[UPDATE] SOCOM: Confrontation Review
- Posted November 8th, 2008 at 00:05 EDT by Dave Wales
- 19,139 views
- 62 Comments
Review Score
SOCOM US Navy Seals: Confrontation
- PSU Review Score
- 8.5
- Avg. user review score:
- 7.7
Summary
Slant Six has done a great job in bringing SOCOM to the current generation.
We like
- Realistic weapons
- Responsive controls
- Intricate map design
We dislike
- Player movement is sometimes awkward
- Lack of online communication the majority of the time
See PSU's review on Metacritic & GameRankings
[Editor's Note: Due to SOCOM: Confrontation receiving its much anticipated patch, we have decided to update our review. This isn't something we normally do, but we felt it was necessary to give a proper representation of what to expect with Confrontation.]
SOCOM: Confrontation has been anything but smooth sailing for fans of the series. The game launched with a laundry list of technical issues, but it has finally been patched, and therefore deserves a second look. In my original review, which can be found below, I initially gave SOCOM: Confrontation a 7.5. While some readers found this to be a ludicrous score for their beloved tactical shooter, it was something I still stand by as "fair" at the time. Since then, I've seen SOCOM take a great stride forward.
My biggest gripe with the launch edition was the atrocious scope glitch. Thankfully, this issue is fixed and scopes now correctly display what you're aiming towards. This makes sniping a joyous experience which all fans of the series should be happy about. Furthermore, all technical issues have been corrected. No longer does the main menu lock up the entire console forcing you to perform a hard reset.
As many fans experienced, server loads were often the cause of being unable to join games or connect properly. Combined with the fact some players seemed to warp from one spot to the next, this almost crippled the title. Fortunately, this was corrected with the patch and the game now plays properly.
Due to these major overhauls and fixes, SOCOM: Confrontation is now the quality experience that gamers were hoping for. In light of these drastic changes, I feel compelled to update our review score from a 7.5 to an excellent 8.5.
--------------
I find it hard to think back to the PlayStation 2 and its definitive online titles without subconsciously reminiscing about the SOCOM series. As such, you can imagine the excitement and anticipation that must have been going through me as I waited for the opportunity to get my hands on SOCOM: Confrontation. While the wait may have been painfully slow, it almost feels as though it was all for naught. As many of you know, Confrontation released with a slew of problems and lost promises. Not only are features missing within the game that happen to be clearly printed on the case and in the instruction manual, but also the servers have been unbelievably atrocious. According to Slant Six, you can expect a patch to resolve these issues, which is why my review score will not reflect these technical aspects of the title. Instead, I will cover the customization and gameplay aspects.
The first thing you need to do upon booting up SOCOM is customize your Commando and Mercenary characters. Each character has a different set of items to select from and it helps give each unit its own identity. You have the choice of selecting primary weapons that range from standard assault rifles to sniper rifles. On top of this, you have the option of placing specific add-ons for each weapon type. This can include scopes, laser sighting, bi-pods, and many other items that make your weapons all the more potent. What sets the two character units apart is that the Commandos have your standard government issued M16s while on the flip side the Mercenaries are going to work with AK47s.
Customization continues from this point by giving you the option to select a secondary handgun and of course your standard gear. Standard gear is going to include: rocket launchers, RPGs, grenades, smoke bombs, claymores and more. Considering all of the items you have to choose from, it’s safe to say that there is a strong sense of ownership and uniqueness for each character created. It also allows you to play in a style that is most comfortable to you. One of the most important aspects to military combat though is camouflage. Not only is the color choice important, but also the ability to blend in with your surroundings. Thankfully, Confrontation has a plethora of options to choose from. Included in the game are three types of camouflage: Urban, Desert, and Night. Each suit of camouflage has five or so categories to select ... (continued on next page)
- Page 1
- Page 2
Comments
-
LindenLocos420 |
LindenLocos420- 1:51pm GMT - October 30th, 2008
- 1
honestly expected more out of this tho. ohwell.
