Section 8 Prejudice Gets Assault Mode

You know what we don't get anymore? Guns that go 'ZAP'. Get on it, developers.

The players of Section 8: Prejudice have smashed the requisite ten million online kills, unlocking themselves Assault Mode, a new game type in which one team tries to capture points spread across the map and the other has to stop them. Timegate’s party line on it is as follows- “a fast-paced mode that encourages close cooperation with your team and unwavering focus on the goal of capturing or defending the base!” Holy shit! That sounds way more exciting than what I said. No video just yet, but you can watch a video of Prejudice’s Swarm mode after the jump, which is its four player co-op against-waves-of-enemies mode.


  1. WhenInRome says:

    Smart buisiness model- give people incentives to stay and kill people.

    EDIT: First post! Sweet!

    • Gnoupi says:

      To be fair though, I think they changed the text in-game to “help getting 1 million kills”, a few days ago. But maybe it was just reaching the end of the countdown anyway.

      Either way, it’s great, more content for a great multiplayer game!

    • Dominic White says:

      People got the whole 10-mil requirement – they only changed the notification in the final 10% of the countdown.

    • Gnoupi says:

      @Dominic – thanks for the precision, I was surprised about the change these last days, but couldn’t find any article or official word about it.

      So that makes a lot of people killed by meteoritic soldiers!

  2. Antsy says:

    I really need to have a shot of this, considering I had it pre-ordered. If World of Tanks would just release its grip on me.

    • Alexander Norris says:

      It is very good.

      The only drawback is that some of the unlocks are clearly better than others and than the starting kit and that the sniper rifles need to be nerfed back to what they were in the original S8.

      Well, that and the fact that as an indie MP game it will have no players in a month. :(

  3. Anthile says:

    I played a couple of assault rounds yesterday and it seems really imbalanced as of now. The attackers have a huge advantage because the turrets are an annoyance at best, unless somebody decides to take a nap in front of it. They only work as support fire. Also, the jammer beacon is already the most valuable piece of equipment in conquest but in assault it’s absolutely overpowered. Sure, you can destroy it but that’s not so easy when you’re getting shot at or the beaconeer (I just made that word up) is somebody like me, who likes to place it in the most unreachable places.

    • choconutjoe says:

      Surely it’s supposed to be like that? The teams take it in turns and then the team that defends for the longest wins. If the defenders weren’t at a disadvantage then the game would never end.

    • Dominic White says:

      Isn’t it meant to be a ‘race’ style Assault mode, where Team A tries for the best time/score, then they swap places and Team B tries the same? If so, then it should be balanced in favour of the attacker – the goal of the defenders is to hold out as long as they can.

      If it’s just a single round without a turnabout, then that’s pretty dumb.

    • aldo_14 says:

      It sounded like a version of Bad Companys ‘rush’ mode to me. Which was my favourite mode.

    • Hallgrim says:

      @Aldo: Unfortunately it feels like a poor copy of Rush to me. They use the exact same maps as conquest, including control point locations. Rush changed the location of the maps, and had two forces fighting each other at node 1 to 2 to 3 to 4, in the same order every time. Here, the attackers can attack all the nodes until they take 3 nodes. Then, the defenders no longer get to respawn and can just be picked off until you can cap the 4th node. There isn’t the sense of struggle I got from Rush. The defenders are doomed, the team that “wins” is actually the team that is able to defend for the longest time, before being overrun. I suppose there may be some strategies that would let the defenders win (like pick 2 adjacent nodes and strongly defend only those 2), but it would take a large amount of coordination on the defenders part, and the defenders would be strongly outnumbered.

      tl;dr: Whichever team is defending is going to lose unless they are really good and the attackers are really bad. Not fun, even if you do it twice in a row and see which team is “the best” at losing on defense.

    • Dominic White says:

      Hallgrim, you somehow manage to acknowledge the point of this mode (the defending team ARE going to lose, and their score is how long they held out for, that’s how it’s meant to work!), and simultaneously ignore it in the same ramble. Whut?

