Ghost Recon: Advanced Warfighter Review

By Kristan Reed Published 13 March, 2006

Happiness in magazines.

Version tested: Xbox 360

Much like Elder Scrolls: Oblivion, the absence of Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter from the 360's launch line-up was a regrettable one. As one of the undoubted stars of X05, it looked for all the world like Ubisoft had finally done enough to propel the brand into the big league for the first time, after years in the shadows of its other Tom Clancy titles. No wonder people wept at the four month delay.

But never mind about that; we'd always much rather play a 'finished' version than some rush job drop kicked out of the door just to cash in on the launch frenzy and appease shareholders. Just as we hoped all along, the chance to savour a more rounded, polished version of the third in the action strategy series seems like a much better idea - especially now people can actually walk into a shop and buy a 360 without going on a mile long waiting list.

Sticking broadly to Red Storm's excellent formula, GRAW is once again a squad-based shooter (in 'over the shoulder' third- or first-person, the choice is yours) all about 'near future' warfare and kicking the butt of some nefarious megalomaniac and a posse of foolishly loyal insurgents. Being set in 2013 in Mexico, it gives Ubi full license to throw in a few obligatory 'weapons of the future' to add to the otherwise standard load-out that accompanies each 'ghost'. In this instance Scott Mitchell and his merry band come equipped with the IWS, or Integrated War System, combining satellite comms, 'enhanced survivability', and the odd new weapon thrown in for good measure.

In plain English, the effect that all this new technology has had on the gameplay is somewhat more pronounced than previous efforts, and in the main each addition improves things in subtle ways. For a start, you now call up a tactical map at any time (back button) and issue basic move and fire commands to your units without physically having to shepherd them around the map. This comes in especially useful when you can call on the services of the AUV, a mini flying-saucer-style eye-in-the-sky recon unit that you can direct wherever you want in order to scout ahead and see who's lurking where. With visible enemy units pinpointed, you can then direct ghost units ahead in the knowledge of where the imminent threats are, and get them to target specific areas in a slick, intuitive fashion.

'Ghost Recon: Advanced Warfighter' Screenshot 1

Looks like he's seen a Ghost.

While this might sound dangerous (and sometimes it is if you leave them too exposed), you also get the occasional use of a tank or an attack chopper with which to scout ahead and cause general mayhem. Needless to say, the enemy's still more than capable of dealing with anything you throw at them, but the new options available to you lend a new dimension to the combat, and make it feel a little less like a four-man killing machine, and more of the hi-tech war effort. For the first time ever, Ghost Recon feels a much more unique game, rather than just an outdoor Rainbow Six.

In addition to the new tactical map and commands is the new 'picture-in-picture' view that's permanently displayed in the top-left of the screen, showing what your other units (tank, AUV or squad members) can see at any given point. Admittedly, it's too small to see anything in especially useful detail, but it's great to have a chance to see what's going on - good or bad - from their perspective. With these 'live' transmissions now a standard part of your equipment, you also get beamed TV news bulletins during the game itself, rather than the old-style between-level cut-scenes that used to rather wash over you.

But by far the most immediately impressive 'new' element of GRAW is the overhauled graphics engine. 2004's Xbox effort certainly saw the series take a forward step in visual fidelity, but Ubi has gone all-out this time to make it among the most attractive games ever seen on any system. Using all manner of cutting edge lighting effects (HDR, or high dynamic range, being an obvious favourite new trick) and displaying a truly stunning level of detail, depth, variety and panache, the environments in and around the hot, dusty streets of Mexico City are among the best anyone's pulled off in a game. Truly showing off the benefits of next-generation technology and the immersive qualities of high definition gaming, the vibrancy and atmosphere from creeping around the terror-strewn streets is a hugely impressive sensation. Sure, you get used to it depressingly quickly, but every now and then you'll afford yourself a moment to breathe it all in and feel glad that games finally look as good as you always hoped they would.

'Ghost Recon: Advanced Warfighter' Screenshot 2

A bit like the Ready Brek kid, only more irradiated.

Thankfully Ubi hasn't skimped in providing equally convincing character models that move with effortless precision, each blessed with wonderfully natural movement transitions and the kind of animations so incidental you probably won't even notice how good they are - although we're still not convinced it's physically possible to do a sideways roll with a sniper rifle strapped across your back.

One of the most truly impressive new innovations in the game is the way your character interacts with the scenery. In the past, games have always generally insisted that basic commands like peeking around a corner, peeking up from cover or sidling up against a wall warrant their own button, but not in GRAW. Ubi has taken a breathtakingly simple yet intuitive step towards overcoming all of this clunky nonsense by introducing a series of intelligent context-sensitive commands. For example, walking up to a wall now puts you flat against it if you continue to hold the direction for half a second, and once activated you can then automatically peek out from a corner by holding the direction required. If you happen to approach a box or a barrel while crouched, the AI assumes you want to use it as cover and allows you to do the same again: press up and you can peek out from behind.

Even better is how well the fire commands work with this new system: holding the direction peeks you out, but also holding the left trigger puts you in a slightly zoomed-in mode (optional), allowing you to loose off a few rounds with the right trigger, let go and pop back in behind cover. If your target's just a little out of range then you can also click the right stick and zoom in any scoped weapon, click again for 15x zoom, click again to get rid of the zoom entirely and still creep back behind cover. With practice it all works so seamlessly that you have to admire Ubi for refining it so successfully.

'Ghost Recon: Advanced Warfighter' Screenshot 3

Things that make you go 'boom'.

As ever, you get to move your squad to wherever you want, simply hitting up on the d-pad to choose a cover point, up again on a chosen target, and all in the knowledge that they'll generally be pretty sensible about wherever they end up. Occasionally they do have a suicidal tendency to stray into your line of fire or expose themselves to enemy bullets when they're stationed at corners, but otherwise they're exceptionally easy to manage, and provide a huge boost whenever they're around.

On the odd occasion when you're forced to tackle missions solo, you certainly notice when your squaddies go AWOL. In fact, the game's already-quite-challenging difficulty level spikes alarmingly during these solo sorties to the extent where the game temporarily stops being anywhere near as much fun.

Part of the issue here is the game's normally wise decision to restrict your health top-ups; sometimes you might get a refill at a handy ammo dispenser, but otherwise that's your lot, and when you're expected to become a one-man army, such design decisions really weigh down your progress. Combined with some unwisely placed checkpoints, you'll be reaching into your pockets to fill up the swear box as the red mist descends after the 20th retry of the same solo section. Towards the middle and towards the end of the 11-mission single-player campaign, GRAW treads a fine line between challenging and annoying, and when it oversteps the mark you're reminded of just how frustrating the series can be when it wants to.

The silly thing is that none of this annoyance is down to unfair enemy AI; if anything, the computer dishes out a fair and challenging scrap throughout. It's just that if you've been unfortunate to reach a third checkpoint of a level on red levels of health, you'll almost certainly struggle through the last bit - with a choice of either starting over or battling on, thanks to a save system that doesn't ever allow you to go back to a previous checkpoint, strangely. What's even more crazy (and downright inconsistent) is that you can revive your downed squaddies an unlimited number of times (resulting in some truly hilarious moments where you find yourself doing it ten times in a row when they get mown down the second they're revived), yet cannot top up your own health despite your obvious medical nous.

While we're in hole-picking territory, GRAW's chock full of oddities if you look hard enough. As amusing as some of them are, some of the assorted bugs and quirks really chip away at the enjoyment value now and then, giving the impression that perhaps GRAW isn't quite as wonderfully slick and polished as it first appears to be.

In the 'funny' category, you might manage to make Mitchell adopt a Jesus pose and levitate around the level for a few seconds, or benefit from scenery popping out of view to expose a hiding enemy, or wince at (very occasional) epileptic animation or the terrible spelling mistakes and grammar issues in the tutorial text, but there's worse to come. If you're unlucky, some genuinely game-breaking bugs appear, forcing restarts and much frustration when objective triggers fail to kick in, or you get shot through a stone wall, or your squad ignores orders for no good reason. As easy as it is to be sympathetic to silly little bugs, when they cripple the game you can't help but think that the game's been rushed out. You can understand why it slipped in the first place, but we're less sympathetic to Ubisoft now; not at £50.

And before we finish our little rant, how many people have expressed incredulity at GRAW's hideous night vision mode? Given that this is supposed to be 2013, and that these guys are equipped with cutting edge equipment, why is it so horribly blurred, and why can't you see the scenery very well? Not only is it now far worse and less useful that previous Ghost Recons, but next to, say, Splinter Cell it turns some of the gameplay into a frustrating almost unplayable lottery where progress is only possible by learning where each group of enemies spawn from. Less annoying but just as nonsensical is how quickly enemy corpses disappear, meaning that if you're out of ammo and want to track back and stock up, you'll find the street cleaners have got there first. Potty. Why, Ubisoft, why?

'Ghost Recon: Advanced Warfighter' Screenshot 5

Looks crate!

If this was just a single-player game, we'd have probably let these bugs and balancing issues drag the score down far more than we'd like. As impressive as GRAW undoubtedly looks on the surface, a thorough examination exposes the kind of brow-furrowing problems we expect to be kicked out of games claiming to herald a bold new era of squad-based gaming. However beautiful it looks, there's absolutely no need for inexplicable difficulty spikes, badly spaced checkpoints, stupid save-game methods, a detestable night vision mode and completely inconsistent health systems. Few games have had us beating up the sofa in quite such a concerted manner in recent months, which is a bad sign. In terms of actual enjoyment it's not even up there with Summit Strike, a game you can pick up for a quarter of the price. Placed in that context, it's hard to justify splashing out full whack for GRAW unless you're heavily into the multiplayer aspect.

The multiplayer is generally solid enough to counteract at least some if not most of the design flaws that might put you in a bad mood in the first place. Playable offline (4-playersplit screen or System Link) or over Live (for up to 16 players), you get a full complement of modes that all feel worthy of investigation, even if you're fed up to the back teeth of deathmatch, capture the flag and domination.

Needless to say, Ghost Recon sticks to the tried and trusted modes that everyone loves, and does so with a breathtaking selection of truly beautiful maps, all of which are specifically designed for the multiplayer portion of the game. Essentially split into three main categories, you can play solo, co-op or team versions of all the classics, including basic deathmatch (a.k.a. elimination/firefight), capture the flag, last man standing and domination along with several variations on a theme, including sharp shooter, thief, recovery, defend, hamburger hill and objective-based battles - all of which every shooter under the sun has tackled at various times in recent years, so there's little need to tediously run through what each of them asks of you. Suffice to say each and every one feels solid, well-designed and ought to keep the legion of online players happy for a few weeks.

'Ghost Recon: Advanced Warfighter' Screenshot 6

The HUD stuff's called Cross-Com. So, er, this must be a Cross-Com shot.

But as much fun as playing these modes is with Ghost Recon weapons and such breathtakingly vivid maps, those of us that are bored of the same old modes can take solace in the fact that the co-operative modes are well worth checking out. For a start, four all-new levels are available, allowing up to 16 players to take the battle to the AI in much the same way as the single-player campaign works. Free from the need to order your squaddies around (other than over voice comms!) you can just get on with the business of shooting various rebels, recapturing buildings and destroying key pieces of equipment as you go.

In truth, though, they don't really feel anything like the single-player levels, and come across as extended deathmatch battles against fairly aggressive, dim-witted enemies that charge at you, fail to find decent cover and appear to be little more than cannon fodder. Sure, the bots flank you, and attack you in far greater numbers, but compared to the single-player AI it's very forgiving indeed.

Following on from that, the bots' AI in any of the other modes is similarly disappointing, and veterans will find them irritating more than anything. Also disappointing are the night maps, largely thanks to the dreadful night vision goggles rather than the actual design (which is pretty solid throughout, and uniformly look amazing), but the craziest decision of all is to not allow players to play the main single-player campaign in online co-op mode. Given this used to be a fairly standard feature in previous games, it's an odd oversight to say the least, and not one that's been made any better by the four co-op missions that make it into the package.

'Ghost Recon: Advanced Warfighter' Screenshot 7

Missed.

Odder still is why the control systems between the offline and online are completely different. Having been exceptionally pleased with the new intelligent system, not being able to take proper cover during online matches feels daft. We realise that two entirely different teams worked on both portions of the game, but the difference are really quite pronounced, and in some respects jarring. The lack of left-hand/southpaw support is another odd omission, and one that has enraged a significant proportion of would-be players already.

By now you'll be more than aware that by the time we'd finished with GRAW, our previous unflinching goodwill had been well and truly gnawed away at. It's true that for the most part, GRAW's single-player campaign really does hit the mark, with some occasional on-rails set pieces mixing well with the tense, slow-paced precision of the strategic missions that pepper the 12-hour campaign. If it weren't for the bugs, the topsy-turvy difficulty spikes, inconsistent checkpoints, and ropey night vision we'd have no hesitation singing its praises all day long. The multiplayer does dig it out of a hole to a certain extent, but even then some of the design decisions are questionable and don't fully live up to the massive potential on offer. GRAW is one of those games that occasionally hits stellar heights, and when it does it feels like the perfect game for those who have a penchant for slower, challenging and more strategic shooters. But the truth is GRAW lets you down just when you start to believe in it, and the net result is that although it's still very good, it's simply not as polished or amazing as it should have been.

7 / 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 (274) Latest comment 6 years ago

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

  • Helios #1 6 years ago

    Looks good. I'll be buying this as soon as I have the money. I'm also quite looking forward to the Live section of the game, since I got my 360 i've been playing a lot more on live than I have been previously.

    By the way, FIRST to post something related to the game! (and apparantly, now first post overall... there were two posts before this. Honest.)
    Edited by 2 at 10/03/06 @ 18:45

  • greenfeld69 #2 6 years ago

    This is a great game, got it yesterday from the excellent Gameplay and am really enjoying it. It's challenging, fun and looks stunning. Worth a look. Haven't tried Live yet but will.

  • Teeth #3 6 years ago

    _neon, I'd say it looks excellent, and by most accounts is great fun too. Not a game for me though, and sounds like it's not one for you either!

  • Mephistopheles #4 6 years ago

    It's the best looking game ever made, easily.

  • yegon #5 6 years ago

    Great game from what I've played so far in sp. I'm surprised as I was no fan of previous GR's tbh.
    Edited by 2 at 10/03/06 @ 18:56

  • Furbs #6 6 years ago

    neon that is the lamest troll attempt I've ever seen. Lets hope you're banned again soon eh?

  • yegon #7 6 years ago

    Yeah, you're right rauper, I apologise profusely and will delete it.

    /is not a troublemaker.

  • tiddles #8 6 years ago

    Maybe my mind has been spoilt by Half Life 2

    Or botched back-street brain surgery?

