As squad leader, coordinate the actions of multiple infantry squads, leading them through a variety of hostile environments. An intuitive control scheme allows you to control your squads in real-time as you outthink, outmaneuver and, outgun your enemies through over 12 levels of intense combat. Utilize authentic combat tactics as you battle enemies with an explosive arsenal of weapons, high-tech military equipment and new controllable mechanized units.
Sequel to the critically acclaimed squad-based/real-time tactical combat game, Full Spectrum Warrior: Ten Hammers takes the series' innovative and authentic military gaming experience to the next level with new features in every aspect of the game.
Age requirements: ESRB Rating: MATURE with Blood, Strong Language, Violence. PEGI Rating: 18+ with Bad Language, Violence.
Minimum system requirements: Windows XP / Vista / 7 / 8, AMD Athlon 64; or Pentium 4 2.8GHz+, 1 GB RAM, DirectX 9.0b-compatible graphics card (Nvidia GeForce® 6600 and above) , DirectX 9.0c-compatible sound card, 2.56 GB Free Hard Drive Space,
Posted on 2014-02-20 10:50:55 byThatOneGuyNamedX:
The original Full Spectrum Warrior was this neat little mix between a tactical shooter and a real time strategy game, that fell short because the levels were mostly designed like a puzzle game rather than a strategy or shooter. Ten Hammers fixes most of this by adding it a lot of player involvement, letting the player separate their squad, making different squadmates actually haveread more different abilities, and generally polishing every detail of the gameplay to make it far more involving.
So it's an improvement on that regard, mechanically alone this game is absolutely unique among shooters or strategy games. It's a shame the story is absolute garbage and none of the characters are likeable.
Was this helpful?(24 of 26 people found this helpful)
Posted on 2014-02-20 12:15:58 byDaemon009:
I`ve played this game back in the day and it was generally pretty good. All the realism, tactical movement was still there. The levels were a little linear, yet still open ended with multiple ways of progression and a lot of replay value. The best new feature was the ability to divide your 4-man fireteams into smaller squads/pairs of soldiers adding a lot more depth. FSW:TH hasread more a very weird semi manual aiming system. It`s pretty useful but ends up feeling wrong. I know they wanted to encourage tactical play over action but normal aiming could work pretty well in this game. Just add a lot of recoil, weapon sway and bullet drop to the shooting :) Apart from that: the vehicle combat and the ability to go inside buildings are generally fun mechanics. The tactical walk (slow movement with guns drawn) sucked and never came in handy for me. On a final note: There is a checkpoint save system which is almost never good and makes the game waaaaaaaay harder and more frustrating than it should be. FSW:TH is generally a large improvement over the first one and well worth the 4 $ :)
Was this helpful?(10 of 12 people found this helpful)
Posted on 2014-03-09 01:14:40 bynsharbaugh:
I used to play the hell out of these games as a kid and got extremely frustrated. Not because the game was unfair, but because i wasn't smart enough to successfully accomplish combat maneuvers. The game does a great job of walking you through the basics. And the missions steadily progress in difficulty, to the point where the later missions are unforgiving. It is not impossible,read more and by no means unfair, just difficult. Something that i think is missing in modern day games. It does not hold your hand. This is still a fantastic squad based tactical military simulation. I'm not going to touch on the improvements from the first one because most of them have been outlined in other reviews. I would kill for a modern full spectrum warriors game, or one similar to it, but they would need to STAY AWAY from the CoD audience. They have a great system going, but the moment they implement the ability to take control of a soldier and make it a first person shooter, it's all over.
Was this helpful?(4 of 4 people found this helpful)
See all user reviews (4)