Mixed or average reviews - based on 46 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 18 out of 46
  2. Negative: 3 out of 46
  1. The realism and authenticity of the game is amazing.
  2. You are actually able to feel what it's like to be a Marine overseas, and because the game is based on the actual training tool that was developed for our soldiers, you get to have an inside look at how they operate in hostile environments.
  3. A classic example of not being the best looking or sounding game around but still delivers what gamers are really after, fun factor both on and offline.
  4. A thoroughly enjoyable and rewarding game, providing a military alternative to Rainbow Six and immersing the player in an urban combat environment like few games can.
  5. 80
    The graphics, sound and overall atmosphere are not the game's selling points, it's the gameplay, straight and simple, especialy the online play, that will hook you.
  6. With easy-to-get-into controls, fun mission scenarios and a highly addictive multiplayer mode this is a game that should not be ignored by those who have worn out their copy of "Full Spectrum Warrior" or "Rainbow Six 3."
  7. First to Fight is very heavily militarily themed. It's almost too stuffy. This is one serious, no-nonsense game. Personally I like a little nonsense as it tends to make things seem more realistic.
  8. Get past the frustrating controls and you've got a really decent military game. Things like a plain looking graphic engine are balanced out by excellent computer AI.
  9. Sure, there are a few problems too, most notably some cringe-worthy graphical oversights - weapons spinning in mid air for example - and the fact that you can't climb over low walls or fire through higher, thinner ones when enemies are using them for cover, but ultimately, this is a game of huge quality and entertainment. [Official UK Xbox Magazine]
  10. The game pulls together quite nicely, but a bit more polish-such as additional work with the AI-would have propelled the game past above-average status into excellence.
  11. I want to have fun when playing a game and that's just what First to Fight delivers: an action-packed FPS with all the adrenaline-pumping intensity you can ask for.
  12. 80
    A challenging title that doesn't treat gamers like complete idiots and, with the team play oriented multiplayer aspects of the game, it's well worth considering this title to help while away those wet April afternoons.
  13. 80
    Your teammates at times don't respond to enemy fire and don't take cover when necessary. Enemies are just as brainless: They rush through doorways without even noticing you and your men, or run right past you unflinchingly as you're firing off rounds.
  14. The hostile AI though is killer. They seem to know where you and your team are at all times, and occasionally you'll run across an opponent who has more than human reaction times and accuracy. Other times they'll blindly run into your cross fire as they're still following their scripted orders to get into position.
  15. Where First to Fight really excels is in the multiplayer department.
  16. If you're looking for a great modern war game pick up "Full Spectrum Warrior," if you want an all-around amazing war game get "Brothers in Arms," but if you simply are looking for a better first-person shooter than this, then pick up Rainbow Six Lockdown when it's available in June.
  17. A competent squad-based shooter that offers a fun cooperative mode and an artificial intelligence that is at times quite impressive and at other times completely boneheaded.
  18. The game for the most part works quite well, but the repetitive nature, boring levels and lack of variety in mission objectives keeps this from being as impressive as a "Rainbow Six" game.
  19. It was missing however that polished interface and feel of Rainbow Six and also didn't have the in-depth tactical abilities.
  20. What it offers in terms of gameplay has been done before, and done better by the likes of "Rainbow Six," "Ghost Recon" and, to a lesser extent, "Full Spectrum Warrior." To put it simply, Close Combat is a little rough around the edges.
  21. With a little more work, this game could have been exceptional, but unfortunately, it stops its ascent to greatness with simply average.
  22. Gets some things right, but if the poor AI and numerous glitches were ironed out then it could have been one of the finest tours of duty around. As it stands, it's an excellent multiplayer game that just can't compete with some of its rivals.
  23. Despite the intervention of the US Marines, there are some glaring flaws, which have somehow been overlooked.
  24. The game is not a bad outing by any standards, but it also just doesn't have the depth nor the sure fire power to hang with the other big boys that are already on the Xbox.
  25. I think the worst flaw as far as the AI is concerned was the fact that the reaction time of your unit at times was extremely sluggish.
  26. There's nothing specifically wrong with First to Fight, it's just that the single-player simply doesn't do anything more than provide you with terrorists to shoot.
  27. Overall, First to Fight is an entertaining game. The graphics are okay while super-patriotic music is something Hans Zimmer would be proud of. For those who yearn for modern warfare, First Fight is not a bad, if not very original, choice. [July 2005, p.60]
  28. It's still decent shoot-'em-up entertainment, and adding snipers, airstrikes, and mortar attacks to your armoury is a nice touch, but perhaps too much time was spent talking tactics rather than delivering an original game that has true hands-on appeal.
  29. Single player was only marginally enjoyable, but playing First to Fight on co-op mode is something you can do while your friend gets drunk, while you play some rock and roll in the background, and eat some pizza.
