Oddworld: Stranger's Wrath Review

By Kristan Reed Published 7 March, 2005

EGWorld: Reviewer's Wrath.

Version tested: Xbox

Order yours now from Simply Games.

No strangers to subverting saturated and tired genres with their own brand of quirky humour and fondness for farting, burbling simpleton mutants as lead characters, Oddworld Inhabitants' well overdue return to the scene after three years in the wilderness is every bit as warped and unique as you could hope. Or is it?

At first glance Stranger's Wrath has true flashes of standout genius running through it. Take the art direction and technology: it's probably the Xbox's tour de force with a truly outstandingly picturesque engine that allows Oddworld's imagination to run riot and populate its immensely detailed worlds with the kind of character and attention to detail that we'd have been gasping at in rendered video form not that long ago.

I spy candy

'Oddworld: Stranger's Wrath' Screenshot 1

Whether the grizzled lizard man Stranger is prowling through harsh desert scrubland, jumping and swimming through rancid sewers, smashing up unwary farms or stalking the more lush green environments it's an exquisite graphic whore's picture postcard paradise. With a world of smack talking redneck chickens to fight, capture and protect, there's almost too much to admire in the aesthetics. With the Xbox capable of churning out games that look this good it makes a total mockery of Microsoft's decision to abandon its console just four years into its lifespan. Most next-gen games will struggle to look as richly detailed and alive as this.

But I digress. Here's the deal: you basically play a lonesome bounty hunter, going from town to town hunting down all the wanted ne'er do wells for 'moolah'. The behatted gravel voiced Stranger doesn't like guns for reasons not fully explained, but is quite happy to nail whoever gets in his way with his crossbow and a fine selection of whatever creatures he can lay his hands on. As part of the game's off the wall appeal these creatures just happen to be the right size to mount side by side on the Stranger's crossbow and form the core of the game's combat dynamic.

Acting rather like the now-familiar Halo 2 dual-wielding dynamic you can fire two 'weapons', although not necessarily at the same time. No sir, the premise here is more to create a layer of strategy that largely consists of luring unsuspecting enemies (Chip Punks) then swiftly walloping or immobilising them (Thud Slug, Skunk Bomb, Boom Bats, Bolamite), shooting them (Zap Fly, Sting Bee), or setting a jaw-snapping trap (Fuzzles). But unlike Halo 2's more limited system, though, you're still given the ability to carry all eight of your weapon types in reserve, and swap them out at any time with a flick of the D-pad.

Immortal weakling

'Oddworld: Stranger's Wrath' Screenshot 2

But with so many permutations available it often takes a fair bit of trial and error to get the balance right between luring, laying a trap and bagging them up before all hell breaks loose and half a dozen enemies descend upon you and finish you off with a few well placed shots. You see, although Stranger has the ability to literally shake off any damage he incurs, he's also a bit feeble and if you're not careful you'll be dead in a few seconds.

The dynamic becomes very much like a hunt; picking off the weak stragglers one by one, quickly stunning them in order to bounty more 'moolah' for them alive, or simply killing them to make sure - but for half the dosh. Trying to wade into practically any combat situation in the game is pure folly as you're so weak in relative terms. So although the quicksave mechanic in tandem with infinite health does cheapen the challenge somewhat, it's offset by making you quite a weakling to compensate.

Somewhat uniquely the game is split almost equally between third and first-person viewpoints, with first-person for crossbow combat and third to take into account the platform negotiation and melee combat. With a punch, headbutt and dual trigger spin attack at your disposal you're not afraid to get your hands dirty if it comes down to it, and if you take a run-up you can even bowl into opponents - but the usefulness of melee attacks lessens as the game wears on.

Fear me and my infinite ammo

'Oddworld: Stranger's Wrath' Screenshot 3

Eventually once you've finished bagging up all the peripheral villains, the 'hunt' then boils down to a boss face-off with the main guy you're contracted to reel in. Some of these encounters are surprisingly easy, while others are alarmingly, disproportionately tough with lazily designed abilities to rain down infinite amounts of super destructive weaponry while you're left with tiny amounts of often fairly useless attacks. Sometimes life isn't fair; especially when the difficulty curve rises and falls quite dramatically, but seeing as the entire progress of the game hangs on these key boss encounters it's just a case of just hanging in there and plugging away until you find a chink in their armour and move onto the next bounty target.

After the first sets of bounties are nabbed it appears our Stranger's desire to carry on bringing in the villains is made all the more important thanks to needing $20,000 dollars for some sort of operation. Seems a bit silly considering he can just shake off his wounds, but that's just me being a pedant.

And so the game goes on, with a new town, a new set of bounties to choose from at your leisure, a new set of weapons, ammo and armour upgrades to purchase if you so choose, and the pattern goes on.

