Battle: Los Angeles

In conclusion, for a low budget game based on a high budget but really bad movie, Battle: Los Angeles is an "ok" first person shooter but is probably a little steep in terms of price due to the content and length of the game.

The game is thirty minutes long and costs ten dollars. That's thirty three cents a minute to play this game. You'll get better value out of a psychic hotline.

An unfortunate victim of movie tie-in deadlines. Saber Interactive should be commended for what they accomplished with such a short production schedule, but at the same time it is hard to recommend dropping ten bucks on anything that lasts less time than the actual move it is based on.

The game lacks variety, but it also doesn't outstay its welcome. If you want some laughs and don't mind that the shooting experience is average at best, playing through this alien invasion is probably more entertaining than the movie and you'll get some Achievements/Trophies out of it.

Battle: Los Angeles is a slapped-together shooter that'll take you less time to finish than it does to watch the movie it is based on--and it'll cost you almost the same amount of money. [June 2011, p.81]

The best thing to do is download the free demo and try it out yourself. If you end up liking it then wait for when it is on sale. Otherwise, simply go back to your shooter of choice and have fun.

Battle: Los Angeles is a typical movie licensed game. Built and released in a hurry to coincide with the release of the movie, while throwing all notions of good craftsmanship out the window. It's not entirely bad, though, and had this been an iPhone game at the usual price range, it would have been a steal. But with so many strong shooters on offer these days, there's no real reason to play this game.

The length of the game is completely dependent on your difficulty. If you play on Easy, you can breeze through the entire campaign in 30 to 45 minutes. If you crank it up a bit, you are likely looking at a couple hours of playtime. Unfortunately, the lack of multiplayer extremely hamstrings the replay value.

The gameplay is horrendous, and the whole lack of multiplayer makes Battle: LA absolutely worthless.

Although the looks of Battle: Los Angeles are acceptable, the length of the game is not. The price doesn't justify the quality of the game and you'll find yourself longing for a good game even before you reach the end of this incredibly mediocre game, that doesn't even last two hours.

The gaming equivalent of buying a gourmet mince and cheese pie - you'll be uncertain you've got your money's worth, and pretty sure you could have done a better job.

I realise first person shooters are getting shorter these days, but, come on. Did Saber Interactive really imagine that releasing a movie tie-in that you can sleepwalk through inside an hour was going to be acceptable?

Easy, short, linear and with embarrasing flaws in AI, this game is a huge disappointment.

A game that puts all its bets in the good graphics and physics, but neglecting very important things like longevity, plot and gameplay variety. There are game demos out there that offer an highly more rewarding experience than this, and are even free.

A lifeless carcass in the FPS mould lies in its wake. [Issue#109, p.104]

Short, unremarkable, and overpriced, Battle: Los Angeles is a shooter to be avoided.

A mercifully brief battle. [June 2011, p.103]

Thought the movie sucked? Play the game. [June 2011, p.81]

A videogame that thrills almost not at all that also happens to represent atrocious value. [Issue#71, p.102]

The worst 30 minutes of our gaming year so far. Please don't make it yours as well. [June 2011, p.119]