GUN
Alai
etc) for various systems, my latest PC Gamer magazine gave it a whopping
92%. Is this a good game? I've been wanting a good western shoot em up
game ever since Outlaws, how is the game fare? I don't really care if it's
too short, since I don't have too much time anyway. Who likes it?
Sleepy
"Alai" <he...@hoho.com> wrote in message
news:rdadnY2rzdC_HUHe...@comcast.com...
and, like you, I quite liked Outlaws.
Sarah
news:Dw0Df.212845$vl2....@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> Its a kiddies console game - 7/10 is right. I ditched it after half an
> hour and, like you, I quite liked Outlaws.
Same here, except I gave it a couple of hours. It's no Outlaws. Not even
close.
Spalls Hurgenson
I think 72% is a fair score (perhaps a tad high). It's a fun game, but
could have used more polish. My main complaint is the smallness of the
gameworld (it's smaller than Vice City!), which is quite contrary to
the whole wide-open-spaces thing we expect from a western. With one or
two exceptions (I rather liked roping the cattle), the levels were
uninspired and the story was cliche even for a western. Outside of the
missions, there just wasn't much to do. The graphics weren't high-end,
but I felt they fit the western-mood fairly well. The music was pretty
generic, the voice-acting more so. The controls were a bit cumbersome,
obviously a result of the port from console-land. And, as others
mentioned, the game as a whole was short. Taken together, you get a
game which has its moments but falls short of greatness.
92% from PC Gamer? Seems off to me, for whatever reason. Well, I
rarely agree with their ratings anyway. But they sure do have pretty
pictures to look at while I'm sittin' on the crapper ;-)
The best thing about the game? The horseback riding. I want this in
all my games from now on. The horse animations were very well
modelled; it was just a blast to leap onto a steed and speed across
the desert. The next Elder Scrolls, the next Grand Theft Auto, the
next Doom 3... I don't care. They must have horses :-)
Jonah Falcon
"Sarah" <scrub...@DELrogers.comDEL> wrote in message
news:43dccb92$0$5658$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
Sounds like people who didn't play it.
For one, it was written by Hollywood scribe Randall Jahnson (who wrote,
among other things, The Doors). It stars Thomas Janes, with Tom Skerritt,
Kris Kristofferson, Ron Perlman and an excellent Lance Henrikson as the bad
guy Tom Magruder.
As for kiddie... I don't know what you consider "kiddie", but you have
scenes in which a whore's throat is graphically slashed in front of you,
someone's tooth is extracted with pliers, a guy sucks on a shotgun before
having his brains blown out, the hero scalps people, and a lot more than
that.
This is NOT a "kiddie game". Sounds like moronic under-19 year old twits who
only know that old LucasArts game from what others told them.
Please, don't even bother saying Gun is a "kiddie game". (rolling eyes)
Jonah Falcon
"Spalls Hurgenson" <yoi...@ebalu.com> wrote in message
news:5fppt1t464rbnb90n...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 00:43:09 -0800, "Alai" <he...@hoho.com> wrote:
>
>>While most review sites gave the western game Gun a very mediocre
>>score(7/10
>>etc) for various systems, my latest PC Gamer magazine gave it a whopping
>>92%. Is this a good game? I've been wanting a good western shoot em up
>>game ever since Outlaws, how is the game fare? I don't really care if
>>it's
>>too short, since I don't have too much time anyway. Who likes it?
>>
> I think 72% is a fair score (perhaps a tad high). It's a fun game, but
> could have used more polish. My main complaint is the smallness of the
> gameworld (it's smaller than Vice City!), which is quite contrary to
> the whole wide-open-spaces thing we expect from a western. With one or
> two exceptions (I rather liked roping the cattle), the levels were
> uninspired and the story was cliche even for a western. Outside of the
> missions, there just wasn't much to do. The graphics weren't high-end,
> but I felt they fit the western-mood fairly well. The music was pretty
> generic, the voice-acting more so.
