Rent History Channel: Battle for the Pacific for Xbox 360
view large frontback

History Channel: Battle for the Pacific

Rent

Start your 1-month FREE Trial!

Also on:PS3, Wii, PS2

New!Available For Download:PC 

GF Rating
4.0

2104 ratings

Critic & User Reviews

GF Rating
1

Horrible

What went wrong?

posted by ORGamer (BAKER CITY, OR) Jan 23, 2009

Member since Sep 2008

19 out of 21 gamers (90%) found this review helpful

There have been numerous titles that have come out historically and lately that feature the World War II theater. Unfortunately, gamers have to search through the garbage to get to the gems. This is not one of the gems. What hurts Battle for the Pacific is not only it's short single player (2 1/2 - 3 hours), but the predictable and mostly idiotic AI. You can shoot your companions with no consequence and they mostly just sit around waiting for you to do everything. The Japanese foes are mostly docile and will miss most of their shots at you, even on Hard.

The Multiplayer could have been great...if people actually bought this game. The maps are decent and most of the achievements are multiplayer based. However, no one is ever on so you have a heck of a time starting a game.

The GOOD:
-The little explanations they give at the beginning of a mission. History Channel games are notorious for this so I would expect nothing less.

-Historically accurate guns that were used in WWII. Always a nice thing to try to stick with realism, but one again, I expect nothing less from a History Channel game.

The BAD:
-Super-short multiplayer, which for some achievement lovers could be construed as a good thing.

-No multiplayer community. This is really too bad as some of the maps could have potentially great matches on them

The WTH:
-Shooting someone in the face and not dying....really?

-500 kills apiece for using both American and Japanese weapons. Argh...

Overall, I would not recommend this for someone who is looking for a great game to fill their time. I would recommend this to someone who is looking to bolster their achievement score by 1000. I finished this game in a week with all the achievements. If you really wanted to you could finish it in three days. Happy gaming!

Was this review helpful? Report Abuse

GF Rating
4

Weak

The History Channel needs to focus on tv shows

posted by usmc741 (NORWALK, IA) Dec 13, 2007

Member since Jan 2005

25 out of 30 gamers (83%) found this review helpful

I wanted to like this game. Finally, I get to play as a Marine instead of the usual army soldier. Imagine my surpise when in the first mission at Wake Island, you're supposed to be a Marine....the game intro says you're a Marine...and then they put regular army grunts in the game. They're even wearing army uniforms with army unit patches. I must has read the box wrong, because I thought it was made by the History Channel (aka The WWII Channel). They should know these sort of things.

I couldn't bring myself to play this game for more than an hour. The first mission is decent, but there are no savepoints, so if you die, you have to do it all over again, which happened a few times. When I got killed 10 minutes into the second mission and had to start over again, that was that. No more.

The graphics are decent and so is the sound. The AI could use some work, unless the Japanese Army used to jump into trenches and then hunch down and stay in one spot. Friendy AI does a decent job of taking care of themselves, which might have been the only bright spot in this game. Then again, I only played the game briefly, so for all I know your squadmates could turn into the Marx Brothers later on.

Again, another reason to love Gamefly! If I would have bought this game, it would be a coaster by now.

Was this review helpful? Report Abuse

GF Rating
6

Above Average

Another WWII Shooter

posted by ZackyCakes (RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA) Dec 5, 2007

Top Reviewer

Member since Oct 2002

60 out of 79 gamers (76%) found this review helpful

Wait! This one is different, you're not killing Nazis in France. I played the last History Channel game, Civil War... so I don't know why I rented this.

It's better than Civil War, but Pimp My Ride is about the only game worse than that one. The graphics are better than average, the AI isn't too bright, and the levels are linear and predictable. Battle for the Pacific is a bland shooter, but I like shooters. I played this for a few hours, beat it and mailed it back to Gamefly the next day. Plus, I learned about history!

I recommend this game to fans of low-budget "weekend games" like Cabela's Hunt the Animal games. This isn't a game that shows of your hardware.

Was this review helpful? Report Abuse

GF Rating
1

Horrible

battle for what?

posted by ebook32 (LOS ANGELES, CA) Mar 15, 2008

Member since Dec 2007

14 out of 19 gamers (74%) found this review helpful

There is no sense in playing this poorly made game. The game was made in a rush, I guess they were too lazy to write a good level design, story-line, etc. All computer AI are brain dead. If you fallback to take cover, fall behind or don't keep up with your unit, it's game over. This game should only be played if you need to get pumped and mad before a fist fight. Don't rent and please, please don't buy this game. If for some reason someone is giving this game out for free, slap them. You've been warned.

