Frontlines: Fuel of War Reviews

  • Tasty PastryTasty Pastry384,220
    29 Mar 2009 07 Jan 2010
    38 8 13
    Frontlines: Fuel of War Review
    Forward Notes:


    This is one of the first games I rented, and at the time I really got into it. Since then time has passed, but my desire to improve my completion percentage increased, which prompted me to purchase the game. Since then I’ve realized some more of the glaring faults with the game, but I’ve also been able to integrate what made me succumb to purchasing the game in the first place. Let’s get this review started.

    Single Player:
    This game is foremost a first person shooter. Granted, there are quite a few of those on the Xbox 360, and this one tries to differentiate itself. The storyline is where it makes the most gains in being individualized, so let me go over that first. The idea is that, a couple years from now, the world realizes that the oil supply is running low. Because of this the most industrialized countries decide to go to war in an attempt to salvage it all for themselves. Despite it seeming like you should see guys from the UK, Australia, Canada, France, Germany, etc, etc, it boils down to mostly a fight between Russia and the USA. Your character, an American, is given a significant amount of responsibility in leading charges and teams in an attempt to cripple the Russian forces.

    Now if you can’t see some of the glaring faults here, let me lay them out to you. First of all, you spend a significant amount of time in tanks and other vehicles. Do you know what tanks and vehicles use for power? That’s right, gasoline. That’s right, we’re using excessive amounts of gasoline to fight for the limited supply of prospective gasoline. roll. Beyond that, it just plain doesn’t seem logical that the USA and Russia would kill each other over some oil instead of, I don’t know, developing some alternative technology? But if you ignore these obvious pitfalls, and just go with the philosophy of ignorance is bliss, the storyline is at least, in many ways, original.

    The first person shooter gameplay is pretty generic however. The game utilizes the “I’m not getting shot so my health restores” system, and there are quite a few cases of seemingly unending and re-spawning enemies. However, the games shooting system is at the very least, very precise, and the M16 is fun to play with. The game comes with seemingly endless waves of enemies, which means there is plenty to shoot, which, after all, is the main point of the game. However, with many hordes of enemies also comes tedious and repetitive gameplay, and after a couple of levels you might need to put down the controller to refocus your eyes.

    The game has around six or so levels, give or take, and each one has a cutscene before it, to keep you informed of the plot. The game utilizes the objective based system, often times adding additional objectives when the game calls for it. Finish an objective and you’ll free up new directions to enter, and lots of time grab an ammo drop to replenish. The controls are relatively okay when you’re walking on the ground, and it does utilize a sprint system (similar to the COD franchise) that makes it a lot less tedious to trek around. However, I very much did not like some of the levels that focused more around the tanks, since it seemed they asked for way too precise of evading with the two stick control system.
    In the end you can guess how the plot ends, but there are some twists and turns. The game can get relatively tedious with the endless supply of enemies, and vehicle driving can get upsetting. It often times feels like you’re getting objectives tacked on for non reason, and you can run around confused every once in a while.

    Single Player Score: 4/10

    Multiplayer:


    I must admit, I was pleasantly surprised when I signed into Xbox Live at three am USA central time and found four people online playing this game. I was so amazed in fact that I openly laughed out loud. In all honesty, I don’t think the game is good enough to foster an online community, but for reasons beyond me it was capable of doing so apparently. There are achievements related to the online multiplayer, which might have explained it, but considering I initially joined a game with just one other person, I honestly think he was just interested in playing.
    If you’re curious, even though it was my first time playing, I went 2-2, with a suicide. It seems that if you’ve played one first person shooter you can play this one, especially online, though knowing the “camping spots” (if there are some???) and the level layout would be, obviously, beneficial. I encountered virtually no lag and the maps and spawn points seemed solid enough. Of course, I was only one of four players online, and I only played for around thirty minutes, so if someone with more multiplayer knowledge disagrees with my assessment, please write a comment below.

    Multiplayer Score: 7/10

    Sound/Graphics/DLC/Intangibles:


    The game actually looks relatively good graphically, especially in the cutscenes. You can tell that humans are humans, and there is a bit of detail on their bodies. The building structures is where they took the most amount of time, and it honestly does look good. However, I thought almost all the vehicles looked sub-par and the explosions were amateurish at best. Reloading sequences were solid and your M16 did in fact look like an M16.