  30. When it comes right down to it, First to Fight will have a tough time competing for your time and money when compared to other, flashier games. But it's got a strong identity and satisfying gameplay.
  31. 65
    If you can put up with annoying controls, stupid team mates, and what simply feels like a rushed title, then there are some moments in Close Combat: First to Fight which are rewarding, but overall the game really isn't worth the trouble.
  32. Good level design and multiplayer options raise CCFTF to a higher standard but it is not enough to make up for abysmal AI, rough graphics and questionable realism.
  33. So the game doesn't innovate, its story isn't anything special, the graphics are only average and it isn't the most exciting game around but does that mean it's bad? Not really, you aren't going to be in pain playing it, but you're also not going to get sucked in like the game should do.
  34. An enormous let down in most regards. Many well done elements and innovative features are present in this title, but they just aren't executed well.
  35. Overall, Close Combat: First To Fight doesn't have the looks or the sound, but what it does have is the fun-factor.
  36. This simply plays like a buggy military training application, and forgets to deliver the entertainment that you'd expect to find in a video game. [May 2005, p.121]
  37. The programmers seem to have assumed incredibly hard and geologically slow pacing equals realism, yet have completely ignored any attempt at realism in other areas like e.g. being able to completely heal a marine who's been shot mutiple times with the contents of a bathroom medical cabinet (clearly, the brands of elastoplast and aspirin they have in Beirut are a lot more potent).
  38. 60
    First to Fight's flawed A.I. and abbreviated single-player game certainly don't advance the FPS genre in a significant way, but its entertaining multiplayer component scores a welcome bull's-eye.
  39. There's no denying that First to Fight is a competent shooter, though some moronic AI decisions, clipping, and the simple fact that games such as this have been done to death make it less than impressive.
  40. It's more Jerry Bruckheimer than it is Tom Clancy, but in a subgenre that's become notorious for being a tad too clinical, that's probably not a bad thing.
  41. Despite its frustrating flaws, there is still an authentic and challenging military games experience to be had.
  42. It's all one big corridor, with the same enemies starting out in the same place each time you hit 'retry'.
  43. Desperately lacking that all-too crucial breathing space for refinement, First to Fight is a sadly mediocre title which, somehow, lost its way on the journey from concept development to store shelves.
  44. The game is such a generic experience, I wouldn't be surprised if it came in a plain yellow box labelled "Video War Game." [June 2005, p.106]
  45. Ends up feeling like it's been built by PC game developers obsessed with quick saves. There's absolutely no creative latitude; it's a case of remembering where enemies appear and getting them before they get you. [May 2005, p.86]
  46. Close Combat also includes co-op and deathmatch, but you'll only lose friends by exposing them to this trash. [May 2005, p.88]
User Score

Generally favorable reviews- based on 10 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 6 out of 8
  2. Negative: 1 out of 8
  1. Spartan234
    May 14, 2006
    Almost everything that can go wrong in a tactical shooter DOES go wrong in Close Combat: First to Fight. Dreary level designs, nasty graphics, broken physics and collision detection, tacked-on audio, terrible music, and amazingly bad voice acting are only the beginning. First off, if the Marines were as stupid as in this game, I wouldn't even be alive right now. These Marines are tactically challenged idiots that seem like they used Doom as a training tool for combat on the battlefield. Don't get me wrong -- Doom is one of the best games ever made, but since it's a run-'n-gun shooter, it's definitely not suitable for battlefield training. This already awful game is made even worse by awful play-balancing: terrorists are nearly invincible sharpshooters, while your team-mates are remarkably awful shots that can only take a bullet or two. Couple that with the fact that the game ends if a squadmate dies, and you've got an unplayable mess of a game. Seriously, if the US Marines were really involved with this dreck, then the particular Marines involved need to go back to boot camp. I am not a Marine, but it's almost immediately obvious that this is NOT what it's like to be a US Marine. If it isn't clear up to this point: Don't play this game. Full Review »
  2. JeffA.
    Jul 5, 2005
    A perfect blend of Rainbow Six and Full Spectrum Warrior. The Ready, Team, Fire, Assist formation really works in this stunning game. The gameplay is top notch. Enemies run for cover and fall from balconies and rooftops when they are shot. They even fire their weapons as they are falling. When they kill you the last thing you see is the enemy shaking their weapon in the air. There are ragdoll effects in the game and civillians running around so you have to be careful who you shoot. You feel like you are a Marine taking the streets of Beirut block by block. This game is a must have if you like FPS. Total sleeper hit. Full Review »
  3. AliA.
    May 8, 2005
    I loved this game, not because i love the us marines but becuase it has so much realism in it. my freinds and i spended one whole day playing this game on xbox live. and i kicked there ass. Full Review »