-
-
jigglespsu
- 1:57pm GMT - October 30th, 2008
- 3
graphically disappointing and full of bugs ... think I'll stick to warhawk
-
-
-
ironflag55555 |
ironflag555- 2:31pm GMT - October 30th, 2008
- 6
i download the socom patch yesterday, its geting a lil better, it just freezes up once in a while when server over load, its not as bad as the begining though since the patch
-
HeartAttackSilv3rback |
- 2:51pm GMT - October 30th, 2008
- 7
wtf psu??
your just as bad as IGN and others too.. giving it a rating cuz the server problems are semi-bad to start with.. BUGS,GLITCHES or just overall efing problems happen with every game wen its released dumb@sze's .. COD4 had one of the worst server problems EVER and that game got a 9.5 and sh!*,same with other games.
i havnt had ANY EING problems with the socom servers yet period.and how can you say the movement is awkward at times?? wut does that even mean "at times"... you walk using the left stick and run with R2,thats not very hard to do and its the same every time,unless your internet connection SUX @SZ and you keep skipping or something and thats y your hating on it.
i will admit that some rooms witrh people have really bad lack of communication skills on socom,but the majority IMO that i played with have GREAT communication skills as teammates.. and as far as graphics... the visuals are accually pretty damn good.
i hate you EFINF f***ers that rate games bad cuz of their value of teamplay.... its exactly like MGS4 online,its based soley on teamwork and stealth with actacamo and mk 3 as well as others but people like to pull rambo sh*i*t and be a hero and then wen they end up failing,the complain and rate the game bad........ everytime a game comes out that SPECIFICALLY requiers you to dominate and work as a team and not pull COD4 fake hero sh**,dudes give it a bad rating.
ps,the games amazing and i give it a 9.5.
its a must buy if you love ACCUALLY working as a team. (if not then go play UT3,or that PoS COD4). :) happy gaming fella's. PS3 FTW!!
-
gingo |
gingo- 2:59pm GMT - October 30th, 2008
- 8
psn id: gingo.... @ HeartAttackSilv3rback.... ok most of wat you said was either incredibly true or a lot of rubbish but the one line i want to comment on was "COD4 has one of the worst server problems EVER and that game got a 9.5" well the big factor that gave COD4 an edge over socom when getting a score was that it actually had a single player campaign, ok sure it was short but it was AMAZING, on the other hand socom is online only and when an online only game has online issues then it is quite a screw up, but i agree that people should wait till the problems are sorted to review the game
-
-
edward_moffet |
edd- 3:25pm GMT - October 30th, 2008
- 10
i don't think it's fair to judge a game based on server issues even if it's online only, because these are things that are fixed almost immediately after release, from what i hear from people that own the game, it's awesome
-
-
-
-
Odium_Generis_Humani
- 4:08pm GMT - October 30th, 2008
- 14
I don't know where he gets the "lack of online communication" thing. That's NEVER been an issue, and that's at least a ".5" right there. This game is an 8 at least.
*
What this really represents is how people prefer 1st person and respawns, period. The game loses 2 points from all you FPS ADD types right off the bat. If you haven't played SOCOM, you missed out, your loss.
-
deniled
- 4:37pm GMT - October 30th, 2008
- 15
wow I think that score is too high! I had to pass on this title, coming from other online WW2 style shooters which certainly play better then Socom3. Server issues are normal but the way the player moves is very clunky, you cannot slide into a prone you must be very still, cannot move quick to reload. I know its suppose to be realistic but I can use night vision while running and move alot quicker then how the controls felt in this game. I provided feedback to slant 6 during beta stages and nothing was changed. If I want a WW2 kick I guess I will have to look elsewhere.
-
svtschmidt
- 5:09pm GMT - October 30th, 2008
- 16
If anyone here played the demo this shouldn't be a surprise. The demo was so bad there was no way I could see how they could fix it. By the sound of it they didn't. This game probably needed 6 months to really get it up to snuff. It was much more than just the servers.
-
butter |
xLeGiT--- 5:29pm GMT - October 30th, 2008
- 17
Honestly you guys should take this review down. The game honestly is having some issues and in a month or less this game will be up to par with what it should of been. the only reason they couldn't push it back was because of Resistance 2 and other games coming out. So how about you wait to write a review on this when the issues are straightened out. Warhawk was just as bad at launch even Call of Duty 4 was unplayable at launch and that was game of the year so how about you take this review down cause it will be a false review once the issues get fixed. so take it off
-
-
Triple Dk |
TripleDk- 5:49pm GMT - October 30th, 2008
- 19
Guys, when a game is released, it is released and should have some standards since you're paying 60$. At launch this game would probably get like 3.0 because of the extremely crappy servers for an online-only game. So this is a fair review, because the game is FINISHED in development. Otherwise it wouldn't be released. Of course, it could be re-reviewed after some patches. Dave also mentions multiple times that several of the let-downs are going to/can be fixed later on!