That's all, folks

'Oddworld: Stranger's Wrath' Screenshot 4

Sadly after the first town you realise that's pretty much the whole game in a nutshell. Scenery changes, enemies come a little better armed and maybe a bit more ruthless, but to compensate your weapons, ammo and armour gradually get upgraded and it's as you were. There's little - if anything - in the way of puzzle solving or real narrative drive to really immerse the player in this deliciously rendered world. Walking up to the many NPC (non-player chickens) wandering around might elicit an amusing response the first or second time, but the low sample rate on the dialogue and generic Hicksville accent make them things you begin to ignore more and more as it begins to sink in that there's not much point them even being there.

On the whole, the towns provide a setting and context and look exceptional the first time you visit them, but it's the same deal with all of them. Visit the Bounty Store, accept contract, upgrade at the General Store, run off to the next town, and as a result the game mechanics get a little wearing after a while. The repetitive nature is fine if you split up each town over several weeks, but play the whole 15-hour show in a couple of days and the repetitive mechanics become slightly transparent.

Playing devil's advocate for a moment, the only clear explanation I can come up with for the team's unexpected desire to allow players to click into a first-person mode is to show off how well they can render your chosen creatures that sit obediently on the top of your crossbow looking absurdly pretty, cute and loveable. I strongly suspect the game could have been equally (if not more) playable in third-person all the way through, especially when in the heat of combat it's not the most natural thing in the world to click the right stick, fart about with which ammo duo you want with the D-pad and get back into the thick of it.

Thirst person

'Oddworld: Stranger's Wrath' Screenshot 5

The whole 'critters combat' thing could have just as easily been pulled off in third-person with maybe a toggle button for melee combat and would have been far more intuitive. The point, really, is that Stranger's Wrath simply isn't a better game for having first-person mode, and many of us would have maybe preferred the choice. It's an undoubtedly prettier mode that lets you see all of their arty creations up close, but it's by no means more playable. It seems as if someone, somewhere realised the game was a bit 'ho-hum' in third-person as a spectacle and added first-person just to make the whole thing look more attractive and make it seem like it was two games in one. On a design and playability level it doesn't really add anything especially useful to the party, and once you realise that the game follows roughly the same path throughout its technical charms wear off fairly quickly.

Looking back, this combat-heavy direction doesn't really suit Oddworld's more aesthetic and humour-heavy past. The lack of discernable puzzles is a tad disappointing, and the lack of narrative hook reduces the experience to a series of tag and bag encounters. Although the whole package is stitched together marvellously, is slick, polished almost beyond belief and there's nothing necessarily bad about it, it's one of those games that simply lacks that crucial gameplay spark to elevate it to the top echelons. Even as a died in the wool shooter fan, I have to admit that Stranger's Wrath isn't on a par with most shooters for balls-out action and at the same time manages to lose some of the off-the-wall appeal that previous Oddworld games had in spades. As a tech demo it's astounding. As a game it's well above average in most senses. But would we recommend Xbox owners rush out and buy it for full price? Sadly not, unless you're fed up with a lack of exclusive titles, want something new and have money burning a hole in your pockets. We expected much bigger things and certainly never expected to urge you to rent it first.

Order yours now from Simply Games.

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 (98) Latest comment 9 months ago

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

  • ssuellid #1 7 years ago

    First EG review I really disagree with. Its an excellent game. I cannot see how they could have done the platforming bits in first person mode. Its a nice cross over - barge in like a loony knocking enemies out in third person then switch to first person and shoot the buggers. Great fun.

  • Blerk #2 7 years ago

    But would we recommend Xbox owners rush out and buy it for full price?

    Considering it'll be in the bargain bin next week because it doesn't feature 'real world environments', it's probably best to wait a bit.

    Odd review, though. Not 'badly written' or 'I disagree' odd, just odd in that everyone else on the planet appears to have loved it to bits. Trying to make up for that Mr Pants score, Kristan? ;-)

  • ralphwolfenstein #3 7 years ago

    Wow. I disagree completely with this one... And not least because when you say "Sadly after the first town you realise that's pretty much the whole game in a nutshell" it leads one to believe you stopped playing before the

    MASSIVE SPOILER!







    well, you'll see

  • Singularity #4 7 years ago

    Yeah, it's a bit harsh. I love the fact that you're quite weak and have to pick off members of large groups one at a time. Admittedly the structure is quite repetitive, but I'm enjoying the combat far more than in Halo 2. The stamina/health thing is great.

    And Blerk, dude, It's Mr Pants rules! (; ))

  • ssuellid #5 7 years ago

    Curious to know what you mean about the 'low sample rate' on the dialog as well. Sounded perfectly fine to me - didn't notice anything odd about it.

  • krudster #6 7 years ago

    I didn't say the game should have been first person, more that it seemed like a third person game with a tacked on first person mode to make it look prettier.

    And 7 is still a good score. Hardly negative, just not getting carried away with a game that got very repetitive very quickly.

