into them to see them run off round a corner just how it should be.

  • DanWhitehead #32 2 years ago

    After speaking with Eurogamer's legal department, I have no comment to make regarding Pizzagate.

  • Progguitarist #33 2 years ago

    Looks horrible, generic and devoid of inspiration.

  • lordofthedunce #34 2 years ago

    /awaits pizza banner ads

  • Cherub007 #35 2 years ago

    I think bolshy PR people and overblown claims about this game's AAA aspirations have robbed it of a good couple of points. As much as I loathe PR wankers, I'm not sure that's healthy.
    I reckon this game is as good as, if not better, than Alien Vs Predator and probably gives a fair few other full-price FPS games a run for their money, too. In that regard, I would agree that it is a AAA title, just not a great one. As XBLA fun, it's spot on.

  • Derblington #36 2 years ago

    Honestly, I just don't think it's that bad. I've put 2.5 hours in so far, and I think it does everything it intends to do perfectly well. I've not had any issue with weapon balance, lag, server migration or spawn camping (except for one match but it turned out to be my fault as there was a 2nd exit from my spawn area that I didn't notice while looking around).

  • DanWhitehead #37 2 years ago

    "Considering how it only costs as much as one MW2 map pack, I think a slightly more generous score would have been more fitting."

    And Halo ODST costs £10 now. Does that make Blacklight better or worse? This is why basing scores on price is a bad idea

  • muscleblade #38 2 years ago

    "And Halo ODST costs £10 now. Does that make Blacklight better or worse? This is why basing scores on price is a bad idea"

    Well you have to base it on new game price of course. If price didnt matter when reviewing games no way that we would see games like Ancients of Ooga given the same score as Red dead redemtion for example. They both got an 8/10.

  • DanWhitehead #39 2 years ago

    No, my point is that - right now - a shooter fan with around ten pounds to spend can pick up a full Halo game or Blacklight. This fact doesn't make Blacklight a better game, or a worse one. Distribution method and price are irrelevant - it's the games that matter.

    And why would you compare Red Dead Redemption to Ancients of Ooga anyway? It's perfectly feasible for both to be 8/10 examples of their genre, regardless of price.

  • Bi50N Verified Head of Global Communications, THQ #40 2 years ago

    It's really not sensible to try and factor price into a review, as people's perception of 'value' is often even more subjective than quality. Give a game the score it deserves, and let the customer decide if that score is worth the asking price...

  • Koborover #41 2 years ago

    Not seeing the fun of fragging and be fragged by people without the exact same gear and loadout.

  • Petulant_Radish #42 2 years ago

    My initial rage has been surpassed by a desire for pizza.

    @ MrMarc the stuffed base is a layer of cheese and herb sauce sandwiched between two pizza bases. About as good as it sounds, and seeing as I like the sound of the KFC Double Down I also like the sound of this. Someone get me a phone, I'm too fat and lazy to get one myself...

  • PuppyFiddler #43 2 years ago

    I think a price should definetly affect a game's final score. If the game is similar to a load of other shooters like the reviewer suggested but costs way less then it definetly deserves credit for that.

  • muscleblade #44 2 years ago

    @DanWhitehead

    Ancients of Ooga wouldnt get 8/10 if it was a 50£ retail game. No way. Price do matter and it obviously should.

    But you have a point and i get that.

  • ThemisB #45 2 years ago

    "the insanely archaic idea of fixed spawn points"

    Rotating spawns (like in MW2 and most other MP shooters) suck. I'd rather have fixed spawn points on well-designed maps (BC2, KZ2).

  • RandomRash #46 2 years ago

    the true question is, do you go for B:TD or do you go for pizza?

  • CrispyLog #47 2 years ago

    A rubbish game is a rubbish game regardless of price. Price does factor into the reviews, but only in terms of content. A rubbish game will get a low score if it's £6 or £40. But a £6 game can be a lot shorter, have worse graphics, or have no singleplayer/multiplayer. The actual gameplay has to be as good as a full version release.

  • ignatiusjreilly #48 2 years ago

    Fact is, there are no hard and fast rules.

    An 8/10 for Guitar Rock Tour at £4.99 on iPhone doesn't mean the gameplay is as good as 8/10 Guitar Hero or Rock Band games. Allowances are made in the reviewer's mind for things like price and platform expectation, and that's as it should be.

