Call of Juarez: Bound in Blood Review

By Oli Welsh Published 30 June, 2009

Western decadence.

Version tested: Xbox 360

Once again - at least until Rockstar San Diego tries to bring the cows home with Red Dead Redemption - it falls to Europeans to keep the fine traditions of the Wild West squarely in the crosshairs of popular culture. Just as Italy and Spain did in the spaghetti western films of the sixties and seventies, now an unlikely collaboration between Poland and France - in the form of developer Techland and publisher Ubisoft - is turning out videogames that capture the grit, machismo and melancholy lyricism of the USA's creation myth better than any American studio seems able.

A couple of years ago, Call of Juarez delivered its mix of stealth, six-shooting and pioneer melodrama with bible-bashing, fire-and-brimstone fervour. Of its two leads, vigilante preacher Reverend Ray undoubtedly stole the show, with his "concentration mode" quick-draw skills and crazed, throaty admonishments from the scriptures. It was an uneven game, but had the authentic tang of frontier madness that made it a great western.

The sequel is more confident, but perhaps more conservative. Techland understands that Ray was the most interesting thing about Call of Juarez, but misunderstands what made him so, in a slightly worthy attempt to trace his roots and tell his origin story as a fighter in the civil war and then a bandit on the run with his two brothers. The majority of Bound in Blood is thus a straight-shooting tale of outlaw anti-heroes chasing after treasure and fighting over a woman, and although it's still a well-spun yarn with a fantastic sense of place and time, it doesn't quite have the same fire in its belly.

It also irons out most of the first game's quirks, and railroads the action straight into a set-piece-studded shooting gallery in the Call of Duty style. Rarely in recent memory has a game been so relentlessly focused on Shooting The Men Who Are Quite Far Away And Difficult To See. A few skilful gun-slinging flourishes aside, Bound in Blood is a supremely old-fashioned FPS, but that's not necessarily a problem, because this is old-fashioned country. Rifling enemies' bodies for ammo, squinting down your sights and grimacing at reload times while you hide behind a rock suits the weaponry and wild gunfights of the era, and goes with the untamed territory.

'Call of Juarez: Bound in Blood' Screenshot 1

Bound in Blood is definitely misty mountainscape champion of 2009 so far.

Bound in Blood still has two leads, and Ray's younger and smoother brother Thomas inherits some of the athleticism, stealthiness and sniping skill Billy Candle had in the first game - the ability to use bow and arrow, and a lasso to climb to hard-to-reach places, for example. Ray is still a close-range force of nature with his dual pistols and love of dynamite.

But both men now enjoy a Concentration Mode: Ray's is a slow-mo moment of multiple-target selection before he releases a flurry of shots, while Thomas's is more automatic and cathartic, the game picking targets for you while you hold the trigger down and flick the right thumb-stick like you're fanning the hammer of a revolver. You can also select either brother at the start of most chapters, not that it will make much difference beyond the odd detour. Whichever you choose, opportunities for genuine stealth will be few, and you'll be putting a dozen no-good sumbitches in their graves every 60 seconds. Bang! Bang! You're dead.

'Call of Juarez: Bound in Blood' Screenshot 2

Dual-wielding means you can't take aim with the left trigger, but makes run-and-gun a viable strategy.

None of which should suggest for a second that Techland has lost its knack for Wild West wish-fulfilment. Bound in Blood canters unapologetically through every western cliché in the book, and does so with enough vigour and sense of style that you'll enjoy the ride. The first chapter tips the nod to Call of Duty with its depiction of a battle in the Civil War, but then the brothers promptly become deserters and outlaws; they burst into saloons both guns blazing, pull bars off a jail window with a horse, steal a stagecoach, fall in love with a Mexican bandita, recognise the honour and pride of the Native American, and shoot lots of other Native Americans - as well as lots of Mexicans, lawmen, outlaws, Yankees, rebels and prospectors. They shoot lots of everybody.

As well as the on-demand Concentration Mode, which you earn the right to through rapid and skilful killing, Techland drops in a few scripted moments of superhuman gun-slinging when everything goes slow-motion. In these, twin crosshairs converge on the centre of the screen and you squeeze off shots on left and right as they pass over enemies. It's a lot more effective than it sounds, especially when it's used in tandem with both brothers storming a wide doorway from either side.