  • Blerk #7 7 years ago

    Hats off to the man who tells it like it is and not how everyone else wants it to be, then!

    Except for Mr Pants. That's just wrong. :-D

  • krudster #8 7 years ago

    Oh come ON, Blerk! It's Mr Pants is quite clearly bordering on Tetris levels of genius! Quit this one man cuss mission!

  • pollster #9 7 years ago

    I for one am disappointed with OS. I had been looking forward to a new oddworld game for quite some time. However I did not expect a modern day remake of the spectrum game Gunfright. A step back for the oddworld universe if you ask me. Bring back Abe and the gang!

  • Blerk #10 7 years ago

    Oh come ON, Blerk! It's Mr Pants is quite clearly bordering on Tetris levels of genius! Quit this one man cuss mission!

    lol. I'll stop. :-D

    /still thinks it's 'boring'

  • krudster #11 7 years ago

    I, for one, cannot understand quite how it is I'm out on a limb with this one. Maybe the EA machine has helped with the marketing 'moolah'. I wonder what the review scores would have been if it was published by JoWood or Oxygen?

  • glo #12 7 years ago

    Rented this one over the weekend and have to say that I completely agree with Kristan's review on it. There's nothing really wrong with the game, it's very pretty and well produced but it just seemed to be missing something.

    I rented it as I wasn't sure I would like it enough to pay £30 for it and I am glad that I did. It's good to see a more realistic review and score for this game.

    What were Edge thinking? 9 out of 10? It is a good game, but not that good.
    Edited by 1 at 07/03/05 @ 09:47

  • ralphwolfenstein #13 7 years ago

    "I agree about the review funnily enough. I just don't have the slightest inclination to buy this videogame"

    And I think Raging Bull is one of the greatest examples of 20th century cinema, although I still haven't seen it. Remind me how that works again?

  • groovychainsaw #14 7 years ago

    As i recall, edge seemed to suggest that the game style changed towards the end of the game and became less about just getting bounties, but they never went into great detail about the shift, just that this redeemed the game for them. Looks nice though, but Blerk's 'bargain bin' comment may be be all too true. I know few people who would go for this, sadly, its not chavtacular enough....

  • krudster #15 7 years ago

    Sorry ManicMiner... I've said pretty much all I need to in the review, but it's not actually unusual for gamers to disagree with one another. More surprising is how surprised people get over a difference of opinion!

  • IronGiant #16 7 years ago

    Shame on Oddworld for trying something with charm, personality and a genuine sense of humour which is sorely lacking in games. Yes it gets repetitive but no more so than the cut'n paste of Halo2 which you gave a way over the top 9 score to.

  • jiroczech #17 7 years ago

    I thought that was a good review. Well, it matched my experience of the game anyway. I didn't get far enough to witness any *SPOILERS* but unless it magically turns into Resident Evil 4 half way through I can't see it picking up enough to justify all those rave reviews.

    Pretty but empty-headed and not enough going on to make you stick around.

  • Fozzie_bear #18 7 years ago

    "I work in the industry, and it just flat out scares me that something as impeccably designed, beautifully realised and original as Oddworld Stranger could be considered a 7/10 game... "

    It may well be beautifully designed and realised etc... but all that doesn't necessarily make it a good game. I pay 40 quid for a fun game - not for a beatifully realised world.

  • Blerk #19 7 years ago

    I work in the industry, and it just flat out scares me that something as impeccably designed, beautifully realised and original as Oddworld Stranger could be considered a 7/10 game...

    Something that is impeccably designed, beautifully realised and original can still be scuppered if it's not fun to play, though. If Kristan got a bit bored with it then it wouldn't be fair to score it higher just because it's original and well realised.

  • pollster #20 7 years ago

    Since Resident Evil 4 received 9/10 - I think 7/10 is about fair

  • ralphwolfenstein #21 7 years ago

    "With respect to your comment, people form opinions on things they have never experienced all the time. Sometimes they are right and sometimes they are wrong. But that's preference, stereotyping and history for you."

    It wasn't meant as a criticism, we're all equally guilty... And my comment was only half tongue in cheek - I DO think Raging Bull is great, simply because I think it ought to be ;¬)

  • Eighthours #22 7 years ago

    Both EDGE and the people I know who've completed it, say that the game changes massively before the end, and that the last few hours provide some of the best graphics and setpieces yet seen on a console.

    Therefore, the question has to be asked, did you play the game through to completion, or did you stop around the halfway mark? If the latter, as more people get to see the game, this review may start to look a little incomplete!

  • Blerk #23 7 years ago

    Both EDGE and the people I know who've completed it, say that the game changes massively before the end, and that the last few hours provide some of the best graphics and setpieces yet seen on a console.

    So why didn't they make the game like that from the start?

  • drumbaby #24 7 years ago

    "So why didn't they make the game like that from the start?"

