Far Cry: Vengeance Review

By Rob Fahey Published 19 January, 2007

A cry for help?

Version tested: Wii

If you've ever played any of the Far Cry games on other platforms - like the fantastic PC version - you'll be aware of certain key things that define the series. Number one is definitely fantastic graphics; ever since the glorious island environments of the first game, developers have built on the powerful engine to create ever more impressive visuals. Second to that, undoubtedly, is the AI of your opponents, who work as groups and intelligently utilise the cover provided by jungle environments. A third pillar, added more recently in updated versions of the game, is excellent multiplayer support.

Those are the three things you expect to find, simply as a baseline, in a Far Cry game. They're not obscure expectations - they're simply what any player would see as core values after a few hours on any of the existing titles.

Which leads one, rather uncharitably, to wonder how much time the developers of the first Wii title in the franchise have spent playing previous Far Cry titles. Here we have a game that features utterly dreadful graphics, consistently stupid AI and multiplayer that'll be singing in the boy's soprano choir long after puberty. It's set in a jungle, at least, so we have to grant that at least the team did look at the back-of-box screenshots and go "ah, palm trees!" - a key revelation which forms this game's main stylistic relationship with the rest of its franchise.

That sounds overwhelmingly negative, and don't get me wrong for a single second - it is. However, there's one shining good point to be dropped into the whole affair, for which many ills are going to be forgiven over the course of this review. Far Cry: Vengeance, for all its many, many faults, is the first Wii game to get first-person shooter controls absolutely, totally right.

The Crying Game

'Far Cry: Vengeance' Screenshot 1

Sneak up on low-polygon men, but try not to cut yourself on the badly textured plants!

In other words, what Red Steel and (arguably) Call of Duty 3 failed to do, Far Cry has managed. The game utilises a simple control mechanism that moves your crosshair around in the middle of the screen and then allows you to move further in any direction to tilt the viewpoint. Movement forwards and backwards, and strafing left and right, is on the control stick of the nunchuk; to jump you flick the nunchuk, to throw a grenade you hold in the trigger on the nunchuk and make a tossing movement (watch it), which Far Cry actually interprets as a throw with strength varying according to the motion you make. Pull the B-trigger to shoot. Marginally more complex - but surprisingly natural after the first few tries - is the zooming motion, which requires you to poke the Wiimote towards the screen, with a second poke pulling back. It sounds awkward, but it actually works.

That's it for the basic controls - obviously there are more for weapon selection, locking the viewpoint and so on, and a slash of the Wiimote at any point tugs out a machete for a quick hacking motion - and here's the crux. They work. Whatever unkind things we may say about the developer's other efforts, the chaps designing the control system deserve a hearty pat on the back, because they've created a system that works reliably and is genuinely fun to use. The crosshair doesn't drift about because your viewpoint is moving unintentionally while you try to shoot; circle strafing and quickly moving the view are simple and easily mastered; the simple act of shooting enemy soldiers is suddenly fun again in a way that wouldn't have been possible with an analogue control stick. From the point of view of pure interaction between the player and the game, Far Cry is a joy to play, and that alone will drag you through several hours of the game.

I say "drag", though, and I mean it. Unfortunately, aside from the well-conceived and extremely well polished control scheme, the rest of the game is a haphazard and unfinished rush-job whose shoddy nature is genuinely eyebrow-raising at some points. The high point of the presentation is some nicely designed menu systems, which make good use of the Wii controller as a pointing device. Sadly, it's all downhill from there.

Makes Baby Jesus Cry

'Far Cry: Vengeance' Screenshot 2

Whizzing around on a jetski is a high point. Everything else in this shot is not.

When you launch a new game - and occasionally at key plot moments, in so much as the game has any semblance of a plot - Far Cry decides to treat you to some rendered video sequences. These look for all the world like placeholder art; they have been created using in-game models, but bizarrely compressed into video that's lower quality than in-game graphics by a substantial margin. It's muddy, ugly and looks as though it's travelled through YouTube's hideous video system a few times - it's no exaggeration to say that we've seen better full-motion video on the Nintendo DS recently. In fact, it's positively a relief when you're dropped into proper in-game graphics - they look great by comparison to the awful video.

Perhaps that's the point, because the in-game graphics don't look anything other than completely bloody awful by comparison with anything else out there. By showing you crap video first, at least your standards are lowered so that the game's visuals don't feel so much like someone has started injecting liquid faeces into your eyeballs - a shielding effect which, sadly, wears off after a few minutes. Far Cry: Vengeance, in case you haven't got the message yet, looks awful. It looks dreadful next to every other Far Cry game; it looks dreadful next to the PS2 games I've been reviewing recently; it even looks utterly dreadful side by side with some of the better GameCube titles out there, as a housemate's current adventures through Eternal Darkness reminded me. On a system significantly more powerful than the Cube (best estimates place it somewhere north of the original Xbox on the chart), it's laughable.

While the draw distance is relatively long, the sole saving grace of the graphics, items and foliage pop in right in front of your face. Everything is blocky and chunky, and the shadows of buildings look so unlike shadows that at one point I stared at a net-like object on a beach before realising it was meant to be the shadow of the suspension bridge above. The water, usually a Far Cry high point, is a pixellated texture; swimming in it is so murky that it feels like playing Turok on the N64 - while wearing a pair of fogged up sunglasses. Enemies, meanwhile, are pretty much carbon copies of one another for the majority of the game; the generic and borderline racially offensive soldiers you encounter early on, who shout loudly in voices clearly recorded by someone aiming for a midway point between Charlie Chan and Rambo's hapless foes, will still be your main cannon fodder many hours later.

Cry Me A River

However, at least introducing the cannon fodder to the cannons is quite enjoyable, in a fairly basic sense. The game sports a large arsenal of weapons and isn't stingy about handing you new toys to play with on a fairly regular basis; to top off the weaponry, there are also quite a few vehicles that you can drive around, including both land and sea craft. It's not quite the "if you can see it, you can drive it" freedom we'd like, but opportunities to wreak havoc behind the wheel (or handlebars) of a vehicle are liberally peppered around the levels, and once you work out that fixing the viewpoint is the only way to drive around without hitting every tree in the jungle, they're a fine addition to the game.

