History Channel: Battle for the Pacific for PlayStation 3

GF Rating

3

Bad

To quote Thomas Hobbes (completely out of context)

posted by GFR013 (MERRIFIELD, VA) Feb 23, 2008

Member since Jul 2004

29 out of 36 gamers (81%) found this review helpful

this game is "nasty, brutish, and short". To start things off I'll say this game took me just over 2 hours to finish. Granted that was just on easy/solo (perhaps there is more to the multiplayer which I don't really get into), but 2 hours is incredibly short for any game.

The graphics were decent, had this been a game for the PS2. Considering this is going up against things like COD4, GRAW2 and pretty much any of the newer shooters, this is a step backwards. The sound was ok, but frequently everything was drowned out by the consistent artillery (this is probably very realistic I imagine, but not very helpful in a game). I don't know the history of this game but I see it was a PS2 release not too long ago so I suspect this was just a direct port without any sort of update.

As far as the game play itself, there are 10 levels covering various parts of the pacific campaign of WW2. In reality though there are only 2 settings, the landing beach/trench and the jungle level. No matter the setting you are following someone who constantly tells you to keep up, until he randomly decides to stop and wait and wait... until you decide to go on and then he'll complain that you're not following orders and finally start moving again. Regarding combat, the aiming was very generous on your side. The enemy however can't aim, I never had to seek cover and the one time I died was from an artillery shell. Also frequently, you may find yourself in a hand to hand situation because your allies and the enemy would just run into each other (sometimes even ignoring each other until they were close together).

The one interesting thing about the game was the intermix of color documentary footage from WW2. Frankly though there are enough other ways out there to get access to this it's not worth it for that alone. Considering it's a History Channel game I would have thought there would be more special features/info about the settings/battles but none was to be found.

Was this review helpful? Report Abuse

GF Rating

2

Really Bad

I should've listened... Pretty Bad!

posted by archquestr (NORTHUMBERLAND, PA) Jun 5, 2008

Member since Apr 2008

5 out of 6 gamers (83%) found this review helpful

Wow, I read the reviews, but I went ahead and rented it anyway... Shame on me! I let my love of History and shooter games convince me that I should at least give this game a try and boy do I regret it.
I had this game for one day, played for 1 hour. I nearly had the game beat.... but I just couldn't take it anymore.
The graphics are incredibly sub-par for a PS3 game (I would even say they stink for PS2)...
The game play is rather slow to develop.
The bad guys are a joke. I'm not sure if you can even die.
Your sergeant is an idiot and the game stalls all the time.
Please... trust the reviews on this site. This game is pretty bad. It is not very fun at all. And you don't even get a very good History lesson out of it!

Was this review helpful? Report Abuse

GF Rating

1

Horrible

Worst shooter game i have ever played

posted by Tokio9 (VAN NUYS, CA) Mar 26, 2008

Member since Oct 2005

4 out of 5 gamers (80%) found this review helpful

Well this game was really horrible overall, the graphics arent up to date at all also i was very frustrated with the AI in this game. the AI your supposed to follow runs alot faster than you can and you spend alot of the time catching up to them or at other times the AI seems to have some sort of a blank moment and doesnt move at all. I played one level and sent this game right back to gamefly cause it simply is a waste of time.

Was this review helpful? Report Abuse

GF Rating

1

Horrible

Battle for the Pacific Worst FPS ever

posted by phill201 (LANSING, MI) Mar 15, 2008

Member since Feb 2008

6 out of 8 gamers (75%) found this review helpful

Took less than an hour and a half to finish. Every level is basically the same concept. Run through a narrow space and shoot at the 3 guys in front of you. The people on your team run faster than you can and yell at you to keep up. Absolutely annoying. Weapon selection is minimal. Storyline is boring. The visuals are adequate to poor. The only reason it took an hour and a half to finish is b/c you can fail missions at the drop of a hat for stopping to pick up a weapon. I never write reviews and I probably never will again but if I can stop you from renting this game then I at least feel better about my wasted time. Played a lot of games and this is absolutely the biggest loser in any category on the market. I pity anyone who buys it.

Was this review helpful? Report Abuse

GF Rating

5

Fair

History Channel: Battle for the Pacific

posted by Duster (LOLO, MT) Apr 22, 2008

Member since Dec 2007

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

While this game does not fall flat on its face, it will be disappointing to most gamers. Short missions (that are all very repetitive and are in some case the same missions simply renamed), so-so graphics and several game glitches make this game a frustrating bore. To make matters worse, most proficient gamers should be able to beat the entire game inside of an hour.

As excited as I was about have a WWII shooter based on the Pacific theater, this game fell well short of the mark.