    Yeah...that's the reason why I feel that in no way does a game like HL2 deserve a perfect 10 just because it rallies a bit from about the half way mark. The first half put me to sleep at the wheel (I seemed to be driving for 90% of the time!) yet the 'it gets much better after Nova Prospekt' argument gets trawled out time and time again by people I know/ reviews.

    Well, bully for that fact....but imho it's too little, too late. A truly high scoring game should keep the interest levels high from beginning to end, or at least for a higher percentage than 50% of its gameplay...or they should give you the first half of the game free.

    :)

  • jiroczech #25 7 years ago

    Fair point, well made by Blerk.

    I got bored before the game did anything to make me sit up and take notice. And even with all the talk of it picking up later on I'm not tempted to start playing it again.

    krudster: what the feck has happened to the forum? Don't envy whoever has to sort that out.

  • Darkedge #26 7 years ago

    I'm les than half way thought it and I've finished the bounties .. I have to say It's ALOT more fun to me than Halo, I't the best FPS on a console I've played. Personally the third person stuff feel more bolted on than the first, but that in ther so you can do the jumping/platforming bits.
    I found it to be, yes a damn beautiful game but also hillariously fun and enjoyable. Even from watching the attract mode video you can see the envioments change dramatically and it's a game that wows you all the way through.
    Hate to say it but from where I'm sitting playing the game it looks like Kristan didn't play it though properly.
    8/10 for the game from me - well worth it.

  • jiroczech #27 7 years ago

    And Romeo and Juliet isn't shite up until Act 5, Scene 3.

  • pjmaybe #28 7 years ago

    Thought this might be the case...

    \o/ - was right

    Peej

  • jiroczech #29 7 years ago

    peej: Brothers in Arms is a bit pants too. :-(

  • IronGiant #30 7 years ago

    Agree on that game. Brothers In Arms is average at best, some back handers with reviews been going on there methinks.

  • Eighthours #31 7 years ago

    So why didn't they make the game like that from the start?

    It's a good point, Blerk, perhaps they just didn't want to give all their tricks away at the start.... For the record, the game's still a whole lot of fun even at the beginning, though the difficulty spikes do exist as the review says. Thankfully, the Quicksave is speedy and a godsend.

    Personally I can't wait to get further into the game and experience the later levels. I've been promised, "Think Half-Life 2, not Halo 2." Sounds good to me...

  • BremXJones #32 7 years ago

    Offtopic I know but since it's come up: Why the Brothers in Arms hate? I wouldn't give it the 90s it's been getting, but it's at least a solid 8.

    Actual vaguely originally WW2 game! Who'd have thunk it?

    KG

  • jiroczech #33 7 years ago

    Brothers in Arms isn't that bad, just not as good as I'd hoped it'd be. Deserves to lose 1 mark out of 10 just for the nasty loading screens. :p

  • Captain Fetid #34 7 years ago

    ManicMinerUK wrote:
    but for years the buying public have been saying "impeccable design, beautifully realised game worlds... Thats what we consider FUN"

    EG hardly has the audience you're thinking of in the above sentence...

  • BremXJones #35 7 years ago

    Perhaps worth nothing that I've been playing on the PC. I didn't even really notice the loading...

    KG

  • Stevas mkII #36 7 years ago

    So out of the three major releases this week, (Snowblind, Oddworld, and Republic Commando), the Star Wars game gets the highest mark.

    Even though the shearing and tearing in it makes it damn near an unplayable mess.

    The...?

  • MikeD #37 7 years ago

    Very good review!

    Completely agree. People ahve somehow massively been completely hyped up about this. Maybe because it's oddworld, maybe because it's pretty, maybe because it's an xbox exclusive I don't know. It just isn't great.

    "Offtopic I know but since it's come up: Why the Brothers in Arms hate? I wouldn't give it the 90s it's been getting, but it's at least a solid 8. "

    A solid 8 for OPS2M maybe, not for EG, I hope.

  • jiroczech #38 7 years ago

    KG: the loading screens on the Xbox verison are an abomination. Ok so I wouldn't drop it a mark for them, but they're a sign of something.

    Isn't it a bit easy on the PC with a mouse?

  • IronGiant #39 7 years ago

    I never base my purchases on EG's reviews, after all they gave Halo2 single player 9/10 and James Bond EON 8/10!! ;)

    I look on metacritic and check out all the reviews, the average for Oddworld is 88 which i completely agree with.

  • krudster #40 7 years ago

    Yes, Republic Commando gets the best score because, shock, it's the most entertaining of the three in my estimation. No one's asking anyone to agree with any of this. Certainly looks to me, though, that plenty of people out there aren't blown away with Stranger's Wrath either.

  • tiddles #41 7 years ago

    jeez... aren't Eurogamer allowed to have their own opinions any more?