These amusing asides become all the more welcome when it becomes clear just how thick the enemy AI in the game is. Much like the graphics, the AI is a throwback to a bygone era; here we have enemy soldiers that just stand around while their comrades are being shot down right next to them, who stop in the middle of firefights and stare at you for ages, begging to be shot down, and whose best response to an enemy threat is to run at it shouting tired old catchphrases with all the Rs and Ls mispronounced. Never mind more recent advances in the genre like Halo, Half-Life 2 or even Far Cry itself; this is like the original Half-Life never happened, and the last major step forward in FPS gaming was Duke Nukem 3D. Still, at least shooting them in the head is still fun; perhaps you could enhance the fun-factor by playing a mental game where you pretend that the reason they're all so stupid is because the island's soldiers are entirely recruited from the readership of the News Of The World.

'Far Cry: Vengeance' Screenshot 3

My god! Identical twins! Actually, their mother was a pretty busy lady if the rest of the game's enemies are anything to go on.

The other hook of the game is the Predator mode, which was introduced in earlier Far Cry games but is sadly introduced here as though everyone should already know what it is and how it works - a critical misunderstanding of the Wii's target audience, we can't help but feel. That said, it's rubbish anyway. The lovely control system breaks down utterly in Predator mode, which pulls out your field of vision so you feel like you're running around like a loony and totally out of touch with the control system. Besides which, the melee kills in Predator mode are far less fun than just shooting people in the head. Perhaps in recognition of this, the developers left in a handy use for your "Predatorine" (a gauge that fills up as you fight) that doesn't require using the annoying Predator mode; shake the nunchuk from side to side and you use up slots on the gauge to regain health.

The final factor which we listed as missing in action is the multiplayer mode of the game, which was satisfyingly comprehensive in other iterations of Far Cry. In this case, it's not actually that it's missing in action - it's turned up for duty alright, but it's missing quite a few vital organs and limbs. In fact, multiplayer here is restricted to a rather sad two-player split-screen mode which is even more flawed than the single-player offering - not least because it adds crippling framerate issues to the already tragic roster of graphical flaws suffered by the game.

Vengeance Served Cold

The Wii has one great FPS game to its name; unfortunately, that game is spread out over three distinctly disappointing titles. Combine the look and feel (and swordplay) of Red Steel, with the atmosphere, superb presentation and wonderful level design of Call of Duty 3, and pull it all together with the perfectly honed control system of Far Cry: Vengeance, and you'd have an amazing game. Right now, though, this is a mess. It's terribly badly presented and utterly lacking in the areas which make the Far Cry franchise great - but through all of that shines a genuinely good, easy to learn and downright fun control scheme.

In deciding on a final mark for Far Cry, it would be easy to weigh up all the things which the game gets wrong and decide that they balance out harshly. However, it's impossible to escape the fact that playing the game was actually quite compelling, in a sense; at no point was it an unpleasant game to play, it's merely completely retrograde in several key areas and lacking any sense of presentation or style. It's an ugly game, but one which, crucially, works as a game at its most basic level - which, to my mind, weighs heavily against the problems it has in most other areas. Be warned, though, that the just-about-average score is not even a particularly cautious recommendation - rather it is a tip of the hat to the key things that Far Cry does right, and a note of hope that better made games in future will learn from its successes rather than falling foul of its failures.

4 / 10

Read the Eurogamer.net scoring policy
Picture of Rob.

About Rob Fahey

Rob Fahey is a former editor of GamesIndustry.biz who spent several years living in Japan and probably still has a mint condition Dreamcast Samba de Amigo set.

Read more articles from Rob by visiting the Rob Fahey archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (110) Latest comment 5 years ago

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

  • Pac-man-ate-my-wife #1 5 years ago

    We all knew this. Why put in the Games To Look Forward To then?
    Edited by 1 at 19/01/07 @ 14:08

  • Xerx3s #2 5 years ago

    Does this use the golden eye engine?

  • speedjack #3 5 years ago

    It really does look rather horrilble.

    Roll on Far Cry PSP !!!

  • Rambaldi #4 5 years ago

    And so it was that the 'Cap Of Crap Shovelware' was passed from the Cube to the Wii...

  • jellyhead #5 5 years ago

    oh dear. Better luck next time lads.

  • BravoGolf #6 5 years ago

    "that the reason they're all so stupid is because the island's soldiers are entirely recruited from the readership of the News Of The World."


    ROFL!

  • AcidSnake #7 5 years ago

    Nope, goldeneye had 4 player multiplayer...

    Wii is teh doomed....etc etc....

    That said, what is the next FPS scheduled for the Wii?
    I can't think of one...
    Seems like they've all been rushed out, although I'm rather enjoying Red Steel at the moment...

  • skillian #8 5 years ago

    I couldn't understand why the graphics were described as "not too shabby" back in the preview. They were clearly very shabby indeed, as the comments pointed out.

    Anyway, as soon as the Wii controller was revealed I instantly thought of FPS - Ninty are squandering this opportunity unless they get a decent shooter out soon...

    edit: maybe it's just nostalgia, but I'm sure Goldeneye's graphics were actually better than that. Maybe it looks better in motion... :/
    Edited by 2 at 19/01/07 @ 14:19

  • peteb #9 5 years ago

    hope its not a sign of things to come with the wii:-

    nice controls, crap everything else.

  • stoopidgreg #10 5 years ago

    worst looking port ever?

  • peteb #11 5 years ago

    maybe they were making it easier for the guys going to port it over to the ds?

  • Stupid_Fat_Hobbit #12 5 years ago

    Sort of a pleasant surprise... I thought we were going to have to wait for Nintendo to show eeryone how FPS controls should be done on the Wii with Metroid.

  • kissthestick #13 5 years ago

    Ubisoft : We love the Wii"

  • Blerk #14 5 years ago

    Makes Baby Jesus Cry

    Heh heh - worth doing a review just to include that single line. :-D

  • AcidSnake #15 5 years ago

    Holy sh*t!
    I forgot about metroid!...
    Ok, but if we consider that an FPS...What other FPS' are coming out?

    Just imagine: Goldeneye on VC with Wii controls...Could be huge...

