Military sims are in vogue at the moment, aren't they? ArmA II came out a few months back, Operation Flashpoint 2 will be hitting store shelves in the space of a few weeks and a little game called All Aspect Warfare hit the internet a little while ago.
All Aspect Warfare is hardcore. Oddly, when playing it so soon after the others, one comparison came into mind almost immediately: if the others are Strike Commander, then this is Falcon 4.0. Hyperbole, certainly, but not without reason.
All Aspect Warfare (AAW) is 3000AD's latest. It takes the Battlecruiser 3000AD universe, puts you into the boots of a special forces infantryman, and plonks you and your squad down onto a planet. The plot runs along the lines that the four of you have crash-landed on LV-115, a planet currently held by humanity's bitter enemies, the Gammulans. Being all alone on a hostile planet is bad enough, but it gets worse: prior to crash-landing, a planet-killing weapon on your ship was activated. If you don't either get off the planet, or find it and disarm it – both of which will naturally involve encounters with the Gammulans – then it really is all over. Fortunately, you've got the weapons and the knowledge to see it through, whether you fancy jetpacking onto a building and sniping, or running in close with a shotgun, or dogfighting in an aircraft, or hitting sand dunes in a buggy.
Being that this is by the same developers as the Battlecruiser series, it's perhaps not a surprise that the first comparison I thought of was flight simulators, and there are some striking similarities with AAW. First off: the manual. These days, more often than not, a manual is a flimsy little paper booklet with a vague description of the controls, a paragraph of plot, and usually works out to be a convenient place to put a CD key. Conversely, AAWs manual is absolutely essential if you want any degree of success with the game. While you can probably pick up the
basics if you've played a first-person shooter (or, funnily enough, a flight sim) you will need the manual to make the most of the options available to you, or to understand half of the acronyms thrown your way. Without reading the manual – or, preferably, printing it out and referring to it regularly for your first few hours of play – you're going to die within 60 seconds of starting a mission, because AAW is, at times, punishingly hard. You're always outnumbered, frequently outgunned, and knowing exactly what you can do and how to do it is pretty much essential to surviving even the most rudimentary encounter.
The second similarity, oddly, is mentioned above: the controls are strikingly reminiscent of several older flight sims. Whether you're in a vehicle or on foot, you've got a radar that can switch between different types of tracking (troops, things on the ground, things in the air, etc.) and the ability to cycle through targets by tapping keys. Not something common to most first-person shooters, which don't tend to have any form of automatic targeting, but something that regularly pops up in flight-based games. The more arcadey ones, at least.
And then there's the third similarity, which is the actual flight. As you'd expect from any sort of military sim, there are aircraft, and you can pilot them. As you'd also expect if you're aware that the same company made the Battlecruiser games, there's a pretty damn detailed flight model. The flight is a major aspect of the game with plenty of missions involving it in some way, shape, or form, and again, reading the manual and familiarity with the controls are both essential. Without knowing how to flick on your jammers at a moment's notice and then bank to avoid incoming missiles, or how to speedily order your teammates to do something, or the specific capabilities of your armaments, you're going to be in big, big trouble. Dogfights are tense and exciting, and the sci-fi fighters tend to act as you'd expect a sci-fi fighter to do so. Glorious.
Balancing out the air sorties is the infantry combat, which doesn't fare as well as the fantastic flight. Much as you're in a gigantic open-world environment, it's incredibly bare. While there are sprawling canyons and mountain ranges, there are normally sparse amounts of cover. The same is true of bases which, as with the rest of the world, aren't pokey little walled-in areas but gigantic layouts filled with buildings, vehicles, and defences, but without much in the way of incidental terrain. The enemy AI on the ground is variable, too. While they're seemingly incapable of using cover, usually preferring to charge to an effective distance and open fire, you can fool them in surprising ways: jetpacking onto a building, moving out of sight, and slipping around behind them is a ploy that – for once – actually works. It's a tad mixed, but the variety of weapons and equipment and the team controls mean that you've normally got a variety of different strategies available to you at any one time. These strategies extend further into the overarching game, too. There are generally a variety of different ways to finish any given mission based on how you prefer to play, rather than guiding you by the hand.


User comments
I actually finished All Aspect Warfare over a ~7 day vigil (and I'm talking mega game hours) in which I experimented with various approaches to "missions", others that just went like clockwork ... and several moments where I felt truly proud of my accomplishments.
The only "positive criticism" to the review I would have is to your opinion that graphics are "high-res but bland", which I think is limited to comparison with Stalker / Fallout 3 at-al (i.e. open worlds, dense and beautiful). The one thing I had in mind all the way through All Aspect is that: -
1) It's indie, therefore limited resources in both funds and manpower.
2) Some of the graphics made my jaw drop, and this is primarily because "I created the scene"; by this I mean, as an example, pumping through a canyon at night in whatever ship I could get my hands on, only to finally emerge, out of radar range, to a full blown beautiful sunrise popping it's head over the horizon. That sort of stuff just really worked for me.
3) The knowledge that, because the game engines used in AAW are only part of the arsenal that 3000ad have up their sleeve, I felt at any moment I could just point the nose of a shuttle "straight-up" and leave the atmosphere to enter deep space. Once this graphics engine is "bolted" to the others (and they are evolving too) ..................... wow. But not just yet :-).
So my point is that this is an amazing effort for indie's that are targeting the games mechanic mostly with the intent of polishing their "whole universe" suite of tools, and in the process have cooked up a great and, dare I say it, "more accessible" title than their other games. Impressive stuff, and must require persistence, patients and tenacity to engineer. Respect.
Great review to a great indie title..... I give your review, 9/10 (lol).
You played the game, really enough to have a documented opinion about it, thank you so much.
I simply have to make a comment after reading such a terrible review (and comments) Seriously are you blind? This is without a doubt one of the worst games in 2009. AND WHY IS IT ONE OF THE WORST GAMES, YOU SAY? Well glad to tell you why!
1. Extremly frustraiting (And really not in a good way)
2. No ingame tutorial! Whats up with that? Do they want 60% of all gamers to give up 5 seconds after they bought it?
3. Painfully diffucult. (pss! Guys, believe it or not games actually make money by being bought) You scare 75% of all gamers off with theses painfully diffuculties. Admitted sometimes extreme and brutal diffuculties work, but this is not one of those times.
4. AND OH MY GOD! "some of the graphics made my jaw drop"? Seriously, have you been in isolation the last 10 years? If i wanna go back to 1999 i will go PLAY SOMETHING THAT WAS ACTUALLY MADE THEIR!
5. You can't use their limited resources and manpower as an excuse! A game doesn't suddently become good because a small company made it, that just doesn't make sense. And if that is the way you wanna review a game, then it's not really fair for the big companies now is it? It's like saying that crap isn't just crap. If crap comes from a poorer man is it then any different from a rich mans crap? Hell no! Crap is crap no matter whose ass it comes from! The same with this crappy game, just because small company made it doesn't change the fact that it's crap.
Please do not take this as if i don't think your entitled to like this game, because by all means, you are! But just don't go around telling people that the design is great and the graphics are great, because people might actually read this and buy the game on these comments/review and then they will be let down, BIG TIME! So for everyone looking for a sober review, here it is: The game is insanely difficult and there is no tutorial. The graphics are busted and broken. The design may be called unique, but certainly not good. The bugs a numerous. So if you still wanna get the game go ahead, you might like the gameplay.
:)