Terminator Salvation Review

By Tom Bramwell Published 28 May, 2009

I know now why you cry.

Version tested: PlayStation 3

I was in Canada last week, so unlike a lot of people in Europe faced with the possibility of buying the multi-format Terminator Salvation game this weekend, I've had the opportunity to see the film it's based on. I quite like it! John Connor listening to his mum's tapes is a bit Norman Bates, and the only quotable dialogue is the dialogue quoted from Terminators 1 and 2, but director McG appears to have mastered glossy, FX-heavy set-pieces, if not deed polls. Sadly the same cannot be said for GRIN with the videogame adaptation.

Thrown into the raggedy boots of John Connor (but not Christian Bale), you're tasked with leading a group of resistance fighters across post-nuclear Los Angeles two years before the events of the film, and for the most part it's a cover-and-flank third-person shooter with its probing red eyes fixed on Gears of War's coat-tails. You clip yourself to cover, go into iron sights with the left trigger and let rip with the right, occasionally tossing the odd grenade or pipe-bomb at spider bots, flying aerostats "wasps" and more elaborate Terminators with miniguns and worse.

Unfortunately Salvation is horribly shoddy from the very beginning. For the game of a film ostensibly concerned with making the difference between humans and machines count, it's ironic that your NPC allies are noticeably artificial and robotic in their movements, while environments - though detailed - are scabby on account of the scarcity of proper lighting, not to mention book-ended by load screens that sometimes feel as though they last longer than the battles in-between. In-engine cut-scenes launch themselves in a judder that occasionally has you wondering whether the game has crashed. On one occasion, I took out a flying Hunter-Killer, which started to blow up only to be interrupted by the subsequent cut-scene, which then deposited me back on the rooftop for another couple of frames of the HK explosion before it went to the load-screen for the next level.

'Terminator Salvation' Screenshot moon

Moon Bloodgood's character Blair does at least look a bit like her, albeit only as much as a rubber-faced T-700 looks like a human.

All that's before you consider the actual content. You're spammed with thankfully-ineffectual wasps from the get-go, while dithering spider bots only need to be half-heartedly flanked to expose their delicate hindquarters and most of the rest require only brute force to dispatch. Naturally everything comes in small, unambitious waves whenever you enter a predictably laid-out fighting area with concrete lane dividers, car wrecks and barrels distributed to allow for manoeuvrability, and for variety's sake sometimes you can't flank. Most of the weapons at your disposal lack punch, and the cover system is too adhesive and arbitrary about the positions from which it allows you to fire, while your squad-mates are useless, only firing sporadically at the weak-points you work hard to expose if they even bother at all. Instead they spend most of the time bickering humourlessly. Fortunately if there are grenades around you can just throw those instead and achieve the same results from most positions.

There is at least a two-player co-operative alternative, but this is only available in split-screen, and the sudden arrival of somebody who understands the basics of going to the other side of the arena so that one of you is always facing a weak spot, or drawing attention away from the other player, merely serves to collapse the already amazingly short runtime from four hours or so down to around two or three. There are occasional attempts to change things up with on-rails shooter sequences or turret guns, but the heady heights of adequacy remain elusive.

Redeeming features? Well, the menus are as slick as those in the developer's other recent film-to-game, Wanted: Weapons of Fate, and the shiny T-600 head you can move around on the load-screen is eerie and imposing. In fact, he's arguably the highlight. Staring into his monstrous red eyes as they twist and focus is as close as the game manages to the oppressive atmosphere of the films.

'Terminator Salvation' Screenshot achievement

Achievement and Trophy whores can at least unlock the maximum by getting to the end of the game, although whether it's worth it is another matter.

Terminator Salvation does at least have the decency not to be appallingly difficult, although its system of only refilling your health bar at the end of individual waves is peculiar and sometimes catches you out. For the most part though it's plain sailing, thanks to enemies who stand out in the open helpfully waiting for you to outwit them. Even the Hunter-Killers - giant dropships with enough firepower to level buildings - are obligingly incompetent, hovering to specific gaps in the masonry of whichever building you're inside so you can pick them off with a shoulder-mounted rocket launcher, of which there will be dozens littered around the set-piece area.

Were your movements less plodding, the weapons a bit meatier, the enemies even basically tactical, the story and dialogue more than perfunctory, the environments remotely imaginative, or the co-operative mode online-enabled, Terminator Salvation would still be far too rough around the edges, far too short, and far too cynical to withstand much critical inspection, but as it is, it's rubbish on virtually every count. The film is surprisingly not-awful, so I suggest you wait a week and go and see that instead, and I really hope GRIN stops signing on for these wearisome contract jobs, because while they probably pay the bills, they also undo a lot of the goodwill established by games like the flawed-but-ambitious Bionic Commando. One point for the load screen, and one point for not exploding my PlayStation 3, although I may burn it down anyway just to be on the safe side.