A number of chapters also enjoy a neat quick-draw contest, when you face off against a famous antagonist. The camera drops to just behind your hip and you steer your gun-slinger in cautious steps to left or right, circling your opponent, and guide your hand towards your holster with the right stick. When a bell rings, slam the right stick in to draw your gun and squeeze the trigger to kill. Not a fun game in itself - you either die or win, instantly - but a tense and superbly evocative bit of interactive cinema. There's also a decent, natural attempt at an FPS cover system that doesn't use any button-presses, just proximity and a slight modification to the way your look works. This works much better vertically than horizontally, though.

The majority of the game is entirely linear, but Techland has dropped a couple of free-roaming interludes into the middle. In each of these, you can explore a fairly wide-open expanse of first Mexico and then Arizona, picking up side-missions for extra cash, and buying new weapons at a gun store. They're a pleasant change of pace but feel very underdeveloped; the wilderness is largely empty, missions are few, and those there are aren't significantly different from the mildly objective-driven slaughter of the main story.

You sense that these episodes are primarily there to give you a moment of quiet to drink in the scenery. And although the dustbowls of Mexico and Arizona aren't the most interesting locations in Call Bound in Blood - those honours going to the misty, rain-soaked backwoods of Georgia and Arkansas early in the game - they are, like every setting in the game, subtly handled, starkly beautiful, and profoundly atmospheric. Techland's evocation of the frighteningly untamed expanse of the Old West, and the seedy desperation of a life spent clinging to it, is second to none in games.

'Call of Juarez: Bound in Blood' Screenshot 3

Visuals are mixed: tearing is terrible, animation iffy and depth-of-field overdone, but the lighting and environment art are superb.

Its storytelling isn't bad, either, although it is mostly quarantined from the endless, crackling gunfights of actual gameplay. Bound in Blood's tale is a little more grounded than the first game's, but has an epic sweep, and handles the filial tensions, the historical context, and the earthy dialogue quite well, managing a few surprises along the way. The cut-scenes are dignified by decent voice acting and let down by awkward animation; more effective, perhaps, are the expressive drawings in between chapters, with voice-overs by the third brother and conscience of the game, seminary student William. Only a weak collapse into novelty-videogame-boss-fight and pat, hurried coda undermines its authenticity.

Finally, it's well worth mentioning the multiplayer, which I wasn't able to test on this review version, but which we had already sampled at a preview event and came away impressed by. As well as adding the lovely scoring concept of "bounty" - a price on your head which mounts with your success as a player - to some fairly standard game-types, Bound in Blood also has objective-driven "Wild West Heroes" contests worked out for every map, which pit teams of lawmen and outlaws against each other, as well as a suite of unlockable character classes, and custom maps replicating famous moments in frontier history. It may not take the FPS multiplayer world by storm, but it's a solid, craftsmanlike effort with a strong sense of what western fans want.

'Call of Juarez: Bound in Blood' Screenshot 4

When will cowboys learn that shooting from rooftops makes them easier to see?

All of which can be said of Call of Juarez: Bound in Blood as a whole. It's far too unvaried and unrelenting a shooting gallery to earn an unhesitating recommendation; although the internal pacing of each chapter is good, they're all the same, and when you find yourself taking potshots at distant, silhouetted, Stetsoned heads 10 seconds into the umpteenth level, your heart can sink. It's a little rough and old-school in some places, but that suits its cantankerous, revisionist mood and down-and-dirty subject matter. But above all, it's a proper western, set in a tangibly real Wild West, with proper, honest-to-goodness cowboys, Indians and bandits in it. Experience tells us that's harder to pull off in videogames than you might think, and it counts for a lot, no matter where it comes from.

7 / 10

Read the Eurogamer.net scoring policy
Picture of Oli.

About Oli Welsh

Oli is Eurogamer's acting deputy editor and reviews editor and likes to take things one word at a time. He is among the best dressed people in South London.

Read more articles from Oli by visiting the Oli Welsh archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (70) 3 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • udat #1 3 years ago

    I am scared to click that link... (at work)

  • cloud_ix #2 3 years ago

    it's not very safe

  • laudy #3 3 years ago

    what a fucking surprise. 7/10

    i'll have to take in other viewpoints that aren't so lazy.

