Close Combat: First to Fight

What it offers in terms of gameplay has been done before, and done better by the likes of "Rainbow Six," "Ghost Recon" and, to a lesser extent, "Full Spectrum Warrior." To put it simply, Close Combat is a little rough around the edges.

With a little more work, this game could have been exceptional, but unfortunately, it stops its ascent to greatness with simply average.

Gets some things right, but if the poor AI and numerous glitches were ironed out then it could have been one of the finest tours of duty around. As it stands, it's an excellent multiplayer game that just can't compete with some of its rivals.

Despite the intervention of the US Marines, there are some glaring flaws, which have somehow been overlooked.

The game is not a bad outing by any standards, but it also just doesn't have the depth nor the sure fire power to hang with the other big boys that are already on the Xbox.

I think the worst flaw as far as the AI is concerned was the fact that the reaction time of your unit at times was extremely sluggish.

There's nothing specifically wrong with First to Fight, it's just that the single-player simply doesn't do anything more than provide you with terrorists to shoot.

Overall, First to Fight is an entertaining game. The graphics are okay while super-patriotic music is something Hans Zimmer would be proud of. For those who yearn for modern warfare, First Fight is not a bad, if not very original, choice. [July 2005, p.60]

It's still decent shoot-'em-up entertainment, and adding snipers, airstrikes, and mortar attacks to your armoury is a nice touch, but perhaps too much time was spent talking tactics rather than delivering an original game that has true hands-on appeal.

Single player was only marginally enjoyable, but playing First to Fight on co-op mode is something you can do while your friend gets drunk, while you play some rock and roll in the background, and eat some pizza.

When it comes right down to it, First to Fight will have a tough time competing for your time and money when compared to other, flashier games. But it's got a strong identity and satisfying gameplay.

If you can put up with annoying controls, stupid team mates, and what simply feels like a rushed title, then there are some moments in Close Combat: First to Fight which are rewarding, but overall the game really isn't worth the trouble.

Good level design and multiplayer options raise CCFTF to a higher standard but it is not enough to make up for abysmal AI, rough graphics and questionable realism.

So the game doesn't innovate, its story isn't anything special, the graphics are only average and it isn't the most exciting game around but does that mean it's bad? Not really, you aren't going to be in pain playing it, but you're also not going to get sucked in like the game should do.

An enormous let down in most regards. Many well done elements and innovative features are present in this title, but they just aren't executed well.

Overall, Close Combat: First To Fight doesn't have the looks or the sound, but what it does have is the fun-factor.

This simply plays like a buggy military training application, and forgets to deliver the entertainment that you'd expect to find in a video game. [May 2005, p.121]

The programmers seem to have assumed incredibly hard and geologically slow pacing equals realism, yet have completely ignored any attempt at realism in other areas like e.g. being able to completely heal a marine who's been shot mutiple times with the contents of a bathroom medical cabinet (clearly, the brands of elastoplast and aspirin they have in Beirut are a lot more potent).

First to Fight's flawed A.I. and abbreviated single-player game certainly don't advance the FPS genre in a significant way, but its entertaining multiplayer component scores a welcome bull's-eye.

There's no denying that First to Fight is a competent shooter, though some moronic AI decisions, clipping, and the simple fact that games such as this have been done to death make it less than impressive.

It's more Jerry Bruckheimer than it is Tom Clancy, but in a subgenre that's become notorious for being a tad too clinical, that's probably not a bad thing.

Despite its frustrating flaws, there is still an authentic and challenging military games experience to be had.

It's all one big corridor, with the same enemies starting out in the same place each time you hit 'retry'.