Jump to navigation
Advertisement

Urban Reign Review

PlayStation 2 Review by Tom Bramwell

30 January, 2006

Man, life's pretty tough on the mean streets of Pimlico for thugs like me. "Community support" po-po on every corner, leaves swept up whether they're brown or green, anti-climbing paint on the walls and ample parking. As I sit here typing this, there's a POLICEMAN ON A HORSE outside my window. Everyone minding their Ps and Qs. There aren't even any derelict buildings. How are we meant to form gangs and become addicted to heroin and generally fall off society's radar when it's all so bloody clean and tidy? Thank goodness for games like Urban Reign. Keeping it real.

See, this is what we want. You are BRAD HAWK. You are a PROFESSIONAL. You ANSWER TO NO ONE. I didn't even write down what the city's called that you're in, but it doesn't matter; you know why you're here; you're here to go around beating people up for money; you're here to be MEAN and ANSWER TO NO ONE except that lady handing out the missions and SHE'S JUST A DAME.

Dame? Yeah, you know. She's a, uh, um. Oh fishhooks. Okay look, I admit it, this is total charlatanry. My working knowledge of gangsters is limited to what I've seen in The Shield and Guys And Dolls, and I haven't even seen the latter so it's even worse than it sounds. I don't like mean streets at all; I like choccy biccies and cups of tea. The closest I've come to drug taking is battling a cold by mainlining Lemsip. I use the word "jumpers" and listen to Belle & Sebastian while talking to my Nanna on the phone about watercolours. I talk about my feelings. The only thing I've ever "tagged" was my ruler in school, and even then I felt like I'd committed some great act of hate against Shatter Resistance.

'Urban Reign' Screenshot 1

Yes, that man's name is actually 'Real'.

Fortunately Urban Reign isn't much more real; it's the latest in a boringly long line of gang warfare games made by people, like me, whose first reaction to the words "loan shark" is "stingy aquarium!" It's about "gang warfare" in the same way that "the Coca Cola Championship" is about drinks. Really it's just a tedious slugger. In it, broad-chested nutter Brad Hawk wanders around Wherevertown beating up small pockets of people in 100 tiny story missions, using a decently varied array of attacks to take them down in little scrolling beat-'em-up style levels, listening to tedious people wax on about territory and the mean streets and all that jazz between levels. Naturally there are black gangs, bikers, Asians, all the usual stereotypical suspects. Say what you like about The Warriors, at least it had people in facepaint with baseball bats. This is the least imaginative development in thuggery since the Mitchell brothers returned to Eastenders.

There's no wandering on to the next area, no moving around; just you and one or a few nasties going toe to toe for two minutes or so until they're dead or until you have to restart. And where I said Brad was "broad-chested", it's something I could have applied to everyone: even the 12 year olds look like they were pumping iron in the womb; women look about as dainty as granite paving slabs. And guess where you fight? If you said, "carparks, bars, hotels and back alleys", you may take Maxim into the loos for five minutes and give yourself a trick.

'Urban Reign' Screenshot 2

That's right Miguel! You won't try being in a rubbish gang warfare game again in a hurry! Oh, you will.

Mind you, the combat's actually quite entertaining to begin with. Allegedly some sort of collusion between the teams that made Tekken and Soulcalibur, it's based on grappling, dodging, striking and running. Well, you don't do much running. So it's mainly about grappling, dodging and striking. Grappling allows you to do clever twisty-body throws; to straddle fallen enemies so you can whack 'em in the face a few times; to do pile drivers and stuff. Striking is basic punches and kicks. Animations are plucked seemingly at random, which gives it a dynamic feel, and moves vary based on how you're using the analogue stick and how many enemies are in the vicinity. You also have some advanced moves that unlock after a few levels, and there's a special move meter that fills up and then allows you to do Matrix-style twisty air-kick things and the like. The collision detection is excellent so it feels very solid despite the otherwise seemingly ropey game engine. Can you upgrade stats between levels? Hell yeah bitch!

