User Reviews (1 - 11 of 16)

Show these reviews first:

Highest Rated
Lowest Rated Newest
Oldest Most Helpful
Least Helpful

A Quick but Quality Release

4 Rating: 4, Useful: 9 / 10
Date: June 07, 2002
Author: Amazon User

If you have played Ghost Recon you have pretty much played The Sum of all Fears. It uses the same graphics engine that gives GR it's fantastic looks and it works very well in the close quarters combat missions in SOAF. The interface is a bit stiff but assigning your two teammates to clear (take out any opponents in a room), flash-bang or grenade a room is a very nice touch. It gives you a nice mix of different weapons kits from basic silenced Mp5's to more heavy hardware like M16's w/grenade lauchers and modified M4 carbines and some nice sniper kits. The maps and missions are well presented and are great to play. Multiplayer gameplay is also tense and fun. Think of this game as Rainbow Six: Rouge Spear meets Ghost Recon and you have Sum of All Fears. If you are a Ghost Recon player you will love Sum of all Fears. O.K. the bad, because this game is not all good. The missions are somewhat easy even on the "Hard" setting. The uniforms of the characters do not change only their kits do. Your teammates can be quite stupid at times and you sometimes have to look out for them. Only 11 full missions but if you play the "Firefight" options in the Multiplayer maps it adds more replay value. It has VERY little relation to the movie or book by the same name. No this game is not Soldier of Fortune II, but nor was it meant to be. It seams like it was a rushed release in order to make it out along wth the movie BUT over all this game is a great even if it is your first FPS game or if yo are a regular FPS gamer.

Not bad but buy Raven Sheild instead

3 Rating: 3, Useful: 6 / 9
Date: May 26, 2002
Author: Amazon User

Sum of All Fears (SOAF) uses the Ghost Recon engine and was basically rushed out for the movie. The game feels rather clunky and the graphics are unimpressive. If you are a true Tom Clancy fan and want to own all of the games then the "nice price" ...

Another bland movie tie-in.

3 Rating: 3, Useful: 2 / 2
Date: September 15, 2002
Author: Amazon User

It is actually unfortunate that the makers of such great games like Ghost Recon and Rainbow Six decided not to do more with SOAF. Rather it was rushed to release with the movie and feels it.

Basically all of the gameplay elements are barrowed from the Ghost Recon and Rainbow Six games. Anyone who has played those will be right at home here. This is a mixed blessing, since there is nothing new to see or do. The missions got very repetitive. The game is going to appeal more to those who have not had much experience with GR or R6.
That's where it really fails. It is made to attract the casual gamer with the same name as the big budget movie and great book. Many of the things that made GR and R6 good are not to be found since they would require more of the player than just pointing and shooting. Which is what the game really boils down too, hunting down vague villains in vague locations that are supposed to be related to the movie. The characters have no faces or personality, that they have names at all is meaningless. If they die or not doesn't matter, there will be another faceless team member to replace them. There are no skills to increase or unique operatives to pick from here. Nor can you give your troops complex commands and any planning at all has been thrown out altogether. It's grab your gun, find the bad guys, and shoot them. Even this is made rather easy to the effect of being pointless. The AI even on the hard setting is lax compared to Ghost Recon.

Another problem is the graphics. It's the same engine from GR, and while it is not a bad graphics engine, it's not used properly here. What GR does well is rendering large outdoor environments. However SOAF is almost entirely indoors. As a result the textures look bland and sometimes look like they were not meant to support 32bit color. Combine that with the uninspired locations and reparative gameplay, and you get a very mediocre game.

What made it worth playing at all was it was so simple and easy that it was kind of fun to just run around shooting anything that moved. Since there is no preplanning or tactical depth beyond, move, shoot and don't get killed, you have little to worry about. Just find the bad guys and fill'm with enough lead that they won't get back up. It became and an odd run'n gun almost arcade game set in realistic locations with real guns only no real depth. There are some good points to be made. The character models and sound effects are all top notch. Even the music is a new score made for SOAF. The voice over by John Clark is the same one used in the Rainbow Six games and it's good to see, or rather hear, some consistency between Ubi's games and it's done well. I liked the lay out of the menus and the colors used. And a couple of the locations were a little different and offered some interest.

I would recommend this to anyone looking to try out the tactical military shooters, but for the money you might as well use it to buy the much better Rainbow Six or Ghost Recon games. Still, it might be worth a few hours more of pure tango hunting.

Brain dead

2 Rating: 2, Useful: 2 / 2
Date: October 04, 2002
Author: Amazon User

This could have been a great game. I mean it. The mission structures are great, and weapon choices are top notch, and the overall feel is not bad. The thing that annoys me is the team AI. I must say that this game probably has the most stupid team AI I've ever seen on any tactical shooter. They like getting killed, like stunning themselves with flashbangs, ocassionally like shooting their mates AND getting shot by their mates. Very often you'll end up dying because these chums don't know how to cover you, very often they'll walk into your field of fire while you're shooting, and very often you'll turn around to find yourself alone, backtracking to find them stuck behind a door or just playing statue in a hallway. When you do find them, they'll run to you like a lost child who's just found his parent. How stupid is that? Please, AVOID THIS GAME, unless of course you've got too much money. Go play Ghost Recon instead. It's a more worthwhile investment.

Just Plain Fun.

4 Rating: 4, Useful: 2 / 2
Date: July 16, 2002
Author: Amazon User

This is a fun game. I am a fan of all the Red Storm/Tom Clancy stuff, and this has it's place somewhere between Rogue Spear and Ghost Recon. I liked how another reviewer did the pros/cons thing, so i am going to copy him.

pros:
great maps/graphics,
cool sound effects,
tricky AI,
ease of use.

cons:
no blood,
too easy at times,
[bad] story,
limited weapons.

