| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Massively, and more

Reader Comments (18)

Posted: Mar 27th 2010 4:38PM Accessgranted said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Looks like it could be fun! :)
Reply

Posted: Mar 27th 2010 4:41PM (Unverified) said

  • Half a heart
  • Report
Only 16 player online. That can not best Dice which has 24 player online in 1943 or more like 12 vs 12 in all matches online even private. This is what made private matches with friends a little harder to put together since it was not thought through very well...
Reply

Posted: Mar 27th 2010 4:50PM Acosta02 said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
So is MAG the best shooter ever then? It has the most players.


And this would explain why Left 4 Dead sucks so much.

(sarcasm)
Reply

Posted: Mar 27th 2010 4:54PM Soundwave said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
It's much easier to work as a team with 8 people than it is with 12. I see no problems here.
Reply

Posted: Mar 27th 2010 5:04PM JamesHks said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
more players != more fun
Reply

Posted: Mar 27th 2010 5:23PM Captain Planet Planeteer Power said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
8 vs 8 is perfectly suitable for the type of game Breach is trying to be. From this story, it sounds like Mercenaries FPS style.
Reply

Posted: Mar 27th 2010 8:03PM aristokrat said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I'd bet that 8 vs 8 is ideal as it'll let everyone personally mete out more destruction. Too many people blowing too many things up and the map just becomes flat, so you ideally want the rate of destruction to carry through the entire game. And who knows, maybe these are smaller maps to force more combat. Tons of explanations other than sheer numbers = better.
Reply

Posted: Mar 27th 2010 4:41PM Soundwave said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Sounds like it will be snipers snipers snipers snipers. :/
Reply

Posted: Mar 27th 2010 5:28PM SpacePenguinBot said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Depends on how far you can fire the noob toob.
Reply

Posted: Mar 27th 2010 5:09PM Dr Acula said

  • Half a heart
  • Report
8 v 8?
Please Atomic Games, can we atleast has 16 on 16 for maximum squad based shootan fun?
Reply

Posted: Mar 27th 2010 7:42PM Foetoid said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Tell that to L4D.
Reply

Posted: Mar 27th 2010 11:56PM Dr Acula said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
PROTIP: L4D is a co-op zombie shootan,
this is a squad based shootan with destructible environments,
more persons allows for more carnage and destruction and the
game just loves flaunting it's "junk."
Reply

Posted: Mar 27th 2010 5:42PM cylet said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
the kind of game where your squad is behind cover until someone blows the sh*t out of it and the genius of your squad shouts "BREAAAAACH!"
Reply

Posted: Mar 27th 2010 6:40PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I got a chance to play a 4 on 4 match at PAX today. It seemed pretty fun. The aiming needs a little tweaking and the cover system could have been much smoother, as Hinkle mentioned. I found it pretty fun and graphically impressive for an XBLA game. Monday Night Combat (the next booth over) was a bit more fun though, in my opinion.
Reply

Posted: Mar 27th 2010 7:32PM xYOSSARIANx said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I was interested in this until I read,

"Once propped against a piece of cover, the camera jumps out to a third-person view, permitting blind fire and the ability to lean out and aim."

So basically everyone is going to camp and then pop out to shoot anyone stupid enough to try and move. I had enough of that playing Rainbow 6 and GRAW.

Can anyone that has played tell me, is it like R6 et al where while in cover you can see around/over the cover with your crosshairs pointing where the enemy will come from.

I understand that cover mechanics are fairly realistic but I don't like that in cover you can clearly see what is coming. I would prefer a cover system that does not allow you to see/aim until you pop your head out and look. I just really felt this ruined R6 as people just camped corridors, they could see clearly who was coming while you never knew they were there. The only way to deal with it is to frag everywhere that people can hide behind.

It also made it fairly easy to spawn camp, with people camping out the spawn exit hidden behind cover with a clear view into the spawn area.

I'm not a great fan of snipers in these games either. I would not mind if the maps were big/huge but giving someone a 1 shot kill gun while other guns need to hit several times means that most people will be snipers. Sniper rifles are meant to be long distance guns, if the maps are not very big why do we need snipers.

Cover campers and snipers are taking the fun out of shooters for me being a assault/rifleman class type of guy.

Oh well I'll wait and see what the cover mechanic is like, bullet damage and if there are limits to the amount of any given class per team before I dismiss this completely. Hopefully there will be a demo/beta, being XBLA I assume it must have a demo.
Reply

Posted: Mar 27th 2010 8:16PM aristokrat said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
On the bright side, you can blow up the chest-high wall that the camper is hiding behind, unlike those other games you mentioned.
Reply

Posted: Mar 27th 2010 9:41PM Soundwave said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Snipers can fit very well into smallish maps. Just take a look at any of TF2's official maps.
Reply

Posted: Mar 28th 2010 12:12AM Nobledevil Gaming Optimist said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
If this was on PSN, I'd buy it instantly. I don't play online very much so I don't want to pay for the ability to do so.

Breach might be worth a one month subscription to experience it, though - even if I doubt I will continue paying just to play the one game, it sounds too awesome to completely pass up.
Reply
Sorry, you must be logged in to leave a comment.

Featured Stories

Engadget

TUAW

Massively

WoW