  • byron_hinson #4 3 years ago

    If you enjoyed the first one you'll enjoy this - though maybe not quite as much (just a slightly less) - graphically I've thought it was superb - excellent textures, good settings, but lipsyncing sucks. Speech is top marks again - though I can't comment on the multiplayer side as much as when I've been trying to play it no one was on and only 30 on the leaderboards.

  • bioreit #5 3 years ago

    @ Oli

    360 version? Loved the first one (even the Billy bits - my God that sounds dirty...) and this sounds pretty cool. Not every game needs to draw you in and amaze you with all elements - sometimes, a decent, solid effort with good graphics is all you need, like Black, for example.

  • brooza #6 3 years ago

    Does it have annoying stealth bits?

    If not, I'll give it a go

  • beastmaster #7 3 years ago

    7 is the score it deserves. Nothing more. Nothing less. I didn't know this was out.

  • schachmatt #8 3 years ago

    7 must have a whole sub-score point range - 7 1/2, 7+, 7 ^3. It's probably only visible for people getting +7.

    This review makes me think I should finally get its predecessor. I remember enjoying the demo and I always have the urge to play series from the start. I still have RE4 lying around, because I haven't played Code Veronica yet.

  • byron_hinson #9 3 years ago

    @Brooze - one stealth bit which you don't have to use stealth in if you don't want to.

  • Clive_Dunn #10 3 years ago

    7 is exactly 1 more than 6 but one less than 8. FACT.

    Review didn't read like a 7 to be honest, one for the bargain bin later.

  • XdarXideX #11 3 years ago

    Im enjoying the first one in preparation for Bound in Blood. I played the PC demo way back before it came out. I dont know why I never picked up the 360 version before.

  • Rodchenko #12 3 years ago

    Gerogia?

  • brandon-flowers #13 3 years ago

    was not really on the radar & with good reason by the looks of things.

  • UncleLou #14 3 years ago

    Hohum, it does sound a little more mundane than I had hoped for.

  • Ywap #15 3 years ago

    PC version pre-ordered, thank you very much :)

  • stephenb #16 3 years ago

    Think i will pick this up MP sounds decent. Am a bit of a sucker for a Wild West story anyway. Seem to remember a Lucas Arts title on the PC eons ago, Outlaws I think?

  • shotgun44 #17 3 years ago

    Beastmaster... What the fuck? It deserves a 7 because you haven't played it and didn't know it was out!? Jesus Christ, some of you 11 year olds need less gaming and more schooling.

  • BillyBrush #18 3 years ago

    Look forward to getting it...1st was great....you know why Ray's going to turn to the bible though, as opposed to the 1st which had a brilliant ending...and prologue...still, look forward to Friday

  • JayKwon #19 3 years ago

    It sounds as a good game, so a 7 seems nice. Maybe I'll pick this one up. I love western environments and the whole atmosphere at it.

    @ schachmatt, it's a prequel:).
    Edited by 2 at 01/07/09 @ 01:53

  • Tlaloc #20 3 years ago

    On spec, I think I'll give this one a miss, if only because the last one's "unique" blend of religion and violence made me so sick that I deleted the demo. I mean, if I want to play "Fred Phelps: The Video Game" I need psychological help... not a game to encourage me.

  • 3william56 #21 3 years ago

    "Shooting The Men Who Are Quite Far Away And Difficult To See."

    Gah! Pixel clicking!!! Can work on a PC or with a mouse, but sucks several sorts of b*lls on a thumbstick if you have to do it quickly. Would be much better up close and personal quick draw combat - particularly as a six shooter couldn't hit a barn door beyond a couple of dozen yards.

  • mkreku #22 3 years ago

    I'm wondering if this might be an 8/10 on the PC since hitting miniscule targets fast is a bit easier with a keyboard and mouse?

  • metalangel #23 3 years ago

    I can't get along little dawgie, I can't even get one that's small ;)

  • dr_swin #24 3 years ago

    reads more like an 8. It sounds great. Another dead space perhaps?

  • Nova5lag #25 3 years ago

    Got my copy and looking forward to playing it. :)

  • kangarootoo #26 3 years ago

    I'm playing this now, and I quite like it. 7 is probably the right score. It won't blow your socks off, but its definitely worth a look and can be very atmospheric at times.

  • laudy #27 3 years ago

    hmmm...it looks like I got nicely panned for my "lazy" comment...

    I guess I'll just have to accept that 7/10 is the score that most games will get nowadays and rent them from that well known chain of video rental shops.