  • Teeth #9 6 years ago

    Have you seen it moving _neon? It really does look incredible, you know.... I wasn't convinced myself until I saw a video of it a couple of weeks ago. Just amazing. HL2 hasn't got anything on this game.
    Edited by 1 at 10/03/06 @ 18:59

  • BartonFink #10 6 years ago

    Of course you were trolling _neon

    Have you seen the game in action?

  • Teeth #11 6 years ago

    Ah, OK. Try getting hold of the gamespot video review for some good footage of it moving, or maybe try eurogamer TV? Seriously, before you say it looks average you should see it going.

  • greenfeld69 #12 6 years ago

    I agree with neon regarding the pics on here, it does the game no justice. Eurogamer, can you give us hi-res pics? It looks great in action though!

  • rauper Verified Managing Director, Eurogamer Network #13 6 years ago

    We're gonna start doing higher res shots... but in the meantime there are *loads* of GRAW trailers on Eurogamer TV - check them out.

  • roselan #14 6 years ago

    the game box is just here. Waiting for my "clan" to come here so we play/watch it together.

    ...

    still waiting. I excpet this game from so much years now! (I still prefer GR1 to BF2). I know I will prefer the pc version, but at least I will know the maps for pc multiplayer when it comes ^_^

    I will surely post comments about the game tomorrow, and about the multiplayer during the week.

    ok now I call them again to move their ass off ARGHHHH!

  • J_C_X #15 6 years ago

    @_neon

    Trust me I have a kind of powerful PC. Meaning I can Half-life 2 at highest specs and I own a 360 and a HDTV. Trust me the graphics on GRAW a by far better. It has to be seen to believed in HD.

  • djchump #16 6 years ago

    When's the PC version out then? :-P

  • Helios #17 6 years ago

    Apparantly, there is no 'southpaw' control setting in this :|

  • Nige #18 6 years ago

    This is not the sort of game I usually buy - but being a bit of a graphics tart I decided to go for it. I don't regret it for a minute.

    I managed to get about an hour in on campaign mode earlier, and it really grows on you, fast. The tutorial is pretty good at getting you familiar with the interface, and very quickly you become effective at issuing orders, changing weapons and postures without thinking about it too much.

    And a fantastic sentiment in the review - it is depressing how quickly the graphics become 'matter-of-fact'. The depth of the experience and richness of the environments are MUCH more of a decider. It's a shame for all the other titles about to hit 360, because, in terms of technology alone, I suspect the benchmark has just been raised beyond their reach.

    HIGHLY recommended.

  • DDevil #19 6 years ago

    Ooooh it looks lurvely.

    Still not buying a 360 though :-P

  • greenfeld69 #20 6 years ago

    "Apparantly, there is no 'southpaw' control setting in this :| "

    You seem to be right, not that it affects me, but it seems neither can you change the sensitivity of the sticks!?

  • captain-future #21 6 years ago

    oooh my god? will they give it a 9 / 10 just because it's a "perfect 10 game" on the WRONG console (read: not from Sony).

  • ytzulu #22 6 years ago

    whres the score? itll prob get 7 or 8 eh?

    oh just read the bit afterwards...
    Edited by 1 at 10/03/06 @ 20:08

  • tiddles #23 6 years ago

    oooh my god? will they give it a 9 / 10 just because it's a "perfect 10 game" on the WRONG console (read: not from Sony).

    If they gave it 10 would you criticise them for not inventing a score of 11 (because only Sony games could get that)?

  • matrim83 #24 6 years ago

    Note to Bored_gamer. I thought jests were supposed to be clever or funny.

  • GuiltySpark #25 6 years ago

    _neon...

    Just put some reasoning behind your post..

    Because you were probably being honest but it just sounded like a "omgzzzz dis g@me iz lamezors" post

  • phAge #26 6 years ago

    Note to Bored_gamer. I thought jests were supposed to be clever or funny.

    Bored_Lamer is a bona-fide fucktard. I put him on ignore a week ago, and I give the experience a 9/10 - highly recommended.

    \o/

  • Furbs #27 6 years ago

    Bored_Gamer, are you sure you dont fancy me? Because every other post from you this week seems to be a barbed comment towards or about me. It, like you, are getting slightly tiresome now.

  • Teeth #28 6 years ago

    Play nicely.

  • Mr.Small #29 6 years ago

    For example, walking up to a wall now puts you flat against it if you continue to hold the direction for half a second, and once activated you can then automatically peek out from a corner by holding the direction required.

    Hang on, that's not such an innovative control method. I seem to remember I could do that ages ago in Tenchu.

    Anyway, GR:AW does look nice but to my mind, looking at the available videos, it all looks a bit fiddly e.g. lots of distracting bits on the HUD. But then again, I am a simpleton. If only they kept the graphics but got rid of the future war/hi-tech weapons scenario and filled the environment up with zombies. I think I'll wait till Resident Evil 5. By the way, did I mention that I'm a simpleton?

  • Furbs #30 6 years ago

    neon, play HL2 @ 640x480 and compare the two then, if you dont want to look at using HDTV.

  • stoopidgreg #31 6 years ago

    GRAW got a 9.2 on gamespot. the video review is pretty good. i actually downloaded the HD version which was a staggering 320mb (and only lasted about 5 minutes or so).

  • heyyo #32 6 years ago

    In GAME they have an X360 on a stand connected to to a small to medium size HDTV. I can only guess this is the ideal size HDTV to show off next gen. Anybigger and the pixels will be seen, any smaller and detail is lost.

    You're wrong, the TVs in GAME or any xbox360 stand are not HD they are only 23" and on the samsung website it states that only its panels 26" and over is HD, go to display options and you will see they arent HD also notice the HD ready logo lacking on the top right corner unlike other samusung TVs

    I have the same samsung TV in 32" with the HD logo in place and the pixels are not visable, in fact the pixels can never be seen as the HD is set to particular resolutions eg 1280x720 so as long as 720p is enable it will look exactly the same on any TV
    Edited by 2 at 21/09/09 @ 14:00

  • Teeth #33 6 years ago

    Off topic, but did you see their 24: the game video review? I laughed.

  • stoopidgreg #34 6 years ago

    yeah i did - it was cause for great amusement to me - especially since right now i'm in the middle of watching the first season =)

  • tengu #35 6 years ago

    I was seconds away from buying this this evening. I don't know why. Usually I can't stand Tom Clancy Splinter Ghost Rainbow bollox, but I saw this in Tesco and took it to the counter, only to find they had no stock left. God is telling me to stay the path it seems, no matter how nice the game looks or how desperate I am for something to play on my 360. I'll see how I feel when they have more in stock. Does look tasty though.

    Oh, and the 1er in the reader scores? Get a grip fella.

  • Beano #36 6 years ago

    Another half-review from EG... why ?

  • Teeth #37 6 years ago

    Why? They haven't had time to finish the full review but they thought they'd be kind enough to furnish us with their thoughts on the single player portion of the game in time to make an EG-informed decision on whether or not to buy the game? Yeah, that'd be it :)

  • Kingsadist #38 6 years ago

    I have a huge, huge phobia of classic PC-games/series being converted and annexed by console-gameplay, but this seems like the first title thats gotten me half-interested again after debacles like the last GR and R6 games.

    Still, beter wait for the PC-version 'cause I'm a bleeding supremacist.
    Sue me, I dare you.

  • Beano #39 6 years ago

    "Why? They haven't had time to finish the full review..."

    Well, yearh.. that's pretty obvious. But why not wait two days and post the entire review instead... my two cents :)

  • Mashum #40 6 years ago

    It looks great so I couldn't be more sickened by the fact it doesn't include left handed controls - christ it's right there as a global setting in the 360 front end for any developer not fuckwitted enough totally ignore it.

    Sorry to rant and I know it's inconsequential for 85%+ of the population but try using that mouse with your left hand for ten minutes for a lesson in needless difficulty and frustraition.

    It would be nice if game reviews mentioned this kind of thing, it's useful consumer info. I found out by checking the ubi forums where incidently one of the developement team makes a noncomittal vague hint it might get patched.

    ...I have to go and lie down now, maybe have a bit of a cry...
    Edited by 2 at 10/03/06 @ 22:59

  • bauhaus #41 6 years ago

    I`m running this on 32" sony @1080i and it looks lovely

    Better, i suspect, than HL2 on 19" TFT with everything turned up high

    Still, only had 360 for 4 days and still realing from the quality of the HD GFX, actually makes the stupid price for the TV seem worthwhile

    best game on 360 so far, i imagine once comfortable with it GRAW will be a right hoot on live

  • #42 6 years ago

    At this point in the life of GRAW, I'm probably one of the few people to have played the multiplayer component quite extensively (over two full nights at any rate).

    As always, balance is the key, and neither team has advantage over the other because of spawn points. The multiplayer maps are superb looking on the whole, with some that will make your jaw hit the floor. There is a minor frame rate hit on the prettier maps, but if you criticise it for that, you really are a nerd.

    It's wonderful the way you can run then click in the left thumbstick to hit the dirt on your belly, while zooming in with your rifle. Very nice. Changing from rifles to grenades takes much too long. You have to change (4 seconds), then you have to charge your gren (another 4 secs) by which time you are dead. Silly.

    I played tonight with some of the old school GR2 folk, you know, Whizzo, Peej, Bravogolf and they all sang the games praises.

    Apart from some alarming dropping by some folks caused by god knows what, the multiplayer aspect is as polished as the single player.

    If you have the means, get it in and join us online, if not, stfu until you are able to try it for yourself. Really, judging a game on three low res still screen grabs is a bit bloody pedantic to say the least, and fooking daft at most.

    You don't want it? The rest of us are happy to enjoy one of the best (looking and playing) multiplayer games to hit live. See ya on there, if only through the scope of my SA80........

  • thegamesthething #43 6 years ago

    Yup ditto, I've just been lucky enough to play on Whizzos game for an evening (thanks mate) - utterly stunning. Never really been into these sort of shooters before but superlatives fail me, regards both the gameplay and the graphics.

  • Stickman #44 6 years ago

    Come on, own up. Which fucking idiot voted '1' on the score chart?

    Seriously, what's the point of doing that?

  • Xerx3s #45 6 years ago

    Interesting to see that someone voted this a 1. Did this person actually play this game? This isnt exactly my cup of tea (i liked the previous version, but not enough to pay full price, so i will most likely get this when it goes down in price), but its definitly not a 1.0. :\

    "Bored_Lamer is a bona-fide fucktard. I put him on ignore a week ago, and I give the experience a 9/10 - highly recommended.

    \o/"

    Does this experience work well with Cow 2k6? I might give it a go if it does...

    edit: Curses! Stickman beat me to it! /shakes fist @ stickman...
    Edited by 1 at 11/03/06 @ 00:17

  • thegamesthething #46 6 years ago

    Dont worry about the '1'. There are @ 20 semi-professional trolls round here (some of them reviewers:) ) and even if they all give it a 1, it wont affect what fantastic game it is.

  • Whizzo #47 6 years ago

    Tonight was awesome; fantastic game and a great bunch of people.

    I waited until this was close to release before I commited to a 360 and I'm very happy with my decision.

    However one bad thing, I now realise I will be getting an HD tv rather sooner that I had expected, it looks fantastic now and it looking even better?

    /has to remain seated for some reason. ;-)

  • gazareth #48 6 years ago

    I've played about 5-6 hours of multiplayer today, and I have to say that this game is fucking stunning.

    I found PGR3 and DOA4 to be great fun, but this really feels the first 360 game I've played that has real depth to it.

    If Ubisoft release some downloadable co-op campaigns (and the game kinda implies that there's more co-op stuff that's not yet in the retail game) then it'll be great.

  • jack_klugman #49 6 years ago

    I'll be interested to see it compared with Battlefield 360.

  • Kiigan #50 6 years ago

    It's bugged to fuck. I've had some fun with it - am about 80% through the single player campaign and have enjoyed a few hours online - but it is really quite broken in many ways. One of the worst glitches made a level incompletable, I had to restart the level losing lots of progress etc. There are many others - such as the one where my team-mate shrunk and I could only see him by using my sniper-scope :)

    As a fan of the previous Ghost Recon games, it's disappointingly unfinished. The controls are a little scrappy and unrefined too, and the multiplayer (though solid enough) is nearly a step back in time to the first Ghost Recon game on Xbox Live - it is so different from the single player, having been done by a different team.

    Pick it up if you are gagging for something new on Xbox Live, but maybe wait and see if Ubisioft intend patching some of the gaping holes.

  • patlike #51 6 years ago

    Chaps, just so you're aware, there are seven movies of GRAW on Eurogamer TV, if you're looking to see the game in action. They're all linked at the side of the game-page, <a href="http:/ /www.eurogamer.net/game.php?game_id=4645">here&l t;/A>.

  • Carlo #52 6 years ago

    Regarding who gave this a '1'. Rauper *can* name and shame the score givers...

    We covered this great aspect of the reviewers scores when they introduced them as a great way of preventing EG regulars from becomming 'anonamous tards'...

    If it's not a 'regular' EG'er, I doubt EG will 'anounce' who made what score. It's pretty obvious however that this is not representitive.

  • tiddles #53 6 years ago

    @ LiDilettante - calm down dear, it's only a game

  • Kiigan #54 6 years ago

    Well, I gave it the 4, because of the bugs. If it gets patched promptly, I'd call it a 7.

  • bauhaus #55 6 years ago

    Anyone playing this in First Person, or are you sticking to over the shoulder?

  • Mashum #56 6 years ago

    I gave it a 1 because it doesn't pick up on my global controller settings from the dashboard making it for me a pointlessly frustrating game - so an honest 1 from me. It has nothing to do with your fanbois and sony bias paranoia.

    Why does it upset you so much?

  • Stickman #57 6 years ago

    Because you rated the game a 1 just because you can't make your 360 work properly? ;)

    If that's what you honestly think, then it doesn't upset me at all, there's just a plethora of trolls about that make you suspicious...

    ...they're watching us right now...
    Edited by 1 at 13/03/06 @ 10:18

  • Rambaldi #58 6 years ago

    Lame lame lame lame lame lame lame...lame

    What kind of 'review' is this? Just leave it tell Monday for feks sake. Sheesh..I know episodal games are in the pipeline but leave the reviews out guys!!!

    EDIT: missed out lame
    Edited by 2 at 11/03/06 @ 12:34

  • Teeth #59 6 years ago

    LOL

    Just find anything, but make a complaint! Complain more!

    Now it's "I don't actually want reviews! Fuck off!".

    Think about it, and you'll find you need to re-identify where the lameness lies. Lamer.

  • Elysium #60 6 years ago

    Bought the game on Friday and took it back Saturday morning .. There simply is no way that this game deserves the 'rave' reviews it's been getting.

