Ace Combat: Squadron Leader
| Developer: Project Aces | Graphics: |
 | |
| Publisher: Namco | Sound: |
| |
| Year: 2004 (2005 en Europe) | Difficulty: |
 | |
| Genre: Flight simulation / Arcade | Lastability: |
| |
| Number of players: 1 | Rating: |
7/10 | |
The original title is Ace Combat 5: The Unsung War, which became Ace Combat: Squadron Leader in Europe.
The thundering commercial success of Ace Combat 4 (after Ace Combat 3’s semi-flop) persuaded Namco to allocate more time and resources to developing the fifth instalment. The campaign is longer, missions more varied, and the still-image narrative scenes have given way to impressive 3D cinematics. Moreover, both the universe and plot have been particularly fleshed out.
In-game, the first difference that “struck” me: for the first time, it’s possible to collide with other aircraft. I had to adapt my “head-on full throttle” strategy. I also learned to keep a respectful distance from my allies…
Furthermore, I felt a marked difference from the previous title in enemy behavior. I couldn’t explain whether this comes from advanced programming or if, on the contrary, they’re just dumber than before. I’d lean towards the latter. In any case, aerial combat felt more dynamic and enjoyable.
In Ace Combat 4, enemies had this tendency to stick to my tail for several minutes, right from the first mission. In 5, I only encountered this situation late in the campaign, in the presence of elite pilots. Unable to disengage, I called my wingmen for cover, and the enemy was shot down immediately! This is how I envision aerial combat between seasoned pilots: a one-on-one stalemate, but a decisive advantage for the side with numerical superiority.
This is precisely the main feature advanced by this episode: managing a squadron of three or four pilots. You assign each pilot’s aircraft and give orders during missions. Sadly, this function has barely evolved since Air Combat. The three measly orders (disperse, attack, cover) apply to everyone, regardless of aircraft type. A missed opportunity to define collective tactics in advance, or even to make the briefing phase interactive (and less bland…).
In reality, the squadron is merely a narrative vehicle. The developers wanted players to feel involved, to become attached to the characters. This partly succeeds, thanks to emphatic direction and lively dialogue, albeit extremely cheesy—but the kind of cheese you’d expect from a Top Gun pastiche. I want cheese! And to be fair, the voice acting is excellent.
There’s notably a memorable scene reminiscent of the Pearl Harbor attack, which transitions beautifully into the following mission. The campaign’s pinnacle, in my opinion.
Much later comes the touching moment when a protagonist announces, mid-battle, that their aircraft is doomed and their ejection seat isn’t working. I won’t lie to you, I blubbered like a baby…
Alright, I’m lying. I rolled my eyes throughout the entire sequence. If I could have, I would’ve shot them down myself to cut the scene short.
This is where the character attachment effort misses the mark. I gradually lost patience, along with all empathy, from enduring these innumerable dialogue scenes, imposed and uninterruptible, where action is suspended until the discussion ends. Add to that my insistence on replaying missions until achieving the highest rank. Multiple replays did nothing to alleviate my growing irritation. I think the plot belongs between missions. During the mission, I fly and shoot. I don’t talk, I don’t listen.
[And I certainly don’t read subtitles, a recurring constraint in video games you native English speakers are probably not familiar with. – Ed.]
Even during combat, the chatter never stops, and I don’t possess the alacrity needed to both avoid incoming missiles and pay attention to their prattle. Not content with dawdling, my colleagues constantly buttonhole me with closed questions (the interface prompts yes or no answers using the directional pad). I make it a point of honour to ignore them, hoping they’ll eventually deduce my complete disinterest. Fat chance—non-player characters have no awareness of “passive-aggressive” behaviour…
As for the story, the game seems intent on convincing us, with much emphasis, that it sits upon a complex geopolitical framework. I’d sum it up as the classic struggle of good versus evil, in the name of peace and fluffy bunnies. You won’t escape the violin and piano concerts, the president’s pontificating speeches in front of flags, or the mythological references wielded like sledgehammers. The ending is so saccharine that it knocked me right out of the Top Gun or Pearl Harbor fantasy and into identifying with the turbaned passenger from Airplane!…
On a different note, I find the interface abstruse. In particular, the aircraft purchase screen. Modified versions of certain aircraft progressively unlock by filling sort of experience bars. A laborious and superfluous exercise, considering that normal campaign progression provides better-performing planes early on. I see no incentive to unlock low-tier aircraft variants, carrying insufficient ammunition.
One last telling point: after completing the campaign, a “free play” mode becomes available, allowing you to choose missions to unlock any missing planes. For some absurd reason, you can’t access the aircraft market in this mode. We’re thus forced to restart a campaign, then slog through the first four missions in the starter plane before the game finally deigns to let us spend our dosh!
In conclusion, I began the game with a very favourable first impression. The developers seemed to have learned from the previous game: strengthening the mise en scène, involving the player more. Unfortunately, they tried to do too much and fell into the same pitfalls as the third episode: too long, too chatty. Even less forgivable: these continual interruptions, leading players to put down their controller and wait. It’s incomprehensible that the authors didn’t realise this problem, considering the series’ arcade origins.
| | |
