Oil prices out of control.Terrorism fueling the growing tension.War, what it is its' good for; absolutely...everything!!

User Rating: 8.1 | Act of War: Direct Action PC
I hesitated buying this game for over a year. I have "C&C Generals" + "Zero Hour" and couldn't really see, from the demo and screenshots, anything that would lead me to part my cash for what looked to be more of the same. Having said that, how many out there purchased "Quake 4" even though they already owned "Doom 3" (yeah, count me in). Or "COD2" when really its' not that different from the original (a bit easier, more repetitive, though graphically a leap forward for WW2 buffs like myself). But, I bought it today and have played thoroughly for 10 hours so far. So, how does it fare. Against "C&C:G+ZH" it fares well. The video sequences interlinking missions, and within missions, don't feel tacked on liked they did with "C&CG". They progress the storyline well (no pun intended) about the oil crisis and the rise of terrorism, and the settings are realistic cities, country areas (based on satellite imaging apparently). Not the generic ones in "C&C". It's not a bad story, based on an story by Dale Brown ( to become a novel of the same name, only the protaganists in the game, The Consortium, are called DOOM in the book). So the feel is a little more authentic. Let's see how it rates if we break it down in individual sections.

INTRO: As said already, Dale Brown (a well known author of the techno-thriller genre like Tom Clancy, Harold Coyle, Larry Bond, Richard Herman jnr., James Cobb and Stephen Coonts) wrote the story and a novel to coincide with the games' release. That's rare, but nothing new. Tom Clancy released a novel with his game "SSN". That's different to basing a game on a novel, as they are meant to co-exist. Tom Clancy and Larry Bond based their novel "Red Storm Rising" (Larry Bond's name was left off the cover by the publishers) on the game "Harpoon"; "Megafortess", an old flight sim from the early nineties was based on Dale Brown's "Flight Of The Old Dog"; "Team Yankee" was based on Harold Coyle's novel..."Team Yankee". I haven't read the book, but I hope it ties in better with the game than "Tom Clancy's SSN". They were hardly similar at all.

GAMEPLAY: Easy interface for anyone used to traditional RTS's. The action is fast-paced with objectives changing constantly. A lot more like "Dawn Of War" than "C&C". That's not the only thing it has in common with "DOW". Management of your forces requires constant attention, ala "Homeworld", and the firefights can be furious requiring a degree of micromanagement that "C&C" lacks. And there is no pause button, to issue orders in frantic firefights.Tactics are vital. Frontal assaults end in defeat as they should (as they are now, from WW1 onward), and infantry are far more crucial than armoured vehicles in most of the missions which reminds me more of "Close Combat" and "DOW". On the offence it is crucial to perform layered progression, with supporting and covering units. When withdrawing, you must use your head and do so gradually, setting up delaying actions while the bulk of your force can retreat safely. Lack of a true naval component is, once again, a HUGE gripe. When do we get this in our RTS's, if ever. It seems "Larry Bond's Harpoon 4" has been cancelled so I, like many just sigh as it is neglected, again. The rest is explained by Gamespot's review.

GRAPHICS: Crunch time. They are excellent, with shadows from trees or bridge struts flitting over your passing vehicles (usually only seen in a FPS). The buildings are destructible, and the AI pathfinding isn't too choosy allowing your Bradleys to run over parked cars, fire hydrants (with a whoosh of water) etc. Everything that can explode, of course explodes. Shell casings eject from machine guns, branches and leaves crunch to the ground if trees are brushed by. Units, buildings and landscapes are lovingly crafted and city sites readily identifiable. Now the downside. You need a fair amount of grunt to run the game at highest settings (and believe me, it gets ugly if you go lower). The pyrotechniques are curious. I haven't seen explosions or fires with so much RED in them since "DOW"WA". Fires aren't red. They're orange and black, so they actually look quite peculiar. Also, even though you can reduce buildings to rubble, you can't use it as protection for troops. You can only garrison buildings and trees(?). Water graphics are dreadful. No refections, waves or ripples. Just a bland light blue or muddy brown. C'mon, even "C&C:G" had good looking water and "Ground Control 2" absolutely rocked. I don't get that one at all. Overall, it looks the part. But, the camera allows for no horizontal tilting. You can zoom in and out, rotate, and...that's it! A big problem that could have been handled more like "DOW", and it is very, very noticable in its' confined presentation.

CONCLUSION: Mixed. Looks good, sounds good (though RTS's all tend to sound the same these days), plays well and keeps you interested in the storyline. But, the Campaign is very short, lengthened really only by cut scenes and intros, and the ending is confusingly low-key. There is of course Engagement (skirmish) Mode and Multiplayer, and its' a good idea to play 1 or 2 of these in between missions to make the Campaign last longer. Whether "Joint Task Force", soon to be released, will trounce this game remains to be seen. "Company Of Heroes" will be the next step in RTS gameplay and will no doubt up the ante. But really, aside from the awful water graphics, the red explosions, the absence of a naval element and the abysmal camera this game is a step up from "Generals" and really has no other competion regarding its' real world setting (please don't mention "Real War").