    We all know scores aren't completely objective, and you can't stick rigid rules to the way they are handed out :)

  • Samwiseee #49 2 years ago

    seems people just want shitty modern warfare clones on consoles now.

    i loved the trial, reminded me of 5 years ago playing cs 1.6 for hours on end in clans, getting organised ad learning maps.

    archaic design decisions should not be knocked to one side, they are usually better for certain games, such as this, it's a slight call to the old school with a new school ranking system.

  • Cherub007 #50 2 years ago

    Price should definitely matter in reviews, and it often does when it's the other way round to the review here. I've read several reviews and comments on full games make points to the effect of 'if this was XBLA it would be worth a look but no way full price'.

    By that token reviews of XBLA games, when criticising them based on their aspirations to match full price games, as Dan does here, should give at least some credit to the fact they are budget games. Value for money is a factor in a game's worth, after all.

  • Zaiz #51 2 years ago

    So a mediocre game has its feature-length movie being made by Imagine? The guys who did A Beautiful Mind, Apollo 13, and Arrested Development? Seriously?

    Oh, and looks kinda pants honestly, I don't see why they couldn't have done real ADS. Its tons more immersive, and I guess they made grenades suck so people don't do the throw them across the map thing and instantly kill you. It is also tragic that they never managed to balance the weapons, what were they doing during all those internal playtests? Using only ARs and SMGs?

  • muscleblade #52 2 years ago

    @Cherub007

    Exactly.

    From Darkstar review:

    "Perhaps as a cut-price download title, Kalypso could have scraped an 8 with this, but age has weathered the full-price score by one since its debut"

    Edited by 1 at 09/07/10 @ 15:09

  • ignatiusjreilly #53 2 years ago

    Heavy Rain Taxidermist review:

    "sadly, since we don't know how The Taxidermist will be packaged on PSN, and at what price, we're in the same position we were with Mass Effect 2's Cerberus Network add-on. We can't score it until the facts are in."

    Tom's comment in Singstar Popworld review:

    "it is possible to reflect critically on the experience of a disparate group like the one I had with me to test Popworld. Hence the higher score - which also owes a lot to the price, it has to be said."

  • riceNpea #54 2 years ago

    does this game come with free pizza? i'm in

  • byakuya83 #55 2 years ago

    the visor makes flash bangs and smoke grenades useless so the developers tried to adapt them to somehow jam the signal and cause disruption on the visor. by all accounts they should have just done away with them completely. it's futuristic, weapons do become obsolete with advances in technology.

    for every complaint about camping i read a rebuttal that it's not a problem. it also seems to work in reverse, with the winning team hiding away in their spawn point, relying upon the auto-turrets to protect them. sounds slightly shonky either which way you look at it.

    will an update resolve the issues?

  • MyRedEdit #56 2 years ago

    The reviewer is an idiot.... Time after time I have to say this. Just because you suck at a game doesn't mean you can give it bad scores. The reviewer obviously holds a grudge as he repeatedly says 'it's generic' 'there's bad design choices' well give us examples then! Spawn killing isn't valid as every game has it. This game helps to eliminate this by giving players the use of the HRV so you can see where people are waiting to spawn kill you and you can get the the drop on them. The reviewer didn't even mention this so he probably didn't play it more than 20 mins. He also failed to properly mention the games REAL selling point the customisation which works well. Yes when you level up a select feW attacments do become obsolete but that happens with all games otherwise there would be no reason to unlock things as things would never improve. Anyone who likes shooters should deffinately buy this, it is a fresh xbla title with many new additions to the fps genre mixed with some old school designs which works. It has plenty of unlockables and levels to keep you entertained with gameplay that rivals AAA titles. It has some flaws such as a steep learning curve but is an absolute bargain for 1200 ms points. It's true score if it were a AAA $60 title would be 6/10 but for a XBLA title it is very diservingly 9.5/10 these rushed reviews are pathetic and childish. I have played 8 hours on this game so I know it's good. And for anyone who needs to know I have played many shooters and put in 14d 6h 43m to mw2 so I could obviously be more trusted than this shoddy excuse for a reviewer

