Wolfenstein Review

By Dan Whitehead Published 21 August, 2009

Two wrongs don't make a Reich.

Version tested:

Can we appreciate games ironically yet? You know, like how people will say a film is "so bad, it's good", or how people (well, students mostly) will dance to a rubbish pop song, precisely because of its naffness.

That's the feeling that the 2009 model of Wolfenstein evokes. A belated series reboot, arriving the best part of a decade after the rather good 2001 Xbox outing, Return to Castle Wolfenstein, it's a wonky, glitchy and often idiotic game. It's also occasionally amusing - certainly more than a game with this many issues should be - but I often can't tell if I'm laughing with the game, or at it.

Once more, you step into the sweaty combat boots of BJ Blazkowicz. You're summoned to the German town of Isenstadt, where your talents have been requested by the local resistance. The Nazis are doing something peculiar at a nearby archaeological dig, and it involves something called Black Sun energy. Long story short, they've found a hellish alternate dimension called The Veil and are siphoning its power to help create yet more supernatural ubermensch.

It's a Wolfenstein game, so of course that's what they're doing, but the game still uses too much plodding dialogue and exposition to establish something that every player already knows before they've even taken the disc out of the case. You're left wishing it would just cut to the chase, and make with the Nazi monsters, but efficiency sadly isn't this game's best feature.

Rather than leading you through the levels in linear fashion, you must explore the town and find the people who give you missions. It's the sort of approach that can work well in a shooter with role-playing tendencies, like S.T.A.L.K.E.R, but here it just feels like pointless padding.

The town is a small and muddled maze of streets, alleys, rooftops and sewers, and it's also stuffed full of enemies. This means that you can complete a mission, and still have to slog through standoffs with dozens of soldiers just to report back to an NPC and tell them you've completed the mission. You can avoid some interruptions by heading underground, but the game still finds ways to bog you down in random encounters regardless of what you do. Despite the bullets flying, these battles never feel like meaningful action, more a purposeless grind.

'Wolfenstein' Screenshot 1

Character models whiff of last generation tech. BJ himself looks like a plasticine model of Matt Damon that somebody sat on.

Even more galling, by contrast the missions themselves take place in distinct separate areas and are linear to a fault. A farm, a factory, a hospital - you'll blast your way through all of these, but progress is never more taxing than following the dot on your compass. In fact, most of the time you don't need to know where you're going or why, so effective is this navigational tool.

You don't even need to use the map. Just follow the dot, kill everything in your path, and you'll reach the end regardless. Along the way you can keep your eyes open for intelligence documents, magical books and gold to unlock and purchase upgrades for your weapons. Rummaging around in corners for trinkets is the closest the game comes to variety, but it's a thankless and largely redundant task trying to find everything. You can easily get by with the stuff you find lying in plain sight, so you soon stop bothering.

There's nothing inherently wrong with such ruthless focus on the joys of a good old-fashioned gib-fest, of course, and Wolfenstein's combat mechanics are adequate for the rudimentary nature of the game. Targeting is solid, though the aiming speed feels a touch slow, and both the period and fantasy weaponry feels satisfying. Grenades and rockets explode with tangible force, and there's enough physics to the gameworld to add some spice to otherwise ordinary firefights.

There's a sense that interesting angles are being dangled and then forgotten though. The opening level sees a train station ripped apart by Black Sun energy, sending objects and people levitating into the air. It's a cool set-piece, but having enticed you with the notion, the idea of floating combat is then ditched. Ditto for any squad play. Sometimes you're accompanied by NPC soldiers, but they tend to vanish for no apparent reason and are never under your control.

In terms of the basics, movement feels gluey and prone to snags. This is particularly noticeable in the boss fights, where the ability to nimbly dodge and attack a rushing behemoth is vital. The sprint move is slippery, assigned as it is to a press of the left stick, and BJ's tendency to be stopped in his tracks by debris or furniture makes back-pedalling and strafing a hit and miss prospect.

You also get a quartet of Veil powers, unlocked in the first half of the game by retrieving crystals from Nazi strongholds. Once again, however, it feels like half an idea, implemented with a shrug. The most basic form of Veil power lets you see the world through a greeny-blue supernatural fog. Secret doorways and ladders (not so secretly marked with special markers) can be accessed, and enemies are highlighted.