  • krudster #42 7 years ago

    No, we must look at the highest mark, beat it, then we'll always be the top of Gameranking's list. Genius.

  • Bertie Verified Senior Staff Writer, Eurogamer.net #43 7 years ago

    'Can't be bothered to check out the review - simply looked at the score: 7/10 -- your kidding?'

    Hah.

  • phAge #44 7 years ago

    A bit OT, but is the forum also KIA to everyone else?

  • MikeD #45 7 years ago

    "Seems like the reviews here continue to slide.... oh, and is it any wonder than sites like gamerankings.com are becoming as popular as they are.. keeps shoddy reviews like this at bay, as the cream *always* rises to the top."

    if it was up to people like you sites/magazines would be scoring games based on a score between 9 and 10. 9 being rather crap and 9.9 very good. Cream rises to the top, hahahahaha. You go read official ps2 and xbox magazines for your cream. I'll stay here.

  • Stevas mkII #46 7 years ago

    Wasn't particularly blown away by Oddworld, either, as it happens.

    I Just can't really see how anyone could find the glitchfest that is Repblic Commando remotely entertaining.

  • krudster #47 7 years ago

    The speech does sound less crisp than it ought to be, and is low in the mix. Sometimes it's virtually indecipherable, and that's on a decent set up.

  • ssuellid #48 7 years ago

    You sure its not your set up? Its seems fine on my setup - and I have a awful cold and am a bit deaf at the moment - so it could be my hearing being a bit off.
    Edited by 1 at 07/03/05 @ 12:00

  • Royal Fool #49 7 years ago

    I haven't finished the game, I stopped playing roughly at 11 thousand moolah and had gotten a fair bit of upgrades. It's not a bad game at all, just a rather repetitive one. Thankfully the levels are somewhat varied and new enemies are introduced at a good enough pace for me not to get overly bored.

    But even so I still always felt something was missing. It's something I can't quite put my finger on but it definitely feels that way. And there's another very annoying little detail that somehow was forgotten: Captions. The game's characters have such a muddled form of speech (Stranger being the biggest culprit here) that I honestly don't understand why they didn't add subtitles. There's certainly enough dialogue in the game to justify them.

    People have been talking about some weird plot twist in the middle of the game but I never got there. I better pick up where I left off before I lose interest altogether. Cool game, lots of athmosphere and life... but I'd only have given it an 8 myself. Too constrained, too linear. Lots of fun though.

  • krudster #50 7 years ago

    Interesting - as ever - to note it's mainly the unregistered users making a big fuss.

  • Feanor #51 7 years ago

    So krudster, are you going to answer whether you got to the big twist in the game that apparently changes the gameplay? Sorry if you have already answered that question and I just missed it.

  • Blerk #52 7 years ago

    To play 'devil's advocate' for a minute, why does it matter if he got to the 'big twist' or not?

    If he got there, the review takes it into account. If he didn't... surely that says something about the game in itself?

  • ralphwolfenstein #53 7 years ago

    "Interesting - as ever - to note it's mainly the unregistered users making a big fuss."

    I'M making a big fuss :¬)

    But I'm going to finish it before I pass further comment. At the moment it's a clear 9/10 for me, want to see if it gets better or worse in the second half

  • Feanor #54 7 years ago

    "To play 'devil's advocate' for a minute, why does it matter if he got to the 'big twist' or not?

    If he got there, the review takes it into account. If he didn't... surely that says something about the game in itself?"

    Well, I think it matters because if I buy a new release game I'm almost certainly going to play it till I beat it. So if there's a big plot/gameplay twist later on in the game then I want to know about it. I don't blame krudster if he didn't get that far - I certainly don't think reviewers have to complete every game they play for their review to be a good one. I have just heard a lot about the twist in this game, so I wondered if it improved the game much.

    Sometimes reviewers play a game a lot differently than I will play it if I buy it, and that can make their review unhelpful to me. For instance, a lot of reviewers have been complaining about Devil May Cry 3 being far too hard. It is ony too hard if you play on Normal (not Easy) and don't take the time to level up your health, items and abilities by replaying the early levels thru the handy Mission Select feature. (Something which is a lot of fun and not really a chore at all.) Anyone who expects to play the 20 Devil May Cry 3 missions one after another without leveling up like you might do in an RPG is going to get mightily pissed off.
    Edited by 1 at 07/03/05 @ 14:30

  • jonnyreb #55 7 years ago

    Bought this the day it came out.....after a few goes I realised it just wasn't my thing........Gameplay is fun and the humour is pretty cool, but after the first couple of missions I just couldn't be arsed to be honest.

