Oh my god, I laughed so hard when you showed this audio mixing in Battle for Pacific. That shit is hilarious. Great video by the way, really like your channel🤌
Funfact there is more history channel games about civil war and ww2 called respectivly : history channel 1940 battle of britain and history channel civil war great battles and history channel civil war battle for alamo independence
Your videos are awesome, man. If UA-cam didn't hide small creators and only promote idiots who already have millions of subscribers, your channel would definitely get more attention.
Played the two Civil War games on the Xbox 360 somewhat recently. Pretty much feel the same, they aren't "good" but they aren't totally awful either. Boring 5 out of 10 games. Which is sometimes worse than a game that's just terrible. People are making videos on that Gollum game for a reason after all. Something being that terrible can be more interesting sometimes.
Wow if anyone's played Soldier of Fortune Payback, Battle for the Pacific is basically the exact same game but with a reskin, even the aim-down-sights is the same in-correct not-ironsights gun-goes-to-middle-of-the-screen zoom in as soldier of fortune payback, but the hud, the crosshairs, the ragdoll physics, the lighting, I'm sure it's all cause of the Unreal engine, but it's insane how much it plays, looks, and feels, I guess it's not insane, but it looks like both are made from assets game developers could buy at the time for Unreal and just the bare minimum to call it a game. I think the only difference is Soldier of Fortunate Payback's AI and pathfinding at least theoretically worked most of the time, I remember being mildly amused at SOF:Payback because it was the next gen of shooters and next-gen technology, but after the first few levels you got sick of the game right away. I don't think I beat SOF Payback cause of how awful it was. But seeing Battle for The Pacific, and how similar it is shows just how lazy both developers were, maybe it was the same developer but the AI of both acting completely different makes me think it's just same engine, similar assets, but atleast Payback tried a little harder to make their game a little more playable. Anyone who's played Payback would probably know what I mean, it looks exactly the same, the text isn't even changed on the hud, along with the crosshair, if it weren't for the weapons and era you'd think screenshots of both games were the same game.
I loved the History Channel Civil War games, grew up with it on the PS2, so I really don't see to many problems, but Battle for the Pacific? I never really liked it.
Apparently the PS2 port of Battle for the Pacific is better than the main console version. Yeah it"s still garbage, but it is way better. The PS2 port was NOT developed by Cauldren
I'm surprised you didn't bring up "History - Great Empires: Rome" for the DS. Albeit that game is a port of "Legion Gold" a PC game released in 2003 that was an updated version of "Legion" a game that had come out a year prior. So it's iffy combat is based on the PC version where players have very little control of battles beyond giving a few basic orders and positioning troops before the fight begins. Though the DS port does have stability issues that crop up if you upgrade to many towns at the same time as you near your goal of dominating a region. And regardless of which version your looking at it's impossible to go for a full conquest campaign which is pretty annoying in my opinion.
Cauldron also made Soldier of Fortune Payback and Jurassic The Hunted. I liked Jurassic The Hunted, it's basically budget Turok 2008. Their History Channel FPS games weren't good. Oh wait, they also made a Secret Service FPS game that's budget Call of Duty lol.
Ah okay, that explains it, I just made a comment on how the text looked the same on the hud, the crosshairs, the weird janky "ironsights-not-ironsights" middle-screen weapon zoom. But I remember Payback at least having more functional AI, whereas I don't remember the AI of Pacific being nearly as that bad in Payback, the enemies at least shot at you, and didn't look in the wrong direction all the time. I thought it was an asset flip or something cause they were made on the new Cryengine 2 at the time, and back in that era of gaming, as long as you had the current generation of technology in terms of graphics, physics, and what not, gamers would buy it and wouldn't realize it was a budget-game until they were playing it, but the box screenshots and trailers tricked gamers into thinking they were playing a real game like the triple A studio budgeted games. Nowadays it's a little more obvious but back then people would buy Sniper Ghost Warrior and think it was a real game, the series developed into a real game series and ended up turning into something decent, but holy shit was the first game awful and totally budget, but nobody realized because they just wanted an FPS game. Just Cause 1 was also another budget game that ended up developing into a real series. It was a weird era where budget studios could suddenly make a hit game as long as it "looked" the part, gamers could forgive some jank, I think most people didn't notice Sniper Ghost Warrior was jank cause most people played the multiplayer and it had a pretty booming community on console, that not many actually played the single player.
Oh my god, I laughed so hard when you showed this audio mixing in Battle for Pacific. That shit is hilarious.
Great video by the way, really like your channel🤌
They’re like oatmeal, edible but bland
Funfact there is more history channel games about civil war and ww2 called respectivly : history channel 1940 battle of britain and history channel civil war great battles and history channel civil war battle for alamo independence
Your videos are awesome, man. If UA-cam didn't hide small creators and only promote idiots who already have millions of subscribers, your channel would definitely get more attention.
