Posted Tue, May 02, 2006 by Ethec
IGN gives Auto Assault 7.5 out of 10
Among the perceived low points was Auto Assault's handling of the class system:
The character classes are functionally identical across all three factions. You get different descriptions and titles tailored to the style of the faction, but class behavior is different only so far as racial abilities are different. For example, the Biomek vehicles have more hitpoints, the Humans get small energy shields, and the Mutants have some regeneration. Now, I don't necessarily expect one faction to operate differently from another. But if a fighter class is a fighter class is a fighter class, I think the game should be honest about that.
Now, far be it from me to argue (/cough) but in Auto Assault, there are significant differences between fighter classes. For one, the Biomek martial class (Terminators) are far more group oriented than Mutant Champions (which are more defensively-oriented), which are likewise different than Human Commandoes (whose focus is high damage output). Of course they look relatively similar in the early game, in the levels before their ability choices are fully fleshed out.
Reviewers love to paint a game in broad strokes after only playing the low-end game and listening to the embittered, self-proclaimed "experts". I've written some lousy reviews in my day, but I've (hopefully) learned that it's irresponsible to write a review without having something like a full picture. Granted, MMOs are notoriously tough to get your hands around - there's little that's truly objective about the gameplay, which is why concrete (if unfair) little generalizations like "the classes are all the same" tend to flourish.
But see for yourself if you agree. Check out the full review at IGN.