Warface Versus Mode First Impressions - WARFACE!

Written By: Tyler Selig      

Rating: 5/10    
Verdict: Warface does not set the FPS genre on fire, or even come close. It's not downright terrible but it's not really worth playing at this point.

"Bob, you're looking the wrong way."

               Free-to-play, free-to-play… the term invites the scorn of the video game community. I am not personally against it if it is done correctly and doesn’t become pay-to-win, but I will admit there aren’t as many games as one would hope that actually do it right. However, I have always maintained that free is free, and a little extra grind to be free is not a deadly sin, so long as it doesn’t go the Dust 514 route and take grinding to an extreme that makes the game a boring, uneven, waste of time. If a free-to-play can balance grinding to a reasonable level, make micro-transactions that make sense, and deliver a game with good gameplay mechanics, I’m all for it. But I am also aware of how difficult that is, especially in a genre as competitive as the shooter.

                But that isn’t stopping Crytek apparently.

                Warface is a PC first-person shooter with a silly name. Honestly, every review, preview or conversation about the game mentions how stupid the name is. It would probably be okay if it were a tongue-in-cheek cheek shooter. I’m picturing Timesplitters 4 actually being called Timesplitters 4: Warface… and that would work. They didn’t go that way however, and Warface is a military shooter, not that there are many of those around.

                This isn’t really meant to be a full review. It’s more of a first impressions type of thing, where I haven’t played the Co-Op yet, but have spent some time with the Versus mode and I want to get my opinions out there so all three of you who read this can rest easy knowing what I think about Warface.

                Warface.

                Warface.

                So can Warface make a claim for the military shooter throne? Does it topple Call of Duty or Battlefield? No. Even as a non-fan of CoD, I can tell you it doesn’t beat CoD.

                When you start the game you’re able to create a character, but there’s no depth to it. You pick from a template of faces and off you go. From there you will do basic training that nabs you some rewards, and then you are able to pick which channel you want to go in for multiplayer. Luckily you’re able to stay in Rookie quite a while, so you’re not really outgunned. I was able to stay somewhat competitive with people (and by competitive I mean I wasn’t 1 and 12, the first game I played was something like 15 and 20).

                You can choose between four classes, but unfortunately you have to unlock them as you go. It doesn’t take real long to do so, so that’s a bonus. The classes are simplistic: you can be a medic, a sniper, an engineer a typical assault class. All of these do what you’d expect.

                You can also choose a few different match types, but they run the gauntlet of generic. Team death match, free-for-all, plant the bomb, and capture the objective… all of these in other shooters, though obviously you’re always going to have death match. My point is, Warface doesn’t go out of its way to introduce anything new, innovative or even uncommon.

                The levelling up system is par for the course. Play matches, gain experience and money, unlock rewards. Or spend real money and do it faster. In my few hours of playing, Warface hasn’t suffered from me being at a disadvantage because I didn’t spend money, but I also haven’t progressed into the harder channels yet. However, judging from what I get for money and experience, it seems like it won’t be a huge issue. I could easily be wrong there. However, in a game like Dust 514, I could tell from very early on that it was going to be a problem.

                So you’re ready to go, and you want to shoot people, but is the game any fun? Yeah it’s okay. I saw a few people say how terrible the game was in the Gface chat, but it’s just painfully average at this point. It definitely feels free because the guns don’t have any real weight or intensity. Even the shotgun, which should feel extremely satisfying, doesn’t arouse any excitement.

                I’m very disappointed in the maps. They’re just so limited, similar and they’re small. Personally I enjoy a more tactical game where you’re not running into someone every step you take, but even if you’re a fan of this bodies on top of bodies style, Warface is problematic.

                Here’s the scenary in Team Deathmatch: Spawn, run to a choke point, shoot, die. Rinse, repeat. However, it’s also very easy to get spawnpoint killed. For any shooter, that is a serious offense. There are other elements at play that contribute to that, but it’s also a symptom of maps being too small.

                The game does try to encourage team work by allowing you to help people up into higher spots. It’s an alright mechanic that sets it apart from some other shooters, but it’s hardly a selling point. There is also an ability to run and slide, which I’ll admit made me enjoy the game quite a bit more. It is a blast running, sliding out from around the corner, and blasting someone in the face.

                Graphics aren’t something I put a lot of stock in, but as you’ve probably heard, it’s no Crysis. That’s fine because it means my computer can run it, but it’s not an ugly game. People are way too spoiled at this point so when they see a game like this they say the visuals are shit. But they’re decent and the animation is much more important than how beautiful the game looks. There aren’t really any complaints from me in that regard.

                The Co-Op mode could be fun, but I’m waiting on having a friend to play with, but as it stands now, Warface doesn’t have a whole hell of a lot going for it in the multiplayer component, which is what most people will play it for anyway.