Played the two Civil War games on the Xbox 360 somewhat recently. Pretty much feel the same, they aren't "good" but they aren't totally awful either. Boring 5 out of 10 games. Which is sometimes worse than a game that's just terrible. People are making videos on that Gollum game for a reason after all. Something being that terrible can be more interesting sometimes.
Get this man more subs!
its a shame the civil war games were bad because its such a interesting time in US history that we dont see in game form very often
Wow if anyone's played Soldier of Fortune Payback, Battle for the Pacific is basically the exact same game but with a reskin, even the aim-down-sights is the same in-correct not-ironsights gun-goes-to-middle-of-the-screen zoom in as soldier of fortune payback, but the hud, the crosshairs, the ragdoll physics, the lighting, I'm sure it's all cause of the Unreal engine, but it's insane how much it plays, looks, and feels, I guess it's not insane, but it looks like both are made from assets game developers could buy at the time for Unreal and just the bare minimum to call it a game.
I think the only difference is Soldier of Fortunate Payback's AI and pathfinding at least theoretically worked most of the time, I remember being mildly amused at SOF:Payback because it was the next gen of shooters and next-gen technology, but after the first few levels you got sick of the game right away. I don't think I beat SOF Payback cause of how awful it was.
But seeing Battle for The Pacific, and how similar it is shows just how lazy both developers were, maybe it was the same developer but the AI of both acting completely different makes me think it's just same engine, similar assets, but atleast Payback tried a little harder to make their game a little more playable.
Anyone who's played Payback would probably know what I mean, it looks exactly the same, the text isn't even changed on the hud, along with the crosshair, if it weren't for the weapons and era you'd think screenshots of both games were the same game.
I loved the History Channel Civil War games, grew up with it on the PS2, so I really don't see to many problems, but Battle for the Pacific? I never really liked it.
Apparently the PS2 port of Battle for the Pacific is better than the main console version. Yeah it"s still garbage, but it is way better. The PS2 port was NOT developed by Cauldren
The history channel has some good history documentaries... but not video games.
I'm surprised you didn't bring up "History - Great Empires: Rome" for the DS. Albeit that game is a port of "Legion Gold" a PC game released in 2003 that was an updated version of "Legion" a game that had come out a year prior. So it's iffy combat is based on the PC version where players have very little control of battles beyond giving a few basic orders and positioning troops before the fight begins.
Though the DS port does have stability issues that crop up if you upgrade to many towns at the same time as you near your goal of dominating a region. And regardless of which version your looking at it's impossible to go for a full conquest campaign which is pretty annoying in my opinion.
5:28 oh so it has the exact same problem that took halo about 20 years to fix?
Cauldron also made Soldier of Fortune Payback and Jurassic The Hunted. I liked Jurassic The Hunted, it's basically budget Turok 2008.
Their History Channel FPS games weren't good. Oh wait, they also made a Secret Service FPS game that's budget Call of Duty lol.
Ah okay, that explains it, I just made a comment on how the text looked the same on the hud, the crosshairs, the weird janky "ironsights-not-ironsights" middle-screen weapon zoom. But I remember Payback at least having more functional AI, whereas I don't remember the AI of Pacific being nearly as that bad in Payback, the enemies at least shot at you, and didn't look in the wrong direction all the time.
I thought it was an asset flip or something cause they were made on the new Cryengine 2 at the time, and back in that era of gaming, as long as you had the current generation of technology in terms of graphics, physics, and what not, gamers would buy it and wouldn't realize it was a budget-game until they were playing it, but the box screenshots and trailers tricked gamers into thinking they were playing a real game like the triple A studio budgeted games. Nowadays it's a little more obvious but back then people would buy Sniper Ghost Warrior and think it was a real game, the series developed into a real game series and ended up turning into something decent, but holy shit was the first game awful and totally budget, but nobody realized because they just wanted an FPS game. Just Cause 1 was also another budget game that ended up developing into a real series.
It was a weird era where budget studios could suddenly make a hit game as long as it "looked" the part, gamers could forgive some jank, I think most people didn't notice Sniper Ghost Warrior was jank cause most people played the multiplayer and it had a pretty booming community on console, that not many actually played the single player.
I grew up with the civil war one it was pretty fun imo
10:02 DoN't FoRgEt Me
What’s a PlayStation mini?
You should review Astro boy the video game next for both Wii and DS versions
DON’T FORGET ME!
DONT FORGET ME!
I never forgot that guy 😞
You forgot Patton
Tbh I want to try the first person shooters
I prefer playing battle for the pacific on the wii cause it’s a far superior version.
Battle for the Pacific is on the same engine as Soldier of Fortune Payback
Hey spice lord here’s a game u can play Kane and lynch dead men
At least they‘re better than most phoenix games..
Atleast you got to play a part of history 😂😂.
Ehh.. Ice road truckers manga was better
I didn't even know the History Channel had games, I see why now cus they are painfully mediocre. Awesome video btw!