2 / 10

Read the Eurogamer.net scoring policy
Picture of Tom.

About Tom Bramwell

Tom is Operations director of Eurogamer Network and Editor-at-Large of Eurogamer.net. He joined the company in February 2000.

Read more articles from Tom by visiting the Tom Bramwell archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (48) Latest comment 3 years ago

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

  • coastal #1 3 years ago

    oh dear

  • Andreas2402 #2 3 years ago

    GOTY contender for sure. Just out of curiosity, why didn't get this the lowest score? It can't be a loading screen, can it?
    Edited by 1 at 29/05/09 @ 00:29

  • Bigglesworth #3 3 years ago

    I demand a re-review!

  • MaliceMajorE15 #4 3 years ago

    well ill rent it for an easy platinum trophy, dont be suprised if the ps3 version outsells the 360 based on the fact that its the easiest platinum trophy u could ever ask 4

  • Cider-X #5 3 years ago

    It's also the fastest 1000 GS in a long time so this caters to both trophy and achievement whores.

  • Iain815 #6 3 years ago

    Crikey.

  • SG #7 3 years ago

    Wow, I for one am shocked!

    (LOL)

  • frankfurter209 #8 3 years ago

    Your review tag is hands-down the best this year.

  • LHH #9 3 years ago

    4 hours it took >_>

  • smelly #10 3 years ago

    Personally i was given this game recently - and AGREE with the review wholeheartidly...

    APART from the bit which "outs" the studio responsible and going on about how they're "losing face" and shit like that. That in itself isnt fair.

    Game teams are made up of a LOT of people, some good, some not so good. The only thing that normally seperates a great game from an okay one is luck.. unless there's either budget problems (and so a game gets rushed) or it has to be out in time for a film (and so game gets rushed). No-one USUALLY intends to make a bad game.. And so picking on the studio themselves is a bit harsh.

    Sure - review the game - slag it off.. Dont slag off the people who (mightve) worked REALLY hard and really long hours into making it (but at the end of the day - there just wasnt enough hours in the day).

    That - imho is mean.

    Its like movies.. LOTS try to be good (take the terminator salvation movie itself) - but fail. Not the fault of anyone in particular.. just bad luck. THEN there are films which just dont bother to even TRY to be good ("meet the spartans", "date move", "paul blart: mall cop";), THOSE are the films you have EVERY right to bash people who worked on them.

    Same with games.

  • muscleblade #11 3 years ago

    Personally i enjoyed the 3,5 hour campaign on the hard difficulty. Those T-600s was pretty satisfying to take down.
    The graphics is absolutely decent enough and the score is great. I must say that this game would have been much worse if the campaign was longer. Very stripped down repetitive gameplay no doubth. Personally i thouth the Wolverine game was too long. Got boring and repetitive after awhile.

  • muscleblade #12 3 years ago

    @Tom Brawell

    Theres no such thing as a T-700. I guess your not a fan of the franchise then. Its T-600, T-800, T-1000. See the pattern?
    Edited by 1 at 29/05/09 @ 07:46

  • bad09 #13 3 years ago

    Wow, and this was looking pretty cool in the vids to! Oh well it's no loss, lets just hope the movie is better!

  • bad09 #14 3 years ago

    Hey smelly, I actually thought Meet The Spartans was quite funny. Sure it's not gonna win any oscars but as a slapstick comedy is was OK. Cracked up at the GTA reference!

    Besides....Tegs...

  • Domovoi #15 3 years ago

    Subtitle Of The Year contender. It's going to be a tough call between this one and the Box Office Bust one.

  • andromeda #16 3 years ago

    YAY!
    as bad as the film, then?

    THe sweet of irony of something called "salvation" recieving a damning 2 is delicious.

    LUCRATIVE FTW!

  • Beek4257 #17 3 years ago

    As good as - wait for it - ... Darkfall!

  • MeBrains #18 3 years ago

    "One point for the load screen, and one point for not exploding my PlayStation 3, although I may burn it down anyway just to be on the safe side."

    so, one it is then? ;)

    good review. love the gags here on eurogamer. brit humour aye?

  • dr_swin #19 3 years ago

    I like how he has only given it a one page review. Treating it with the disdain it looks like it deserves. Anyone else strangely tempted by the easy points on offer though?

  • Genji #20 3 years ago

    Didn't another Terminator game a long time ago get 1/10? Good to see that they're improving on it at least.

  • DanWhitehead #21 3 years ago

    APART from the bit which "outs" the studio responsible and going on about how they're "losing face" and shit like that. That in itself isnt fair.