  • GamesProgrammer Verified Games Team Programmer, Eutechnyx Ltd. #16 5 years ago

    Next FPS would be Metroid Prime Obviously, can pretty saftly assume Nintendo will get it right

  • kangarootoo #17 5 years ago

    @skillian

    "maybe it's just nostalgia, but I'm sure Goldeneye's graphics were actually better than that."

    It absolutely is nostaliga.

    http://uk .gamespot.com/n64/action/golden...

  • LeoliansBro #18 5 years ago

    Not sure I understand what makes this control system the quantum leap over that in Red Steel - surely everything described here is the same as in that game?

    Still, shame, would have been nice if it worked...

  • Phattso #19 5 years ago

    I'm not quite clear on how the control scheme succeeds where Red Steel fails? With the exception of some of the nunchuck functions, the control scheme you describe in this review is identical to that found in Red Steel.

    Is it just that the calibration/tweaking feels better, or is there something more that improves it.

    I don't have any intention of playing Far Cry on Wii, but I do have an interest in how FPS games in the future are going to work on it so I'm quite curious as to the specifics of how this controls better. :)

  • redd #20 5 years ago

    "Sort of a pleasant surprise... I thought we were going to have to wait for Nintendo to show eeryone how FPS controls should be done on the Wii with Metroid."

    From whats been seen of MP3, it still has lock-on targeting. I understand it probably is for the best in the case of metroid, but i dont think it'll be the standard for other FPS.
    I certainly hope it wont, otherwise whats the point of, erm, pointing, with the remote?

  • Rambaldi #21 5 years ago

    @Kanga

    "It absolutely is nostaliga"

    Aye, but it absolutely is shocking too considering the 10 years difference

  • schoozzzmmii #22 5 years ago

    By the end of the review, thought he was gearing up to give it a 6. A 4 even after all that the review says about how it's fun for a while because the controls are well thought out. The Wii had better get its act in order. I'm still interested but can't yet find one anywhere. Hope i'm not put off by the time I can actually buy one.

  • kangarootoo #23 5 years ago

    @Rambaldi

    Oh for sure. I'm generally not as concerned with gfx as many others, but even I was a bit shocked at those screens.

  • rudedudejude #24 5 years ago

    "perhaps you could enhance the fun-factor by playing a mental game where you pretend that the reason they're all so stupid is because the island's soldiers are entirely recruited from the readership of the News Of The World."

    Best quote ever!

    /awaits News of the World lawsuit

  • YourMessageHere #25 5 years ago

    Graphically, granted it's certainly no HL2 or Crysis. Looking at the shots, it's not quite as bad as you make out. What precisely do you expect from a weedy console that no-one's worked out how to optimise for yet? If it had good AI or decent levels I'd be happy to play a game that looked like the screenshots look. It looks a bit like Far Cry for PC dialled down to minimum spec, actually.

    Interesting comment about the "one perfect FPS spread across 3 games" thing. This makes me hope for the future of FPS games on the Wii, even if I'm not sufficiently impressed by the present to buy one. All it really needs now (other than a single good FPS all at once, natch) is some way to customise controls.

  • Darren #26 5 years ago

    Sound better than the awful 360 version then with its seriously messed up controls, that no matter what setting you used, just never felt right.

    I believe that Edge or gamesTM gave this game 3/10 so it's clearly a bit rubbish...

  • Skooch #27 5 years ago

    Where are all the graphics-don't-matter Wiiboys now?

  • tentonipete #28 5 years ago

    loved the bit about turok with dirty glasses

  • Tomnd #29 5 years ago

    Hardcore nintendo fan, etc etc. I actually am only lookng forward to Mario galaxy and Metroid. Both are going to be nothing new. :(

  • Darkedge #30 5 years ago

    hmm now I knew this was goiong to suck, and i was right.. joy..

    Oh and for those who say this looks worse or is worse than Goldeneye - take those damn rose tinted specs off for once, sorry but goldeneye really wasn't that good.

  • LeoliansBro #31 5 years ago

    We never said graphics don't matter. We just said they weren't the be-all-and-end-all of gaming.

    Wii sports is brilliant because its about gameplay rather than the polygon count. And no amount of HD glory will disguise the fact that the likes of CoD3 requires you to aim using your thumbs...

    Far Cry's graphics suck because they are lazily implemented on a console which is capable of a lot more. But even that would be forgivable if the game was fun, but by the sound of it that just isn't the case.

    EDIT: for spelling.
    Edited by 2 at 19/01/07 @ 15:11

  • Chtulie #32 5 years ago

    "it looks dreadful next to the PS2 games I've been reviewing recently; it even looks utterly dreadful side by side with some of the better GameCube titles out there, as a housemate's current adventures through Eternal Darkness reminded me."

    An N64 port is hardly the standard of a Cube game. By all accounts it's more powerful then the ps2 as cross-platform games show. It's just that only a few dev's have bothered to see what it could do. And when they did, it was clear that the thing was at an X-box1 level.

  • jonsaan #33 5 years ago

    Don't forget it also looked like shit on the 360 too if, if the demo is anything to go by!

  • urban #34 5 years ago

    yeah..expected.

  • TonyCocaCola #35 5 years ago

    Does it matter which console it looks better on, I played it on the 360 a while ago and it bored me to tears. I think id rather play it on the wii because at least moving your arms around stop you from slipping into a deep coma. For me playing farcry was like watching every single episode of Home and Away back to back with no toilet break

  • Eighthours #36 5 years ago

    it looks dreadful next to the PS2 games I've been reviewing recently; it even looks utterly dreadful side by side with some of the better GameCube titles out there

    Er... those better Gamecube titles have better graphics than equivalent PS2 games (case in point: Resident Evil 4). The Gamecube is a more powerful console. So, was the sentence just the wrong way round, or just biased? That word "even" was very telling...

  • Killerbee #37 5 years ago

    Hmmm... kind of what I expected after the pretty negative word of mouth this game's had and a great shame Ubi messed this up. I really enjoyed playing through the PC version and would have been interested in this. Still, I'm looking forward to Metroid and hopefully someone somewhere can make a decent Wii FPS game - even if it has to be Medal of Hono(u)r...