    For one, the downgraded graphics in multi-play just make you wonder what your doing with it on the 360. They are terrible .. and certainly not "next-generation". It's little wonder why most of the reviews fail to make this clear, obviously they wish to bump sales up and kudos with Microsoft.

    The other aspect is that the game developers had no interest in making this PAL-50 friendly. I happily play PGR3 & PDZ in PAl-50 mode because of the higher-resolution, coupled with my Pixel Plus TV I get a great picture that is comparable to high-def on a standard screen; but lose advantage of these features when I turn games into PAL-60 mode.. Anyway, PAL-50 results in 'jerk ... jerk .. jerk' motion throughout..

    If your interested soley in Single-Player mode.. then your fine; but if you are basing your purchase primarily on m/play then you really should be careful!

    I'm pleased I got my money back... and would rate it at 7/10 .. if that!

  • Mr_Brown #61 6 years ago

    Meh, personally I think this game is outstanding. Easily the best game on the Xbox 360 and I never really got into GR2 ether. I'd recommend this to anyone. Best game I brought this year so far.

  • Mashum #62 6 years ago

    @stickman

    > Because you rated the game a 1 just because you can't make your 360 work properly.

    Not really - it's because the game doesn't pick up the southpaw config set up in the 360 blades and there is no option to setup something similar in game.

  • Genji #63 6 years ago

    Who rated the game a 1?

    ...who cares?

    No, really, who cares?

    And I sorta agree with Rambaldi. There's no real reason why you can't hold off a review until you've finished testing the multiplayer angle.

  • Furbs #64 6 years ago

    Mashum, do you have a gameboy, DS or PSP? If so, I hope you consider them to be shit due to the lack of southpaw option.

    I'm a left hander, I've never played this sort of game with a pad and so I'm arguably disadvantaged. Suck it up and learn to use the control options you do have.

  • Nige #65 6 years ago

    >There simply is no way that this game deserves the 'rave' reviews it's been getting.

    This could be a matter of opinion of course.... and mine is that it's entirely worthy of said reviews.
    Edited by 1 at 11/03/06 @ 13:23

  • Furbs #66 6 years ago

    Mashum, do you have a gameboy, DS or PSP? If so, I hope you consider them to be shit due to the lack of southpaw option.

    I'm a left hander, I've never played this sort of game with a pad and so I'm arguably just as disadvantaged. Suck it up and learn to use the control options you do have.

    And WTF is the bitching about the review going up? They did it as a favour to the readers who had asked to see a review. They didnt have too, but one of the great things about Eurogamer is they generally try to do what their readers want. Hey, if you wanted to read them both at the same time, DONT READ IT TODAY! Its not rocket science. Ubi sent review code out late (try and find another review other than IGN, Gamespot and TeamXbox) so it was always going to be hard to get a review out for launch. The consequence was krudster didnt have time to try out the multiplayer aspect (which is arguably a significantly different part of the game anyway, so a split review is justified - its hardly unheard of - see Halo 2).

    If they hadnt put a review up, there'd be just as many people bitching about where it was.

    Bloody hell, the whinging in this place is starting to rival that which you get on the official forums.
    Edited by 1 at 11/03/06 @ 13:56

  • Genji #67 6 years ago

    @furbs

    I think you need to calm down, man. Really. Put people on ignore if it makes you that angry.

    EG are no strangers to making people wait for reviews. Remember the wait for the Conker review?
    Edited by 1 at 11/03/06 @ 13:38

  • Furbs #68 6 years ago

    Yeah and I remember all the constant whining too. So whats your point? :)

  • Genji #69 6 years ago

    That EG would only have to put up with a couple of days of whining by posting this on Monday. Given the weeks that they endured for Conker, you'd think that a couple of days would be nothing at all :-)

    I really, really don't care what they do, mind. I think some people on these boards take arguments far, far too seriously.

  • Furbs #70 6 years ago

    But there should be no complaining. If people dont want to read it in two parts, if it means that much to them, why cant they hold off reading till Monday? Even the front page link says its clearly only a single player review.

    I think its maybe that the lack of a number at the bottom of the review and its caused much mental anxiety.

  • Halo.Jones #71 6 years ago

    With some of the comments by people regarding the graphics.

    Ubi have cheated. Take a look at the reflections in the windows, they are not reflections, on the very first level it's an image of a street with a yellow crossing! On later levels, you get to see trees in the windows!!

    I've seen textures get replaced by moire patterns! not sure what's going on there but it looks horrible.

    I've had issues where I've had no animation of running, I've just slid across the ground, other issues are seeing snipers being shot 50ft in to the air after being shot!! I've also seen floating rocks which is strange in deed!

    It's a good game, but it isn't great.

  • djchump #72 6 years ago

    lol - quite an interesting split of opinions. Seems to be 2 parties:

    1) Fanboys - "Game is awesome! Graphics r teh r0xx0rz!"
    2) Non-fans - "Game is okay/average, but it's hampered by a fair few bugs"

    From the sounds of it though it'll get better as they patch it - certainly the online play.

    Oh, and cmon Stickman, everyone's entitled to their opinion - if someone thinks it's a 1 then that's their opinion innit - no need to go round calling them a "fucking idiot" cos they don't agree with you.

  • oldfruit #73 6 years ago

    I'm not altogether convinced by the graphics. There is a 'soft focus' effect that reminds me of mercenaries and is something that, for me, ruins the immersion as it is not natural. Texture work is low detail in many areas. Both of these things work against the HD factor. Windows do not appear to have true reflective properties as the scene in the reflection is not what is opposite the windows? Having said that, I am enjoying the game immensely, just not wowed as many have been by the graphics.

  • Qbert2k #74 6 years ago

    "oooh my god? will they give it a 9 / 10 just because it's a "perfect 10 game" on the WRONG console (read: not from Sony)."

    You MS fanboys crack me up.

  • Furbs #75 6 years ago

    Yeah, the reflections ruin it. Anyone noticed how theres no rubbish in the streets either? And theres no blood. Lame.

  • Mashum #76 6 years ago

    @furbs

    >Mashum, do you have a gameboy, DS or PSP? If so, I hope you consider them to be shit due
    >to the lack of southpaw option.

    The PSP has an analogue nub on the left (I don't own a PSP), you can use the DS stylus with the left hand, the Gameboy has the D pad on the left hand side as does the DS - why would I consider them to be shit?

    It's the precise aiming in FPS games that requires I use my left hand/thumb, not to mention many years of Doom, Quake, Goldeneye, Halo that have hardwired my nervous system.

    As for...

    >Suck it up and learn to use the control options you do have.

    I have but it's just not good enough. I love playing too much to compromise in that respect.

    Edit: ..and I had nothing bad to say about the reviews here - as alway they are the best on the web.
    Edited by 3 at 11/03/06 @ 17:56

  • Darren #77 6 years ago

    GR:AW is a good game overall but it's inconsistent. The single player missions are great, you get a real feel for being in a war-torn city and being able to control and order your teammates and vehicles adds a pleasing tactical edge to the game... but...

    ... the A.I. is dreadful, your teammates often ignore orders and go on suicidal runs and because the game allows you and them to walk through each other (Ghost-like I supppose!) not only do they sometimes stand in your way but they occasionally stand on the same spot you occupy!!! Next-gen A.I. this ain't!!! LOL

    Also the graphics are superb but the more you play the more you notice the cracks... the stodgy framerate, pop up on objects when looking round corners, the shockingly lo-res reflections in the windows that don't show the surroundings, the lack of bump-mapping, the lo-res environment textures, the jaggy-looking shadows and worse of all, the absolutely horrible tearing. Also the game is zoomed in and the part of the HUD disappears offscren when using component video 720p on HDTVs but looks fine with VGA.

    As I said a great game that ironically could have have done with several more months development time in my opinion.

  • Rambaldi #78 6 years ago

    Have to admit that I wasn't blown away by the textures. Gameplay sure as hell beats PD0 though.

    Roll on Halo3 ;)

  • Teeth #79 6 years ago

    "Anyone noticed how theres no rubbish in the streets either? And theres no blood."

    Or civilians, as Gamespot pointed out. Doesn't necessarily make it a bad game!

  • captain-future #80 6 years ago

    @Qbert2k: have a good laugh ;)

    I'm just a little pissed by recent X360 scores from Eurogamer.

  • Furbs #81 6 years ago

    I wondered if I'd need to use a smiley to convey my sarcasm. I had hoped that people would realise. Sadly not.

    Seriously, for people who are finding that things like reflections or other minor such things are making them enjoy it less, give up gaming. Even 3-4 generations down the road, we're not going to have photorealism. As games get more complex, theres arguably going to be more things that people can point out as being not quite right. If they got the reflections right, people would say "the insides of the cars arent right, theres no speedo", or that the ammo casings from your M60 disappear after a while.

    Cant people just enjoy a game for the experience now? Sure, GRAW isnt perfect (in fact I'd 100% agree on the AI, I usually just want to leave them somewhere safe), but its the most realisitic representation of a city we've seen to date, and the atmosphere is spot on.

    /looks at his half full glass.

  • Rambaldi #82 6 years ago

    /and glances over at Rambaldi's grinning, beer filled chops ;p

  • MikeD #83 6 years ago

    I wanted to go swimming but I left my speedo in the car.

  • Teeth #84 6 years ago

    Hey MikeD, I think morriss was asking after you in the forum the other day.

  • weaselrat #85 6 years ago

    I bought this game yesterday and despite some very minor flaws, overall it rocks and the whole package put together really does deliver something new.
    I actually look forward to getting home to have another go.
    MENTAL through dolby surround.

    There's a surprise furbs talking bo***ocks.
    Edited by 1 at 11/03/06 @ 20:02

  • shot_to_the_gun #86 6 years ago

    weaselrat can't spell weaselrat can't spell!

    anyway getting it this monday (a pesky exam got in the way) and if the biggest graphical flaws are non reflected reflections, its gotta look good...

  • morriss #87 6 years ago

    I was.

    Hi Mike.

  • MikeD #88 6 years ago

    Hello Morriss.

    I am still taking a break from all forum/mmorpg/other addictive internet activities until I finish my educational work. If you want to get in touch with me Unclelou, Kalel and several others on the forum have my email/msn info.

    Nice to be remembered. :-)

  • morriss #89 6 years ago

    Cheers mate. Will do.

  • Halo.Jones #90 6 years ago

    Completed the single player game on normal difficulty, took 9 hours. Not worth £50 if you are only interested in the single player mode of this game.
    Edited by 1 at 11/03/06 @ 21:39

  • L0cky #91 6 years ago

    'There is a 'soft focus' effect that [...] ruins the immersion as it is not natural.'

    aka bloom, which is pretty much a staple part of current gen graphics, along with plastic stylee normal maps and low resolution pixel shader shadows. They don't look that realistic but they're better than what we had before and will look a lot better with more horsepower/optimisation in the future.

    'Cheers mate. Will do.'

    Get a room :p

  • eEZER #92 6 years ago

    Graphics suck alright:
    http ://img227.imageshack.us/img227/7673/28at.jpg
    The LCD on my Texas Instruments TI-2500 looks better. I ain't kitten.

    miaow!

  • weaselrat #93 6 years ago

    sad, sad , sad. are we all going back to being at school???????? the graphics are more than good enough to build the atmosphere. The new touches help too and this is a very good multiplayer too.
    neh nicky neh neh my graphics are better then yours!!!!!!!!!!! life and get a spring to mind. This is better then anything on the current gen!!!!

  • SwedBear #94 6 years ago

    Really loving this game. The gfx is amazing IMHO and while I'm sure you can find flaws in it if your eally look there's nothing that IMHO detracts from immersing you into the setting. This is what next-gen is about. Playing it on a 32" HDTV thorugh component and are not having any issues with tearing or the HUD.

    AI is a bit stupid but I've learned to take it a bit easy with them and think it works pretty well now.

    Multiplayer is damn fun. I've only played team Elimination yet but while the gfx is a bit toned down I still think they look damn good. One map is in the night while it is raining and it really looks great. Nothing current-gen about those graphics.

    The games also have been fun. In some matches there's been a lot of team-work which is cool. The inclusion of the drone is great. I've only been dropped from a few games and the other games have been virtually lagfree for me.

    Minor flaws aside, this game really is excellent and easily is a 9/10 so far from me.

  • kangarootoo #95 6 years ago

    On the left handed thing.

    Some of you will know this is a real bugbear of mine. Even though I'm not left handed myself.

    If Mashum finds that no southpaw support makes the game frustrating to play, then his score of 1 is appropriate. I can't believe that devs still don't think its an important option is an FPS. Its trivial to add if its accounted for early. To not support the setting in the XB360 dash is surely a submission failure that got overlooked? I thought all that sort of thing would be required. Maybe they will patch it later ;) (of course they won't, hence the ;) )

    Furbs, comparisons to non-FPS games on portable platforms is hardly a realistic one to make, and being left handed yourself changes nothing. Any designer that says "well I don't find it too hard, so I'm not changing it" when told something is too hard by their players need a slap (I know you aren't a designer, and posting on here is not "work" anyway, so I'm not saying you need a slap personally).

    Mashum's point about right handers using the mouse in their left hand is valid, most right handed FPS players would be fucked trying this. They wouldn't "learn to use the available controls" as you suggest, they would simply put down the game and never go back. Why should left handers be expected to act otherwise? They paid to be entertained, not to retrain their bodily instincts.

    And thats the bottom line really. The gamer is the customer, they PAID for the game and the fun it brings. If the game fails in such a basic way that all their func is consequently ruined, they are quite justified in saying "for me personally, in the context of my own life, this game that I paid money for sucks, and this is why". Which is exactly what Mashum said.

    EG, if you are still reading, how abouts a little stats section for each review that covers the following (as questions always seem pop up on these pages time and time again).

    Left handed suport
    Widescreen support (for older gen)
    HDTV options
    Surround sound options
    Co-op support in multiplayer (if present)

    Then people wouldn't have to ask basic functionality questions on here, they could get their info from the reivew, which is surely part of its purpose in life :)
    Edited by 2 at 12/03/06 @ 07:49

  • banjo21 #96 6 years ago

    Agree on the lack of Southpaw being a shocker. I simply can't play with right-handed controls. Why any developer/publisher wishes to exlude 1/7 of its market for the sake of what must be a simple common piece of code to enable the 'sticks' to be swapped is mind-boggling.

    Absolutely bloomin annoying - probably the best game on the 360 and I'm simply excluded along with millions of other potential sales!