You can also slow down time - yes, that old chestnut - and form a magical shield to absorb bullets. The final power beefs up your own shots and allows them to break through enemy shields. All are dependent on Black Sun energy, which can be refilled from shimmering hotspots on the map, or from barrels of the stuff stored by those naughty Nazis.

The powers do at least offer something of a twist to the Wolfenstein formula, but they're nothing special when compared to what other FPS titles have done with the idea of auxiliary abilities. All four are fairly inflexible, useful only in a handful of carefully prescribed ways, so they hardly shake up the corridor gameplay in any meaningful way.

You certainly won't need the powers to outsmart the enemy, since they're perhaps the dumbest bunch ever to take up arms in a modern shooter. They'll offer a basic illusion of tactics, under the right conditions, but all too often you'll find them shooting endlessly at a door you were behind two minutes ago rather than giving chase, or standing in plain sight, right next to a grenade, waiting for it to blow them to pieces. That's when they're not blowing themselves up, by bouncing grenades off walls into their own stupid faces.

The only foes that will tax you are those enhanced by spooky means, but even they can be taken down without breaking a sweat by applying a simple rock, paper, scissors approach to their power. Assassins are invisible, but appear when viewed in The Veil. Scary knife-wielding Nazi ninja ladies dash at you, all slashy and angry, but slow them down and you can headshot them like everyone else.

'Wolfenstein' Screenshot 2

Everybody in the game sounds exactly like Jeremy Irons in Die Hard With A Vengeance, which is a bit distracting.

Things aren't much better on the multiplayer side of things, thanks to some crude network options and off-putting balance issues. There are eight maps, with three character classes (Soldier, Medic, Mechanic) and three game modes. Objective offers team-based attack and defend missions, while Stopwatch pits teams against each other in a series of alternating retrieval and protection tasks. Team Deathmatch is the one you might as well get used to, however, since nobody seems to be playing the others. Objectives boring! Too much think! Need shoot!

The lobby system is prehistoric, offering a stark server list sorted by ping. Given the strides that both Sony and Microsoft have made in streamlining the online gaming experience for both their consoles, it's baffling to see a game deliberately choosing this ugly and unintuitive system. This means that there's no party support, so if you want to play with friends you need to invite them into the lobby (or create your own game) and then use headsets or messages to make sure you all end up on the same team.

Team balancing is disabled by default, you can swap sides at any time and the game offers Achievements and Trophies for playing on the winning side for at least half the match on each map. This, predictably, results in a rush of score-boosting knuckleheads jumping ship once it becomes clear which team is dominant. And - sigh - that's usually the team that's been assigned the players who have amassed enough gold to buy the flak jacket and heavy bore upgrades. Combined, these two pretty much render the player invincible to attack (at least from new players) while dealing out maximum damage in return.

'Wolfenstein' Screenshot 3

If you're looking for Hellboy, you're in the wrong game.

This is all running on the old Enemy Territory: Quake Wars engine, and it's really showing its age. Character models are boxy, animation is basic and lag is fairly common. The maps, at least, are well-designed and do a good job of catering to the fast-paced gameplay by keeping everyone moving without creating awkward choke points.

It all adds up to a game that doesn't really seem to know what it wants to be. The rather shapeless single-player campaign can be fun, but then "fun" is a lot like "nice" - a toothless and insipid platitude so bland as to be essentially meaningless. Running around blasting Nazis and monsters is fun, at the most basic level, but is it deliberately old-fashioned, or just hopelessly outdated? Given the array of half-baked ideas, half-heartedly implemented to try and spice things up, I suspect it's the latter.

With only genre basics in its bag of tricks, and hobbled at every turn by clumsy implementation, in a gaming landscape that already offers Battlefield 1943 and Call of Duty: World at War's Nazi Zombies mode, Wolfenstein's bargain basement charms are of limited appeal.

6 / 10

Read the Eurogamer.net scoring policy
Picture of Dan.

About Dan Whitehead

Dan has been writing for Eurogamer since 2006 and specialises in RPGs, shooters and games for children. His bestest game ever is Julian Gollop's Chaos.

Read more articles from Dan by visiting the Dan Whitehead archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (81) Latest comment 2 years ago

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

  • spidermanalf #1 3 years ago

    Doesn't look like its going to outsell Madden!

