Mercenaries 2: World in Flames Review

By Kristan Reed Published 1 September, 2008

Down in flames.

Version tested: Xbox 360

After the occasionally inspirational chaos of the chart-topping Mercenaries: Playground of Destruction, the least anyone would reasonably expect is a more polished and entertaining sequel. Bafflingly, three and a half years on, Mercenaries 2 comes up short. Just like the original, it desperately struggles to get going, and the first few pre-sandbox missions are the worst possible introduction to what the game has to offer. But it's not just that, because - as we discovered at the preview stage - the game is irreparably hamstrung on a fundamental level.

We'd now go a little further than that: apart from some cool explosive effects and solid controls, Mercenaries 2 is utterly mediocre in almost every sense that matters. From the initial sorties onwards it's bogged down by the worst kind of brain-dead cannon fodder enemies, lead-you-by-the-hand level design, arbitrary boundaries, and some technical howlers. It lacks challenge, excitement, personality and any real verve whatsoever. Just thinking back on time spent negotiating the stupider bits of Mercenaries 2 is enough to cloud our sunny disposition.

Exactly two years in the future, the game kicks off with a playable vignette where you end up double-crossed by the hateful Ramone Solano, a man curiously obsessed with straightening his tie. Turns out it's yet another cod drama where everyone's chasing the world's rapidly depleting oil reserves, from grubby corporations to local resistance forces, except this time in Venezuela. You sit on the outskirts of all this squabbling, but with your own morally bankrupt agenda: to build a private military enterprise up, do everyone else's dirty work for big sacks of cash, and chase down the sickeningly slick Solano. As gung-ho narratives go, it's by no means the worst, but you'll very quickly cease to care about who you're mercilessly slaughtering and why. Blow stuff up. Blow it up some more. And then again to make sure.

'Mercenaries 2: World in Flames' Screenshot 1

This man's a Viking. You can tell by his comedy beard.

But in spite of this - as with the 2005 original - the actual gameplay structure is well thought out, with 51 missions split between the five factions forcing you to try and keep onside with everyone. Maintaining a friendly relationship with other factions is almost essential so that you're able to traverse the map without getting into an unwelcome firefight, and, of course, so can use them as allies during specific contracts. If you end up with a hostile relationship with a faction, you'll be forced into paying an expensive bribe to be able to do any more work for them, which is a bit backward, obviously. In addition, the more contracts you get under your belt, the more hardware you can unlock. The more hardware you unlock, the more badass you end up, and the better prepared you'll be for when the game starts cranking up the challenge.

This political balancing act, and the ever-increasing tools of destruction at your disposal, are arguably Mercenaries' big point of difference in the crowded openworld genre - as it was last time out. Rather than merely hopping from one mission to the next, the need to think about the consequences of your destructive antics makes a refreshing change. Also, by giving the player three different lead characters to choose from, each with subtly different abilities (faster health recharge, faster reload, or faster movement, essentially), there's a chance to experience the game in a way that suits your preference.

'Mercenaries 2: World in Flames' Screenshot 2

The motorbikes are actually the best thing about the entire game. True.

Or so the theory goes. The central failing is simply that the core combat is hopelessly uninspiring. Having laid the groundwork with standard two-stick third-person controls, Pandemic steps on its own landmine by failing to provide a semblance of artificial intelligence. Enemies are, to a man, content to take up their pre-scripted positions and stand comedically until you blast them away - Driver 3-level in its obligingness. One level near the start of the game continually respawns jeeps to infinity. The design of said level itself isn't much better, presenting players with arbitrary barriers such as locked gates and shrubbery that's impervious to grenades. This, combined with the aforementioned respawning nonsense, eventually inspires desperate exploration, where, lo and behold, you discover that this supposedly fortified mansion is, in fact completely exposed around the back. This is an extreme example of level design stupidity, but it's a fairly regular occurrence.

If the game's not busy sticking its oar in, telling you exactly which enemies to take out (with laughably patronising targets above their heads, in case you weren't sure), you'll often get a blow-by-blow commentary from your cohort back at base. This can be quite useful if it means running from one gun emplacement to another to ensure enemies don't flank you. But quite often it's just completely useless advice. On one occasion you're tasked with protecting a defenceless exec while he destroys valuable data, advised to make a 'tactical retreat' up a nearby tower, but it turns out you're better off at just running around like a gun-toting Olympian during a lap of dishonour.

Thanks to the game's recharging health system, you're also practically invincible. Blessed with the ability to sprint around even at two points of health, if ever you're in danger of dying you can pretty much guarantee that running away for ten seconds or so will 'run off' those massive shrapnel injuries. With your health guaranteed to rise back up to 60 or 70 per cent in no time, you can simply return to the battle, pick off the stragglers and carry on unimpeded. And if not, the massive amount of health pick-ups scattered with staggering generosity will get you out of a jam. There's a fine line between removing frustration and completely removing any challenge whatsoever, which Mercenaries 2 doesn't so much cross as burn down and stamp on imperviously.

With the odds so stacked in your favour, chipping through the contracts becomes a tedious war of attrition as you make your way to another building you need to occupy. Rather than skillfully marshaling your forces and tooling yourself up with awesome levels of destruction, you can just run in like a supercharged Rambo, safe in the knowledge that even an RPG pointed at your face from three feet away can be survived as long as you sprint around the corner and wait for a few seconds. Meanwhile you call in reinforcements (by cycling through the d-pad and hitting the right trigger) and let them do a lot of the dirty work.

And if surviving being hit in the face by a rocket doesn't sound ludicrous enough, you'll love the approach Mercenaries 2 takes to hijacking the bigger vehicles such as tanks and helicopters. We can just about deal with the idea that a man could run up to a moving tank, jump on the top it, flip open the lid, drag out the driver, headbutt him and lob a live grenade into the cockpit. But any vague suspension of disbelief is shattering the minute you grapple a moving helicopter, remove the pilot, shut his head in the door repeatedly and jump in to continue the journey - mainly because it's yet another boring excuse to shoehorn a QTE into the game. While it might seem mildly amusing the first couple of times, this is not true of the third, fourth and beyond.

'Mercenaries 2: World in Flames' Screenshot 3

What was this tank doing in there in the first place?

Sometimes, though, the game doesn't let you run around like you're in God mode, preferring that you unleash a 'bunker buster' or other type of aerial assault to remove a specific obstacle. But that's really about the extent of the external help you need. Things get more hectic and a tiny bit more strategic as the game progresses, but getting there involves an incredible number of completely unchallenging tasks in the interim. The chances are you'll never see the better ones.

In keep with The Law of Openworlds, Mercenaries 2 is also rammed with side missions, including some relatively enjoyable racing, target practice and destruction challenges, and even one involving winching crates within a time limit. If anything, these show the game in its best light, seeing as they generally veer away from its combat and AI, but there's only so much entertainment to glean.

Indeed, a lot of people will be tempted to compare Mercenaries 2 to the other crop of sandbox titles around, and in that regard Pandemic's effort falls short of pretty much all of them. Even two-year-old games like Just Cause, Saints Row and even GUN provide superior thrills, and in a sphere now luxuriating in the greatness of GTA IV and Crackdown, Mercenaries 2's poverty is particularly apparent. But it's not only openworld titles that Mercenaries fares badly against; it's most of the third-person action genre as well, and when your game is falling way short of providing the thrills of the likes of Army of Two, you know you've got problems.

'Mercenaries 2: World in Flames' Screenshot 4

No, the oceans are not made of Vaseline before you ask.