  • kingcole225 #57 2 years ago

    Wow first Transformers War for Cybertron and now this? Eurogamer is really proving to me fast that they can't review games. There is absolutely no imbalance in this game, you just need to learn how to use the weapons. The SMG is perfectly balanced and while it seems that LMGs suck I've seen kids do really well with them. So it's all about playstyle but EG seems to not understand how fun and original this game is. Not only can you create your own weapon, but the game has a unique computer-like visual style that I have not seen in a game yet. As of right now the spawn camping problem is really low and there are easy ways to counter attack them. Soon people will realize that there are little windows in the spawn barricade that are really hard to shoot and see into and spawn camping will be finished (even though it really isn't a problem now). I can't believe EG would give this overly harsh review to a game that clearly deserves an 8 or 8.5. As for me? I'm never coming back here again because EG is absolutely horrible at their job.

  • Nephirion #58 2 years ago

    " Weapon balancing, for example. SMGs are overpowered, sniper rifles are underpowered. Assault rifles can kill you in a heartbeat from across the map "

    You could be describing MW2 in that sentence.

    Most FPS games are unbalanced on release or have you forgotten the m60 in battlefield bad company 2?

  • AnObeseWhale #59 2 years ago

    Although I disagree with this review and think that the reviewer is biased, I'm not gonna try to argue here. I'm just gonna come to the conclusion that I like a supposedly sucky game. :)

  • KDR_11k #60 2 years ago

    After playing around some more with an assault rifle I really don't think SMGs are OP, the AR maintains accuracy much better in a run and gun scenario and it's easier to get good scopes on the thing for better ranged performance (yes, an AR-specced SMG will hit a target from afar but with zoom it's easier to do the crucial aiming step). Did a good job for both closer ranges and counter-sniping for me. Honestly while you may be able to see whether you like the game I don't think OP accusations should be made this early as balancing perceptions change with more experience and the game hasn't been out long enough to develop that.

    Anyway, it's really stupid that the game doesn't show you all the specs of the parts you're sticking on your gun, how are you supposed to customize the thing to your needs if all you get is three vague summary stats?

  • CDRLYNX #61 2 years ago

    @DanWhitehead

    I apologise for misconstruing your use of the term 'real'. In principle, I agree entirely with most of the conclusions you have come to in your review.

    The issue I would take with your review isn't specific observations, which will ring differently with different gamers according to their subjective experiences, but the dismissive tone. B:TD takes a brave step by allowing gamers to access twitch-FPS gameplay at a reasonable entry price point, whilst packaging it in a universe that moves away from the MW2 Western goodies vs extremist/Russian baddies tack which seems to be in vogue at the moment (see also, CS: Source/Battlefield: BC).

    The SP experience, I would suggest, serves as no more than a tutorial for the MP. I have been using it as a 'testing ground' for different weapons and weapon configurations, which I would otherwise be punished for doing online (no-one is going to wait for me to see how effective X or Y weapon configuration is, after all). To be frank, getting four maps to serve as shooting galleries to test out weapon sets can make for a refreshing (and tactically useful) change of pace after hours of
    relentless MP.

    Ultimately, this is most *certainly* NOT an exceptional FPS experience. A score of 5/10 is fair (personally, I would have given it a 6). The score, I would argue, ought to reflect where the game sits in the spectrum of FPS experiences in order to achieve a degree of consistency. This brings me to my next point.

    It's very rare for an FPS AI to outwit a good FPS gamer, so criticising a small developer for creating a SP 'campaign' of sorts which gives you the opportunity to gain confidence and test new configurations because of it's old-school 'shooting gallery' feel seems somewhat cynical. I would surmise that those who play B:TD are not going to be handing over 1,200 Microsoft Points with the expectation of highly-sophisticated AI to shoot at; they want to access the MP. Having a 'testing ground' to play with after you have levelled up a bit is a useful bonus.

    Criticism of the story (of lack of it) is also not particularly enlightened when games like MW2 can get away with passing off Russians as belligerent cretins (does anyone really believe that Russia would declare war on North America because of a (mass) airport shooting?). The Tom Clancy games have similarly ridiculous storylines (H.A.W.X anyone?). We can't expect Mass Effect, Fallout or Halo levels of sophistication in storytelling from a developer who should be spending their time developing the gameplay, instead of syphoning off resources to construct a compelling lore for us to invest our imaginations in (cf Activision/EA, who can afford to hire military consultants and story writers with long and impressive CVs (and look at the 'stories' we still get our intelligence insulted with)).