  • George-Roper #2 3 years ago

    Pretty obvious conclusion, really. It never came across as a stunner, always simply average/mediocre. The recent Dev comments were pretty much the icing on the cake and did smack a little of desperation...

    Shame, as I really enjoyed RtCW.

  • MENTAL1ST Verified Senior Software Engineer, Picsel UK Ltd. #3 3 years ago

    It such a shame after RTCW's charms, that this has always looked so mediocre.

    Edit: ...or what George said :)

    Maybe iD Tech 4 is cursed?
    Edited by 1 at 21/08/09 @ 07:58

  • EmiliasHorse #4 3 years ago

    Reads like a 4. Sad indeed, wanted it to be good.

  • Darren #5 3 years ago

    I predicted a 5 or 6 from EG and I was right. I always thought the game looked a bit dated from the video footage and nothing special and that's confirmed in the review. I'd like to try a demo all the same even though I have no intention of buying the game. I've played way too many mediocre FPSs over the years on the consoles and PC so I don't want another, thanks! :)

    To be honest I wasn't exactly blown away by Return to Castle Wolfenstein on the PC as the campaign was too long (it came out first on that platform, Dan, months before it reached the Xbox by the way!), the narrative was poor and it didn't make proper use of its premise (Nazi occult etc) until very late into the game. I finished it but it was mostly forgettable IMO apart from a few boss encounters and the odd decent stealthy bit.

  • MENTAL1ST Verified Senior Software Engineer, Picsel UK Ltd. #6 3 years ago

    That was enough back then, though. Plus the objective-based multiplayer, and the beach map especially were classics.

  • Plewt #7 3 years ago

    Just as I said in the E3 preview comments, Raven are masters of the mediocre.

  • Katsumoto #8 3 years ago

    This is indeed disappointing, but I suppose I was being unduly optimistic in hoping for anything better. I loved RTCW, but looks like Raven are taking steps from being "the guys who make slightly worse games than iD" to "the guys who make mediocre games". Gall.

    ("2001 Xbox outing, Return to Castle Wolfenstein" - as Darren points out, the 2001 game was PC only. It was ported to Xbox AND playstation 2 in 2003. Ahh, the good old days!)
    Edited by 1 at 21/08/09 @ 08:25

  • SlackMaster #9 3 years ago

    What is this game though? A remake of RtCW or a sequal?

  • SleepyDeathFred #10 3 years ago

    Why do people keep making games in which you can choose what side to be on? The few times I played Far Cry 2 every single higher level player instantly migrated to the same team, and most hosts disabled the ability to vote for team balancing, which itself required the assent of the majority.

  • Windypops #11 3 years ago

    Review fail. My purchasing decision is predicated entirely upon the presence of large-breasted Nazi witches in leather catsuits.

  • SlackMaster #12 3 years ago

    @ Darren

    I played RtCW on the XBox and wasn't that impressed and although I'm sure it played better on the PC I've never really been into PC gaming.

    Think I got bored a couple of hours in and stopped playing. Even at the time the mechanics of the game were a little dated and if I remember I stopped playing before the occult stuff kicked in and that was a good few hours of playfighting regular Nazis.

  • neilka #13 3 years ago

    "...but having enticed you with the notion, the idea of floating combat is then ditched."

    Shooting the Veil barrels makes the nearby enemies float for a whie.

  • bad09 #14 3 years ago

    I didn't think RtCW was that great on the box either TBH. Mind you I recently got it again on PC as it's part of the ID superpack, I'm gonna give it another shot (eventually) if I like it I might look at this but by then it's bound to be in the bargain bin anyway.

  • DanWhitehead #15 3 years ago

    Shooting the Veil barrels makes the nearby enemies float for a whie.

    Yeah, but it lasts for maybe three seconds and has a very small effective area. For such a potentially interesting idea, it's barely used. At the very least, it should have been one of your Veil powers, rather than sodding slow motion again.
    Edited by 1 at 21/08/09 @ 08:48

  • DDevil #16 3 years ago

    MCCLANE!

    Detective John McClane!

  • siro #17 3 years ago

    RTCW was much enjoyable (though extremely short). This one reads turdtastic and like lots less than a 6.