Some might reasonably argue that the inclusion of 130 vehicles gives Mercenaries 2 the edge, which is a fairish point. They're all easy to control, too. The problem is that unlike, say, Battlefield: Bad Company, the context in which you use them is overwhelmingly uninspiring. Likewise, the satisfying (and visually impressive) ability to blow almost everything to smithereens is a novelty that wears off in light of the ruinously poor missions and catastrophic AI.

Question marks, too, hang over the wisdom of designing the game in parallel with the PS2 version. In so many regards it bears all the hallmarks of a last-gen title with upscaled visuals, like horrifically low-polygon, low-detail vegetation. Sometimes it threatens to look quite good, as in the massive close-ups of the lead characters, but there's always something to drag it down, in this case the goldfish lip-synching. Even at its best, the generic art style fails to make a positive impact, and while the engine provides a smooth gameplay experience, it's hopelessly dated next to the competition. It's hard to think of too many experienced gamers gleaning much enjoyment here, and on balance it feels like a failure.

Given its troubled, delayed development, hope remained that Mercenaries 2 would deliver on the series' promise. Instead, the usually reliable Pandemic has produced a game that not only fails to compete with any current-generation openworld, but somehow takes a backward step from the original. With uninspiring combat contributing to a succession of desperately poor missions, the only remaining question is whether the developer will get a third chance to rectify matters.

5 / 10

Read the Eurogamer.net scoring policy
Picture of Kristan.

About Kristan Reed

Kristan is a former editor of Eurogamer, dad, Stone Roses bore and Norwich City supporter who sometimes mutters optimistically about Team Silent getting back together.

Read more articles from Kristan by visiting the Kristan Reed archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (170) Latest comment 1 year ago

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

  • spookyzombie #1 4 years ago

    First?

  • Azazel #2 4 years ago

    It's Techno-Viking!

  • monty2k #3 4 years ago

    Crapsticks, I was kind of looking forward to this. I think this could be like Viking, ie Eurogamer hated it but I really quite enjoyed myself.

    Any news on whether there'll be a demo in the near future?

  • DanWhitehead #4 4 years ago

    Been looking forward to this for three years, and feared the worst.

    *sad face*

  • seasidebaz #5 4 years ago

    So... the telly advert's a lot better than the game, then? ;)

  • GrandTheftApu #6 4 years ago

    I always thought the first game was massively overrated. No change then.

  • Venkman90 #7 4 years ago

    The buzz in the states has been mixed, but not so much I expected that score. "Glitchy but massively fun" has been the consensus with some even saying GOTY 2008...Guess you have to REALLY love explosions.

    Ah well, another reason for my wallet to like me, between this and Too Human that's 2 purchases off the radar

  • Triggerhappytel #8 4 years ago

    "you'll never see the betters one."

    Better ones?

    Sad news really, but it sounds all too similar to the first game (which was fun but flawed, and hopelessly repetitve). Shame. I'll probably still rent it, though.

  • syphaa #9 4 years ago

    Can't say I am surprised, first one sucked. So the second was never really going to improve.

  • asphaltcowboy #10 4 years ago

    Oh dear, I was really looking forward to this (the first one was excellent).

  • Skooch #11 4 years ago

    That review was painful to read...nothing wrong with the narrative, just the game sounds so bloody awful!

  • Snidesworth #12 4 years ago

    Worse than the original? Seriously? Damn, was really looking forward to this. There goes the pre-order.

  • phoopipe #13 4 years ago

    As shite as the first one.
    The tune on the advert i like though.

  • mkreku #14 4 years ago

    DAMN IT ALL TO HELL!!

    But I still want this, curiously enough. Coop seems a blast.

  • Snidesworth #15 4 years ago

    Does the game have split-screen co-op, or is it XBL only?

  • Benno #16 4 years ago

    Shit then.

  • urban #17 4 years ago

    /think its a bargain bin pc buy

  • Phattso #18 4 years ago

    How does this compare to Just Cause, I wonder? That was also riddled with bugs, got low review scores, tended to be repetitive, and was generally a slightly shonky game... but I still ploughed dozens of hours into it.

  • Nillsens #19 4 years ago

    Shame :|

  • siro #20 4 years ago

    Same score I would've given the first iteration. Yeah, shoot me.

  • Rash' #21 4 years ago

    Wasn't expecting this to be good, but am surprised at how low the score is. Never interested me to be frank.

  • malteaserhead #22 4 years ago

    aww ;_;

    Liked the first one and was hoping the delays to this were giving it extra shine, rather than making it just about work.

  • ciril #23 4 years ago

    :(

    I wonder how many preorders has EG sunk with that review, mine's gone. It's a shame as I looked forward to this game for a loooong time...

  • krudster #24 4 years ago

    Personally, I enjoyed Just Cause more than this - despite its endless repetition.

  • malteaserhead #25 4 years ago

    Rash'
    Wasn't expecting this to be good, but am surprised at how low the score is. Never interested me to be frank.
    _____

    That's Dead Rising you're thinking of
    /groans

  • theindustrialone #26 4 years ago

    Shame, I thought the first one was a good game that could have been a very good game with a bit more spit and polish.

  • DonnieDarko333 #27 4 years ago

    I gotta say, i normally buy a game without reading reviews or not caring what they score it..but for the first time ever, i have cancelled a preorder cause it sounds immensely poor.

    £40 saved ftw! :-D

  • menage #28 4 years ago

    Mmm. Hopefully JC2 will be better then?

    Ah well, I'm hoping some other games turn out to be crap as well, seeing as I'm a person who really can't resist a top title.

  • Phattso #29 4 years ago

    Personally, I enjoyed Just Cause more than this - despite its endless repetition.

    If you'd said Mercs 2 was better than Just Cause I'd have been all over it. But not as good? Hmmm... food for thought.

    It all comes down to the quality of the co-op, I think. Almost any dross can be elevated to good entertainment with the addition of a friend.

  • loopholezero #30 4 years ago

    uh, if this compares unfavorably to just cause, it must suck really bad, since that one was already generic, repetitive and dumb..
    after space siege, here's one more pc release that fails.
    now to wait for saint's row 2, 'cause i've got a feeling it's gonna be in the same class, which should make for a funny review.

  • anomagnus #31 4 years ago

    @ azazel - viking was unreal, a great game underrated by this site

    @venkman90 - i've spent about 30 hours on too human this weekend, and am no where NEAR finished with it. Too human is a lot of work, and being 100% frank, EG is talking out of its arse when it did a review of the game. Yea, its flawed, but by god, get into it, and its stunning

  • mingster #32 4 years ago

    This will top the 360 sales charts then..
    Looks a definate chav-instabuy with a TV campaign that makes it look cool.
    Will sell lots.

  • Razz #33 4 years ago

    Nooooo! The first one was so good. :(

  • haubitzer #34 4 years ago

    How good is the Live co-op implementation?

  • aldo_14 #35 4 years ago

    Well, at least it saves me £30.

  • joe90 #36 4 years ago

    Have to wait for Just Cause 2 now.. bah (I really loved JC 1), but it had so much scope for more fun....

  • Bezzy #37 4 years ago

    Ouch. I was also looking forward to it.

  • Matt_B #38 4 years ago

    "Question marks, too, hang over the wisdom of designing the game in parallel with the PS2 version."

    I was worried about this when I heard that they had planned a PS2 release. However the dev diary I watched gave me the impression that the PS2 Engine was completely different and was handled by a different team. So In my head I wasn't expecting... "upscaled visuals, like horrifically low-polygon, low-detail vegetation."

    I'm pretty disappointed to be honest, as I enjoyed the original

  • Fernando #39 4 years ago

    lolololol @ score

  • neonemesis #40 4 years ago

    Will there be a PS2 review then? I'll be interested to see what score that version gets (doubly so seeing as how I own neither a PS3 or 360).