    PS. Even more amazing is that Southpaw support is in the good old Xbox version.
    Edited by 1 at 12/03/06 @ 08:05

  • Dizzy #97 6 years ago

    "Windows do not appear to have true reflective properties as the scene in the reflection is not what is opposite the windows? "

    ROFL? Are you playing a raytracing game? Ha... I get it... you want to shoot people by looking into reflections.... like a real gun ace!

    Seriously...

    GRAW is pretty awesome in many ways. In a couple of years we will look back at this and probably say it is "ok" like most games. The 360 will get better shooters but right now nothing can beat GRAW on a console. It doesn't do anything really new but it does take Ghost Recon the a new level. The in-camera view of teammates and/or support units is cool and quite useful in multiplayer. The no-loading solution is great as well :) The city look awesome (but where are the people? :) and really feels like a warzone. Should you get a 360 for this if you liek slow tactical shooters? YES!

    The online games are also incredibly fun as well with almost no lag for me most of the time.

    My only real complaint is the matchmaking. After the uber Halo 2 matchmaking I was hoping every XBox game would implement something like this. The matchmaking (especially ranked) in GRAW is stuck in the PC world and is vastly inferior to Halo 2. Unbalanced games, games that have already started, empty games... etc.... The player created secton is fine... the Ranked games matchmaking should get an upgrade in the future. Also some stats would be fun :)

    I haven't tried the co-op campaign yet. Plenty of game there to play. Will keep me busy for many months. I am sure GRAW will be number one Live game for a while now. Just like RB6 stayed on top of the charts for quite some time.
    Edited by 1 at 12/03/06 @ 09:02

  • Kiigan #98 6 years ago

    lavalant said:

    "I am sceptical of those who rate this game 1 or 4 of even ever have played this game."

    Be sceptical all you like - I rated it a 4, and I finished the game in about 6.5 hours, and am now working my way through on hard mode. You can check my Xbox Live profile if you want - you'll see the achievements. Any other clever comments?

  • Mashum #99 6 years ago

    ..thanks roo.

  • djchump #100 6 years ago

    @lavalant:
    Dude, get over yourself - Kiigan is completely entitled to his own opinion. Everyone in the world doesn't have to agree with you.

    @Mashum & Kangarootoo:
    Spot on fellas - games producers/designers should really do their best to take into account left-handedness and also red/green colour-blindness, as they're both pretty widespread and can drastically affect enjoyment of a game.

  • Furbs #101 6 years ago

    Rating it a 1 because of the control system is not valid at all. You arent rating the game, you are rating the control method. Its taking one aspect of it that you dont like and ignoring all other factors.

    I dont like cartoony graphics, does that mean its valid to rate any Nintendo game a 1? Of course not, its ridiculous. By its very nature, if you cant get to grips with a control system, you cant play the game properly, so you arent in a position to rate it at all. Rating it a one is just bitterness, and no indication of a games overall quality. Not that I really care, the only people who generally rate a game 1 or 10 are rabid fanboys anyway. Sure this isnt the case here, but in doing so all you're doing is making a childish point imo. Can I just ask, have you set your mouse up in windows with the buttons reversed? Do you have a left handed phone (ie with the handset on the right), does your numeric keypad sit on the left of your keyboard? Its a sad fact, but all left handers have to learn to fit in with societies norms every day of their life. Granted, its a big oversight on Ubisofts part (which they are looking to address it seems), but thats just the way things are. If you dont like it, dont buy the game, but as I say, completely ignoring the things it does right is no worse than a Sony gamer slating an Xbox exclusive simply because its on a format they cant play.

    Until I got my 360, I had never properly used a pad for an FPS. Again, does that mean games like Halo, HL2, Doom 3 etc on the Xbox1 should all be rated a 1? No, I decided I'd sit down, get over the conditioning I've had of 8 years of k+m gaming and get to grips with it. Sure, I appreciate its frustrating having to use your "weak" thumb to do the accurate bit, but thats where learning comes in to it. Moaning about it and dismising something out of hand as a result of it is the same my mum saying "I not going to use the PC because I that mouse is unusable".
    Edited by 1 at 12/03/06 @ 13:51

  • brainbird #102 6 years ago

    I won't say it's okay to rate a good game poorly because of broken controls for some percentage of the population... but as long as we southpaw-players are neglected, it's okay to raise your voice! Southpaws unite!

    Ubisoft just won't learn. I guess there will be some update soon, eh?

  • Mashum #103 6 years ago

    Hello again - sorry to pick out one point in your post but..

    > if you cant get to grips with a control system, you cant play the game properly,
    > so you arent in a position to rate it at all.

    I apologise for going on and on about it but... I buy and play games so I am in a perfect position to rate them. This game rates a 1 on Mashum's Bigass Scale 'O Fun.. and fun is what games are for right? The control layout is as much a part of the game as level design, music or AI - more so as it's the portal though which the whole game is expeienced.

    FPS southpaw controls are well established since Goldeneye, maybe before - there is even a setting on the 360 front end for it! Regarding the phone, numpad and mouse - I type with both hands so no problems with the first two, the mouse is fine in the left hand.

    You are right about my bitterness - companies should respect their punters, Ubi Paris spits in my general direction with this one and it does mean something to me. They are serial offenders, I gave up on both Splinter Cells for this reason and ended up getting the last one for PC (which of course means sucking down crazy drivers for Starforce, why do they hate me? I give them my money?).

    I hope they fix it, I would guess that depends on how maintainable the code is. If us lefties keep making a pain in the arse of ourselves maybe they will.

    And finally if your Mum is having difficulties with her PC get her a Mac Mini ;) they are cheap as chips, as easy as pie do not hamper the user with unnecessary hurdles in getting what they want done - can you hear that Ubi??

    /shakes fist, eats pie and chips, starts on the hamper.
    Edited by 2 at 12/03/06 @ 15:27

  • Teeth #104 6 years ago

    I often find it strange that all video games aren't required to have subtitle options in them. Deaf people must have a real hard time picking video games to play and it must be really depressing to find that a good game doesn't have any subtitles.

    The left-handed control scheme is even more of a no-brainer, it's really very odd to see games that don't have such an option particularly when MS were bigging up this whole blade thing and that devs wouldn't have to do too much work on the control config side of things. It's SO odd in fact that I find it hard to believe. IMO Mashum is perfectly entitled to rate it a 1 in protest.

  • brainbird #105 6 years ago

    Once again, Teeth FTW!

  • Feanor #106 6 years ago

    It's nice that you guys are reviewing these types of games like Gamespy now. Godd stuff.

    "It's just that if you've been unfortunate to reach a third checkpoint of a level on red levels of health, you'll almost certainly struggle through the last bit - with a choice of either starting over or battling on, thank to a save system that doesn't allow you to go back to a previous checkpoint, strangely."

    Hopw can a company amke such a great looking and playing game, and still make retarded design decisions like this? I think every development team needs someone in charge of making sure the save system is fair, and doesn't make the game more annoying than it has to be.

  • Feanor #107 6 years ago

    "Rating it a 1 because of the control system is not valid at all."

    Yeah, it is. If I bought GRAW and found it ONLY had left handed support, I would give the game 1/10 because it would be unplayable for me.

  • djchump #108 6 years ago

    Furbs - get over yourself as well dude.
    Everyone's entitled to their opinion.
    If you don't like their opinion you can express yours, but you can't say that theirs somehow "isn't valid" because they don't think the same as you - that's just plain arrogance.

  • jozz #109 6 years ago

    Southpaw controls are pretty useless anyway as far as i'm concerned. You can't reach all the buttons quickly, which really gets you in trouble in a game like GRAW. I can't change to my side-arm without letting go of the movement trigger, so you end up standing still in the middle of play just waiting for someone to play the 'Turkey shooter' on you. This comes from a lefty too. I find it no trouble to aim properly with my right thumb and made a concious decision to master the default controls early on in my gaming life, in order to reep the benifits now ;)

  • weaselrat #110 6 years ago

    You can change from rifle to grenade in a split second by double tapping as long as it is your previous weapon, then double tap grenade to swap between them.. 2 seconds

  • kangarootoo #111 6 years ago

    @Furbs

    I still have to diagree. The control system is absolutely fundamental to the player's enjoyment of the game. If they can't make the things on screen obey their commands in a reasonably timely and intuitive fashion NOTHING ELSE MATTERS (just going mad with capslock for effect there, but I stand by my point).

    "I dont like cartoony graphics, does that mean its valid to rate any Nintendo game a 1? Of course not"

    Of come on, you have chosen a terribly contrived example to support your argument, but comparing the importance of graphics to control system is way off. I know you can do better than that (I'm not being fasicious there, its honestly not your style to use a contrived mechanism like that).


    "You arent rating the game, you are rating the control method. Its taking one aspect of it that you dont like and ignoring all other factors. "

    No it isn't, its giving an overall score, taking each factor (along with their importance, and thats the key bit) into account. A control system is SOOOOO important that if it doesn't work, nothing else can make up for it. The GFX could be awsome, the sound immersive, the strategy challenging, the AI realistic, but I say again if you can't make the game obey your commands NOTHING ELSE MATTERS.

    Games are interactive, thats the thing that makes them special, that seperates them from films, books and so on. If you can't interact with them in a fun way, what else is left? What point is there? You might as well simply watch the trailers or watch a friend play the game?

    Lets contrive that example, just to help me make a point. If someone coded a game that prohibited you from playing it, how would you feel about that? It has great graphics, strategy, etc but if you try and play it it crashe. You can watch your mates play, but you can't yourself. What score would you give it.


    Man, I could rant about this forever and I don't mean to pick on you Furbs. I just get frustrated when people overlook the control system of a game. And that is the principle at stake here, left handed issues aside, my beef is really about the failure of a control system. It is the single most important part of a game and I don't say that lightly.

    I'll shut up now, lest I ramble on and repeat myself :)

  • kangarootoo #112 6 years ago

    @Feanor

    "Yeah, it is. If I bought GRAW and found it ONLY had left handed support, I would give the game 1/10 because it would be unplayable for me."

    Outsanding, such a simple but effective example, kicking myself to have not thought of it.

    /nicks example for future work related discussion on this matter.

  • kangarootoo #113 6 years ago

    @jozz

    "Southpaw controls are pretty useless anyway as far as i'm concerned. You can't reach all the buttons quickly"

    The XB Ghost Recon games let you switch the whole lot, so the sticks and triggers switched, plus the D-pad became the face buttons and vice versa (leaving me totally impressed, as you can imagine). Which makes this latest oversight ever worse.

    Ok, ok, shutting up now everyone ;)

    /drinks milky tea
    /chills out
    /shuts the fk up

  • Psychopompus #114 6 years ago

    I've seen many screenshots and trailers/ingame videos of GRAW, so far I've seen every shot/video from an over-the-shoulder-point-of-view. This means that you don't see the action through the eyes of the character that you're controling so there shouldn't be a HUD. However GRAW combines an over-the-shoulder-point-of-view with a HUD ,you see all kinds of information as if you are looking through the eyes of the character but at the same time you're looking at the back of this character.

    Is there no possibilty to play in a first person view (with weapon in view) so that the HUD is a logical consequence of the chosen view?

  • Teeth #115 6 years ago

    I believe you can play in FP, yes. AFAIK.

  • Psychopompus #116 6 years ago

    Isn't FP PC-version only?

  • Teeth #117 6 years ago

    Beats me mate, I just heard people talking about it (and IIRC the consequential graphics glitches...). Sorry I can't be more help :(

  • Derblington #118 6 years ago

    you can play in first and third person views, but not first person with the gun in view. It adopts a 'down the sight' perspective, like the past GR games.

  • Talha #119 6 years ago

    Hey guys, I don't believe anyone slagging the graphics. That city looks real!!! What were you expecting anyway?

    I am playing Black these days, and I must say that except for the resolution, its graphics and particle effects will be hard to top even by PC shooters. GRAW even fixes the resolution. These are the first two console shooters I played, and I was initially irritated by the joypad contros (being used to mouse/keyboard). But after a while, if I dare say so, I am enjoiyng them maybe more that I did even mosat PC shooters.

    Kudos to Ubi and Criterion for balancing the controls so perfectly.
    Edited by 1 at 13/03/06 @ 07:11

  • djchump #120 6 years ago

    @Talha
    "its graphics and particle effects will be hard to top even by PC shooters."

    Have you played F.E.A.R. on a decent PC with all the graphics options turned up high? It didn't looks so great on my ageing home PC, but on the uber-PCs at work it looked stunning.
    Black on PS2 just doesn't compare I'm afraid - it looks very nice and is a fantastic achievement for PS2, but PS2 just really can't compete technically with a £1,500 PC - for obvious reasons ;-)

  • Talha #121 6 years ago

    @djchump : Of course I have played FEAR with everything cranked up. Probably I should have modified my statement true for 'most PC shooters' - my bad, and a very crucial one. I am editing it after this.

    But, and that's a BIG BUT. Sometimes it doesn't matter how many pixels a game is pushing. While FEAR's particle effects are second to none, they damned better be considering the hardware required - but sometimes you can't help but feeling that enviroments could have used a little more variation. PS2 is a machine with 32 MB RAM. Yet I honestly feel Black achieves the same level of intensity and arguably sports a little more atmosphere, even though textures are horrible and low-res. if you look closely, there is a lot more going on than meets the eye - the plants sometime wave as if in a breeze, the explosions are second to none, the environments are really immersive. The lighting is static but who cares - it all adds up to incredible landscape - I especially like the way when you can hardly see your enemies in a few places due to excess bloom. Of course they had to use all sorts of shortcuts to do that, but what they achieved was spectacular environments and a largely consistent framerate.

    FEAR is a great game, more rich in its story, but Black has its own merits too. See, it is the END result I am comparing and not the means to achieve it. Black can stand out on its own without the "for PS2' qualifier, in gameplay terms at least.
    Edited by 1 at 13/03/06 @ 07:16

  • reality_cheque #122 6 years ago

    "This comes from a lefty too. I find it no trouble to aim properly with my right thumb and made a concious decision to master the default controls early on in my gaming life, in order to reep the benifits now ;)"

    Ditto - after 4 years of Halo and before that playing Goldeneye without realising I could change the controls, southpaw now feels weirder than left handed scissors.

    edited because I accidentally clicked 'post' instead of alt-tabbing when my boss walked past :)
    Edited by 1 at 13/03/06 @ 10:29

  • Stickman #123 6 years ago

    "Oh, and cmon Stickman, everyone's entitled to their opinion - if someone thinks it's a 1 then that's their opinion innit - no need to go round calling them a "fucking idiot" cos they don't agree with you."