    Anyway, I think this is one of the best reviews I've read here in recent time. Good work, Dan!

  • Chufty #18 3 years ago

    Rather than leading you through the levels in linear fashion, you must explore the town and find the people who give you missions.

    And thus, paragraph 5 is where I stopped reading.

  • Pinewood_Groves #19 3 years ago

    That's unfortunate. I like the Wolfenstein series.

  • Optimaximal #20 3 years ago

    Erm, the 2001 outing was the original PC release. The Xbox port didn't come till 2003.

  • SBfistfun #21 3 years ago

    The lobby system is prehistoric, offering a stark server list sorted by ping
    GOOD, i've had enough of 'modern' games hiding this stuff, and then automatically plopping in me in a game against US players with a 300 +ping!No wonder I see lag so much (compared to my old pc mp days).
    It's the worst thing about multiplayer gaming on consoles!

    console mp gaming is great other wise :)

  • gmmonkey #22 3 years ago

    saw this coming.

  • homerramone #23 3 years ago

    [/i]The lobby system is prehistoric, offering a stark server list sorted by ping[/i]
    Yeah - thats really shit.
    I much prefer the way EA do it in 1943. No lobby list, No ping indicator ANYWHERE and bonus lag with every game.

    This review pretty much tallies with every other EG one - If they say it sucks its going to be at least decent. If they say its great its going to suck balls.

    I played this for several hours last night and it PLAYS just fine to me. Cant say I noticed any of the moans listed here - not saying they aint there.. just that it didnt mar the gameplay at all if they are.

    (Shakes fist at html tag bollocks)
    Edited by 5 at 21/08/09 @ 09:22

  • matrim83 #24 3 years ago

    Team balancing is disabled by default, you can swap sides at any time and the game offers Achievements and Trophies for playing on the winning side for at least half the match on each map. This, predictably, results in a rush of score-boosting knuckleheads jumping ship once it becomes clear which team is dominant.

    Maybe Activision were on to something when they fired the whole MP team. Thats just unacceptable.

  • Daymare #25 3 years ago

    So... almost as good as Dead Space? ;p

  • TonyB #26 3 years ago

    6? Really? After that review? Would you say that reads as "Above average"?

  • Pac #27 3 years ago

    @homerramone

    Why do you bother reading the site then? So you can do the opposite of what EG says?

    Just piss off.

  • Darren #28 3 years ago

    @TonyB - A 6 to me reads just above average since it can range anywhere from 55% to 64%. Reading the review my guess is that it would be nearer 55% which wouldn't be very encouraging.

    Regardless, it's clear from the review that Dan Whitehead doesn't think Wolfenstein is a *good* game so that makes it a borderline purchase for the fans of the earlier games only IMO.

  • schnide #29 3 years ago

    Yet another voice to add here saying that this reads lower than a 6, but also that I saw this coming the moment it was announced. Zombies? Nazis? Zombie Nazis?

    That's the best you can do? It's games like this that lead gamers, whether rightly or wrongly, to think they can do better than most of the designers out there.

  • viper_h #30 3 years ago

    Just let this retarded franchise die.

  • Eraysor #31 3 years ago

    That sucks. I enjoyed both RtCW and ET:QW, and had high hopes for this.

  • Dave52 #32 3 years ago

    Damn, I was hoping this was gonna be good, I loved Return To Castle Wolfenstein too... :(

  • Wyrm #33 3 years ago

    Would be fairly easy to do a good Wolfenstein game, but this never showed it was gonna do anything exciting.

  • mkreku #34 3 years ago

    Hmm.. I don't think anything in this game can be described as "boxy". Of course, I only have trailers and screenshots to go by. It just sometimes feels like people complain about the graphics in EVERY game out there. It's like good graphics is some weird standard set so high that noone has actually seen it, but blast every game for their rubbish graphics regardless.

    I think this look great.

  • samk #35 3 years ago

    "The sprint move is slippery, assigned as it is to a press of the left stick"

    Why do devs persist with this nonsense? One of my main bugbears is controls mapped to pressing in the analog sticks.

    Usually it's crouch mapped to pressing in the left stick. When being chased by some big creature, in my panic to flee the last thing I want to do is fecking crouch if I happen to press the analog stick too hard. Utterly stupid and just overloads the controls.