    Dead Space got a 7 and I almost didn't buy it, which was a mistake because when I bit the bullet I found that I really really liked it...IMO one hell of a sleeper hit.

    Alone in the Dark got a 7 and I did buy it. Junk.

    Therein lies my frustration.

  • MiY4MOTO #28 3 years ago

    I'm really enjoying this game at the moment. I'm only on the third act, but as the review states it's a great old school shooter with some great touches. In places it's among the best looking FPS' of the current generation, and it's great to see a non Unreal 3 engined game standing tall against the best of 'em. The 'high noon' one on one duels are particularly well done, and stunning to look at.

    This one plays much more like Call of Duty than the original, but that's not a criticism. For my money it's a much more 'even' experience than the first and one that I'm thoroughly enjoying.

    If you like FPS games, and fancy break from the generic sci-fi / world-war 2 theme then this is well worth a look.

  • Darren #29 3 years ago

    I found the first game a bit scrappy and rough when I tried the demo plus it ran like a dog on my old PC. 360 version was even worse IMO. Got the sequel ordered for the PC though as it looks more interesting and polished plus the mouse and keyboard will probably make it easier to play than the console versions. :)

  • Darren #30 3 years ago

    @laudy - Alone in the Dark should never have got a 7 IMO. It was a terrible game on the PC and 360, mainly because it was ruined by poor controls, awful driving bits and other stupid design decisions like having to kill enemies with fire, etc. Even the improved PS3 version was still undeserving of a 7. 6/10 maybe.

    How on earth EG thought such a broken game was a worth a 7 I do not know. Must check to see who reviewed the game and put them on my "approach with caution" list!

  • Harmonica #31 3 years ago

    "Therein lies my frustration."

    @ laudy

    Your frustration seems to be that you're buying games based on what the tiny number at the bottom says, and not what the previous two pages have told you about it.

    My advice would be to, yes, rent before buying, and also canvas more than just Eurogamer when laying down money for something.

  • UncleLou #32 3 years ago

    @Harmonica

    I wanted to +1 you, but pressed -1 accidentally.

    :-/

    /sausage fingers

    edit: Oh wait, I can still change that. Nevermind, carry on. :)
    Edited by 1 at 01/07/09 @ 10:56

  • Harmonica #33 3 years ago

    All is well in the world :)

    I am a complete Westerns nerd, erm, as the name suggests, so I am pretty dead set on getting this, mainly because I have been burnt before on horrible games in the same genre (Gun, anyone?) but this looks like a peach. Frankly the review had me at 'authentic' and 'gunslinging'.

    For those who have already played it: might Western fans add +1 to the score?

  • Darren #34 3 years ago

    +1 for the mention of video reviews. GameTrailers are especially good for those. It's great to watch the game and listen to a commentary. They're also good for highlighting flaws and bugs in the game's too, something that you don't quite get a sense of from reading a written review. I wish EG would do video reviews, almost all the decent sites do them these days.

  • muscleblade #35 3 years ago

    I prefer written reviews. Looks and bugs arent as important to me anyway. I feel i get more info from written reviews regarding the stuff that really matter.

  • laudy #36 3 years ago

    Thanks for the comments, gents

    @ Harmonica

    I read the reviews of both games in full before making the decisions I made. For me Dead space is more like 8 and alone in the dark more like 6. A generic 7 doesn't help to make informed decisions, which, after all, is what a review is all about no? You are quite correct about canvassing opinion though. I actually bought dead space after reading the review on gamespot...never looked back.

    @ Darren

    I cannot disagree with your assessment of alone in the dark. worse on the 360 you say? Good grief.

    @ notmyrealname

    That's fair enough, but I would be pretty put out as a reviewer on this site if folk didn't come on here to take their reviews seriously...depends how much they're getting paid I guess ;-)

    @ muscleblade

    I gave you a +1 because i prefer written reviews as well, you are supposed to get more from a written review. hands up, who on here prefers a book they've read to the big screen attempt of the same piece of work?

  • Bleh #37 3 years ago

    I prefer written reviews as well. They mostly cover more than a video review and you get a better idea how the reviewer looks/thinks about the game.

  • rotmm #38 3 years ago

    @Milky1985, "..wonder if i can get alist of all eurogamer scores to see just how many 7's have been shelled out!"