    To summarise what is really just a difference in attitude with you Mr Whitehead, I feel aggrieved by a review which appears to dismiss a fun experience because it lacks some of the pomp of 'genuine' AAA titles (XBLA or not). A true 'AAA' title is merely something which the publisher is willing to spend a great deal of time promoting, and which the developer has had a large bankroll behind (eg Gears of War, Halo, Call of Duty - ie franchises in nine times out of ten). A small developer who takes sound-bites from the current market vernacular and bandies it about a bit is perhaps punching above their weight, but it seems like you've set out to make a point along the lines of 'actually, Zombie Studioes, this is not a AAA title and you are fools for thinking you could use such a term to describe your product'.

    I for, one, am much keener to support a studio like Zombie Studios with my wallet than the Activision/EA behemoths. You can be critical but encouraging about a product, and B:TD, in my opinion, should have received such a treatment. B:TD is not a cynical cash-in the way a 1,500 Microsoft Points map pack is and, as a gamer who cares about the way the industry grows, I think it is mean-spirited to slap down B:TD for lacking some of the polish that big corporations can afford to put on their products.
    Edited by 1 at 09/07/10 @ 21:19

  • CDRLYNX #62 2 years ago

    @MyRedEdit

    "The reviewer is an idiot"

    - Just to clarify, I don't think it is fair to say that Mr Whitehead is an idiot at all. He has made some very valid observations, many of which I agree entirely with. The fact is that if we just camp at the Activision/EA bases and wave our flags of approval, we will NEVER get any original ideas. All we will be left with is the MW2 clones that developers and publishers think are economically viable (how different from MW2 do you think COD: Black Ops is going to be? And yet, full RRP).
    B:TD is not perfect, but then what is so great about Bioshock 2's MP? Bioshock 2 was a critical success, yet its MP seems like an after-thought compared to the frantic (and, I would add, fun) MP experience of B:TD. How truly 'innovative' is Halo 3's MP mechanics compared to the original Halo? Is it really fair to say that Halo 3 MP is a radically different experience from Halo: CE (core mechanics-wise, not LIVE/matchmaking/grenade-types/power-ups-wise)?

  • CDRLYNX #63 2 years ago

    @kingcole225

    "I'm never coming back here again because EG is absolutely horrible at their job."

    - EG is the only gaming website which generates interesting debate in a highly fickle and partisan online community. They give us the Expo, and a fantastic podcast with regular guest appearances from within the industry. Compare this to Gamespot (Google the 'Jeff Gertsmann' controversy for a good reason not to bother with them) or IGN (forum trolls and ads for websites which sell illegal counterfeits spamming comment threads). It doesn't get any better than this pal.

  • Retroid #64 2 years ago

    You bastards.

    Now I want pizza.

    And I'm on a diet :'(

    /Tries pretending rice cake is a 'pizza'

  • AnObeseWhale #65 2 years ago

    Try making your own pizza from scratch, it's a lot healthier than the ones from pizza hut or doominoes and its still pretty good...damn, now I want pizza

  • metalangel #66 2 years ago

    Make your own pizza ftw. Those Napolina bases are great, and you can get everything YOU want on the pizza, not what the shops decide to offer. I like olives, artichokes, anchovies... three things you won't find at fucking Domino's.

    EDIT: and PROPERLY SPICY pepperoni!
    Edited by 1 at 10/07/10 @ 18:17

  • Turbotim3 #67 2 years ago

    This game reminds me of the punisher, man I thought it was going to be awsome but wound up being a complete bell ended nob buckler of a game!!

  • usaBlackPowerRyder #68 2 years ago

    I can't believe ign gave this game 8.0 score,this game sucks.I will only believe eurogamer from now on.IGN must have been payed off by the makers of that game.Shadow Complex is worth your 1200 points not this game.

  • AidyD #69 2 years ago

    Hm... Slating a £10 game as being abit 'rough'.

    Who would of thought! EG just tries too hard....

  • guardiant7 #70 10 months ago

    This game had a great concept but wasn't executed very well... I remember playing the trial and loving it. But 2 days after I bought it I realized that I didn't like it at all >.>