  • Paper #36 3 years ago

    "Just as I said in the E3 preview comments, Raven are masters of the mediocre. "

    Jedi Outcast would like to have a word with you.

  • kinky_mong #37 3 years ago

    @samk: Couldn't agree more, I think having any function activated by pressing analogue sticks in is awful, especially if it's something that requires moving the stick in a direction at the same time! Zooming a weapon's sight on the right analogue stick with a toggle system is the only acceptable use of this system.

  • Sir_TimAlot #38 3 years ago

    having played it myslef for a good 3-4 hours and thoroughly enjoying it, from the review it sounds like the reviewer didn't play it himslef but just watched someone paly it for about 5 minutes. 6 is kinda harsh. The controls and responsivness are far better than those of other shooters that have scored 10.
    If you liked RtCW then theres no reason you won't like this as much if not more.....although to be honest i haven't tried multiplayer yet.
    Edited by 1 at 21/08/09 @ 11:15

  • Azazel #39 3 years ago

    Tbh Jedi Outcast's single player was not the best ever.

  • muttler #40 3 years ago

    I was hoping this would be an ok game. Oh well, it's not like we're short of quality shooters pre xmas.

  • Trikk #41 3 years ago

    It seems games get +2 to +4 points simply because of how established the developer/publisher is, or I guess how much they pay for advertisement on Internet sites.

    This game sounds much worse than DFO or M&B yet gets same/better score. Do you really value graphics that much higher than gameplay?

  • Cuke #42 3 years ago

    I quite like it... I'ts not wonderful by any means and it's all a bit retro in terms of game design but as a fun blast it does the job. Think the review is a little on the harsh side, not every game has to be all singing all dancing and full of new ideas to be enjoyable...

  • Pac #43 3 years ago

    Half the comments on here say the game has been reviewed too harshly the other half say not harsh enough.

    This probably means that the reviewer is spot on.

    I took away from the review that it is a fairly solid but uninspired shooter. If that is what you are after then knock yourself out.

  • L1nc3 #44 3 years ago

    Okay so the point that everyone seems to be overlooking is that there aren't Half-Life quality games anymore. I've played fps's since the very first one: Wolfenstein3D, a breakthrough that Doom took to new heights of overwhelming gameplay. Quake was good-ish.. but when Half-Life appeared the fps genre was never the same. This is to fps's what The Secret of Monkey Island was to adventure games and Dune to rts's, and to date the most amazing fps I've ever played, with a fantastatic plot and gameplay that begged for replayability. Opposing Forces was one of the best expansions ever and those who played both know what I'm talking about. DeusEx was one of the best games ever made and a cult-classic in its own right. It's greatest strength ended up being it's only demise: many never quite grasped it due to it's length.
    Unreal Tournament excelled in bringing multiplayer fps to a new degree but only that. Battlefield 2 is much more my cup of tea but to each its own right?
    12 years later not one single game has perfected HL, not even its newer brother HL2, though it came close.
    RtCW was a very enjoyable game in its time. The new one is too, and those who ACTUALLY played it share this view. Not a match for CoD4 for example but then the Call series has never disappointed. Well apart from 3 but that's not on pc so it's not even on the same league, mainly b'cos every good fps on console is based on a far superior one on pc (flame on the way)
    We're in the age of 'compromise' (=multiplataform), no rts or fps port can ever be as ground-breaking or even challenge what we were accostumed to having on a pc-only software.
    FPS-wise we're in a very barren terrain nowadays. MW2 will be huge, granted. Infinty Ward is the Blizzard of fps's. But what then? Will Rage be the next big thing? Or just Doom4 renamed?

    P.S.: I'm not a pc-only fan. I love GOOD games. Metal Gear Solid and God of War to name but two. But as an fps/rts lover nothing beats the pc . Just my humble opinion of course
    Edited by 3 at 21/08/09 @ 14:47

  • dingo75 #45 3 years ago


    Also which version did they review?



    Mentioning "analogue stick" I assume it was the Xbox version unless he is a retard and skipped mouse + keyboard combo with the PC version...
    I assume it will contol better with mouse + keyboard by the way.

  • simulant #46 3 years ago

    Finally, an accurate review. All those xbox 360 reviewers seem to have much lower standards.