    I dunno. Where would you be able to find such a list?

    Oh wait, I know. You could click on the fucking Reviews link on the left hand side of the page.

    Yup, that'd do it.
    Edited by 1 at 01/07/09 @ 12:45

  • UncleLou #39 3 years ago

    I prefer written reviews. Looks and bugs arent as important to me anyway. I feel i get more info from written reviews regarding the stuff that really matter

    Same here, in general, but Gametrailers in particular - while the reviews as such aren't anything spectacular - are damn good at picking out flaws and quickly demonstrating them with a few accompanying gameplay scenes. I find that very helpful if I want to know if a flaw I just see mentioned elsewhere would really annoy me.

  • Darren #40 3 years ago

    Written reviews are fine for detailed info but quite often I find reviewers don't mention things like tearing which can ruin a game for me so that's why I like video reviews. For example, in this review there's no mention of it at all, instead it's reserved for a screenshot caption where it's described as "terrible" and very easily overlooked IMO. They also show how smoothly (or not) said game runs, all useful things which you cannot envisage accurately from a written review. After all a reviewer's definition of a "smooth framerate" is a very subjective thing.

    You also get to hear some of the voice-acting, music and sound effects too in video reviews, handy as audio is often overlooked in EG reviews unless it's noticeably bad. I think GameTrailers video reviews are the best out there for showing me what the game's like in the absence of a playable demo.

    Of course playing a demo is the best way to experience a slice of the game but not every game has one, e.g. Call of Juarez: Bound in Blood! A video review is, thus, the next best thing in my eyes.

  • muscleblade #41 3 years ago

    "I think GameTrailers video reviews are the best out there for showing me what the game's like in the absence of a playable demo. "

    Fine then you can go to Gametrailers for the video reviews no need for Eurogamer to do the same. Im not a huge fan of demos either btw. I usually just try the demos of games i know im going to buy anyway. The Too Human demo did put me off that game to be fair, but so did the reviews. The RE5 demo almost put me off that game too, but its my favourite game so far this year by far.

  • muscleblade #42 3 years ago

    Glad they didnt release a singleplayer demo for Bionic Commando. I didnt like the game all that much in the start. But after learning the controls and how to play the game well i loved it. My playthrough on the hardest difficulty is something i will remember for a long time. Hugely enjoyable.

  • meredix #43 3 years ago

    Another mediocre on-the-rails FPS with poor graphics and boring gameplay. Character models and their animations look especially dated and awful. Feels like playing an old 2004 game...

  • Xuio #44 3 years ago

    meredix, you've downloaded wrong game.

  • jambo74 #45 3 years ago

    meh!

  • costa_k #46 3 years ago

    Don't care what reviewers say.All i care is that it has a brilliant multiplayer.

  • Harmonica #47 3 years ago

    Speaking from experience.. or?

    The multiplayer does sound good, reminds me of RTCW.

  • Miths #48 3 years ago

    I've just been playing through the first four (or was it five) chapters tonight and so far I love it more than pretty much any other FPS singleplayer campaign I've ever played (though rarely finished), including CoD4, Killzone 2 and Resistance 2.
    Admittedly I only started playing shooters when I switched to console gaming less than two years ago (I've got motion sickness problems playing on a smaller PC monitor) so I haven't got that much to which to compare Bound in Blood, but the gameplay, the graphics (minus some hideous screen tearing in places, and the fairly stiff animation), the story, the dialogue and voice acting, it's all been excellent so far.
    No doubt it owes much of that excellence to the Western setting though, although whether you prefer that to modern war, WWII (talk about repeatedly beating a dead and by now probably rather rotten horse) or sci-fi is a matter of opinion of course. It's certainly a very nice and rare diversion in my opinion (can't wait for Red Dead Redemption as well).

    As for the old fashioned "shooting gallery" style gameplay, I find that I really enjoy it.

    I'm looking forward to trying multiplayer, but I've got Fight Night Round 4 to play for the first time tonight as well.

  • Mr_Gallows #49 3 years ago

    I find this review to be a bloody joke... a retarded one at that. You gave the original game 8/10 on both PC and X360 and the original game was pretty bad.

    This new one blows it away completely and yet you give this new one only 7/10...

    Your credibility gets worse with every lame review you make Eurogamer!