Yeah. Sure. Thomas Jane, Lance Henrikson etc are all laughing behind your
back. I'm a SAG actor and a movie reviewer, and the acting was quite good.
ronald....@gmail.com
wouldn't consider it a must buy though.
I've noticed that the PC reviews are are mostly lower than the console
reviews....I only played the game on the XBOX.
If I were to buy the game I would definetly buy it for the PC since the
possibility for mods is much better.
Some things I noticed:
1. Game is definetly too short....although longer than I thought it
would be.
2. Voice acting/main story is alot better than VPC, IMO. (Although
shorter).
3. Some of the sound effects are strange. Like when you increase your
horse's speed.
4. People complain about the graphics but the graphics were perfectly
fine for this kind of game.
5. Sometimes your horse will disappear....no big deal since you can
easily find another but it can be annoying.
6. The save anywhere feature is very much appreciated.
7. Killing the end boss is lame, I won't give it away but you can't
kill him like "normal" bad guys which kind of ruins the experience.
8. If you've done all of the side missions then there isn't much to do
after beating the game.....it feels like ALOT more could have been
added to the game which is why I would pick up the PC version if I were
to buy the game.
Schrodinger
"Jonah Falcon" <jonah...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:5m6Df.8311$vU2....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
> "Sarah" <scrub...@DELrogers.comDEL> wrote in message
> news:43dccb92$0$5658$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
>> "Sleepy" <nos...@here.com> wrote in message
>> news:Dw0Df.212845$vl2....@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>>
>>> Its a kiddies console game - 7/10 is right. I ditched it after half an
>>> hour and, like you, I quite liked Outlaws.
>>
>> Same here, except I gave it a couple of hours. It's no Outlaws. Not even
>> close.
>
> Sounds like people who didn't play it.
>
> For one, it was written by Hollywood scribe Randall Jahnson (who wrote,
> among other things, The Doors). It stars Thomas Janes, with Tom Skerritt,
> Kris Kristofferson, Ron Perlman and an excellent Lance Henrikson as the
> bad guy Tom Magruder.
I played it and it stank. The main killer was long missions with no save
point in the middle if you wanted to leave the game and come back later.
The graphics are very mediocre - even on the highest settings.
> As for kiddie... I don't know what you consider "kiddie", but you have
> scenes in which a whore's throat is graphically slashed in front of you,
> someone's tooth is extracted with pliers, a guy sucks on a shotgun before
> having his brains blown out, the hero scalps people, and a lot more than
> that.
>
> This is NOT a "kiddie game". Sounds like moronic under-19 year old twits
> who only know that old LucasArts game from what others told them.
Falcon calling someone on here a moron. Classic.
> Please, don't even bother saying Gun is a "kiddie game". (rolling eyes)
Gun is a kiddie game. /Rolls eyes.
Schrodinger
So because someone you have heard of had something to do with the game it is
automatically good? I judge things on their merits. Just because you are
some up their own backside "actor", makes you no more qualified that anyone
else to "judge" this game. Clearly less so, because you are impressed by
the names behind something rather than the quality.
John Lewis
It sure is NOT a kiddies game. It deserves its M rating.
I have avoided purchasing it. From both magazine and user
reviews, the game is short and the side-quests very shallow.
Nice graphics a good game does not make. Apparently rushed
half-finished by the bean-counters into multiple console and PC
ports. However, seems to be an excellent engine, so maybe
look forward to a somewhat less visceral fully fleshed-out
Gun 2 ? Maybe a bargain-bin pickup for $9.99 ?
Meanwhile, isn't LucasArts missing out on a timely opportunity
to revive the Outlaws franchise, with a decent storyline
an updated game-engine and great music.... of course ! ??
John Lewis
( a big fan of Outlaws )
>
Smart Feet
I'd buy it if it had cheat codes.
But it doesn't. So I won't.
John Lewis
wrote:
Then why do you call yourself "Smart Feet" ?
Anyway, why do you need cheat codes for a very short game ?
