Mobile Suit Gundam: Target in Sight Review

By Dave McCarthy Published 30 January, 2007

What to mech of this?

Version tested: PlayStation 3

Writing this review was going to be very straightforward. The opening of Target in Sight (known as Crossfire in the US) creates such a bewilderingly bad impression that the game seems to be a cruel joke at the expense of ardently loyal Gundam fans across the globe. Reviewing the game would simply involve checking out a few later missions to confirm that it is indeed one of the worst games ever made, perhaps while doing something more interesting, like reading a book or playing on the DS. Then it would be a simple matter of bashing out an extended warning to Eurogamer readers not to even think about thinking about playing it.

Here's what happens at the start of the game: First, you choose sides, between the Zeon (the rebellious space colonists) and Earth Federation (ostensibly the good guys). Then there's a succession of sepia-toned still images accompanied by a histrionic voiceover outlining the background to The One Year War (the first major conflict in the original Gundam storyline, before the series span off into about a million alternate universes). So far, so good. Then the camera pans across the horizon, s-l-o-w-l-y with juddering framerate, to alight upon a quite beautifully depicted, battle-worn mobile suit (which is what the big robots are called in the Gundam universe). So far, so neutral. Then you try to move that beautifully-battle-worn mobile suit and it clunks into gear. Again: s-l-o-w-l-y. And here's where the problems really start.

'Mobile Suit Gundam: Target in Sight' Screenshot 1

This shot fairly accurately captures the framerate of the actual game.

You try to move across the battlefield (jungle for Zeon forces, rubble-strewn desert if you choose to play as Federation). Confused by your suit's slothful pace, you test out your jetpack. This seems to bring your mobile suit to a momentary halt before it fires up for about a second, depositing the mobile suit not very far. Deciding to continue on foot, you try to change direction, only to find that this also seems to confuse your mobile suit into a momentary standstill. Soon it's time to shoot at your half-witted enemies, but your equally half-witted mobile suit again takes a leisurely pause before taking aim. So you shoot the enemy mobile suits for what feels like a (universal) century before they finally enter their death throes (which shock you out of your slack-jawed confusion because the limbless flailing actually looks pretty good).

Then you run out of bullets. It's okay though: you can fall back on your melee weapon. Except at this point it's hardly surprising that there's a long delay between hitting the melee attack button and your mobile suit performing a melee attack. And finally, in case you weren't perplexed by how such cutting-edge console technology could be home to such a miscarriage of design, enemy reinforcements arrive and shoot you in the back, or sneak past into your base, forcing you to do it all again. It's just a confusingly unresponsive mess, which, in spite of some glaring signs of technical mediocrity, apparently pushes the PlayStation 3 so far that a decent framerate is beyond it. It is possible to install the game to your hard drive, though this doesn't produce any noticeable improvement. It's like playing Federation vs. Zeon on the PS2 underwater.

'Mobile Suit Gundam: Target in Sight' Screenshot 2

As the game goes on it's possible to pilot an increasing range of mobile suits…

Here's what happens for the rest of the game: between missions you navigate a series of text menus to repair and upgrade your mobile suit, and requisition more mobile suits and pilots to assist you. Each turn represents one day of The One Year War, which you enter, as the commander of a battalion of experimental mobile suit prototypes, nine months in (which means that the course of the game runs for three months). Occasionally, missions will become available to play, until they become unavailable again on a certain date, in different theatres of war that gradually open up over the course of the game.

Choosing not to play these missions has no repercussions, but if you do choose to enter the fray you'll be able to bring along up to two sidekicks to help you in what's a normally a fairly standard destroy-everything, defend-something type of sortie. Completing missions grants you more resources with which to access new Mobile Suits and upgrades, such as improved weapons, enhanced defence, or mobile suits that are tailored to a particular environment (such as Jungle, or Marine). It also allows you to level up, enhancing your own statistics and granting the ability to order other pilots round on the battlefield (although one of the game's niggles is that the other pilots don't acknowledge your orders).

'Mobile Suit Gundam: Target in Sight' Screenshot 3

… with increasingly big weapons.

And then something strange happens. Somewhere along the line, in spite of everything, you find yourself perversely enjoying being in charge of a big ponderous robot, destroying everything or defending something. You begin to master the underwater sense of timing and to appreciate the tactical nuances of the slow game speed (after all, enemy mobile suits are just as slow and cumbersome as yours, and you soon learn to time your movement and attacks to take advantage). You begin to master the consequences of finite ammunition (again, adding a strategic dimension to battle - particularly when supply points are present on the battlefield). And it begins to actually feel like you've gained mastery over your big, ponderous robot. Sure, it's not as quick or smooth as previous Gundam games (or just about any other third-person shoot-'em-up for that matter), but it totally captures the essence of a pseudo-realistic interpretation of the Gundam universe.

So actually this turned out to be a pretty difficult review to write, and certainly a difficult game to score, because it raises very thorny philosophical questions about the art of reviewing. Is it possible to ever rate a game objectively? Objectively this is a game that basically sucks. It's technically limited, characterised by treacle-slow, far-from-original gameplay that's beset by niggles, and sorely unadorned by fancy cut-scenes or easy-to-navigate menus. But subjectively, in spite of all of its flaws, what emerges is something that has the potential to be hypnotically absorbing and, yes, even fun. Something that captures the feel of being thrust into the gritty, unglamorous, blunt end of a globe-spanning conflict in a giant robot that sometimes runs out of bullets. Perhaps the best solution, then, is a compromise between objectivity and subjectivity.

6 / 10

Read the Eurogamer.net scoring policy
Picture of Dave.

About Dave McCarthy

Read more articles from Dave by visiting the Dave McCarthy archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (52) Latest comment 5 years ago

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

  • Tonka #1 5 years ago

    Objective ratings FTL

  • Blerk #2 5 years ago

    I predict a riot.

  • Eraser #3 5 years ago

    Sorry to be a bitch about it, but can't Eurogamer spend time on reviewing games that are actually interesting for the European market at this point?

    p.s. I'd like to see a Trackmania United review!

  • lambtron #4 5 years ago

    Hmm. This sounds like when people try to justify why Monster Hunter is good. Who are you trying to persuade yourself or us ;).

  • Der_tolle_Emil #5 5 years ago

    Trackmania United has to be 10/10. It is so versatile that there is no way someone could not like at least some parts of the game - even if he is not that much of a racing game fan.

    Well, never mind. I agree about the difficulty reviewing games. I guess there is never a way to be completely objective and a little bit of personal taste is imho a good thing. There is no way to rate a game without personal feelings involved. In fact this is the reason why I only visit certain review pages. (Eurogamer and 1up, which is quite funny because sometimes they differ greatly) When I can in part identify with the tastes of the reviewer the review automatically means a lot. There is subtle difference in the scoring.
    If a game is basically flawed but still fun a 6 is not the same 6 for a game that is less fun beacuse the flaws spoil the game. A bit like RedSteel. The game is flawed and purely from an objective standpoint a game you could easily miss without having regrets. But then again it is still a lot of fun because there are elements that capture me. Without that of course the game is miserable. And the review would only state that if it was purely objective.

    So, in short, the reviewer's personality and tastes are important for a review. It should not cross specific lines like commenting on color style of the menu, ie. when the reviewer likes blue better than green. But I guess that was never an issue.

  • spongebob #6 5 years ago

    DunkelDog, I am sure you will (if you are one of those who just want to hate it because it's on that console).

  • Aysir #7 5 years ago

    Damn you for confusing things all the more.
    On a side note, they really should bring over Gundam Seed Destiny Alliance Vs ZAFT II Plus, that game is actually pretty damn fun. And of course here's hoping Gundam Musou brings back a little honour to Gundam games over here.

  • zErOb_cOOl #8 5 years ago

    Pah, sounds like this deserved a 2/10 at best. Just terrible.

  • DarthInsinuate #9 5 years ago

    It probably deserves 6 just for being a giant robot game. Just not enough of them, in my opinion.

  • decibel #10 5 years ago

    Mr. McCarthy should have stuck to warning us European gamers. I can vouch that this game is complete rubbish. :(

  • Rambaldi #11 5 years ago

    "this is a game that basically sucks"

    ..and yet you give it a 6?

    Oh dear.

  • Steroyd #12 5 years ago

    Why is Sony publishing Gundamn... something sinister is afoot.

    Aparently Gundamn Mosuo looks promising in Japan land wonder if it'll sell.

  • Scimarad #13 5 years ago

    "It's like playing Federation vs. Zeon on the PS2 underwater."

    lol!

  • psychokitten #14 5 years ago

    Strange review! It doesn't read like it deserves 6/10 at all.

  • Scimarad #15 5 years ago

    It's not difficult ; Basically it's shite, but ultimately he found himself enjoying it. I've heard several other people echo the same sentiments.

  • Darren #16 5 years ago

    Oh my... is this the same gane that magazines like Edge and gamesTM plus websites like IGN and GameSpot have deemed to be sub-par? I'm confused, those others deemed Resistance a much better game yet EG only award that game 10% more that this game which is supposed to be terrible! :?

    Now I admit I haven't played the game but after reading other reviews I don't wish to either as it looked bad enough in the various gameplay videos I've seen. EG are entitled to their opinion obviously but I must admit at being surprised at their apparent generosity toward a game that has been pretty much panned by everyone else... the review does not read like a 6/'10 game at all to me...

  • bluebird #17 5 years ago

    Darren, you are easily confused.

    Try reading the review for answers.

  • [maven] #18 5 years ago

    Can someone who has played both this and Chromehounds (4/10) compare the two? Does Gundam have multi-player?

  • Carpathian #19 5 years ago

    1) To avoid confusion don't just read the score at the end - read the text. You know, those lines of squiggly things above the big blue number.

    2) Any review is, by it's very nature, subjective. It has to be, regardless of how objective a person tries to be. It's unavoidable and part of the human condition. Trying to argue how objective a review truly is just opens the door to a philosophical debate over actual and perceived experience and we'd be here all day.

    3) The only way to truly try and cover a release would be getting a second opinion written but then isn't that what the reader reviews bit is for once a game has been released ? Hold off, read up what early buyers think and make a more informed decision.

    4) Most importantly, it's just a game review, not a doctrine on life. Read, think and enjoy as you see fit......

    {cuts and pastes this post into notepad to use on the next 16 squillion threads that will end up with the same direction}

  • Darren #20 5 years ago

    I did and I'm still confused! LOL

    The reviewer admits the game is rubbish but says that he enjoyed it. That's contradictory to me... if it was *that* bad then he wouldn't have enjoyed it, right? Therefore either the score is right and he didn't think the game was all that bad or the score is wrong and the game really is terrible, which would echo what everyone else has said about it. I don't see quite how you can say both in all honesty.

    As it is the review reads like a 4/10 game to me. EG have awarded other seriously flawed games that they've "enjoyed" to a certain extent scores like that so what makes a game that "sucks" like Gundam Mobile Suit an above-average scoring game exactly?

    Because he tolerated it enough to actually gain some enjoyment out of it? Still doesn't sound like an above-average game to me... :?

  • bluebird #21 5 years ago

    Darren, the writer basically says that while the game is technologically sometimes shockingly flawed, the basic game behind that all is, after a while, strangely compelling to him. As such he averaged the score.

  • Carpathian #22 5 years ago

    This is where perception comes into it and where it all gets very difficult. They know of good and bad points they wish to make note of in the review but then, over the top of this, is the way they feel while/after playing it. Sometimes the balance of the two things doesn't hold up and where does that leave them ?

    They could just do a review with no score but then they'd get a horde of people arguing about what the score would be. No win there for EG, even though some might say it makes more sense to do it that way.....
    Edited by 1 at 30/01/07 @ 09:51

  • penhalion #23 5 years ago

    Framerate issues.....Let me say it again. The PS3 is geared towards blue ray playback and it's SPUs are crap for anything bar great physics calculations!

  • decibel #24 5 years ago

    No, Gundam has no multiplayer, aside from a split-screen versus mode which is just zzzz.

    ¬____¬

    Seriously, Chromehounds isn't exactly exciting but it's much better than this. It features a fully-fledged, and surprisingly good, online mode. It features more single-player missions than Gundam (Not that they're very exciting - but still).

    The scores should be reversed. I know the scores aren't the end-all be-all but Chromehounds is definetely a six considering the smooth online mode and quite detailed customisation options, and this most certainly a 4.

