Many Battlezone fans (myself included) would disagree with Candler's last point regarding the game's learning curve; while Battlezone was clearly more difficult to master than a run-and-gun first-person shooter or a traditional top-down RTS, its interface was so intuitive that anyone who stuck with it for more than a mission or two found himself building, deploying, and commanding units with an ease that was both surprising and refreshing. But while Candler is dead on the mark with his other comments, there's one thing he's overlooking: the expectations that many gamers had when they picked up Battlezone at their local software store. It definitely could be argued that what hurt Battlezone's sales as much as anything else was what a lot of folks at Activision probably considered to be its strongest selling point: the name. A generation of gamers grew up with the wire-frame, point-and-shoot tank battles of the hit arcade game, and they undoubtedly expected more of the same bang-bang action, but with better graphics, in the 1998 remake.

But now, pretty much the whole gaming community is familiar with what the '90s version of Battlezone is all about. And with the release of Battlezone II: Combat Commander only a few weeks away, a goodly portion of them are eager to see if it's possible to improve on such an incredible product.

Next: Battlezone II's plot