Enemy Territory: Quake Wars Comments by Kristan Reed

expected outcome.

I will be sticking with Warhawk then...

May dip into the bargain bucket a little later in the year.

I honestly don't understand why reviews need to be so long. There must be nearly 2000 words there. That's ridiculous for a review - for any game.
You could easily condense it to just one page.

so who gives a shit about FPS's on consoles anyway? ^^

mudo - you can cut the review drastically if you just skip to the score.

Yes, but I'm not massive fan of scores and it avoids the issue. :(

Get frontlines instead. Much better game.

It's much better on the PC... and cheaper! ;)

360 owners would be far better off waiting for Unreal Tournament III, which has more maps and game modes, plus a (kind of) single player campaign. It was also bloody marvellous on the PS3 so I'd guess at the 360 version being possibly slightly better (minus the mods).

Hardly an "issue", more of a personal preference. I like longer reviews. It's not like there is a shortage of sites with short reviews (1Up, for example).

So will you ever be able to have a look at the PS3 version? According to a comparison on Gametrailers theres different interfaces for choosing troops and interior cockpit views that are'nt available in the 360 copy.

Not as good as UT 3, then.

Fair enough UncleLou, you're right.

I honestly don't understand why reviews need to be so long. There must be nearly 2000 words there. That's ridiculous for a review - for any game.
You could easily condense it to just one page.

Give Kristan's mortgage a chance, fella!

bah was hoping it would be good, but online + dodgy framerates = forget it

DYING FETUS!!!

Eurogamer is known for good indepth reviews, that's why its audience visits it.

Frontlines: Fuel of War is basically an identical game, but much better in just about every possible way. ET:QW is a real disappointment. I'll never understand how Nerve just couldn't get a handle on the game engine (it's based on an enhanced version of the Doom3 game engine, fer chrissakes, and that would make it well over 3 years old) and optimise it properly for 360. It's a bit of a mess and, imo, unacceptable.

Ah well. Time to wait for this to show up in the bargain bin...

whatever happend to Quake > UT?! o_O

Just get it on the PC, where quake games belong.

QW:ET on PC was the best multiplayer FPS game last year (yeah, > CoD4, > TF2 and > UT3).
'nuff said.

So not as bad as Haze then?

Actions are context-sensitive on the (patched) PC version too, and it also has a tutorial.

It's a decent game but not nearly as fun as TF2. A game about the Earth being invaded by cyberzombaliens who want to blenderise and consume humanity also shouldn't be quite so bland... still, sneaking up on an enemy squad and going crazy with a shotgun can't go wrong.

What really annoys me is how in the review this keeps getting referred to as a Quake game, which it absolutely is not. I can imagine alot of people instantly badmouthing this because it's not a run and gun deathmatch game as they would (blindly) expect.

It's an Enemy Territory game. See how Wolfenstein: ET plays and then come back to this, Quake is merely the setting, there is minimal influence from any Quake game in this when it comes down to the nitty gritty. Fantastic game on the PC, would hope it's still just as enjoyable on the 360, may give it a bash sometime.

Pfft this is nowhere near the brownest game ever.

mmm brown

LOL +1

If it's not anything to do with Quake, don't use the brand name to sell it.

Well said MrMarc,

While I agree with the overall score and the rest of the review, Its' not *meant* to be like quake 3 etc, and never, ever was supposed to be.

Eurogamer is known for good indepth reviews, that's why its audience visits it.

Joke post?

nice review krudster. however it lacks a bit of charisma, which I think might be a result of the post-MGS loony attacks on EG. get back to personal aproaches and passion that you geneticaly have.

"So will you ever be able to have a look at the PS3 version? According to a comparison on Gametrailers theres different interfaces for choosing troops and interior cockpit views that are'nt available in the 360 copy."

According to IGN, the PS3 version indeed has some features not found in the Xbox 360 game, but looks and runs even worse. Not that it matters much, both versions seem to be quite lousy ports.

so is this game rated based on how it stands on it's own, or how it compares to it's PC counterpart? The latter happends far too much. Games are given lower scores because they're exactly the same as they were on another system, 6 monhts ago. Shouldn't it work the other way around, like, when a game is re-released with extra's and additional content, that should only boost it's score, not give lower scores because it has the same content?

Not saying that's the case with this review here, but it's still a sore point IMO.

GDI? I think you mean GDF...

Quake not C&C :P

@Krudster:

Thats a rather lame argument coming from you Krudster.
Halo Wars wont be an FPS.
Also, FFCC My life as a king aint got battles. More of a HarvestMoon-ish game.
They both DO use the setting of said IPs thou. Just a heads-up, man.

Opps!

the guy in the illustration on the front page looks like nicholas cage

It's a first person shooter using the Quake brand. I think it's only to be expected that the Quake 'feel' was present somewhere. I really didn't 'go on' about it during the review, merely pointed it out as a point of interest to any Quake fans expecting it to be similiar. If anything I defended it not being like Quake.

@krudster
Yay! Better response, this.
Unlike the other one which you probably dont even agree with yourself. (How could you, its downright wrong (right).)

move along, now..