    • aldrenean says:

      Haven’t played Assault yet so I can’t comment on most of what you said, but I agree about jammer beacons. Absolutely amazing piece of equipment that I would never suggest removing, but it needs to be balanced by something else, either a dedicated “jammer-jammer” or possibly some sort of manual spotting mechanic (I’m thinking Brink’s Operative ability to mark an enemy, Bad Company 2 style, by ironsighting them for a few seconds) that you have to put points in to.

  4. Conor says:

    Of the few games I played of assault last night, my teammates was somewhat lacking in the teamwork department for the most part. Even then, it was still damned fun, and the battles around control points were a lot more pitched. If you could get both teams to act in a coordinated way, then I can imagine this being lots and lots of fun.

  5. Lobotomist says:

    I wish they allow players from all the world to play it.
    So far half of europe , and asia is locked

    • Anton says:

      Right on! What sucks is that the locks are not region specific, but rather country specific. Singapore is a neighbor of the Philippines, but Singapore can play Prejudice, while people here in the Philippines can’t!!!!

    • Delusibeta says:

      For which, you’ll have to blame Microsoft’s stoopid limitations on Games for Windows Live (and Xbox Live, for that matter).

  6. Anton says:


  7. Dominic White says:

    This is a surprising little gem of a game. Proper teamwork, quite deep, lots of interesting elements (building impromptu bases around objectives is fun), and a decently sized playerbase. Having great bots (top 3 players on each team are usually humans, but it’s not unusual to see bots are the 4-5 positions out of 20) helps it a lot, too.

    And no, the lock-on system isn’t ‘dumbed down babby console shootans’. It’s actually part of a fairly complex electronic warfare layer, and you can spec your suit either for stealth (stay off radar and block enemy lock attempts) or sensor boosting (lock faster, identify enemies more reliably). There’s a whole bunch of additional variables to take into account.

    • Gnoupi says:

      Yes, the lock-on is more of a “quick-kill” when you manage to surprise your opponent, because it is otherwise easy to break. Nice tactical tool, not something to rage about on endless forum topics about some “dumb aimbot”.

      The bots are “too good” for my own taste, I prefer playing with humans who will most like miss me, or lose time on fighting on a senseless frontline while I take their CPs.
      Bots are taking objectives and are quite effective at it.

    • Dominic White says:

      On the lower settings, the bots get noticeably dumber, not just slower or less accurate. On the lowest difficulty, the stupid things will dive headlong into AA fire over and over again.

      It’s pretty interesting to see. The dumbest bots are basically ‘rolling your face across the keyboard and hoping for the best’ and the highest level ones are equivalent to a decent mid/upper level player.

    • skurmedel says:

      I like it too. I am not disappointed by my purchase. I do have to echo the bit above about the jammer being a bit overpowered (although I use it myself heheee.)

      Otherwise it’s really nice, I just wish I could crank up the anti-aliasing a bit.

  8. Teddy Leach says:

    It’s a shame that every team I’ve played this mode with are useless. It’s very fun though.

  9. green_genes says:

    Is this worth picking up? I am in desperate need of a new multiplayer shooter. I had planned on picking up Brink but I have read many mixed reviews on that and am torn on which one to get. Definitely kicking myself for not picking up BF2 on the steam sale last weekend.

    • Jim Rossignol says:

      Hard to say. I like both this and Brink, but neither are really Must Play material.

    • Orija says:

      Weren’t you guys gonna have an RPS Brink server?

    • green_genes says:

      Hey Jim thanks for the quick reply. That is pretty much what I figured. Looking forward to the RPS verdict on Brink. Reading the reviews and forums has been very interesting to say the least.

    • Jim Rossignol says:

      We have two servers actually, I just haven’t posted up the details yet, cos I haven’t configured ’em properly.

  10. Thunderkor says:

    I got into the new mode and did horribly, but then I’m still a bit wet behind the ears in this game – only 11 hours or so logged total, and much of that was the campaign. Yeah I’m one of those nerds that wants to finish the single player before I touch multiplayer.

    Tremendous amounts of fun, but no one seems to use the in-built VOIP. I still try to get in a few rounds every night.

  11. ChampionHyena says:


    Seriously. It will make you happy. You will be more popular and have healthier gums.

  12. Eukatheude says:

    Will there be a WIT on this game?

  13. LazerBeast says:

    Just got this and I have to say so far this seems like the best $15 I’ve spent in a long time.

    Well, minus some good beer.