    Yeah, fair enough, but 1? For someone who bases game purchases as much on opinion of other gamers as they do on reviews and such, it throws the whole thing out of whack. They aren't a fucking idiot, but perhaps a little misguided/hasty with their scoring, how's that?

    edit - having read the rest of the comments, I'll clarify. IMO you can't just say "I can't play this game as well as I would like due to stupid hardware problems that are no fault of my own, therefore it rates a 1." While that is what you may feel, the rational part of your brain should tell you, "I can't play this game, which sucks, but, wow, I can tell the atmosphere is great and the graphics and effects look great. Sounds pretty immersive, but the AI's not so good. Bearing all that in mind, I'd say its a 4 (or whatever)"

    A 1 (IMO blahblah) is for Barbie Squarepants games, or Uwe Boll films.
    Edited by 1 at 13/03/06 @ 10:41

  • pollster #124 6 years ago

    I got the game on Friday and started playing it on normal difficulty. I was about 5 levels in and enjoying it but felt something was missing. So I decided to restart on hard. What a difference! IMO it is so much better (the same way COD2 is on veteran).
    I find that I haven't got time to pick holes in the graphics as im too busy trying to keep my head from being blown off.
    Yes your team mates AI isn't perfect but they can be used effectively to provide cover and be decoy's etc. You've just got to remember to do some thinking for them.
    Overall a very good game that must be played on hard to get the most out of it.

  • reality_cheque #125 6 years ago

    Oh, and I'm loving this game - the gfx look ok on my non-HD tv, certainly better than most games, but it's the drone and little bits like that that make my day.

    I've played a lot of multiplayer (same console only so far sadly, due to the fact I've had visitors ALL WEEKEND FFS) and I'm very much enjoying the Co-Op games - at one point I looked at the map and we were completely surrounded by red squares, so densely packed it looked like someone had painted a red target around the point we'd fallen back to. I think the only thing I was disappointed with was the fact that there doesn't seem to be an option to lead a team in MP.

    Single player-wise, I've only got up to the second checkpoint so I'll have to wait to comment on that beyond the fact that I love the context sensitive movement stuff (going into cover, etc) and the feeling of joy as I waste a van full of people with my underslung grenade launcher :D

  • Furbs #126 6 years ago

    Just wait until the Embassy mission (level 2). Without giving spoilers away it is one of the most cinematic sequences I've played in a long time. Felt like Platoon (albeit in an urban setting) or summat.

  • Tiger_Walts #127 6 years ago

    No MP review yet, they must still be playing.
    Edited by 1 at 13/03/06 @ 11:02

  • patchbox360 #128 6 years ago


    SAME OLD - better graphics- SAME OLD

    tired of shooting guns, explosions, first and third person views, in car and outside car views - games have become poor action films we control

    Come on Revolution, please be just that

  • Furbs #129 6 years ago

    SAME OLD - trolling - SAME OLD

    Boring.

  • Talha #130 6 years ago

    "tired of shooting guns, explosions, first and third person views, in car and outside car views - games have become poor action films we control"

    Funny, the rest of us don't get tired of all this - it is after all, what constitutes a FIRST PERSON SHOOTER. Aah, but your next sentence. So you will rather have shooting mushrooms, strawberry explosions, ONLY third person views, in-kart and outside-kart views - games like poor toy obstacle courses we control. By the way what are you doing on a GRAW thread? What in bloody hell is WRONG with an action film we can control?

    Extremely sorry for the nastiness - first, I am not having a good day at the office and second, I simply love GRAW and will jump to its defence whenever needed!!!! ;-)

    By the way, general tip for everyone: If you really, really want to enjoy ANY current shooter, crank up the difficulty level all the way, or at least to the second rung. Otherwise, forget it and wait for the Revolution. Ooops, sorry again.
    Edited by 2 at 13/03/06 @ 11:42

  • djchump #131 6 years ago

    @Stickman - everyone's free to put whatever they want. If I paid £50 for a game and it was unplayable cos of the control system, I'd rate it a 1 no matter how pretty and shiny graphics are.
    As Kangarootoo has very eloquently put - the control system/ interaction method is crucial to a videogame. Everything else is secondary to that.

    Just accept that some people's opinions and experiences will differ from yours. We don't all have to agree.

  • S0L0man #132 6 years ago

    Hi all,

    I'm a longtime lurker to the EG forums. The spirited debates here have always interested me and EG and it's forums are my first stop for the real info on how a game is!!!

    I'd just like to add my 2p on the GRAW debate.

    Personally I think that GRAW is one of the best looking and smoothly animated games I have played.

    I am most of the way through the single player game and have greatly enjoyed the challenges it has presented. I have found the 'realtime' nature of the storyline very compelling and have greatly enjoyed the challenges the games has presented.

    Yes, your team mates arent always the smartest but I have seen them do they're jobs well.

    While the game has been stunning to look at, I have noticed the reflections issue but It hasn't affected my enjoyment of the game. I got a real kick out of the fact that car alarms go off when vehicles take rounds or are caught in the blast effects of explosives \o/

    I haven't experienced any graphics or logic funnies while playing the game and almost cheered when I was able to walk over small rocks and ledges, unlike GR2.

    Although I do not use a southpaw setup myself, I do agree that it is a terrible oversight to have left it out. Indeed, any game made these days should allow the user to completely customise the controls to the way they want it.

    I spent the weekend playing multiplayer and overall I had a great time. I found the multiplayer maps varied and detailed, with lots of opportunities to vary tactics. If the graphics are a little less detailed, I cant say I really noticed or that it bothers me. I do like the new low-light effects though.

    I do think that there should have been more missions for the co-op campaign, (possible premium content download anyone???) and would like to have seen the ability to vary the difficulty more and perhaps randomise the location of enemies a little. One thing I couldn't tell though was whether there are more enemies if there are more players in the co-op. Can anybody confirm this?

    The biggest downside to multiplayer for me has been the number of multiplayer games that have lagged out, dropped or just plain terminated within the first few seconds of the level start.

    and finally

    In multiplayer why does it seem that everybody takes the suppressed m4/gl combo ;-).

    Glad to be here and look forward to your comments.

  • Furbs #133 6 years ago

    djchump and others, just out of interest, if you were reading a review and the reviewer gave it a 1 purely because he or she couldnt get used to the control system, would you be happy?

  • Chewy #134 6 years ago

    @pollster - How hard is hard? I'm only just past the first helicoter shooting section and am thinking of restarting because of your comments!

    Cheers
    Edited by 1 at 13/03/06 @ 12:40

  • king_skins #135 6 years ago

    @ Chewy: hard in the fact that you get more enemies and if you popup around a corner with out noticing the guy behind the car he will pop a cap in your head. In normally he will miss with the first couple of shots allowing you to get back behind cover or cap him before he caps you.
    Edited by 1 at 13/03/06 @ 12:49

  • Chewy #136 6 years ago

    @king_skins - thanks, I think I will start again because it's so enjoyable, but I must finish this before Far Cry and Blazing Saddles...I mean Angel. :-)

  • Thamuhacha #137 6 years ago

    Sorry if this has been covered in the previous 150 posts, but does this game have a 2 player offline coop mode?

    I like split screen coop me

    And I agree with whoever it was above who asked if basic functionailty stuff could go at the top of reviews

  • banjo21 #138 6 years ago

    Furbs and Co - I am obviously in the left handed camp as per previous posts. To be kind to fellow lefties its not simply the case that we dont want to learn a new control system as we all did it in going from PC K+M to xbox)but the fact that many games allow us to use more natural southpaw controls e.g. Halo, Doom, RS, SSAM, Half Life 2 etc etc and we've got very used to that. Many games have been non-starters for lefties because of this [aforementioned Splinter Cells, Max Paynes, Far Cry] and the teams that sell the games must realise the lost market - do you EG guys not have access to industry guys you can ask - why do they shun lefties and the money they would bring in for the sake of generic code? Surely the business case stacks up?
    I think the right handed folk would be equally horrified if there were only southpaw options - so we should all support getting the industry in line with what is a winning solution for all - it really is a no brainer to get left and right handed support in.

    Anyway I would give a great game a great score and support your positive comments from what I've seen of my rightie brother playing GRAW - its just a shame it might as well be a review of a sandwich to us lefties until they add support for us.

    PS. Seriously, and flame me for making this up, but wasn't there some sort of euro law where companies had to support lefties as much as righties?

  • djchump #139 6 years ago

    @Furbs - user reviews and magazine/journalist reviews are different.

    Magazine/journo reviews aim as close to objectivity as they can get.
    User reviews are just that - personal opinions from that 1 individual.

    If a game was utterly fundamentally borken to the point of unplayability for *everyone* - then yes, a magazine review should give it 1 out of 10. (For example, see the reviews of Driv3r and Boiling Point: Road To Hell that gave both games low scores becuase of their fundamental brokenness)

    If a game was fundamentally unplayable for a minority of players (e.g. left-handers, red/green colour-blind etc.) - then a magazine should mention this as an important point in the review to warn those potential buyers, but rate the game according to how it plays for the average joe who these issues will not affect.

    User reviews can rate any game however they see fit.

  • patchbox360 #140 6 years ago

    @ Talha


    The majority tend to favour crap in the light of anything with depth in all genres so you are probably right

    The only FPS worth a mention is Rainbow Six 3 - Ghost Recon is a simple point and shoot where true accuracy is not really required, neither are tactics for that matter, the team members movements and reactions are flawed and the Enemy AI (haha if u can call it that) stand in the open most of the time.

    utimately the game is easy. If u play on hard (one shot kills) the game puts u in a position where u can't use tactics to avoid death e.g. ur left open in helicopter to kill 30 people on a roof, odds are u would and will get hit once

    microsoft's vision of next gen is the old gen games with better graphics, thats not the way it should be

  • Triggerhappytel #141 6 years ago

    I've never been a fan of the GR games (or the whole Tom Clancy series in general) and this doesn't look like it'll do anything to change that. Aside from pretty graphics and excellent presentation, this game doesn't sound particularly impressive. I also generally hate context-sensitive controls - it feels like you are instigating a bunch of scripted animations, rather than controlling the character yourself. Also, I hate games which have unfair checkpointing (I think I've been spoiled by Halo & Riddick).

    It might look gorgeous, but I'm still not getting a 360.

  • king_skins #142 6 years ago

    @ Thamuhacha: yeah it has 1-4 player offline co-op but there are only 4 maps :(

    but you should be able to play the other co-op games.

  • Thamuhacha #143 6 years ago

    >but you should be able to play the other co-op games

    Cheers your highness.

    How long do the maps take? I am still getting through COD2, and have Oblivion on pre-order. So I only really want it for a weekend of co-op with a mate.



  • Furbs #144 6 years ago

    The missions are pretty big with several objectives and the AI is good. If you didnt die I'd imagine about 20-30 mins per map, but we were trying it with 6 of us online at the weekend and even after an hour we hadnt completed it due to dying.

    Switch off respawns, its makes it so much better.

  • Thamuhacha #145 6 years ago

    Cheers, have you tried spilt screen?

  • Furbs #146 6 years ago

    Only on the Xbox1 version. That worked well enough to convince me that on the 360 it'll certainly be playable enough.

  • weaselrat #147 6 years ago

    What are half of you dudes moaning about I am right handed and can still play this fine just like all other shooters. All it takes is a bit of practice you lazy gits.

  • gazareth #148 6 years ago

    You don't get gamerpoints if you turn respawns on though!

    It took 3 of us a few hours to get the 2nd mission done - we kept finding ingenius ways of fucking up at the very last moment, including blowing ourselves up with grenades whilst trying to destroy the cargo crates, and also being ambushed by the last rogue enemy when going to the extraction zone >:0

    The 1st and 3rd missions are pretty straightforward, and can be done in 2 or 3 attempts at the most, and the 4th is quite easy but we still contrived to fuck it up and we needed a couple of hours to do it ;D

  • Rambaldi #149 6 years ago

    "Microsoft’s vision of next gen is the old gen games with better graphics, that’s not the way it should be"

    Yes it is!

    There's an old phrase: there's nothing new in music. I think it's fair to say that there's nothing new in Art, period, but that's not to say that it's all doom and gloom. Stop expecting things to 'change the world'. Stop buying into that whole 'next gen' philosophy. Don't get all Zane Lowe on me dude! Look at the glass as being half full and realise that (partly because of the limits of human ingenuity and partly because of publisher’s fears of un-chartered territory) that games are, pretty much, what games are. Changes will be incremental and old ground will be re-covered in different ways. It's the way of the world.

    There's nothing wrong with a new piece of technology being a polished version of the old. It's why we listen to rock music on CD's instead of cassettes. It's why we watch thrillers on Plasma screens with surround sound instead of B&W CRTs but you don't bang on about why thrillers haven't gone through a fundamental change over the last 20 years. You enjoy the medium for what it is, pick and choose the sub-genres you like and keep an eye out for good examples of them.

    Stop expecting the wheel to be re-invented every few years just because the genre happens to be games and not music or film!

  • yorkiebar #150 6 years ago

    RE: Left handedness.

    Look at www.oxm.co.uk - UBISoft are saying to them that releasing GRAW without the option for left-handed players was A MISTAKE and they are releasing a Patch for it.

    All sorted! Everybody to be happy very soon!!!

    Does that stop the arguments now, please?!?!?!?!

  • reality_cheque #151 6 years ago

    @yorkiebar: Nothing could stop the EG arguments :p

  • Psychopompus #152 6 years ago

    I thought that this single player review would be extended with the multiplayer review on monday. It's almost tuesday ! Where is this extension and the final verdict ?
    Edited by 1 at 13/03/06 @ 16:32

  • Thamuhacha #153 6 years ago

    @ Gazareth

    Sorry to harp on, was that on split screen?

    None of my mates have got a 360 yet, so multiplayer is offline at my house only.

    I don't play with strangers

    /raises nose

  • king_skins #154 6 years ago

    @ Thamuhacha: its exactly the same, split screen or over live. You can also play slit screen, over live at the same time :)

  • Thamuhacha #155 6 years ago

    Cheers

    /buys

  • rauper Verified Managing Director, Eurogamer Network #156 6 years ago

    Psychopompus: very shortly...

  • Dire #157 6 years ago

    I can use the normal control's and i'm a leftie. so all you righties please don't think that us lefties are total whingers :)
    Edited by 2 at 13/03/06 @ 18:15

  • Gouki #158 6 years ago

    You Fkn retard!

  • ralphwolfenstein #159 6 years ago

    ooh!

    brave

  • Whizzo #160 6 years ago

    Stupid more like.

  • tengu #161 6 years ago

    Uh oh... this isn't going to end well...

  • tomacwhite #162 6 years ago

    OMG! This is the fairest and most realistic review I have read about this game. Bravo to you, and respect for not giving it 9/10 like everyone else.

    The only thing I am surprised nobody picked up on is the horrifc v-sync tearing, and occasional 12fps when zooming in etc. Shocking, truely shocking, and it happens often too. The netcode in general is poor too, and we all have super fast connections these days..

