Armored Core 3

"An excellent game once you realize it."

Big Robots

Don’t let the “3” in the title fool you: this is definitely the place to start if you’re new to the Armored Core franchise. The PlayStation games (AC 1 and all of its numerous spin-offs) haven’t aged well, and Armored Core 2 and its subsequent expansion pack, AC2: Another Age, were a graphical update that suffered from some hefty problems within gameplay balance. Armored Core 3 is, for now, the pinnacle of a franchise dedicated to improving its last effort.

The formula so far has been a successful one. The object of the game is to build a robot and run it in a variety of skirmishes either in the form of missions or one-on-one in a gladiator-style arena. Of primary concern and focus, however, is within the design of your robot, and hundreds of parts exist by which to make your robot do what you want it to. If you want a solid wall of defense, slap a heavy torso (or core, as it’s called) onto some tank legs. If you like weaving in and out of gunfire, light arms, legs, and cores fit the bill. Any dissatisfaction here is a result of one’s indecisiveness as opposed to the game’s roster of parts—playing a heavy tank isn’t just different from a light AC, it’s almost a whole new game: tactics change, maneuverability transforms, weapons switch, and the strengths and weaknesses of your last robot are replaced with entirely new ones. Even more mind-boggling are the selection of internal parts: radiators to ward off heat damage, generators to give you more energy, and optional parts to boost the power or effectiveness of the other parts you selected.

For the sake of brevity, I’ll stop: AC3 is so deep in this regard that self-restraint on my part is needed to maintain any sort of coherency here. Know that the selection of parts that you’re able to modify is astounding in its depth, and even more astounding when one sees that they make an immense amount of difference in how your robot plays.

Once you get into any sort of action, AC3 is a third-person shooter done right. Normally cumbersome aiming has been given a facelift here in the form of an FCS (fire control system) window: anything within a large box in the middle of your screen will be targeted by your weapon. One is more than capable (although this varies depending on the mobility of your setup) of dodging gunfire by strafing, jumping, and switching between multiple weapons on the fly. For extra speed, one can simply hold down X to use the boosters, which give your movements an extreme amount of thrust at the sacrifice of your energy. This energy supply, in turn, is dependent on your selection of parts.

The first component of the game is within the missions. Don’t pay much attention to this: the missions are essentially a means to an end; without them, you can’t get the requisite money by which to buy new parts. They also advance a story that isn’t gripping or interesting in the least, and although there’s an “ending” for the game, so to speak, the game doesn’t end with it. Primarily the missions involve gunning down several tanks and helicopters that are ill equipped for fending off a marauding 6-story tall robot. These missions are entirely forgettable, and leave one longing for a more skilled set of opponents.

The “real” game

The arena is the natural extension of AC3’s gameplay, and for this reason if nothing else: it stresses the importance of good robot design. Whereas a poorly equipped robot can easily defeat many of the missions, fighting off weakly armored jets as it suffers from low energy, bad armor, and weak weapons, the arena opponents will shred it. Here, the balance of AC3 is impeccable.

Start with the legs of your AC—they dictate your initial weight capacity. Assuming you’ve picked a light set of legs, the extent of your choices doesn’t stop. You have maneuverability pegged down, sure, but sacrifices need to be made, and it’s up to you to decide what.

Although it can’t hold terribly much, you can strap on a high-capacity machinegun and some formidable missiles onto that small frame, going with a light core, arms, and internals. The downside here is that your internals will cause you to suffer from a shortage of energy, and your armor will not take kindly to incoming assaults. Unless you’re really good at dodging, you will get shredded by something with more firepower. Together with your low energy, this is a bad combination: your flying time is now limited, and you need that flying time to get out of the way of some assaults. Soak up a few too many hits, and your radiator isn’t going to cool you down from the additional heat damage that follows.

So let’s say you go the other route and pay some mindful attention to defense. Slap on a heavy core, some heavy arms, and some excellent internal parts. Now you’re less fragile, heat up less, and you may even have some additional tricks by way of missile decoys or items to dupe your opponent’s radar. But you’ve allocated a lot of your weight to these, restricting your weapon choices to lighter armaments. Should you get in a scuffle with a heavy bruiser of an AC, you may be able to run circles around it, but a handgun alone won’t be able to finish it off.

At your AC’s best, it is incapable of dominating everything; there is no “the best AC you can make” to challenge all opponents. At your AC’s worst, it is incapable of doing anything: a tank AC equipped with a handgun, crappy internal parts, and light arms lacks defense and firepower—two things a tank AC needs in order to win.

Playing against a friend of your skill level shows the near-flawless balance of parts within this system, and battles soon become something of a Gran Turismo of robot modification. Do you add an extra ten missile decoys, or do you use the extra weight to upgrade your beam saber to a more powerful version? Do you risk using a part that may provide better radiator performance, but consume more of your precious energy? Should you go with the sniper rifles, which deliver some decent firepower at a longer range, or do you equip the bazooka and take a gamble with getting in close to do some hefty damage?

With the customization in this area, one would be inclined to think that AC3 is a simulation. Hardly. Armored Core 3 is an action game. Although slower than Zone of the Enders, the other PS2 robot line, it’s still about flying in the air, shooting missiles off, and rushing people with machine guns. It’s intense. Unfortunately, much of this isn’t within the game itself. The missions are a dreary afterthought and waste of AC3’s customization, and the AI-controlled arena opponents simply stop giving someone a challenge, even at the highest levels the game provides. For this reason, AC3 is to be played with a friend that’s willing to dive into the meat of the game as much as you are.

Rough around the edges

Even within the two-player arena fighting, AC3 isn’t perfect: there are some parts that are mostly useless in any application, some parts that are a little more powerful than they should be, and against equal opponents, the gameplay can turn into a paper-rock-scissors match of whose AC is more equipped to take down the other: certain weapons are simply better at hitting certain types of ACs than others.

Should one be looking for an immensely solid one-player experience, AC3 won’t disappoint terribly. Although the missions are filler, the large AI arena will entertain and give your robot a workout. However, when one realizes that the AI is a poor substitution for a human that doesn’t take to such easily exploited patterns and stagnant design, the single player experience will lose its charm. It really does take two to make this game tango.

AC3 toes the line between a one-on-one fighter and a mech sim, but I can’t think of any game that can do this better in the most ideal of circumstances. However, AC3’s gameplay circumstances are hardly ideal given the bulk of the single player game as well as the fact that many probably will not like this game: it’s hard to master, the system is uninvitingly and almost impenetrably deep, and it takes a while to build.

Within the dark heart of AC3, you’ll find a 10 / 10 game, but it unfortunately mandates a great deal of digging.

8 / 10

Reviewer's Score: 8/10, Originally Posted: 06/27/03, Updated 06/27/03