So what's the problem then? Surely all this set-up wasn't just to rip into the gang war crap? Well no indeed. It has lots of problems. Foremost of which is the concept of "dodging". When it works, it allows you to deflect (or "SUPER DEFLECT" gnngngngh) a blow and then counter with a strike of your own. You can also counter grapples and so on. All well and good, except enemy AI is FEROCIOUS. You think you're getting the hang of it, and then enemies start hitting you unblockably between animations, and then juggle you in the air between them for several seconds; they wait off-screen until you're reaching for a health pick-up on the ground and then rush you at cheetah speed while it's technically impossible to react; they gang up on you (HA!) and fight perfect fights. It's a good incentive to learn the game system properly, sure, but nothing else in the game gives you any particular desire to. There's nothing in terms of pay-off to compare to the likes of Ninja Gaiden or God of War in the roaming beat-'em-up genre, which, thugs or not, this is up against, and there's nothing in terms of depth or balance to compare to Virtua Fighter 4 or Soulcalibur for one-on-ones. Anyway, do you honestly want to play something that looks and sounds extremely boring and derivative when its main trick is stamping on your face when you can't do anything about it?

'Urban Reign' Screenshot 3

If you'll excuse my coarseness, there's actually no context in which I'd 'hit that'.

The initial apparent competence distracts you for about 20 minutes, then, before it becomes impossibly hard and you stop caring at all and decide to play something else instead. The inclusion of some unlockable Tekken characters and a slightly more balanced multiplayer mode might be enough to give you a fix if you do absolutely nothing else in life but play beat-'em-ups and you've actually run out, but otherwise there's no reason to take an interest. Beat-'em-ups should be fun and playable however good you are, and become appreciably better the more you understand their subtleties; Urban Reign is rarely fun or playable however good you are, and is about as subtle as, well, its tagline. "Are you hard enough to break some skulls?" I'm not, no, and you gave me no chance to be. Back in your ho.

3/10

Read our Scoring Policy

Advertisement

Are you excited about Urban Reign on PlayStation 2?
View Eurogamer readers most anticipated games

Thanks!

Want to comment on this article? Log in, or register!

Comments: 1-32 of 32 in total

Poster
Comment Low-scoring comments hidden. Log in to see them!
Bill Door
30/01/06 @ 08:25
#1
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
It looks visually nice from the screenies but the gameplay sounds like it sucks, should I add 5 to the score, as repeat playing of another Tom-low-reviewed-game, X360 Fifa has shown that to be a 7/10 game (nearly borne out by the 63 on metacritic), making this an 8 ;)
Bill Door
30/01/06 @ 08:46
#2
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Heh. There's a difference between giving a bad game a bad score and an average game 2/10 :)
groovychainsaw
30/01/06 @ 08:59
#3
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Understand that 63 on metacritic IS the equivalent of a eurogamer 2/10.... Even the reviews that have been paid off by EA cant pull the average up...
Bill Door
30/01/06 @ 09:14
#4
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Understand that the 2/10 has pulled the average down Mr Chainsaw. Highest plus lowest, divided by 2 gives you the half way (86+20/2=53). 29 of the reviews are above this average and 7 below. I'm not in the pay of EA but found the game entertaining enough. The big flaw is the slow down on replays. That doesn't affect gameplay does it?
Edited 1 times, most recently on 30/01/06 @ 09:22
Blerk
30/01/06 @ 09:23
#5
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Parp! :-)
Zuiyo
30/01/06 @ 09:37
#6
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
I don't agree with this review. I think many positive aspects of the game have been ommitted. There is no mention to the quality of graphics, for instance, or the rather imaginative weapon system where you can toss weapons around partners, or the multiplayer system, or the amount of selectable characters which is in the several dozen league, each with its own particular animation and styles. There is also no mention whatsoever to the game's exhilarating sense of true, dangerous fight once you've mastered the techniques properly.

I feel Eurogamer's vision is getting more and more cynical about videogames in general. As some reader, I think it was manuel_garcia, put it discussing DOA4's score, the focus is on being harsh and exploiting the game's flaws to have lower scores and cruel, condescending comments. These people ruin the party for everyone, grumping about everything... and then they do it in an increasingly uninformative way. I've played this game intensely for about 2 months and there is so much missing from this review, stuff which is just fact that a reader wanting to know more would appreciate, which is not to be found. Instead you get a mental masturbation about where the reviewer lives and what he sees through the window, and his taste for movies or some nonsense like that - useless.