    Also perhaps that for £50 you'd want more than 4 co-op maps? Why you can't play the SP levels in multiplayer is beyond me.. You could in every previous GR game..

    Excellent review.. Thanks.


  • Beano #163 6 years ago

    Got the game today and gotta say it's a slight let down so far (singleplayer only).

    Stupid AI, over-scripted gameplay, bugs and glitchy graphics.

    But still pretty fun to play so far and the audio is amazing... I just expected more....7/10 seems fair :)


    "The only thing I am surprised nobody picked up on is the horrifc v-sync tearing..."

    I agree complety - it looks awfull !
    Edited by 1 at 13/03/06 @ 18:40

  • pjmaybe #164 6 years ago

    Blimey...

    Not often I bother to comment on a review score but I have to say Kruds, I think you must've rushed through this achingly fast to come to the conclusion it's only worth a 7.

    Peej

  • ralphwolfenstein #165 6 years ago

    /strokes The Outfit pre-order

    come on Relic, SAVE MY DAY!

  • Furbs #166 6 years ago

    LOL :)

    Seriously, one point better than FIFA Street 2 then?
    Edited by 1 at 13/03/06 @ 19:03

  • Elysium #167 6 years ago

    Just want to say, EXCELLENT review... bought the game Friday and took it back Saturday morning; .. also rated it here as a 7 beforehand.

    In no way is this crap worth more then 7 - and those who bought it and are raving about it are the ones who want to feel their £50 has been well spent; but just cannot admit how poor the game *really* is..

    Keep up the godo work .. !

  • patchbox360 #168 6 years ago


    @ Rambaldi



    'There's nothing wrong with a new piece of technology being a polished version of the old. It's why we listen to rock music on CD's instead of cassettes. It's why we watch thrillers on Plasma screens with surround sound instead of B&W CRTs but you don't bang on about why thrillers haven't gone through a fundamental change over the last 20 years. You enjoy the medium for what it is, pick and choose the sub-genres you like and keep an eye out for good examples of them.'

    There is a difference between hardware advancement and game evolution.

    My point was the same old gen game with advanced graphics should not constitute next gen. Next gen should be leap not a step forward in my opinion.

    The refusal to change the play mechanics in games sequel after sequel gives me de ja vu, i like tactical shooters but not the one i've been playing for 5 yrs on old gen hardware now with new flashy graphics.

    Rock is dead

    GRAW is no doubt a good game but somewhat adverage.


    Edited by 1 at 13/03/06 @ 19:06

  • Tiger_Walts #169 6 years ago

    I agree with the review. It should be a 10/10 game from the things that i adds to the series but it fails in the areas that similar titles in the past have excelled at. Add to that the annoying and sometimes campaign-ending bugs and you end up with what is a 7/10 game.

    The gameplay in the multiplayer is spot-on, however it's lacking in content with only 4 missions and the campaign being unavailable for co-op. Yes there is DLC on the way but will we be expected to pay for it?

  • Freki #170 6 years ago

    All the people complaining about £50 a game, who on earth with an internet connection (as in everyone posting here) pays £50 for a 360 game? Standard internet price is £40 with free delivery.

    As to the review. Seems a little harsh to be honest. When the average score on metacritic is 91, to see EG give it a 70 either means that they know more than the rest of the industry or are overly harsh. So far, not too keen on their 360 reviews. They seem to be reviewing them on the merits of what they think a next gen console should be able to do rather than on the merits of the game itself.

    What was I expecting of a "next gen" console? More power than the previous generation. That is all we have had so far (PS to PS2 for example) so why would we expect more?

    As to GRAW, my take, 8 for the single player side of it, but 8.5 for the multi-player. Had a huge amount of fun playing this afternoon various online games.

  • alimokrane #171 6 years ago

    Ouuuuch a 7 but I think based on what the review mentioned it's totally fair ... I have yet to get my hands on it but after this I am giving it a second thought.

  • ilmaestro #172 6 years ago

    I think EG just likes seeing the reaction to 360 scores that are lower than people expect. I simply do not play FPSs, I am not in any way a fan of the genre, but GRAW intrigued me and, having managed to exploit the GAME money off loophole a few weeks ago, thought it had to be worth a pop. I have really enjoyed what I've played of it so far, despite my own ineptitude, I haven't gone online much at all but the single player has impressed me much more than any other FPS I've ever touched and the offline multiplayer, which I've given more time to, hasn't even put me off. For reference, I could stomache about 10 mins of Goldeneye multiplayer and maybe a half hour of Halo multiplayer before I decided never to go back to them. To sum up, I can't believe the score at the end of the review, and I really, really can't wait to see what EG gives Halo 3. :)

  • Darren #173 6 years ago

    I didn't expect EG to give the game 9/10 but I was thinking more 8/10. 7/10 is a bit of a surprise but to be honest I'm inclined to agree with the review having been playing it all weekend. The game is great but it's let down by a lack of polish and poor A.I.. It really could have done with a few more months development to tidy things up a bit I think then it would have been a classic.

  • Darren #174 6 years ago

    So are EG "right" where everyone else is "wrong"? I can't wait to see what Edge and gamesTM's scores will be. I predict a 7 and an 8.

  • peterfll #175 6 years ago

    I've never been a fan of this type of game before. Bought it at the weekend for my other half and they haven't had a chance to play it yet as I've been on it. So it's converted me.

    Having only got into the 3rd missiion so far it would be difficult for me to give it my own rating. So far though its been great, and I've not encountered any of the negative aspects of the game mentioned in the review. Apart from the odd glitch here and then in the graphics.

    I have to say that EG *seems* to be quite harsh on the ol' 360 - or is my imagination?

    @ Elysium : Not everyone shares your opinion, but that doesn't mean we're deluded either. I took back DOA4 as I just found it unplayable, but there's plenty of people who love it and get there money's worth from it.

  • tomacwhite #176 6 years ago

    Yes, I truely believe that this is the only accurate and "true" review of this game. Everyone else has either glossed over, or completley ignored its game ruining failings..

  • Darren #177 6 years ago

    I was going to say GR:AW is as good as FIFA Street but somehow that just sounds insulting (to the game that is!)... LOL

  • therev #178 6 years ago

    I must admit I'm shocked.

    I'm loving it in single player. It's hard, but never feels unfair. Reminds me on CoD2 on Veteran without the annoying parts. It looks gorgeous and I've not seen any of these bugs.

    And I've been really enjoying playing co-op on Live, too.

  • jack_klugman #179 6 years ago

    Best. Review site. Ever.

  • Psychopompus #180 6 years ago

    Thanks Krudster, I was tempted to buy GRAW but had my doubts. I'm looking forward too Far Cry now.

  • Tiiti #181 6 years ago

    shocking

    The game is incredible as far as I am concerned :)

  • Nige #182 6 years ago

    >>The game is incredible as far as I am concerned :)

    Well - let's be fair, it's no King Kong...

    LOL!!!

  • Furbs #183 6 years ago

    Krudster, given you gave Rainbow 6 Lockdown a 6 when it came out and its cheaper now, would you recommend that over this?

  • dllord #184 6 years ago

    I wonder if it would of got a extra mark or two if it was a PS3 game!

  • Beano #185 6 years ago

    "It's hard, but never feels unfair. "

    Do. Not. Agree.

  • The-Bodybuilder #186 6 years ago

    which should i buy? graw, or king kong?

  • The-Bodybuilder #187 6 years ago

    which should i buy? graw, or king kong?

  • jack_klugman #188 6 years ago

    I have no doubt MetroidDS will get 9.

    I have no doubt it will deserve it.

  • malteaserhead #189 6 years ago

    good post Mappy ;)
    second thoughts? :)

  • SwedBear #190 6 years ago

    Surprised at the score since I think it is a clear 8 or 9 even with the minor flaws. Good review though. Just makes me realize that me and Krudster just don't have the same taste. I love this game.

    Got to say though that I'm starting to come to a point where I realize that reading Eurogamers reviews are pretty worthless since the reasoning for the verdicts way to often jsut make me wonder what the hell they ahve been smoking. Doesn't mean they are wrong though, just that the taste is different :).

    Only thing I am starting to get tired off are all fucking idiots who somehow think that if Eurogamer scores something lower their reviews are more "honest" than all the other who actually likes the games. Seems to happen way to often these days.
    Edited by 1 at 13/03/06 @ 20:54

  • Furbs #191 6 years ago

    The Bodybuilder - maybe a fairer comparison is with PD:0. Kristan gave that a 7 too. Tricky choice eh?

  • tomacwhite #192 6 years ago

    SwedBear, the industry is full of shit games. I am a developer myself and see it everyday. I bought GR:AW and wondered how the likes of IGN gave this game the score it did. Then all the other reviews come hailing it as the best thing ever.

    Now I have read this review here, and it's the only one that I think honestly reflects the games quality. It's funny; people happily put up with shit framerates, bugs, glitches and hangs these days for some reason. They're commonplace and its just accepted. Back in the SNES/MD days if a game had collision issues it was slated to fuck, nowadays quality has gone out of the window and any piece of shit gets 9 out of 10 (not for one minute saying GR:AW is a piece of shit).

    So.. It's nice to see a review bring up the games issues instead of gloss over them, or completley ignore them like pretty much every other website/magazine has.

  • Xerx3s #193 6 years ago

    A 7.0? 0_o

    This isnt my prefb kind of game and im not gonna buy it at full price, but i played it for a while and from what ive seen its a 8-9ish figur. Oh well, you cant argue about taste.

    /will read review tomorrow.

  • thefilthandthefury #194 6 years ago

    @ Elysium

    I spent £25 on the game, not £50, and yet I would rate it a 9/10, having completed it today. I in no way am trying to 'justify' the purchase. If I didn't like it, I'd return it. Simple.

  • Heartcore_Ninja #195 6 years ago

    A very good review imo- you've hit the nail on the head with the fact that it can be very good, but not perfect and not as good as it should and could have been. You touched on most of the annoyances within the game (don't forget the strange problem some people have with the visor position display) and also mentioned most of the great points. Good review EG!

  • Bumbuliuz #196 6 years ago

    It´s amazing. Eurogamer seems to be harsher in their reviews than Gamespot ;) And they gave Graw a 9.2

  • SwedBear #197 6 years ago

    Oh come on tomacwhite. Take of those retro-glasses. I've been around since the C64 days and bugs and glitches have been around for ever so it's not something people somehow now suddenly start to accept.

    In some games you accept them in others not (not the best framerate didn't hurt Shadow of the Colossus, did it?) . I mean, I've reread the rewview again and most of the stuff they complain about is nitpicking to me. "Hard without your squaddies". Yeah, sometimes you get frustrated but it also gets me pissed and determined to make it (just like Geomatry Wars sometimes makes me want to throw the cotnroll through the window), "Unlimited reviving of others" - yeah that's bothered me to but not exactly a dealbreaker, "nightvision" - come on. Fine, it's not as sharp as it should be but I'm using perfectly fine anyway and have a lot of use for it.

    "Bugs" - this is the only thing I can agree on and yet I've not come up to a gamebreaking bug yet, only minor stuff like a seconds levitation once or twice and the fact you need to be cautious aobut placing your squaddies since they sometimes are downright stupid.

    As for MP, I've had lots of games now where I've had a lot of fun. Good games with lots of people (a few 16 player games) where people work together.

    In the end I think that the important thing must be if a game is fun or not. I fully respect people who don't like it but I think that respect must be mutual. This "EG are more honest than others" crap just implies that other who like it aren't honest.

    I'm having more fun with this games than a lot of games EG have rated higher and in the end that means that I can live with it not being perfect. I think a lot of people on all sides forget we play games for fun, not to use as means to show off "our" console.

    Now I'm just more curious about FN3 since EG likes it more ;). It's been sitting on my shelf to long now.
    Edited by 1 at 13/03/06 @ 21:54

  • SwedBear #198 6 years ago

    JayPea. I think many of us simply just want to offer a second opinion about a game we like. It's just a game though so no need to get so wound up.

  • Stickman #199 6 years ago

    "It's just a game though so no need to get so wound up. "

    How can you have a 10k user id, and still say that with a straight face around here? ;)

  • Machina #200 6 years ago

    Christ, I just the watched the GRAW Launch Trailer on Eurogamer TV and it almost made me puke from cheese overload. They've even got the voice-over to sound like it was from an all-American movie for testosterone addled military junkies.

  • Carlo #201 6 years ago

    Flipping hell! Take a day off... GR:AW gets reviews and there is 200+ comments?

    Something must be controversial... Better ahve a read...

  • Stickman #202 6 years ago

    It's just the usual "should be a 1/5/6/8/9" malarkey with added leftie uprising for variety.

  • Hicksy #203 6 years ago

    I kinda got to agree with the score...

    ... on an SP basis alone :)

  • Abs #204 6 years ago

    I'm sorry but you can see why some people are shall we say slightly irritated with the score, the same reviewer gave PDZ the same score. GRAW is in a different league to that game.

  • justsomeone #205 6 years ago

    eurogamer never fails to justify my confidence in them. yet another blisteringly honest review - more power to you my good friends.

  • Halo.Jones #206 6 years ago

    The latest review says rushed, sure it was. It's Ubisoft's financial year end. Better to get it out for FYE than delay and have the share prices drop!

    They can always patch it at a later date. Consumers come second when it comes to FYE.
    Edited by 1 at 13/03/06 @ 22:26

  • effinwooly #207 6 years ago

    great game imo ! Who would have thought eh, Eurogamer being anti 360 !

  • kangarootoo #208 6 years ago

    Welcome to all those who have been drawn to post for the first time.

    To all those who love this game and thought the review score was slightly low, its great that you like the game, lets just accept that tastes and priorities differ.

    To all those YET AGAIN suggesting EG are professionally biased (as opposed to simply haveinh human preferencees, which is not the same thing) puleeese shut your cake holes before you bore us into an early grave. EG staff are adults and professionals, they are not driven by the same bizarre and childish fanboy motives as your good selves.

    The number of low scoring reviews of multi platform games placed RIGHT NEXT to adverts for the same game should convince anyone with half an objective bone in their bodies that they are in no-one's pockets. If not that then how about the glowing reviews of games, again on all platforms, that they will happily write when they are genuinely impressed by a title.

    It is their jobs to be critical. I personally expect them to be harsher than me. They are like the friend you take with you when buying a car, who will kick a bit of sense into you when you are ready to throw money away on a rust bucket just because the paint is shiny.

    JUST BECAUSE THEY AREN'T YOUR CLONE and don't agree exactly with your own opinions on the game of the day doesn't make them anything other than human.

