A fair review

Trenchgun · 01-28-2011, 05:05 AM

The good
-Well designed maps
-More realistic tactical combat pacing than something like BC2, in hardcore game mode.
-The destructable environment brings a lot of fun tactical options to the table. You can truly dismantle houses brick by brick, or cover sandbag by sandbag (although the later requires a LOT of heavy machine gun fire)
-The cover mechanics makes fighting from cover funner than simply leaning around a corner, although it has some ergonomic issues that make it difficult if not impossible to shoot stuff that flanks or hits you from behind, requiring you to detach from the cover to fire back.
-The nvidia physx creates some great effects when buildings are destroyed.

The bad
-No dedicated servers (crippling sometimes in terms of lag and stability)
-Trouble connecting to servers.
-You have to level up excessively to unlock everything, but this is something unfortunately most FPS games have now (I hate games that don't respect my time. I won't invest 60 hours into the game as a second job before I can fully experience what it has to offer. This is an absolutely horrible trend that COD started and everyone is copying now).

Other thoughts
-The graphics aren't bad. They do the job. They aren't great compared with the competition but they aren't bad in the sense that it becomes a distraction. Anyone who thinks otherwise is merely spoiled by the games like COD that have had tens of millions of dollars poured into them.

Conclusion:
If you like smaller scale team shooters like counterstrike source, but want something closer to ghost recon with destructable environments, then for about $10 it may be what you're looking for.

BC2 might have destructable environments, but the style of gameplay is completely different. Breach is probably the only game of this style that has fully destructable environments that play a large role in tactics.

alex0809 · 01-28-2011, 05:23 AM

Heres a fair review of mine:

Let's start with the server browser: it sucks. Filters get deleted if you restart the game, you can not sort by player numbers, name or something like that. At least it got SF implementation that nullifies it somehow.

Class system sucks. You got to play ages to actually unlock something, and it is just unintuitive in my opinion. For example there is a slot for "secondary", but I don't see any secondary stuff to buy.

The whole destruction system is useless. There are a few spots where you can shoot of some wood and stuff but all in all is is completely unused! Yes you can blow up a sandbag with an RPG, but if that is really meant to be something completely new and never-before-achieved.. well then I guess I come back from the future.

The whole gameplay is just terrible. Too much camping and too many snipers.

Even worse, netcode is crap. Lags everywhere, destruction doesnt work properly and it just feels terrible.

Team balancing does NOT EXIST! What a game is this honestly?!? Last game was five 2-star people vs five 0-star people. Okay, I thought - next map will be better.. teams stayed the same! No need to say who won..

Sorry that this is a bit like a rant post, but I could not say anything positive about it. Really, its just budget all over the place and the core mechanics suck. But maybe if they continue patching it it will actually become a playable game. Though I doubt anyone will play it after some weeks.

Trenchgun · 01-28-2011, 05:32 AM

The fact that you "could not say anything positive about the game" is exactly why you are not giving a fair review, and why I made this post.

The dynamic destruction system plays a big role. Some game modes more than others.

If you think the gameplay is terrible you don't like tactically paced shooters, and COD is over that way.

The netcode isn't the problem, the lack of dedicated servers is. I don't know if they are even supported yet, if not they better get on that ASAP or they've screwed themselves stupidly.

The server browser is a minor complaint, not a game breaker.

Team balancing can be a problem, but it could be patched if they pay attention to player feedback.

Pim Pandoer · 01-28-2011, 05:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alex0809

Heres a fair review of mine:

Let's start with the server browser: it sucks. Filters get deleted if you restart the game, you can not sort by player numbers, name or something like that. At least it got SF implementation that nullifies it somehow.

Class system sucks. You got to play ages to actually unlock something, and it is just unintuitive in my opinion. For example there is a slot for "secondary", but I don't see any secondary stuff to buy.

The whole destruction system is useless. There are a few spots where you can shoot of some wood and stuff but all in all is is completely unused! Yes you can blow up a sandbag with an RPG, but if that is really meant to be something completely new and never-before-achieved.. well then I guess I come back from the future.

The whole gameplay is just terrible. Too much camping and too many snipers.

Even worse, netcode is crap. Lags everywhere, destruction doesnt work properly and it just feels terrible.

Team balancing does NOT EXIST! What a game is this honestly?!? Last game was five 2-star people vs five 0-star people. Okay, I thought - next map will be better.. teams stayed the same! No need to say who won..

Sorry that this is a bit like a rant post, but I could not say anything positive about it. Really, its just budget all over the place and the core mechanics suck. But maybe if they continue patching it it will actually become a playable game. Though I doubt anyone will play it after some weeks.

that review made me lol xD +rep for that :P but i dont think you are being fair about it. i havent been actually able to play it a whole lot, because i cant stay in a server for longer then 8 seconds. but i was in one for about 8 minutes, and i had a good time. ofcourse its not like crysis graphics but i think theyre pretty alright. i think the destruction is more realistic then in some other games i have played before. there was this wierd game called warmonger awhile back where you could basicly destroy every building with a tiny rock hammer xD im glad this game is not so. and im a total sucker for unlocking things and getting things to unlock. only real gripe is cant play it atm until they fixed someone of the issues with staying on servers and the mouse sensitivity. but i am quite pleased with this purchase for only 12 euros

alex0809 · 01-28-2011, 05:55 AM

Well, I tried to say about every point why this is my opinion I am sorry I can not provide more.. everything that is not completely negative is "been there done that but better" for me..

Mamba · 01-28-2011, 06:51 AM

>The netcode isn't the problem

If the game code is anything like their current dedi-server code, then I'd not rule this out. Their dedi PEGS the CPU on my hosting server from the get-go...and stays there. Not a hardware problem, same server works fine for buku other dedi's I've run on it. And others have reported high CPU when just running the game, let alone hosting.