  • Razz #41 4 years ago

    I reckon that anyone that loved the first one would still love this version even if it is a little flawed. I'm definitely picking it up.

  • Gl3n #42 4 years ago

    Was looking forward to this ever since the first.. Bummer

    On the plus side my wallet is crying out with joy!

    I implore everyone to buy Viva Pinata: Trouble in Paradise, instead.

  • agparrot #43 4 years ago

    I'm also definitely picking this up... but not for a little while, now. Like Too Human, I am very interested in playing it co-op, but can't justify doing so at launch prices.

  • Triggerhappytel #44 4 years ago

    /Hugs neonemesis.

    We last-gen gamers have to stick together, friend.

  • RM2KMaster #45 4 years ago

    I'll probably still end up purchasing this.
    I do love blowing shit up, and I played the first for hours on end during college.

  • zuljin #46 4 years ago

    Shucks shucks shuck, was really looking forward to this... Off to read in bit more detail now.

  • mkreku #47 4 years ago

    Spot the Xbot on this page!

  • Snidesworth #48 4 years ago

    Razz: I was going to buy it anyway until I read the very end of the review where it's said that this, in ways, is worse than the original. I loved Mercs 1 to bits, and if this was a still-flawed progression of the series I'd snap it up. If it's actually a step backwards, though, then I'll have to pass on it.

  • Widge #49 4 years ago

    Looking at mingster's profile, he doesn't appear to have a PS3, and your post comes across a bit Xbox Attack Force, must crush the PS3 rah rah rah rah

  • Tomo #50 4 years ago

    Hazlol

  • andywilkie35 #51 4 years ago

    shit! thats £40 saved then

  • Widge #52 4 years ago

    Its not Friday!
    Wind up day is FRIDAY!
    Or head to head comparison day...

  • FurryGorilla #53 4 years ago

    I'm rather quite sad after reading this.

    As I'm probably not going to be able to play it for much longer than an hour at a time I'm hoping the bugs won't spoil the enjoyment too much. The fact you're almost invincible does sound rather a poor design choice though.

  • Bits #54 4 years ago

    How come no mention at all of the co-op? A fairly big selling point of the game and the one that made me pre-order it.

  • Aphexman #55 4 years ago

    good, it's about time to start setting correct score for underdeveloped games

  • mingster #56 4 years ago

    EG reviews have no correlation to the general publics percerption of a game.
    The great unwashed masses base their buying choice not on a review but on a good TV ad campaign or a brand name or film tie-in.

  • Widge #57 4 years ago

    It reads a bit like that Boiling Point game...

  • dryden555 #58 4 years ago

    Perhaps if the AI were better it might have made a big difference. Oh well.

  • mkreku #59 4 years ago

    I loved Boiling Point, so if this is anywhere near that good, I'll buy it.

  • timpig #60 4 years ago

    ah, good. I'm glad its shit. The games looked quite interesting, but I've been boycotting them as I found the political overtones questionable.

    I caught an interview with the producer on the XBL coverage of GDC last week, and he described it as 'you're a merc that's been double crossed, and you're out to get revenge by leveling all of Venezuela."

    Ok..you do know Venezuela is a real place right? full of real, largely quite poor people? The fact that it's got enough oil to register as a problem on the CIA's shit list still means these people need somewhere to live, right? what the fuck was wrong with setting it in a fictional country? or perhaps, god forbid, another corrupt and oil rich state, like Texas?

    Yeah, yeah...i knows its just a game. but look at your target audience. fucktard jingoistic US teenagers who actually believe this shit you feed them, and will laugh as Venezualan villages burn...

    what's that? you were looking at your target audience when picking the setting...ah right, I see.....

    oh, and the aforementioned producer.... he then went on to demo gameplay that involved calling a tactical nuclear weapon strike.

    yeah. classy.

    set in a post apocalyptic future, or in some completely fictionalized theatre, then that'd be fun. but setting it in a present day country that Bush has fingered as part of the 'Axis of Evil' because it's got oil and a (gasp!) left wing government.....then no, just bad taste.

  • Widge #61 4 years ago

    I only really know about Boiling Point 2nd hand from a mate, he'd tell stories of leaving a car, coming back after walking away to find that just its wheels remain. Missions which present 5 branches of availability to getting through it, 4 of which were broken, leaving you with just the one choice. Good stuff!

  • Sir_TimAlot #62 4 years ago

    hmmm, personally i loved the first one, quite happy and willing to ignore the score and pick this up and make my own mind up, if its not amazing i'm sure i will get addicted to new Viva Pinata to an unhealthy level.

  • jonsaan #63 4 years ago

    Apaprt from the QTEs it sounds great!

  • muscleblade #64 4 years ago

    I was definently going to buy the game but now i dont know. Damn. The achievements look fun though.

  • Godz_Mercenary #65 4 years ago

    "First?"

    You sad muppet.

  • miiiguel #66 4 years ago

    @ muscleblade: get Too Human instead. OMG! Played at lunch... so cool! Maybe we could do that coop we talked about.

  • Tiger_Walts #67 4 years ago

    Crikey, who pissed in the Krudster's tea. That review was negative pretty much all the way through. If playing it through to completion makes you feel like that then the balancing, level design and AI must have made it a real chore.

  • Triggerhappytel #68 4 years ago

    @ Tiger_Walts - to be fair, completing the first game was a real chore though, because it was so horrendously repetitive. If this is much the same I can see that being a perfectly legitimate negative.

    If Pandemic put a bit more effort into the mission variety and, seemingly, the AI, this could have been superb. They need to coax a few people from Rockstar's employment.

  • el_pollo_diablo #69 4 years ago

    5/10?

    That's not too bad.

  • Amicus #70 4 years ago

    Well if you have health pick ups side by side with recharging health, isn't this a massive indication of pisspoor and/or rushed gameplay and mission design? Shame, as the idea behind it was always quite cool.

  • AgentBalti #71 4 years ago

    I'm absolutely gutted. I loved the original, totally loved it. I was expecting a step up from the original at least, at absolute minimum something on par with the fun, the weapons, the immersive nature of Mercs1. This just looks like a PS2 game with minimal effort made to make it next-gen. So many aspects of what I've read here and on other sites just make this look really amateur. Pandemic have a good/great record at churning out quality titles, yet this just seems half-arsed and un-polished. Just looks bugged to fury.

    So disappointed, I've been wanting this for ages - it's the only game I really wanted this year. Just what will I spend my birthday vouchers on now?!

    Miffed,

    AB, aged 38.

  • Triggerhappytel #72 4 years ago

    Can I also just say that I have a suspicious feeling EA wanted Pandemic to get this out the door ASAP so they could concentrate on the pre-Christmas release of LotR: Conquest, which was always going to be a much bigger seller. Perhaps this could account for some of the unfinished feel here.

  • Gearskin #73 4 years ago

    I haven't even played this but I've seen enough footage to say WTFF!!!?!?!

  • Vin #74 4 years ago

    Not convinced by the score.

    The original scored poorly, and that was some hot shit.

  • edgewise #75 4 years ago

    I just got the game last night and played coop with a friend for a couple of hours. To be honest, I think the reviewer is being unusually harsh on Mercs 2. I'm not going to say it's perfect or the GOTY, but I had LOTS of fun playing both coop and SP. Sure it's not a graphical powerhouse like GTA IV, or offers a completely new dynamic to the open world game, but harping on it's "poor enemy AI" is kind of silly when a game like GTA IV offers basically only one type of mission (Drive here, kill everyone, bring something back) and has enemy AI that's just as simplistic. Seriously, did anyone get flanked at any time in GTA IV? You'd attack a warehouse and basically move from cover spot to cover spot picking off enemies that just stayed in teh same place and popped their heads out for a few seconds. Crackdown's enemy AI wasn't any better and was basically enhanced by the fact that some of them carried heat seeking missiles to shoot you down.

