Review: Breach
- Thread starter Steve Butts
- Start date
Recommended Videos
From the trailers I've watched and the information I've learnt about Atomic Games, I think that Breach was a poor attempt by the studio to recoup some of the losses they incurred. The mechanics of the game (taking cover, destructible scenery) sound like they were developed for a game that strived for 'realism', rather than the run-and-gun gameplay that dominates today's FPS market. Combined with the lack of resources, we get a poorly polished Bad Company clone.
It's a shame too, I was looking forward to something like Six Days in Fallujah.
It's a shame too, I was looking forward to something like Six Days in Fallujah.
So...Basically it's a less polished version of Bad Company 2, with worse hit detection problems than Bad Company 2 has.
I'll stick to Bad Company 2.
I'll stick to Bad Company 2.
I already made the mistake of buying another indie mulitplayer-only FPS, Blacklight, so I wont be doing it again with this one, especially after reviews like this. The price may be low and good for what you get, but ultimately, no matter how cheap, it feels pointless and wasteful. Why bother playing YET ANOTHER generic shooter? There are too many of them these days and none of them really stand apart from eachother. I don't understand why an emerging indie dev would waste their time trying to breach the already bloated samey military FPS market (lord forgive me for that pun). It seems like a poor way to get noticed, unless they do something breathtakingly different, which is rather difficult to do in that genre.
The other thing is, with multiplayer-only games such as this, being able to enjoy them is HIGHLY dependent on there being a good and active community behind them. With even AAA titles these days seeing multiplayer ghost towns within a month or two of release, I don't have much confidence in these smaller titles. It's kind of a catch 22 of course. In order for such a community to develop, you need a lot of people to go out and start playing the game before a community exists, and then keep playing the game so the community can grow. Most people don't have the dedication to do this unless the game is really THAT amazing, which happens once in a blue moon.
The other thing is, with multiplayer-only games such as this, being able to enjoy them is HIGHLY dependent on there being a good and active community behind them. With even AAA titles these days seeing multiplayer ghost towns within a month or two of release, I don't have much confidence in these smaller titles. It's kind of a catch 22 of course. In order for such a community to develop, you need a lot of people to go out and start playing the game before a community exists, and then keep playing the game so the community can grow. Most people don't have the dedication to do this unless the game is really THAT amazing, which happens once in a blue moon.
I don't get what the big deal is.... Breach is essentially a $10 public "tech demo". And judging from the review video as well as gameplay videos from shows and such.....it looks like REALLY good tech!
If this WAS six days with Fallujah, with that controversial story and experience, I (and i suspect many others) would get this game in a heartbeat, hit detection flaws notwithstanding. But just MP, I'm not interested, but it's good to know that with a little tweaking, atomic would have a first class engine
.....albeit for a genre that people can't STAND anymore :S.
If this WAS six days with Fallujah, with that controversial story and experience, I (and i suspect many others) would get this game in a heartbeat, hit detection flaws notwithstanding. But just MP, I'm not interested, but it's good to know that with a little tweaking, atomic would have a first class engine
.....albeit for a genre that people can't STAND anymore :S.
Wow, okay, seriously? I'm pretty sick of hearing this. Did nobody see Russ's preview of Breach? I'm not going to say it's a good game, but the level of destruction is far beyond BC2's shallow capabilities. In BC, the same walls come off the same way, every time; the houses (but only certain ones) collapse the same way, every time; the fences are the only things which respond dynamically. In Breach, you can shoot individual bricks out of walls; they have a structure on a cliff side with wooden supports, and if you take out the supports, the whole thing falls down. Seriously, if BC2 could support Breach's destruction while maintaining their graphical standard and huge levels, the game would have been a technological marvel (although Mortar spam would be even more overpowered).Telperion said:
Well the difference is that BC2's demolition is still pretty much scripted, whereas here it was supposed to be more realistic - shoot out brick by brick, plank by plank as opposed to BC2's buildings that pretty much just has a certain hitpoint limit before they collapse. But yeah, the overall look of Breach still seems to be pretty grim...Telperion said:
Shame, I was hoping for the first FPS to do the destruction right.Edit: Ninjad again ^^
While I have no real interest in this game, I find it amusing that pretty much all your complaints can be summed as as "Hey, ever played a shooter on Xbox Live in Australia? Yeah, that."
Looking through my library of games, I think the last thing I need is to waste more money on a sub-par shooter. I especially shouldn't waste money on a sub-par shooter that does nothing different other then to add a pointless cover system and destructible environments, which have been around since.....I don't know, 2006?
So its more like Red Faction Guerrilla, which, in my opinion, has even better destructible environment then this game.Mysnomer said:
Well, this is the first I've heard of this game. Multiplayer only? When I already have 4 COD games, Halo Reach and Battlefield? Nah.
You miss out on plenty of great games if the look is important enough to bold it for you.HankMan said: