Call of Juarez Review

By Kieron Gillen Published 18 September, 2006

The Call of the Wild West.

Version tested: PC

Call of Juarez makes an inspired design decision, which impacts on the game in such a hugely positive way that I can't work out whether its creators are actually geniuses in terms of understanding gaming psychology or just got incredibly lucky. The case for the former is, pretty much, how good it is and how it makes the game better in just about every way. The case for the latter is how rough and awkward many other sections can be. I suspect it may be a little of both - Call of Juarez is a maximalist game which lobs pretty much every idea it can think of at the wall and sees what works. That it's not incoherent in the slightest is one of its greatest assets and a direct consequence of its Inspired Design Decision.

Call of Juarez is a first-person action game with a western setting, from Techland who you'll probably know - for better or for worse - from great-white-hope/great-white-elephant Chrome. And its inspired design decision is to have two characters with hugely different abilities, then alternate levels between controlling one and controlling the other.

Doesn't sound like much. In fact, it sounds like the sort of thing we've seen in games forever.

It's all in the details.

The dual leads of the game are a man of the cloth and a borderline outlaw. Our religious fella Reverend Ray is like Lee Marvin got Brokeback Mountain with Clint Eastwood, somehow managed to get him pregnant and gave birth to the hardest son of a bitch who ever walked the Earth. Who then became a preacher to repent for being the hardest son of a bitch who ever walked the Earth. And then decided, actually, God wanted him to use being the hardest son of a bitch who ever walked the Earth for a Higher Purpose. Our rogue is Billy, orphan child, wanderer, searcher of lost Gold (though he's given that up for a bit), who spends the vast majority of the game without any weapon whatsoever. He does have a whip, however, which allows him to climb like a latter-day Garrett from Thief when he still had his rope-arrows. Essentially, Reverend is the fighter character and Billy is the stealth character.

Clearly, as long as you're relatively reasonable with your division of labour (i.e. you don't do a Desperados and have almost all your characters refuse to pick up bodies, as if there's some complicated union rules they have to obey at all times), separating your characters' abilities makes a hell of a lot more sense than what most games do when they're trying to create a little variety. Why is my character - who previously was wading through gore - suddenly deciding that, yes, being very quiet (at least until a checkpoint is reached, at which point anything goes) is the best plan? If it's two people, you don't have to make the sort of leaps that always feel false. One guy is into this. The other guy is into that.

But the real genius is how the game alternates the two characters, and the reason they alternate, which is tied explicitly into the game's plot. An old lesson returns: at least in action games, plots are important in how they give a justification and weight for what you're doing rather than plots in and of themselves. Plots, in most games, are best at a "Why are we doing this anyway?" level. The plot of Call of Juarez, at its most basic level, is a chase.

Billy is on the run, prime suspect in the murder of his parents. Ray is the man who's hunting him down.

Playing both the pursued and the pursuer has been seen before, of course, most recently in the (excellent) Fahrenheit, but it's a little different here. While there are a few exceptions, it's mostly Ray close on the heels of Billy, sometimes within minutes of traveling. This leads to a brilliant sense of tension and release. You pass through a level as Billy, keeping out of line of sight and avoiding the attention of its residents. Eventually, you reach the end of the level. Next you're Ray, trying to catch up with Billy and following his trail takes you right through the area you were just creeping through.

'Call of Juarez' Screenshot deadwood

Deadwood? Dead good, more like. Yes. Yes.

AND NOW IT'S TIME FOR REVENGE AT THESE BASTARDS WHO'VE KEPT YOU CROUCHED IN A PILE OF COW POOP FOR THE LAST HALF HOUR.

Sneak past them all. Then kill them all.

It's so simple, but so rewarding.

Good work.

It wouldn't work as well if Call of Juarez didn't manage a mass of invention to support it. While its combat mechanics are solid, its stealth is a little undeveloped compared to most games of the genre. It gets away with it by simply having you do a lot more things than just sneaking and also having a variety of different ways to accomplish sneaking. For the latter, take the fact the game features a dark-meter where the shadows you're crouched in affect your visibility... but it only uses it in the single level set at night, and then makes it a night set during a thunderstorm so you've got the added worry of a lightning flash exposing you. For the former, it actually leans heavily on the whole form of non-violent interaction and exploration, like the moments in the first Thief game where things took a few pages from Tomb Raider's book or even a simple adventure structure in some places.

Ray's missions, while perhaps a little more traditional, are also agreeably varied, with the developers showing a great love for the Western in terms of what they ape. The final confrontation, borrowing from the Wild Bunch, is exactly what we wanted to close the game, genuine apocalyptic violence straight out of Revelations. The bible's a key word - Ray's equipped with a Bible which he can draw out at any moment and read from profoundly, which... well, is just a good thing to do, really. Add your usual selection of stagecoach chasing, railway raids, minecart adventures and all the usuals, and you've the basis for as good a cowboy shooter as I've played.

'Call of Juarez' Screenshot trouble

Looks like trouble. Alas, Billy won't get a gun for another eight million and four levels.

Its best feature is its reinvention of the slow-motion mode. Yet again, a simple change, with profound implications. The slow-motion kicks in when your draw your pistols, allowing you to quickly bead in on your opponents. This is normal. The difference is that rather than just giving your free motion, each of your pistols has its own separate aiming reticule. These are moving slowly up in an arc towards the centre of the screen, mirroring the way a gunfighter's hands move when quick-drawing. Each gun can be fired separately, on the right and left mouse buttons. This means that rather than clinically just taking your shots, you're having to compensate for this predictable movement, while deciding which gun would be best to manoeuvre into position next. Most slow-motion in games just feels like a cheat. Call of Juarez's feels like... well, a new skill you should master.

Not that it hasn't considerable problems. While graphically beautiful on a decent machine, it doesn't exactly have a polished, coherent graphic look. As perhaps predictable, a game that tries one-off ideas as it does leads to some which simply don't work - which is mostly forgivable, as they're passing annoyances. Less so is its tendency towards trial-and-error play in certain sections, where you'll find yourself leaning on the quick-save in an atmosphere-distracting fashion. And while most of it is excellent, it's got an uncanny ability to choose the worst time to be bad. For example, the opening level playing Billy is one of the worst in the entire game, with you trying to learn how the stealth works in a closed environment and learning the controls. Uninspired rather than dreadful, it may turn some away from the game before its even begun.

Which would be a shame. Of all the cowboy games in the last few years, Call of Juarez is the one which most feels like it has a soul. Impassioned and imaginative, its velocity of invention can make you smile through any flaws. It's a game which you feel someone actually cared about making. We don't see nearly enough of those.

8 / 10

Read the Eurogamer.net scoring policy
Picture of Kieron.

About Kieron Gillen

Kieron is one of the founders of the lovely Rock, Paper, Shotgun and nowadays writes comics for Marvel starring characters that even his mum has heard of.

Read more articles from Kieron by visiting the Kieron Gillen archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (70) Latest comment 5 years ago

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

  • ice_freezer #1 5 years ago

    Got the demo the other day. Wasn't going to install it, but in view of 8/10 I'll certainly give it a go.

  • KraftWerk #2 5 years ago

    The demo had some strange bug-things, but was very promising. At least the parts with the reverend. :)

  • Subquest #3 5 years ago

    downloading demo - loved Outlaws a few years back.

  • Mho7276501 #4 5 years ago

    i was in two minds about this after playing the demo. Loved the crazy preacher, wasn't so keen on the sneaky kid. Sounds like its worth a look though!

  • Darkedge #5 5 years ago

    if the first Billy level is the same as the one in the demo I see what you mean - that level is HORRIBLE and so badly designed that it shows off the mistakes they made massively..
    the Ray stuff however is genius.
    My have to check this out soon - when I get bored of dead rising that is

  • symmetry #6 5 years ago

    I actually really liked Chrome, not sure why. This sounds cool, I'll give it a shot.

  • fox #7 5 years ago

    I liked chrome too! And apart from some boring billy levels, CoJ is satisfying!

  • Shabtai #8 5 years ago

    Wow , not a good review. The game does not deserve 8 at at all!

    Thre review havn't touched the issue of loading time. 8 fricking minutes!! even with loading that are mid-level!! That's shows poor engine and poor designer team, It's astonishing to have to wait this time , it takes out all the will to play the game. Lowering the gfx settings doesn't help as well!

    The stelth parts are boring and can get frustirating. There's the issue of the poor AI as well. I don't get it , the review didn't cover alot of stuff. The whip is poorly used , you can't attach to anything , just where the designers ment it to be used. That sucks.

    The only good part there is the crossbow and the use of slow mo with it.

    The levels with the preacher are avarge. The combat is very avarge and not too interesting. Spotting emenies from a little afar can be difficult, the physics are not handled well , you could spend minutes and minutes in trying to place a box in the perfect place.
    I don't like the revolvers in the regard if reloading , it takes a whole lot of time to reload them while you're getting shot at from every peek, and again the combat it self is just avarge and not too enjoyable.

    How come Wild West setting is original or inventive? You already got the outline of the material to be used , alongside with the games below-avarge-done stigma voice acting. Though , that doesn't matter when all the other aspects of the game are not good at all.

    To conclude , this is no "8" game and probably not "7" as well. I'm just surprised to see such an un-balanced review who didn't even touch on alot of aspects of the game , basic elements of a game. I'm still shocked there was no word about the HORRIBLE loading times.

  • kangarootoo #9 5 years ago

    Yay, a western game that actually sounds OK.

    Boo, no mention of a 360 version (I left PC gaming a long time back).


    @Shabtai

    "The review havn't touched the issue of loading time. 8 fricking minutes!!"

    Unless you are exaggerating there is no way that would get through any reasonable QA if it were the norm. 8 minutes is a ludicrous amoutn of time I agree. Sounds like it might be an issue related to your PC as I can't imagine EG not mentioning it if they saw the same loading times.

    Have you checked any forums related to this game? There might be a simple fix relating to virtual memory or something...

  • smelly #10 5 years ago

    Thre review havn't touched the issue of loading time. 8 fricking minutes!!

    Nobody seems to mind with oblivion! (on a core 360)


    To conclude , this is no "8" game and probably not "7" as well.

    Oh gawd.. people being pedantic over review score shocker... sigh.. Almost as inevetable as people wanking over which console is better.

  • BremXJones #11 5 years ago

    I'd rather spend my word-count talking about what really hurts and help the game than the loading pauses (The instadeath stuff, for example).

    And loading was nowhere near eight minutes on even my should-really-be-upgraded-shortly rig. It was a little lengthy, but not considerably more than - say - Half-life 2, and it doesn't do Half-life 2 style "Turn a corner and load the next bit" stuff either.

    KG

  • De-Winter #12 5 years ago

    How on Earth is this game worth an eight??? You got Stevie Wonder doing reviews now?

    Seriously. I thought I was going to love this game being a fan of westerns and all that but come on an eight??? This game is was too slow loading and playing feels like I'm playing half asleep all the time, it takes 5 mintues to load a level and then 4 minutes to complete it. Sneaking around? Can't hurt corpses dogs or innocent bystanders??? Wild West ..... more like kindergaten. Scenery is beautiful even on a half decent machine but I gotta say I've already un-installed this game and flogged it to my mate..

    Very dissapointed.

    By the way Eurogamer how can you give this an eight when it doesn't even catch the mood of the era its trying to replicate?
    Edited by 1 at 18/09/06 @ 10:02

  • BremXJones #13 5 years ago

    I found it quite refreshing to play a game where you didn't have to rape people, to be honest.

    KG

  • kangarootoo #14 5 years ago

    @De-Winter

    Lol, muppet. Sounds like this game is simply not for you. Horses for courses and all that. Doesn't make the review bad.

    "By the way Eurogamer how can you give this an eight when it doesn't even catch the mood of the era its trying to replicate?"

    What exactly was the mood of the US in the early 1800s? Are you suggesting that "sneaking around" wasn't invented until the industrial revolution perhaps?

  • spongebob #15 5 years ago

    There's a 360 version?

  • kangarootoo #16 5 years ago

    @De-Winter

    "No offence mate but when has playing computer games ever had a basis in reality??? Back to voting Liberal Democrats and eating yoghurt for you."

    Man, did some girl tell you to piss off in a club on the weekend or something? Escalating to insults like that (and pretty poor ones at that) isn't normal behaviour, you realise that right?

    Clearly you have different needs from the rest of us when it comes to games about the WW. Thats all. The review was not for you, it did just fine for me. How does your world view account for that?

    And as for you rambling on about helping old ladies across the road... Chip. On. Shoulder.

  • BremXJones #17 5 years ago

    And the period was one where heroes shot innocents? Not really convinced. You may as well argue you should have a rape german civilian button when playing the Russians in Call of Duty, just because they did in reality.

    The Wild West in fiction has only very, very rarely had anything to do with what actually happened. You base it on "reality" and there's very little action at all - just people getting shot in the back ala Deadwood. If you base it on the cinematic reality... well, you don't get Eastwood (let alone John Wayne) shooting innocents.

    (Let alone how ludicrous a plot about being wrongly accused of being murderer is when you're able to murder anyone you fancy)

    Essentially, your critical tastes have been GTA-ed to death. In any way which counts, Juarez does the cowboy thing at least as good as anything else.

    KG

  • kangarootoo #18 5 years ago

    "There's a 360 version?"

    Doesn't look like it :(

  • Kingsadist #19 5 years ago

    The demo was such a huge, sluggish, sloppy mess that I wont even consider touching this, rave EG-review or no.

  • Shabtai #20 5 years ago

    I'm not kidding. It was 8 minutes of loading for me. It's not issue with my pc becuase i lowered the setting and it still was the same. Let me remind you that when the demo came out , all the forum was pointing out the teribble long loading times and the reviewer , or at least the one back then who recieved the final game for review said the loading times are the same (which is very long).

    Of course the game fails at other aspects as well. The review doesn't touch AI , the combat for me was very avarge and the whip issue i mentioned as well and the stelth. There was no mention of the tech side of the game , physics , gfx and yes loading times as well. I don't know how this issue could be disregarded , it's just takes out all the desire to play the game , not that there is much anyhow.

    The bottom line is that the game just isn't good , for all kinds of reasons. I felt the review just didn't covered all the departments of the game and it's issues , ending with a score that I frankly don't believe COJ earns at all.

  • Tomo #21 5 years ago

    From playing the demo, I'd give this a 4/10. It was very sloppy. The game ran like a one legged man in cast iron boots through a giant cauldron of jelly, the loading times were truly the worst I've experienced and the gameplay itself felt quite sluggish.

    I appreciate the ambition, but I just didn't feel it worked.

  • UncleLou #22 5 years ago

    The demo was such a huge, sluggish, sloppy mess that I wont even consider touching this, rave EG-review or no

    Hm? Not the demo I played.

  • smelly #23 5 years ago

    Well for all the people judging game based on demo.

    Bear in mind that demos tend to be forced out by publishers, and tend not to be complete code. Judging by how early this demo appeared, i'd say that was doubly so.

    Loading times/gameplay/etc all might've improved since demo.

    This reviewer has played the FULL game... Calling him wrong just because you've played the demo, isnt really fair.

    I personally had my own problems with the demo (major point it beign far to linear for my liking). Which would probably put me off buying it (at least until i read other reviews, or until it's budget). BUT that's not to say the reviewer is wrong, as he's playing the FULL game (im not).

    .. and also remember reviews ARE subjective.
    Edited by 1 at 18/09/06 @ 11:43

  • mkreku #24 5 years ago

    I think the game is excellent. The levels aren't as confined as they usually are in shooters of this type. The characters are very well done and the action feels fresh and challenging (with some impressive AI at times). The loading times are bad, but not as bad as some of you are suggesting. The graphics are excellent (at least on my Geforce 7800) and I found both the sneaking levels and the action levels to be very good, with some really clever level designs. I have obviously not played that much yet, but so far it's been really impressive. I definitely agree with the review score.

  • Shabtai #25 5 years ago

    They are , but there are others reviews of the game where it's given scores between 40 to 75. There is a review that gave it 82 as well , but that why I visit Eurogamer , for accurate representive reviews. From other reviews I read and from what I played it doesn't seem a case of liking - it's truely not a good game.

    Besides , this review would be alot more accepted if the reviewer would have coverd all the game and gave his take on things. Like i said , there is alot that article didn't touch on.

    About the demo issue. Isn't it what's a demo for? so we can play the game and decide if we want to buy it or not according what we experienced in the demo?
    Demos are representinve of the full games , no matter what it says when starting the game. This is what be base most of our thoughts on. I don't remeber a case where a demo was poor and the full game was different, however , I do remember otherwise , i.e Prey.

    Edit : rdexter - that's fine. I have no porblem if some people like it. What bothers me is that the reviewer really didn't explained why he did like it , nor did he cover all there is about the game. The review was not very informative and it doesn't serve as a source for readers to decide wether to buy the game or not because alot of stuff weren't even mentioned , alot of issues were not pointed at and at a whole , people might very well get the wrong impression about the game from this review - encountering issues and behaviours that are not said in the review that could have kept them from purchasing the game. Not only the review didn't go deep , but it didn't cover and refer to some very basic gameplay and tech stuff that are a "must" in every game review , especially on the PC.
    Edited by 1 at 18/09/06 @ 12:19

  • Azazel #26 5 years ago

    Presumably you need these accurate, representative reviews only for games that you haven't played and formed unwavering opinions on?

  • BremXJones #27 5 years ago

    rxdexter: They're some of my favourite levels too. The whole wilderness section - where they finally show that, yes, their game can do these enormous spaces and have a good use for it... well, that's cute. I hadn't seen anyone try and do a first person exploring game since very early Thief (The Lost City).

    EDIT: I don't object to people who've played the demo saying they didn't like the demo, of course. I thought the whole game hung together well. Barely, sometimes, but well.

    KG
    Edited by 1 at 18/09/06 @ 12:19

  • Shabtai #28 5 years ago

    Azazel , I formed my opinion from playing the game. I didn't find the gameplay was anything more than avarge-ok and from what I experienced , tech wise , the game fails.

    If you like it , that's ok. I just think that this review is very lacking , not becuase it doesn't share my view on the game , but because it didn't cover alot of things and ignored others as well.

  • kangarootoo #29 5 years ago

    @Shabtai

    "Isn't it what's a demo for? so we can play the game and decide if we want to buy it or not according what we experienced in the demo?"

    This is true.

    "Demos are representinve of the full games , no matter what it says when starting the game."

    This is not true.

    Now you can quite reasonably say that the second quote SHOULD be true, and I would agree with you. But the plain fact is that it isn't.

    I would never dismiss a game based purely on a demo, I might simply be missing out on a great title at my own expense, and where is the sense in that?

  • Darren #30 5 years ago

    The demo was OK; nothing special but nothing particularly bad either bar the long, long loading times (of several minutes). This 8/10 EG review does nothing to convince me to buy the full game either, I'm sure it's enjoyable enough but I'm not risking £25 on a game when the demo didn't get me all that excited in the first place.

  • De-Winter #31 5 years ago

    Back to the point, but after playing game all I can say is that although it's a half decent game there's no way on earth it's worth an eight.

    Half-life 2 got a 10(sorry for saying it was a 9) on here are they saying that this is only just slighty a worse game than HL2?

    Before anyone gets on my case. It's a good attempt but all I'm saying is that an 8/9 should be a mark for a very good game eg like HL 2, Oblivion, 9.5/10 are for exceptional games, are we really saying that this game is only 2 points from being exceptional?? I obviously expect some people to disagree with me, for them this game will be very good but it seems to me the majority on here seems to be agreeing with the mark being too high.

    Edited by 1 at 18/09/06 @ 12:49

  • Tomo #32 5 years ago

    HL2 got a 10.

  • Tomo #33 5 years ago

    Make that two 10s.

  • absolutezero #34 5 years ago

    I give this a "I liked it/10"

    It got great reviews in PC Zone and PCGamer. Most likely I will this pick this up, mainly for shooting off of hats and quoting the bible while shooting people. Those will never ever get boring.

  • Dr.Gash #35 5 years ago

    Hm. I thought this game was enjoyable but I felt there were a few parts which detracted from my pleasure. The loading times were annoying but not in themselves enough to warrant complete dismissal of the game. As a whole the game just felt a little "clunky."

    Play the demo, its a pretty fair representation of what the full game is like.

    Does anyone find scoring useful for games reviews? I personally think Eurogamer should scrap it.

  • Shabtai #36 5 years ago

    kangarootoo , like i said, there are far more examples of bad demo - bad full games , than bad demos - good full games. Though , for fairness to games I should agree with you , it just that the recent demos I played and the impressions i got and made didn't change after playing the full games.

    With all due respect to PC Zone and PC Gamer , I just don't trust printed mag's reviews. They bump scores way up.

  • ValidatorXYZ #37 5 years ago

    stupid game from Poland

  • BravoGolf #38 5 years ago

    Ohh, what are the PC requirements for this game? Will it work on my 1gig ram, 64MB graphics (GeForce 4) with a 2ghz proc?

  • AdamWest #39 5 years ago

    this game rocks


    "downloading demo - loved Outlaws a few years back."

    Yeah, a few.. 9 almost 10 years back.

  • UncleLou #40 5 years ago

    "Does anyone find scoring useful for games reviews? I personally think Eurogamer should scrap it."

    Yes, I find scores, in connection with the review, extremely useful. Not giving review scores is a cheap cop out.

  • kangarootoo #41 5 years ago

    @De-Winter

    Just for context, all of this...

    "Before anyone gets on my case. It's a good attempt but all I'm saying is that an 8/9 should be a mark for a very good game eg like HL 2, Oblivion, 9.5/10 are for exceptional games, are we really saying that this game is only 2 points from being exceptional?? I obviously expect some people to disagree with me, for them this game will be very good but it seems to me the majority on here seems to be agreeing with the mark being too high. "

    Is fine if you want to be picky about the score. I've got no issue with you not liking the game.

    This...

    "No offence mate but when has playing computer games ever had a basis in reality??? Back to voting Liberal Democrats and eating yoghurt for you."

    (since wisely deleted) is not. That was my issue with what you wrote. Thats all. Just in case you thought I was getting on your case ;)


    "it just that the recent demos I played and the impressions i got and made didn't change after playing the full games"

    Oh for sure, there will be exceptions. A bad demo does colour me against a game I admit, but I don't sign, seal and deliver my opinion until I've played the full title. Maybe I'm being a bit too nit-picky on what you wrote...

  • UncleLou #42 5 years ago

    "No offence mate but when has playing computer games ever had a basis in reality??? Back to voting Liberal Democrats and eating yoghurt for you." [/i]

    (since wisely deleted) is not. That was my issue with what you wrote. Thats all. Just in case you thought I was getting on your case ;)


    And well done for falling for right-wing propaganda which tries for decades now to turn "liberal" into a swearword. Sheep. :p

  • Ryuken #43 5 years ago

    Didn't got to try the Billy part of the demo (heard enough bad things about it even then) but it was fun enough with Ray because of the cool gun mechanics and the fact that Hard mode was really Hard. Loading times were long but I think we're at a point again where you'll have that with every graphically up-to-date game (CoH anyone?). Aka the to-upgrade-or-not-to-upgrade-question.

  • dudefella #44 5 years ago

    *They are , but there are others reviews of the game where it's given scores between 40 to 75. There is a review that gave it 82 as well , but that why I visit Eurogamer , for accurate representive reviews.*

    Right, so you come to EG looking for reviews that stick to the norm? Ok then, off with you!

  • rudedudejude #45 5 years ago

    Quite a good review but as mentioned I'd like to know more about the actual game - Do you get to ride horses? What are the weapons, enemies, AI like? More details and less splodge :p

  • Shabtai #46 5 years ago

    dudefella , I come to EG becuase i found this site to be the most accurate and less hype involved in it.

    I don't get the "looking for reviews that stick to the norm". If a game is bad , then it's bad. Thus , the game will get more or less the same scores in most of the (good) sites. It has nothing to do with what's norm , but with what is objective. CoJ is getting in general not good reviews and low scores - have you thought that this could be because it IS not a good game?

    As I said , the review was lacking in basic details and info , I don't think the reviewer did too much to convey his thoughs and why or for what he liked the game and on top of that , major issues were not mentioned and challenged by the review.

    I have no problem if you like it. God knows there are alot of other games that i found bad , that people like.

    I'm really starting to repeat my self , sorry for that. I'll try to keep is short and to to the point in the future.

  • Dynamize #47 5 years ago

    Loved it, and for me the load times didn't take too much time beyond the spoken narrative intro for the level finishing. Perhaps a shortage of RAM or swap-file size is the problem for those who find it intolerably long?
    For me the combat did worry me at first because it felt a bit slow and mechanical, but once everything clicks and you get into the flow it's great fun. Bible quoting and shoot-upping should go together more often, Ray's a great character.

    Shabtai:
    "The whip is poorly used , you can't attach to anything , just where the designers ment it to be used. That sucks."

    You can attach to any bough or limb of a tree which looks feasible to wrap a whip around, and that is within reach. During the sneak-out-of-town level I attached to the bough of a tree and lowered myself down a slope with it. I then tried to sway my way around a fence. It didn't work, but the option was there to give it a go.

    "Spotting emenies from a little afar can be difficult"

    Well, it is hard spotting a person amongst a load of foliage at a distance, yes. Would you prefer that the baddies form an orderly queue out in the open?

    "I don't like the revolvers in the regard if reloading , it takes a whole lot of time to reload them while you're getting shot at from every peek,"

    I find taking cover helps when I have to reload. It's a sensible thing to do.
    Maybe you just don't like the Old West setting, if you prefer .45 automatics and M16s with 30 round magazines. Revolvers are just slower and more awkward to reload, but the designs were advancing and being perfected at the time. As is shown by the speed-loader, break-apart configuration of the "quick-shooter" pistols. That said, Ray can fling the bullets into the cylinders pretty quick in my opinion.

    Thought the review was a good summation of the spirit of the game, though it did miss out a bit on the letter of it. Omitting the horse-riding was a bit odd, and yeah, load times were a bit surprising at first. Still, captured the game well I thought. A game which is really quite good.

  • Shabtai #48 5 years ago

    About the whip , if i remember from the demo. The only places you could hook it were when a symbol of the whip would appear in the middle of the screen.

    About the revolvers , it just irratating that in a middle of a fight the guns need to be reloaded and it just takes alot of time considering. They could speed the process a bit. All of that takes the back sit , I just didn't find the game too good.

  • UncleLou #49 5 years ago

    About the revolvers , it just irratating that in a middle of a fight the guns need to be reloaded and it just takes alot of time considering.

    Absolutely loved that. Forces you to play more cautiously, which is also how the level (and enemy AI) is designed, judging by the demo. Instead of running through the street guns blazing, you have to get from cover to cover, peek, fire a few shots, reload. Just like in every Western movie.

  • Dynamize #50 5 years ago

    Yarr, the symbol comes up to show you that you can hit the target. The symbol comes up on most trees though, not just ones sat conveniently waiting for you to use to swing across a gap with :)

    Like I said, revolvers generally only have 6 bullets in 'em, and they're slower and more awkward to reload compared to contemporary guns. If you don't like 'em, then it's a fundamental dislike of the Wild West setting (specifically the weapons of the time), rather than the game itself.
    In my opinion, if anything the reloads are unrealistically fast. Although I'll admit I'm not a professional shootist with years of experience in reloading a revolver as fast as possible :)

    You didn't like the game, that's fair enough, everyone has different tastes. I'm just saying that some of your criticisms can be explained as either attempted realism, legitimate difficulty to challenge the player, or just the "flavour" of the gameplay.

  • kangarootoo #51 5 years ago

    @Shabtai

    "It has nothing to do with what's norm , but with what is objective."

    Liking games (or indeed any creative media) is not objective, FACT. Its a matter of taste and taste is not objective, ergo liking games is not objective.

    Now with that cleared up I'm sure everything will run a lot more smoothly in here :)

    P.s. Yes I know there can be a dgree of consistency in general opinion. But that doesn't make it objective opinion, it just means that consensus exists, which isn't the same thing.

  • kangarootoo #52 5 years ago

    The time taken to reload sounds entirely like a matter of preference. For me, not reloading when someone is shooting you in the face is standard strategy for an FPS. I accept it not as a necessary evil but as a part of the game mechanic to be enjoyed.

    Guns that never need reloading can also make for enjoyable play, but they are not better or worse, simply different. Its like criticising an RTS because it takes ages to accumulate resources.

    If an aspect of gameplay is well executed it will engage fans of the aspect. It will not engage someone who simply doesn't like the aspect, however well it is implemented ("I don't like chess 'cos its too cerebral" or "I don't like WW2 games 'cos I don't games based on real conflict" for example).

    If the aspect is badly implemented it will annoy everyone. Recognising the difference is important I think.

    /so sayeth me anyway, as if I know what I am on about.

  • Shrike #53 5 years ago

    Just registered with EG to respond to this.

    @Shabtai

    What I like about Call of Juarez is directly related to the moans about reload speed and the pace of the combat. Few games really capture the feeling being in a fight - you know, combat, be it with guns or swords or fists or sticks or whatever. Your average monsters-in-a-lab FPS is basically about pointing your cursor at an enemy and holding it there while the HP ticks down. What makes CoJ fun is that suddenly you're back to basics: if you get shot, you might die!

    You can play it by running around like a FPS, or you can treat it like a series of setpiece shoot-outs (which is what it really is) and approach each in the way that seems best to you - do you use the bible? The quickdraw bullet-time? Sometimes the most obvious or easiest way of doing something isn't the most fun. I'm a firm believer that a games, like movies and books, are much better if you try to find things you enjoy in them, rather than dismissing them offhand if your first approach (likely gleaned from other games of the same type) doesn't yield The Most Fun.

    Of course if you play the Ray sections in CoJ as you would Call of Duty you are going to find that you spend most of the time reloading both your gun and your quicksave (see what I did there?).. because CoJ does a good job of evoking a Western shoot-out, not a WW2 battle, and needs to be played has such. Have we really been fed so fat on bloody WW2/sci-fi FPS?

    Incidentally, the icon for the whip on branches etc does not mean that these places are very strictly developer-controlled.. to an extent the cursor system in the game is context-sensitive and this is reflected in both it turning red when an enemy is highlighted, to crossing out when a corpse or innocent is highlighted, to reflecting that a branch is whip-accessible. It's not forced.

  • kangarootoo #54 5 years ago

    Welcome aboard Shrike :)

    This game sounds more interesting by the minute. Gutted there is console version.

    Shrike, going by your description of what you liked about of comat of CoJ I'm thinking you might like Condemned (PC and XB360). The combat in that is very heavy, very viceral. You certainly don't feel like a superhero in it and storming in often ends in you getting messed up. The game its share of issues, but I found it pretty rewarding overall.

  • Shabtai #55 5 years ago

    All is fine , I just gave minor examples of stuff i didn't like. At a whole i didn't find the gameplay good enough.

    About the whip , is it only for swinging , because in the demo i tried to grab tree trunks there were in front in me but the game doesn't "allow" that.

  • Subquest #56 5 years ago

    "downloading demo - loved Outlaws a few years back."

    Yeah, a few.. 9 almost 10 years back.

    doesn't time fly eh? carpe diem and all that...

  • Subquest #57 5 years ago

    ok, this thread may well have died but i'll post anyway. I've just finished playing the demo, and colour me impressed! The first thing that hit me was the graphics, they are fantastic - they need a good PC, but I've never seen quite so impressive depth of field in a game before. Using the focus (zoom) mode you can see the depth focus change, as your eye would, as you pan across the street looking for bad guys. Very smart. Similarly impressive is the attention to detail, the game oozes atmosphere, and the physics seem pretty good ie. most things seem to respond to being shot at.

    Bad guy AI is sometimes impressive, sometimes a bit dumb. Thankfully it doesn't allow you to 'wait round the corner whilst the enemys arrive one by one to be picked off'. The game demands you to seek out your prey, to put yourself in danger. The AI shows admirable restraint and patience, but will occasionally allow you the odd 'too-easy' kill. Ammo strategy is all important, as is use of cover. It's easy to die, so gameplay takes the form of quick dashes from cover to cover guns blazing. I found the default keys weren't very friendly for this, but no probs after i'd changed them.

    I've just come off a good few months of Oblivion, which is obviously a great game, but CoJ could teach it one or two things, namely: a) Horse riding is much better implemented here, the horse moves much more realisically plus you can shoot from horseback. b) The bow and arrow - still not in the thief class but much better than Oblivion. I played as a thief marksman so have shot a lot of digital arrows recently, but immediately you could tell this was more impressive. The right click bow bullet time is totally ace. c) To be honest, if they'd made Oblivion using CoJ's engine, combat and all, it would have been a significantly better game.

    Very gritty, very polished, a definite sale from me. Don't quite know what some people are talking about regarding loading times. Sure they take longer that most (2 mins for me), but like the reviewer said, it doesn't occur mid-level like HL2 which tbh gets on my tits more that this does.
    Edited by 2 at 19/09/06 @ 22:48

  • YourMessageHere #58 5 years ago

    The better a thing looks, the longer it takes to load, is generally what happens. this game looks very nice and loads slowly. I can cope with it. With the fairly well-VA'd monologues at the start of each level I find it easier to cope with too.

    8 minutes is ridiculous. It's your machine, trust me.

    I can't believe anyone's complaining about reload being too slow. It's way too fast! I'd rather they'd gone a touch further with the realism, cos this isn't Serious Sam, it requires a thoughtful and considered approach that someone complaining about running out of ammo clearly isn't quite getting.

    Also, it's a game with a story. You can have non-linear, or you can have a plotline. Doing both makes a serious storyline impossible.

    Does the bible actually DO anything, other than spout aphorisms? (not that that's a bad thing, this may be the first game since Alice to have a Victorian Aphorism Key)

  • TheSnotGoblin #59 5 years ago

    Quoting from the bible can occasionally cause any enemies nearby to stand dumbstruck for a moment. Giving you ample to time to line up a shot. Functionally it's not really all that useful, but by gum it's so much fun to wander through an abandoned mine shouting out prophetic omens from the Good Book shooting anyone who's stupid enough to show their face.

    This game just oozed atmosphere and I'm sorry it's over :(

  • GilesHabibula #60 5 years ago

    I absolutely loved the demo. A little linear, yes, but I got completely reeled in by the atmosphere. I loved "Outlaws". After nearly 10 years, this could be the first game that comes close to recapturing the feel of that game.

    Demo load times for me were long. XP2600+, a gig of ram, and a 7800GS.
    When I first loaded a level, it seemed like 10 minutes. But things seem longer when you're staring at the screen, waiting.
    I then timed it. On my lowly machine, it was 2 minutes, 20 seconds.
    I can easily live with that for some good western-themed fun!
    Didn't notice any bugs in my demo. I got good framerates and beautiful graphics.

  • Jman #61 5 years ago

    The game loads in about one and a half minutes on my machine, pretty much as soon as the loading dialog sound finishes infact. My specs:

    AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 4400+
    Western Digital Raptor WD740GD 10,000RPM
    G.Skill 2GB DDR HZ PC4000 (2x1GB) Dual Channel
    ATI Radeon X1900 Crossfire

    Peeps with slow load times need to realise they need a higher spec'd machine to run this game. I don't believe it's badly optimised it's just shader heavy. I run at 1920x1200 widescreen and the framerate rarely drops below 45fps. I don't run AA mind you as at 1920 there is little noticeable visual difference with AA on.

    I love the game. Involving. It's good to see a developer doing something different.
    A++

  • kangarootoo #62 5 years ago

    Dammit, I'm so peeved this isn't on 360. THis game sounds so much up my street but I haven't been a PC gamer for years and my laptop is certainly not up to the task.

    Boohoohoo.

  • TheSnotGoblin #63 5 years ago

    I believe it is getting a console release later in the year, but strangely enough they've held back the US release for PC to coinicide with the console releases. Kinda odd, but means Europe gets it a few months early on PC.

    This is second hand info from another forum though, so the veracity isn't 100% certain.

  • kangarootoo #64 5 years ago

    @TheSnotGoblin

    Its a start. I shall begin scouring t'web for more info, scoobydoo style (thats not to say I shall quiver, or indeed shake and shiver).

  • kangarootoo #65 5 years ago

    Word is that the console version was cancelled, but the publisher is now waiting to see how the PC version does before making a final decision. So get buying PC people!

  • stoopidgreg #66 5 years ago

    i bought this game yesterday at 5pm and played it until 3:30am - it's just that good. i'd have to say it's the best game i've played in a long long time, better than half life 2. from the bad reviews i've read, it seems people mostly dont like the stealth in billy's missions, but i think it's inspired genius! the first level where you have to escape town and sneak through buildings and over rooftops just had my mouth watering because it was so well thought out.

    i could go on and on about how good the shooting feels, how cool the horse riding is and all that jazz, but i'll just leave it by saying "get it". i'd definately give it a 9/10.

  • stoopidgreg #67 5 years ago

    i'd also like to add, someone said it takes 8 minutes to load a level. i don't know if he's playing on a 486 or what, because it takes me about 30 seconds at most (and only 5 if i have to re-load a section). and as for the bad framerate, i found the shadows are the biggest killer. if you set shadows to low (and the res to 2048) your framerate will be more than double what it is at medium. and don't even think about max! i have an athlon 4000, X800 and a gig of ram and i get around 20-30fps with max textures, max shaders, 1440x900 res (and low shadows of course).

    and for all you billy-haters - his levels are the genius of the game. i love the puzzle solving aspect of sneaking past guys and finding ways into big ranches. it's just like commandos but first person. and it's really not all that hard once you get the hang of it. the first billy level is the hardest, i found, because i kept running past all the boxes instead of going behind the building. i think i died 20 times trying the same strategy.

  • Skeletor #68 5 years ago

    I played through the first three episodes last night and I really loved it. Great experience, sometimes a little bit frustrating but that is because the design is quite different compared to other games. The stealth episode was challenging but in the end it felt very rewarding. The slowmotion effect in which you shoot both guns independently is a stroke of genius, imo it's definitely no exaggeration to call it a "reinvention of the slow-motion mode". I wouldn't be surprised if there are already developers trying to copy it. The two main characters are complex and interesting. The whole script/story has a nice pace and is generally very well written. Voice acting is high quality. It is interesting to note here that the devolopers are Polish. The only downside is that it requires a pretty powerfull system in order to enjoy it with a good framerate (30+). I have a AMD 3200+, 1Gig of RAM, and a GF6800LE - it's nice on mediumsettings but far from the ultrasmooth framerates of HL2Episode1. Loading times can be a little bit annoying, between 1 and 2 Minutes on my system.
    It somehow reminds me of Chronicles of Riddick - the alteration between stealth and slowpaced shooting and the fact that it could turn out to be a sleeper hit that should receive more attention from press and gamers.
    Edited by 1 at 23/09/06 @ 17:55

  • Mashum #69 5 years ago

    ...this game is testing my patience a bit :( I find the gameplay rough and frequently dissatisfying. That is just my opinion, I guess it's just not my bag.

    Kudos for the excellent music though, especially the haunting twangly guitar of the main theme. The voice work for Ray really hits the spot too.

  • Dial999 #70 5 years ago

    Yup, I've played thro the whole game and as soon as it was finished I ejected the disc never to be re-played. This game is all eye candy and no substance. The multiplayer is run and gun nonsense and not a patch on GRAW multiplayer. The AI is so poor, so crap that it takes all the shine off the graphical excellence, and there's not nearly enough variety of weapons...........ah well, you live a learn. Its a rental