John Lewis
Schrodinger
"John Lewis" <john...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:43dd612b...@news.verizon.net...
Because some of the missions last for ages and there is no way of saving in
the middle. They have "restart points", but you can't go back to them if
you leave the game.
Xocyll
the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs say:
If I had to guess it would be because far too many games try to make
themselves seem longer by making you repeat the same thing over and over
and over again until you finally get through.
Typical problem with "save point" games, and excessively tedious.
I'd love for there to be cheat codes in Halo, because on the harder
difficulty i've reached a point (first enter the enemy cruiser) which I
cannot get past since the marines all get slaughtered in seconds by
invisible guys and there are too many waves of enemies.
Get past that one point and I can probably do the rest of the game on
that difficulty, but after dozens of tries I still can't get past it.
Xocyll
--
I don't particularly want you to FOAD, myself. You'll be more of
a cautionary example if you'll FO And Get Chronically, Incurably,
Painfully, Progressively, Expensively, Debilitatingly Ill. So
FOAGCIPPEDI. -- Mike Andrews responding to an idiot in asr
Sketch
Developed by Techland, who made Chrome.
knight37
I liked it quite a bit. It's fun but short. The best part is the
on-horse gun fighting, which was very slick. Here's my review.
http://www.gamechronicles.com/reviews/pc/gun/gun.htm
Knight37
ton...@hotmail.com
>next Doom 3... I don't care. They must have horses :-)
*cackles hysterically*
Horses in Grand Theft Auto...
...this had me rolling in my chair! Thanks for the laugh!
:D
John Lewis
>Call of Juarez is another Western themed shooter with a Q1 '06 release date.
>Developed by Techland, who made Chrome.
>
And the more recent Chrome Specforce.
BTW, I replayed the original Chrome (with all patches) on a modern
machine recently. Thoroughly enjoyable, especially at the hardest
settings. No frame-rate lag whatsoever at max graphics settings. Truly
a SNEAKER-shooter, gorgeous outdoors with vast play-areas, very
few corridor-constraints -- needs sound tactical thinking at the
hardest level, or you become dead very quickly. The AI is erratic, but
frequently very smart at the wrong time --- for the player. The AI
does not cheat with regard to player-visibility when sneaking.
One significant residual bug in Chrome after the latest patches ( for
US: 1.1.3.0_v2 ) Reloading a saved-game requires backing up fully to
the Main Menu. Reloading in the normal way results in randomly-dud
grenades which cannot be thrown -- and grenades are very important
weapons at various times......
If you like adventure/sneaker/fps-shooter in a style similar to AvP2
(marine) or a less-technically-advanced Far Cry, take a look at
Chrome. The recent Chrome Specforce uses an updated version
of the same engine ( no saved-game problems), but is more an
adventure/traditional fps with fewer opportunities for sneaking than
Chrome itself. Fewer open areas and more deliberate
corridor-constraints, such as mountain-paths, narrow valleys etc.
Still great fun.
A western-themed game based on the Chrome engine might be
very interesting indeed. We shall see......
John Lewis
>
Sarah
> Sounds like people who didn't play it.
>
> For one, it was written by Hollywood scribe Randall Jahnson (who wrote,
> among other things, The Doors).
So what? That doesn't mean it's any good.
> This is NOT a "kiddie game". Sounds like moronic under-19 year old twits
> who only know that old LucasArts game from what others told them.
I agree it's not a kiddie game. When I said "same here," I was agreeing with
the latter part of the post, i.e. I gave up on the game, and it pales next
to Outlaws.
Sarah
> Meanwhile, isn't LucasArts missing out on a timely opportunity
> to revive the Outlaws franchise, with a decent storyline
> an updated game-engine and great music.... of course ! ??
I wish they would. An updated X-Wing and Tie Fighter would be nice, too.
Spalls Hurgenson
>*cackles hysterically*
I'm glad somebody appreciated my humor :-)
But actually, I *could* see horses in Grand Theft Auto; after all, San
Andreas had everything from speedboats to rider-mowers. Be odd to
"jack" somebody's horse, but not completely without appeal.