    Also, I jumped out of a car moving 90mph in GTA IV and lived. I also ate hamburgers to revive myself. My regenerating shield in Crackdown wasn't unrealistic either. Neither was jumping from a 50 story building.

    5/10 isn't accurate, especially if the beautiful but mundane GTA IV got a 10. At least rent it to see for yourself.

  • Triggerhappytel #76 4 years ago

    @ Vin - the original scored 8/10!

  • Salato #77 4 years ago

    I got the idea that it would be not quite up to standard for a while now, but didn't think it would be this bad. A real shame as I really enjoyed Mercs 1, but so many of the "new" ideas seemed stupid for this game. Almost invincible health, annoying QTE's for hijacking, constant repetitive help messages, invincible civilians and AI even worse that the first game. Add numerous reports of bugs and glitches and all you've got is one terribly shoddy product. What a waste of good potential.

  • DAN.E.B #78 4 years ago

    shame was gonna get this just for the co op
    cant see any mates willing to buy this shit tho!

  • bluebird #79 4 years ago

    I loved the original as well and if this is at least as good as the original (that one had bad AI etc as well) but with better graphics (the view depth/fog was my biggest gripe) then I'm ordering this anyway. Totally disagree with people who say Mercs 1 was a bore. I loved being able to freely approach the missions and having so many tools to do them with, unlike games like GTA which usually only have a set path to finish the job per mission.

  • bluebird #80 4 years ago

    I loved the original as well and if this is at least as good as the original (that one had bad AI etc as well) but with better graphics (the view depth/fog was my biggest gripe) then I'm ordering this anyway. Totally disagree with people who say Mercs 1 was a bore. I loved being able to freely approach the missions and having so many tools to do them with, unlike games like GTA which usually only have a set path to finish the job per mission.

  • muscleblade #81 4 years ago

    @miiiguel

    Thanks for the invite - appreciate it. I kind of had a feeling you would like Too Human. The problem is i hated the demo. And what i read about the not getting a feeling of accomlishment when leveling up scares me. Coop could be fun, but that goes for this game too. When a game we both like gets released im in for it. Gears 2 or Left4dead maybe.

  • muscleblade #82 4 years ago

    Im getting Viva Pinata 2 and Force Unleashed so not getting this doesnt hurt. I think i will borrow it from the store for 10 days for free. I know a guy in the store so i can do that.
    Edited by 1 at 01/09/08 @ 17:55

  • mkreku #83 4 years ago

    [link url=http:// www.gametrailers.com/player/39321.html
    ]http://ww w.gametrailers.com/player/39321...[/link]

    Finally a game looks better on the PS3.. and it turns out to be shit anyhow! Bad luck :p

  • PlugMonkey #84 4 years ago

    Razz: I was going to buy it anyway until I read the very end of the review where it's said that this, in ways, is worse than the original. I loved Mercs 1 to bits, and if this was a still-flawed progression of the series I'd snap it up. If it's actually a step backwards, though, then I'll have to pass on it.

    Doesn't really sound like much of a step backwards to be honest, just not a big step forwards. There isn't a single fault that I can see in this review that wasn't in the first game, so if you enjoyed the first game as much as I did I wouldn't be too disheartened just yet. Sounds like it just wasn't Kristan's cup of tea. I mean - 'laughably patronising' targets over peoples' heads? I remember them in the first game, but I don't remember finding them particularly offensive. And if you find being able to hijack helicopters from the ground a negative point then this clearly isn't the game for you.

    The original game had a couple of flaws that bugged me, neither of which were addressed in the review. Firstly my inability to swim, and secondly my vulnerability to traffic. Personally, it never bothered me that I could take a rocket propelled grenade to the chest without breaking stride, it was the fact that while RPGs posed no threat I was forced to run like a schoolgirl should an enemy soldier threaten to gently roll into me in a 1976 Lada Riva.

    Is there any chance of an EG 2nd opinion from a Mercenaries fan for Mercenaries fans? Only I get the distinct feeling that if the reviewer is actually complaining that the best strategy is to run around like a deranged Rambo instead of taking a more considered approach, then they might well have missed what I found fun in the first place. This review has left me absolutely none the wiser as to whether this game is worse than the orginal, or more of the same game that I loved (and half the people I know thought was complete arse) but with slightly flashier graphics. And in that regard it's a bit bloody useless.

  • Sneti_Joker #85 4 years ago

    I'll never understand how a review can be published days before official launch without having tried the game online in its entirety. There's that score, yet the reviewer wasn't able to try one iota of the game it its real environment.

    Used to be that mags ran EXCLUSIVE REVIEW! covers and did exactly this. Now, in the age of the almighty Internets, this shameful behaviour has become standard. And it is widely accepted as well...

  • DutchDemons #86 4 years ago

    lol@the guy defending the poor people in Venezuela

    just lol:)
    Edited by 1 at 01/09/08 @ 18:34

  • a_gnoll #87 4 years ago

    This is a pretty weird review. Maybe he just got up on the wrong side of bed. I actually am enjoying the game a lot.

    The whole point of the game is to run around like a deranged Rambo! The spiritual inspiration for the series is obviously Rambo III, so if you're not into that then go play Ghost Recon or whatever. Complaining about dumb AI pretty much misses the whole point. The main job of the AI enemies is to die, preferably in an amusing fashion.

    Its true that tech-wise its maybe not top notch, but neither was the first. Co-op is also sweet, and the review makes no mention of it.

    Basically, this is the game mercs 1 should have been.

  • Vin #88 4 years ago

    @Triggerhappytel - No, I meant from other publications.

    Edge and Games TM scored it quite poorly, IIRC.

  • PotajiTo #89 4 years ago

    I don't think is fair to review this game without saying anything about coop or split screen playing (both supported btw)
    I'm probably taking this, but not expecting a lot.
    BTW, EG, about time to start making your own screenshots and not using the promotinal ones, is not that hard.
    Edited by 1 at 01/09/08 @ 19:03

  • krudster #90 4 years ago

    It might be worth reminding those who don't realise that I *was* a fan of the original, and scored that an 8.

  • shikz #91 4 years ago

    PLAY IT AND MAKE UP YOUR OWN MIND, DONT ALWAYS LISTEN TO OTHER PEOPLE :) NO OFFENCE TO ANYONE

    BUT"" what some dont like u might like and dont not play a game just cos of a review etc :)


    Enjoy

  • Law07 #92 4 years ago

    Ima disappointed.

    On GT on the graphics comparison it's better looking on the PS3.

    However NOW its all about gameplay 8-)

  • Daymare #93 4 years ago

    @Sneti_Joker

    Are you guys ever gonna start publishing up-to-date reviews on your website or wha'?;)

  • the_edge99uk #94 4 years ago

    Anyone else going to be waiting until the £20 price tag just before xmas from Gamestation?

  • dirklenz #95 4 years ago

    Well, i think Mr. Reed can do better. Some co-op might have been helpful.

  • Simian #96 4 years ago

    Bah, I was looking forward to this!

  • BillyBrush #97 4 years ago

    At the end of a famine, fodder is acceptable nourishment imo

  • gremly #98 4 years ago


    "This man's a Viking. You can tell by his comedy beard."


    http://i1 56.photobucket.com/albums/t27/A...