    Anyway, I loved reading the review nonetheless!
    Edited by 2 at 19/01/07 @ 15:37

  • Darren #38 5 years ago

    Ubisoft seem content to release any old rubbish on the Wii for some reason. It's a miracle that Rayman Raving Rabbids at least turned out decent but all their other games thus far are mediocre or worse. Maybe they think Wii owners are that desperate for new games that they'll buy any old tat... :?

  • Shinji #39 5 years ago

    So, was the sentence just the wrong way round, or just biased? That word "even" was very telling...

    I think you're reading rather too much into it. I was simply saying that looking at PS2 games being released now, like FFXII, Far Cry Vengeance looks crap by comparison; and that even when you delve into the Cube library, you find that games on a console with the same architecture running at a lower speed STILL look better than Vengeance does.

    Maybe I should have said "also" rather than "even", but I think the intentions are clear anyway. Besides which, isn't it a bit bloody late to be making fanboyish comments about the last generation now? If I wanted to do that, I've missed the boat by about three years :)

  • smoison #40 5 years ago

    Having traded Rayman for this game I have to agree with what was said in the review.

    However, I defenitly found this game better then Rayman, and I am enjoying this more then Red Steel thanks to the controls and huge array of realistic weapons.

    The prey mode in 2 player also shows great potential, Its like a zombie MOD but with only one human and one zombie.



  • dolphan #41 5 years ago

    Well, if it shows the controls can work that bodes well for the future (come on Metroid). That said, I really liked the CoD3 controls.

  • TedBaker #42 5 years ago

    Old franchise. New machine and control system. Shoehorn.

  • Waldo #43 5 years ago

    They should stick to kiddie games with cartoony graphics instead of making games that have "realistic" settings.

  • mkreku #44 5 years ago

    Guys, there's a reason the Wii is cheap. Buy an Xbox 360 or a Playstation 3 if you want to be dazzled by fantastic graphics on a console. The Wii is just a souped up Gamecube.

  • jonsaan #45 5 years ago

    It isn't that cheap! Sheesh.

  • samk #46 5 years ago

    "Guys, there's a reason the Wii is cheap. Buy an Xbox 360 or a Playstation 3 if you want to be dazzled by fantastic graphics on a console. The Wii is just a souped up Gamecube."

    It's still no excuse for graphics that are WORSE than GC games, and even PS2 games.

    Plus, maybe you're a millionaire or something but I don't think £200+ to buy the Wii and game itself is anywhere near "cheap".

  • Moonprince #47 5 years ago

    Bah HD whatever, who cares!?

  • samk #48 5 years ago

    "Bah HD whatever, who cares!?"

    Those of us with a HDTV perhaps?

  • Moonprince #49 5 years ago

    But I thought no one would be silly enough to get one yet???!????!?

    ?

  • earl_roberts #50 5 years ago

    Well its not exactly the Wii is it, look at Mario Galaxy or Smash Bros Brawl fer christsakes!

  • samk #51 5 years ago

    "But I thought no one would be silly enough to get one yet???!????!?"

    A HDTV, or a Wii? :o)

  • Moonprince #52 5 years ago

    As much as my childhood included a whole load of Nintendo and I luv em for it, I'd say both. Not much point in getting either right now.

  • samk #53 5 years ago

    "As much as my childhood included a whole load of Nintendo and I luv em for it, I'd say both. Not much point in getting either right now."

    hehe, likewise I'm a long time Nintendo fan. I bought a Wii on launch but was disappointed and sold it to cash in on the crazy Ebay prices in December. As you say there's just no point owning one atm; there's Zelda - which is on GC anyway, a bunch of shallow games like Wii Sports which I was bored of within hours, and a whole heap of shite like Ubisoft have been releasing.

  • kangarootoo #54 5 years ago

    @TeddyBoy

    HD won't make poor gfx look better. The issue here seems to be polycount and texture detail. Displaying low poly models in HD doesn't really make them look better, just sharper.

  • schoozzzmmii #55 5 years ago

    i'm tempted to just stick to pc gaming from now on ):

    Consoles bring us ever more iterations of Far Cry which aren't up to the quality of the original released a fair old while ago now. Whilst on the PC we're looking forward to Crysis. It's the game I'm holding out upgrading my PC for and I can't wait :)
    Edited by 1 at 19/01/07 @ 16:45

  • Calo #56 5 years ago

    *secretly hopes Nintendo will buy the rights to N64 Perfect Dark and remake it for Wii*

    Thats how desperate i am. lol

  • Moonprince #57 5 years ago

    Yeah it's a shame the way things are at the moment. I did buy into the early hype and had high hopes. I'll still get one for the big hits (metroid etc) at some point.

    Strangely I've been on the PSP since the PS1 stuff came out on it. It's been hidden in with the socks for the last year or so. valkyrie profile - really good game worth a play!
    Edited by 1 at 19/01/07 @ 16:47

  • AOFanboi #58 5 years ago

    Here in Oslo, Norway, the most expensive Wii's price is higher than that of the cheapest "full" 360. Bah on them. And I don't need another unplayed console sitting under the telly - if I had a GC I might have considered the Wii simply because of the backward compatibility, but as it looks now my next console will be a PS3 to replace my ancient PS2 and to provide downloads for my PSP.

  • Vin #59 5 years ago

    BUY A 360.

    Christ, it's dead simple. Aside from Zelda, what else is there? And don't fucking quote me Wii sports.

  • Santino #60 5 years ago

    buy a 360 based on a poor port from ubisoft? go troll somewhere else you absolute moron

  • jonsaan #61 5 years ago

    Oh yes Kato. I too enjoy messing around with various drivers and configs for an hour or so before I get to play a game that I have to try in every single available resolution in order to find one that runs smoothly. Great fun. Awesome.
    Edited by 1 at 19/01/07 @ 17:36

  • Nesty #62 5 years ago

    4/10 if you get it for free. -3 marks also for charging 60euro/£ equivalent.

  • jonsaan #63 5 years ago

    Sorry Kato, my bad.

    Dabo, what about FZERO?