    Apart from everything mentioned in the review, I found the console/joypad-centric interface to be particularly galling. It doesn't seem like it would have been that much effort to have a more traditional mouse/keyboard centric interface for the PC version.

    I'll forgive them for the very basic multiplayer since we'll all be playing Mondern Combat 2 in a month or so... It's not like they ever had a chance for multi-player longevity.

    The game is a fun but quickly forgotten romp and not worth the $50 I've seen it going for around here.

    I will say that many of the facial animations and the sound were particularly good. The wall textures look like crap up close and contrast sharply with whatever you are holding in front of you. A shame since you are rarely more than a few feet a way from a wall.

  • SheffieldSteel #47 3 years ago

    Ouch.

    This is a significantly lower score than most are giving this game (metacritic says 77%)... but... overall this review is quite convincing. I enjoyed RtCW but I will give this one a miss.

  • metalangel #48 3 years ago

    If this was made by a British dev you can be sure it'd get 10/10 and all the flaws would be described as those lovable quirks which are idiosyncratic of British devs. And tomorrow there'd be an interview with the dev about making the game and how groundbreaking it is and how they intended to take the genre to strange new places.

  • DanWhitehead #49 3 years ago

    Just like Haze, you mean?

  • Dgzter #50 3 years ago

    I'm a tad gutted but only because Wolf3D was one of the first games I ever played and consequently I've had a softspot for the series :(

  • Hunam #51 3 years ago

    I'm really enjoying the single player. I am trying to figure out if the multiplayer is an intential joke or if it really is just the worst thing I've ever seen.

  • FooAtari #52 3 years ago

    @Trikk
    It seems games get +2 to +4 points simply because of how established the developer/publisher Add franchise to this and you would be right. Most people and many reviewers I think have decided if they are going to like a game before they even play it.

    Do you really value graphics that much higher than gameplay?

    Graphics is the be all and end all of games don't you know.

  • spookyzombie #53 3 years ago

    'Can anyone tell me if the ps3 version is as good as the 360"s please? many thanks '

    I took both versions home from work last night. They look nearly identical. The 360 just had the edge in my opinion, but it's really close. I'm enjoying it so far and think EG's 6 is slightly harsh. Then again, seeing as nothing's been released for ages, maybe I'm just glad to play anything new that's half decent.

  • smelly #54 3 years ago

    'Can anyone tell me if the ps3 version is as good as the 360"s please? many thanks '

    Dont you mean "as bad as"?

  • élbéróss #55 3 years ago

    @L1nc3
    Have to agree with everything you said but I also enjoyed fear, call of juarez, aliens vs predator and chronicles of riddick over the years, would have enjoyed a few others but my PC is pretty outdated. And when it comes to underated online fps games I'd say Tribes 1 & 2 (2 was especially amazing).

  • Vortex808 #56 3 years ago

    Got it last night, and it's been ok so far. A bog-standard fps, not pushing any boundaries, but it's filling a void after a dearth of new games. And i have to say i take issue with the reviewer's comments about the lobby system. It's pretty slow going, but i'd sooner see the ping strength *before* joining any game unlike halo3, gears2 etc rather than jump into barely playable match.

  • Sharzam #57 3 years ago

    Raven are not a terrible developer as the game fundimentally works from what i have read and seen, however thats the problem it just works. no bells and whistles nothing to make it special and in these very competive fps days you need to do something intreasting or new to really be considered.

    If you cant develop something new, then you better be damm well polished and perfected which this doesnt look like either.

  • L1nc3 #58 3 years ago

    @élbéróss
    True, AvP2 was quite the amazing game, not revolutionary but quite simply one of greatest movie tie-ins ever. And seeing as I love 'Aliens' it was quite thrilling. Terrific atmosphere, especially on the marine and alien campaigns
    Edited by 1 at 21/08/09 @ 18:47

  • wonton #59 3 years ago

    If I play yet another shiny corridor fps in an ID engine I'm gonna bleed outta my eyeballs.

    Prey and Quake 4 (both twice -_-) have given me enough of that to last a lifetime.

  • DAN.E.B #60 3 years ago

    RTCW multi player was one of my all time favs on XBL

    im gutted!...................but not supprised!