    God, accusations of bias make me mad. This is someones job you are talking about, something they have trained in and worked on for years, and daft internet kids will accuse of a lack professionalism like they are asking for a cup of tea. They just make the poster look stupid and immature. Every. Single. Time.

    Rant over ;)
    Edited by 1 at 13/03/06 @ 22:52

  • Stickman #209 6 years ago

    It was a good one.

  • Furbs #210 6 years ago

    So kangarootoo, PD:0 or GRAW? :)

  • Whizzo #211 6 years ago

    You want to play Summit Strike as it's better apparently.

  • kangarootoo #212 6 years ago

    I've not played either Furbs. So I can only go on what I've heard when comparing the two directly.

    I was a huge fan of GR1, then I wasn't so happy with GR2, then I was more impressed with the Summit Strike expansion title. So I had big hopes for GRAW. To be honest it sounds like it will still be fun so I may still get it.

    I am disappointed to hear that the SP and MP experiences suffer glaring differences (Splinter Cell PT was the same I believe, though both modes were pretty good the lack of comms between the two teams seemed a little amateaur). I LOVE co-op gaming, love it to bits with all the love I have to give, so the lack of co-op online is a real pity (Full Spectrum Warrior only supported XBLive co-op but not system link, which I thought sucked and blew, though I still enjoyed the SP mode).

    The control system we've been over and you know how I feel there, but I'm rght handed so for my own needs (without my works hat on) I don't mind the absence of Southpaw.

    A lot of the GRAW footage I have seen is urban, and in GR1 the wide open landscapes were by far my favourite so again its a pity that GRAW doesn't "seem" to have so many of those.

    Errr, getting back to your original question, I can't honestly say between GRAW and PD:0 as I can't honestly compare. But FPS games with a slower pace and some strategy are generally more my thing than straight shooters, so I'm guessing PD:0 won't be as much my thing (though did I hear it supports online mutliplayer co-op? If so, that could swing it).

    I'm going to sort out an account with a company that rents XB360 games soon, so I'll much better poised to see what is out there. Currently I've played PGR3 (not typically my type of game, but I still had a lot of fun with it), Condemmed (which I rather enjoyed despite a few flaws) ad I have Oblivion on pre-order (which if it turns out to be shit, you will hear the explosion in the north pole, to pinch a Father Ted line).

    EDIT: Further to my PGR3 comment, I played it on XBLive last Saturday and it was sound as a pound. After a few mishits (some nobheads crashing into every acr that got near them and clumsily trashtalking like it had only been invented and was the new cool thing on the block) we found some cool individuals who ran a tight game and played for the race. Even though sim style driving games aren't mybag (much more of a Burnout man) and I'm not so into competetive games (compated to co-op, I was shit at football at school, I'm sure thats where it comes from) I had a total blast.
    Edited by 1 at 13/03/06 @ 23:20

  • Furbs #213 6 years ago

    I've got both, trust me, GRAW is in a different league :p

    But just to put your mind at ease, GRAW does have alot of open MP maps. Admittedly in SP its very much urban (although there are missions on hilltops and forts/parks). The gameplay is much closer to the the original GR, although it'd be good if in any expansion they go back to rolling hills and so on. Given they've covered city based this time, I'd imagine they will. Will be great given what they'll be able to with the "nexgens" drawdistances.

    In their defence, Mexico City itself isnt really known for its rolling vistas.

    And the key to enjoying Live is to having a decent friends list. Playing against the great unwashed? No chance :p

    Edit: Just re-read your post - there is an online-coop mode in this that has a brand new campaign from the SP. Its four maps which doesnt sound alot, but playing this evening, even 12 of us (some of whom I know to be good GR2/BF2 players) didnt last long on one map. There's lot of objectives so the lack of maps still has a fair amount of play it in it.

    Gah spelling.
    Edited by 3 at 13/03/06 @ 23:44

  • armyourfists #214 6 years ago

    My head hurts.

  • captainrentboy #215 6 years ago

    I predicted an EG 7 out of 10 score for this game weeks ago,what do I get,what's the prize?
    And if in reviews a critic is going to moan about the prices of software on a particular console,and let a point or two be knocked off because of it''It's not worth £50 with those bugs imo,waaaahhhh'',they should also never forget to take into account the prices of formats such as the DS and PSP when reviewing games for them ,£30-£40 for games that look and occasionally run a lot worse than they would on the aged psone and ps2,respectively,is frikkin disgusting.Don't tell me that development costs on handhelds are anywhere near that of working on a game for the 360.

  • IronGiant #216 6 years ago

    Score is about right, maybe 8 instead of 7 though.. it's good but not great.

  • Machina #217 6 years ago

    I can't believe the score that EG gave this in their review - this game was so obviously a 7.05 that it's not even funny. I mean 7 is just not high enough is it? The fact that it only got that puny mark is because they are so far in Sony's pocket that you'd need an excavation team to dig them out - if this had been a PS3 it would have got a 7.2 or some such OUTRAGEOUSLY high number.

    And look at the trouble that they've caused - 200+ witty, well-articulated posts proving that there are clearly vast numbers of gamers out there with their finger so firmly on the game-reviewing pulse that they could do a far better job than EG - even with 99% of their time taken up stacking shelves and scouring the internet for a date. Talent knows no limits.

  • mingster #218 6 years ago

    played it online for a few hours (when it didn't drop or disconnect me not sure why) on my mates xbox. Did 2 single player missions and i reckon the single player seemed more polished/playable than multiplayer. Noticed weird bugs on my first few plays grenades bouncing off thin air or nothing. Very poor clipping and collision detection in places. Weird sliding movement of team mates.

    I would rate SWAT 4 (expecially the new expansion) on the PC a better more fun and polished single and multiplayer experience than this, definately looks like its been rushed.

  • Dizzy #219 6 years ago

    BTW FYI the nightvision is implemented as a realistic view on how real goggles behave. Kinda funny that the developer stated that they wanted a more realistic nightvision and not the "same but everything in green" view that SC used and you guys state it is ropey :) Damn ropey real technology!

  • kangarootoo #220 6 years ago

    Realistic doesn't always mean fun though. Real night vision goggles might be a real pain in the arse to use. And fun should be the always be the priority (even in a pure simulation game, where the strict adhering to realism is part of what brings the fun).

    Again, I've not played this yet so I reserve my own personal judgement.

  • SimonM7 #221 6 years ago

    htt p://www.gamerankings.com/htmlpages4/926971.asp

    It's facinating in a sick way.

  • Beano #222 6 years ago

    "It's facinating in a sick way. "

    I agree... the score seems quite bloated.

  • reality_cheque #223 6 years ago

    Having played MP last night, hosting 10-14 people on all of the MP maps in succession then the Co-Op missions - only ending because my poor xbox was sleepy (ie suffering from launch machine blues) - I'd give the MP at 8.5-9, it's not perfect but it is damn good fun.

    I also seem to be the only person in the world who hasn't noticed the gfx problems, but maybe that's because my TV is too old to be able to show them, hehehe.

  • Rambaldi #224 6 years ago

    After having bought FN3 and GRAW I'm amazed that the former scores higher than the latter. FN3 is good, but very one-dimensional. GRAW has so much more to offer and is not a buggy game by any stretch. IMHO a poor review.

  • Beano #225 6 years ago

    "I also seem to be the only person in the world who hasn't noticed the gfx problems, but maybe that's because my TV is too old to be able to show them, hehehe."

    Many games on 360 (like COD2) runs better in lower resolutions and standard def compared to HD-resolutions and the high VGA modes.
    That could explain it.

  • lennon #226 6 years ago

    I think you should give up on giving scores personally. I no longer take them seriously which is a shame as I thought the review wasnt too bad although overly negative in my opinion.

  • ralphwolfenstein #227 6 years ago

    Straight from EG's scoring policy:

    "Over the years, in gaming parlance, seven has become almost the real 'average' score, but this is nonsense that we wish was flushed out of the scoring system with many publications terrified of giving certain games - particularly those of a great significance backed by big ad campaigns - less than this mark. Often giving less than seven is deemed to be the point of no return, with this considered to be the psychological barrier at which point people decide to buy at or not. But we're resistant to the idea and believe seven equates to being a very good score, and one that should be given more credit. In Eurogamer's eyes, it's still a great game, but one that is likely to sport a few areas where the game is blatantly let down - to the detriment of its overall quality and enjoyment."

  • Genji #228 6 years ago

    "overly negative"?

    Excuse me for being blunt, but what the hell does that mean? Is there a preferred level of negativity that you'd like to see in reviews?

  • justsomeone #229 6 years ago

    "BTW FYI the nightvision is implemented as a realistic view on how real goggles behave. Kinda funny that the developer stated that they wanted a more realistic nightvision and not the "same but everything in green" view that SC used and you guys state it is ropey :) Damn ropey real technology!"

    if the tech is represented as something currently "real", how come these future wariors (never forget, the game is set in the future) are using 10 year old (to them) tech???

    engage your critical faculties, accept it's a poor design descision, and move on.

  • gazareth #230 6 years ago

    So, uh, this is on a par with Perfect Dark, 1 point better than Quake 4 and 1 point WORSE than King Kong?

    What utter tosh!

  • lennon #231 6 years ago

    Policy seems ok dont have a problem with it apart from when you start comparing games. King Kong for instance gets a 8. It just doesnt make any sense to me anymore. It also causes all the controversy. As I said I agree in many ways with the review just dont really get scoring any more.

    And overly negative in the fact that I would argue that problems mentioned dont especially spoil the game.

  • Furbs #232 6 years ago

    justsomeone - they are using advanced tech - thus when you spot someone in using the NVG's they are highlighted with a red diamond. From that point on your dont need them to target. The only time you would is if you are playing a run and gun game, killing people up close. For that reason its not a poor design decision at all. It means you have to use the NVG's in a thoughtful way, and engage the enemy at long distance so you dont get the blur. These are recon soldiers, they arent CQB specialists.

    People are also missing that these googles arent like the NVG's we use nowadays which simply amplify any ambient light. They are an NVG/Themovision hybrid, hence the blurring. Given that Red Storm have unparalled access to the US Future Warrior program, I'd imagine that what you see in game is likely to be what its like in 6 years time. None of us can comment if its realistic or not. Using 10 year old technology in the military is also not that uncommon. As any of our squaddies.
    Edited by 1 at 14/03/06 @ 09:46

  • smoison #233 6 years ago

    Pheww... 200 comment take longer to read then the actual REVIEW!

    I was/am still looking forward for this on PC, but the fact this JUST came out and needs patches FOR SINGLE PLAYER is crazy.

    I thought Xbox/Microsoft had a "Quality Control" that would mean there would never be unfinished(Buggy) single players games on the consol....

  • Eighthours #234 6 years ago

    Wow.

    Just...wow.

    Bloody hell, this review changed between Friday and today!! (Understatement of the century)

    7 is well harsh, not in context of the review text itself, but in context to what other games have been scoring.
    Edited by 1 at 14/03/06 @ 09:59

  • justsomeone #235 6 years ago

    hi furbs,

    all well and good, and your point is well made and understood.

    but i still stand by my feeling that it's a game, not a sim, and it's set in the future, meaning that you can do dang near anything you choose from a design point of view, and justify it thusly.

    so i found the night vision (yes, i've played the game) also to be a bit crap, and would have to say that the descision to implement it this way has nowt to do with realism and everything to do with simply making it that way in order to discombobulate the player. that's a design descision, and a poor one in my opinion (but only in my opinion).

    lastly, i'm very puzzled as to why you'd think it reasonable to set a game 5 years in the future, and yet kit out your game with 5 year old tech, therefore rendering the future setting largely irrelevant?

    oh yeah - i rate this game a 1, but again that's just me, so i didn't post it in the reader's rating. still waiting for a next-gen game to play on my 360 before i'll post a rating.

    oh, and pps, i bet the PC version will be miles better. sad, sad, sad.

  • lemonfist #236 6 years ago

    So Krudster gives this a 7 while he gave the piss-poor GR2 an 8. Christ, GRAW must be shit then.

  • Furbs #237 6 years ago

    justsomeone, its to avoid it going too scifi. Look at the guns in the game. With the exception of the M-RC rifle they are all current guns. MP even has the M-16 and the SA-80 rifle which are ancient (albeit with revised models). By setting it in the future it allows them to give the player the tech that a current soldier simply wouldnt have, which helps the small squad design and stops it being overly hard (try playing it with the indicators switched off - impossible!). It might be 5 year (or older) old tech, but in military terms thats cutting edge. Look at how long the the Joint Strike Fighter, Eurofighter, the OICW gun (which they were testing even before Delta Force 2 came out in the 90's). By the time technology reaches the troops, its almost always old. If you read some of the books about the Afghanistan conflict and Gulf War 2, even then the US Special Forces often struggled to get supplies of night vision and what not.

    As I said, I think the NVG is a valid design decision because it forces you to use stand off tactics, rather than simply play the game like Quake but with green (rather than brown!) graphics. But thats only my opinion, personally I wouldnt have minded if they used the old fashioned green tint.

  • BombJack #238 6 years ago

    Seriously, 7/10 ?. I usually agree with Eurogamers scores but not this one. At least an 8 and the best thing I've played on 360. Great (great !) fun multiplayer too, though it is slightly different (I think removing cover options etc was probably better for the multiplayer to keep the pace up). Maybe I've missed out on some of the competition or something but this is the best gaming fun I've had in ages.

    If you have a 360 and live I doubt you'll be dissappointed, regardless of it's rare forgiveable flaws. One more go...

  • Commodore75 #239 6 years ago

    Regarding co-op:
    are there any differences in couch co-op, system-link co-op and Live co-op?

  • statix101 #240 6 years ago

    Well considering how far off the graphics are compared to the "in game footage" showed at E3 last year, i.e nowhere near as good, a 7 is about right.

  • Furbs #241 6 years ago

    Only difference afaik is in "couch play" you can only use first person view.

  • Commodore75 #242 6 years ago

    Niiiice . . .

    So I can do co-op missions with a friend (or three?) sitting next to me.
    Very nice indeed.

  • tiddles #243 6 years ago

    Seems like a fair review and score to me... Kristan says many positive 8/10 things about the game, but ultimately for him it loses a point for its design flaws (rather than any cosmetic glitches). He justifies exactly why he's given the score when summing up. It should go without saying that, if you're not likely to be bothered by those flaws, you'll probably rate it as 8/10 or higher.

  • PjotrStroganov #244 6 years ago

    Funny thing is that GTA3 got a 10 despite crappy framerate, stupid AI and bugs. Or was that on a scale of 11?

  • king_skins #245 6 years ago

    As everyone else is throwing in there 2p's worth...

    I like the game and have completed it on normal and played a bit online. I'm now playing the SP again on Hard, but I think the 7 mark is accurate if you take 5 as being average. There are a few flaws in this game.