  • Masarin #99 4 years ago

    timpig: +1000000
    DutchDemons: minus infinity

  • omb123 #100 4 years ago

    This game is better than a 5.0. If you would like to know how to get it for free(or any other game for that matter) then sign up at the link below and do the free surveys. I just found out about it 2 weeks ago and already got enough points for MGS 4 and GTA IV, and now I'm thinkin about getting this

    http://ww w.prizerebel.com/index.php?r=45...

  • local_celebrity #101 4 years ago

    I watched a promo for this the other day, with one of the developers talking about the game. He looked absolutely shattered and kept going on about how they'd spent YEARS developing this game.

    If I were you, Kristan, I'd watch your back, mate.

    He's probably going to send a few boys around. Properly tooled up an' that.

  • Charn #102 4 years ago

    I think the reviewer is being over-harsh really. Marking a sequel down just because the core gameplay hasn't changed, when that gameplay is known to be good and fun, is just silly. GTA's core gameplay hasn't really changed since GTA3, but I don't see that being overly thrown about in the GTA4 review?

    If you are cancelling your orders for this based on the review, my advice would be to at least rent it, never trust just one review of a game. This is by far the lowest review and if you're a fan of the first Mercs, sandbox games, or just games where you raise hell you'll probably enjoy it.

  • edgewise #103 4 years ago

    I don't think is fair to review this game without saying anything about coop or split screen playing (both supported btw)

    there is no split screen coop or any sort of local multiplayer.

  • Dizzy #104 4 years ago

    >there is no split screen coop or any sort of local multiplayer.

    The 360 box says 1-2 co-op players local and online.
    Edited by 1 at 01/09/08 @ 22:24

  • unfungames #105 4 years ago

    Wow what a terrible review. It's not surprising, though, since Eurogamer is known well for loving little kids games, and Mercs 2 is not for little kids. Also, the fact that they had to get a female to review this is sad..few chicks are going to appreciate a game like this. that's why reputable sites wont have chicks reviewing them. were you not available to review Viva Pinata 2?

    I've played the game...and I'll let you know the facts.

    First off, there's nothing wrong with the AI. People complain about it but what they don't realize is that "better" AI does not mean a better game. What's good AI anyway? Did GTA have good AI where enemies just drove vehicles on rails and shot you as soon as they saw you? Or how about cop cars spawning out of thin air. Is that good AI?

    The graphics DEFINITELY look last gen, but for a site that loves the Wii they shouldnt be crying over graphics.

    The reviewer claims you're invincible and made a reference to constantly going and hiding to heal. That just proves she had no idea what she was doing. She said you didnt need to use any of the drops. Yeah, probably not, if you want to spend a year on a mission since you take one shot and then go heal. The drops are useful so that you can eliminate tough to kill enemies. That's why they're there. Since you couldn't figure out how to play the game you're damn lucky you can heal yourself by hiding constantly.

    Also, you die in just a few hits, so she's WAY off in claiming the game is easy. It's quite a bit easier in co-op but it's not an easy game at all.

    Mercs 2 is a lot of fun. If you're a GUY then you'll like it. Reviewers have a checklist of things they feel they have to cry about. They always have to mention story, graphics, gameplay, longevity, etc. They cant just say whether a game is fun or not because most "gaming journalists" dont know anything about gamers. They just couldnt get a real job in jounalism.

    Kristan Reed is clueless. But should we expect anything less from a chick at Eurogamer?

  • BBIAJ #106 4 years ago

    Wow what a terrible review. It's not surprising, though, since Eurogamer is known well for loving little kids games, and Mercs 2 is not for little kids. Also, the fact that they had to get a female to review this is sad..few chicks are going to appreciate a game like this. that's why reputable sites wont have chicks reviewing them. were you not available to review Viva Pinata 2?

    Kristan Reed is clueless. But should we expect anything less from a chick at Eurogamer?

    I'm not sure what to say, except... no, wait... I can't.

    I'll just let someone else tell you instead.

  • Lamont #107 4 years ago

    The first Mercs had a great vibe and some seriously awesome voice acting. The new version is total crap and the whole dark tone they had in the first game is gone. garbage. 5/10 is about right.

  • brommers #108 4 years ago

    @plugmonkey
    +1

  • Miths #109 4 years ago

    So far the (XBox 360) Metacritic score is 79, with the second lowest score being a 76. While I already expected this game to be rather flawed - and the other reviews I've read point out those flaws as well - it certainly sounds like Eurogamer is so far the only site that don't find blowing up stuff immensely fun despite flaws and frustrations.

    I'm buying this and expecting it to be more like a 7 than a 5. Just like I ended up buying Too Human before the weekend, despite all the low reviews, and actually found it rather addicting.

    Are the Eurogamer reviewers becoming all tired and bitter and unable or unwilling to spot the potential entertainment value if there happens to be a few too many flaws? :)

  • asphaltcowboy #110 4 years ago

    @Miths, yeah I just checked MC too... and 79 is a good score... admittedly, averaging scores that all work on different scales is sort of odd, but it has restored my faith somewhat. I've changed my mind (again), I will pick this up in the near future!

  • Darren #111 4 years ago

    Looked mediocre when I saw the gameplay videos over a year ago so it's no surprise to me that the final game is equally uninspiring. Never pre-ordered the game anyway... always had the feeling it wasn't going to be very good...

  • local_celebrity #112 4 years ago

    unfungames, I salute you, sir.

    That was easily the post of the century.

    Cretin.

  • bluebird #113 3 years ago

    I'm with plugmonkey as well. Pls someone from EG address his questions? I'd like to know as well.

  • President_Weasel #114 3 years ago

    I had a wee look at this the other day and the opening couple of missions suggested that this review is spot on. I had absolutely no desire to experience any more of the game. It's poor enough that I'd feel really irritated if I'd bought it.

  • Zebula77 #115 3 years ago

    I had an idea this would be crappy when I saw a video of it. Poor character design (I thought the 'viking' hero was the bad guy - never a good sign), bad graphics and suspect moral standpoint.
    Bleh, I liked the first one well enough, tho.

  • kinky_mong #116 3 years ago

    @ unfungames

    I honestly don't think I've ever seen such a staggeringly moronic post. Congrats, you complete and utter simpleton. Just try not to take it to heart when attempting to castrate you with rusty butter knives becomes a regular pastime for your future girlfriends.

    I'd pity the poor girls doing themself a disservice by even contemplating getting in a relationship with that example of Mercenaries 2 target audience.

  • deepmenace #117 3 years ago

    seems to be getting solid 8's from a good few other publications. if you were really looking forward to this i think it'd be hasty to cast off the pre-order without playing.

    i sense that this game is evoking similar emotions to crackdown. i.e. it's just plain and slightly messy fun.

    i'm still interested thanks to the proper destructible huge buildings and most welcome co-op.

  • frostcircus #118 3 years ago

    unfungames' post was pretty surreal. If EG ever started selling merchandise, I'd happily buy a calligrapher-penned print of it. Such grotesque beauty.

  • captainrentboy #119 3 years ago

    I remember seeing that Kristan Reed chick in an MCV magazine in work, she was one hot bitch, she hasn't got a clue about games for real men though...

  • krudster #120 3 years ago

    Haha!

    /feels lady lumps.

  • SteveB #121 3 years ago

    Ooh, ladyboys. I don't find them attractive, it's just confusing.

  • BeersOfWar #122 3 years ago

    Thanks for the review, but I'm getting it anyway.

    It's got lots of blue sky, a swedish viking bloke, jamaican pirates, big guns, bombs, tanks, and motorbikes.

