Jagged Alliance: Back In Action Review (Page 2)

Tags: in

Updated Tue, Feb 21, 2012 by Stow

Back to Page 1

Value

50PoorWith a non-linear gameplay style and a good amount of depth in the various mercenary skill sets, there’s certainly some potential for replayability. Unfortunately, the lackluster gameplay keeps that depth from shining through and, as a result, you have a campaign that feels like the same one you ran through 10 years ago with the same characters and the same style of combat and feeling of glory—all with a new $39.99 price tag. I wouldn’t feel ripped off at a price point of $19.99, but at close to retail, Jagged Alliance: Back in Action isn’t worth the price of admission.

Lasting Appeal

45Very PoorAnd so another legendary franchise shoots itself in the foot. I don’t know what it is, I suppose it’s the fact that all of the good studios have been assimilated into the large dev houses that produce one popular title in a long running series per year, but we have not had a good year or two in the revival of old franchises. This game will go the same way as Fallout Tactics, and be utterly forgotten in a year or two by all but the most diehard fans.

Pros and Cons

 

Pros:

  • Strategy!  Isometric!  Classic Gameplay!
  • Customization and merc loadouts make no two maps play the same
  • Each campaign will take you some time to complete

Cons

  • Given the mediocre gameplay, you may not find it in you to play for a week
  • AI is pathetic in all aspects
  • I seriously can’t think of a thing that Jagged Alliance: Back in Action does better than Jagged Alliance 2.

Conclusion

What’s the point of a remake if you can’t imbue the game with the same love and, at least, the same vision? Back in Action is a boring game that just doesn’t cut it, regardless of whether you're a purist or a new player. With a mediocre game play experience and overly tedious micromanagement, you will begin to yearn to get back in action yourself…with a superior game.

Stow Review at Ten Ton Hammer

  • Game Name:
  • Review Date: February 21st, 2012
Back to Page 1Metacritic

News from around the 'Net