    Also I liked the NVG goggles and haven't experienced any of the bugs noted by other people... no v-sync tearing issues in 720p for me, but these tend to be TV related rather than the game.

    Its the AI that marks it down from an 8/9 for me. I was expecting more in this generation from the AI, your team mates are crap and are only useful as a distraction and the enemy AI is quite weak, they are not very pro-active in normal difficulty. I did notice some elite units at the end of level 3(?) on the hard difficulty that where more proactive and posed a stiffer challenge so hopefully they will improve in the later levels.

    I still find it hard to belive that and enemy soldier would be standing about doing a normal patrol after I had just blow up a petrol tanker and a petrol station and taken out all of his mates.

    Its the differences between MP and SP that get me as well. I keep trying to press my self up against walls in MP which is a huge omission IMO and the button config is slightly different.

    If you have an under slung grenade launcher in SP you have to hold down A and then press up/down on the d-pad to change to it and B changes to grenades, in MP you have to press B to change to under slung grenade launcher and then hold down B and used the up/down on the d-pad to change to grenades. As I'm currently swapping between the SP and MP its quite annoying

    Also in SP you can be holding down the LT to aim and then press in the right stick to zoom, but in MP you have the let go of the LT to be able to zoom, very annoying.

    Also has anyone noticed that you can only get 925 gamerpoints for GRAW? Is the new co-op map pack going to use the other 75?

  • MJ #246 6 years ago

    Funny thing is that GTA3 got a 10 despite crappy framerate, stupid AI and bugs. Or was that on a scale of 11?


    What relevance is that?

    ChaseHQ on the Spectrum got 95% - GRAW looks better than ChaseHQ. Therefore, GRAW should be given a rating greater than 95%.

  • reality_cheque #247 6 years ago

    Funny thing is that GTA3 got a 10 despite crappy framerate, stupid AI and bugs. Or was that on a scale of 11?

    What relevance is that?"

    The relevance is that GTA3 got a perfect rating despite bugs, and bugs are what apparently caused GR:AW to only get 7. Thus, if bugs matter, GTA3 should not have got 10. Maybe 9, as it is a good game, but you can't drop points for bugs in one game and not another.

  • krudster #248 6 years ago

    The bugs aren't really the main issue for concern except when they break the game. I'm really not *that* hung up on the bugs: they're rare and generally very minor ones. It's more the bad design decisions that chipped a point off the score.

  • tiddles #249 6 years ago

    The relevance is that GTA3 got a perfect rating despite bugs, and bugs are what apparently caused GR:AW to only get 7. Thus, if bugs matter, GTA3 should not have got 10. Maybe 9, as it is a good game, but you can't drop points for bugs in one game and not another.

    That's the key, in a way - whether the bugs / design flaws matter, not generally but to a particular game and a particular person. You can have a game which is riddled with problems and issues but is still great fun to play (and thus deserving of a high score) and you can have a game where the problems DO spoil the fun and should be marked down as a result... Krudster evidently felt GRAW fell into the latter category, whereas GTA3 didn't (if he reviewed that).

  • king_skins #250 6 years ago

    You still reading these comments, thought you would have given up :)

  • kangarootoo #251 6 years ago

    @Furbs

    Hey man, I'm going to be well pedantic here with your point about the NVG.

    "is a valid design decision because it forces you"

    Going all high concept here, regardless of whether the NVG are realistic or not. I would suggest that any design decision that "forces" the player to do something they don't find to be fun is a poor one.

    I'm all for choice. I get very itchy in design when people start using sentences like "the player will have to". Its like a film script writer stating "the audience will be scared at this point".

    You can't make a safe assumption on how a game "should be played". Your only job as a dev is to produce a product that entertains the player. Forcing convention on the player is not part of the deal IMHO. Giving them challenges, a toolkit with which to approach those challenges and as many choices on how that toolkit might be applied is.
    Edited by 1 at 14/03/06 @ 15:40

  • kangarootoo #252 6 years ago

    I've got to say, on the whole, this is a fantastic thread.

    I've never seen an EG thread get above 200 posts that hadn't just descended into nothing but people calling each other nobheads... until now.

    \o/

  • Furbs #253 6 years ago

    Touche` :p

    Although if we're going to be pedantic then my use of "forces" is wrong. You can still run and gun with the NVG, but its not as effective. "Suggests" would probably have been a better choice of word.

    In the two main levels I've played so far (I'm about halfway through now) which really requires NVGs, you get given sniper rifle anyway, so its obvious the sort of engagement you should be doing. Sure, you can switch to an assault rifle, but why would you make things harder for yourself with the tools at hand?

    If a player doesnt like a slightly slower pace and long range engagements, GRAW probably isnt going to be their sort of game tbh.

  • Cubfan #254 6 years ago

    Score a high profile 360 game a 7/10, get a thread with 300+ posts and the sites gets a bump in traffic, no doubt. I'm not saying that was the motivation for the review and corresponding score, it's just ironic how people make claims and accusations about bias, and in the end the site just benefits from all of the bitching and moaning. I suppose my point is that if you disagree that strongly, and truly believe that an anti-360 bias exists, it would be best to just avoid the site entirely.

  • Feanor #255 6 years ago

    No matter what any else says, I think Kristan has given plenty of vaild reasons for why this game only deserves a 7. He is the best reviewer I've come across for mentioning the pointless annoyances, bugs, and dumb-as-shit design decisions that plague so many games. Gamers deserve better than checkpoints that seemed to be placed at random, and being shot thru stone walls!
    Edited by 1 at 14/03/06 @ 18:39

  • kangarootoo #256 6 years ago

    "I suppose my point is that if you disagree that strongly, and truly believe that an anti-360 bias exists, it would be best to just avoid the site entirely."

    Totally agreed. It is a bizarre irony that repeat offenders keep posting about how they apparently don't like this site very much.

    It would mean less shite for the rest of us to sift through to find the sentient comments too (of course, my ego being what it is, I class my own comments as sentient. Please discuss).

  • Teeth #257 6 years ago

    "Please discuss"

    lol

  • Calgon #258 6 years ago

    Right, I'll just say that I wasn't really interested in this game to begin with, but as I skimmed over some of the comments, it appears that some of the Bugs and issues mentioned in the review have been slightly exagerated. Perhaps this was to justify a lower score at the end maybe. Not that a big deal really, since if they are there they are worth mentioning, but you look at pretty much any of the GTA games and they are full of these kind of issues, yet even reviewers here have looked past them.

    Also to those bone heads claiming any problems they have with the game is Microsofts fault (this isnt next gen yada yada yada) you have no clue, this isnt their game, you expected them to say "no we dont want the GR franchise(which has many fans) on our next gen console"?(and as for QC look at any console this gen and tell me there hasnt been games with FAR worse issues on it, add to that the growing complexity of the way these games are made, higher developement costs and you can easily say they arent doing a bad job this early in the game at all...) What those people are looking for isn't going to happen over night and its in the hands of developers to come up with these new experiences, MS has done their part they've delivered an excellent console, great development tools and support to the developers. The good thing is they've got alot of great developers behind them from the start, so wait and see how this gen turns out.

    Oh and whoever claimed the graphics have changed since last years E3 then you're right!, but thats usually the case as a game nears completion, in no way are they worse though. The graphics are deffinatley in line with what was shown back then ie. pretty damn impressive!.

    *Im pretty knackered here and in a rush so I'll check this post later, if it needs altering in any way*
    Edited by 1 at 14/03/06 @ 18:11

  • Carrybagma #259 6 years ago

    Roll on Halo 3...

    :o(

  • brombeer #260 6 years ago

    Couldn't agree more with this review. It's the only review which is at least honost. I am in the middle of the game and it's getting so frustrated (taking on twenty-and-something foes ON YOUR OWN), repeating large sections twenty or more times (yes, the checkpoints ARE onevenly distributed). But then, just when you reach the end after the twenty repetitions, you get stuck in a tree for no reason and can't move anywhere anymore. More frustration, bordering on pure outrage. What a bugware game this is. Good looks aren't everything. This game is sure prove enough. I'd give it a 5, maximum. Rubbish.

  • Fatnick #261 6 years ago

    To be fair, i'm half-way through the campaign and have yet to see most of those bugs, aside from some minor pop-in. some of his complaints also sound suspiciously like they're coming from someone who simply isn't that great at the game - its perfectly possible to get through the maps without memorising enemy positions. You just have to make good use of cover/smoke grenades/support etc.

  • krudster #262 6 years ago

    The game isn't too hard, just very very inconsisently balanced. One minute it's way too easy, the next you're repeating the same section over and over again.

    Even then, the single player took roughly 10/12 hours. Without the odd crazy difficulty spike (memorising sniper positions - ooh, my favourite!) and silly checkpointing, the whole thing would have been over in half the time.

  • reality_cheque #263 6 years ago

    So I can do co-op missions with a friend (or three?) sitting next to me.
    Very nice indeed.

    You can, but you'll probably fail... even with 14 of us having a go we were lucky to end the mission with more than 2 of us still alive!

  • kangarootoo #264 6 years ago

    Please people, can we stop banging on about the score. Its probably the least important part of the review, yet people go on like a single point difference is actually a big deal.

    Here are some handy facts to help put things in context.

    1.
    Using a scale of 1 to 10 there are 10 posible scores you can give (fractions aside).

    2.
    There are more than 10 games out there that differ in overall quality from each other.

    With those two sentences under our belts (and I'm sure I'm not the first to stumble into that particular tomb of knowledge), we should all be able to see how comments like,

    "So, uh, this is on a par with Perfect Dark, 1 point better than Quake 4 and 1 point WORSE than King Kong?"

    are wholly pointless. Sorry to pick on the person who made that comment, it was the first one I found.

    IF eurogamer used a 1-10,000 score system AND they only had one staff member AND it somehow shared a brain with the reader then all this review score outrage might seem like something other than the eccentric ramblings of mad people... but it doesn't.
    Edited by 1 at 15/03/06 @ 18:38

  • onyxbox #265 6 years ago

    Fisrt off... I've got a standard 28" widescreen telly. I bought this game yesterday and started playing it and the game had this funny stuttering affect, smooth but kind of a lumpy move and look. At first I thought this was how the game was supposed to be but after a while I noticed the vehicles moving in a lumpy way too.

    So I decided to switch the XBOX 360 into PAL 60Htz mode and see if that changed things at all - the problem was fixed then by switching it back to PAL 50 hz the problem came back.

    So bottom line is... if you've got lumpy movement / look then mess about with the refresh rate, the game should be silky smooth.

  • gizmo #266 6 years ago

    Enjoyed my first foray in single player last night, although in under 2 hours play I did get the levitation bug, where my guy was just staring at the ground, and floating, not running. Surely that should have been picked up in testing?

  • kangarootoo #267 6 years ago

    Sounds like they have a few things they may want to patch, which provides a great opportunity to sort the southpaw thing. Don't know if any of you have seent he news on the official Ubi forums about that. It seems the public backlash has been taken seriously.

    Hurrah for people power :)

  • thegamesthething #268 6 years ago

    They've not said anywhere they will actually patch for southpaw / legacy - all they said (about a week ago) is that the appropriate people have been informed. Latest response yesterday from Cobblers (the forum mod) is that he doesnt know if a patch is imminent, and even if it is, whether it will include the above. Thata all I can find on their forums anyway.

  • Salubrious_K #269 6 years ago

    How can Ghost Recon be given the same score as Perfect Dark Zero???

    Speaking from the point of view of someone who's played both games, I'd say something's wrong there.

    Either the PDZ score is way to high or this one is way too low. I guess maybe it's a little bit of both.

  • reality_cheque #270 6 years ago

    @Salubrious_K: I think that's already been stated, refuted, restated, counter-argued and generally doneto death already.

    You're 3 days to late mate :p

  • Salubrious_K #271 6 years ago

    @reality_cheque - It wasn't meant to be breaking news. It was meant to be an opinion voiced.

    Are you now going to suggest that I read all 287 comments before posting my own?

    :D

  • krudster #272 6 years ago

    For the sake of argument, this is a "high 7" and PDZ is a "low 7". PDZ scraped a 7 thanks to decent multiplayer, GRAW got knocked down a mark for the catalogue of annoyances that spoil numerous parts of the single player.

    PDZ might not have the same wow factor as this, but it's a game that once you've played through grows on you a lot. With GRAW, it's amazing to start with this pisses you off as you go along. PDZ also has better co-op implementation, and has the decency to let you play the main single player mode in co-op, unlike GRAW.

    I'd quit comparing the two, they're really nothing like each other. Both have their problems, and both - for me - occupy that difficult 7 category.

    Remember, as we always say, "7 is not the new average, 7 is still a great game!"

  • captain-future #273 6 years ago

    @djchump: Magazine/journo reviews aim as close to objectivity as they can get.
    User reviews are just that - personal opinions from that 1 individual.

    I've never seen an "objective" review, especially not on Eurogamer. First I think it's impossible to be objective (or even come close to it) and I like to read Eurogamer reviews because they ARE subjective.

    --

    What saddens me is that games like BLACK completely ommit multiplayer and get a good score. So if GRAW had only single player it would be 10/10 but because it has more content (no so well executed maybe) it gets less? C'mon!! That's lame.

    I don't play online so it's a perfect for me.
    Edited by 1 at 18/03/06 @ 12:05

  • xpuk #274 6 years ago

    Totally agree with the previous post.

    The review of Black says it's the most progressive FPS in years which is a joke.
    BLACK is great but progressive ...ummm..no.

    GRAW deserved a much better rating but that aside, it deserved a better review.
    Sometimes I think the game journos are in such a rush to get finished and bestow their wisdom on us that they get frustrated when things don't quite go as planned.
    I'll bet their hot chocolate was sent back to mummy several times that same night ;)

    Most if not all of the negative aspects mentioned turned out to be not such a problem at all once you get used to the control method...and this takes a bit of time.

    This is THE best game so far for the 360 and I'm enjoying it immensely...:)

    Edited by 1 at 19/03/06 @ 18:04

  • Salubrious_K #275 6 years ago

    This is only me hypothesising here, so please don't read anything into it, and for the record, I think EG is great and one of the best review sites out there... but...

    If I was a bit late in writing a review for an online 'zine, and looking on sites like GameRankings I could see that a lot of the big reviews had already been out for a few days giving the game a 9+ rating. Then the best way that I could think of to drive traffic to my review from these "meta review" sites, would be to give the game a controversially low score...

  • dk_rare #276 6 years ago

    Loved it, loved it and loved it. Great, amazing, stunning. Costs 20 percent more than normal games though, wtf? Coming out on pc in 2 months, buy it then cheaper