Jump to navigation

Table of contents

Page Previous 1 2 3 Next

Advertisement

Enemy Territory: Quake Wars Review

Xbox 360 PlayStation 3 Review by Kristan Reed

4 June, 2008

Page 2 of 3. <- Page 1Page 3 ->

On the plus side, the game benefits from an array of excellent ground and air vehicles and static units that keep things interesting and enhance the overall strategic depth. GDI forces rely on more conventional tanks, APCs, and hover-copters, but the Strogg tech is altogether more exciting, with jetpack-style Icarus units soaring high into the air to bomb targets from a distance, and gigantic, clanking mech-walkers and insectoid Tormentor aerial attack craft raining death. Careful use of the various anti-air, anti-personnel and anti-vehicle units can often neutralise even the most determined assault with a bit of forethought.

Arguably, the most fun you have with Quake Wars is this process of experimentation as you work though each class and approach each map a slightly different way. With the game's inability to properly tutor you in its hidden depths an undoubted annoyance at first, the payback for sticking with the game is finding out all sorts of evil you can wreak upon your opponent once you explore what's available. It's not a game many people will appreciate in the first few days, but persistence reveals it to be a real slow-burner.

Inevitably, with so many shooters crowding out the console market, it will be the underwhelming first impressions that put many people off. Despite looking pretty solid, the muddy war of attrition isn't as eye-catching as it could be - and certainly compares unfavourably to a steroid-pumped PC game - but you could have guessed that without so much as glancing at a screenshot. The target was to get the 360 version to stand shoulder to shoulder with the 'recommended' PC spec, but fashioning the "Megatexture" tech to the 360's innards without major compromise appears to have been just out of Nerve's reach.

Initially, Quake Wars feels like a solid, regulation port. The controls, despite what you might have heard, feel great, and everything's been thoughtfully mapped for joypad play. But the more you play, the more the little glitches start to add up. Apart from the fact it's vying for the Brownest Game Ever award, you'll also notice a subtle abundance of scenery pop-in, with near-ground grass and bushes routinely appearing mere feet away from you, while often gigantic plumes of smoke suddenly appear from nowhere.

'Enemy Territory: Quake Wars' Screenshot 2

Quake Wars could really benefit from allowing your soldiers to make intelligent use of cover.

As nit-picky as this might sound, we'd probably forgive it if the action was silky smooth and the frame-rate consistent - but it's plainly not. When mass explosions are kicking off, smoke effects can drag the action down to single digits for several seconds. Offline against the bots this won't feel like a major issue, but if you're unlucky enough to fall foul of this online, then the action dips into slideshow territory and it becomes a lottery as to whether you'll stay alive or not.

There's no doubting that all 12 maps are well-designed, reasonably intricate and work perfectly within the relative confines of eight-on-eight multiplayer, but they're intensely boring to look at. Any tech that boasts Megatexture really needs to back such lofty claims with some hard evidence - such as wonderfully lit, stunningly detailed, and interestingly crafted environments that rival the very best out there. Instead, Quake Wars looks very much like everything else. Almost criminally (if you're a Quake fanboy, at least), it's not even sporting the same style as Quake, preferring an overly familiar ragged, gritty military look that a dozen other shooters have managed in the last year alone. That's not to say the game's especially deficient, either, but it's a tired look and feel that doesn't wow in any way.

To Page 3 ->

Advertisement

Are you excited about Enemy Territory: Quake Wars on Xbox 360?
View Eurogamer readers most anticipated games

Thanks!

Want to comment on this article? Log in, or register!

Comments: 1-50 of 54 in total | next 50 »

Poster
Comment Low-scoring comments hidden. Log in to see them!
stoopidgreg
04/06/08 @ 12:03
#1
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
expected outcome.
kj66246
04/06/08 @ 12:09
#2
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
I will be sticking with Warhawk then...