Was this review helpful? Report Abuse

GF Rating
6

Above Average

It's not that bad of a game. just too short.

posted by ACustomer (JACKSON, MS) Dec 11, 2007

Member since May 2007

8 out of 11 gamers (73%) found this review helpful

The game is not that bad. The graphics are about early Xbox 360 graphics. The gameplay is a little off and the campaign is extremely short, I beat the campaign on hard in 2 hours. I haven't tried the multiplayer yet, cause nobody is online on it. Now I don't think anybody should waste there money on this game, but I think it's worth a rental, but that's just me. 6 out of 10 for me.

Was this review helpful? Report Abuse

GF Rating
1

Horrible

WHy did I rent this?

posted by yodathecat (SHORELINE, WA) Apr 14, 2009

Member since Dec 2008

5 out of 7 gamers (71%) found this review helpful

OK so i was browsing games on game fly and I found this game
Gamefly sent it and i was interested in what the game had to offer, at first I loved it because it was good for achievements and i didn't die even on hard, but as I soon learned this games sucks

1. the multiplayer has no one on it
2. controls are not that great
3. no game saves so you have to go back to the beginning
4. the same thing said over and over and over again "move it soidier"
5. you have ALWAYS follow some sgt. so you cant explore, move ahead to much you die stay back in cover it with out warning you will start over
6. HORRIBLE AI like 1986 first time making video games bad AI

Good things
ok graphics
ok achievements (execept for multiplayer)

that's about it
your choice, if you really want to get some achievements then go ahead but beside that 1/10

Was this review helpful? Report Abuse

GF Rating
1

Horrible

The little engine that couldn’t

posted by Defiantly (SOUTHAMPTON, PA) Dec 12, 2007

Member since Aug 2007

5 out of 7 gamers (71%) found this review helpful

Ok, first off, this game uses the same EXACT engine as the new Soldier Of Fortune game. (which I had the luck of ALSO renting at the same time as this).
Even the HUD and loading screen layouts are the same. This is bad because the controls are horrible and the framerate is poor when there is allot on the screen.

I played through the first level and put it back in the mailbox. Framerates were so bad on this first level that it became almost impossible to enjoy. Audio is also poor, with weapons sounding like rubber band snaps. Voice acting is even worse.

The History Channel’s CIVIL WAR was much better by comparison.
Move on people, nothing to see here.

Was this review helpful? Report Abuse

GF Rating
2

Really Bad

ONE GOOD THING ABOUT HISTORY......

posted by Crash46 (BEAUMONT, TX) Dec 10, 2007

Member since Mar 2005

2 out of 3 gamers (67%) found this review helpful

This game will be history. It is one of the worst games ever. By all means, you cannot continue the mission if you get too far ahead of your squad, they end the game and make you start over. STUPID.
DON'T RENT/BUY/TRADE/SELL this game, your customers/users will laugh in your face.

I guess for the 1st time video gamer, this is ok, but to expect any sort of following, you must do better History Channel.

Was this review helpful? Report Abuse

GF Rating
4

Weak

This game is boring and repetitive

posted by bryy777 (REDDING, CA) Dec 8, 2007

Member since Mar 2007

5 out of 8 gamers (62%) found this review helpful

This game is not even worth a rental. All you do is follow your commander and shoot easy enemies. It took about 1 1/2 hours to finish it on normal.

Was this review helpful? Report Abuse

GF Rating
4

Weak

Pacific Meltdown

posted by tellmfred (WHIPPANY, NJ) Dec 8, 2007

Member since Mar 2004

6 out of 10 gamers (60%) found this review helpful

Well considering it took only 2 hours to finish the game, I would say it is very weak. I would have rated it alot lower but what saved that was the ability to shoot down the planes. Rent this game, do not buy it and have a rental on back-up.

Was this review helpful? Report Abuse

GF Rating
2

Really Bad

Just plain horrible.

posted by NCBrit (WAKE FOREST, NC) Mar 10, 2008

Member since Mar 2008

3 out of 5 gamers (60%) found this review helpful

I think getting shot in the guts in the steaming jungles of the Pacific is only slightly worse than playing this game.

Clunky controls, jerky animations, invulnerable allies (who will do all the work for you) and voice overs that make you cringe.... this horrible mess has it all.

The visuals are ok (when they aren't moving) but have that end-of-last-gen look and don't even stand up against early 360 efforts. The sound is average and the level design is as linear and as can be.

When you throw in the general blandness, jerky frame rate and sub-par game play, there is -no- reason at all to rent this, let alone buy it.

This game should fade from History. It has certainly made me remove anything else from the History Channel from my GameQ!