    Multiplayer is awesome. Leagues better than CoD, because people can't just spam their automatic weapons to get lucky headshots without aiming much. If you don't aim in CoJ you don't hit anything. The weapon balancing is better than cod and the setting is far more fresh than World at War.

    The core gameplay mechanics are better than CoD.

    But still giving the original CoJ 8/10 and then this one only 7/10 is a joke... amateurs!

    Go ask Gametrailers for some advice on how to review games. They scored the original CoJ 6/10 and then they gave Bound in Blood an 8/10. THAT makes sense.

    Damn amateurs Eurogamer... I am surprised that you aren't aware of how bad it looks.
    Edited by 2 at 05/07/09 @ 13:52

  • UncleLou #50 3 years ago

    I find this review to be a bloody joke... a retarded one at that. You gave the original game 8/10 on both PC and X360 and the original game was pretty bad.

    This new one blows it away completely and yet you give this new one only 7/10...

    Well, I am in act 2, and frankly, I think the game is shit so far, while the first one was a solid 7. So there.

  • Darren #51 3 years ago

    I have to agree with UncleLou that the first game was perhaps better as it was more ambitious despite the bugs and everything. The sequel feels noticeably toned down in comparison, no doubt because the consoles rather than the PC were the priority this time round. It's a good game alright, it's just not a great one IMO.

  • Harmonica #52 3 years ago

    @ Gallows: I'm inclined to take that with a pinch of salt considering the only distinct reason you give for CoJ being a good game is implied in a criticism of (non-existent) trigger-mashing being a problem in CoD.

    For someone who seems to like the game the best you can do is make meaningless general remarks, which doesn't bode well for your judgement of EG's journalism, either..

  • Fantinu #53 3 years ago

    Did he just say animation is not well done?! Are you kidding me!!!? It's absolutely awesome and lifelike, way better than average. This reviewer sucks!

  • Mr_Gallows #54 3 years ago

    And so the undercover EG journalists go into action. Of course EG's right and the rest of the world is wrong.

    DID you ever try the original on the 360. It was absolutely horrible and this one is rock solid.

    And harmonica if you don't know how easy hip shooting is with smgs without any fine aiming in CoD, then I'm inclined to believe you never tried the game.

    It's a distinct difference in terms of how important aiming is in the two games.

    If course EG journalists are intitled to their opinion that the first game was better, but in many reviews here by certain journalists, said opinion does not leave much room for the professionalism one would expect from such a site.
    Edited by 2 at 07/07/09 @ 10:23

  • UncleLou #55 3 years ago

    And so the undercover EG journalists go into action. Of course EG's right and the rest of the world is wrong.

    Christ, really - do you even read people's replies? I've said I am finding the new game pretty terrible. I am hardly agreeing with EG on that one, am I. Just pointing out that your personal opinion is not some objective truth.

    DID you ever try the original on the 360. It was absolutely horrible and this one is rock solid.

    Nope. I've played the PC version of both. Yeah, the new one is more polished and less clunky. Unfortunately, that's not enough to make it good, while the first one was good in my opinion. By-the-numbers shooting gallery stuff with nice graphics, that's all the new one is.
    Edited by 2 at 07/07/09 @ 11:26

  • Mr_Gallows #56 3 years ago

    What was good about the first game? It was a bugged mess. Multiplayer was bland and absolutely boring. It was unpolished like hell. One entire half of the single player campaign was retarded with all the billy jumping and hiding.

    And it's no secret that money makes reviews... EG is the exact same as gamespy and the IGN empire.
    Edited by 1 at 07/07/09 @ 11:29

  • kangarootoo #57 3 years ago

    @Mr_Gallows

    The issue here is that "the rest of the world is wrong" is not bitching. It is simply you that is doing that.

    I rather liked the first CoJ, and EGs score seemed approrpiate to me.

    Whilst the sequel is also quite fun, there is something a little bit more "generic shooter" about it compared with the first one. And as for multiplayer, I couldn't give a crap about such things.

    So for me, the review scores simply make good sense. Now I don't expect us to agree on the score for every review, but I can tell the difference between an objective fact and a subjective opinion (something you seem to be struggling with).

    There is no single correct score for a review. Now maybe you are some kind of stroppy autistic kid that can only identidy with facts and numbers, so you are going to have to trust me on this one. And have a glass of milk whilst you are at it and maybe a nap to calm down.

