Sony's PlayStation 3 military shooter, SOCOM Confrontation, takes the series in a drastic new direction. Instead of including a single-player campaign with multiplayer options, it's strictly an online only affair. That'd be fine if it wasn't ruined by numerous glitches.
Like Warhawk before it, SOCOM Confrontation provides multiple options for PlayStation Network users including detailed maps, a mixture of five new North African-themed settings and classic SOCOM favorites from previous games. You also choose between various International Special Forces teams, multiple uniform types and other options, such as facial and physical features. From there, you can jump into an online match and work alongside others to complete missions. There's even leaderboard, tournament and clan ladder support, so you can see how you measure up against others.
Despite these modes, glitches ruin the fun. Constant freeze-ups force you to reset your PlayStation 3, and the long load times and slow menu navigation certainly don't help either. This results in tedious waiting just to get a match set up, if it ever occurs. It looks as if the problem regarding exiting a match and checking its time limit were remedied, but other issues still remain.
Developer Slant Six made some changes for the better, including a bigger emphasis on team play (you can't win a match by yourself) and removing vehicles. However, manual weapon switching sometimes leads to an early death in the heat of combat. For instance, if you have a rifle and need to throw a grenade, it's slightly more complex than just tossing it. This small delay takes just enough time to turn the tide in a battle, leaving you vulnerable to enemy attack. Furthermore, even something as simple as changing gun views takes a little longer than expected. This is one of those times in which realism should've taken a backseat to efficiency, even for SOCOM.
It's sad that these problems occur, because the rest of SOCOM Confrontation is superb. The visuals are surprisingly crisp, with a steady frame rate (even with 32 players at once), gorgeous map designs, smooth character models and realistic lighting effects. It all unfolds at 1280 X 720 resolution, so you've always got a clear view of what's ahead.
Sound quality is also unparalleled. Weapons go off in all directions and bullets whiz past. If you fork over the extra $20 for the bundle, you'll also get the excellent Bluetooth headset. This device works magnificently, not only delivering crystal-clear sound but also blocking out unnecessary background noise.
SOCOM Confrontation has a solid presentation, but the lobby options are severely broken, weapon switching is a chore and the lack of a campaign mode hurts. This is one tour of duty we'll decline until the proper patches are in place.
Reader Comments (48)
wow, I'm not surprised that I'm being called immature by someone who's comprehension level is almost at the bare minimum. Point out any instance where I was being immature with my assertions or I was being extremely rude with my statements. To be honest, I don't take offense to it at all, because people do need to point out the issues with the game in the state that it's in. But don't make false claims about things that don't exist. I played the game during the beta and when it shipped out, and the things that I called out that Mr. Robert here decided to post about were never in the game in the way he depicted it. And yes it does matter when someone who's supposed to be a professional talks about things in the game that don't even exist. You obviously must not taken into consideration the amount of people who decide to buy games based on reviews. So don't you think it means a great deal for someone to write something false about a game, and people who are on the fence read it, and decide not to check it out because that person was ill informed? Case in point, when Fox news started reporting that Mass Effect had full frontal nudity and obscene sex scenes, when people who played the game knew other wise. We saw what kind of debacle that caused, mainly because the people at Fox were talking about it with no prior knowledge and making the game look worse than what it was. If you can't understand that, then I'm sorry for your lack of common sense.
5/10? ur talking about bugs in the beta that arnt even in the full game. Your chatting ****
Rob... I'm not sure that there was ever an issue with exiting the game or checking the time limit. I never once saw that happen, not even in the beta. Highlight that entire paragraph, and press delete, or better yet, just remove the whole review and leave the score. Go play the game for real this time and THEN write a review, not the other way around.
It looks like the match time and quit issues were fixed, so the review now reflects that. Doesn't explain the rest of the game's issues, however. And good call, kvhudson.
makaveli8891- Its fine to criticize and point out inaccuracies in something someone is saying. You however did so in a very immature manner and went right into the insults as if you were personally insulted. So just how do you think I'm the biased one here? Anyway, my whole point was this game is unplayable the way it currently is. Fine there are errors with this review, but who cares?! The game still sucks right now and no one is going to have a decent review until the game is actually working. You guys are wasting energy on someone who was simply disappointed with the game. If you want to bash someone for your personal amusement, go after slant six.
One thing is for sure. Rob's Socom review has a lower approval rating than George W. Bush.
that's good to hear.. atleast some people have a bit of sense.
BTW, I think IGN said it best in their review... http://ps3.ign.com/articles/921/921739p1.html "...reviewing the game isn't even possible right now."
*sigh*...you obviously missed the point dude. nobody is arguing with him about saying the servers are bad. and I don't think you can find any socom fan that's content with the state that this game is in. what's ridiculous is how inaccurate he is with his assertions. if you can't see that, then you obviously have some bias towards the matter. and it's kind of crazy that you're saying who cares about the contents of the review. if no body should care about it, then it shouldn't be mentioned.
kvhudson, I consider myself a diehard fan of SOCOM and and even I'm disappointed in the launch of this game(as are most other diehard fans I know) and I don't have a problem the negative reviews/comments I've seen from people who have played it. And while Rob is certainly intitled to his opinion just like the rest of us, it would nice, however, if he based those opinions on facts, especially when there are people out there that will decided whether or not they'll purchase a game based on reviews on sites such as this one. That's the only problem I have with the review, not the score, but the thought that popped into my head when I read the third paragraph(there's no way he played this game for an extended period of time). But i'll say this, no, you shouldn't buy this game yet if you're not a diehard fan of the series(most "fanboys" have it already). Wait til they finish all the patches, check the reviews again in about a month or two when reviewers can actually play the game enough to make solid review. As of right now, the game plays like a beta(this is coming from someone that actually played the beta, closed and public, and has been trying to play the game since the release) and you won't get much enjoyment out of getting disconnected every other match.