Was this review helpful? Report Abuse

GF Rating
7

Good

FUN AND EASY

posted by pimpjuice (ROCK HILL, SC) Jan 4, 2008

Member since Dec 2007

3 out of 5 gamers (60%) found this review helpful

GREAT RENTAL, VERY EASY 400 ACHIEVEMENT POINTS ON HARD 4 HOURS MAX!!!! FUN AND EASY!!!

Was this review helpful? Report Abuse

GF Rating
3

Bad

Civil War Was Better

posted by InusBoy2 (PHOENIX, AZ) Dec 8, 2007

Member since Nov 2006

3 out of 5 gamers (60%) found this review helpful

As my title says. Civil War was MUCH better than this game. Considering it is a History Channel game I already wasn't expecting much but this... The graphics are awful. Not that I was expecting really beautiful graphics from a History Channel game. The... and pardon me for not using the technical term... but when you turn your character... it's so slow... It grates on my nerves. And most of the game consists of running behind your C.O. to the point where, you can't even stop to pick up a gun from a fallen enemy without failing. And there are points where the C.O. and company will just stop and nothing will happen. You have to run forward a bit (Not too much or you'll fail!) to trigger the enemies that attack you. I haven't played the game all the way through but I know I'm about half way through from looking at the achievement list and I've been playing about an hour. I wasn't expecting the perfect game. But I was expecting a little more than this... Oh well. I wouldn't recommend renting this at all.

Was this review helpful? Report Abuse

GF Rating
7

Good

Super Short, but still pretty good

posted by LordMaker (OTTAWA HILLS, OH) Dec 9, 2007

Member since Jul 2007

6 out of 11 gamers (55%) found this review helpful

I beat the game on hard in just under 3 hrs. Its not a very hard game at all.

The History Channel facts/movies are neat.

Battles really dont have a large scale sense to them. And following a leader the entire game is not so much fun. But is nice to kill some Japs for a change of pace, vs., killing Nazis everytime.

No one plays online. So forget those achievements.

All in all a decent game, worth a rental, but that is all.

Was this review helpful? Report Abuse

GF Rating
1

Horrible

top 5 worst games created

posted by losergames (CORNING, NY) Dec 19, 2007

Member since Jun 2006

2 out of 4 gamers (50%) found this review helpful

this has to be one of the worst games i have ever played it has only 5 weapons and pretty bad graphics this game could be better if you didn't have to follow people all the time and had more weapons such as a favorite like the B.A.R.
i played the first 4 missions then stopped playing it.

Was this review helpful? Report Abuse

GF Rating
3

Bad

history channel battle for the pacific

posted by salsero (KISSIMMEE, FL) Dec 10, 2007

Member since Apr 2007

1 out of 2 gamers (50%) found this review helpful

where do I start, this game is awful.The game is short for one,it slows down alot.I was expecting more but I beat it around two hours.

Was this review helpful? Report Abuse

GF Rating
4

Weak

Do Not Rent This Game

posted by ReviewG (COSTA MESA, CA) Dec 6, 2007

Member since Dec 2003

6 out of 14 gamers (43%) found this review helpful

They Need to stop making History Channel Games or at least make them better.

I played 5 Levels of the game hoping it would get better, but no such luck.

The graphics are a joke, they are out-of-date.

The game play was not fun, it felt so unrealistic I suggest you put the game on hard because normal is just to easy.

If you are a history buff and do not care about games that look and sound good, or are fun, then rent this game.

otherwise do somthing more interesting with your time, like feed your dog some penutbutter and laugh at him when it looks like he is trying to talk.

The sound and recoil of the weapons made me laugh because they sounded like those weapons you shoot at the carnival.

If you do rent this game remember the words (follow my orders) because you will hear it 10000 times during the game

I think they decided to rush the game and put it on the shelf's early. The game is unfinished and I am glad I have Gamefly to save me from buying stupid games like History Channel: Battle for the Pacific

Was this review helpful? Report Abuse

GF Rating
2

Really Bad

Don't waste mailman's time delivering this dud!

posted by cdnbcn46 (CLARKTON, NC) Dec 16, 2007

Member since Dec 2007

1 out of 3 gamers (33%) found this review helpful

I beat this lemon in 65 minutes on normal...and I'm visually challenged!!
No good except for shooting down planes.
Pong is better investment of time.