  • UncleLou #58 3 years ago

    What was good about the first game? It was a bugged mess.

    Didn't notice any bugs.

    Multiplayer was bland and absolutely boring.

    Doesn't interest me. It's not a game I play for multiplayer.

    It was unpolished like hell. One entire half of the single player campaign was retarded with all the billy jumping and hiding.

    Unpolished it was, "retarded" it wasn't. I enjoyed the stealth section, and the shootouts with Ray felt far more visceral.

    I absolutely despise the new game's hand-holding. Do this, go there, now do that, move here, don't leave Ray behind, do that now. It's like a poor man's Call of Duty in its very worst moments. I don't mind linear games, but this one here is more on rails than just linear.

  • Mr_Gallows #59 3 years ago

    lol so because multiplayer doesn't interrest you, you just completely disregard that part of the game... It's vastly better than in the first game. That's the kind of unproffesional attitude I'm referring to. Overall the quality, style, polish and gameplay is better in the new one. There is a lot more in the game like multiplayer classes, more game types and more weapons. The concentration mode is the only thing that was slightly better in the old game.

    The old game could in no way touch CoD in terms of quality, set pieces, online play, balance and playability... but the new one can.

    And if anything the old game felt linear because of the EXTREMELY tight corridors you were moving though most of the game. I know as a genre it's a corridor shooter... but that was just taking the piss.
    Edited by 1 at 07/07/09 @ 16:58

  • UncleLou #60 3 years ago

    lol so because multiplayer doesn't interrest you, you just completely disregard that part of the game... It's vastly better than in the first game. That's the kind of unproffesional attitude I'm referring to.

    You're priceless. Carry on.

  • kangarootoo #61 3 years ago

    @Mr_Gallows

    "lol so because multiplayer doesn't interrest you, you just completely disregard that part of the game"

    YES. That is exactly it.


    "That's the kind of unproffesional attitude I'm referring to"

    Are you utterly off your rocker? Are you accusing ME of having an unprofessional attitude because I say I'm not interested in multiplayer? I am a gamer, not a journalist. Reviewing games is simply not my profession, so of COURSE I don't have a "professional attitude".


    "Overall the quality, style, polish and gameplay is better in the new one"

    I say again, the concept you seem to struggling to embrace is one of subjective opinion. We could argue about polish if you want, but style and quality are completely subjective. And as for gameplay, from where I am standing the gameplay of CoJ is more basic in many ways that the first game.

    The key part is "from where I am standing". Like I said, taste differs. You are simply not right... or wrong. They are not labels that apply here. Persist if you wish to try and factualise something that cannot be factualised, you aren't convincing anyone except yourself. I liked the first game more than the second, so did many others, end of story, deal with it.

  • UncleLou #62 3 years ago

    "Are you utterly off your rocker? Are you accusing ME of having an unprofessional attitude"

    Remember, we're undercover EG journalists! The amusing thing is that the review explicitly mentions and praises multiplayer, and first he complained about EG's unprofessionalism, so he somehow totally lost his point in between his bouts of anger. :)

    "And as for gameplay, from where I am standing the gameplay of CoJ is more basic in many ways that the first game."

    Exactly. While applying polish, they grinded the gameplay down to a stump instead of building on the strengths of the first one.
    Edited by 1 at 07/07/09 @ 19:18

  • kangarootoo #63 3 years ago

    Ahhhh, I forgot I was undercover. Man, I am so crap at this. I nearly blew my cover there..... er, this isn't on is it?..

  • Mr_Gallows #64 3 years ago

    You both just keep spewing forth general statements like "Gameplay has been dumbed down" and providing no explanation... an opinion isn't valid just because it's yours.

    But lets just leave it as this... I found the first game pretty bad on the PC and absolutely shit on the 360. Just the fact that they gave the game 8/10 on both platforms makes it seem like they never tested it for the 360, because it sucked bad and was a poor port.

    And before you say that I never provided explanation... you can go up and look for the part where I describe how the multiplayer options are far greater in this new one, compared to the old. Multiplayer IS a big component in this game and many shooters today. And to judge a game you have to take everything into account if you want to try to give it a fair judgement. But obviously that's not what the two of you want.
    Edited by 2 at 07/07/09 @ 22:01

  • UncleLou #65 3 years ago

    ... an opinion isn't valid just because it's yours.