The review brings Conker: Live & Reloaded, multi over Xbox Live to mind, in comparison...

Although in this review the removal of the "side-missions" was called "streamlined", I though it was a loss to the game. When I first played the PC version, those side-missions felt like the biggest innovation of the game, in that they always gave each class a few clear objectives to do that work for the team as a whole.

"It's much better on the PC... and cheaper! ;) "

Aye, have seen it for €20 or so at retail shops, great bargain and a decent/well supported game if you liked Enemy Territory. It doesn't really try much to be as frenetic as other Quake-games idd , although I have to say this is still one of the most actiony classbased shooters out there.

I've been playing this since Friday and think it's really good. Not interested in playing against randoms but me and my friends have been having a right laugh playing against the bots.

had a go preferred. Its good fun along as your with the right group of people. I might have have to trade this in though for NG2.

As some of the writers above says, this game in PC is one of the BEST mp fps EVEN developed, near to BF2 in enjoyment (at lest for me):

But in PS3 i like a lot more UT III: K+M support, better graphics and much better stability; also the gameplay and pace is 5 times faster in UT III.

Both games are great in PC, but in consoles UT III is much better choice.

Ive put in about 50 hours into the PC version and reached Ensign rank. And my conclusion is that quake wars is good but will not have the legacy of Wolfenstein ET.

Don't get me wrong, ET:QW is a fun game to play on public servers but only if you spend the hours to find the intricacies. And thats the thing, the barrier to entry to enjoy this at its best (when other good players on the server, when teams are balanced, when you are competent yourself is quite high.) Although i have played this more than than TF2, i have to admit i found TF2 more fun.

The technical problems surrounding the console versions won't help (apparently the x360 version relies on p2p for online play). I personally found the graphics on the PC version unimpressive and the art style doesn't help. Like the review says, the environments are quite boring. There's alot of game play in each map but no wonder people want new maps when the stock maps visually bore you to tears. We need something exciting! Something out of the ordinary, not gritty realism in a game which sometimes boring (especially when none of the players are bothered to get organized).

Splash damage have done a good job with initial PC game and I hope as much as possible translates to the console versions. Nevertheless Splash Damage have released what is very likely to be the last patch for the PC version (1.5) and are most likely working on their next game, I hope for there next project they will learn some subtle lessons from this game and remind themselves of some of the incredible things they achieved the (gameplay wise and stylistically near-perfect) Wolf ET.

I want to love this game, but the absolutely appalling lag kills it for me.
It's TF2 syndrome all over again, but I'm not willing to hold on to it until it either gets patched or people start recognising their limits as far as hosting is concerned.

Such a shame

"If it's not anything to do with Quake, don't use the brand name to sell it."

It's got everything to do with Quake. It's set before Quake 2. It's the Strogg attack on Earth that kick starts the retaliation.

If on the other hand you are some die-hard Quake 1 fan, then tough shit - three quake games about the same storyline cancels out the one Lovecraftian oddity.

How come PS3 versions are hardly ever reviewed?

On topic, was an expected outcome really, did anyone think this would actually be a great game??

no, ofc. FPSs on the consoles are a joke.
still, it is an awesome game on the PC.

"In one of the more useful tweaks to the console versions, tasks such as bomb-planting, hacking and repairing are now context-sensitive actions, meaning that you can simply walk up to the item and press X rather than having to cycle through your inventory to find a specific tool as you had to on the PC."

No, the PC version has always had this. You got this wrong in the preview as well.

"Medium-sized maps"? They're what, a couple of kilometres across? I'm struggling to think of another multiplayer console FPS with maps of similar scale.

Once again we see the oh-so-hilarious "brown" comments, clearly something you can't help yourself from falling back on in a review of an Id game regardless of whether they're applicable. The environments frequently looked picture-postcard gorgeous on the PC version, so either they've downgraded the visuals massively for the consoles or this is just sneering.

The complaint about lack of gameplay variety is just as baffling. Twelve maps with a distinct set of strategic options for each team, for each objective. Even if you lack any imagination and just stick to the objective class and make a beeline for the target (which I love to do), the skill level and strategy of the opposing team introduces a wide variance even for the simpler objectives. I expect this is just a spin on the typical "you just shoot things...sigh" ennui with which EG reviews all FPS games rather than an criticism based on the content of the game itself.

I expect there is enough wrong with the console port to warrant the score, but these criticisms of the core game are grossly unfair if not flat-out wrong.

- The PC version was patched to include context sensitive actions - something I wasn't aware of.

- It is exceptionally brown, get over it, and it's far from picture postcard gorgeous on 360.

- The maps really aren't that big or small. Hence 'medium'.

- The gameplay variety comment is based on the recycling of objectives between maps. It's the same three or four objectives recycled over 12 maps, with the odd one off thrown in.

- I mentioned variety based on switching classes, I don't get your point.

- If you think the criticisms are unfair based on the console port, go ahead and play it and find out. This isn't reviewing the PC game.

so, just to make this point clear, does TF2 have gameplay variety?