Now, horses in Doom... that'd be stretching it.
Unless it was demon horses.
JLC
game said it was short and not all that much fun. Then comes PC Gamer and
it's like they reviewed a totally different game. Makes me really question
the motives behind PC Gamers reviews now. That and the fact that to this day
they still say Black & White is a fantastic game. JLC
Smart Feet
>>
>
> I was really surprised with that score also. Everything I'd read about the
> game said it was short and not all that much fun. Then comes PC Gamer and
> it's like they reviewed a totally different game. Makes me really question
> the motives behind PC Gamers reviews now. That and the fact that to this day
> they still say Black & White is a fantastic game. JLC
>
>
If you read the magazine you'd know they have admitted more than once
that the B&W review was a major mistake...
JLC
"Smart Feet" <smar...@yourshoes.com> wrote in message
news:EprEf.57626$tK4....@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
Really? I read each copy I get and I've never read anything but good things
about B&W from PC Gamer. Hell they even like B&W 2! JLC
Smart Feet
Read more carefully.
Byron Hinson
For once I'd go with PC Gamer's score - I thought Gun was a great game.
--
Byron Hinson
My Photography
http://www.byronhinson.com
Knight37
> I thought Gun was a great game.
It was. Hell of a good time. Fuck it if the AAIA can't see it.
It's short, but worth a play for sure.
The horseback shooting mechanics have never been done better in any game
before.
--
Knight37 - http://knightgames.blogspot.com
Once a Gamer, Always a Gamer.
OldDog
"JLC" <j....@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:JPednWfHL9b...@comcast.com...
PC Gamer has admitted in follow up issues that they dropped the ball on
their review on B&W. However, there's been no offical update to the first
review. Just some comments here and there about "We fumbled the ball."
What's interesting is that you can still go to their web site and find the
original review. 94%!
http://www.pcgamer.com/archives/2005/06/black_white.html
Spalls Hurgenson
wrote:
>PC Gamer has admitted in follow up issues that they dropped the ball on
>their review on B&W. However, there's been no offical update to the first
>review. Just some comments here and there about "We fumbled the ball."
They've done that with a number of their reviews, including the
aforementioned Black and White and, most famously, Outpost back in
'94. Essentially, their responses to overly high marks for undeserving
games is along the lines of "gee, what were we thinking?". (They still
haven't admitted any wrong-doing with their review of Renegade 2
though; a game that got cancelled months before it was released.
That's my favorite "Ooops" on their part :)
But that's hardly a surprise; PC Gamer is renowned for its poorly
scored reviews. I still don't think there's any out-and-out dishonesty
on the part of the reviewers (e.g., no "Game X bought 30% of the
advertising in our magazine so it automatically gets a 90% or higher
score!"). On the other hand I do believe that there is bias, if only
from all the goodies and hype and support the reviewers might get from
the developer (e.g., for Diablo 2, the reviewers got to play the game
at Blizzard on Blizzard machines with the developers right at their
side to give them hints, continuing to sell up their product while
playing down any problems by playing off the excitement of a much
anticipated game). With an environment like that, it's very easy to
overrate a game.
And, of course, there's always the "hidden" bias of the
editor/publisher; he might not have a policy of giving advertisers a
guaranteed high score, but he can do the next best thing by making
sure the reviewer of Advertiser X's game is a diehard fanboy who will
view their product through rose-tinted glasses. It will be an honest
review (at least, there won't be any intentional dishonest or
corruption on the part of reviewer) but the score will be high
nonetheless. There are all sorts of ways to play the system
Still, for all that I did have a subscription to PC Gamer for the
longest time; it made good reading on the toilet. I might not agree
with the reviews, but it was a good way to get an idea what new
releases were like, and what new games were in development. Recently
though they revamped their format and now it's an unreadable mess;
reviews and previews and editorals are all mixed together and it was
difficult to find anything. Now it doesn't even rate as toilet paper.