  • VMerken #61 3 years ago

    I have been playing Wolfenstein Single Player for a couple of days and must say: this game doesn't reach the same level of quality in terms of atmosphere/mechanics/scale as Return to Castle Wolfenstein. A real pity, I was hoping for at least the same atmosphere considering the game devs. Oh well, something to tide me over once Arkham Asylum rolls in.
    Edited by 1 at 21/08/09 @ 20:09

  • IronCladChicken #62 3 years ago

    @L1nc3
    Dude - Wolfenstein wasnt the first FPS - It wasn't even id's frst FPS.

  • mr_woo #63 3 years ago

    I don't give a shit what the reviews say, this game is fun as hell. It's so satisfying to actually shoot things in this game. The guns are beefy, the action is quick, fluid and very entertaining and with an upgraded Kar it's fun to explode Nazi heads and remove their limbs :p The more over the top style weapons are great as well and just fun to use.

    It's just very entertaining overall to be honest and I can see why it's getting 7 and 8's, it's got a great B movie feel that suits it very well and of course, for me at least, Nazis and the occult is an entertaining mix (I blame Indiana Jones for that! :D)

    I am very pleasantly surprised. Of course if you don't like WW2 shooters nothing will change your mind and due to the shortness of the single player it's probably better as a rental or an under £20 purchase.

    One word of warning though, the multiplayer is shit, it's so shit it's unbelievable. The graphics are subpar and horrible in the multiplayer portion and it's just not very fun at all. Endrant, shame on you for messing it up so badly - it's dire.
    Edited by 2 at 22/08/09 @ 04:09

  • HiddenPooh #64 3 years ago

    Meh. I'm going back to WAW multiplayer until Batman arrives.

  • drxym #65 3 years ago

    The best part of RTCW was the multiplayer. The single player game was boring as hell.

  • thesombrerokid #66 3 years ago

    They got so many stuff right it's unbelievable, it's perfect controls the light rpg mechanics are just light enough not to get in the way of the shooting and the story stuff only comes up while loading or if you want it you can look out the intel stuff but it's enitrely optional. the thing about varity is often seen as a positive point about a game, but when dan whitehead is reviewing it "doesn't know what it want's to be".

    This all coming from the man who told us to trust him the special exclusive stuff he saw for RE5 proved it was racist, when it turned out he was a total bullshiter then an he's bullshiting you now, play this game and decide for yourself, because dan whitehead can not be trusted.

  • metallicorphan #67 3 years ago

    for shame Eurogamer..this game doesn't deserve a low score as 6

    i just finished the single player this morning,very good game

    i have only played for about an hour on LIVE altogether,and even thats no where near as bad as people say...maps are a nice decent size,and its fun..its even better when you earn some money and upgrade your weapons

  • ududy22 #68 3 years ago

    I've always found Raven's games to be boring, devoid of originality, ambition or just a worthwhile story. I think i've played all of their FPSs up to Quake 4, except for the Soldier of Fortune ones, from Heretic and onwards, and mediocrity was always my impression. It's a mystery to me why people keep buying these.

  • RedSparrows #69 3 years ago

    Once again, the comments are a nest of rubbish.

  • Aufo #70 3 years ago

    I bought the game for PC and enjoyed it the same way you would enjoy a silly action movie. I think the reviewer got this one a little wrong, I think the game isn't taking itself at all seriously, its just trying to be a fun straight forward shooter with some hokey-pokey nazi nonsense, and for that it's good.

  • MMilitia #71 3 years ago

    If you enjoyed shooters on PC 6-7 years ago then you'll probably enjoy this game, because it plays exactly like one. It's just unpretentious Nazi-killing fun.

    It's basically the video-game equivalent of Commando, deriving much of its fun from mercilessly murdering waves of Nazis in a variety of gory ways. If you're a hipster "games are art" armchar critic then you'll hate it, but if you've been playing shooters on PC for years you'll almost certainly enjoy yourself more with Wolf' than with a lot of other shooters I could care to mention.

    Don't write it off before you've tried it as it's honestly better than this reviewer would have you believe.

    Except for the multiplayer, which is really really bad.