    I actually swappeed it for Mercenaries which is even worse LOL

    Got money back and bought some DVD's instead :p

  • groovychainsaw #56 7 years ago

    People seem to be being a bit harsh on the review though, the score is fine, there's no need to slag off the reviewer, its just an opinion! If you tend to agree with europgamer, this will be close to the mark, if you tend to agree with (insert crappy 'official' magazine here) then you wont like like this score (apparently). But come on, use some intelligence people - you don't have to buy things based on reviews...?
    (Apologies to others who have made more rational points, this isnt aimed at you - as for the others - you know who you are...)

  • krudster #57 7 years ago

    We currently allow unregistered posters, but as a rule almost all (not yours) unregistered posters tend to be really irritating for a variety of reasons. It's often more trouble than it's worth tbh. In theory allowing unregistered users is fine, but it constantly ends up being abused.

    As for the constant "the big twist" thing, why should I spoil it for everyone? As Blerk and others have observed, you shouldn't have to wait for a game to get better - much like Snowblind. It needs to captivate gamers in the first 2-3 hours, not 10 hours in. Personally I play almost all games to completion before review; within reason. This isn't a snap decision; I've been playing the game since December!

  • Stickman #58 7 years ago

    I've been looking at Eurogamer for a long time, and this is the first review I disagree with, and have therefore decided Eurogamer is shit and in the pocket of every developer in the world.

    Of course, I say I disagree with the review, what I actually mean is I haven't read the review and am basing my opinion on the 7/10 rating, which as we all know is a very low score, with, I'm reliably informed by my nurse, only 6.5/10 coming below it.

    I've been playing this game since it came out a whole few days ago, and am therefore the source of ALL opinion and knowledge on said subject. If you disagree, GO TO HELL AND ROT!

    I'm cc'ing my MP into this reply, and Kristian can expect his summary execution any day now.

    Yours,

    A. Twat esq

  • groovychainsaw #59 7 years ago

    Thankyou stickman, i think you made the point i was trying to make far more eloquently than i did!
    /bows, doffs hat (with feather in, naturally)

  • Blerk #60 7 years ago

    As Blerk and others have observed, you shouldn't have to wait for a game to get better

    /pimps his own over-inflated ego

    :-)

  • Feanor #61 7 years ago

    I don't recall anyone asking you to spoil it for them; people just wanted to know if you got that far. The fourth registered post in this thread was as follows:

    "Wow. I disagree completely with this one... And not least because when you say "Sadly after the first town you realise that's pretty much the whole game in a nutshell" it leads one to believe you stopped playing before the

    MASSIVE SPOILER!







    well, you'll see"
    Edited by 1 at 07/03/05 @ 15:25

  • Daan #62 7 years ago

    Wow. I almost never disagree with EuroGamer, but I do now. A LOT. Terrible review.

    After the first sets of bounties are nabbed it appears our Stranger's desire to carry on bringing in the villains is made all the more important thanks to needing $20,000 dollars for some sort of operation. Seems a bit silly considering he can just shake off his wounds, but that's just me being a pedant.

    Did you finish it? Or played it more than a few hours? The game changes massively when you're at, let's say, 50 or 60%. The plot twist rocks, the bountyhunting stops and the epic storyline unfolds. Really, nothing shows me that you've played it longer than 5 or 6 hours. That's odd, I almost never disagree with you Kristan, but I think this review sucks. A lot. Sorry :)
    Edited by 1 at 07/03/05 @ 15:44

  • Royal Fool #63 7 years ago

    If he claims he's had the game since December I'd risk guessing that he has finished the game (Or at least come close to doing so).

  • jonnyreb #64 7 years ago

    I must admit I feel about sorry for 'online magazine' reviewers........in a paper based magazine there is no 'comeback' for the reviewer other than writing letters to the editor that never get published.

    I honestly think that the best thing is just to ignore all the negative comments and just stick by the review / score that is given, and don't even bother replying to the critics or trying to justify your comments.

    Everyone has a different view of every game, film, artist or whatever............I personally didn't really like MP2 Echoes a whole lot, but that didn't mean I asked every reviewer who scored it highly to justify their review.

    But that's the problem with public forums.....people who wouldn't even dare to look you in the eye in the 'real world' feel they can personally attack someone - after all it's just words, right???? (that's not to criticise anyone who makes good, constructive reasons why they disagree).

    All I'm saying is that people should just take the review for what it is - someone's opinion, and look at it alongside all the other 'opinions' (ie reviews) and make your own decision as to whether it's worth buying.

    Or?

  • Daan #65 7 years ago

    "If he claims he's had the game since December I'd risk guessing that he has finished the game (Or at least come close to doing so)."

    Well if he's playing it since December he should be able to write a decent review. But he didn't.

  • pjmaybe #66 7 years ago

    Why is it always FPS fans who get the biggest bugs in their pants about bad reviews?

    Peej

  • krudster #67 7 years ago

    Not many come forwards, girlygamer. We'd love a decent female perspective.