-
-
-
HeartAttackSilv3rback |
- 7:06pm GMT - October 30th, 2008
- 22
@ 20
agreed, almost EVERYONE that ive talk to (on forums or online) that have accually PLAYED the damn game has said that its apsolutly amazing with the only common problem bieng the servers...
@Gingo
i totally understand wut you mean bro,but you (in general people) should not give a game a lower score becouse of no single player... you have to review the game as a whole,not seperating the pieces that could or should of ben there... look at dead space you can say the similar for.. they should of giving that a freakin 7 then cuz lack of no multiplayer.... and multiplayer is HUGE these days.
Their seriously needs to be a site specifically dedicated to the viewers rating ONLY,not half"n"half ... ......
ok so i came up with the idea that their should not really be RATINGS or a SCORE to decide how the game is but rather have a POLL were it will say something like 85%=Must buy 10%=buy 5%=not worth $60.... kind of like the exact thing that fandango.com does with their movies,it proves that there's no favoritism or biasedness.
take for example the (sad) 7.5 rating you gave socom... now,someone will see it and be like "meh,maybe next year or a rental or just plain F** it" ... NOW,if having a Users poll with some testemonial types (if you choose) that indicates (with the game having 96% peeps say Must buy) that the game is well worth every penny,then that person will be more enclined to go ahead and buy the game,and who knows maybe that game will end up bieng that particular persons favorite all time game they are addicted to.
im really down with that. any one else?
-
gingo |
gingo- 7:14pm GMT - October 30th, 2008
- 23
psn id: gingo..... ^ totally agree that system would work quite well i think
and i wasn't meaning that a site should score a game less for having no single player or multiplayer, what i meant is that games with both can afford server issues e.g. COD4, but games such as warhawk and socom rely totally on online so they should make sure their servers are working fine and can cope with the numbers of people and if they are not its puts them at a disadvantage
-
ProjectArsenal |
ProjectArsenal- 7:19pm GMT - October 30th, 2008
- 24
I might get this game when all the bugs are fixed.
-
HeartAttackSilv3rback |
- 7:50pm GMT - October 30th, 2008
- 25
@ 23 Gingo
oh ok i hear ya then on that one... gotch ya and agreed more of course :)
but we still need a poll veiwer system for gamers and their experiences on games. lol.. im serious,that would help the gaming ci-ommunity for once by ALOT and not just ps3 gamers but wii and xbox lovers as well... just every gamer in general. :)
-
terminator12259 |
tacitassassin25- 10:12pm GMT - October 30th, 2008
- 26
i think the game is good, it just needs a couple patches, the gameplay is good and the community is still good
-
Free_Agent
- 11:03pm GMT - October 30th, 2008
- 27
I am a die hard socom fan, but I would have only given the game a 6.5, maybe 7 tops. Sony can't afford to release first party titles like this. It's just looks really bad when first party titles launch in this kind of shape. I lost most of my anticipiation for this title when they confirmed it was online only. It worked with warhawk, but not this franchise. It's funny because I was way more excited about this than cod5, but after playing the cod5 beta it blows this game away in every way. It's still in beta but it's in better condition than this game is after it released! PS3 is just too hard for even sony's first party developers to get right. Sad.
-
GunTeng
- 12:41am GMT - October 31st, 2008
- 28
Its pretty shocking to hear that they released the game while still suffering these server issues.
But to be fair, I do not think it is fair to pull down a game simply because people dont use the communication feature. That is all to do with the people playing & nothing to do with the game.....I think PSU needs to reconsider this.
On a personaly level, I think ( as stated often enough in the forums) that Slant6 have done the game a dis-service by neglecting the traditional Socom FPS mode. Granted....only a minority ever used it, but as one of the minority & one of the fans ( who are the people slant6 supposedly developed the game for & not for profit) it has ruined our hopes of having the best online tactical shooter come to the PS3 in a form we can play.
And I really don't give a damn what the 3PS gamers say. Socom always had an FPS mode which people like me used since Socom1 and should have been included in Confrontation, instead of replacing it with yet another 3PS mode.
So although I dont agree with PSU giving a low rating due to lack of people communicating, I would likely agree with the rating simply because the game is no longer the Socom, people's gaming ( like myself) evolved with.
It is truly disappointing for the Socom FPS fan.