  • NBAoz #72 3 years ago

    This game is really fun. It allows you to RELIEVE stress levels unlike Call of Duty: World at War on Hardened or Veteran... I too think that this game is better than the reviewer makes out. So far I have been playing on hard and it's the perfect level of difficulty for me. Yes it is a bit dated, but it still looks pretty good. Definitely no worse looking that Quake IV on XBOX 360. The gameplay is solid. I could care less about the story. I would give it 7 out of 10.

  • Nephirion #73 3 years ago

    In future please let a person that fully understands the source material review the game.

  • ChaK #74 3 years ago

    @Hunam : the exact same. SP, while being quite meh, is alright to play, and shooting weird nazy can be fun.


    But MP.... oh my, WTF, am I the only one lagging like hell with 100 ping. It's ugly, it lags, it's just not fun.

  • homerramone #75 3 years ago

    @pac
    Why do you bother reading the site then? So you can do the opposite of what EG says?
    Maybe I want to read it to decide what not to buy. If EG give it a good review I can avoid it like the plauge.
    Or maybe I want to just read the news ?
    Or maybe I like to read pointless comments from cockknockers like you ...

    Just piss off.
    Why dont you piss off; or click ignore if you dont want to read my comments.


  • c0d3m45t3r #76 3 years ago

    I don't know why all the reviews are whining. I absolutely love Wolfenstein. It's so much like the return to castle wolfenstein. Oldschool? Maybe who cares it handles well, has no gamestopping bugs and is very fun to play. Really it's good old popcorn fun. It even looks interesting imo. Graphics do a good job at making it look good. It's not crysis but it's not suppose to be. This review didn't even mention the upgradeable weapons. All weapons can be upgraded and that adds a lot to this game. I personally love this wolfenstein. 9/10 it does everything it's suppose to, hits all the marks and leaves me wanting another sequel.

  • zakrocz #77 3 years ago

    Didn't like the first one, linear, rubbish AI etc so definately wont be bothering with this

  • Maykael #78 2 years ago

    it's pretty simple to decide: if you like old school corridor shooters, you'll like this, if you don't or you've had enough, you won't like this.

  • jidnffc #79 2 years ago

    This game has the most ridiculously stupid final boss. Unless I'm doing something majorly wrong he is the most horrible difficulty spike I've ever come across. It's so infuriating!

  • Pachinko #80 2 years ago

    "All four are fairly inflexible, useful only in a handful of carefully prescribed ways, so they hardly shake up the corridor gameplay in any meaningful way. "

    What the hell are you talking about? You can use the powers to tackle the situations in a number of different ways. For example, you can slow time, employ the shield and rush in. Because this double taxes your energy, you must be quick. You can employ only the shield, but have to aim faster. You can do without powers, but then enemy's shields present a problem. It's also important which weapons you upgraded and how, because this defines the most effective way of disposing the enemies.

    The AI is definitely not brain-dead, but it's not Einstein-y either. And it shouldn't be - it's an ARCADE SHOOTER. The point is to quickly dispose of enemies with accurate shooting and speedy, tactically sound positioning.

  • choppersx #81 2 years ago

    6/10... its a 7.5 at least, I've had the game for over a week and I can agree with the reviewer on a lot of the downfalls and weaknesses of the game but if you can see past these its an enjoyable game. If the developers had of been more intuitive with some of the the gameplay mechanics (the veil, gravity etc.) and if the game had more consistent and thoughtful AI it could have been great game.

    The multiplayer is a no go for me and I would put in the same category as far cry 1,2 prey and many other online multiplayer games where it feels totally unbalanced and near impossible to snipe someone while they are moving(not that I'm one to camp and snipe) and it takes nearly 2 full magazines to actually kill someone unless they are already injured.. I've had one or two decent online games with friends but overall its quite bad.

    I had my hopes up that this would be a major improvement over rtcw both in single player and multiplayer and its not... its on par well the single player campaign at least, should it have been better? Of course but a 6/10 rating is still abit harsh and I think the reviewers rating is more to do with his expectations than on the true merits and plus points of the game... if eurogamer can give Call Of Juarez: BIB A 7/10 rating without even touching the mulitplayer... a run of the mill game that can be annoying as hell with a terrible ending, then some sort of consistency must be maintained in their reviews and theres no way that this warrants only a 6/10... 7/10 maybe 7.5/10 on the button. Rent it enjoy it bring it back forget about it once CODMW2 arrives simple as.