    /jizzes

  • SliderNL #123 3 years ago

    I'm getting my copy tomorrow and I'm looking forward to playing this. I really liked the first Mercenaries (better than the overrated San Andreas). There is no mention of co-op because Eurogamer likely used an review debug code to review this game (that means no Xbox Live most of the time). All the big sites have access to this hardware.

    I dont care if the reviewer is black, white, male of female or from mars after playing I will post mu own thoughts. But to be honest does anyone take the reviews of Eurogamer seriously? There like Top Gear, entertaining, fun, filled with humor, but there judgement is a joke.

  • beastmaster #124 3 years ago

    Has anyone here ever really wanted a game (like this one) and then waited for the EG review to come out. The EG review has said pants but go out and buy it anyway. And find out...it's pants! Just wondering.

    I was going to get this but due to the massive amount of games coming out over the next few months it won't be a total loss if I don't buy this one. Be interesting to see the review of Facebreaker. Demo was pants and Edge 3/10 (or was it a 4) just makes me hope it gets a highly entertaining critical mauling in EG.


  • earthnuggets #125 3 years ago

    This review really is very terrible.

    "Just like the original, it desperately struggles to get going, and the first few pre-sandbox missions are the worst possible introduction to what the game has to offer."

    Yes, Mercenaries: Playground of Destruction, which has been universally lauded by critics as being a huge disappointment, right? Oh wait.

    "One level near the start of the game continually respawns jeeps to infinity. The design of said level itself isn't much better, presenting players with arbitrary barriers such as locked gates and shrubbery that's impervious to grenades. This, combined with the aforementioned respawning nonsense, eventually inspires desperate exploration, where, lo and behold, you discover that this supposedly fortified mansion is, in fact completely exposed around the back. This is an extreme example of level design stupidity, but it's a fairly regular occurrence."

    You mean the very first mission in the entire game? Sorry, there are no respawning jeeps, unless you were standing in the middle of the road constantly attracting the attention of the scouting vehicles that drive around the island. "Shrubbery that's impervious to grenades"? What, the hedge-maze? I'm assuming you're talking about that, since it's the only foliage that could really be considered an obstacle. Too bad you're wrong. All explosives can destroy it; I've seen it happen with grenades, C4 and the RPG.

    "Desperate exploration," huh? "Oh man I can't get in through the front, where am I supposed to go?! I am so confused and frustrated!" Seriously? "Level design stupidity..." that's a laugh. What a hard concept to grasp, that the enemy would spend so much of their resources fortifying the actual paved entrance into the villa! Let's forget that there are several soldiers not only within the back-yard, but watching over it from a balcony. I guess you weren't paying attention. Also, nice caption on the screenshot from this mission, by the way: "What was this tank doing in there in the first place?" The tank drives through the wall into the main room, basically to add some suspense and introduce a control mechanic. That's why it's there and you know that, so why are you trying to make it look silly for those who haven't played the first ten minutes of the game?

    "Question marks, too, hang over the wisdom of designing the game in parallel with the PS2 version. In so many regards it bears all the hallmarks of a last-gen title with upscaled visuals, like horrifically low-polygon, low-detail vegetation."

    I'll give you one thing: the water effects are pretty bad. So are some of the particle effects. However, anyone reading this can compare any two screen-shots of the PS2 and 360 versions and realize that nearly going so far as to call this game a simple re-skin would be nothing but ridiculous hyperbole. It's pretty obvious they were both built up individually. The graphics are a little rough around the edges. Don't let nostalgia blind you. Remembering that the original Halo was a jizz-worthy sight seven years ago didn't make me scream "last-gen" when Halo 3 didn't immediately impress me graphically. GUN, which you state provided "superior thrills" was almost a direct port of the Xbox version. Did that matter to you? Apparently not.

    All in all, you glossed over all the good points of the game (no mention of co-op play?), spending just a few sentences focusing on them, while spouting unfounded vitriol based on your own biased views of what's fun. And since you seem to revel in the supposed greatness of GTA IV and Crackdown (two games that personally disappointed me), I think you've become slightly disillusioned.

    "The motorbikes are actually the best thing about the entire game. True."

    If you say so. They're also the only reason to buy PGR4. Get over yourself.
    Edited by 5 at 03/09/08 @ 04:16

  • Diabeu #126 3 years ago

    5? uuu that hurts
    /going back to Crackdown

  • ZeRbY #127 3 years ago

    hm ... thought the game would be decent ... :/

  • aldo_14 #128 3 years ago

    only really know about Boiling Point 2nd hand from a mate, he'd tell stories of leaving a car, coming back after walking away to find that just its wheels remain.

    Oh, so it's the opposite of Liverpool then?*





    (*sorry Scousers)



    I've noticed that both this and the Clear Sky review have attracted a lot of ire. Apparently one man-or-is-it-a-woman-who-knows's opinion is no longer enough to justify a review score, but it is enough to justify saying a review is unjust.

  • dynarama #129 3 years ago

    After playing for a couple of hours, I've got to say that I love it.

    Very, very similar to the first one in term of control and feel - graphics a little bit upgraded but still look completely fine. It seems like there are loads more vehicles to control (I just took a gunboat out for a spin, with 4 different gun positions - pretty cool).

    But one of the missions was just complete anarchy and I loved it - I charged into an enemy stronghold, ran over a few people, shot a few people, saw a helicopter and jumped in - lasted about 10 secs before the SAM got me, got out run and gunned a bit more and finally fought my way up to the top of the car park. Just completely unscripted, make your own fun and it was awesome.

    AI is OK, similar to that on Crackdown but the sheer destructability of everything elevates all the missions so it really is up to you how to complete them.

    Similar to Crackdown. Similar to Mercenaries 1. Similar to GTA4 but an absolutely great first impression and I recommend you at least rent.

    It may get repetitive but initial impressions are very good.

  • Windsong #130 3 years ago

    Oh well..will save the money and get GTAIV instead. Or maybe Sacred 2, witcher, or Bully PC.

  • DFawkes #131 3 years ago

    All I want to know is this: is it basically just the same game? So much of the review is spent nitpicking (as well as pointing out real flaws) that it didn't really answer this.

  • fargelsnarf #132 3 years ago

    Wow, glad I didn't pre-order this based on how much I liked the first one.

  • spacedmonkeys #133 3 years ago

    Erm. I played this at a mates house for a few hours. Now, I loved Mercenaries 1 on my original Xbox, but this.... god, so boring.
    Maybe its a poor game or maybe I've been spoiled by better games in the X years since I played the original, I'm not sure.
    However I would agree with the review in that its boring, lacks excitement, and looks pretty drab. In fact I might go back to my old Xbox just to see how the original does compare.

  • niteninja #134 3 years ago

    Eurogamer has lost all its credibility,sure the ai isnt great and visually the game looks like a hi res ps2 game but its so much fun blowing everything to hell and back.
    Im enjoying this far more than gta.
    Poor review.

  • haubitzer #135 3 years ago

    Picked it up. Mercs 2 is extraordinarily fun and an absolute blast in co-op. The sense of empowerment is off the charts, it really feels like playing through a game based on Commando or Rambo or something. Save for the lack of blood, of course.

  • Wendelius #136 3 years ago

    What a strange promotion for a game: http://ne ws.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/londo...

  • OmagnusPrime #137 3 years ago

    Why did this review not mention the fact that the online co-op play, one of the major selling points of the game, is region locked (ala Army of Two)?

    http://ww w.primegamer.co.uk/2008/09/dont...
    Edited by 1 at 05/09/08 @ 12:54

  • Hullfire #138 3 years ago

    @OmagnusPrime: The review didn't mention the co-op once.