  • Blerk #68 7 years ago

    They've obviously seen the kind of people who lurk around the forums all day. :-)

  • IronGiant #69 7 years ago

    "As Blerk and others have observed, you shouldn't have to wait for a game to get better - much like Snowblind. It needs to captivate gamers in the first 2-3 hours"

    If you weren't captivated in the first 2 hours then what kind of games do you like? For me the first few hours were the best, just learning about all the different ammo and tactics then going off on the hunt was great fun. It's the first couple of hours that pulls you into the cool style and humour of the game. I suppose folks are harping on about the twist later on because they think that answers the repetitive criticism. Personally i loved the game and it's one of the very few i really wanted to complete.

  • krudster #70 7 years ago

    No idea Peej, but you're dead right.


    I think I rated this game more first time I played it. Easily an 8. Starting over with the finished build, all my enthusiasm I initially had left me. I think many people here are just carried away with their first impressions. Try playing again in three month's time and see how much you care.

  • krudster #71 7 years ago

    What kind of games do I like? Errr, well there are a few hundred reviews in the archive to give you a clue!

  • IronGiant #72 7 years ago

    Maybe so but like Riddick and other similar games it's a once through experience, i played it, completed it and really enjoyed it. Lack of replayability is indeed a criticism and i was miffed when completing it gave no bonuses at all but while it lasts it's great.

  • mal #73 7 years ago

    Ooh, damn, I am soo torn over this one. I was planning to ignore it because it was just another mindless FPS, of the sort that seems to be all over the xbox at the moment. But then I hear you have to be a bit more intelligent about it. Colour me interested. Then I'm told that it's all rather repetitive.

    I just don't know what to think. I might just do as suggested, and find somewhere that rents it.

  • MikeD #74 7 years ago

    FPS fans?

    On an xbox oddworld game?

    Come on krudster and peej, this is clearly not fps fans making the ruckus. I am one and I completely agree with the review.

  • lemonfist #75 7 years ago

    I hardly ever agree with Eurogamer on any game. I didn't agree about Half-Life 2, I didn't agree about Fable, Tales of Symphonia, and many others. And I probably won't agree on this one either once I get my hands on it and complete it. But I still think Eurogamer's currently one of the only credible gaming websites. They tell us their honest opinion, and that I can appreciate so much more - even when I don't agree - than the Gamespot method: "So, if you like blablabla then this game is definitely for you!" with an 8.x slapped at the top.
    Edited by 2 at 07/03/05 @ 20:01

  • drks #76 7 years ago

    i can agree with some of the complaints, (although the first person comments are baffling to me - if anything the third person view feels bolted on and sloppy, not the first person) but it's much better than 7/10.

    especially when the same reviewer gave halo2, which is far more repititive and much less fun and more guilty of some of the same problems 9/10. kinda odd.

  • debug_kit_2600 #77 7 years ago

    An easy way to solve all this would be to do away with the whole idea of giving a game a grade. Just continue to write well crafted reviews and let people make up there own mind.

    To be honest I have no idea what a 6/10 game looks like or plays like as opposed to a 7/10 game. It is something of an abstract number to me.

    What Games TM do is say if they enjoyed the game more than, less than or just as much as another game in same genre. This I find infinitely more useful than a score “out of ten”, any chance of EG adopting this method?

  • lemonfist #78 7 years ago

    It'd be kind of neat, yeah, not caring about a fucking number at the end of review.

    Unfortunately I think most readers consider it very important, as some probably just check the score and maybe small parts of the review. They're used to it.

    And the game publishers will probably want to see them 8's and 9's roll in as well.

  • Heds #79 7 years ago

    Having read the recent comments, I've registered, cause I note the response to unregistered posts. ;-)

    It's obvious now that Kristan has played it through, and that it didn't do much for him. Fair enough. It just seemed from the review he hadn't. I'm not a massive FPS fan, in fact I found Halo2 overhyped and mediocre. But Stranger's Wrath has little details that have impressed me. I tend to go through these firing at everything and anything. In Halo2 everything was black and white, an enemy or a static piece of scenery. I found places in SW which actually let you interact. I just found that refreshing.

    Agree with the numbers thing though. Drop them and I think a large amount of people would stop reading the reviews, more's the pity...

  • Razz #80 7 years ago

    I not a fan of Halo. I've never heard of this game before, but I'm interested now, are you saying that because i dislike halo1+2 i won't like this either?

  • jonnyreb #81 7 years ago

    I remember 'The Edge' magazine once had a month when they didn't give any scores to the games, just wrote comments (think it was about 12 - 16 months ago, can't remember the exact issue but I think it was the issue they reviewed Otogi 2 Japanese release).

    I actually found it quite useful to be honest....and it forced me to read the whole review rather than ignoring any that got a score of under 7 :) like I usually do.

    Statistically though, I think (because very few people buy a game after reading one magazine's review) that you have to keep the 'score number' so that each gamer can look at a 'selection' of review numbers and get a good feel for the quality of the game (ie look at 20 reviews, if 18 people score it over 8 then you can be fairly sure its going to be OK).