    The sound could have used some help, but for the most part you’ll hear the explosions of tank shells, the sound of reloading magazines and bullets, and the yells of soldiers in battle. The cutscene dialogue is all right, but it is at least all very audible and coherent. I think better background music would have really improved the game, and more than once I was spinning in circles trying to figure out where the sound of the enemies’ bullets were coming from – almost always resulting in death.

    The game is missing that “umph”, that individuality that would make me say “hey, this is better than this shooter because ____”. Sure, it didn’t do anything blatantly wrong, at least anything that couldn’t be overlooked if there was something that made this game special. Yes, you can kill those bad guys, but countless torso shots with your M16, despite how fun, can get tedious after a while. Never once in the game did I go “Wow, that’s fun to use!” or “I’ve never done that before in a game”. My computer allies AI was also incredibly disappointing, and more than once I’d die because I couldn’t walk past them.

    Sound/Graphics/DLC/Intangibles Score: 5/10

    Achievements:


    Probably the most frustrating part of the game for me was the achievements. It’s nice in that it gives you an achievement for each level you beat, but then it looks like the developers couldn’t think of anything else. It almost seems to me like they had a board meeting and went “what can we do for achievements?” and the weird guy in the back said “I know! Let’s have for one achievement be beat level ___ in less than ___ amount of time, and for another achievement be beat level ___ without losing a life!”. Everyone went “yea, that’s a great idea! Let’s figure out the rest of the achievements!”.

    Then it’s like they had a giant silence as they sat around until one of the guys went “I know, let’s just take those two achievements suggested and put them on all of the levels to save time!”. Sure, beating level one without dying and in under that time limit was challenging and fun, but doing the same thing on every level became tedious, frustrating, and upsetting, especially when the levels reached thirty minutes in length and you’d die in the twenty-eighth minute. Perhaps they could have gotten away with it if the game had been just a bit more intriguing, but it isn’t, and the achievement become a chore. Throw in some online achievements that will almost certainly require online boosting and you have a recipe for disaster.

    Achievements Score: 3/10

    Total Score: 19/40 = 4.75/10 = 2.375/5

    Final Thoughts:

    As I said before, the game is missing that one thing that would differentiate itself from the pack – something that would make itself a special third person shooter from the plethora that are available on the 360. An interesting storyline, but full of obvious flaws, and repetitive gameplay, combined with mediocre sound and graphics only amplify the tedious achievements. If you’re in the mood to shoot down relentless amounts of bad guys though, this may indeed be the game for you, who knows.

    If you disagree with my opinion, or feel I misrepresented something, I ask of you to please leave a comment instead of negative feedback. I’m interested in improving my reviews at all time, and I take a significant amount of time on each one. If you feel I didn’t improve it within a day, then your negative feedback is deserved.
    Thanks!
    2.0
    Showing most recent comments. View all comments.
    KanjiKokaI'm sorry. I have to disagree...

    Have you used the sniper rifle in this game? Very precise aiming is totally absent when you pull the trigger.

    But overall, thanks for the review...silly achievements indeed.
    Posted by KanjiKoka on 16 Feb 10 at 07:42
    MIL5Ynice review pastry, ill cya online tonite mate..
    Posted by MIL5Y on 03 Mar 10 at 14:11
    Lozzy DentonI have to partially disagree with you here Mr P. Campaign aside, the multiplayer is quite excellent. When you get into a 64 player versus match you'll know what I mean. The battles can get pretty epic, and it's clear what a difference it makes to have an army at your side. Add to that a sprinkling of helicopters, jets and tanks, and you have yourself a battlefield.

    The maps used on those 64 player matches are too big to camp, so you won't have any of that nonsense. Those who may try to camp will get very bored very fast.

    Plus, they run on dedicated servers, so are lag free dependant on your connection.

    Personally, I feel this game really tried when it comes to multiplayer, but it just did not have the pulling power to become successful. I feel that if it was given more of a chance and more advertising it would have done better. Then again, the campaign leaves much to be desired imo.
    Posted by Lozzy Denton on 23 Mar 10 at 00:37
    Tasty PastryTo be honest I've never found more than 4 people online at a time. You got a 64 player game for this?? If so, wow, was probably very fun! Just figured it never really happened.

    Thanks loz for your comment
    Posted by Tasty Pastry on 23 Mar 10 at 01:23
    CeeDaRulaA friend of mine got this game free for me. It sat on the shelf I looked and never played it. Then one day I was frustrated with the lag one day while playing Gears of War I put in Frontlines: Fuel of War, this was in October of 2010. I was surprised that the graphics looked decent for 3 year old game. While there is wave after wave of enemies, it 's still fun. In multiplayer I have found up to 16 players (as of 3/24/2011), which does keep it fun, but with no other friends that really own the game randoms really don't like to work together.