  • Darren #25 5 years ago

    Well the good news is that I had absolutely no intention of buying Mobile Suit Gundam anyway, my mind was already made up from earlier reviews I'd read. However, I do want Resistance, a game that has been getting pretty decent scores overall, yet I'm concerned that EG only deem it slightly better than this game...

    *sigh*

    At least, MotorStorm is definitely a game worth buying, everyone seems to agree on that... even EG...

  • redd #26 5 years ago

    So EG do you still want a PSP for christmas?

  • MadMirko #27 5 years ago

    This shot fairly accurately captures the framerate of the actual game.

    ROFL, excellent. :)

    But once again I find myself confused by the review score that just doesn't seem to match with thre review text. There was a great commentary on this by Tycho from PA, saying:

    I often find that I agree with the bodytext of a given piece and then once I arrive at the distilled score there's no way to derive it from the original work. This is because while the body includes useful, interesting information and perspective the score is often used to cement the review in the overall editorial philosophy. Scores are ridiculous and facile, and they are insulting to the reader - they say in clear terms that you are incapable of discerning the meaning of the text above or below. But publishers need those succinct scores, and the sites need the publishers' money, so if you want to know what keeps things this way there you have it.

    Any EG staffers care to comment on that?

  • Starmaniac #28 5 years ago

    "Why is Sony publishing Gundamn... something sinister is afoot."

    I would guess it is a part of the deal with Bandai delivering it on launch. Everybody knows it does not make any sense. Nobody expects it being any succesful.

  • Rambaldi #29 5 years ago

    And my local gameshop wonder why, after 2 months, they STILL haven't shifted thier 20GB PS3 with Gundam for the bargain price of £700.

    Dicks.

  • cools #30 5 years ago

    Sounds a lot like Dave Mirra 1 on the Dreamcast. The game basically sucked, but give it an hour and the framerate, control issues, and general repetitiveness melts away.

    Only game I've ever 100 percented, apart from Tony Hawks 2 on the GBA.

    Good review.

  • pingu #31 5 years ago

    Most of the rest of the world completely disagree:

    [link url=http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms /ps3/mobilesuitgundam?q=gundam
    ]http://ww w.metacritic.com/games/platform...[/link]

    Unusual to see Eurogamer near the top of a metacritic list :¬/

  • pretence #32 5 years ago

    ITS ONE PERSON'S OPINION!!!!!!!

  • ruttyboy #33 5 years ago

    This weekend I had the exact same conflict with Drakengard. I know it's shit, I can point out why it's shit, yet I feel the urge to play it...

  • MikeP #34 5 years ago

    So if I read this review right, this is good for exactly the same reasons that Chromehounds was bad?

    (Obviously I'm not referring to the online bit of CH, which is what the whole thing was really about)

    Blimey.

  • Gurgeh #35 5 years ago

    "So if I read this review right, this is good for exactly the same reasons that Chromehounds was bad? "

    Yeah I had a strange sense of deja vu - what score did Chromehounds get?

    *edit* oh yeah, 4/10. Chromehounds is a better game than this. Go figure
    Edited by 1 at 30/01/07 @ 11:44

  • miiiguel #36 5 years ago

    I understand the reviewer problem..., he had to struggle real hard not to rate 2/10 wich is what every other sigle site gave to this game.
    Checkout metacritic.com

  • decibel #37 5 years ago

    Indeed, this review basically makes positive out of what was considered negative for Chromehounds.

    Again, Chromehounds features a relatively decent single-player mode, and a brilliant online mode. You're given the creative reigns on building your very own personal mech units in the game's quite anal and intriguing build-a-mech mode. 4/10?

    Gundam on the other hand features a relatively rubbish single-player mode in comparison (Hey, at least CH had some pretty campy but good-looking FMV sequences and full-on customisation unlike this :p) and err, split-screen versus. Great. 6/10?

    Of course, these are just opinions - but what fun would games be without a little bit of discussion? :) In fact, I miss the days of multi-person reviews. I'd love to read two takes on this game from EG staff.