-
chilledbreeze7
- 1:05pm GMT - October 31st, 2008
- 29
Even if its not the best game in the world its still worth getting it. Here in the uk, the headset on its own costs £20 (at amazon.co.uk), but for £30 (at game.co.uk) you can get Socom and the Headset for £30! Bargain!!!
-
teevanator |
teevanator- 8:48am GMT - November 1st, 2008
- 30
who cares about soccom get r2 or waw for a good shooter, there are too many games out that are better than this for me to waste money on this crimbo
-
-
Prayer350z |
Prayer350z- 8:44am GMT - November 2nd, 2008
- 32
its not a bad game , they just should of delayed to make it a game and not a beta on a disc.
The problems will be fixed tho, if we know anything about Sony, they takes years to fix SOCOM. (look at S3)
-
EFFORTLESS8 |
r_e_f_l_e_x- 8:49pm GMT - November 2nd, 2008
- 33
This was unfortunately a very ignorant review. Apparently he forgot ALL of the problems with COD4. Maybe he should have waited a little while before reviewing. Anways, this game is presently MUCH better than COD4 which got a 9.5 and all of you saying that the campaign on cod4 for was epic, you are retarded, you know damn well all we ever talked about or played was the online mode.
-
marcindpol |
marcindpol- 6:41am GMT - November 3rd, 2008
- 34
i wanted to buy Socom this fall but after all those bad reviews i quit and going to end up with new COD which shapes to be awsome!
-
-
EFFORTLESS8 |
r_e_f_l_e_x- 10:44am GMT - November 4th, 2008
- 36
marcindpol do not by the new cod, it sux . I played it on my pc. Unless you want to waste your life playing more cod4 with old guns. Do yourself a favor and go rent socom.
-
-
KAHUNA-095
- 2:31pm GMT - November 5th, 2008
- 38
Yes, it's true, there are problems. However, the first patch download has helped to improve things and I'm sure that there will be more patches in the weeks to come. As far as gameplay, graphics, and overall SOCOM feel, I think that for $40.00 dollars it is a solid game filled with plenty of guns, terrorists, and tactics.
-
EFFORTLESS8 |
r_e_f_l_e_x- 12:18am GMT - November 8th, 2008
- 39
LOL well at least your being fair, thanks psu
-
-
-
Odium_Generis_Humani
- 2:51am GMT - November 8th, 2008
- 42
I'm glad they re-reviewed this, but it raises an interesting question about modern games. That question being, "Does the initial review of a game mean much anymore because of the new ability to patch a console game and also the emergence of Downloadable Content?"
*
Think about it. Warhawk was a solid 8.0 game when reviewed. The original Warhawk. Do you still think it's an 8.0? Then there's Lair. Is it still horrible after the "control issues" patch? Wasn't it upgraded to "fair" or "good" territory? What about any game that got trophy support? The first version of Super Stardust HD is not the same as the current version. No matter what your opinions are to these questions, one thing is for sure, server issues can no longer be a negative factor for a game in launch week. It has become clear that since publishers (like movie studios) really have no solid idea what will do well, what will do REALLY well, and what will tank, they never have enough servers for all the people that get on. They are content to just scramble based on demand. Solution? Even though they say that "there is no such thing a 2 weeks in the news business", I feel like reviews need to wait after 2 weeks of release to review -OR- not take server issues into account.
-
a_stray_bullet10
- 3:41am GMT - November 8th, 2008
- 43
i heard this game was horrible. people i know bought the game played it for half n hr took the disc out and sold it on ebay the next day.
-
-
-
Dogswithguns |
Dogswithguns- 8:54am GMT - November 8th, 2008
- 46
This Socom is awesome, freezing a little here and there. but it's a good game. I know they will fix it soon enough. I aint worry about it.
-
-
Odium_Generis_Humani
- 11:49am GMT - November 8th, 2008
- 48
@45 You go by Metacritic. What does that tell me?
-
NitroMikeo
- 12:00pm GMT - November 8th, 2008
- 49
A review is someones opinion, if you dont agree with it. Go away. Stop condemming him. If he thought a 7.5 is fair because of terrible server issues, lag, glitches, then so be it.
-
Odium_Generis_Humani
- 4:22pm GMT - November 8th, 2008
- 50
ST FU. Like you've never disagreed with someone. You are condemning me, there "Holy Father". I do what I please. Don't bother fighting it. You can't control anyone. The sooner you accept that, the happier you'll be. Isn't the internet great?
Advertisement