On the bright side, Breach is communicating well on their forum and working on lag and server patches, among others. The question is how quick they can fix the problems before players give up and move on.

Trenchgun · 01-31-2011, 09:04 PM

I've got over a dozen hours into the game and it grows to my liking as time goes on.

It delivers a balanced mix of tactical action and teamwork, with fast paced gameplay, and the destructable environments add a lot of novelty and interesting tactics.

Despite all the hate you see in this forum (which is mainly over bugs or performance issues), there's a lot of people playing it.

Mamba · 02-01-2011, 09:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trenchgun

Despite all the hate you see in this forum (which is mainly over bugs or performance issues), there's a lot of people playing it.

Very true...servers are hop'n. DO wish that Atomic would fix the dedi so you can password it, as the servers are a "hop'n" a bit too much. Hard for our clan to get in on my server before it starts filling fast from the public browser.

01-28-2011, 05:05 AM	#1
Trenchgun Join Date: Jun 2006 Reputation: 11 Posts: 453	A fair review The good -Well designed maps -More realistic tactical combat pacing than something like BC2, in hardcore game mode. -The destructable environment brings a lot of fun tactical options to the table. You can truly dismantle houses brick by brick, or cover sandbag by sandbag (although the later requires a LOT of heavy machine gun fire) -The cover mechanics makes fighting from cover funner than simply leaning around a corner, although it has some ergonomic issues that make it difficult if not impossible to shoot stuff that flanks or hits you from behind, requiring you to detach from the cover to fire back. -The nvidia physx creates some great effects when buildings are destroyed. The bad -No dedicated servers (crippling sometimes in terms of lag and stability) -Trouble connecting to servers. -You have to level up excessively to unlock everything, but this is something unfortunately most FPS games have now (I hate games that don't respect my time. I won't invest 60 hours into the game as a second job before I can fully experience what it has to offer. This is an absolutely horrible trend that COD started and everyone is copying now). Other thoughts -The graphics aren't bad. They do the job. They aren't great compared with the competition but they aren't bad in the sense that it becomes a distraction. Anyone who thinks otherwise is merely spoiled by the games like COD that have had tens of millions of dollars poured into them. Conclusion: If you like smaller scale team shooters like counterstrike source, but want something closer to ghost recon with destructable environments, then for about $10 it may be what you're looking for. BC2 might have destructable environments, but the style of gameplay is completely different. Breach is probably the only game of this style that has fully destructable environments that play a large role in tactics.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

01-28-2011, 05:23 AM	#2
alex0809 Join Date: Oct 2009 Reputation: 1 Posts: 71	Heres a fair review of mine: Let's start with the server browser: it sucks. Filters get deleted if you restart the game, you can not sort by player numbers, name or something like that. At least it got SF implementation that nullifies it somehow. Class system sucks. You got to play ages to actually unlock something, and it is just unintuitive in my opinion. For example there is a slot for "secondary", but I don't see any secondary stuff to buy. The whole destruction system is useless. There are a few spots where you can shoot of some wood and stuff but all in all is is completely unused! Yes you can blow up a sandbag with an RPG, but if that is really meant to be something completely new and never-before-achieved.. well then I guess I come back from the future. The whole gameplay is just terrible. Too much camping and too many snipers. Even worse, netcode is crap. Lags everywhere, destruction doesnt work properly and it just feels terrible. Team balancing does NOT EXIST! What a game is this honestly?!? Last game was five 2-star people vs five 0-star people. Okay, I thought - next map will be better.. teams stayed the same! No need to say who won.. Sorry that this is a bit like a rant post, but I could not say anything positive about it. Really, its just budget all over the place and the core mechanics suck. But maybe if they continue patching it it will actually become a playable game. Though I doubt anyone will play it after some weeks.

01-28-2011, 05:32 AM	#3
Trenchgun Join Date: Jun 2006 Reputation: 11 Posts: 453	The fact that you "could not say anything positive about the game" is exactly why you are not giving a fair review, and why I made this post. The dynamic destruction system plays a big role. Some game modes more than others. If you think the gameplay is terrible you don't like tactically paced shooters, and COD is over that way. The netcode isn't the problem, the lack of dedicated servers is. I don't know if they are even supported yet, if not they better get on that ASAP or they've screwed themselves stupidly. The server browser is a minor complaint, not a game breaker. Team balancing can be a problem, but it could be patched if they pay attention to player feedback.

01-28-2011, 05:55 AM	#5
alex0809 Join Date: Oct 2009 Reputation: 1 Posts: 71	Well, I tried to say about every point why this is my opinion I am sorry I can not provide more.. everything that is not completely negative is "been there done that but better" for me..

01-28-2011, 06:51 AM	#6
Mamba Join Date: Mar 2010 Reputation: 0 Posts: 16	>The netcode isn't the problem If the game code is anything like their current dedi-server code, then I'd not rule this out. Their dedi PEGS the CPU on my hosting server from the get-go...and stays there. Not a hardware problem, same server works fine for buku other dedi's I've run on it. And others have reported high CPU when just running the game, let alone hosting. On the bright side, Breach is communicating well on their forum and working on lag and server patches, among others. The question is how quick they can fix the problems before players give up and move on.

01-31-2011, 09:04 PM	#7
Trenchgun Join Date: Jun 2006 Reputation: 11 Posts: 453	I've got over a dozen hours into the game and it grows to my liking as time goes on. It delivers a balanced mix of tactical action and teamwork, with fast paced gameplay, and the destructable environments add a lot of novelty and interesting tactics. Despite all the hate you see in this forum (which is mainly over bugs or performance issues), there's a lot of people playing it.