Average User Score: 5.1Dec 15, 2012I told players in the forums before it was out: "don't knock it till you tried it". Well, I've tried it for a few days now and here is myI told players in the forums before it was out: "don't knock it till you tried it". Well, I've tried it for a few days now and here is my impression of the game broken down into points.
The game feels and looks as if it was made by a European toy company. It looks like Legos with guns aimed at a demographic of 8-12 year olds. It seems like a rushed production where the goal was to make it look attractive, promote it the same way you would toys, and sell as many copies as possible right after launch. They even use reviews from video game review websites/companies such as IGN, before a proper review could be made, leading to my suspicion, that as always, these sites/companies were paid for a positive review. IGN for example has been suspected many times of being paid to give a game a positive review.
The maps were made by artists and not level designers. In fact, level design seems to be non-existent in the maps. It feels more like artists took inspiration from levels from other games and made an attempt to make maps like them. With no destructible terrain, the maps might be half decent. No one that worked on the levels took into account how destructive the classes/weapons are and did not use that knowledge in designing. However, those who designed the levels themselves do not seem to have either the knowledge or experience to design proper maps. For example, the map: London Bridge, has spawn points for both teams somewhat perpendicular to the orientation of the bridge. In other words, rather than facing eachother from opposite sides of the bridge and thus the bridge would become a key element in map control, the bridge is nothing more than useless eye candy. Both teams spawn practically on one side of the bridge and face eachother over a curving part of river. Both teams also spawn on one side and corner of the map, rather than exactly opposite eachother.
Lastly, I understand at launch, every game has bugs in it that eventually get fixed. Ace of Spades 1.0 however not only has shoddy netcode, but it also seems to suffer from many memory leaks. The clientside to server side updating is some of the most horrible I've ever seen. Sometimes, it seems like the server can't decide if you hit an enemy or haven't or where you really are on the map. I can't count how many times I warped back and forth between 2 coordinates. The memory leaks are noticeable from the graphics. Even at the lowest settings on a fast system with a new card, more than adequate ram, high end processor, the FPS is still all over the place and gradually degrades as you play the game. From a programming perspective, I'm starting to be suspicious that they took the original engine and layered all the new elements in the game on top of it and hoped that it would be able to handle a heightened graphic level and many more effects such as increased particle effects. If this is true, the original engine is getting bogged down by all the extra work and was not originally designed to handle so much.
In summary, like I said, if feels like it was made by a toy company for the sole purpose of immediate profits. It really does look and feel like someone took Legos and weapons and threw them into pot and then pushed the digital version of that pot out the door as fast as possible. And I'm saying that while trying to be straightforward and give an honest opinion without hate or any negative intent.
I think it's going to take Jagex a lot of work to fix the list of problems with their game, if they would like to continue to make money off of it. I support any company that wants to sell a game. Game making is very hard work and takes a lot of resources. However, quality is what makes or breaks a game. Time will tell. Buyer beware. Buy the game if you feel that there is still promise there and that they can still improve to a point of being a quality game. Thanks for reading,