    Personally I think some of the new Zelda looks more like N64 graphics than the cube. It's still a great game though. I haven't seen it running on the Wii though, I can;t imgaine it's too different?
    Edited by 1 at 19/01/07 @ 17:42

  • Santino #64 5 years ago

    dabo, i cannot imagine the ps2 being able to come remotely close to running something like metroid prime 1 or 2 at its constant 60fps with all effects and no load times, or Twilight Princess, or even a launch game such as rogue squadron 2.

    obviously the gap wasnt huge, but you can't argue it wasn't more capable hardware.
    Edited by 1 at 19/01/07 @ 17:44

  • secombe #65 5 years ago

    Christ, it's dead simple. Aside from Zelda, what else is there? And don't fucking quote me Wii sports.

    Madden, for a start, a stunning first attempt from EA. But onto the rest...

    I would absolutely quote you Wii Sports. A quick look through my Wii Calendar to see how many hours I've played stuff makes for scary reading, Wii Sports is easily well beyond 60 hours now...and every single one of those minutes has been more entertaining than most stuff I've played in the past 17 years.

    Wii Play is also knocking up some huge hours, mainly due to Tanks!, until some full sports titles come out those above will keep me more than happy.
    Edited by 1 at 19/01/07 @ 17:56

  • Santino #66 5 years ago

    secombe, its hilarious how he demanded not to be quoted Wii Sports as it basically ruins his whole argument of the wii having one game worth playing, talk about making up your own rules. Not to mention there are plenty games coming out well worth picking up. Like yourself and i presume the majority, Wii Sports has probably received a quite ridiculous amount of playtime and provided lots of fun in the process.
    Edited by 1 at 19/01/07 @ 18:22

  • smelly #67 5 years ago

    "I think Nintendo messed up badly by not going HD with Wii"


    Bullshit.

    Im sorry. But there's NO NEED for HD in games yet. Lo-Def TV looks realistic, do lo-def games? No.

    Until my games look as realistic as pat butcher does in Lo-Def - then there's no need for HiDef at all.


    And Big suprise, a bad Wii game gets a load of xbox/sony fanboys coming in saying "the wii is t'doomed.. 360 for t'win etc etc etc".. Makes me embarrased to own a 360.

  • smelly #68 5 years ago

    Christ, it's dead simple. Aside from Zelda, what else is there? And don't fucking quote me Wii sports.

    And the ps3 has.... ?

    Or indeed.. what BWILLIANT games did the 360 have 2 months after it's launch? (apart from obcrapion?)

  • smoison #69 5 years ago

    OK so back to the subject, am I the only one here who has played this?

    Does nobody else thinks its AT LEAST as good red steel and/or COD 3?

    Why am I the only one to think Rayman was worse then each of these other 3?
    Edited by 2 at 19/01/07 @ 18:39

  • manic_mouse #70 5 years ago

    "SotC looks better than Twighlight Princess though."

    Artistically, perhaps, but most certainly not on a technical level. The textures, anti-aliasing (or lack thereof) and frame-rate of SotC are utterly terrible.

    I will admit that the engine does a very good job of rendering distances, hair/grass and horses though ;)

    Smelly: "Bullshit.

    Im sorry. But there's NO NEED for HD in games yet. Lo-Def TV looks realistic, do lo-def games? No.

    Until my games look as realistic as pat butcher does in Lo-Def - then there's no need for HiDef at all.


    And Big suprise, a bad Wii game gets a load of xbox/sony fanboys coming in saying "the wii is t'doomed.. 360 for t'win etc etc etc".. Makes me embarrased to own a 360. "

    Honestly, this "only geeks and hardcore AV users have HD TV's" thing is getting old. Loads of people have HDTV's. They're getting cheaper by the day. Nintendo have made a big mistake.

    Heck, they're not even selling CRT TV's in most places anymore. Get out of the house and into Currys or Dixons or somewhere, Smelly.

    Or do you believe that literally every other AV company in the world has it wrong and Nintendo are the only ones that have it right?

    And there is a need for HD in games, it makes them look better. End of. Do you have a problem with making games look better? What's with the anger?
    Edited by 3 at 19/01/07 @ 18:50

  • smelly #71 5 years ago

    I liked the simplicity of rayman.. But there were things i really hated about it too (long load times for one).

    TBH i've avoided ALL the eidos launch games, as they all seem to have been done on the cheap.

    In fact so far i've only bought 4 wii games.. The most recent being warioware which seems like it should keep me entertained for a long while..

    BTW, anyone who touts that a game needs to be hidef and realistic to look stunning REALLY needs to look at Warioware. Which (to me) is one of the best looking games i've seen in a long while. I love the style and crispness of it all.

  • Ryze #72 5 years ago

    Project Gotham 3 was nice on the 360 at launch. As was the online experience on Burnout Revenge. A port can work if it takes advantage of the console's unique abilities - and doesn't cripple the game. Wii and PSP developers should really take note of that.

    I'd have loved to have seen an immaculate conversion of FarCry for the Wii - one with better visuals than the Xbox version.

    The control system has been done properly - so the game could have fulfilled one element of the Wii's potential - to fix first person shooters played on consoles in the living room. So many of us hate playing with 2 analogue sticks.

    But no. They had to rush it and ruin it. So now I still have no reason to even attempt to buy a Wii. Those developers should now be kept away from any franchise with a decent reputation. Every other version of FarCry is a decent game.

    Fools.

  • smelly #73 5 years ago

    "I'd have loved to have seen an immaculate conversion of FarCry for the Wii - one with better visuals than the Xbox version. "

    Hmmm.. Dunno if that's necessarily possible.

    The wii IS more powerful than the xbox, and CAN push more polys/more textures/etc etc. BUT it doesnt have programmable shaders, so a lot of pretty effects from the xbox arent as easy.

    Thats NOT to say they're impossible to do, as, due to the extra power, you should be able to do them with clever techniques (smoke and mirrors).. But that requires a team with talent...

    And most of these eidos ports seem to have been given to teams to do "on the cheap"

    I'd imagine if the wii continues to sell as well as it is doing, then companies will be more willing to spend decent amounts to make the games look nice.

    BEGIN RANT:
    ----------------
    But what I DONT understand is why everyone insists on using the pointer to control fps games!!! Surely a MUCH better way of doing it would be to use the tilt functionality of the controller to look around (keeping your reticule on the centre of the screen), in effect using the controller as a mouse. It's worked for pc games all these years, gawd knows why they're trying to re-invent it.