    Edited by 1 at 08/03/05 @ 12:22

  • Genji #82 7 years ago

    EG are generally pretty tough on their reviews, although I have yet to see a game getting 1 or 2 out of 10. Has a game ever gotten this from EG, by the way? Anyway, I don't really see what this review has to do with Halo 2, which people keep bringing up for some reason. The reviewer liked H2, but liked this game less (but still enough to give it 7/10). Am I missing something here? I just cannot understand people who flame reviewers for daring to point out what he feels are flaws in a game.

  • ralphwolfenstein #83 7 years ago

    "I just cannot understand people who flame reviewers for daring to point out what he feels are flaws in a game"

    If you think this is bad, you should have seen the little prick who kicked off in the Mercenaries review thread ;¬)

  • Heds #84 7 years ago

    I compared it to Halo2 mainly as that's the last FPS I played on a console, it just seemed to make sense at the time. Although I dunno... "Halo3 : Floodhunt" might be kind of... no, maybe not.

  • RumpyStumpy #85 7 years ago

    I have to say thius is one of the most enjoyable and well presented games I have played in sometime. I prefer it to Halo 2's single player game as it seems to be fresher than said sequal.

    Hats of to Mr Lanning for adding a little spice to both the fps and platform genre. It won't appeal to everyone but no game does, but at least it is trying to move things forward. Not a revolution but a very enjoyable evolution all the same.

    It's solid, slick, gorgeous and most of all fun to play.

    Oh and I hated the first 2 oddworld games.

  • Roamer #86 7 years ago

    I feel bad for Krudster, he has to spend as much time explaining his score to people in the comments section as he does writing the review..

  • lemonfist #87 7 years ago

    Rogue Agent also got a 2/10 if I remember correctly.

  • BBIAJ #88 7 years ago

    "Why doesn't Henry Hill just leave the Mafia at the start of the Goodfellas..."

    Sorry, but I just read that as Harry Hill and promptly died laughing!

    By the way, can someone tell me how to work itallics and bold into posts on this place?

    Cheers!

  • jaa #89 7 years ago

    Huge controversy over an oddworld game? That's odd...


    Personally, the review doesn't put me off. I'm buying it anyway. And I'll return in a few weeks to insult Kristan.

  • The Old Bill #90 7 years ago

    "Rogue Agent also got a 2/10 if I remember correctly. "

    You do.

  • Genji #91 7 years ago

    "If you think this is bad, you should have seen the little prick who kicked off in the Mercenaries review thread ;¬)"

    I did. I was one of the people who tried to calm him down.

  • soundbuoy #92 7 years ago

    Jeez, you crazy kids! some people like it, some don't. Like my favourite bands, movies etc..
    EG, like Edge, tell me what they like and don't like about a game, and then, OMG, I have to make a decision myself anyway!!
    That's why I like em.
    The game had some problems, most of em do.. even zelda.. gasp.. but I'm finding it very compulsive at the mo, and I like the way you move faster and see more periphery in 3rd, and can shoot more accurately in 1st.. I seem to remember reading a comment by the game's designer about this a long time ago. Which is why I like it, I think - there was a cohesive vision about what the game should be all through it's production.
    Like all the good stuff.

  • drks #93 7 years ago

    £15 would be a bargain for it. i paid a lot more and am delighted with it


    if you're unsure, another review which for me gives a more accurate impression of the game is here http://www.pro-g.co .uk/review/80/

  • IronGiant #94 7 years ago

    Agree with Nathan. Class game and well deserved the praise it got elsewhere.. shame is that no matter what the score this game was never gonna be a big hit even with EA publishing.

  • barnard666 #95 7 years ago

    when game were doing their trade in 4 games and get any for 99p deal I got oddworld and republic commando, finished RC in about 3 days, didnt really think much oif it, too easy, and very very repetetive, then oddworld was more of the same, started with too much help text, repetetive missions etc. it was only because munch got better and better the further that you got in to it that I persisted, and yes when the twist came the game became stunning, those last couple of hours are some of the best I've played on my xbox, maybe if theyd been like halo 2 and put the good bit at the start and made the remaining game a bit dull it would have got 9.9 ratings across the net!! I think lorne lanning needs to think about making his next game ace all the way through and not just a bit of it like the last 2.

  • 4nonymous #96 7 years ago

    EDGE Magazine UK: 9/10

    They are right.

    Eurogamer is not.

  • davisorle #97 2 years ago

    Never knew this was rated with 7/10 on EG. Shame.. really some ppl should know more about gamnes/gaming before they are allowed to put out their review scores. Its embarassing. This game was gorgeous and brilliant.

  • BobbyDeNiro #98 9 months ago

    Terrible review. Its a brilliant game