2K Games and Destineer's Close Combat: First to Fight is yet another military-themed first person shooter whose main selling point is its authenticity. Co-developed with the help of numerous marines who had just returned from Iraq (though this game isn't supported by the U.S. Marines), it places you and a four-man fire team in the hostile streets of Beirut and charges you with clearing them of the enemy scumbags walking about. It's a solid shooter that sports some interesting features but it never raises to the same level as the more elite Xbox games out there, those being Rainbow Six 3 and Ghost Recon 2. However, that doesn't mean it's not at times exciting and fun to play, that is, unless you've seen it all before.

Close Combat's been on my radar for months but when it released I saw a red flag go up, because while the press had given it a lot of coverage its debut was without fan fare or advertising. It basically just magically appeared on the store shelves, and that's not a good sign for any game, let alone one that's been co-developed by actual marines and supposedly features some of the most sophisticated AI supposedly ever seen in a first person shooter. Thankfully, it turned out pretty good, though in many ways it's lackluster and boring. Leading a four-man fire team against scores of hostile insurgents, you must keep your wits about you if you intend on making it out alive. Since you and your men can only take a few hits before dying (lose two soldiers and the game is over), you can't charge into open areas guns blazing. Much like in Rainbow Six this game is strategic, so you'll slowly creep along, check for enemies by peeking around corners, and in other situations issue a series of orders to your guys, which include storming into rooms, holding their position, or laying down suppressing fire. You can even call in for air strikes, so there are just a bit more options at your disposal than in some of the other shooters.

While your squad will at times need some direction in order to move forward, for the most part they're more than capable of taking care of themselves and you as well (though a few times they'll do something stupid and get killed), and it's here where I began to get frustrated. When enemies pop out your marines are all over them, and they're so accurate that if you're just a step too slow the insurgents are already dead. It's not really a huge complaint because I partially enjoyed having the support, but at the same time this is a videogame and I'd like my share of the action. If I survived Hell in Doom 3 I can kill a few evil doers in Beirut. There are plenty of guys to pop in the head so eventually I was able to get into a groove and take them down, but that leads me to my next complaint: the lack of gore.

What's with these developers? Why am I constantly reading interviews about how their war-based shooter is authentic and it accurately depicts this and its graphics are that, and when I actually play the game and kill someone they just flop over? First to Fight features blood, but the body damage isn't realistic. I know that war's gruesome (it is hell, after all), and that means that if you're developing a game of this type then it needs to be loaded with gore. If I shoot someone in the head I want to know that the bullet's going to leave a mark or better, his or her melon's going to burst. We can argue as to whether Soldier of Fortune is over the top, but at the very least you have to agree with me that it doesn't try to make guns appear to be toys that aren't capable of causing serious bodily damage. Activision, EA, Ubisoft, and now 2K Games have all wimped out and it's unacceptable.

My nitpicking and long-winded rant aside, the single-player game is good if you're into this sort of thing. Much of what you'll be doing is rescuing hostages and assassinating important figureheads, and there's a lot of strategy here. You'll need to clear staircases, battle the enemy in narrow corridors as well as wide open areas, and use your team the best way possible. It's by no means an easy game, so if you blazed through Full Spectrum Warrior and Rainbow Six 3 Black Arrow and need more then it comes recommended, especially since, in addition to online death matching and what not (the game's Xbox Live modes are fairly standard and only supports up to eight players), you can play co-op with up to four other people, and being able to wade through all of the single-player missions with some friends adds great value to the game.

Compared to other games in its genre Close Combat matches some of its competitor's visual quality. The developers have done a good job with First to Fight's character models and environments. As I previously mentioned, transitioning from an indoor to outdoor location spices things up considerably, and whether you're kicking down doors or taking cover in a town square the game looks very pretty. The weapons have been modeled nicely, and the rag doll physics are impressive, but animations are sometimes a little weird, especially when characters run. They can also clip through doors and one another, making things look a bit sloppy.

Close Combat's not a bad game. I don't need to slap it with a "Buyer Beware" sticker, unless of course you're sick and tired of these types of games. If First to Fight offered us something fresh and exciting I'd wholeheartedly recommend it, but it resembles at least five games that have come before it and some of them are better. It's being sold for $39.99 and that's a decent price, but I'd patiently wait a few months until the tag reads $29.99 or even $19.99. When that happens, accept the mission.