  • Ryze #74 5 years ago

    Ubisoft.

  • yagisencho #75 5 years ago

    "By showing you crap video first, at least your standards are lowered so that the game's visuals don't feel so much like someone has started injecting liquid faeces into your eyeballs - a shielding effect which, sadly, wears off after a few minutes."

    Quote of the year. Put THAT on the back of your packaging, Ubisoft.

  • earl_roberts #76 5 years ago

    Nearly 100 comments on only 2 from people who have played the actual game?
    Sounds about right!

  • smelly #77 5 years ago

    >Ubisoft.

    Whoops.. thats what i meant :-)

  • SirScratchalot #78 5 years ago

    I'm almost ready to buy this just to try out the control system. Sounds excellent, shame about the game.
    ......
    Maybe when it hits the bargain bins I'll buy it and then waste an afternoon on it.

  • Rambaldi #79 5 years ago

    " I'm almost ready to buy this just to try out the control system. Sounds excellent, shame about the game.
    ......
    Maybe when it hits the bargain bins I'll buy it and then waste an afternoon on it"


    Fancy that! My philosphy on the Wii in a nutshell!

  • Chtulie #80 5 years ago

    Shinji: "Besides which, isn't it a bit bloody late to be making fanboyish comments about the last generation now?"

    You started it :p

  • Pooley #81 5 years ago

    Such a shame. Far Cry is one of my fav games on the PC, I've played through it twice, and I was quite looking forward to a version using the Wii controls.

    If they'd got the AI correct, as the PC version did very well, then I'd have been quite happy to get this game, poor graphics or not.

    Still, I'll probably get it 2nd hand or in a sale, just out of sheer curiosity.

  • calgarian #82 5 years ago

    graphics don't matter! err.. wati, they do!

    seriously everything, graphics, ai, sound, controls, physics contribute (with some to a greater extent) to the enjoyableness of game. you cant neglect one component and expect it to sell well.

  • Genji #83 5 years ago

    I would think that good gameplay contributes *more* to a good game than good graphics, sound, etc.

  • dahsif #84 5 years ago

    The "News of the World readership"?

    How about the Sun's, and the Mirror's? and Sky News viewers?

    The Guardian (and elitism) FTW.

  • Ares #85 5 years ago

    Great review. :D

    I was a little worried though, about the insinuations that the GC was less capable than the PS2, but those were dispelled with that comment you added, clarifying your intentions... ammm... I think...

    Are we all agreed then? The Gamecube surpassed the PS2 graphically? Yes? Excellent.

  • smelly #86 5 years ago

    Ares : Yes, and youd be stupid to argue otherwise

    BUT : Who cares?


    I do find it quite amazing that a shite game has got this many replies (mainly from microsoft/sony fanboys trying to justify their purchase - by saying "oh goodie.. The wii has a bad game, that must mean ALL games and the console is shite.. Yipppeee!!! I can go jerk off over pictures of the ps3 im going to be spending a small fortune on in a few months time".

    Sigh!

    It's amazing you dont see this level of comments for every shit 360 or ps2 game isnt it? Gawd.. in the case of the ps2 if we had this many comments for each one, we'd bring down Eurogamers servers!

  • Genji #87 5 years ago

    Well, as is the case with... oh, just about every new console, the majority of the launch titles are average at best.

    You would think people are used to this by now.

  • SBfistfun #88 5 years ago

    wii is dead, long live poo

  • Rambaldi #89 5 years ago

    "graphics, ai, sound, controls, physics contribute (with some to a greater extent) to the enjoyableness of game. you cant neglect one component and expect it to sell well"

    Agree. Maybe someone should've told Nintendo that when they were hunting round the bargain bin for Wii components...

  • MaxiSleep #90 5 years ago

    "It's amazing you dont see this level of comments for every shit 360 or ps2 game isnt it? Gawd.. in the case of the ps2 if we had this many comments for each one, we'd bring down Eurogamers servers!"

    Well yes - but given it is so close to launch there is understandable curiosity about each new title.


    I was about 80% toward buying a Wii, but have pulled back again based on the lack of good games which use themes which I enjoy. I had a N64 and a GC, but for both of them I just did not enough of a buzz from the nintendo stuff in isolation, and I am not willing atm to take the plunge on Wii.

    If however Nintendo style of gameplay/themes is too your taste then I am sure it will be an excellent purchase.

    And so I think that third party lack of quality and quantity which has been held up as a big failing of the game cube, is a realy important issue and is bound to draw comment.

  • jakswan #91 5 years ago

    I really enjoyed the review even though I knew from reading elsewhere it was always going to get a low score.

    Very interested in reading about the control system, looks like they have got it spot on. Being a PC Gamer and having tried playing an FPS on anything other than a mouse keyboard to date has been terrible. The wii looks like it could potentially be better!

    I suppose if you were a fanboy of MS or Sony you'd be going a bit bonkers over the Wii's mainstream appeal, /me shrugs.



  • ph101 #92 5 years ago

    "BEGIN RANT:
    ----------------
    But what I DONT understand is why everyone insists on using the pointer to control fps games!!! Surely a MUCH better way of doing it would be to use the tilt functionality of the controller to look around (keeping your reticule on the centre of the screen), in effect using the controller as a mouse. It's worked for pc games all these years, gawd knows why they're trying to re-invent it.

    "
    @smelly

    I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks this. Why must the developers be such idiots. The tilt response on the wiimote is very accurate, this would clearly be the ideal way to play, and would mean you don't need to use the pointing mechanism, and all this dragging your view around pushing the side of the screen BS.

    Cross hair should be fixed in the middle, left and right, up and down tilting should rotate view point.

    I signed up to agree with you on this and I just hope and pray someone with a half a brain gets round to making an FPS on the wii because it *should* be the ultimate FPS solution..!

    ps. No one has mentined Medal of honour coming to the Wii - which it is. Perhaps EA will get this one right?
    Edited by 1 at 20/01/07 @ 12:59

  • KillerMonkey #93 5 years ago

    Such a fucking shame. The control system really is great and is fun to use. I hope future Wii-FPS games copy this control system.