  • miiiguel #38 5 years ago

    A great punch-line for this game, published in a... Playstation Magazine:

    "Atrocious gameplay. Avoid this one at all costs, unless you're a huge Gundam fan. A huge, huge fan who hasn't played a video game since Tetris. But even then, no promises."
    Edited by 1 at 30/01/07 @ 11:59

  • miiiguel #39 5 years ago

    My question is...:
    Is this a Real Next Gen piece of software ? I mean..., it comes in a Blu-Ray..., I guess only a Blu-Ray can hold this much quality.

  • Les #40 5 years ago

    I’d say this proves the strength of the PS3 as a games platform: PS3’s worst game gets a six, while the epitome of 360 gaming scored just two points more… ;-)

  • miiiguel #41 5 years ago

    @Les:
    yes..., at EG..., who buys games based on EG's reviews anyway? Judging by Lost Planet ownage, not many.

    /wonders if the 3000000 Gears of War owners base their purchases on EG's reviews/
    Edited by 1 at 30/01/07 @ 12:20

  • Xerx3s #42 5 years ago

    This game appears to have the dullest and worst looking mech's ever made. :/

  • JSD124 #43 5 years ago

    Different people have different opinions.

    CH and this weren't reviewed by the same people.

    Go figure.

    The review makes perfect sense to me, although I think reviews should be entirely subjective. I read reviews here because I trust some writers' opinions, and I don't read others because I generally don't agree with theirs.

  • megatonator #44 5 years ago

    Surprising how Eurogamer is consistently scoring PS3 games higher than other web sites.

    Well, it's just a matter of correcting the result...

  • YourMessageHere #45 5 years ago

    Wow, a game that accurately reflects Gundam! Finally!

  • decibel #46 5 years ago

    Indeed. I'm still shocked at the 6 out of 10, to be honest. I know that sounds ridiculously sad. Hey, I'm passionate about games, and I can happily enjoy a broken game if the fun is there.

    Any gamer with a brain will instantly realise upon inserting the disc into their PS3 and watching the incredibly boring intro that this is a piece of shit.

    The 'fun' to be derived from it only exists if you will yourself into believing that this is a game. This isn't a game, ladies and gentlemen, this is unfinished code that doesn't even function properly. The so-called 'balance' the reviewer speaks of (that apparently mysteriously appears after masochistically plowing through most of the game) really doesn't exist.

    Anyway, an opinion is an opinion I guess, but it's all a little bit ... strange. :)

  • MasterControlProgram #47 5 years ago

    The reviewer mentioned Renpou vs. Zeon DX for the late (sigh) Dremcast and then for PS2. Well, judging from the movies I saw, this game is *identical* to RvZ DX.

    Only difference is: graphics on PS3 are more detailed, but also incredibly less fluid. And Mobile suits animations seems jerky and not convincing as those in that Dreamcast little gem (although far from a perfect game it was).

  • miiiguel #48 5 years ago

    yeah..., I mean, I still wonder what to think out of EG, when comparing the reviews of this "thing" and Gear of War one:
    A) Are you calling me stupid ?
    B) Are you having a laugh out me ?
    C) PS3fanboy.com is your affiliate ?
    D) Does Sony pay for your mortage ?
    E) You're Japaneses after all...

    I ruled out A), because I know better, E) 'cos Gears of War sold out in Japan. Still thinking between the others.

  • ilmaestro #49 5 years ago

    Finally, the first fair review of this game that I have read. It's more a just-scrapes-a-5 game for me, but this is the first review (in English, at least) that reviews the game from some angle other than 'everyone says it's shit so I should give it 2/10'.

  • miiiguel #50 5 years ago

    ilmaestro: <a href="http://www.metacritic.com< /a>
    ">    http://www.metacritic.com< /a>
    </a>
    You got reviews written in english, from US and UK magazines dated a month ago.

    24 reviews to be precise, Official Playstation Magazine included (3/10); PSM3 UK (3.2/10)...
    Edited by 1 at 31/01/07 @ 15:54

  • decibel #51 5 years ago

    yeah, you know it's kind of awful if the OFFICIAL playstation magazine gives it a 3 out of 10 ...

  • enzima #52 5 years ago

    when did EG became so spineless, exactly? Was it before their crusade against any title on 360, or after they announced ps3 in Europe? oh, Gripshift 8.....enough said.