    Even though we all know this is most likely because it was played on the developer network, it's about time this sort of thing stopped. In these times of ever increasing co-op popularity, games that are so heavily marketed as co-op experiences need to be played that way to gain an honest review. The least EG could do is actually explain why there's no mention of it - at all - in the review. If you had no access to Live, just tell us. And at least do the game justice by putting an addendum on the review when you have actually played it the way it was intended - even if you stick to the score you gave it without all the information to hand.

  • captain-future #139 3 years ago

    almost all problems named in the game also occur to a certain degree in GTA IV... so why give this game a 5 and GTA IV a 10?

  • alpha-0ne #140 3 years ago

    Eurogamer have lost it, i have the game its much better than 5/10

    i look forward to the next fifa/pes review lets see if they mark it down for basically being the same gameplay...;=)
    Edited by 1 at 06/09/08 @ 01:16

  • Lamont #141 3 years ago

    Gamespot gave the game a 5 too. It just sucks kids. Too bad, you bought it and now it sucks and you're hurt.

  • dirigiblebill #142 3 years ago

    I like it like a 6, personally. It's pretty terrible for all the reasons Kristan describes - except, perhaps, the invisible boundaries issue, which is negligible - but if you just want to run around inflicting satisfying but unsophisticated destruction it just about holds true.

    Spot on about the tie-straightening. After the first couple of cutscenes I wanted to throttle Solano with it (which I suppose could be the point).

  • Raiftel #143 3 years ago

    As someone who usually agrees with Eurogamer I have to say I'm pleasantly surprised at how much I'm enjoying the game. I pre-ordered it after seeing a fourteen minute gameplay video and started to regret my decision after the review was posted. Maybe tempered expectations helped a lot but I don't think I've had this much fun with a game in a long time, just going up to the Skyscraper that an oil company uses as a HQ and levelling it with tank fire is so satisfying and in co-op I've been able to cut a path directly through cities, it's just so ridiculously fun to play.

  • Haloboy #144 3 years ago

    Dear Eurogamer,

    This game is nowhere near only worth a 5 out of 10. It's the most fun sandbox game I've played in a long time, and I just cannot understand why it deserves a full 5 points less than over hyped crock like GTA IV. Oh wai...did the cheque from EA not arrive then? That would explain it I guess.

    It really is an unbelievably poor review, Kristan should be ashamed. And no I'm not being sexist, a poor review is a poor review no matter what the sex. All in all it's the site that's at fault here, not the game.



    Edited by 1 at 06/09/08 @ 16:37

  • Godz_Mercenary #145 3 years ago

    "This game is nowhere near only worth a 5 out of 10. It's the most fun sandbox game I've played in a long time, and I just cannot understand why it deserves a full 5 points less than over hyped crock like GTA IV. Oh wai...did the cheque from EA not arrive then? That would explain it I guess."


    The big difference is GTA had way better production values.

    Mercenaries 2 is a buggy piece of shit. Gun play is unsatisfying. The cut-scenes have been done in a rush and have the most awful acting. The story is pathetic. The engine is a buggy mess. The AI is absolutely awful. Atleast GTA 4 actually put effort into creating a decent engine, got decent voice actors in, made gun fights enjoyable and has AI that understands you can't walk through a wall.

    GTA4 may not have been worth some of the scores it got but atleast the quality and production values were there unlike Mercs 2.

  • barnard666 #146 3 years ago

    I just bought it, and I have to agree with Haloboy!
    yes its buggy, yes the production values are not that high...but it is just stupid entertaining fun, just like crackdown....its had me laughing out loud many times in the past hour....50% laughing with the game, 50% laughing at it! but I dont care, I am having a damned good time playing it. the gun play is fun, its less sluggish than GTA, & blowing stuff up is pretty stupidly over the top.

    I saw an AI get stuck in a tree, I laughed at his crap ai while I shot him (and was disappointed pandemic didnt have the guy shouting "My pathfinding and collision is so bad I am stuck in a tree!" which really wouldn't be out of place in this game. Then I got the devastator...which yes made me laugh in different ways.

  • jonsaan #147 3 years ago

    GTA4 has plenty of bugs too people. I've seen many cars stuck in mid air etc. I once walked into clucking bell and ended up in a wireframe box, I then fell through the floor and landed back outside the restaurant....

  • Haloboy #148 3 years ago

    @ Godz_Mercenary

    "The big difference is GTA had way better production values"

    And? It may well have had vastly superior production values, but it still suffers from the same problems every other sandbox/open world title does. Try watching the following link and then tell me higher production values saved GTA IV from being a partially train wreck of a game?

    [link url=http://www.youtube.com/results?search _query=GTA+IV+glitch&search_type=&aq=f
    ]http://ww w.youtube.com/results?search_qu...[/link]

    What I am getting at is I bet I've witnessed first hand worse glitches/bugs/crazy shit in GTA IV than I have while playing Mercs 2 so far, and yet all I'm reading is how broke Mercs 2 is. Right.

    To end, GTA IV was about as fun as knocking my knee against my desk. Mercs 2 on the other hand is like having 2 hot babes in the sack and both want to tickle my feet until I wee a little with roaring laughter.


  • coolusername #149 3 years ago

    I rented it and think it's great fun. I think 5 is a very unfair score, I'd say it's more like a 7 or 8.

  • frazzl #150 3 years ago

    To each his own. Kristan may not like the game, big deal. Leveling abuse at them for their opinion is really just a waste of time. What amazes me though, is the fact that so many people base their purchases on something as subjective as a person's opinion (a total stranger to boot). Surely as a gamer you know what you like and dislike and don't need someone to hold your hand and direct you to what you should play. If anyone deserves abuse it's morons who changed their pre-orders based on this review. Think for yourselves for a change, you might be pleasantly surprised ; ).

    Anyway, on a more relevant note, the game is great. Sure the AI is incredibly stupid (no more stupid than what you would find in any sandbox game GTA IV included), but the combat works and the level of destruction you can inflict on the world around you is unprecedented. If blowing shit up sounds like your cup of tea then check the game out. If not, go play whatever else floats your boat : P.
    Edited by 1 at 08/09/08 @ 08:18

  • muscleblade #151 3 years ago

    I think it has to be played in coop to fully appreciate it. Great fun. Bad game. But we play for fun dont we?

  • PlugMonkey #152 3 years ago

    In answer to my own questions (seeing as EG can't be arsed ;D) yes, you can swim, so that's no longer an issue. Being run over still kills you faster than being shot, but not as fast as I remember it doing in the 1st one, and I haven't found it as much of an issue. All in all, I'm really enjoying it so far. If you liked the original, or if you just like the sound of a run and gun shoot-em-up as opposed to a dour war sim, then I can't really see any reason you wouldn't like this.

    "Gamespot gave the game a 5 too. It just sucks kids. Too bad, you bought it and now it sucks and you're hurt. "

    Oh, Gamespot and EG both gave it a 5? I guess that renders my opinion invalid then? You complete and utter tool.

  • Loogabarooga #153 3 years ago

    5/10, I don't know if you read these things Kristan but I think you need to have a word with yourself. This is the first time I have ever posted on this board because your review of this game which has shocked me into action. If this was your sites intent then mission complete.
    Yes, this game is by no means perfect or even the best of its type that I have played but please don't build up GTA like its any less buggy that MERCS 2 because ..it isn't unless its scripted for your girlfriend to get run over by passing traffic whilst she attempts to go home after the first date? and of course lets not forget the great AI that GTA sports every cycle, you know the type, like dudes running into non physical objects because they get stuck between way points and then can never reach them.

    I would say if you like a game that is as cheesy as its name then go with this. Its a good laugh and has loads of things to blow up :). Think of it as a crap action movie you can play and your on the money. I think 7 is a worth while score, oh and 4/10 for smash court....no words!

