Somewhere deep within Fracture, far, far below its offensively derivative crust, lies a worthwhile, original game. It's very much a game with a gimmick -- terraforming terrain on the fly -- and while that gimmick works well (if a bit too predictably), Fracture is thoroughly unexciting.

Given that its bland combat is little enhanced by the ability to create cover, you suspect that the promises made for the technology have simply dug its own grave. [Dec 2008, p.90]

Many of the vast list of things we object to in Fracture equal the low standard set by the likes of "Turok" and "Haze," and that if you managed to survive those games without burning down the shop that sold them to you, this will suffice for a weekend's distraction.

By trying to match up to juggernauts such Gears of War and Halo, Fracture ultimately becomes a prisoner shackled by predictability and poor design.

Fracture feels like a concept forged many years ago, but it just doesn’t stack up with any conventional standards. If you enjoy shooters, feel free to rent. Otherwise, it’s safe to pass this one up.

It should be noted that the idea of terrain deformation is a good one, and one that deserves to be expanded on, but this time around its implementation is significantly below par in execution. So much so, that I’d be hard-pressed to recommend the game to anyone - even as a rental.

While the game itself is technically proficient, nothing about the gameplay pushes it above and beyond that base level of proficiency. Its biggest problem comes from a clever premise with poor implementation. There's some replay value here in the multiplayer and the collection of data cells, which unlock the weapons from the campaign in a weapons testing area, but even those can get old very quickly. Once you get past the limited use of the terrain deformation you'll find yourself searching for anything new or exciting in Fracture's take on the sci-fi third-person shooter.