    Finally you begin understand.

    You both just keep spewing forth general statements like "Gameplay has been dumbed down

    I'll make more of an effort once you say more than "it's better" and "mp is good", as well as profound arguments like "the stealth sections were retarded". And once you actually read other people's posts. I've already mentioned the rigid hand-holding (much more than I heard from you), something you conveniently ignored. I can easily come up with a lot more.

  • Mr_Gallows #66 3 years ago

    What do you mean handholding? It's not like you could get lost in the other game anyway, save for a fit of claustrophobia navigating the narrow corridors that most maps were. It's a shooter... you shoot stuff. It doesn't really matter if a brother is near or there is a star where you need to go. It's not like it took any effort at all to make your way around the original. EVERYTHING about online play is better than the original... classes, maps, weapon balance, number of weapons, game types.

    As for the single player, you get to pick the brother you like to play in almost every mission... That alone would have made the first one better if I could just have skipped billy completely. I'm not the only one in the world annoyed with the billy missions... it's a quite wide spread idea that those missions were lame... hence the PC patch to fix some of it. Then there are the duels, they are great in the new one. Only weak point is concentration mode, because that was better in the old one. I didn't like it in the old one however as I like to just shoot them, but it was better.

    But apart from that I don't see any elements of the gameplay that were better in the old one.

  • kangarootoo #67 3 years ago

    "And to judge a game you have to take everything into account if you want to try to give it a fair judgement"

    I am not in the least bit interested in giving it "fair judgement". I judge a game based on whether it gives me as a gamer an experiebnce I find pleasing. That is all.

    All I ever said was that I preferred the first game overall. You can like the second one more if you want, that is your choice. You were the one that got your knickers all in a tiwst just because EG's opinion differed from your own. As you so rightly put (and yet have still failed to see, or ignored, the irony) an opinion isn't valid just because it's yours.


    "You both just keep spewing forth general statements"

    Christ almighty, do you actually read the stuff you write. Your posts have had some of the most unconstructive rhetoric to be found in this whole thread. I still don't even know what billy jumping is, or why you hate it so much.

    "But obviously that's not what the two of you want."

    Nope. Not a bit of it. No thanks.


    "It doesn't really matter if a brother is near or there is a star where you need to go"

    Well actually, the game will tell you not to leave your brother behind, and if you ignore it you will fail and have to reload a checkpoint.


    "I'm not the only one in the world annoyed with the billy missions... it's a quite wide spread idea that those missions were lame"

    Ahh, now I understand. Predictably, I quite liked those missions. I am obviously suffering from some sort of mental illness... I think it is called "a difference of opinion". I'll ask the Dr if he can supply some suitable ointment.



    Look, lets just settle this. I'm not saying the sequel is bad, I just preferred the first one. EG seemingly did too. As did UncleLou. You preferred the sequel, no doubt lots of other people did too, and that is cool. There is no conspiracy, EG aren't "losing credibility", there are no undercover staffers (seriously, EG are grown adults, so why would you expect them to act like children), there is simply a difference of opinion. Put simply, don't take it so personally. EG aren't saying you are shit, just 'cos you like a game more than they do. They aren't really saying anything about you. It is you who is doing that. Chill.

  • Harmonica #68 3 years ago

    7/10 is a fine score and the review was even-handed and balanced, I don't think there was anything to debate to begin with.

  • Mr_Gallows #69 3 years ago

    @Kangaroo: If you don't want to give the game a fair judgement, why do you get involved in a debate about wether a professional review is fair when you admitedly can't give an unbiased opinion, which you can't when disregarding a big part of the game completely?

  • stoopidgreg #70 3 years ago

    just completed the game. starts off great, brings back of the first game which i loved, but then as you play it you begin to realise there isn't much to it but shootin, and all the variety and creativity of the first game is lost as it does just become a shooting gallery. but what disappointed me the most was the last few levels were pretty dire and too similar to the first game. i actually think the mansion near the end is an exact copy of the mansion near the end of the first game. also, the game is far too short, it says i completed it in some 5 hours, although that probably doesn't include reloading after dying, but even so, i only died a handful of times on medium difficulty (on PC). not saying the game is easy, i think they got it just right most of the time, but a 5 hours experience is just not enough at full asking price. it's definitely shorter than the first game which is unusual for a sequel which shares the same engine and many art assets.