Top Gun and I have a history. Combat Zones on the PS2 was one of the first games I ever wrote a preview for and I was genuinely excited about the game. Even after playing the sub-par demo of the game, I still held a glimmer of hope that the final version would be better. Boy did I feel like a fool when it came time to review the final copy. To put it bluntly, it was more like a digital kick to nether regions than a decent gaming experience. Long, boring training missions, even longer, more tedious missions, poor controls, and having absolutely nothing to do with the movie - you name it and it went wrong.

Then came E3 2002.

After spending some time with a playable demo of the GC version of Top Gun, as well as taking some time to make suggestions on the gameplay, I once again found that glimmer of hope that made me think the GC version would fix the problems that plagued the PS2 version. Once again, I feel like a fool.

This is an exact carbon copy of the PS2 version, which makes me wonder where all that development time went. If you look at any of the pictures of the game, either on the back of the box or in this review, you'd be led to believe that Top Gun was going to be a graphical feat. Hell, even the back of the box hypes them as being 'astounding and very detailed... especially at low levels'. Now, I'm no developer, but my definition of highly detailed isn't a blurry mess of textures that sometimes resemble real world objects (especially after a bottle of wine or two) and objects that just appear out of thin air. Granted the smoke and cloud effects look good, but smoke can only cover up so much.

Well, the good news is that there's sound - so you know your speakers won't go to waste. The question is, do you really want to hear what comes out of them? Anyone who's ever been to an air show could tell you that jets are loud, not the weak sounding bottle rockets these planes sound like. Even the game's explosions sound terrible. Where are 'Danger Zone' or the 'Top Gun Anthem'? Frankly, you'd be better off muting the game, popping in the Top Gun soundtrack and making airplane/missile noises.

Combat Zones is a game, but only in the academic sense of the word. I think it's best to start by reading the back of the box.

'No other game allows you to fly down back streets on your side taking pot shots at enemy launchers with such realistic details!!!'

Take note that not only is this written in all caps but it also has three exclamation points. The reason I point this out is that the only pot shots being taken are from the AA guns and enemy planes and it's hard enough to fly your plane, so I would hate to see trying to fly it sideways between buildings.

It's hard to find a good place to start when it comes to gameplay. As far as gameplay modes go, Combat Zones offers two modes: Quickstart and Game. Quickstart jumps you right into the action without having to go through the training levels. The problem is, unless you go through the Game mode first, Quickstart is useless because you have to unlock everything in order to use it. Apparently this is supposed to give you some reason to play through the game, but it's really not enough. Other than trying to unlock new planes, there's very little reason for players to want to play the game. First of all, you have to complete a series of training missions, all of which are extremely hard and do a poor job of getting you ready for later missions - if you can ever get to them, that is. Game mode leads you through a series of 36 missions taking place in South East Asia, the Middle East, Arctic Circle, and Miramar. Mission briefings are dull and the missions are either exceedingly hard or just plain stupid. There's not even an overarching storyline or something to at least tie the missions together! Honestly, I think Pong had a better, more coherent storyline. C'mon guys - give me a little motivation other than a bunch of planes I can't fly.

Top Gun is too hard in both the training and 'story' missions. I'd be willing to bet that half the people who even try this game won't make it past the training missions. For one, the goals are too much to ask - especially when you consider the lack of wingmen, limited arsenal, and mission timer. Don't even get me started on the radar system.

Much of this problem stems from the fact that Top Gun really doesn't know what kind of game it wants to be. In some respects it looks like it wants to be an arcade game, but then it turns around and wants to be a simulation. It's not that pulling off a happy medium would be hard, it's just that the game never seems like it wants to.

It's not the lack of story, graphics or sound that make Top Gun as bad as it is; it's that the game mechanics are so poor that it brings what could be an average game down to depths lower than Gary Coleman's growth chart marks. Like the rest of the game, the control set up has no bearing on what kind of game it wants to be. The 'simple' controls are okay, but still do not work as well as they could. This was one of my biggest problems with the PS2 version and it pains me to see that there has been little improvement. Regardless of the setting, the controls are loose and don't work with the game - adding even more frustration to an already frustrating game. It's a good thing the game features 'astounding and very detailed graphics especially in low level flying', because you'll be seeing a lot of the ground as you crash while on a bombing run or trying to destroy one of the many annoyingly accurate AA guns found in each mission.

The biggest question facing this game is 'Where's Top Gun?' I'd really like to have a look at the licensing agreement because it seems that Titus got the short end of the deal. Other than the logo, name, and the fact that there are planes, Top Gun has absolutely nothing to do with the movies. No Maverick, no Iceman, and I'm sure I don't have to mention the lack of 'Danger Zone' again.

The sad part is, there are many more problems I could point out that help to drag this game down, but due to lack of space and for my own personal sanity, I'm sticking to the main points. One of the bright spots about releasing a game on multiple platforms at different times is that you can use the feedback from the original game and make the newer one better. Unfortunately this is a concept the developers haven't mastered since this is the same exact game from last year, only on a different system. Top Gun isn't worth your time or shelf space - so avoid it at all costs.