Update: Before you sink your teeth into this weeks addition of Guilty Gaming, I feel like I need to make one thing clear; Battle: Los Angeles is definitively not a good game. Not in the slightest. I wrote the below and then felt morally obliged to come back and share this statement with you given the fact that I really struggled to come up with 5 points as to why you should play this. Do I think you should still play it? Yes, of course. BUT… I want you to know that for once, this title has never dropped below a certain acceptable price point.

 

Good fortunes dear Sunday readers, today you are in for a… uh… a game of sorts. Battle: Los Angeles made and named after the 2011 movie is an unusual video game. I took me about 2 hours to complete the full game. 2 HOURS!!! That’s probably the same as the running time of the feature length movie. Even for an FPS you’d normally expect around 5 hours play time even from the shortest of titles. A quick check on Steam Spy and the average play time is 1 hour and 23 minutes. I’ve had instances where I’ve spent longer on the crapper than the entire time it takes players to get through Battle: Los Angeles.

 

battle-screen-1

Fire, Robots, Advertising. The deadly combo.

 

In fairness to Battle: Los Angeles the length is my only real issues here. Everything else on display is okay at its worse and good at its best. I personally enjoyed the movie so it was nice to be able to enter into the war in an interactive fashion. Sadly, most people don’t share those feelings and just as we’ve come to expect, Metacritic users are more than happy to sum up the ‘general consensus’ in a hilariously straight-faced manner. Currently the game stands at a platry 38/100. User not_batman27 gave Battle: Los Angeles a 1/10 stating:

“…only reason i even gave it a score of 1, is because of the great graphics. the game is short as hell! less than an hour, theres like only 3 weapons! the gameplay sucks, i am not sure if there even was a story, this seems to me more like a joke rather than a game. i have no idea who made it and i rather not know, all i want to say is that this game sucks soooo much!!!! worst 2.50$ spent ever!”

Sinster was much more lenient in this review score of 4/10 but spoke nothing but truths:

“Ok to kill time.. what you expect for the price. The graphics are okay the game is linear the dialogue is joke. The cut scenes are stills. I wasn’t expecting much but I don’t think I wasted the money”.

 

It might have been worth the money if purchased for $2.50 but right now you could be looking at €10 at the very least. So why do I think you should play Battle: Los Angeles? To be honest, it took me some time to think this through but here are my 5 reasons why you should at the very least give this game that hour and half of your life…

 

1. The setting is refreshing

Its incredibly rare that you see a War game, especially an FPS, set in modern day LA. In fact, I don’t think there is one. Sure MW2, Homefront and Freedom Fighters all take place on American soil, but none take place in LA directly. It’s especially noticeable here as the team you are fighting with are geared up US soldiers normally reserved for fighting in the middle-east or some made-up Russian government. Fighting through the streets of LA means that the action is always on top of you, which reminds me…

 

 

2. It’s condensed action

As Battle: Los Angeles is a total of 2 hours absolute max, there’s no downtime between set-pieces. It’s constant balls to the wall action from one street to the next. As you are part of a team too, the war effort feels much more genuine as you feel like you are part of the team instead of a lone, unstoppable, alien annihilating warrior. You may not get much weaponry but you are an ultimate bro at using the weapons you do get and you will use them in this dense action packed game. Which brings me to my next point…

 

battle-screen-3

Eh… should I aim for the head or…?

 

3. You don’t need to get invested

Unlike most other genre of games, FPS’s are usually played in smaller bursts and once the campaign is complete you switch to short games online. With Battle: Los Angeles you don’t need to worry about playtime as you could feasible experience the whole title within the time it takes you watch a movie. Perfect for Dad’s or those with very little time to play games. It also does a good job of allowing you to feel fulfilled after you’ve played it, knowing that you gone through every inch of what the game has available.

 

4. The art style is quite nice

Though it feels like more of a budgetary constraint, the cut-scenes are done using a collection of still drawings in the same vein as a comic book. It serves the story in an easily digestible format and doesn’t over complicate the production. That said, does it feel cheap? Yes. Does it offer unique visuals for its genre? Also, yes. It’s like buying a replica painting; it looks nice and it fulfills its purpose, but you know it was made by some cheap prick.

battle-screen-2

So crisp. Much nice.

 

5. …Uh…. yeah?

Okay so I don’t really have a final point here. I mean, there’s not much else to say. The title is ultimately too short to have much more features. What it does, it does well but there’s certainly a distinct lack of features. They could’ve even tacked on a mutliplayer mode (which I wouldn’t have played and would most definitely be a graveyard now) but they didn’t even bother. That’s cash-in tactic number 1. I’m surprised that Konami didn’t force this onto Live Action Studios to give the impression of more depth. Then again, they probably didn’t give a shit.

Playtime Per Euro:

€5 / 1 hours