Call of Juarez: Bound in Blood Comments by Oli Welsh

Playing the first level as Ray of this was like stepping back in time, not to the 19th century and the Wild West but rather back in time to Killzone 1 and the horrible first level of that sitting still and shooting infantry men running forwards on strict paths acting as shooting gallery targets and then it turned into a linear objective hunting game.

Sniper Alley with instant death.



(Looks rather good though)

5/10

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.

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.

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.

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.

@ 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..

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!

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.

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.

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.

@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.

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.

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.

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.

@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.

"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.

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?..

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.

... 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.

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.

"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.

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.

@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?

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.