Was this review helpful? Report Abuse

GF Rating

1

Horrible

Don't Bother.

posted by Thanos57 (MOORESVILLE, NC) Mar 9, 2008

Member since Feb 2008

7 out of 10 gamers (70%) found this review helpful

Just another horrible game trying to capture the already played out WWII. Takes forever and a day to load, and the missions and graphics are weak. I am a huge fan of shoot em ups and this is one of the worst I have ever played.

Was this review helpful? Report Abuse

GF Rating

1

Horrible

wow....

posted by Artimus (CICERO, NY) Oct 4, 2008

Member since Jul 2008

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

no comment.

Was this review helpful? Report Abuse

GF Rating

1

Horrible

worst game ever

posted by dameon666 (SELBYVILLE, DE) Apr 21, 2008

Member since Feb 2008

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

this game is the worst game i've ever played its worst then bewolf i couldn't bare to play 10 min. of the game it sucks

Was this review helpful? Report Abuse

GF Rating

1

Horrible

Abysmal

posted by REVJR1 (ROANOKE, VA) Feb 25, 2008

Member since Jul 2007

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

Remember MOH's Rising Sun way back in 2003? I have a sentimental attachment to that title: it was one of the earlier games I played on PS2, flawed yet still somehow compelling. Battle for the Pacific makes Rising Sun look like COD4 in comparison - okay, an exaggeration, but you get my point.

Everything negative you've heard about this game is true. The promise of a solid Pacific-themed WWII FPS for consoles disappears in about two seconds. The audio is terrible, from the repetitive, unconvincing dialogue down to the flat, hollow sounds of your weapons. The character animation is poorly detailed; faces have all the expressiveness of pancakes. Troops move for the most part with little of the fluidity we expect from a current gaming engine. AI is a disgrace: Japanese stand clumped in groups and fire at you in the open or rush right in front of your machine gun emplacement. The graphics show no sign of any inventiveness or effort by the programmers - everything is pale, dull, and blocky. There's no blood, either - I may be morbid, but I EXPECT gore in a game now and some correspondingly vivid body reactions to gunfire. Others have already pointed out the fact that you have to follow your idiotic, useless sergeant - no free roaming allowed - and he often stands in one place doing nothing.

I'm not one of those who complains about a glut of WWII games - I love 'em. But I've been waiting so long for a great Pacific title that this one comes as a particular disappointment. Heck, I know that not many shooters on PS3 measure up to GRAW and COD4. Is it too much to ask that they at least be as good as a game we played five years ago on PS2?

Was this review helpful? Report Abuse

GF Rating

1

Horrible

I would have rated this game zero but...

posted by VoltesV (DUMONT, NJ) Mar 9, 2008

Member since Sep 2007

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

Nothing good to say about this game. Bad clunky over-recycled graphics, short incoherent story line, stupid catch-up-with-the-sargent- or- else gameplay, come-out-of-nowhere enemy AI... so to all gamefly co-customers: don't even bother to touch this one.

It makes me wonder what motive the developers of this game had for releasing such nonesense in this time and age of 3D gaming. Please!!!

Was this review helpful? Report Abuse

GF Rating

3

Bad

Bad Boring and Broken

posted by thejimmeh (BOULDER CREEK, CA) Feb 26, 2008

Member since May 2004

2 out of 5 gamers (40%) found this review helpful

Dear History Channel/Activision,
Thanks for nothing. This game is lacking in all areas. The graphics are poor by modern standards, the controls are clunky, the storyline is abysmal and worst of all the AI is just plain broken. Most of the mission objectives involve following an ally, but many, many times the person you're supposed to follow doesn't go anywhere or gets stuck staring at a wall. Although there are plenty of WWII shooters, this one had the advantage of being based on battles in the Pacific, which makes it unique. Unfortunately the makers did everything wrong after picking the right subject. Verdict: a complete pile.

Was this review helpful? Report Abuse

GF Rating

4

Weak

disappointing

posted by zabuza14 (ROCHESTER, NY) Jun 1, 2008

Member since May 2008

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

the game was fun but too short

Was this review helpful? Report Abuse

GF Rating

2

Really Bad

One of the shortest games ever

posted by tenpointer (Lancaster, OH) Feb 27, 2008

Member since Mar 2007

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

The story line is bad. I sat down to play the game and a little over 2 hours I was done. Very short game. I thought with the History Channels name on this it would go into detail but nothing.

Was this review helpful? Report Abuse

GF Rating

1

Horrible

AWFULLLLL!!!!!

posted by Flame3211 (ARLINGTON, VA) Jan 11, 2012

Member since Jan 2008

this is quite possible the worst game ever. Everything about it stinks.

