• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

GUN ---- IGN Review

sammy

Member
8.0

"Closing Comments
Gun is a mixed bag, where the good stuff outweighs the bad, but not by much. One the one hand you've got a rich and compelling narrative, a twitch-happy gun mechanic, and a big landscape in which to explore. On the other hand, the controls are loose and a little sloppy, the targeting perimeter around each character is way too big and forgiving, so it's easy to be a bad shooter, and the vast landscape doesn't have much in it. The boss battles are trail-and-error power battles, but they’re fun, and each time you beat a boss a new weapon becomes yours.

You'll love this game for about a day and a half, but the fun doesn't last much more than that. It's a great game if you are blinded by anything that says "Western," or if you are religious about your Neversoft games. Otherwise, it's a great rental that's worth your while, even if that while is a little short."

8.0 Presentation
Standard Tony Hawk-like menus, one helluva story, and some wonky interfaces here and there.
7.0 Graphics
Good wardrobes and leathery faces, but awkward animations and motion capture. A few pretty sections of landscape dull ones.
8.0 Sound
Excellent voice acting and a perfect soundtrack. But… do these Apaches sound realistic or like total caricatures?
7.5 Gameplay
Loose controls and a giant bounding box are mostly fixed with QuickDraw and a flick-style targeting control. Lots of meaningless side missions and a few really good story-based ones.
7.5 Lasting Appeal
The game itself is about 10 hours. It's not long, but for an action game that's about par for the course. Thus, lots of side missions are left, but once the story is done, are the worth doing?
8.0
Impressive OVERALL
(out of 10 / not an average)
 
I knew it was gonna score an 8.

Now to read the review to find out if he missed the horse bonding as well...
 
so a game where the good BARELY outweighs the bad deserves an 8.0?


No wonder ppl argue when a good game gets anything less than 9.5 from ign these days.
 
I really don't understand how all these IGN scores lately have the overall score higher than pretty much every category given.

Especially when the games overall are scored higher than their gameplay scores.
 
raYne said:
I knew it was gonna score an 8.

Now to read the review to find out if he missed the horse bonding as well...

Ya... I might skip out on this one, grab Agro and hit up s'more Colossi this week....

still $35 PC version seems pretty good.

EDIT:
After Colossus, I was really hoping this game would have a dependable bond with your steed --- not just horses as vehicles you can grab at anytime..... Agro's just the coolest mutherfucking NPC, and I actually formed an attachement to him --- It'll be hard for another game to match that...... Oh well [/pussy]
 
GaimeGuy said:
I really don't understand how all these IGN scores lately have the overall score higher than pretty much every category given.

Especially when the games overall are scored higher than their gameplay scores.

I suppose they'll tell you, "The Sum is Greater Than the Parts."
 
Going by the actual content in GS + IGNs reviews, they've been generous with the scores.

Sounds like crap :/
 
So... the world is too empty, the main game is too short and the aiming being too forgiving = "shit" and "crap" now? That's a bit harsh...

Oh well... *moves on*
 
Is there anyone here who actually believes that IGN doesn't always score their games higher than Gamespot?

I thought the exact same thing.

"Hmm... Gamespot gave it a 7.2... that's like an 8 from IGN... must be crap"
 
raYne said:
So... the world is too empty, the main game is too short and the aiming being too forgiving = "shit" and "crap" now? That's a bit harsh...

Oh well... *moves on*


no you are reading wrong


world empty = game is boring

Too short = finished in a rental

Aiming too forgiving = combat sucks
 
I'll definitely rent it at somepoint to see if I feel different about the game than in these reviews, but these scores sure are a letdown. The concept of the game is really awesome, and I was really hoping that this would be a 9.0 type of game. Waiting for GUN 2 maybe..
 
Dang this is really disappointing. I even drove around looking for this today.

I would have no problem with the negatives if the game lasted longer. GTA3 handled like ass and I still put over 100 hours into it.

I guess it will be an awesome rental then.
 
Kabuki Waq said:
no you are reading wrong


world empty = game is boring

Too short = finished in a rental

Aiming too forgiving = combat sucks

Sounds like another recent high-profile title which will go unnamed.
 
I hope you guys don't take the IGN reviews seriously. I mean, I'm sure they're only posted for lol purposes anyway.
 
Dave Long said:
The Gamespot review was worse, dude.

I know that. I meant that IGN reviews are meaningless since most of the time they give much higher scores than a game deserves. GS is at least pretty accurate most of the time.
 
Ah...ok. I take an 8.0 at IGN to mean like a 2 1/2 star review on a five star scale so basically, this game isn't going to be in my consoles (or PC) anytime soon.
 
Still gonna get the Pc version since I've been in a western mood lately. I just find it hard to believe that the hype around this game was so huge that no one had qualms about it till now; the preview code should have made the shortcomings some what apparent.
 
100Bullets said:
Still gonna get the Pc version since I've been in a western mood lately. I just find it hard to believe that the hype around this game was so huge that no one had qualms about it till now; the preview code should have made the shortcomings some what apparent.

Ya, I'm gonna go for the $35 PC version -----

I just got Starwars Battlefront II for PSP ----- whew, bad mistake ... I don't even understand how a product that performs that bad can make its way to customers...... So trading material all the way!
 
Truelize said:
yeah Red Dead Revolver was a great game. That's why I'm still tempted to get this.

I think Red Dead was great too, but it really was a straight action game (with some minor upgrade elements), rather than a "sandbox" game like this. It was also relatively long for a action game. I'll never understand some of the low scores RDR got, I thought the action was challenging and the presentation was great, although some of the showdowns near the end were a bit cheap.

GUN appeared to be slightly more ambitious, so I think that's why I expected a bit more. Like I said though, I still think it will be worth a buy at some point (once that ridiculous 59.99 X360 price tag drops about half)
 
Top Bottom