I think some reviewers in Eurogamer don't fit the reviewer profile anymore. They fail to see anything interesting or imaginative in games anymore, or judge games as if all were the same and could be valuated in the same context, with a few words and an absurd score. Give scores if you want. I don't care about low scores - I read the review and this one is just not informative and sounds very cynical and bored. If reviewing games properly is such a bore, just leave the job, because lately you don't do it that good anymore.

And if you scoff and chuckle when you read this thinking, "there goes another 'tard", hey, that's fine. But this is sincere criticism of your work by someone who used to appreciate what you wrote: see if you can extract something good out of it. Because from your review, I couldn't.
Rambaldi
30/01/06 @ 09:46
#7
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
@Zuiyo

Hear hear! I've said before that it's sad to see things get so jaded. It's always nice to hear reviews where the glass is half-full!

Reading the review, it sounds like Tom just couldn't get his head round playing the game because it's so hard. There seems to be very little justification for such a low score.

Just a thought: why haven't the Live Arcade games been reviewed? There's some real gems in there.
Edited 1 times, most recently on 30/01/06 @ 09:50
SirScratchalot
30/01/06 @ 09:47
#8
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
I think what you lot are missing is that Eurogamer seems to actually apply the game scores as they are defined - where 5/10 is average. I find it damned nice to have a site where scoring dosenŽt just happen on a 5 to 10 scale.
I.e. 3/10 - below average....
ekko
30/01/06 @ 09:49
#9
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
The guy looks like Jose Mourinho.
SirScratchalot
30/01/06 @ 09:50
#10
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Did you read my post? It wasnŽt specifically directed at him or even only on this thread. Rather the general forum trend of being shocked by any low score.

Edit: Hmmm... the post this was directed at is deleted, but IŽll leave it for context anyways...
Edited 2 times, most recently on 30/01/06 @ 13:32
sickpuppysoftware
30/01/06 @ 09:55
#11
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Allegedly some sort of collusion between the teams that made Tekken and Soulcalibur, it's based on grappling, dodging, striking and running. Well, you don't do much running. So it's mainly about grappling, dodging and running.

Should read

Allegedly some sort of collusion between the teams that made Tekken and Soulcalibur, it's based on grappling, dodging, striking and running. Well, you don't do much running. So it's mainly about grappling, dodging and striking.
disc
30/01/06 @ 10:09
#12
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
It's a pretty good brawler actually.

The fighting is challenging and you'll want to avoid being attacked by several brutes at the same time. The only thing i had a problem with was the game progression, the game was separated into small arenas and simple bouts.

Since the fighting-engine is good why not do a double dragon type game progression?

I'd give it a 5 in its current state. 7-8 if they had made the game more interesting.
groovychainsaw
30/01/06 @ 10:32
#13
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
@Bill Door - you missed the point - what I meant is eurogamer has a more stringent reviews policy than most sites/mags - where 2/10 is below average, much like anything less than 70% is below average in any 'official magazine' - oh, and the average would be the average, not the halfway between the top and bottom marks....
But anyway - wasnt really interested in this anyway, so don't really mind what the score is (unless it was a ten, then I would probably consider it ;-)
jack_klugman
30/01/06 @ 11:56
#14
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
There's a difference between giving a bad game a bad score and an average game 2/10 :)

What about a disapointing game? Or a game from the world's largest and most powerful developer which fails to meet the standard's their position should demand? A game review is a subjective thing, even if it carries weight by virtue of being a review for a gaming website. If Tom were to adjust his score to match an average then he'd be utterly compromising himself and his journalism.
jack_klugman
30/01/06 @ 12:20
#15
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
And having now read the review the game sounds like tedious waste of everybody's time. Long live Eurogamer's fight against mediocrity.
Edited 1 times, most recently on 30/01/06 @ 12:20
Scientist
30/01/06 @ 12:31
#16
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
"And having now read the review the game sounds like tedious waste of everybody's time."