  • Haloboy #154 3 years ago

    Nice to see not everyone takes EG's reviews as law. Because they were really wide of the mark on this one.

    *Blows up EG*

  • SEVQA #155 3 years ago

    I’m 30% into the game and these are a few of the gems I’ve encountered so far! One bug was a critical as I had to restart the mission, though the majority were able to workaround with other just being sandbox quirks that you should expect from a large game map!

    1. The pick up fuel Helicopter got stuck in a flag pole and was unable to pick up the fuel I had marked.
    2. When I marked some munitions to be picked up by the helicopter, it picked up the fuel that it got stuck in the flag earlier!
    3. Entered a trawler that was two trawlers stuck together intersecting each other!
    4. The mission where the executive is shredding sensitive company documents and you have to escort him to safety. The executive got stuck in the passenger seat of a helicopter I bought to transport him to the refinery. I had to restart the mission! (Critical issue).
    5. When a bunker bomb explosion went off! My TV flickered to black for about 1 second before returning the picture. Observed only once!
    6. I got trapped in small bushes at least twice! With a lot of jumping, running and melee I was able to escape the situation.
    7. Target practice level 1 – shooting the statue heads, where the statues fall down and its impossible to get a shot on the fallen head!

    The game is clearly slightly behind the times in terms of quality when put up against the likes of GTA4 though it is without out a doubt very fun indeed, and that at end of the day is what counts!

    Loads of features could have been implemented to make game play smoother and more coherent as it does leave you on your jacks from pretty much the outset! Though I’ll say again it’s FUN! And I do recommend this game to anyone who enjoys a sandbox experience! 5/10 is a very controversial score in my opinion as I would have given it a maximum of 7!

  • bluebird #156 3 years ago

    Ok I also now played this game for about 10 hours (guestimate). I will admit that I was a big fan of the original Mercenaries game, which may cloud my judgement. Then again, I am usually very critical about games.

    In short: I love playing this game and I think that even against GTA's admittedly high standard, it deserves marks above 6.

    Why? Because the gameplay fundamentals are extremely solid. Controls are good if not great and so are the gameplay rules. Added to that is a huge gameplay world littered with things to do and toys to play with. The comparions with Crackdown are valid, and to me, this is the better game, even though I hugely enjoyed Crackdown. To me this has more character, better toys (the vehicles are just fantasic fun), and the fact that literally everything can be destroyed or set in flame just adds a guilty fun to the mix. In GTA, I'd have this rocket launcher and a bank to rob, but I can't shoot the bank to bits. In mercs, you can!

    Sure, there are some bugs, and the game is not polished to a shine like GTA. And yes, the constant whining of the same 5 sentences gets irritating quick. Then again, none of these are show stoppers.

    As for the AI, take into consideration that there's a lot of AI going on about you at a given time, and the game always plays smoothly. Here the AI also flies choppers, drives tanks, and does all sort of other stuff you'll never see in a game like GTA. While some of the AI is pretty silly, I've also seen them take cover, go on their belly, or run for cover.

    Finally, some defense for the graphics in the game. While not realistic, the engine is incredible! Try flying in a chopper and see the game world below you. Of course you have the same in GTA. Then realize that you can nuke one of the cities. That's the fun and guilty pleasure this game gives you, and what Eurogames doesn't seem to get...

    As for a 5 for this? Come on Kristian...

  • jellyhead #157 3 years ago

    Heh, think this is bad then have a look at the GamesRadar PS2 review.
    Oh dear. Big Mutha Truckers might have some competition. :)

  • barnard666 #158 3 years ago

    well at least its still selling ok...but its hard to tell....
    [link url=http:/ /kotaku.com/5047113/british-sales-charts
    ]http://ko taku.com/5047113/british-sales-...[/link]

  • db3 #159 3 years ago

    The videos make it sure look like fun for the casual gamer, ala Just Cause.
    Morrisons are currently doing PS3 chart games at £25 so I'm tempted to take a punt :)
    Edited by 1 at 09/09/08 @ 16:57

  • BillyBrush #160 3 years ago

    I would give it a 3 to be honest as it's rather irritating and badly developed...

    Just Cause is better imo

  • SEVQA #161 3 years ago

    Oh no you didn't
    EA tried to play me and steal my money, never
    Oh no you didn't
    Payback is a comin, EA will keep runnin, forever
    Oh no you didn't
    Till I get my vengeance, I will never end this, post spam
    Oh no I didn't
    I'm a loyal player, you ain't got a prayer, you owe meeeeee!

  • BillyBrush #162 3 years ago

    @SEVQA

    Brilliant, almost split my sides..

    i think we should try and make that the official song!

  • Haloboy #163 3 years ago

    @ BillyBrush

    Mercs Deux is a positive step away from the torturous mundane as sin missions that Just Cause was littered with. Also in Mercs the AI is better, the combat, the missions, the vehicles handle far better I could go on and on. The one and only thing JC did better than Mercs is the sky diving, which is sorely missed when you are way up in the air. Plus JC's lush islands were far prettier than Mercs' more gritty based locations.

    I really cannot see why you'd think JC was still the better game. And I was a big fan of JC myself when it was released and really look forward to what Avalanche bring to the table with Just Cause 2.

  • bwheatley #164 3 years ago

    The game reminded me a lot of just cause too. But just cause was so damn boring with some of its missions and way too buggy for me to deal with. I liked Mercs 2, graphics were very good missions were fun most of the time. I enjoyed the fact it was hard to die it let me try some crazy ass stuff lol.

    All in all its a good game for what it promises which is mindless destruction and online coop!

  • local_celebrity #165 3 years ago

    I steered well clear of this because of the review, but found myself at a loose end today, so decided to rent it from Blockbuster.

    Have to say, this is quite a dull game. It just plays like GTA IV with a fraction of the budget/development time. There's some wry dialogue in there, but the core gameplay just isn't there. The AI is is a joke, and the bullet detection is frankly terrible. Like GTA IV, the missions become a chore - but alas, it doesn't have the multiplayer aspect to redeem it.

    Funnily enough, I also rented Stranglehold at the same time - a game no one really mentions anymore. That by comparison, was fantastic fun. Ok, so it's quite limited in some ways but I had a smile on my face within minutes of playing it. Which is more than could be said for Mercenaries Poo.

  • brof #166 3 years ago

    Last!

  • DFawkes #167 3 years ago

    You wish last. That's not even a comment :p

    I just re-bought this, missing it a bit after trading it in. It's still fun :) Sure, it's a bit shallow, and there's too much padding out in places, and the graphics are occasionally a bit broken. But ripping about in a gunship, or tank, or just me with some C4s, is quite enjoyable.

  • rosshuts #168 2 years ago

    Oh well, Techno-Viking still rules!

  • rosshuts #169 2 years ago

    To be fair I won a copy of this last week for £1.55 on eBay! Its actually fun considering I only paid over a quid for it. Not played co-op yet, but I am sure that is where the fun lies with a few bears etc???

  • coomber #170 2 years ago

    Playing this game co-op with some bears would be mental fun! Playing ANY game with bears would be fucking awesome, come to think of it!

  • cjs #171 1 year ago

    Oh dear. Not quite understanding what you two were talking about, I did a google search for "video games with bears." The top result was [link url=http://bearsingames .blogspot.com/
    ]http://bearsingames .blogspot.com/
    [/link]

    It appears to "concentrate on the burly men of the games we love," featuring articles where, for example, "Johnny and Robbie tackle Final Fight 2 to ask: has the game got less gay?"

    I never knew the Eurogamer review comments sections were a pick-up joint!