Was this review helpful? Report Abuse

GF Rating
6

Above Average

Way to easy

posted by Shadowstacker7 (DUNDALK, MD) Jan 16, 2014

Member since Jan 2014

I beat this on easy the first time in three hours DIDN'T DIE ONCE I skipped normal and went straight to hard STILL DIDN'T DIE! If you love easy achievements and a fun 3 hours rent this

Pros: easy gameplay and achievements you learn a thing or two about WWII

Cons: too easy if you don't follow the sergeant you fail the mission bad graphics game is way too short cant run

Was this review helpful? Report Abuse

GF Rating
7

Good

Great game!! :D

posted by TKDTeen (ROCKWALL, TX) Mar 28, 2013

Member since Mar 2013

Ok, Ill just start out by saying, this game, is pretty cool!!
A lot of people dont give it very good credit that it realy earns. Even though I completed it in 2 1/2 hours, its a great play threw. The guns are great, but the grenades are cheese, and not in a good way either. The main flaw I saw, was if you went 20 feet from your Sgt you have to follow, you have to restart to last checkpoint. I like to explore the maps, expetualy the beach heads.
Hope I helped, have a great day!! :D
Raiting 7/10

Was this review helpful? Report Abuse

GF Rating
4

Weak

A poor low budget FPS

posted by dfloss721 (GRAYSLAKE, IL) Mar 19, 2012

Top Reviewer

Member since Jun 2007

How does a game like this even get created? How does Activision sign on to publish such an unpolished low-budget shooter. Half the game is focused around multiplayer...why? Activision also has CoD... like a History channel war documentary game is going to have the slightest chance to take even 1/2 of 1 percent of the market share away.

Sidenote---About 700 gamerpoints are also dedicated to online multiplayer, and since nobody in the world plays this online, you won't be able to get those.

Since you can't get a game of TDM going online, let's focus on this single player generic campaign that you can beat in a few hours.

For starters, I've played 100 shooters, and the shooting aspects here aren't that bad. It actually responds to your fingers, is smooth, and is not unblievably unplayably choppy like a lot of other cheap FPS. The graphics from a distance actually look pretty good, but up close it's like N64 Goldeneye bad.

The levels take only minutes to complete it seems, and even on hard difficulty, it's a joke. You mostly follow someone or a navigation point, so you know what straight line to follow. Objectives are simple at the very most and since you can't veer off to explore, you won't be getting lost. You can use a decent variety of guns, but they all sound the same. Enemy physics are funny at times, explosions are hilarious, and guys fall with ease at the spray of a Thompson.

Aside from that, you can choose to listen to the History channel war buff who narrates the battles while loading. They are just like on TV, and the film and facts shown during those parts are the best parts of the game. But I am just confused why History channel is making games... go flip the history channel or military channel on to get a better experience than this game.

Was this review helpful? Report Abuse

GF Rating
4

Weak

What were they thinking

posted by aneumann (LARCHMONT, NY) Jun 17, 2011

Member since Jun 2011

What were they thinking when they tried to compete with a Came as good as Call of Duty 4:Modern Warfare. With the graphic's and almost same story line every mission (You get ambushed or you plant charges on some Anti Aircraft Gun's) and no story line. To tell you the truth the only think that made me keep the game for more than a hour is the History Channel's coverage of the war progress. Over all the only thing is has on COD 4 is that you get to have three weapons instead of two.

Was this review helpful? Report Abuse

GF Rating
2

Really Bad

bad

posted by 2400 (BENSON, AZ) Jun 16, 2011

Member since May 2011

you did the same thing every mission don't ret it save u the time

Was this review helpful? Report Abuse

GF Rating
1

Horrible

this game really sucks

posted by gamekiller72 (BINGHAMTON, NY) Apr 26, 2011

Member since Apr 2011

to start off i beat the game in like 45 minutes thats how cheaply this game was made action sucks weapons sucks this is the worst war ww2 game i ever played the only good part of the game was the authentic ww2 scenes like the brave marines raising the flag on that island and thats it the rest of the game made me want to stick a knife in both of my eyes so i didnt have to see that game again i have 2 history channel civilwar games that are way better than this game this game made me sick

Was this review helpful? Report Abuse

GF Rating
4

Weak

Avoid this game.

posted by CaptColon (SHIRLEY, NY) Mar 12, 2011

Member since Sep 2005

I'll keep this short since I doubt anyone cares about this game enough to even read a review this many years after it came out:

What a lame game, but I wasn't expecting anything different. Controls are very sluggish (especially turning left and right), and the game looks pretty good in screen shots but I swear at times the frame-rate drops to single digits. And the lack of a sprint button means my AI teammates are always able to run ahead of me. Does History Channel want me to believe there was one guy who just walked casually through the battlefield during World War II with all these bullets flying past and explosions happening all around him? Luckily the game is over quickly and shouldn't take more than three or four hours to finish, but that is assuming you haven't been completely bored of it by then.

Was this review helpful? Report Abuse