    Game teams are made up of a LOT of people, some good, some not so good. The only thing that normally seperates a great game from an okay one is luck.. unless there's either budget problems (and so a game gets rushed) or it has to be out in time for a film (and so game gets rushed). No-one USUALLY intends to make a bad game.. And so picking on the studio themselves is a bit harsh.

    Sure - review the game - slag it off.. Dont slag off the people who (mightve) worked REALLY hard and really long hours into making it (but at the end of the day - there just wasnt enough hours in the day).

    Unless the studio developed the game under a pseudonym, it can hardly be "outing" them to mention their name in the review. And it's hardly mean to say "I wish you'd stop making shoddy movie tie-ins because you're better than that."

    Mostly I just resist the idea that a review should spare the feelings of the people responsible for a game. If you create a product, and expect people to pay £39.99 for it, then you should be prepared to take criticism on the chin. Doubtless you'd be happy for studios to be praised in a review, for the things they get right, so why not the other way around?

    The amount of time spent creating a game is absolutely, completely irrelevant to a reviewer. While I have many friends in the development community, and sympathise with their lot when the crunch comes, their effort has ultimately got nothing to do with whether or not the game is worth your money. That is the primary purpose of a review - to advise potential consumers, not to make developers feel better about working on something that turned out shit. The secondary purpose, to my mind, is to provide commentary on the medium and industry. Again, trends in the creative output of a particular developer, or publisher, are absolutely fair game for comment.

    Obviously there are lines to be drawn. Ranting and raving about how a studio sucks and should be closed down would be crass and unprofessional, as would singling out specific members of the production team. Yet even here, games companies have it much easier than other critically appraised media. Film directors and producers routinely take the rap personally, and are lambasted in reviews by name. Ditto for soundtrack composers, special effects artists and other contributors. Nobody says it's unfair to say that the horror remakes churned out by Michael Bay's Platinum Dunes company are glossy tripe, yet lots of money and effort goes into them. Should film reviewers spare their feelings and say "This is a bad film, but it's probably not the fault of the people who made it, so don't blame them"? Should we spare a thought for all those people producing Oatibix, because they're wasting their lives producing edible cardboard?

    The consumer doesn't care, nor should they have to. Criticism serves the consumer first, not the producer.

    I've mentioned this before, but many years ago, in the mid-90s, I went for a job interview at Psygnosis. When the guy found out I was a reviewer he launched into a speech not unlike yours, though far more bitterly phrased, about how nobody takes into account all the effort and hard work and man hours that go into a game when they review it. And I said "You shouldn't spend so much time and effort making shit games then".

    Didn't get the job.

  • CHAZBIGPOTATO #22 3 years ago

    Superb title!

  • muscleblade #23 3 years ago

    "You shouldn't spend so much time and effort making shit games then".

    Exactly.

  • iancognito #24 3 years ago

    Terminator Salvation 2/10 Epic Fail

    /Gets coat
    /Boots
    /Motorcycle


  • makeamazing #25 3 years ago

    Gave this game a good go yesterday. As Tom says the best part of this game is the in game menus, excellent, shame the rest of the game doesnt hold up as well.

    This game is very very short. In just under 2 hours I have already got to stage 6 of 9. There are 12 tophies, 11 gold and 1 platinum. So it should be very easy to get a platinum if your into that kind of thing.

    The game is very linear and the area that you can walk is quite small for each "sub level". The game looks nice until they do their character videos, which are badly animated and badly scripted (though John is not too bad).

    Some funny bugs, where the characters dont follow you, where one of your team dies and suddenly is alive when you move to the next stage as they werent meant to die...

    The only thing that for me makes it better than the EG review is that I love the idea of Terminator, and the game has robots in it. So for me I give it 4/10, but as there is very little replay value (9 of the 12 trophies is just completing the game on easy), I would say rent it or wait until its less than £15 or you will be disappointed.

    Now what we need is a Fallout based sandbox in the Terminator universe :)
    Edited by 1 at 29/05/09 @ 13:00

  • gohda #26 3 years ago

    LOL!

  • Dillinger #27 3 years ago

    ultimately, review score doesnt matter that much when dealing with huge summer film tie ins.
    I seem to remember Transformers getting a 2/10 in edge and making MASSIVE amounts of money..

  • turnget2005 #28 3 years ago

    @iancognito

    lmao!!

    8wont be back hopefully!

  • Azazel #29 3 years ago

    Ranting and raving about how a studio sucks and should be closed down would be crass and unprofessional

    Unless you had been talking about Cyan Worlds obviously.

  • Iain815 #30 3 years ago

    @iancognito

    :-)

  • DoKtoR #31 3 years ago

    I'm not sure about the scoring system - I think it needs at least one more point so it can be better than Darkfall. Come on Tom! you said the menu's cool - that's got to be worth at least 2 points no?