Was this review helpful? Report Abuse

GF Rating

1

Horrible

Bad veryBADDDDDDDDDD

posted by lennyf67 (WEST HAZLETON, PA) Aug 21, 2011

Member since Aug 2011

well thats 2 hours of my life i will never get back usually dont do the comment thing but had to be the worst game i ever played

Was this review helpful? Report Abuse

GF Rating

4

Weak

too many glitches to ...

posted by Mochi1965 (HONOLULU, HI) Feb 9, 2011

Member since Jan 2011

there are too many glitches i could not even get to the very first save point. >:(

Was this review helpful? Report Abuse

GF Rating

10

Perfect

THE BEST WW2 GAME IVE PLAYED!!!

posted by Saltyspam (MURRIETA, CA) Jan 9, 2011

Member since May 2010

IVE NEVER PLAYED AN AWESOMER WW2 GAME IVE EVER PLAYED BETTER THAN THE MOVIE E.T.
FUN FOR THE WHOLE FAMILY THE GAME IN EXCISTICNE!!!!!!11!!!!!
RENT IT NOW!!!!

Was this review helpful? Report Abuse

GF Rating

1

Horrible

WOW!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

posted by wiiwiiwii1 (OROVILLE, CA) Nov 29, 2010

Member since Nov 2010

I don't even know what to say, this game is a joke, it just has to be.
this game IS A COMPLIETE PILE OF CRUDE. short keep up story,
with objective that DON'T EVEN MAKE SENTS. dont bother buying, dont bother renting, DONT BOTHER TOUCHING IT, please i beg with all that is within me, with all my heart soul and STREATH dont RENT BUY LOOK TOUCH. ITS a complete discrace. JUST LISTEN and TO ME ALL THE OTHERS DON'T DO IT PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Was this review helpful? Report Abuse

GF Rating

5

Fair

not

posted by Gamepylr09 (MYRTLE BEACH, SC) Sep 30, 2010

Member since Sep 2010

Long enough needs to be longer but nice graphics

Was this review helpful? Report Abuse

GF Rating

5

Fair

Like The Civil War, adequate.

posted by EvanCD (BERTHOUD, CO) Jul 20, 2010

Member since Dec 2008

Just like the other one, but in a different scenario and no replayability, but the guns feel ten times better.

Was this review helpful? Report Abuse

GF Rating

4

Weak

Too ez

posted by mutantbuzz (CORTEZ, CO) Jun 9, 2010

Member since Jun 2010

Finneshed game in one 2 hr setting on easy setting

Was this review helpful? Report Abuse

GF Rating

8

Very Good

Not too bad.

posted by Drzronnie (GAP, PA) Mar 20, 2010

Member since Mar 2010

I don't see why this game gets such bad reveiws. Is it the best shooter...no, best WWII game....no, is it fun......yes. It is not the best at anything but I really like it. The lil video clips in between missions are neat. Would I buy it.....no but you should really rent it if you are into war games and like history.

Was this review helpful? Report Abuse

GF Rating

5

Fair

IT OK i like it.... some what it could be better

posted by NJKIDD (TRENTON, NJ) Jan 19, 2010

Member since Jan 2010

I think that this game is ok. The graphs could be better its like ps2 ish. But i think the story mode is good.. we all know nothing can match up to CALL OF DUTY. This is one of the game u either like it or hate it. You would have to play it.

Was this review helpful? Report Abuse

GF Rating

1

Horrible

stick to tv

posted by trinniboy6 (LANSFORD, PA) Oct 28, 2009

Member since Oct 2004

history channel might know how to make a tv show but a game no clue.i played this for 3 min and felt no excitement.they have you follow people around no biggie right WRONG you follow a guy that just stops in the middle of nowhere and does noting in what is supposed to be a big battle if our real soldiers fought like that we would be eating a lot more sushi.dont wast your time.

Was this review helpful? Report Abuse

GF Rating

2

Really Bad

Boring

posted by Silverback (WILLITS, CA) Sep 23, 2009

Member since Aug 2008

I like the History channel so I thought with their name on a game in might be good. Ha was I wrong. Graphics are o.k. Game play is boring. Not open to roaming, if you stray too far from path,game done.Foul. After intial battle on the beach I got tired of standing around waiting for the "Sarge" to do something to follow, we all just stood around shooting at nothing,and the game would not progress. If you play it good luck. I'll stick to other more playable games thank you.

Was this review helpful? Report Abuse

History Channel: Battle for the Pacific for PlayStation 3 Reviews by Gamers

Release Date

GF Rating

Number of Players

ESRB

Compatible With

Buy