  • Shinji #94 5 years ago

    Cross hair should be fixed in the middle, left and right, up and down tilting should rotate view point.

    No, god no! That's a terrible plan - at least without some major tweaking - because it means that in order to remain pointing at the same part of the screen, you'd have to keep your hand rock-steady. Which simply isn't possible, as CoD3 on the Wii proved by using an over-sensitive control system.

    You've got a proper pointing device there, use it! Using the tilt functions alone would be a complete pain - it would be a fine approximation of PC controls, sure, but that's not what the Wiimote is designed for, or good at. Shoehorning mouse functionality onto a device with a 3D accelerometer would be disastrous.

  • space_ace #95 5 years ago

    some crysis, eh

  • ph101 #96 5 years ago

    "No, god no! That's a terrible plan - at least without some major tweaking - because it means that in order to remain pointing at the same part of the screen, you'd have to keep your hand rock-steady. Which simply isn't possible, as CoD3 on the Wii proved by using an over-sensitive control system."

    I'm not too sure about that. When I say titlt I really mean rotate left and right and up and down. Ie essentially you would be moving it as if you were pointing and that would rotate viewing angle with fixed crosshair.

    But You wouldn't need to keep your hand rock steady - its when you use the pointer it has to be steady and have toi worry about correct tracking which I dont imagine is suited to hectic gun fites.

    The view rotation would be relative in the same way as a mouse for FPSes. You dont point and click on heads on PCs, you aim - same deal for Wii imo. Have to add I hacven't played any of the FPSes on the Wii yet.

  • smelly #97 5 years ago

    "it means that in order to remain pointing at the same part of the screen, you'd have to keep your hand rock-steady. "


    Thats the point.. you dont point at the screen at all... you just tilt the controller.

    You hand wouldnt have to be totally still as (just with mice) you could tweak the sensitivity.

    Wii has the potential to be a good fps platform if:

    1. Someone develops a good control system for it (it could even be BETTER than pc controls! Thanks to analogue straffing)

    2. Someone actually takes the time to make the games look nice.


    It IS possible to make wii games look stunning.. You just have to be clever about how you do it.

  • rotj #98 5 years ago

    Pac-man ate my wife said: "We all knew this [was going to be crap]. Why put in the Games To Look Forward To then?"

    Best of a (very) bad bunch?

  • Rambaldi #99 5 years ago

    Just had a go on Red Steel..

    I've been playing FPS since it was invented and consider myself to be pretty good (I only ever tackle a game on the hardest setting available) but I found the experience slightly at odds with Nintendo's 'easy access' philosophy.

    Granted, I only played for a short time, but I found myself fighting with the controls more than I felt I should have for someone with my background using something that's supposed to 'break down the barriers'. Maybe a few more hours would've helped but I got the distinct impression that the novelty interface was hiding a very dull game.

    Oh, and maybe I've been spoilt with HD and Power PC processors...but the graphics on the Wii really are pants. It's like wearing dirty glasses!

    Surely Nintendo have set a record by producing a next-gen console that refuses to embrace advances in technology.

    Shame.

  • rez606 #100 5 years ago

    nnnnnnnnnooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

  • smelly #101 5 years ago

    "the graphics on the Wii really are pants"

    Sigh.. yes and ps2 graphics were shit too..

    Now we ALL know that ONE game looks shit.. So therefor ALL games on the wii are SHIT!!! Wow.. You guys really have converted us wii owners! We all know now how shit the wii must be because you tell us it is! Wow! Can I masturbate over your console once you've finished?

    Hell, there's no need for you to ever post again in a thread about a wii game, as we all now know how shit it is! You dont ever need to post again!! Save your typing fingers!

  • Der_tolle_Emil #102 5 years ago

    Personally I'd always take style over technical beauty. I don't know if I already posted this but if I remember correctly I resited from doing so last time.

    Red Steel is the perfect example (in my opinion) why gameplay will always be more important than graphics. I can assure you I would not have bothered finishing Red Steel if I had to use 2 analog sticks. But playing with the wiimote was so much fun I was coming back for the game every time I came home and had enough time. Same goes for Zelda, it is definetly far, far away from 360 or PS3 graphical niveau but the presentation is just beautiful. Enormous draw distance, very stylish effects in the twilight zones and graphics aside a flawless presentation overall.

    As smelly said, never take launch titles as reference especially not the graphics. Compare Mario 64 to Banjo Kazooie and you know what I mean.

    I myself am glad that the controls work fine. It means that Nintendo did a great job providing SDKs etc. to help getting the controls with the wiimote right. After all this is the most crucial aspect of the Wii. With the controls already tackled developers can focus on graphics, AI, whatever. My biggest worries always were developers struggling too much with the wiimote. But as it seems this is no longer a concern, which is incredible given the fact the Wii is only out for 2-3 months.

    PS: Please excuse any weird sentences or typos, I am a bit drunk :/

    Edit: About Zelda: I would have played it to death on the cube also. I just don't find it in any way inferior just because it is a cube title and the Wii could probably produce more beautiful graphics. Zelda is a great game and not only because of the Wii controls. Just to be sure and not be misunderstood.
    Edited by 1 at 20/01/07 @ 22:29

  • jakswan #103 5 years ago

    "the graphics on the Wii really are pants"

    Sigh the format wars have long raged around the technical merits of one platform over another. It's a side issue, if a platform has a massive user base then developers will simply not ignore it.

    The Wii has mainstream interested in it, whilst some may poo poo it's technical ability there is no arguing that it will sell in huge numbers.

    I mean from a technical point of view the PC is always stealing a lead there is no way a console can keep up. The reason it doesn't dominate is a bit to do with cost but more importantly it does not have mainstream support. (Too many n00bs :) )

  • floppylobster #104 5 years ago

    I don't think the Wii has less graphic power because Nintendo are cheap or they just couldn't do it, all of their past machines have been as powerful as others of their generation. I think it's because they wanted the games to be cheap and easy to develop. To allow programmers to experiment and push boundaries. (And if development costs are cheap it also encourages more developers to support their machine).

    There will be no such risk taking on the PS3, only calculated and concentrated efforts to produce bankable hits. This will produce some great high quality games but I won't expect to see any innovation (like Parappa or Ico) until very late in the life cycle of the machine.