May dip into the bargain bucket a little later in the year.
Mudo
04/06/08 @ 12:09
#3
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
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.
strelok
04/06/08 @ 12:10
#4
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
so who gives a shit about FPS's on consoles anyway? ^^
stoopidgreg
04/06/08 @ 12:12
#5
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
mudo - you can cut the review drastically if you just skip to the score.
Mudo
04/06/08 @ 12:13
#6
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Yes, but I'm not massive fan of scores and it avoids the issue. :(
Xerx3s
04/06/08 @ 12:16
#7
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Get frontlines instead. Much better game.
Darren
04/06/08 @ 12:18
#8
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
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).
UncleLou
04/06/08 @ 12:18
#9
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
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).
absolutezero
04/06/08 @ 12:19
#10
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
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.
caligari
04/06/08 @ 12:20
#11
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Not as good as UT 3, then.
Mudo
04/06/08 @ 12:20
#12
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Fair enough UncleLou, you're right.
Eighthours
04/06/08 @ 12:22
#13
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
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!
SBfistfun
04/06/08 @ 12:23
#14
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
bah was hoping it would be good, but online + dodgy framerates = forget it
vegard
04/06/08 @ 12:24
#15
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
DYING FETUS!!!
bdc
04/06/08 @ 12:27
#16
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Eurogamer is known for good indepth reviews, that's why its audience visits it.
Dogstar060763
04/06/08 @ 12:29
#17
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
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...
DcP729UK
04/06/08 @ 12:33
#18
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
whatever happend to Quake > UT?! o_O
Chufty
04/06/08 @ 12:41
#19
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Just get it on the PC, where quake games belong.
strelok
04/06/08 @ 12:56
#20
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
QW:ET on PC was the best multiplayer FPS game last year (yeah, > CoD4, > TF2 and > UT3).
'nuff said.
BiscuitBase
04/06/08 @ 13:02
#21
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
So not as bad as Haze then?
hahayou
04/06/08 @ 13:58
#22
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
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.
Edited 1 times, most recently on 04/06/08 @ 15:03
MrMarc
04/06/08 @ 13:59
#23
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
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.
Edited 1 times, most recently on 04/06/08 @ 15:00
Bad Devotions
04/06/08 @ 14:06
#24
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Pfft this is nowhere near the brownest game ever.

mmm brown


LOL +1

krudster [mod]
04/06/08 @ 14:21
#25
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
If it's not anything to do with Quake, don't use the brand name to sell it.
AtomicBanana
04/06/08 @ 14:23
#26
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
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.
Moonprince
04/06/08 @ 14:29
#27
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Eurogamer is known for good indepth reviews, that's why its audience visits it.

Joke post?
miiiguel
04/06/08 @ 14:35
#28
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
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.
insane_cobra
04/06/08 @ 14:35
#29
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
"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.
Eraser
04/06/08 @ 14:36
#30
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
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.
Laika
04/06/08 @ 14:40
#31
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
GDI? I think you mean GDF...

Quake not C&C :P
Krelle
04/06/08 @ 15:13
#32
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
@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.
Edited 1 times, most recently on 04/06/08 @ 16:14
Carlo
04/06/08 @ 15:45
#33
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Opps!
andromeda
04/06/08 @ 16:42
#34
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
the guy in the illustration on the front page looks like nicholas cage
krudster [mod]
04/06/08 @ 16:56
#35
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
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.
Edited 1 times, most recently on 04/06/08 @ 17:57
Krelle
04/06/08 @ 17:14
#36
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
@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..
Edited 1 times, most recently on 04/06/08 @ 18:14
Machetazo
04/06/08 @ 17:33
#37
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
The review brings Conker: Live & Reloaded, multi over Xbox Live to mind, in comparison...
Edited 1 times, most recently on 04/06/08 @ 18:34
BrokenSymmetry
04/06/08 @ 17:47
#38
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
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.
Ryuken
04/06/08 @ 17:55
#39
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
"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.
suicida
04/06/08 @ 18:11
#40
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
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.
Ronan_Crawford
04/06/08 @ 19:16
#41
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
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.
Buran
04/06/08 @ 21:18
#42
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
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.
wonton
05/06/08 @ 06:37
#43
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
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.
Edited 1 times, most recently on 05/06/08 @ 07:39
Br0ken_Engli5h
05/06/08 @ 10:13
#44
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
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
Lemming81
05/06/08 @ 10:17
#45
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
"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.
zippie151
05/06/08 @ 10:46
#46
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
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??
strelok
05/06/08 @ 11:51
#47
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
no, ofc. FPSs on the consoles are a joke.
still, it is an awesome game on the PC.
mk-1601
05/06/08 @ 11:56
#48
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
"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.
krudster [mod]
05/06/08 @ 13:10
#49
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
- 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.
strelok
05/06/08 @ 13:20
#50
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
so, just to make this point clear, does TF2 have gameplay variety?

Comments: 1-50 of 54 in total | next 50 »

Want to comment on this article? Log in, or register!

X View gallery