Home 
Gaming and Cinema Video Games Reviews Combat Arms
Gaming and Cinema Video Games Reviews Combat Arms
| Combat Arms |
 |
 |
 |
| Saturday, 06 February 2010 22:34 |
|
If you don't mind the game's outdated feel and rather serious hacking problem, it's an ok shooter that proves you get what you pay for. Overall Score: 5 Average Ok, so why am I reviewing a game that's free? Well for one many people like to know if something is worth the wait for a very large download, and second it's a full blown game. With that out of the way let me present a new kind of review I offer, a Quick Review. I started playing Combat Arms approximately one year before this review. Since then the game has had quite a bit of content added, but the games outdated feel has never been addressed. As I progressed through the game's ranking system and gained access to more experienced servers, I also found that the frequency of hacked games increased as well. Before I uninstalled the game just recently about one third of the games I played were hacked. I know for one thing hacking is very easy in Combat Arms, that and Nexon has a hard time catching all of the hackers. The games that were hacker free though were rather enjoyable. Lag was rarely an issue to my surprise. Starting or joining a clan and facing off against others is probably where you'll find the most fun. The downside with this though is that most good clans tended to be extremely anal about your K/D. If a third of my games are hacked how am I supposed to keep my K/D high? I think it was around 1 before I quit. The other issue with this game (that also contributes to its dated feel) is spawn killing. This probably explains both really low and really high K/Ds. No map is designed well enough to prevent this and very few players are honorable enough to resist doing it. And with such an emphasis on K/Ds many players feel it is a necessity to spawn kill. It isn't always intentional though. On very large maps the lone wolves may find a squad of players spawn right in front of them. Since spawners have a three second invulnerability the lone wolf will most likely parish, but if the player is very skilled the player may able to slip into the shadows for a few seconds and then ambush the whole squad. I'll admit that this is the only time I would spawn kill. Spawn killing isn't fair but neither is having an invisible squad spawning right in front of me. I choose survival in the end, but it sucks all the fun out of the engagement. I like the games currency and experience system a lot. Experience will unlock new weapons which you can rent with in game cash (or real money if you are impatient). This encourages the player to experiment with new weaponry and it helps prevent players from acquiring an overly diverse aresenal, though if your wallets big enough you could rent quite a few weapons at once. To balance things out carrying more weapons and armor will cause your character to move more slowly, and with the games twitch shooter feel less speed can be a serious disadvantage. I also like how the game encourages you to purchase smaller and weaker weapons by allowing you to move faster with them, making maneuverability a factor when selecting your load-out. While the game has a very tactical look, it still plays like the twitch shooters of yesterday. So yes, your going to be running into bunny hoppers and other tactics of verteran players. While there there is a penalty for jumping and shooting, it's hardly enough to suppress the twitch players. So in the end modern shooter tactics will really go to waste in this game. At the end of it all Combat Arms is just an average shooter. The more unique gameplay modes it offers as well as its attempt at a co-op mode are rather mediocre. Deathmatch and CTF was where I had the most fun. I would rate the game slightly higher for the amount of potential fun, but the vast amount of hacking and the dated feel of the game means you're better off just firing up Unreal Tournament or hell even C-Strike. Combat Arms is living proof that you get what you pay for.
|
| Last Updated on Wednesday, 31 March 2010 23:54 |