  • trooperdx3117 #32 3 years ago

    4 hours now that is a strong time!

  • ZuluHero #33 3 years ago

    @muscleblade

    Unless the new film changes all that? He did say at the start he's already seen it.

    EDIT: in fact it does: [link url=http://te rminator.wikia.com/wiki/Series_700
    ]http://te rminator.wikia.com/wiki/Series_...[/link]
    Edited by 1 at 29/05/09 @ 16:03

  • bodypopper #34 3 years ago

    Yes a Fallout style Terminator game would be ace.

  • Mechorpheus #35 3 years ago

    If you want Fallout 3 style Terminator, go look up Terminator Future Shock, or its expandalone Skynet. Mid-90s mission based FPS, by Bethesda, which I'm doubtless had no small amount of influence on Fallout 3 itself. The mission areas were pretty open, and you could explore all the ruined buildings for items/enemies. Even had missions where you drove a jeep, or flew a HK. Very cool. Shame its a DOS era game and difficult to get working today, even with the power of DosBox available. I really must have another shot at doing that.....

  • bad09 #36 3 years ago

    Future Shock was ace!

    Probably looks pig ugly now, it wasn't that much of a looker then!

  • smelly #37 3 years ago

    >Hey smelly, I actually thought Meet The Spartans was quite funny.

    And with that - you've just outed yourself as a 12 year old.

    :-)

  • bad09 #38 3 years ago

    Ah get over yourself Smelly, besides knowing who Tegs is sadly tells of a much older age! :)

    Anyway a silly laugh is good for the soul, hell don't you watch South Park or laugh at fanny farts?

  • konnsky #39 3 years ago

    so.. it's atrocious then..

  • konnsky #40 3 years ago

    @frankfurter209:
    I would like to argue that the best "review tag" was on Ellie's review of that new Lesuire Suit Larry game..

  • smelly #41 3 years ago

    he he he bad09 is a teenager he he he

  • metalangel #42 3 years ago

    @DanWhitehead: He was still sore over Microcosm, eh? That was a marvellous case of trying to distract people from the poorness of the game with as much pointless frippery as possible. The manual had a huge story of not just the game itself but the solar system it took place in... and I remember my uncle had somehow gotten a Microcosm t-shirt which said 'changing the world of games' or something equally momentous. Then you got the game and soon realized the incredible intro sequence of helicopters and soldiers was the best part.

    And yes, Future Shock (and the prequel, Skynet) remain the best Terminator games ever.

  • fjharps #43 3 years ago

    Got this game for £17.99 and I have to admit it's not great but it's playable and entertaining. For something to get a 2/10 I would think its horribly bad but it's not. The cover system is innovative and good and I think it will be used in more games in the future. I would score this game 5/10 it's a shame that the game is not slightly longer or had any kind of online feature. So for a bargain game it's ok not worth £40 though.

  • eurokaban #44 3 years ago

    Franchise-based money-snatch No 620947551. Moving on.

  • Inu_Rayne #45 3 years ago

    How many of you flamers have actually played the game? 4? Nice one.

    I rented it today because I like genocidal robots and because I like trophies, I was expecting an unplayable glitch fest and what I got was actually a very entertaining game.

    Running through this on hard I'm 75% done in about 5 hours, the game is far too short. Apart from that the cover system is excellent, dialogue is decent, the weapons all feel like they have their own advantages, on-the rails sections are a blast and the it always feels like the Robots have the advantage.

    Before you slam something, Effing well pick it up, brainless internet mob!!

    This was a 5.5 at least, brilliant game but it needed another few months development time.

  • ShinMegami08 #46 3 years ago

    Eurogamer is not the only one to think the game is a waste of money.
    On metacritics the game has a rating of 45, so it can only be shit.

    When one reviewer says a game is shit, it may still be good. But when all reviewers (blogs/zines/etc) say a game is truly a piece of shit, then believe them: It cannot be good.

  • Inu_Rayne #47 3 years ago

    Oh, so you've played it then Shin? Oh right...you haven't...haha...

  • miiiguel #48 3 years ago

    I'm playing it right now, I have it for a long time but others like Wolvy and the new Mega Drive games took my time. And yes, the game's not very good. It's in fact... pretty bad. As in shallow. Deeply shallow.
    It's not 2/10 bad, though, as it is "playable" and it doesn't bore you as it is very short.

    On the other hand, 5/10 on for Wolvy? That sounded like trying too hard to be clever. It reminds me when I was a teen I started to not like Nirvana because they did Nevermind.

    And Tom, c'mon, the movie is awfull. I was really upset for watching it. It was that bad.
    Edited by 3 at 13/06/09 @ 19:17