How about playing the game?

Defending every review is as bad as criticising every review.
Hog-lumps
30/01/06 @ 12:52
#17
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
How about playing the game?

Defending every review is as bad as criticising every review.


To be fair to jack_klugman, I thought the point of reading reviews was so that you could try and avoid playing games that 'are tedious waste of everybody's time'.

I personally don't have the time to play every single game that's released........
jack_klugman
30/01/06 @ 13:02
#18
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Defending every review is as bad as criticising every review.

But I really like Eurogamer...
Artemus
30/01/06 @ 13:14
#19
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Suprisingly Games tm gave this a 7.
moggsy
30/01/06 @ 13:28
#20
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Damn Eurogamer and their Sony hating ways...
Kami
30/01/06 @ 14:51
#21
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
3/10?

Can't say I'm surprised...
GrayFox
30/01/06 @ 15:35
#22
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Lately EG reviews go in the way of: "it's too hard, I can't get a grip with it, so it sucks", meh.

Was it really a game review? I didn't get any valueable info from it.
w00t
30/01/06 @ 16:18
#23
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Erm... Was I reading a different review? Gave me everything I needed - a chuckle and a recommendation to avoid unless I really love the genre.

Cheers Tom!
The Bodybuilder
30/01/06 @ 16:37
#24
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
>"Erm... Was I reading a different review? Gave me everything I needed - a chuckle and a recommendation to avoid unless I really love the genre."

Sadly, it seems this is what everyone is interested in.
Nobody wants to read a review for learn about the game, no, they want EG to critically maul it and give everyone a good laugh (even if they may actually forget the "reviewing" part).

It's a supply and demand. The sad majority want critical attacks, aso the EG staff give them that.
jack_klugman
30/01/06 @ 16:46
#25
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Just sounded like a bad game to me.
tengu
30/01/06 @ 19:17
#26
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Thought this looked like a laugh myself, I'll probably give it a go when it gets cheap(As there's pretty much no point in buying current gen games at full price these days, considering how quickly they go under 20 nicker).
Ryu_Hayabusa
30/01/06 @ 20:04
#27
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
It's a good game, and the difficulty is just right, it's normal/rather easy in normal, and harder in hard.
Key to win = 1) use weapons as much as possible, especially swords 2) evade attacks against all bosses 3) use the environment to do special air attacks to deal with multiple enemies.
You do that and then game is suddenly a damn lot easier.
miiiguel
30/01/06 @ 23:54
#28
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
brilliant review, loved it.
Rambaldi
31/01/06 @ 09:24
#29
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Let's set the record straight:

Over 4565 reviews, EG's average is 68.3% (source: Gamerankings). Round that to the nearest whole number: their average is 7/10

So, EG is not quite as high-brow as you might think!

LOL;)



Kami
31/01/06 @ 13:38
#30
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Thing about this is, some games are good and you know they're going to be good - Black, Zelda Twilight Princess etc coming this year - you can tell they're going to kick ass.

Some games are the exact opposite. Some games you know are going to suck the big one. We said a while back about this very game, that it was probably not going to revive the already terminally ill genre that it inhabits... and oddly enough, seems we were right...
(It is a shame though... this genre really needs its big players from the old days back... Streets of Rage and Golden Axe...)
vane101
31/01/06 @ 20:18
#31
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
@Rambaldi
Good spot mate - all those mainly rubbish games reviewed and Eurogamer gives a 7/10 average! Then a perfectly decent game like Kameo gets 5/10 and Urban Reign, which clearly pleases fighting fans gets 3/10.

Yeah right!



Edited 1 times, most recently on 31/01/06 @ 20:19
Nash
01/02/06 @ 06:19
#32
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
I don't understand why there are so many people who are critical about this review. Opinions are like assholes, every one has one. Maybe the reviewer felt the flaws were so great, it deprived him of a good experience overall.

Comments: 1-32 of 32 in total

Want to comment on this article? Log in, or register!

Get Games.  Download Great PC Games!

X View gallery