    Nintendo have probably now got a patent on the Wii control system so they can go all out on graphics for Wii 2 if this experiment works.

  • Rambaldi #105 5 years ago

    Sure, style is important, but I just can't escape the fact that after a year of playing in 1080 resolution on a 37" HDTV, the Wii looks awfully dated - on par with the Cube (at best) IMO.

    I'm not knocking it's games as such as Zelda's great (although I don't go for the whole Mario / Party vibe personaly) nor am I knocking the people who buy Wii. I just can't help but turn my nose up when I see one running.

    If they were sub £100, then maybe, but £250 for a glorified Cube and a couple of games?...no thanks. If I want to play Nintendo games I'll pick up a Cube and a couple of games for £50

    "Red Steel is the perfect example (in my opinion) why gameplay will always be more important than graphics. I can assure you I would not have bothered finishing Red Steel if I had to use 2 analog sticks."

    Is this not a contradiction in terms? You're saying that the game's only worth playing with the Wiimote i.e. if you strip away the novelty of the input you're left with something that's rather bland? It's my gut feeling that this philosophy can be applied to the vast majority of the Wii's library (present and future).

    At the moment the Wiimote is in it's honeymoom period but it will eventualy become 'the norm' to people who use it. Let's see how you feel about the Wii then, eh?

    At the end of the day this is just my opinion based on what I've experienced 1st hand of the Wii. If you're loving it that that's a good thing! I'm pleased for you!

    @smelly

    "You dont ever need to post again!! Save your typing fingers!"

    Pot? Kettle?
    Edited by 1 at 21/01/07 @ 10:32

  • Der_tolle_Emil #106 5 years ago

    Is this not a contradiction in terms? You're saying that the game's only worth playing with the Wiimote i.e. if you strip away the novelty of the input you're left with something that's rather bland? It's my gut feeling that this philosophy can be applied to the vast majority of the Wii's library (present and future).

    That is exactly what I meant. The game is obviously flawed and lives because of the great controls. And I, too, think that some titles will live or die because of the controls and the game mechanics connected. But that is a philosophy I can live with. If the game plays great then I could not care less about the graphics. I love the bit generations on GBA and also rhythm tengoku, I love WarioWare Touched! and Smooth Moves, and all those games are definetly more about style and gameplay than graphical beauty. I have a 360 and a HDTV and yes games look incredibly good most of the time. I bought Call of Duty 3 for the 360 (haven't played it yet and thus never saw it in action on my TV) and whilst playing Red Steel I had a few moments where I wondered if I should have bought CoD3 for the Wii - because playing with the Wiimote was really fun.

    So yes, I think that there will be games on the Wii that will not stand a chance if they don't utilize the wiimote's functionality. But that doesn't come as a surprise, the hardware is far, far away from the 360's or the PS3's processing power and graphical capabilities. Nintendo knew too otherwise they would not have bothered to release the console. It's all about the controls. And for me that's enough, if the games look like on the cube that's fine with me.

  • ph101 #107 5 years ago

    "At the moment the Wiimote is in it's honeymoom period but it will eventualy become 'the norm' to people who use it. Let's see how you feel about the Wii then, eh?"

    Unwittingly the highest praise for the Wii. Wiimotes or equivalants will be come the norm - just like analogue control sticks, and rumble packs.. (also pioneered by nintendo as I recall, although not relevant I suppose). I fully expect such devices on sony and microsoft systems as well in the future, because the system works so well. How will I feel? May as well ask how I feel about the mouse. Happy that we have another accurate input device that mirrors physical motion I suppose :)


    If you would like to see how wiimote FPS'es would work with only tilt functionality works have a look at this.
    [link url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1glVbTcTdo&mode=r elated&search=
    ]http://ww w.youtube.com/watch?v=w1glVbTcT...[/link]

    There is now a mod that uses the crosshair as well. Looks quite decent. Occurs to me that mouse probably will always be more accurate. After all you are resting your hand on a desk. But wii mote is clearly more realistic and fun.


    <a href="http://www .youtube.com/watch?v=YMtZ4yBtm7A
    ">http://www .youtube.com/watch?v=YMtZ4yBtm7A
    </a>


    Edited by 1 at 21/01/07 @ 12:23

  • Vin #108 5 years ago

    "secombe, its hilarious how he demanded not to be quoted Wii Sports as it basically ruins his whole argument of the wii having one game worth playing, talk about making up your own rules. Not to mention there are plenty games coming out well worth picking up. Like yourself and i presume the majority, Wii Sports has probably received a quite ridiculous amount of playtime and provided lots of fun in the process."

    Some sad, scared little manchildren in this thread.

  • smelly #109 5 years ago

    "I don't think the Wii has less graphic power because Nintendo are cheap"

    To me, it's them learning from their mistakes.

    N64 more powerful than playstation.. Playstation sells more#
    Cube (and xbox) much more powerful than ps2 (hell everything was).. ps2 sells more

    Translation: Mainstream gamers dont give a flying fuck about pretty pixels.



    " i.e. if you strip away the novelty of the input you're left with something that's rather bland? It's my gut feeling that this philosophy can be applied to the vast majority of the Wii's library (present and future). "


    Ahhh.. But if you strip away the novelty of the graphics you're left with something that's rather bland? *cough* oblivion *cough*.

    Graphics are a cheap novelty, a controller is your INPUT to the game and makes a game worth playing or not. Case in point. I wouldnt want to play a fps game on a pc just using a keyboard, the "novelty" mouse controller makes it much better. So yet again.. you're talking bollocks.


    And to think that 5 posts ago you convinced me that the wii was a pile of shit not worth bothering with...

  • Rambaldi #110 5 years ago

    @smelly

    The world is divided into two types of people: those who express a logical opinion in a mature and reasoned manner and those that resort to sarcastic schoolground tactics like "you convinced me that the wii was a pile of shit" and "you're talking bollocks".

    Shame really.
    Edited by 1 at 22/01/07 @ 18:26

  • Liggur #111 5 years ago

    So, so far, there are no good games released for the Wii that you cant get on another platform (Except the one that comes free with the console)

    Glad I didnt waste £180 now.