However, all I really want to say is: look at the price.. it is well worth thirty bucks if you like this special ops/FPS stuff.

Better than these reviews would have you believe

4 Rating: 4, Useful: 3 / 5
Date: June 14, 2002
Author: Amazon User

If you enjoy the gameplay and improved AI of Ghost Recon, but miss the CQB environments of Rogue Spear then Sum Of All Fears is the ideal game for you.

Pros:
-outstanding new command and control allows you to quickly issue orders to your team that are far more complex than Ghost Recon's
-support teams assist your three man team in executing your missions which is far more realistic than any of the previous Red Storm titles
-the multiplayer maps are all very, very good
-$29.99 is cheap for a game of this quality
-the great AI in Ghost Recon is made even better, these bad guys are pretty sneaky

Cons:
-very restrictive kit options that become somewhat more flexible as you complete missions
-missions are too easy
-the map interface is really annoying and sort of dictates the routes you must take and shows you where the bad guys are
-if it matters to you, the game doesn't follow the book or the movie at all

Going into this purchase, based upon all the reviews I read, I wasn't expecting much but I am extremely pleased. This game is an evolutionary step beyond Ghost Recon and Desert Siege that improves game play and realism both, which is not an easy thing to do. If you are a fan of the genre, I don't see how you could be disappointed.

Sum of All that is not good in gaming

2 Rating: 2, Useful: 4 / 9
Date: June 02, 2002
Author: Amazon User

My copy of S.O.A.F. arrived on Friday and I can summarize this game in one quick sentence. This is not as good as ghost recon.

Part of the problem with the lack of fluid motion may be the different game engine they are using. However, many of the problems with this game stem from design flaws.

The first thing I did after a prelimianry run through some of the maps and quick missions was to go ahead and modify the "unlocked outfits" and unlocked missions files so I could view each map and each uniform available. I may be completely wrong and my lack of interest in this particular red Storm release keeps me from checking any further but the uniforms do not appear t change much from one title to another. It appears
that the weapons are what actually change. Snipers appear the same as support etc it is simply the weapon that is different per individual.

The gameplay motion is not as fluid as Ghost Recon and the ability to select weapons is limited much more so than in previous games such as Rogue Spear. The maps appear to be up to par but the lack of blood and the lack of player realism take a lot away from this game.

You'll notice when a player switches weapons it is quite cartoonish. I was using a sniper and watching the replay I cna see that the sniper rifle simply disappears as if he does not have this weapon. I want to see the weapons when not in use and make them switch a little more realisticly.

In short, this falls well below the standards of Ghost Recon and Desert Siege. I have not played this in multi-player mode yet but I am not sure if I even want to. I am going to play Ghost Recon while waiting for Raven's Shield.

OK game that seemed rushed

3 Rating: 3, Useful: 2 / 4
Date: May 31, 2002
Author: Amazon User

I love all of the work by Tom Clancy including books and movies. When it comes to this game he drops off. I have never played any of his other games (so don't write how great they were, and say i am crazy). This game however I got a feeling that it was all scripted just like a movie, you do not really have free movement. The game is not anything good compared to great military games like Operation Flashpoint: Cold War Crises that gives you movement like no other. If you are a true Tom Clancy fan like I am and you like Cold War type games stick to Operation Flashpoint or Medal of Honor Allied Assault.

So, are all the Tom Clancy games this bad?

2 Rating: 2, Useful: 1 / 3
Date: September 24, 2002
Author: Amazon User

Seriously, I would like to know.

I liked the movie, had never really played a squad-based tactical game (I stick to First Person Shooters and flight sims) so decided to try it out. the back of the box reads "Mission-based campaign with 11 missions that take place in real-world locations." So, I think "11 missions? Must mean there will be around 20 levels." (since usually in any game I've played a mission is a series of a few levels. ie, Medal of Honor: Allied Assault has like 5 missions, but a total of 15-20 levels) but the case with this game is 11 LEVELS. So, what it comes down to, is after spending [money] I get home and blow through the entire game in 2 hours at most. True, the levels are okay, but the AI is easy, the squadmates are boring, and as I said before, it is far too short a game to for this kind of cash. I suppose it could have taken longer if I had taken it slow, explored the areas, looked at some blank computer screens in the room I just cleared, but as a FPSer, I kind of just stroll through, take the baddies down, and move along. The only thing that I hesitate for is if the bad guys give me enough challenge to make me think my plan all the way through before I step out of that room as with Soldier of Fortune 2. this game, you clear the room, step out without hesitating and blast through the slow witted, ... enemies that tactlessly await you in the next room.

Since I have no basis for comparison with this being my first game of this sort, I am sorely dissappointed. Had it lasted longer, then I would have given it a better rating, but two hours for [money] just isn't worth it for me. I'll just go back to playing Medal of Honor: Allied Assault and actually get my monies worth out of it through all the replays that it demands.

So, serously, is this game the norm for this genre, or is it just terrible in every area?

Another dud

1 Rating: 1, Useful: 1 / 7
Date: June 02, 2002
Author: Amazon User

I am sure the movie will be good as all the Clancy Movies have been, but unfortunately if the demo I have played of this game is a decently accurate sample of the game, then there is not much to look forward to. It uses the same horrible engine as the pitiful Ghost Recon game uses. You still move slow as a snail and have litle directional control over your character as you can't map the left and right keys like in Ghost Recon. Another military fiasco to add the the growing list of dud military games. I.E. the rest of the clancy games, the delta force games, Operation Flashpoint, to name a few. So don't waste your money or time on SOAF.

Review Page: 1 2 Next 

Actions