    Main thing that I don't like? The saving system! Boy if you forgot where you played last, well too bad, try that chapter again! :( When it comes to the story, it is weak, but they do address the subject about alternative technology and why nobody is seeing any.
    I do like that what I aim at dies and there is no feelable lag which in part may be that there isn't 64 players online playing this game.

    While I would have loved to see the chaos playing with 63 other people, I can still pick it up and play it. Can't say that about some newer games out now.
    Posted by CeeDaRula on 24 Mar 11 at 19:19
    SpectreSubZeroThe multiplayer for this game is surprisingly fun, but overall this game is just garbage. I picked it up for about $5 so I can't complain to much, but I wouldn't pay any more than that, for this game
    Posted by SpectreSubZero on 14 Nov 11 at 18:12
    COMMANDO XTCFRONTLINES - FUEL OF WAR is dead game now when it comes to multiplayer. But in its prime (and that was for about 2 and a half year after its release in late 2008) there were thousands of players online and the 50 players servers were unique at that time on XBOX LIVE (64 was only on PC - I might be wrong, but as far as I know Frontlines is still the only game with 50 players servers). On maps such as Oilfield and Solar Farm 50 players created an excellent Battlefield-like atmosphere.

    FRONTLINES - FUEL OF WAR had a huge and loyal fanbase for many years. The multiplayer was the core of the game. And the fact that squad teamplay was the key to success it gave birth to many big and dedicated clans and gaming communities. Just take a look at the leaderboards to see how many hours the top players played and you will understand.

    So if the reviewer played the mulitplayer at the time he wrote his review (March 2009) and only found 4 people online, then I'm serioulsy wondering what game he actually played. Because at that time it was more difficult to find a server with room to join then finding other players - because ALL of the official KAOS servers plus the private servers were crammed with thousands of players from all over the world ALL THE TIME!
    Posted by COMMANDO XTC on 29 Jun 12 at 18:10
    Mobius EvalonI see this game as Kaos Studios' test fart before releasing the beast with Homefront. The voice actors, sound effects, several facets of the premise, and many other things were copy-pasted directly into it. I like Frontlines a hell of a lot better though. It has an Unreal Tournament arcade type of feel to it where you're basically dumped into a multiplayer map and given multiplayer-like objectives to complete, but it feels a lot more epic and a lot more fun than Homefront ever was. Not to mention, the multiplayer achievements would take an hour to finish in Frontlines if the ranked servers weren't already gone.

    On the subject of achievements, I disagree with your assessment. It was a cakewalk to finish the single player in 4 hours and I completed ironman and stopwatch achievements for nearly every mission at the same time. The only one I missed was killing myself by accident with a railgun in the third mission because I fired it into the sandbags I was taking cover behind.
    Posted by Mobius Evalon on 17 Feb 13 at 12:34
    The Defender XFirstly, this is a Classic game.

    I have to disagree with this review and how this reviewer came up to give this game only 2 stars is beyond my inderstanding. I totally agree with both comments above me from COMMANDO XTC and Mobius Evalon.

    I personally have a simpler way to rate any game. If the fun factor is set to high, brings you good laughs with memorable moments and comes with excellent gameplay along with a fast learning curve and that you still can enjoy the game at its fullest even though you might not be the best player, it will automatically get 4 stars from me. If it also has an arcade feel of it, great graphics and engaging story then it will get 5 stars. I give this game 4.5 stars.

    Would I recommend getting this game today, 5 years after its release? Yes.. If you are lucky enough, you should find it pre-owned real cheap. Even though you would have miss out when tons of players and these hardcore players roamed the multiplayer server rooms, you will still find people playing this game on Live and you will still enjoy the thrill of playing these multiplayer games today. Hardcore gamer's have moved along to other games which is not necessarily a bad thing.

    I also enjoyed the solo campaign and its achievements, completing them were not hard to understand and to accomplish but mostly had that rewarding satisfaction when completing them. It is totally worth the price you would pay today for this game. If you don't have it, find it.. you will not regret it.
    Posted by The Defender X on 13 Mar 13 at 12:36
    Tasty PastryThere is definitely value for the cost of this game now, especially in just some mindless shooting. Thanks for the comment, even if you do not agree.

    Cheers
    Posted by Tasty Pastry on 13 Mar 13 at 19:56